Just read this article by Niall Ferguson about wargaming and it refers Axis and Allies:
It calls A&A:
"The best of all the war board games, remarkable for the insights it provides into the big strategic questions of the war. Still, oversimplifying in many ways, if not downright misleading."
From a historian point of view that is quite true since the Allies had plenty more resources than the Axis, and there were also other factors against the Axis such as a lack of strategic coordination.it is clearly possible for the Axis powers to win, provided they strike quickly against badly led Allies
Which are all true but if historical plausability was such a factor on the game, then playability/balance of A&A would likely also go down the drain like the Axis
The economics of this game have to be incorrect or the Allies always win: the USSR alone outproduced Germany with tanks, guns and planes. They were often of inferior quality to tanks „Made in Germany“, but a T-34 wasn´t produced for longevity, as a british historian once put it.
The combined income of US, USSR and UK outnumbered that of Germany, Italy and Japan (and the conquered territories) by far. Just think of US mass production of liberty ships and B-24s at Willow Run in Michigan.
Interesting in a military point of view is the fact, that the important turning points of the war (Midway, El Alamein and Stalingrad) took place before the economic superiority decided the outcome of the war. But even if all three battles would have been Axis victories, the Axis would not have won the war. At least in my opinion.
No decent man can prefer war to peace, because at peace-time the sons burry their father while at war, the father burries his sons. (Herodot)
- Imperious leader
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
- Location: Moving up to phase line red...
Secondly, The wasted year of Late june 1940- June 1941 was the crucial period, when the axis could have made up by taking out the Middle east oil and afrika which would have done alot in putting the brits out of the war. I am advocating the Admiral Raeder grand strategy for that period.
I wish AA had diplomacy rules so you can have the flexibility offered by this type of strategy.
IL: I, too, feel that the political aspect of the game could be given a fuller treatment. Maybe this would better satisfy our article-writing war historian friend, as well.Imperious leader wrote: I wish AA had diplomacy rules so you can have the flexibility offered by this type of strategy.
In practical gameplay terms, I think that the Anniversary Edition will provide us with an opportunity for playing games with, as you say, a 'diplomatic' aspect to them. Check out my ruleset for enabling just this kind of play (I've just posted this elsewhere on this site):
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/vie ... php?t=1624
Larry, only you know for certain whether or not the new game already has some sort of political flexibility built into it... The rest of us mere mortals will just have to bide our time until the details surface after Gencon!
That is, unless you are free to speak on this topic now...!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests