Combat System

[xxstefanx]

Finally we get rid of choosing casualties (kind of stupid!).
Determining casualties in a second roll is a natural evolution and far more realistic! Thx, Larry!

How it will play out in detail, I will see after a decent number of matches...but so far! Like it!

[adlertag]

Agree, who gets killed in wars are random.

[thoes426]

I agree too.
The old way of conducting combat was great, but bringing it to the next level is a good way of adding longevity to an already great game series.
Thoes426

[Blair]

I also agree... I mean, when you think about it, it's not like the generals chose which individual soldier to put in front of what oncoming bullet.

[Imperious leader]

Its true and its not... armor usually fought each other because it was the only true counter against it, Infantry usually fought ran when they saw a large group of tanks coming. to engage it was not a smart move. Artillery assisted infantry to take out a truely random enemy points.

Infantry hits should go on infantry

Tank hits on armor (either art or tanks)

Artillery is preemtive on first round

artillery boost infantry

fighters boost tanks

[templeton]

Its true and its not... armor usually fought each other because it was the only true counter against it, Infantry usually fought ran when they saw a large group of tanks coming. to engage it was not a smart move. Artillery assisted infantry to take out a truely random enemy points.

Infantry hits should go on infantry

Tank hits on armor (either art or tanks)

Artillery is preemtive on first round

artillery boost infantry

fighters boost tanks

I think the scale in your minds is wrong... we are talking about army scale units. Even at lower scale engagements, tanks without infanty support are easy pickings for infantry.

At this scale a tank unit is not just tanks - it represents a tank army, like Patton's 3rd Army or Hoth's Panzer army - so it will combine infantry and panzer divisions and therefore is entirely appropriate that hits are allocated as the defender sees fit.

Thus, not a single man or single tank is killed... what the casualties represent is a shattered army - so it makes sense to disband infantry units to keep the Panzer divisions functioning.


It's too abstract to pick out specific details, and would be wrong at the game scale.


My only concern with lend-lease is that the 'money' represents industrail man hours - these can't be transferred from the US to US or USSR, but instead (as historically) the US must use its industrial output to build in the US, and then ship those new weapons to their allies.

By allowing the transfer of ICP (essentially factory workers manhours) you cut out the U-boats, which are there becasue teh US could only ship the ICP by sea - why not do, instead, 5 ICP on a boat - repreenting raw materials, which the USSR/UK can spend as fit.

This means you can either load two men or a tank or 5 ICP of raw materials on boats and you don't cut out U-Boats or aggressive Luftwafe attacks against shipping.


Axis and Allies works because it is an abstract combat system that rewards investment in certain ratios of weapons.

The only change I would like to see is a bonus for combined arms - ie, you attack with Men, Tanks, Guns and Planes - or there is a penatly for not attacking with combined arms.

But again, that would unbalance a game, as combined arms is more or less in there with the attack and defence factors.

[Imperious leader]

I think the scale in your minds is wrong... we are talking about army scale units. Even at lower scale engagements, tanks without infanty support are easy pickings for infantry.

+++++ The idea in many strategic games of seperating armor and infantry hits into catagories is not w/o precident. It is done in Europe Engulfed which was game of the year a few years ago. Plus this models true warfare characteristics because tanks fought tanks ( they would be lucky to fight infantry because it would be a disaster for the infantry) , while infantry usually ends up fighting other infantry. Local superiority is gain when one area is short of tanks to stop the enemy from mauling infantry. The concept also helps end the infantry push mechanic... now tanks cannot hide behind infantry and NEVER take any loses. you got to be kidding why must infantry allways take the blood from tanks that were engaged in combat. the old system does not model combat as well as this new system given the limitations of plastics the new system is about a good a system as possible

At this scale a tank unit is not just tanks - it represents a tank army, like Patton's 3rd Army or Hoth's Panzer army - so it will combine infantry and panzer divisions and therefore is entirely appropriate that hits are allocated as the defender sees fit.

++++++ Not true for germans and western allies it would be corps level, while soviets would be tank armies. what is not appropriate is to not allow the "panzers to get dirty" and that manifests the infantry push mechanic. i would like players to buy equal numbers of units of all types and to not allow a seperation of hits by unit type perpetuates the old problem for some nations.... where all you buy is infantry ( or mostly infantry)

Thus, not a single man or single tank is killed... what the casualties represent is a shattered army - so it makes sense to disband infantry units to keep the Panzer divisions functioning.

++++ but why how does that model any event in history? You are actually saying in warfare no tanks are lost? the armor divisions just assign their hits to infantry. So at Kursk the Soviets just take all those armor loses and reassign them from destroyed tanks and halftracks to just people? Thats a horrible idea. the germans engaged their armor units in battle and after the offensive had to wait like till 1 year latter to rebuild her shattered forces otherwise Germany would have committed many additional offensives during the war but they didnt... they were licking their wounds and rebuilding lost and destroyed tanks from previous battles


It's too abstract to pick out specific details, and would be wrong at the game scale.

+++++ abstraction is what the old system entails because it does not allow any details hence it is abstracted. This game is strategic and many games use much greater details than even i propose. But this is a function of using plastic pieces. while its also true that these rules are not complicated in the slightest. its an esy fix to solve a major problem.

My only concern with lend-lease is that the 'money' represents industrail man hours - these can't be transferred from the US to US or USSR, but instead (as historically) the US must use its industrial output to build in the US, and then ship those new weapons to their allies.

++++++++++ Lend Lease only represents equipment.. thats what it is .. its tanks, trucks, artillery, ammo, etc..


By allowing the transfer of ICP (essentially factory workers manhours) you cut out the U-boats, which are there becasue teh US could only ship the ICP by sea - why not do, instead, 5 ICP on a boat - repreenting raw materials, which the USSR/UK can spend as fit.

This means you can either load two men or a tank or 5 ICP of raw materials on boats and you don't cut out U-Boats or aggressive Luftwafe attacks against shipping.

++++ U- boats need to be able to attack shipping lanes and sink cargo used for lend lease. Secondly, the lend lease "gifts" should be able to be converted into whatever the Soviet player wants to do with these items. thus they should be actual "money" rather than "units" this is where it may be a weak historical idea on my part, but the side benifit is the allies are never allowed in thr Soviet Union and to make restrictions on lend lease in this manner weakens the Soviets too much. So we give a bit on historical lend lease but gain much better realism by maintaining the inability to directly land western allies in Soviet territory.


Axis and Allies works because it is an abstract combat system that rewards investment in certain ratios of weapons.

+++ it rewards investment in infantry. If anybody in buying in average 1/3 to naval, 1/3 to air units, and 1/3 to land units they will lose everytime to a player who builds about 60% infantry, 20% armor and artillery and 20% air and sea. Thats why the old system is not very realistic.

when things are abstracted the realistic and historical go out the window. The argument cannot have it both ways. The more abstracted the less realistic... the more detailed the greater the realism and historical... of course this is in general terms.

The only change I would like to see is a bonus for combined arms - ie, you attack with Men, Tanks, Guns and Planes - or there is a penatly for not attacking with combined arms.

+++ that would help make things better

But again, that would unbalance a game, as combined arms is more or less in there with the attack and defence factors.

+++ this point is not clear

[adlertag]

I agree with IL