Which new unit for the 2nd Edition?


  • Customizer

    If the designers decide to add just one new physical unit type to a 2nd edition, what should it be?

    It should be a unit available to every power, though may be introduced later on as per tanks.

    Machine-guns and trench mortars are assumed to be part of the basic infantry equipment.



  • This is a very difficult choice and if they do make a second edition (which they hopefully do) they should add Aircraft Carrier, Zeppelin, Armoured Train or just train, African Native Inf, Cavalry, General, and Heavy Artillery, but if I had to pick one it would be cavalry.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Native Infantry for Africa.
    Not much happens there otherwise.



  • Let’s do this by a combination of what makes sense thematically and mechanically.

    Aircraft Carrier: T: While some experiments existed it feels way too early to see these on the board. M: Works well, obvious mechanics taken from WWII A&As

    Airship/Zeppelin: I think a reasonable choice. I can see potential mechanics. Perhaps boosts naval ships?

    Armored car: T: Armored cars were definitely used a lot in that war. These weapons were very useful only in very specific circumstances - with roads. They are powerful on roads, useless outside of roads. M: More problematic.  I can’t see how to model that in game. A unit that moves 2 spaces might be nice. Kind of Mech Inf for WWI?

    Armored train: T: Makes me think of the Russian Revolution more than WWI. But yeah. Same era. M: How do you represent being restricted to rails in this game?

    Askari: T: The game has never used national origin to affect unit type. The closest we’ve ever seen is ANZAC being its own power, but that was a difference in power, not unit type. M: An infantry built on colonies? Do we need a different unit for that as opposed to just allowing colony builds? What could possibly make them different.

    Bomber: T: A little premature. While there were bombers, they were much closer in structure and performance to contemporary fighters than in WW2. Strat bombing was in its infancy. M: I don’t see any room mechanically.

    Cavalry: T: Cavalry was on its way out, really were used as dragoon more than anything else. Yet, I still like the idea. Calvary was definitely used. M: Making cavalry move 2 makes little sense. So, then, what do they do? Attacking a higher number makes no sense. Their increased mobility would be hard to model, except by moving 2 spaces, but I dislike that idea.

    Destroyer: An obvious choice, pretty much AA40 rules, but I think leaving them out was deliberate. Submarines are stronger without them, and I think this was on purpose.

    Elite Infantry: T: Unit experience really isn’t modeled in A&A ever. M: Infantry that attack higher? Eh, bland.

    Fortress: T: Fortifications were a big part of WWI. It feels a little too operational-scale for a strategic-level game though. M: A static unit built on location with high defense perhaps? I don’t like it. Would slow down the game, I don’t see too much benefit.

    General: T: NO. Strategical level game. The generals are part of your infantry units, just like machine guns and mortars. M: What would they even do?

    Heavy Artillery: T: I think the full spectrum of artillery weights are represented by the units. M: What would they do? Boost two infantry?

    Railgun: I think a neat idea but one that would be too hard to do mechanics for. How do you represent what makes them different from artillery on a game of this scale?

    Sea Mine: T: Already covered. M: You can move your sea mines? That’s… silly. When has anyone ever mined a harbor that’s not their own? A mine layer would make more sense, but only just a little. I don’t like it.

    Antiair: T: Sure, yeah, makes total sense. M: The mechanics write themselves, from AA40 or other possible mechanics. Does the game need them, though? Air power is not nearly as powerful as it is in WWII games, and I think the decision to counter aircraft with aircraft exclusively was a conscious one on Larry’s part.

    Flying boat: T: Were these really a major part of WWI? I don’t think so. M: I can’t think of what these would do.

    Of these, Armored cars, Cavalry, and Destroyers are the only ones I would entertain. Perhaps you’d like to flesh out your ideas more, instead of just listing equipment used in WWI. Perhaps we’ll find an interesting mechanical space to make a new unit.



  • I didn’t select native inf because it’s quite easy to just make a rule where inf can be placed there; no new unit is needed.

    That said, I chose cavalry. A 1/1 move 2 unit that costs 3  sounds decent to me.



  • Tralis has a good point; I don’t see much room in the game mechanics for much new to add.  Destroyers is the only obvious choice to me mechanics-wise, which is why I voted for them.  Elite Infantry/ stormtroopers could also work, depending on how they are done mechanically, but using regular AA pieces would be perfect for this anyway (use the black Germans for Germans and MB grey Germans for Austrians… and perhaps some others could be used this way too… and then there’s the piece set that’s coming with IL’s game, which could open up some new possibilities right there, including DD’s and stormtroopers built right in to a whole new piece set (with better colors) that could be used across both games…



  • I think if you add destroyers subs need to be given first strike and be immune to mines.



  • @vonLettowVorbeck1914:

    I think if you add destroyers subs need to be given first strike and be immune to mines.

    If they added destroyers everyone would just use DD’s from other games.  If they add Zeppelins, I bet people would flock to buy the 2nd edition (if there is one).


  • Customizer

    Native infantry were not supplied with much in the way of heavy equipment such as machine-guns. They were dependent on European leadership, hence they cannot operate or hold tt on their own. Their loyalty to colonial rulers was questionable. I wanted to represent that the war in Africa was on a much smaller scale than in Europe, but give the region more flexibility by having more units. I wanted them to be recruited only in original tts, so that there would be an incentive to defend your own colonies rather than just march around in circles.

    If we restrict Askaris to sub-Saharan Africa it balance in that starting armies qualifying would be 4-4 and could be given 2 Askaris ech to begin viz:

    Togoland, Kamerun, SWA, GEA

    FWA, BEA, Rhodesia, Somaliland.

    South Africa did not think much of arming natives…

    Bombers caused a profound effect on populations, their morale damage was considered 20 times the material harm they ever did. The large late war planes were a generation on from early war aircraft, the German Gothas had a larger wingspan than any operational Luftwaffe plane of WWII.

    By “movable” mines I meant mines that can be built and placed wherever required; assume that each NB has its attached mines to begin, but allow ships to lay mines in other SZs; as mentioned destroyers would have a mine sweeping role…


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 20
  • 665
  • 7
  • 28
  • 252
  • 2
  • 8
  • 12
I Will Never Grow Up Games

24
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts