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.
