What's the one piece you think was missing from OOB?


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017

    Putting this here for now. Someone please yell at me if you think this should go under House Rules or somewhere else.

    Thinking of the OOB pieces/rules. If you had to choose just one, what’s the ONE unit you think is was maybe missing from the OOB rules? Or, do you think nothing was missing? Marines? Paratrooper? A Heavy Tank? Maybe another facility type? Something else?

    Just completely curious on anyone’s thoughts on this.



  • Love the question; my first answer would be Heavy tank; every country was working on some sort; but Germany seemed to be the main country doing the most; the Allies were more focused on quantity than quality at first; Russia was just trying to survive until they could actually do something in the war.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Great question.  My first thought would be a transport plane unit, for the following reasons.  A&A’s existing array of ships covers all the essential types of naval units, in my opinion, including naval transports.  As far as land units go, there’s a good (though not exhaustive) selection of unit types; this selection includes “land transports” (trucks), which appeared as an explicit unit in Battle of the Bulge and which arguably appears as an “inferred unit” in Global 1940 because some of the mechanzied infantry sculpts are truck sculpts rather than half-tracks or armoured personnel carriers (and thus technically depict motorized infantry, even though by the rules they function as mech infantry).  Global 1940 only has three air units, however, and all of them (unit-wise and sculpt-wise) are either fighters or bombers or surface-attack planes of one sort or another…so A&A has no air-transport unit that corresponds to its explicit naval transports and its more implicit land transports.  Eisenhower considered the C-47 Dakota transport plane to be one of the four war-winning weapons of the Allies, the other three being the jeep (a land transport), the bazooka and the atomic bomb.



  • I would go with art, but that was taken care of in revised 2004.
    How bout mech…global
    Defensive fortifications…now that is still missing oob for world maps


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    Good question.
    Mechanised Art would be my answer.



  • First off, I would like to say that 1914 needs more units to make it as interesting as the WW2 games.  Maybe cavalry, armoured cars, or something like that.  However, 1914 really could use more air units.  A bomber and deriglible unit would work well.

    As for the WW2 games…

    In 1941 I felt that land warfare was too boring.  An addition of artillery fixes this.  (This would also apply to the older games I never played that include no artillery.)

    If there were ONE unit I would select, it would be heavy tanks.  Simply for the fact that it would look great, fight well up close, and can use the heavy tank sculpts from 1941 (the Tiger and IS-2).  I have actually used these sculpts as heavy tanks before (in Global, Italy and ANZAC don’t get any but I actually like it that way.)
    Here is my simplefied heavy tank unit:
    Cost: 9
    Move: 1
    Attack: 5
    Defense: 5
    Expensive but deadly.  I am considering lowering the cost to 8 but making them unable to make amphibious assaults.  Other people suggest special abilities like absorbing hits, but I prefer it simple.

    Wittman’s mechanized artillery is a great idea, but I would rather make that a tech involving artillery and mechanized infantry.

    Marc’s air transport is also great, but paratroopers kind of do this already.

    I see an improved tech tree with more economical methods as a good way to implement most of our unit expansions, including heavy tanks.

    Some units to pique your interest:
    Civilian type transport for infantry only (Queen Mary)
    Heavy carrier (for strategic bombers)
    Minelayer
    Biplane bomber (Swordfish)
    Recon plane
    Cargo plane/paratroop carrier (Goony Bird)
    Rail center
    Fortress (France)
    Sea defence (Iwo Jima)
    Commando/paratrooper
    Tank destroyer (Su-152)
    Heavy tank


  • 2017 '16 '15

    Good stuff here 🙂 You might want to add a poll Chris _Henry

    I like the air transport idea a lot but since I’m limited to one I’ll go with the mobile artillery, although as DeGaulle points out making it a tech would work as well.

    I like the heavy tank but would probably go tech with that as well. There really weren’t that many of them. Russia had the K2, Germany the Tiger, US the Pershing ( which saw little action ) and the Brits ( Centurion ) maybe ? Idk. Anyway they weren’t that prevalent is my point I guess 🙂

    So, yea, I’ll go with Air Transport after all 🙂


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Charles:

    Heavy carrier (for strategic bombers)

    Aircraft carriers aren’t capable of launching or landing heavy bombers; such planes require very long runways.  Even land-based medium bombers aren’t designed to operate from carriers; the Dolittle Raid, which involved launching B-25 medium bombers from the Hornet, was an exceptional case which involved special training of the bomber crews; it was a one-way trip and a one-time mission.  As I recall, the B-25 was the only medium bomber in the US inventory which could accomplish such a mission, even with the required special training.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    Im with the air transport plane. Need to use for inf and paratroopers.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @SS:

    Im with the air transport plane. Need to use for inf and paratroopers.

