Plastic Playing Pieces

that’s pretty much how i pictured the block house to look  :-)

Of course they dropped the ball as the original post mentioned. But this is a board game under a certain price that most (or hopefully at least some) will pay If you want realism check out: http://www.ghqmodels.com/.

exactly. nice models though

Mechanized and Motorized Infantry ( elite infantry)
US/Russia - M3 Halftrack
Germany - SdKfz 251 Bren Carrier
British - M3 Halftrack
Japan -SdKfz 251
Italy - Krauss-Maffei KM m 11 or SdKfz 251

Sorry IL, the British have to have a Bren Carrier :-)

I also like the SdKfz 251 but I thought the 250 looked closer to the Japanese one and this could be shared by both.  I have a friend in Arizona that owns one. (Actually these are OT-810s.  These are the Czech built version of the 251).

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/gracefuldragons/Feb23-252007CampNavajo.jpg037.jpg

If anyone want to see nice pictures of a real one you can go here.
http://www.sdkfz251.com/

Fighter-Bombers
Russia - Il-2M3 Shturmovik or PE-3

I really like the PE-3 too but my concern was that it could be mistaken for a Bomber but on the other hand the IL-2M3 can be mistaken as a fighter.  One way to avoid confusion with the PE-3 is to make it the same size as a fighter.  Anyway, I was using the following criteria for selecting Fighter/Dive Bombers.
1. Avoid choosing a plane that looked too much like a fighter or bomber to avoid confusion with those units.  This was easy except for the British.  They were the only country who really did not have a successful dive bomber that was built in large number.  They made great fighter-bombers but look too much like fighters.
2.  Recognition.
3.  Numbers built.

Self Propelled Artillery:
Personally I don’t think SPA are needed as a separate unit.  I usually consider them as part of the mechanized infantry which usually comprised of light tanks, halftracks, armored cars and self propelled artillery.

However if SPAs are made.  I would prefer pieces with open tops.  Again this will help confusing SPAs with tanks.  So here are my choices for SPAs

Self Propelled Artillery:
Germany:   SdKfz16 or SdKfz 124 Wespe
Soviet: SU-76 http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/russia/su76_marjorana.html
American: M-7 Priest  http://planetarmor.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3132
Italy: Italian Tank Destroyer Semovent 47/23
Japan: Ho-NiType1TankDestroyer

I’ve never posted here before (I generally prefer to read what others have written), but the possibility of obtaining high quality pieces in a new variety of molds is too interesting a topic to pass up. I’ve never felt too discontented in regards to the quality of AAM pieces since Revised, but they could stand to be improved (although I have not yet purchased AA50, I have seen pictures of its pieces online and see that a few have indeed decreased in quality, particularly the T-34). As well, even if the quality of the pieces was high, I am not entirely satisfied with some unit choices and would be happy to see them replaced with others.

As I understand Field Marshall Games’ earlier post, the plan is to produce a complete set for each nation, regardless of whether certain pieces are currently deemed acceptable by the community at large.  Thus, as an example, a new UK set could not only include a new destroyer mold, but a new carrier mold (even if the UK carrier was almost universally accepted as being adequate as it stands; as noted, this would provide purchasers with a more balanced number of units for each nation and avoid the need to pick and match parts from various games.  With this in mind, I will list my own preferences for each nation in regards to each unit type, then post my 15 top wants at the end (I realize that although each nation will receive a unit mold for each type, some molds of deemed lesser importance will be shared between nations, but this list is best-case scenario for me). I also realize that by now, FMG is probably already beginning production and is no longer noting ideas, but I feel like posting anyway, if only for fun:

USSR:

• BB - Sovietskaya Ukrainia - I posted my thoughts on a Soviet BB on Larry Harris’ forum a while ago; Although none of the ships of this class were completed in RL, I think that a Soviet player actually building BB units in A&A would be analogous to the class being completed in RL. Thus, this would be the most appropriate class to include as a plastic unit. If it would be preferable to include a class which actually saw service, then maybe the Petropavlovsk class would be more appropriate.
• CV - A Soviet CV mold is a very low priority for me; I would be quite content to see them share a UK or German mold (German Graf Zeppelin might be best, since the Soviets did capture the wreck of this vessel in 1945). I would like to note that I recently read a post on an AAM-related forum that the Soviets did indeed engage in their own carrier designs, but none of these left the drawing board. However, as noted, considering the low importance of a Soviet navy in A&A, and the purely hypothetical nature of such designs, these should receive very low priority.
• CA - Kirov or Maxim Gorkij (indistinguishable at this scale).
• DD - Type 7
• SS - S IX (low importance to me)
• AK/AP - Either a generic freighter, or use US Liberty Freighter (low importance to me).
• Tank - T-34/76.
• Artillery - most artillery pieces look the same at this scale; I see no pressing need for a unique Soviet piece.
• Fighter - Yak 1 (there are actually several Soviet Yak or Mig fighters which would be OK with me).
• Heavy Bomber - PE-3 (although again, there are several that would be OK).

UK:

• BB - King George V class.
• CV - Illustrious class.
• CA - Southampton class (I feel these would be the best representation of modern UK cruiser construction, but I do acknowledge that the County classes are more iconic - I thus would not complain if we received a generic County class CA instead. Also, yes - I do realize that most sources list the Southampton class as a CL…)
• DD - Tribal class (I never understood why the UK never received its own DD mold, considering the iconic importance of its DD’s during the Battle of the Atlantic - I also believe that the Tribal class is the best choice, as it was used by the UK’s two largest naval power Commonwealth allies; Australia and Canada - thus, when one builds a Tribal class DD at a Canadian or Australian IC, it will be all the more appropriate).
• SS - T Class
• AK/AP - North Sands class
• Tank - Mid-war Churchill.
• Artillery - 6 pounder anti-tank gun.
• Fighter - Mid-war Spitfire
• Heavy Bomber - Halifax or Lancaster

US:

• BB - Iowa Class (South Dakota class would be OK too, if an earlier-period BB was thought more appropriate).
• CV - Essex Class.
• CA - Baltimore Class.
• DD - Fletcher Class.
• SS - Gato Class.
• AK/AP - Liberty Class.
• Tank - M4 Sherman (any sub-variant).
• Artillery - 37mm gun would be OK.
• Fighter - F4F Wildcat.
• Heavy Bomber - B17.

Japan:

• BB - Yamato, Kongo or Nagato class - I would normally point to the Yamato as being representative of any newly constructed Japanese BB’s being placed upon the A&A game board; However, they were not generally representative of most IJN BBs. The Nagato class, with its tall pagoda and single funnel would be fairly representative of the six ships which collectively comprised the Fuso, Ise, and Nagato classes, at least at this scale, so there is an argument there as well.  Plus, one can easily argue for the Kongo class, since with four members, this was the most numerous single class of IJN BB, and these vessels tended to see more surface action than other IJN BBs. As an end result, I cannot really make up my mind on which would be best, although I do rather hope for a class other than the Yamato class (we already have some decent Yamato models with our current boardgames and some variety might be OK).
• CV - Shokaku class.
• CA - Takao or Mogami class.
• DD - Kagero class.
• SS - Type B1.
• AK/AP - ‘Standard Merchant’ (with aft engines).
• Tank - Type 97 Chi Ha
• Artillery - 70mm Artillery
• Fighter - A6M2 Zero
• Heavy Bomber - G3M ‘Nell’ or G4M ‘Betty.’

Germany:

• BB - Bismarck Class.
• CV - Graf Zeppelin
• CA - Admiral Hipper Class (and please make a better mold than the horrible one which we currently have).
• DD - Type 1936.
• SS - Type IXC (although the Type VIIB and Type VIIC were more widely used, I think a type IXC would look better and would be more easily handled at this scale).
• AK/AP - A unique German transport or freighter is needed here, but I don’t really have a preference.
• Tank - Panzer IV (F2 or G, although any F2, G, H, or J would probably look exactly the same at this scale).
• Artillery - 88mm flak gun.
• Fighter - BF109.
• Heavy Bomber HE 111.

Italy:

• BB - Littorio Class.
• CV - Aquila (I do want to see a unique Italian CV).
• CA - Zara Class.
• DD - Soldati Class or Navigatori Class.
• SS - Marconi Class (again, not my highest priority).
• AK/AP - Either use an Italian liner converted to a transport, or share a unit with Germany).
• Tank - either M11/39 or M13/40.
• Artillery - Don’t have a preference for Italian artillery.
• Fighter - C202 Folgore.
• Heavy Bomber - SM79 Sparviero.

France (assuming France will be added):

• BB - Richelieu Class.
• CV - Joffre Class (For the same reasons as my choice for the Soyuz class Soviet BB, although I would be generally OK with the Bearn as well).
• CA - Suffren Class.
• DD - Le Hardi Class.
• SS - Redoutable Class.
• AK/AP - Generic freighter, or use UK mold.
• Tank - either Char I Bis, or Somua S35.
• Artillery - Don’t have a preference for French artillery.
• Fighter - Dewoitine D520.
• Heavy Bomber - F-222, not high priority choice.

I didn’t mention infantry, as I assume each nation will receive an accurate and unique infantry piece.

• Colors - I definitely believe that it is important to keep the colors of AA50 and AAR (for the most part they are the same, although Germany in AAR has varied through metallic blue, grey, and black, and the UK has received a variety of different colored pieces in the past, including light tan, white, and ugly lime green. You may want to keep some of these varieties in mind - there are a number of pictures on Boardgamegeek comparing varying AA colors that you may want to observe. Some new colours, such as navy or light blue, light yellow, and dark brown may be of some interest to some players as well (particularly those who do not like the current ones) so this should be kept in mind as well - unit trees should be able to be ordered in different colours.

New Unit Classes:

• I would prefer to see the following unit types introduced (or re-introduced); Half-Tracks/Mechanized Infantry, Trucks, Fighter-Bomber or Medium Bomber, and Blockhouse or Bunker. Other possibilities could include light or escort carriers (carry only one aircraft), light tanks, or heavy tanks. I never really thought much interest in commanders, but I have to admit, the idea is beginning to intrigue me. I also like the idea of specific pieces for techs, but I can’t think of appropriate ‘super sub’ pieces for any nations other than Germany and Japan (with Type XXI and I-400, respectively); the US, UK and France each had large ‘cruiser subs,’ but none were ‘cruiser subs’ in terms of performance.

Anyway, for Half-Tracks:

• USSR - prefer a unique HT, but lend-lease M3 will do.
• US - M3.
• UK - Universal Bren Carrier.
• Italy - Can share German mold.
• Germany - SD Kfz 251
• Japan - Type 1 Ho-Ha
• France - no preference.

Trucks:

• USSR - ZIS-5 3 Ton (low priority).
• US - CCKW.
• UK - Bedford QL 3 ton.
• Germany - Opel 3 ton.
• Italy - Fiat.
• Japan - Type 97 Isuzu.
• France - Renault.

Top 12 Molds (as differing from AAR/AA50, although I realize that none will be copied from those games):

• 1. UK DD.
• 2. IT BB
• 3. IT CA
• 4. IT DD
• 5. IT Bomber
• 6. IT CV
• 7. IT Fighter
• 8. JP CV
• 9. UK SS
• 10. UK Tank
• 11. SU BB
• 12. SU CA

That’s all for now, I can’t think of anything else I want to say at the moment.

WOW! for a first post thats great!

I go with your ideas and i forgot to replace the uk DD. Thats a good point.

Also you use the normal military abbreviations for naval. Good job!

Thank you very much, but after checking over my post, I did forget a few things I had wanted to mention:

New Unit Types:

Light or Escort Carrier/CVL or CVE:

