Unit Lineup speculation/wish list

  • @oztea:

    Units would be:
    Artillery 2/2/1 4 IPCs
    Special Rules

    • Fire Support: Supports Infantry at a 1:1 basis, boosting their attack to ‘2’

    Cavalry 2/1/2 6 IPCs
    Special Rules

    • Withdrawal: Cavalry units may remove themselves from combat after all dice have been rolled and retreat to a friendly territory

    Aircraft 2/3/3 10 IPCs
    Special Rules

    • Dog Fight: If enemy air units are present, roll all air units as a separate combat
    • Air Reconnaissance: For each air unit you have in combat, raise the attack power of an adjacent strategic artillery unit to ‘3’

    I’m gonna comment on a couple of these, so bear with me:

    • Cavalry: these units are not represented in Imp Games’ The Great War, with the explanation that they so quickly became outdated by the early days of the war that they never saw much action
    • Artillery: I can’t see these functioning the same way as in WWII because, well… they didn’t
    • Aircraft: TGW tried this and it didn’t work; it was too easy for “the side that goes first” to mass their aircraft and destroy the enemy’s air force early in the game, and have air supremacy throughout. The rules were later changed to be almost identical to typical A&A
    • Navy: It’s disappointing that 1914 is going to be using d6; a d12 would provide the granularity to allow for more types of ships, and do justice to a war that was really the twilight of the “Big Ship” fleet engagement.
    • Machine Guns: generally regarded as the most deadly new invention of the war (although artillery caused the most casualties, but was really just an upgrade on older field cannons) I would like to see machine guns/bunkers/pillboxes represented in a way similar to AA guns or D-Day fighters.
    • Tunnel mines/Flame cannons: I’ve seen documentaries on these, and in almost every case, they completely reversed the status quo of trench warfare and broke enemy lines wide open, almost akin to a Heavy Bombers tech. I would like to see some mention/representation of these in the game.

  • Customizer

    I would say that machine-guns were a part of every infantry unit; we can assume that the defensive ability of infantry includes their MGs.

    Regarding aircraft, in 1914 there were no fighter aircraft, just observation planes. These should have a low combat ability of 1-1 (movement 4) against any target. Their main use is for giving artillery more accurate targeting.

    Later, techs will make fighter aircraft available, my suggestion is for two developments: forward firing MGS (2-2-2) and twin synchronized MGs (3-3-2).  Bombers also need to be a tech at 4-1-6.

    Do you have a link to TGW rules anywhere?

  • Customizer

    Regarding the look of the map:

    I’m not a fan of the muddy style of recent A&A boards. I’d rather have clear light green for lowlands, darker green for difficult terrain, grey for mountain ranges.

    Would really like railway lines printed on the map, these would nicely emphasize the importance of certain tts as transport hubs.

  • @Flashman:

    Would really like railway lines printed on the map, these would nicely emphasize the importance of certain tts as transport hubs.

    The way (IIRC) that this was handled in TGW was that you could rail infantry to and from any friendly industrial complexes, so long as there was an unbroken land connection in between. IC’s were printed on the map and were in most major European cities.


    I would say that machine-guns were a part of every infantry unit; we can assume that the defensive ability of infantry includes their MGs.

    One mechanic that was used in TGW was that infantry normally defend on a ‘1’; however, if they spend a turn to “entrench” instead of moving, their defense becomes ‘2’. There were also Stormtroopers which broke entrenchment and provided better defenses against poison gas.
    I just think since machine guns were a such a game-changing new weapon, it would be interesting to give them some love and have them represented in the game; the WWII equivalent would probably be the advent of aircraft carriers (or nukes, I guess?)


    Regarding aircraft, in 1914 there were no fighter aircraft, just observation planes. These should have a low combat ability of 1-1 (movement 4) against any target. Their main use is for giving artillery more accurate targeting.