    And just to expand on that point: as SS correctly notes, a transport plane would be a multi-function unit, whose infantry-carrying application would be distinct from its paratrooper-carrying application.  In its infantry-carrying role, it would basically be carrying regular infantry units (with regular infantry unit statistics) and landing them on the ground; a potential use, for example, would be to bring reinforcements quickly and from far away to a player-controlled territory that’s under threat.  In its paratrooper-carrying role, it would be air-dropping paratrooper units without landing.  These paratrooper units would have different unit statistics than regular infantry, to reflect the fact that paratroopers tend to be less heavily armed than ground troops; they’re typically high-quality soldiers with a high degree of initiative, but they can’t lug around as much stuff as ground troops do.  In WWII, they typically needed to be relieved by ground forces within a fairly short amount of time (which failed to happen at Arnhem in 1944, with disastrous results).



  • Sounds great.  Got any ideas as to unit statistics?  I am debating whether or not it should have defensively ability.  Some modifications of the C-47 (or at least a Russian one) did have machine guns for defense.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Charles:

    Sounds great.  Got any ideas as to unit statistics?  I am debating whether or not it should have defensively ability.  Some modifications of the C-47 (or at least a Russian one) did have machine guns for defense.

    I’m not good at devising specific numbers for unit stats, so I’ll just offer some general thoughts.  I’d keep the transport plane unit completely defenseless (hmm…where have I previously heard the phrase “defenseless transport”?) for a couple of reasons.  First, I’m not aware of WWII transport planes being armed to any significant extent, if at all.  Second, I’d argue that giving defensive armaments to a transport plane would be both ineffective and counterproductive.  A useful reference point for the concept of defensive plane armements would be the B-17, which carried heavy machine guns in multiple locations; they helped, but keep in mind that the defensive capabilities of these planes weren’t at their best when just a single plane was involved.  Those capabilities worked best when B-17s flew in large, multi-level formations, designed to produce overlapping fields of machine-gun fire; transport planes didn’t operate in those types of formations, as far as I know.  And keep in mind that the more you weigh down a transport plane by adding weapons and armour, the less payload it can carry, thereby negating its primary purpose.


  • 2017 '16 '15

    yea I’d go with defenseless as well. When they’re dropping paras you could let them take a hit but when attacked I wouldn’t let them be hit soakers.

    I currently have them at A0 D0 M5 +1 w/AB C 7 can transport one “Elite” unit into combat or non combat. Would like to add inf being able to be transported in ncm as well. I’m on triplea and ran into an issue trying to do that. I’ll have to revisit it. Obviously table top would have no limitations 🙂

    They’re kind of expensive, in part due to the high cost of Elite (5), but are nice for a “Quick Reaction Force”. Hauling regular infantry would definitely make them more viable.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    I have in my game d12 A0 D1 M5 C8
    Can transport 2 inf non combat and must land plane or transport 1 paratrooper or elite which ever you use and also have a tech in tree where you can transport 2 para troopers and get a +1 for the whole battle of attack. AAA can shoot them down from any territory.

    https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww2-transport-aircraft.asp

    I ezz za got to get me some Bloch MB 220s !!!

    Yes this is the 1 piece I want in game. Transport 4 inf or 4 Para Troopers ya ! Frenchies see these coming they would all lay down.  😄

    heinkel-he111z-zwilling.jpg


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017

    Just added a poll. Tried to hit on the ones you guys pointed out below.

    I’m glad this morphed. I’d originally posted this in the Global 1940 thread, so apologies for it not being game specific in my question. But again, glad it sparked discussion in the other games as well, or the gaming mechanic overall.

    I think the air transport is an awesome idea, really for all the reasons CWO Marc laid out. He’s right in that naval and ground forces both show this in some capacity, but air is lacking. Very interesting. I agree though, would need a bit more something to create some spice other than just transporting infantry. In terms of dropping infantry off in combat (ie, paratrooper), you could give the infantry unit some kind of negative effect on the first combat round, or something.