• I don’t know how useful a piece this would be, but as long as we are discussing new unit types, it IS a possibility. A smaller carrier mold, which is allowed to carry only one aircraft, would be clearly distinguishable from the current fleet carrier unit; however, the issue of its usefulness to the game is one which requires more consideration. Anyway, if such a unit type were to be decided upon, these would be my choices per nation:
• USSR - I am not familiar with any Soviet CVL or CVE designs, and anyway, Soviet carriers do rate low in terms of priority to me. In this case, I would be satisfied with a UK or US CVE mold as a lend-lease carrier.
• US - Bogue class CVE; the CVL Independence Class or CVE Casablanca class would be preferable for me, but the Bogue mold could be shared with the UK to save money on molds (the Bogue and Casablanca classes would look pretty much the same at this scale anyway).
• UK - As noted, the Royal Navy can share the US Bogue mold; normally I would prefer an indigeneous mold over a lend lease one, but this opportunity to share a mold seems too convenient to pass up (probably because a UK-built CVE such as the Campania or Pretoria Castle would look quite similar at this scale anyway).
• GE - Post-conversion Seydlitz CVL; not even close to being completed in WWII, but the closest Germany came to completing either a CVL or CVE at that time.
• IT - Sparviero; even more dubious for completion than the Seydlitz, but I’ve always been interested in this carrier for some reason, and the Seydlitz bore no resemblence to her (and thus would look more out of place than a US-UK lend lease carrier).
• JP - Either Zuiho class CVL, or Taiyo class CVE (Zuiho class would not only be representative of the Zuiho and Shoho themselves, but also the very similar Ryuho, and post-conversion Chitose and Chiyoda at this scale) (Taiyo class would not only be representative of the Taiyo, Unyo, and Chuyo, but also the similar Kaiyo and Shinyo).
• FR - Lend lease Bogue class would OK here too, I suppose (representing the Dixmude, only CVE or CVL operated by France that I can remember right now).

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:
• USSR - Krasnyy Krym, I guess, although this ship interests me very little.
• UK - Dido class (Fiji class if similar-looking Southampton class not the choice for UK CA).
• US - Cleveland Class.
• GE - Leipzig/Nurnberg Class (not sisters, but would look the same at this scale anyway).
• IT - Capitani Romani Class.
• JP - Agano Class, or Kuma/Nagara Class if Mogami class was chosen for JP CA).
• FR - La Galissonniere Class.

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. My mold choices would be:
• USSR - Katyusha, SU-152, or ISU-122.
• UK - Bishop or Sexton.
• US - M12 or Bishop.
• GE - Hummel or Wespe (would look the same at this scale anyway).
• IT - Semovente 90/53, or maybe another older Semovente model.
• JP - Type 4 Ho-Ro
• FR - Don’t know much about French self-propelled artillery or multi-purpose tank destroyers, so I’ll leave this up to someone else.

Tank Destroyers:

• This unit is workable, in my opinion, but it would not be the most useful or integration-friendly unit type I could imagine. I guess such a unit could work by rolling its dice separately from other units in its position on the battle board, and then being able to hit only tanks and self-propelled artillery (in a battle without such units, it would be largely useless, which would not be entirely historically inaccurate). I don’t know if such a rule would fit well with A&A mechanics, but if not, I’ll leave the solution up to someone else; in any event, my choices here would be:
• USSR - SU-85.
• UK - Archer.
• US - M10 or M18.
• GE - Elefant.
• IT - Semovente 75/18, or 47/32.
• JP - Type 1 Ho-Ni
• FR - Again, I am unfamiliar with French tank-destroyers - maybe a lend-lease M10 would by OK to save mold costs.

Light Tanks:

• Although this is an interesting concept, I am not sure how useful they would be; maybe they could hit on a 2 instead of a 3? Anyway, these would be my light tank/tankette choices:
• USSR - T-70
• UK - No UK light tank jumps out at me, so a lend-lease M3 would probably be OK.
• US - M3 light tank.
• GE - Panzer III (E, F, G, H, or J, although they probably couldn’t be distinguished at this scale).
• IT - L6/40.
• JP - Type 95 Ha-Go.
• Fr - Renault R35.

Fighter-Bomber/Medium Bomber:

• An interesting concept; I won’t comment on their possible rules, except to say that I would like to see them as carrier-basable. My only concern would be confusion with fighters for some people; the molds would probably have to be a little bit larger than fighter molds, even if the scale was wrong, just to avoid said confusion. My choices here would be:
• USSR - IL-2.
• UK - Fairey Barracuda
• US - SBD Dauntless.
• GE - JU87B Stuka.
• IT - Could share the Stuka mold; I don’t think Italy ever developed any really iconic or effective dive bomber, and the Italian air force did operate a large number of early Stukas.
• JP - D3A Val or B5N2 Kate.
• FR - France did have some early light bombers, but I can’t think of them right now.

