This would not be the case for air transports, they would take up a ton of room like bombers do and they would  only be used for airborne assaults. I just dont c the point, why not just assume airborne infantry have dedicated air transports. Or how about just having a chip that you put underneath airborne infantry to designate as being ready to preform an airborne assault.

I have air transport on my game board. (1/700 scale airplane).
JU 52 for Germany and Italy and Betty for Japan.
Dakota for USA, UK.
I think it's a great addition and better than chip.

do you have pictures?

I think you should pay for the trans. as a separate unit.

The naval transports look good on the board, they dont take up a lot of room and it looks very realistic, like the accual pictures of troop transport all jumbled up along a coast. This would not be the case for air transports, they would take up a ton of room like bombers do and they would  only be used for airborne assaults. I just dont c the point, why not just assume airborne infantry have dedicated air transports. Or how about just having a chip that you put underneath airborne infantry to designate as being ready to preform an airborne assault.

Only if we had a game that started in 1939.

Yah, but 1939 is a boring start date.

I have been saying a 1940 start date is ideal for a game like A&A  for about eight months now, so if these new ones are any good(they will be) I will be getting my wish.

Well without anti-aircraft in the game we would have to have some kind of escort/intercept rule.  we couldn't allow there to be no risk when performing a strategic bombing raid. Maybe we could say that factories had their own air defense and hit on 1 out of 8 or 10. We could use dice other than 6-sided.

Well Zepplins are not very effective stratgic bombers, so I would first include a lot of IPCs and make the units cost alot. And yes there should be interceptor and escourt rules, zepplins were very vulnerable to fighters

yes, if you really want to play with a cavalry piece in World War 2

most people say each turn is 4 to 6 months and looking at the map in the 1941 scenario the game start somewhere in June-July.

Well I think a 1 out of 6 chance is pretty ineffective anyway.

lol , well i think they should be even less than that in World War 1,

so really what we need is a airborne infantry piece not an air transport piece.

Drop a paratropper from a bomber is unrealistic.


The only time air transports and gliders were used in large amounts were during airborne assualts

So what? If a piece like paratrooper can help me to win!
If i've the chance to conquer London with paratrooper, I'll do it!!!

I think you miss understood me. I support airborne peices, but i do not beleive they should be transported by either bombers or air transport. It should simply be assumed that that have their own transports or they should have to pay IPCs for each airborne assualt that they make.

the article largerly describes AA's ineffectiveness as a new weapon, and it certainly says nothing about them defending against stratigic bombing, because they didnt. Vickers machine gun is infantry weapon attached to infantry, not for heavy AA implacements of world war 2 that the A&A AAgun represents. And the .303 round was also used in the Lee-Enflied rifle, so perhaps the red baron wasnt even shot down my a AA modded Vickers.

Something like that....

Let me use Germany for an example.

Germany would automatically get V1,V2, and jet power just like they did in the war and along the same timeline. However if they want it sooner they could spend money on research. If other countries wanted rockets they would only get it by spending money on research. If Germany wanted the A-Bomb they would also have to spend money on research whereas the United States would automatically get it in 1945.

Ok, but what do you think the timeline should be? in 1941 scenario, most of my games last beyond turn seven.

Nations that will have all or mostly unique units, US well be a mixture of French and UK peices
Entente:
UK - khaki
Russia - white
France - blue

Centrals:
Germany - grey
Austria - brown
Ottoman Empire- olive green

In addition these nations will have their own unique infantry pieces
Australia
Canada
Italy
Japan( If we want it to cover the pacfic)
Also what about having a generic colonial soldier that would show up in the British, French, and German armies.

Units:
Infantry
Cavalry
Tanks
Artillery

Bi-planes
Zepplins

Dreadnoughts( this term refers to both battleships and battlecrusiers)
Light Cruisers
Destroyers
Trannies
subs
Sea Mines( AA guns were not a very important part of WW1, but perhaps sea mines which were an important part could be added and work in a simailr way)


How does this look?



I will write up some stats for these units soon

I apperciate the idea of Modern A&A, I really would like a good one. But id dont like you colors and five of those nation seem too unrealistic so it loses the modern feel for me. You have the US, EU, and Russia, those are good countires, now add China instead of that commi dynasty crap, as well as India player, also add in the diego garcia inland in the Indian ocean(today it is a major US base), split up korea, slit up central asia. Give the game a modern feel. Your peices dont realy look or feel that modern either. I like the stealth bombers, but where are the B-52s and Tu-160. You need more modern weapons so its not just like normal A&A, add in UAVs, IFVs, Helicopters, SAMs, special forces, corvettes for the navies. How about adding in oil pipelines to imporve IPCs between allies or consumer goods markets that drain the military production of other players. You have to make the game MODERN; it dosnt work to have almost identical rules to A&A and countries that have never exsited and never will exist, and then label it "near future".

i am not trying to be negative, I like what your doing in attempting to expand the A&A genre, i just am saying what you need to do in order to get me to buy your game.

I mean why dont you have rules for stuff like terrorism, cyber warfare, and options for militarizing space? because that is what modern warfare is and/or will have in the future.

Well, proabably the first step would be too design the game that you are taking about, FMG isnt going to make a set of peices for a game that isnt played let alone not even created. Bascially wou want a 1914 scenario for AA50, with new peices and a new map. That sounds really cool. There are alot of clever people on this site, so I think we should start a topic to set down the rules for this game.

Basic questions to ask

What should the starting date be?
What theaters should the map cover?
What countries do you consider independent players?

Transport ships are boring too, however they are a necessary component.

Transport ship peices are not as necessary as you think, most wargames do not have them, because in many ways they are unrealistic, however i would say that they are a tolerable, and even not boring, component to A&A.

It is unreanable to compare transport ships to transport planes in A&A for the reasons Imperious Leader stated above. They would just be out of place and it would not feel like World War Two it would feel like the cold war or modern day. The only time air transports and gliders were used in large amounts were during airborne assualts, so really what we need is a airborne infantry piece not an air transport piece.

I guess hitler tried to supply stalindgrad from the air, but that was just retarded and he wasnt flying in whole divisions of new soldiers.

Cavalry could be 1-2-2-4 and could blitz.

thats the same as mech inf, more like 1-1-2-3