    The way it worked in TGW was that the aircraft would first have a “dogfight” against any defending aircraft in the territory (in WWI, this was a very clunky affair at first, with pilots trying to shoot each other with pistols, hurl bricks at one another, etc.) and then when the dogfight is concluded (IIRC) the side with any aircraft remaining granted a “spotting” bonus to their attacking infantry in the ground battle. As I mentioned, it was fairly imbalanced and eventually revised out.


    Later, techs will make fighter aircraft available, my suggestion is for two developments: forward firing MGS (2-2-2) and
    twin synchronized MGs (3-3-2).  Bombers also need to be a tech at 4-1-6.

    TGW has Interruptor Gears as an aircraft tech; for those unfamiliar, this is the timing mechanism that allowed for “synchronized MGs” that would fire in between the blades of their own plane’s propellers (rather than shoot them to pieces and make you crash-land).


    Do you have a link to TGW rules anywhere?

    I do not, as it is a commercial product rather than something that is freely distributed.

    The game does not exist in any physical format (although it has a MapView module).
    Hmmm… If you go to the Imp Games -> Products page, and click on Order Now, it seems you can only get the TGW rules on CD-ROM or as part of a purchase package with E&W (if i am reading the descriptions correctly). I think you used to be able to purchase an electronic copy of the rules separately (as you still can for E&W); I placed an order to purchase a replacement rulebook for E&W and they emailed back, offering to send me an electronic copy instead. So maybe that would work, if you are interested in purchasing just the rules?

    I haven’t had any luck with their email address recently though, so maybe try their forums…?

  • Customizer

    Any map scans?

    Anyway, been thinking about implementing supply rules, using the “bullet” pieces from old Diplomacy to represent shells.

    Shells cost, say, 1PC for 10?  You need to transport them around with your units, or rail them to where they’re needed. Transport ships can carry and unload them; battle fleets carry their own; aircraft cannot carry cargo.

    In essence, each army* expends one shell per combat round, regardless of number of units (I’m broadly going with Larry’s rule of having only one round of combat per turn, so it’d need reworking for other systems.)

    Shells can be stockpiled in dumps, perhaps just behind front lines. If a tt is captured, all unexpended shells are also captured.

    This system might be used only to supply artillery, but I was thinking of an item to represent the general supplying of armies.

    *An “Army” being the total units of one side in a land area; a “Fleet” being a group at sea or in port. Depending on the scale of the map, land areas might be closer to Army Group formations. Regarding which:

    Would a stacking limit be appropriate here? Would forcing players to build “mixed” armies be a good thing; that is a large all-infantry stack without artillery or air defences would have little combat effectiveness. Actually, I don’t like artificial “combined arms” bonuses - it should be inherent to the combat rules that a mixed army is more effective. An infantry stack with no artillery against one of the same size but with artillery and aircraft should be smashed to pieces.

    How about Generals (and Admirals) to command each army and fleet?

  • Allied Units:
    artillery: French Canon de 75 modèle 1897
    tank: British Mark II
    fighter: Sopwith Camel
    subs: not sure
    battleship: Queen Elizabeth
    cruiser: town class
    transport: RMS Carmania

    artillery: German 15 cm sFH 13
    tank: German A7V tank
    fighter: Fokker Scourge
    subs: SM U-9
    battleship: Kaiser class battleship
    cruiser: not sure
    transport: SMS Cap Trafalgar

    anyone have any suggestions?

  • '16

    Taking a good look at the map at
    All the units are the same, except infantry.
    It seems that there aren’t any allied specific molds nor central specific molds.
    The artillery pieces and battleships are the easiest to compare there.

  • it appears you are right  😞 but then again

    Q. Are the sculpts all the same except infantry, or you got two sets of sculpts one for allies and one for central powers?

    A. Each major power (eight of them) have their own infantry sculpts. Other sculpts are either allied or Central Power’s artillery, tanks or fight aircraft… and of course the naval lineup.

    I’m understanding that to mean the unit line up will be like how '41 was

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    All the naval units look the same but they cant be.  No planes are in the pic or tanks, not sure how you extrapolate those types from the picture.