Blockhouses, Bunkers or Pillboxes:

• I think a fortification unit is something the game has been missing for a while (I know they were in D-Day, but didn’t extend to any other game in the series). I think that a generic unit would be sufficient; also, I believe it could be in the same shared colour as ICs and AA units, depending on the rules drawn up for it (maybe put them in a separate tree, and let players decide what colour they want to order them in).

Heavy Tanks:

• I guess these could work; maybe they could only move one space, or have a higher attack value, or some such rule variation. Not all AAM nations actually developed very heavy tanks, so some unit choices here might seem a bit odd:
• USSR - KV-1 or IS-2.
• UK - Centurion A41.
• US - M26 Pershing.
• GE - Tiger or Tiger II.
• IT - P26/40 (Not much else to choose from here).
• JP - Type 3 Chi-Nu (really, only a medium tank).
• FR - Either use Char 2C, or use Char 1 BIS (if the latter is chosen, then use S35 for regular tank).

I would like to finish up by talking about plastic colours a little bit more. First, I may have mentioned this, but it is extremely important to match previously existing AAM colours (these seem to have been largely consistent, other than the UK and Germany). Remember to borrow or otherwise obtain samples to check the existing colours, or at least see uploaded comparison pictures under AA50 on Boardgame geek. Anyway, the main colours to consider replicating are these:

• Dark Red/Burgundy (USSR, AAR, AA50).
• Wine Red (USSR, AAE).
• Light Tan (UK, AAR sometimes, AA50).
• Seafoam Green (UK, AAR sometimes).
• White (or off-white) (UK, AAE?).
• Olive Green (US)
• Metallic Blue (Germany, early AAR copies).
• Black (or really dark grey) (Germany, late AAR and AA50).
• Various shades of dark grey (Germany, other AA editions, can’t think which has what colour right now).
• Bright Red (Japan, early AAP copies).
• Burnt Orange (Japan, all other editions including Japan, I believe).
• Light Brown (Italy, AA50).
• Light Green (China, AA50).
• Flat Grey (IC and AA in all editions with them, other than the MB original, where they were white).
• There are probably other variants, (actually I know there are) but I can’t think of them right now.

I believe you may also want to consider the following colours:

• Dark Brown (many people want this colour for Soviet units).
• Steel Grey (as above, but for Germany).
• Khaki Tan (darker than AA50 UK colour).
• Light Grey-Blue.
• Navy Blue.
• White (maybe some people would like neutrals in this colour).
• Light, Pale Yellow.
• Dark, Amber Yellow (less orange than current Japanese colour).
• Dark Purple (I can’t imagine using this colour, but some people may want it).
• Dark Orange.

I would also like to suggest that rather than have fixed colours for certain nations’ units, you should allow customers to choose the colour in which they would rather order their units, if this is at all possible (or at least allow a few colours per unit tree).

One other thing; mentioning neutrals above made me realize that I forgot to mention neutral unit choices. As noted, it would be best to combine nations (mostly Sweden, Spain and Turkey), so I will list choices for those three units combined for one neutral ‘nation’ slot:

• BB - Yavuz (Turkish).
• CV - Not aware of any at all - just use a German or Italian mold, or skip this unit type for neutrals.
• CVL/CVE - See above comment re CVs.
• CA - Canarias (Spain)
• CL - Gotland (Sweden) or Libertad Class (Spain).
• DD - Goteborg Class (Sweden)
• SS - Draken Class (Sweden)
• AK - Generic freighter (same mold could be used for Italy and USSR, IMO).
• Fighter - A Swedish J-Series would be OK.
• Medium Bomber - Saab B-17.
• Heavy Bomber - HE 111 (Spain - could share mold with Germany).
• Tank - Strv M38 or M40 (Sweden); I would also settle for a German Panzer IV mold (Turkey).
• Light Tank - Strv M37 (Sweden) or share French R35 mold (Turkey).
• Heavy Tank - Strv M42, I guess (Sweden).
• Tank Destroyer - See CV post.
• SP Artillery - See CV post.
• Artillery - 37mm artillery.

For neutral nations, we probably wouldn’t need most of these unit types anyway.

I have more I want to say about unit choices, but I have to go and do some work now - lots of readings to do for class tomorrow.

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…

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.

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). :-)

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.

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)

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.

yes right. my bad.

@ 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?

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

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.

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