Plastic Playing Pieces

[TG Moses VI]

Yes.  Everyone can agree, Italy First!

[Shakespeare]

Italy 1st, then some specialized units for each nation!

[Adlertag]

@Imperious:

Actually, I would go with a full spread of country specific parts for a power like France before coming up with things like leaders or fortifications, but that is just my opinion.

I could go for this except id like neutrals as well and a redesigned scenario for 1939 start date.
but you still need the technology units like rockets, jets, Heavies, and super subs.

I am with you, Imp.

[Hobbes]

I’d love to get more individual pieces for my games, but here’s one thing to think about when considering which new pieces/capabilities will be added (fighter-bomber, mech art, transport, commander, bunker, rockets, halftracks): do they really add anything new to a grand strategy game?

Look at the Axis and Allies example:

• Starting with Europe and continuing to Revised, 2 units were added: Artillery and Destroyer.
• Europe had Bunkers but they were not kept to Revised.
• Pacific had Marines, again they were not kept into Revised.
• Bulge brought Trucks, which were not implemented into AA50.
• Guadalcanal introduced Cruisers, which where added to AA50, but as a part of a general redesign of the naval units.

What is more amazing here is to consider the different kinds of new units that have been proposed to Axis and Allies along all the years and how few have ever seen their debut in one of the games, and only half made it to the grand strategy game, Revised or AA50.

Which leads me into this conclusions regarding new pieces:

• Keep in mind the military distinction between strategic and operational theatres. Some pieces proposed seem to fit more into a operational or even tactical kind of game, like Bulge or Guadalcanal. Mech Artillery, Tank Destroyers, Paratroopers, Cavalry, Heavy Tanks, Fighter Bombers, Naval Fighters, are more fit for those kind of game.
• Make sure that there is a specific niche for those new units, other than simply changing their stats.
  There are a few units that clearly fit into this: Transport plane is one, Commander might be another (see below for more details).
• Pay attention to the KISS principle, which I truly thank Larry Harris to have done so far. It will frustrate some people that they won’t get all the pieces they want, but not adding some units will make it more easier to integrate the new pieces with the existing game without having to create new rules. One example: Cruiser. Without the rework of AA50 on naval units and stats, they would be redundant on Revised. Fighter-bombers would also need some sort of rethinking of aerial combats.
• And finally consider the overall impact on the game. A commander unit that increases the unit stats might be a good idea but it might also imply a race for commanders early on. Bunker units make attacks harder and to me the game works much better if territories are more easily taken than just building stacks of units for defense.

And here are my 2c :)

[mrninjaz]

I think the extras would be nice, but isn’t the point of this to replace the craptastic pieces that we got with the game? I think that should come first IMO

[TG Moses VI]

Hobbes, those were succinct, laudable points that you made.  I too am weary about adding new units to the game - especially beyond what is offered by the tech charts.

Another point to keep in mind is that several of us play A&A competitively, whether online or at cons.  I would be hard pressed to see those tournaments accepting new units (fighter-bombers, bunkers, commanders, etc) not sanctioned under Larry Harris or Avalon Hill.  Professional players would see little use of those units beyond the occasional “pet” game.

Anyways, everything that we speculated about remains just that, speculation.  New pieces are still far, far away.  It will be a year - at least - before we even see prototype molds.

With that said, I think the “correct” build order is:

1. Italy First
2. Other country specific units + unlockable tech units
3. New Custom Units

[mrninjaz]

I think adding the other nations and optional pieces are a good idea, but would we rather have all these extras and still be stuck with the original poor quality ones? That would annoy the crap out me to have half my set good quality and the other half a step above play-doe. Makes much more sense to me to make replacement parts for all powers first, then add extra units/powers.

[Hobbes]

@TG:

1. Italy First
2. Other country specific units + unlockable tech units
3. New Custom Units

I’d like also to see it implemented this way, but regarding point 2 I would love to have…alternatives for the current game pieces. I like to mix the pieces from different games to add some variety, for instance on AA50 I use the P-38 for fighters while they’re on land and the Hellcat for carrierborne fighters.

So, a new set could have, for instance:
USA Fighter - P-51
USA Bomber - B-24 or B-29
German Armor - PzIV or Tiger
Russian Armor - KV1
USA Battleship - Kongo

These are just examples, the idea is diversity, to add pieces that stand out from the current ones so that you could even create armies on the board that would be different from one another. For instance, all US units assigned to the Pacific are of 1 kind, to the Atlantic another.

And after deciding which units to supplement the current ones (USA Fighter, etc.) then do polls to see what specific model (P-51, P-40, F7U) what most people would like.

[Adlertag]

These are all good ideas, maybe we can use them in next episode ?

[tin_snips]

i’m pretty sure the idea is to replace the not-so-crash-hot quality of the standard pieces in AA50 with better ones. hence why FMG is gunning for a full set for each nation. so one nation at a time, most likely with a few tech-upgrade units included

after all, nobody likes pieces that don’t mix well together  :wink:

[murraymoto]

@TG:

With that said, I think the “correct” build order is:
1. Italy First
2. Other country specific units + unlockable tech units
3. New Custom Units

Definitely, I’d order mine today.

[Black Fox]

Which leads me into this conclusions regarding new pieces:

• Keep in mind the military distinction between strategic and operational theatres. Some pieces proposed seem to fit more into a operational or even tactical kind of game, like Bulge or Guadalcanal. Mech Artillery, Tank Destroyers, Paratroopers, Cavalry, Heavy Tanks, Fighter Bombers, Naval Fighters, are more fit for those kind of game.
• Make sure that there is a specific niche for those new units, other than simply changing their stats.
  There are a few units that clearly fit into this: Transport plane is one, Commander might be another (see below for more details).
• Pay attention to the KISS principle, which I truly thank Larry Harris to have done so far. It will frustrate some people that they won’t get all the pieces they want, but not adding some units will make it more easier to integrate the new pieces with the existing game without having to create new rules. One example: Cruiser. Without the rework of AA50 on naval units and stats, they would be redundant on Revised. Fighter-bombers would also need some sort of rethinking of aerial combats.
• And finally consider the overall impact on the game. A commander unit that increases the unit stats might be a good idea but it might also imply a race for commanders early on. Bunker units make attacks harder and to me the game works much better if territories are more easily taken than just building stacks of units for defense.

Hobbes makes some excellent observation here.  Another thing I would consider adding to the above is when you are considering creating a new unit for an A&A strategic game (A&A, A&A Revised and A&A 50AVN.)  I ask myself, in WWII, were large military forces (such as Divisions/Brigades, Air Wings/Groups or Naval Groups) formed around that particular unit as the core element of that force and did they exist historically? (For reference purpose, here is a break down of a military Force Structure http://www.aapavatar.net/carepackages/unitsize.htm)
Note: Other nations nations sometimes used different terms that could be confusing but this gives you a general idea.

Some units though I view differently depending on the game.  In the case of ship BB, CA & DD.  In A&A, A&A Revised and A&A 50 Anv. I consider them to represent Naval Groups.  Thus a Battleship actually represent a combined group of DD, CA with the BB representing the largest ship in that group.  CA-represents DD & CA.  DD represents a squadron of DDs.  Where as in Guadalcanal I see them representing a small unit of that class of ship.

So that is something else for FMG to consider.  Do they want to make pieces that will support the main A&A strategic games or for make pieces that would get the most use for all strategic and tactical A&A games?

On a slightly different note.  One reason I would like to see units such as Medium Bombers, Dive bombers, Mech Infantry and CVE, is because it would offer more economic diversity as well as strategic diversity.  There may be times where you can’t afford that Bomber, CVE or Tank but a lesse unit of that type might be sufficient as well as economical.

Out of curiosity FMG, when you say high quality pieces.  Are you saying your units would match the quality of GHQ units (Which I consider very high quality) or something in between GHQ and A&A pieces?  Just curious.

[FieldMarshalGames]

Once again I would like to thank you all for your aid and your great ideas.

We are getting closer to production, we have found a factory that will make the product for us.  What we need now is the following:

OF THE STANDARD UNITS (ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE GAME).  How many of each type should be included with each nation?

I know the community was upset by the configuration given in the AA50 game (To few Italian INF, to many Russian Carriers etc)

Can you post and try to agree on what this configuration should be for each nation?
Can we try to come to some sort of agreement?

Looking forward to what you can all come up with.

Thanks

[Shakespeare]

Will the color of the Italian units be a new color?

PLEASE!!!

[FieldMarshalGames]

@Shakespeare:

Will the color of the Italian units be a new color?

PLEASE!!!

We will make sure each nation is clearly distinguishable.  I will post colours once they are confirmed.

[mrninjaz]

I think all 6 major powers should have the standard 25 infantry and maybe 14-15 tanks?. My only gripe is Italy needs a bigger navy and air force.

[supermestizo]

Hi guys !

This is my first post on this forum, and I think is great someone will make new playing pieces for Axis & Allies !

In my opinion give each nation in the game the same number of pieces, except China, that would be the best!

First set should include: Each Nation,
25 Infantry, 15 Artillery, 15 Tanks, 15 Fighter, 10 Bomber, 5 Battleship, 5 Aircraft Carrier, 10 Cruiser, 10 Destroyer, 15 Submarine and 10 Transport. China 20 Infantry. With this number of pieces it should be enough for each nation.

And with buying 2 sets, we should have plenty of pieces in reserve!

I also have a wish for an expansion set that would include:

France : Infantry, Artillery, Tanks, Fighter, Bomber, Battleship, Aircraft Carrier, Cruiser, Destroyer, Submarine and Transport.
Minor Country Forces : Infantry, Tank, Fighter and Transport
German Panzergrenadiers Infantry
German Panzer Tank
Russian Guard Infantry
US Marines Infantry
German Blockhouse
Finnish Infantry
Polish Infantry
Minor Axis Infantry
Trucks for Major Nations
Rockets for Major Nations
German Sub-Pen Bunker

With including these pieces, the pieces can also be used for Xeno game World At War!

[Imperious Leader]

With including these pieces, the pieces can also be used for Xeno game World At War!

Well thats like cleaning diamonds in a toilet bowl. Xeno is the worst quality and then some.

[supermestizo]

@Imperious:

With including these pieces, the pieces can also be used for Xeno game World At War!

Well thats like cleaning diamonds in a toilet bowl. Xeno is the worst quality and then some.

I still enjoy playing Xeno game World At War 2005 4th Edition, and it would be great if Axis & Allies released a game starting in 1938/39!

[TG Moses VI]

Honestly, I would just go with what Wizards has given us.  Never did I find myself running out of plastic pieces.  Perhaps the only exception would be Italy’s woeful lack of cruisers, but even then, that wasn’t too much of an issue.  In fact - I hope someone doesn’t stomp me for saying this - but in some areas Wizards gives us too many pieces.  Examples would be Germany and Russia’s navy. ;)

So yeah, give Italy a few cruisers and I’m good to go.  :-D