    22 sculpts:

    8 infantry sculpts
    2 fighter types
    2 tank types
    2 artillery types
    2 Battleship
    2 cruiser
    2 transport
    2 submarine

  • Customizer

    I think they could’ve stretched it to three sets:

    France, Britain and Germany were by far the biggest producers of weaponry.

    Set A: France, Italy, Russia (Renault FT tank, Adrian helmet, Spad/Nieuport, Muromets Bomber)

    Set B: UK, USA (MIV tank, Brodie helmet, Sopwith, Handley Page 0 Bomber)

    Set 😄 CPs: (A7V, Stahlhelm, Albatross, Gotha Bomber)

    There could be some crossover, for example the Americans mainly used the French tanks.

    Can’t comment on artillery & ships; they all look the same to me…

  • Customizer

    Browsing through my collection for potential “Red” units, Attack! might provide the basics:


    Infantry - might just get away with the modern look

    Tanks - excellent, might even do for French Renault 17

    Artillery - should do the job

    Planes - too WWII. Does anyone know games with biplane minis of appropriate size? Preferably including Red pieces…

  • Flashman is absolutely right stating that:
    1. Russian Revolution took place clearly before the end of the war!
    2. The combatants were White Russians and Bolsheviks (both former russian troops! The Allied sendings are neglectable!!!)
    3. In an advanced game there ought to be a “Russian Civil War” (mini) game in the WWI game to reflect the situation correctly!

    Regarding Italy I would say oztea hits the spot with his dynamic view:
    Dice rolling depending on events with overall greater probability for Italy to join the Entente, then Neutrality throughout, then to join CPs.
    (In our game you can buy a diplomatic die for 5 IPCs. You positively influence on 4+. You need 3 steps to either side of a war entry scale and there are various modifiers along the way. In the end you need some kind of probability matrix and weigh it with the investment nations are willing to spend to favor major or minor powers. (Italy major power; Bulgaria, Romania, Portugal, etc. minors. USA cannot be influenced directly but solely on 2 specific event scales named “public opinion” and “political decision”.

  • Customizer

    A few thoughts:

    It took western countries about 3 years to build a dreadnought, Russia 6. Presumably in this game it will take, what, 4 months?

    Cavalry: I think cavalry is rather badly treated in histories of the war. It was only in static trench warfare that they became ineffective. Otherwise, they still made a big contribution. My suggestion for cavalry:

    They should be treated as mounted infantry. That is, during a battle, you can dismount your cavalry and they fight as standard infantry. Their main use, however, should be in pursuit: if your cavalry have not dismounted, then they may pursue retreating enemies. Basically this means giving each cavalry unit a “free” roll against retreating ground units. Especially useful in desert regions where tanks cannot operate. Like Turkey.

    Tanks: Should only hit on 1 in defence, period. However, I think there is a good case for their effectiveness in attack to be based on a combined arms consideration:

    Tank alone: hits on 2
    Tank with infantry accompaniment: hits on 3
    Tank with infantry & artillery: hits on 4

    That is, each tank need an infantry and an artillery unit in the attack round to gain the respective bonuses.

    Could even consider a further tank bonus for attacking aircraft, foreshadowing tactical developments in WWII.

    This is a realistic depiction of tanks in combat, and avoids the horrific spectacle of
    columns of turquoise Turkish tanks heading over the plateau of Anatolia, and scaling the peaks of the Caucasus before descending to take Russia in the rear.

    Latest image of IL’s German units:


  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    No Dreadnoughts should ever be built in the game since it takes 3+ years from start to finish. I understand it makes the game unplayable, but accuracy and not fun must be part of the game.

    Extrapolating this further all other naval units take 6-8 turns to build. I understand this means that half the game will have empty oceans, but oh well. Accuracy and not fun is whats important.

    Limits on how many of one type of unit get built would also presumably be part of Larry’s rules.

    If one thing we know is Axis and Allies is a perfect representation of Historical accuracy, and not fun anymore.

    Enjoy the game.

Suggested Topics

  • 30
  • 11
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 4
  • 6
  • 31
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys