Plastic Playing Pieces

Monroe

To Table Tactics and/or FMG - I’m in for $100…easy…based on the direction this thread is taking.

I agree with a number of the points already made regarding piece priority:

Focus first production on those pieces that will enhance/strengthen/expand/round out the existing A&A games. I think IL and AG124 sum those key units up very well. The first production should be the units that turn AA50 into a true Anniversary Edition…
Italy having it’s own complete line of units seems to be the priority; then rounding out several UK & SU units. This would fix the dissapointment with AA50 units.
Adding a line of French units in blue would allow for smoother 1939 game variants. This would also create a new level of playing scenarios, including using some of these units as Free French or Vichy French in post-1940 game versions.
Mech Infantry, Trucks, Bunker/Fortification, Commander and Rail Gun are the “new” unit types that top my list. These add a whole new angle to the game. One question would be if the different unit types get expanded to such a point (i.e. light tank, heavy tank, light cruiser, mech infantry, etc.) does their need to be a D8/D10/D12 system drawn up to accomodate enough unit-by-unit variation?
Minor Axis Powers (Finland/Bulgaria/Romania/Hungary) as a complete expansion set down the road was another great idea previously posted.
The piece colors should match AA50. This makes for easy integration (and I would think an easier sale to the not-so-hardcore players).\

I hope and pray this really gets off the ground…

FieldMarshalGames

We will get this off the ground. Everyone must understand that this is a HUGE process with great deal of expense and risk. I am reading every post here and I check every day.

Thanks for all the great ideas.

Once I get a decent quote on cost of this project I will finalize the unit types and numbers.

AG124

BTW - Here are some boardgamegeek links to images demonstrating the variations in A&A colours which should be taken into account; I don’t know if either Boardgamegeek or this forum allow image hotlinking, so for now, I’ll just post page links:

Different shades of red and burgundy for the USSR, as illustrated by the T-34.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424483
A better illustration of the difference between USSRs shades of red.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424452
Different colours for the UK, as illustrated by the Matilda and UK Sherman.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424344
Two different colours for Japan, as illustrated by several different Japanese pieces.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424338
Different colours for Germany, as illustrated by the Panther.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424334
The 6 current unit colours of AA50, excluding IC’s and AA units, and China.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/417596

@ FieldMarshallGames - Glad to hear of any progress you make with this project; please keep us informed of any developments, if you can. I think there appears to be a considerable amount of support here for such pieces, as long as they are of high quality (which I have no doubt that they will be). :-)

Black Fox

AG124

Very nice post indeed. I like your in depth explanations. Obviously you have put a lot of time and research into this. Here are my thoughts on some of the units you discussed.

While I would love to have all the pieces that you describe. My concern is that if we start to add a lot of pieces it would move A&A away from a strategic game to a tactical one. I think the selection of units should be choses for their over all strategic importance.

Light or Escort Carrier/CVL or CVE:

I am strongly in favor of this piece. Carriers are expensive and I think by adding these units it would allow more flexibility in spending IPC. This unit would benefit the Japanese, US (Historically they built the most) and and to a lesser extent England but the Japanese would benefit the most. They are already under funded compared to other nation and they need to make the most of the purchases.

Light Cruiser/CL:

I don’t think this would be a very good choice, as it feels like splitting hairs when we already have a good cruiser unit type which works well at this level of strategic abstraction; plus, it would just be another similar-looking piece to confuse certain members of this community. I wouldn’t recommend considering such a unit, but here are my choices anyway:

I agree.

Self-Propelled Artillery:

This is an idea I like; the unit molds would look distinctive, and they could have a well-defined role in the game - they could either support tanks the way current artillery supports infantry, or they could support infantry themselves but differ in having a movement of two instead of one.

Yes, agree.

Tank Destroyers:

I’m not in favor of these units. Over all these units did not have a significant importance on the strategic level. Very rarely were battalions or division were made primarily with TD. Most of these units served primarily with mechanized unit. They did serve with armor units as scout and infantry units as support. Also, I agree that trying to incorporate them in A&A would be difficult.

Light Tanks:

I feel this unit would serve no purpose in A&A. Mainly because it would have the same cost and stats as mechanized infantry. (PIC-4, Att-2, Def-2, Mov-2). Although Lt Tanks did serve as front line units in the very beginning of the war they quickly became obsolete and were eventually assimilated by mechanized units.

If they do make a light tank, the only thing I would change from your list is that I would give the US an M-5 Stuart instead of a M-3.

Fighter-Bomber/Medium Bomber:

To me these are two very different units and should not be lumped together. However I feel both have important roles and are high on my list of new pieces that I would like to see.

Fighter-Bombers: I would also included Dive & Torpedo Bombers in this category. As I stated in a earlier post. These units were designed for ground support and to take on individual targets. So I would give them high attacks but lower defense since most were not able to defend themselves well against fighters. I would give them the following stats.

IPC - 1 or 2 less than a fighter
Att - 3
Def - 3 or 2 if defending fighter is present
Rng - 4

Medium Bombers: I would give medium bombers strategic capabilities but at half that of heavy bombers. I would give them the following stats.

IPC - 12 for A&A or 10 for A&A50
Att - 3
Def - 1
Rng - 6

Over all by incorporating FT/DV & Medium Bombers, it gives everyone the option to obtain an economical Air Force. This would be most benifical to the Axis sincw they start the game with the most territory to attack and defend.

Heavy Tanks:

I would make this an R&D role.

Imperious Leader

I like his posts as well. And the best thing is he does not do book recommendations for books everybody has read.

I think the colors definatly need to match AA50 colors. no question

Also the fighter-bomber is the correct generic term for tactical bomber, dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber

IPC - 1 or 2 less than a fighter ( think 8 IPC)
Att - 3
Def - 3 or 2 if defending fighter is present
Rng - 4

I like the idea in bold! Its a new way of expression and its great!

I don’t see medium bombers. WE got 3 types of bombers already –-fighter,normal, and heavy -(thru tech)

If you must make these then you go this route:

Interceptor:
IPC - 10 IPC
Att - 3
Def - 3
Rng - 4

special ability:
Can “jump” into any adjacent combat on defense when enemy planes are used, or they perform a SBR ( defend at 3)

Fighter-Bomber:
IPC - 10 IPC
Att - 3
Def - 2 if defending fighter is present
Rng - 4

special ability:
Can SBR at 50% rate (rounded down)

Bardoly

IPC - 1 or 2 less than a fighter ( think 8 IPC)
Att - 3
Def - 3 or 2 if defending fighter is present
Rng - 4

I think that you mean to say the following:

IPC - 1 or 2 less than a fighter ( think 8 IPC)
Att - 3
Def - 3 or 2 if attacking fighter is present
Rng - 4

It doesn’t make sense to have altered defense when attacking.

This is an interesting unit, though.

Imperious Leader

yes right. my bad.

AG124

@ Black Fox - Yes; thank you for the reply (I like seeing the continuation in-depth discussion on this subject). I never felt terribly comfortable with the idea of Tank Destroyers, and after reading your analysis, I now fully agree that they are inappropriate for a basic set for a strategic game on this level. I also see your point in relation to light and heavy tanks; they would serve no purpose that is not already served on the A&A battlefied by other unit types.

@ Black Fox and Imperious Leader - I like your ideas for Fighter/Bombers, and agree with Imperious Leader and yourself that a reduction in attack values imposed by the presence of enemy fighters would be a good idea. I’m afraid I have to agree with Imperious Leader about the Medium Bomber class however; one aircraft type to fall between fighters and bombers in terms of capabilities is enough. I wouldn’t despair to see Medium Bombers included though (however, we must remember that the more unit types that are included in an initial basic add on set, the more shared unit molds there will have to be due to the financial impossibility of including unique molds for every type of unit).

That leads me to another thought - does anyone here think that it would be a good idea for FMG (or Table Tactics) to do a more advanced set for players who want to develop a more complex and/or tactical set of rules, or even players who want a greater variety of molds for purely asthetic value? The release of such a set would have to be contingent upon the financial success of a basic set aimed at A&A players as a whole however, and should probably depend upon indicators of interest from the community (here and elsewhere, such as BGG). I would imagine there is considerable interest in a variety of German and Soviet armour molds, as well as multiple molds for Japanese and US naval units.

BTW - Black Fox or Imperious Leader; just to keep the discussion active for the benefit of Field Marshall Games (or Table Tactics), as well as other community members, do you have any commentary in regards to my post on the previous page? And what is the total list of new unit types which you think would be appropriate for an initial basic set for the whole community, and a possible later advanced/asthetic set?

Imperious Leader

BTW - Black Fox or Imperious Leader; just to keep the discussion active for the benefit of Field Marshall Games (or Table Tactics), as well as other community members, do you have any commentary in regards to my post on the previous page? And what is the total list of new unit types which you think would be appropriate for an initial basic set for the whole community, and a possible later advanced/aesthetic set?

Yes but its very elaborate.

I don’t see the need for medium tanks, or all sorts of units except:

One new Mechanized Infantry type: all nations need one of these

One SPA/Tank Destroyer type…these are hunters of tanks

One unit that represents elite class but this is special for the Germans and Soviets only for Germans its the Waffen SS elite armor and for the Soviets its the Shock Armies and Guard Armor units. To give this special class to the other nations would ruin the game IMO. Its like adding a very rich sauce all over a roast. It should be used sparingly to just give a little flavor to the war.

One new fighter-bomber unit: all six nations

One new fortification unit representing: Maginot/ Siegfried line, Sevastopol fortress, Atlantic Wall, earthworks around Moscow, Stalingrad, Singapore,Malta, Gibraltar, etc…

Plus new technology pieces as per oob: Heavy bombers, super subs, rockets

ElCapitan

I would be in for replacing initial pieces with better quality in greater numbers. I might even get two sets if the quality is there.

El Stef

Hi Axis & allies community,

This is my fist post here, so let me intruduce myself shorty. I live in Bruges and play A&A now for nearly twenty years. ( all the edtions) It is an unique game.
I’ ve only played it twice, but im my opinion so far, AA50 is the best edition (playwise). I love miniatures, i buy games even lousy ones, only for the plasic pieces included. So i was delighted to see the quality and historicity of the A&A pieces improve every edition, but disappointed with the last game. My initial awe when opening soon disappeared ( great box and boxes, lousy miniatures and map).They indeed missed an oportunity, still a great game.

Regarding this thread:
50€ ok for me
A) Pieces: a new replacing set would be OK, for the following reasons:

historical acuracy pieces; rather OK
colors: Italy / USSR problem
quality: to much bended broken, and simply ugly
SCALE: it should be nice to have pieces withe right scale: infantry 1/72 (20 mm) mobile & artillery units approx. 1/300( 6mm), air units 1/700 (2mm) and sea units approx. 1/2000. It looks better and types ar easily recognisable.
The tiny destroyers and subs could be glued on clear plastic bases.

B) Pieces: a set with new pieces fine (but not realy necessary

new rules
not a tactical game: a tank represents a mobile armoured army, a soldier a mostly infantry army. (in fact both types of armies have artillery included). A fighter represents a mixed air fleet, a bomber a strategic air fleet (So to represent escorting fighters you can increase the defense value of the bomber in the air combats optional rule)
if you want new rules and pieces you can srape them together; other editions, miniatures, selfmade, other games, …)
but new pieces are always welcome.

Greetings
El Stef

TG Moses VI

Great first post!

I agree with you completely.

Unit scale is something that hasn’t been talked about yet. It’s a great idea, though unfortunately I have a hard time squeezing in different unit types into an already crowded territories/sea zones. Having much larger units would compound that problem. Still, I wouldn’t mind seeing slightly larger units (tanks, artillery) compared to infantry. It adds a nice flavor to the game.

air units 1/700 (2mm)

That’s tiny!!

Imperious Leader

the AA planes are 1/700 scale

Imperious Leader

Here are some pics of some possible units to be represented:

Grey light=Italian
Tan= UK
Grey Dark= German
Yellow= Japanese
Olive= USA
Brown= Soviet

tin_snips

i thought the only nation that needed a colour change on its units was Italy (to prevent confusion between Russian and Italion pieces). i don’t think japan needs one though

Imperious Leader

well they asked for all pictures for all possible nations. I got french too but it might crack my camera

tin_snips

i’m surprised the japanese didn’t break the camera, that yellow hurts my eyes!

El Stef

About scales:

The playing pieces are for the moment around this scale:(approximatively)
INF: 20mm - 1/72
ARM: 6mm ) 1/300
ART: 6mm - 1/200 ?
FTR&STR: 1/700
NAV: varying between 1/2000 & 1/3500

There is lot you can buy or use from other A&A games. Of course painting wil be necessary and it is expensive. Often those models are too fragile for A&A ( especially when i’m losing)

INF; a lot on 1/72 scale
ARM: GHQ 1/285
AIR units; 1/700 Aoshima, Pitroad and Fujimi (very nice models !)
NAVAL: on the 1/2400 scale a battleship is around 10 cm. The A&A war at sea models are good but to big (1/1800)
We could consider 1/2400 ( BB = 8 cm) or even 1/6000 (Figurehead) . Smaller units have to be based.

I’ am using wargame models in my variants on A&A and A&A Guadalcanal ( it is neat tomove around white zero’ s with the red sun on their wings).
For the moment i’ am working on a big game board (100 x 160 cm).
For the rockets i use metal models of V1’s and adapted AA guns with small rockets attached. Often we use a house rule regarding tech together with special models:

cheaper R&D
random element in tech
advanced units are more expensive ( jets , heavy bombers, …)
you can produce them only after the tech breaktrough

Greetings
El Stef

Adlertag

The rocket mold must be a V2, because the V1 looks like a fighter with short wings.

(no links, no book recommendations, just trust me on this one)

El Stef

Yes , I agree

Much cooler. But V2’ s are hard to find in small scales. And the sets avalaible now and then are very expensive.
Besides, V1’s could be shot down or “tipped” down by AA or fighters. So rocket attacks not immune for AA- fire!

Greetings
El Stef

Plastic Playing Pieces

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

A&A Anniversary complete Piece Count

Why are standard openers unpopular in league and tournament play?

Rebuy game pieces?

What power is your favorite to play?

Anybody play scorched earth

Playing AA online

Krieghund: please comment on the storage boxes for the pieces

Scoresheet for AA50 for -Over the board- (OTB) Tournament play

99

17.4k

39.9k

1.7m