Artillery & AA at this scale represent.....?

[Glabro]

Since (I assume) it´s given that the infantry and mech/armoured units in the game represent corps-level units, what do the artillery & aa units represent? Detached artillery and AA at corps strength? That is to say, at the very least a dozen artillery regiments per arty unit....? Obviously there weren´t these amounts of artillery around as detached units in one region...right? Or do they also represent the artillery/AA elements in the infantry & mech corps?

Or are the AA & Arty units just a beer & pretzel "units", and nobody really cares what they actually represent?

It´s all a bit fuzzy to me.

[SeaMonkey]

Being an SC addict, this sounds soooo familiar. The short answer is in a grand strategic game it is nonsense to represent this type of unit. On the otherhand, can you think abstractly....they say humans have this ability?

Using your imagination, is it so hard to think of these icons as representations of corps attached assets? Think about a whole series of battalion sized units in an area the size represented in the game and "Voila" you have your answer. Is it a realistic simulation? This is a game, ...not real........keep saying to yourself..."it is only a dream".

[willgamer]

My imagination runs to a game system that allows infantry and armor to be specified/customized, in manner similar to the research screens.

No more arty and AAA separate units. Instead combinations of research/production/time would specify the attack/defense/AA/movement/armor/etc.... at least all of the unit's combat parameters we see today. Perhaps strengths would be integer values as they are now, perhaps not.

Just fantasy food for future fighting frameworks..... [:D]

[SeaMonkey]

That "Framework" is SC2.

[Glabro]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey
Being an SC addict, this sounds soooo familiar. The short answer is in a grand strategic game it is nonsense to represent this type of unit. On the otherhand, can you think abstractly....they say humans have this ability?

Using your imagination, is it so hard to think of these icons as representations of corps attached assets? Think about a whole series of battalion sized units in an area the size represented in the game and "Voila" you have your answer. Is it a realistic simulation? This is a game, ...not real........keep saying to yourself..."it is only a dream".

I don´t think I quite like the tone of your voice, mister. There´s absolutely no reason to become defensive and lash out at me.
Now, I understand your reaction somewhat - as you said, you´ve probably heard players "whine" about it on the SC forum, and your reaction was immediately the same as to those "whiners" - get irritated and belittle the original poster´s mental capacity.

Instead of reprising with hostilities, I will attempt to explain my position a bit. At 2:30 am, when I posted that message, I was a bit tired and couldn´t word it out as well as I should have.
Regardless, I didn´t whine, I simply worded my question poorly.

As I said, obviously independent artillery units at the corps scale do not exist. I was just wondering about how I should take the arty & AAA units in the game - about what number of battalions/regiments are we looking at per unit? 6 regiments at the very least, the same as "infantry"? The reason I´m wondering because I´m interested in setting up a scenario with historical force compositions, and this would be info I´d need - what part of the units´ arty and AAA is factored straight into their attack values, and what is left "extra" to be put into arty & aaa units?

Or, do I simply admit the fact that this isn´t exactly a very serious simulation of the war and forget about attempting to model the historical forces at the time (´39 in the scenario) and consequently, move on to other games?

Sure, I can very well imagine the artillery to represent all the artillery of, say, an army (3+ corps), and imagine that without arty / AAA units in the region, the corps in question do not have any meaningful amount of artillery / AAA (except they still have an AA value - oh well)
Take the above post with a light heart. It wasn´t entirely serious

[SeaMonkey]

Glabro,

Your reading way to much into my post, it is never my intent to belittle anyone, perhaps a little sarcastic humor, perhaps my jaded personality after many years of and many posts defending abstract thought, but surely no malicious plan of personal attack. If I reflected such sentiment please accept my humble apology.

Now I am a scenario designer also and I understand your curiosity and wish to be accurate. The plain facts are that in the abstract realm of grand strategy the truth is somewhat obscurred....kind of like the spin in real life's attempt to focus on the "truth". Everyone has their opinion, however contemplated as either right or wrong.

My wish was to give you ammunition in which ever endeavor you choose to pursue, your concept is both right and wrong in this quest of accuracy.

Since the game has included such units, the accuracy of which is surely in question, as your initial post alluded to, I'll try to present the designers idea in the context of my interpretation. You and I know that specialized units were attached and still are to a variable number of combat formations, past, present and future. The mission dictates their use and the proliferation of such use is in ratio with the perceived enemy threat.

For example, the US Army used battalion sized artillery and AAA attachments to most Corps sized deployments, inherent and under the command of that parent organization. The relationship was by no means permanent and there were many shufflings of these units from Army to Army as well between Corps Hqs, depending upon the necessity, the attachments could change. I believe that was a characteristic of most national combat formations, it would be stupid and life wasting to adhere to a permanent structure without flexibility.

So you see, there is no proper answer in your question, only opinions of what represents accuracy in this scale, since the units exist in this game, why question, it is simply a game, the designers attempt at his art form, ...a masterpiece...maybe...maybe not... it is not important. What is important is the game conveys pleasure as I'm sure your scenarios will also, and so I leave you my fellow WaW player with...


Mister[;)] you are free to choose.

[Drax Kramer]

I never liked the idea of independent artillery and mobile AA units in Axis&Allies. I always assumed these assets should be reflected in the combat values of existing corps sized land units.

However, when faced with the problem of creating scenarios I take an army (American or German) composed of three corps and represent it like this:

1 artillery piece represents army HQ, attached independent units and one regular corps
1 infantry piece represents one corps

Thus, German 4th army (12 infantry divisions) on the eve of Barbarossa would be represented with one artillery and two infantry pieces.

Guderian's 2nd panzergroup, on the other hand, would be represented with two tank units and one infantry.

If it were up to me, I'd remove mobile flak units from the game and leave them solely as static AA tied to the defense of factories. It certainly looks ridiculous to see Vichy French having the same level of AA defense as Western Germany and I don't even want to go as far as imagining Chinese heavy AAA.


Drax

[Basilhare]

WaW is simply a game and should be considered fantasy WW2, IMHO. SC is much the same (havnt seen much on SC2 yet, so cant comment). Start talking "realism" and you run into problems with either of these game engines. They are both extremly abstract though both are fun to play and extremly enjoyable.

I too think that representing Artillery and AA does not "fit" into a game of this scale. As a result, I like the unit set up in SC over WAW but prefer the research, economics and supply components in WaW over SC and the fact that both theaters are included.

Having said that though, one could view the AA component as "overall" attrition rather than as damage assessed unit by unit. In other words, having several AA units in an area represents a heavy concentration of AA defenses and the resulting damage is what occured over the course of the season, not an individual "shot" fired by a regiment/battalion or battery sized AA unit.

I do wish that in WaW, we could have gotten away from the A&A approach and had a more traditional boardgame "feel" to the game - but hey, until someone comes up with something better, I will enjoy playing both WaW and SC. HoI was a bitter dissappointment in my book, and both SC & WaW are a cut above IMHO....just my .02

Basilhare

[Glabro]

Thank you for your well presented opinions, everyone.

[SeaMonkey]

Glabro,

If you need assistance with historical info, for what-ifs or accurate parameters, I have a well stocked WW2 library of reference books.

Be more than happy to contribute, if you can't find on-line info.

[qgaliana]

To add to the previous post about static AA defenses around industrial complexes, the artillery unit is the only way to recreate major coastal batteries to defend against naval units. The major difference being that the real ones were usually fortified so well they were invulnerable to air attack.

[Beatrix Kiddo]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is SC or SC2?

Maybe something like Strategic Command or something? Is it a board game or a computer game? What's it named?

[SeaMonkey]

BK,

Right, Strategic Command. Check it and the demo at Battlefront.

[Glabro]

SeaMonkey, I´ll happily take up your offer of assistance. I am currently tinkering around, hoping to recreate the correct force compositions for a 1939 scenario.