    Maybe a stretch here, but what about nation specific special units? Might be interesting to have had one special unit per power (at least major powers) that maybe had a unique ability each.

    Germany - SS Unit
    Japan - SNLF/Veteran Unit
    Italy - Bersaglieri Unit
    USA - Ranger/Marine Unit
    UK/ANZAC - Commando Unit
    USSR - Home Guard Unit
    France - Colonial Infantry/Foreign Legion Unit

    I’m thinking like a unique special ability. USSR gets +1 defense in home territories, French Colonials could spawn in any French territory, Commando can re-roll one missed shot on offense, etc. This might be a bit outside the scope, as it may potentially alter gaming mechanics a bit.

    Before I rant too long there, I do think another simple choice may also be in just creating a fortification piece. I could see something like that playing a decent roll, you could give a couple in starting spots, but also the ability to build. We’ve all discussed fortifications before I’m sure. But having a little extra boost to a Gibraltar or Malta, or a German Atlantic Wall, would be interesting choices than could maybe alter some decisions in certain theaters.

    Made it hard on purpose in having to only choose one, so I think to get to the crux of it, an air transport may get my vote as well, giving the different aspects in really brings.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    @Chris_Henry:

    Just added a poll. Tried to hit on the ones you guys pointed out below.

    I’m glad this morphed. I’d originally posted this in the Global 1940 thread, so apologies for it not being game specific in my question. But again, glad it sparked discussion in the other games as well, or the gaming mechanic overall.

    I think the air transport is an awesome idea, really for all the reasons CWO Marc laid out. He’s right in that naval and ground forces both show this in some capacity, but air is lacking. Very interesting. I agree though, would need a bit more something to create some spice other than just transporting infantry. In terms of dropping infantry off in combat (ie, paratrooper), you could give the infantry unit some kind of negative effect on the first combat round, or something.

    Maybe a stretch here, but what about nation specific special units? Might be interesting to have had one special unit per power (at least major powers) that maybe had a unique ability each.

    Germany - SS Unit
    Japan - SNLF/Veteran Unit
    Italy - Bersaglieri Unit
    USA - Ranger/Marine Unit
    UK/ANZAC - Commando Unit
    USSR - Home Guard Unit
    France - Colonial Infantry/Foreign Legion Unit

    I’m thinking like a unique special ability. USSR gets +1 defense in home territories, French Colonials could spawn in any French territory, Commando can re-roll one missed shot on offense, etc. This might be a bit outside the scope, as it may potentially alter gaming mechanics a bit.

    Before I rant too long there, I do think another simple choice may also be in just creating a fortification piece. I could see something like that playing a decent roll, you could give a couple in starting spots, but also the ability to build. We’ve all discussed fortifications before I’m sure. But having a little extra boost to a Gibraltar or Malta, or a German Atlantic Wall, would be interesting choices than could maybe alter some decisions in certain theaters.

    Made it hard on purpose in having to only choose one, so I think to get to the crux of it, an air transport may get my vote as well, giving the different aspects in really brings.

    Yes Chris I do have all thee above units in all my games already. Add and tweak as you go on but another topic. At least every country could have some kind of air transport plane anyway.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Chris_Henry:

    I agree though, would need a bit more something to create some spice other than just transporting infantry.

    A transport plane could also have the ability to carry artillery units and/or anti-aircraft artillery units, as well as infantry units and paratrooper units (though of course not all at once).  This would make them similar to the truck units in Battle of the Bulge, which can carry infantry or artillery or the Bulge-specific supply tokens.  That’s probably realistic in terms of what a WWII transport plane could carry.  A naval transport can carry any type of land unit, but remember that ships can carry much greater payloads than planes.  If A&A tank and mech infantry units were subdivided into finer groups than the unit categories allow, a plane could conceivably transport a light tank or a half-track…but if tanks and mech infantry are treated (as in the OOB rules) as undividable unit classes, then I’d disqualify them for air transport.



  • I voted other.  Would like to see distinction on naval aircraft vs. land.  Capabilities are slightly different.  This is bigger issue in
    Pacific version.

    Naval and Army aircraft:

    Certainly not all aircraft and pilots could land on a carrier.  So, need to make a distinction on the purchase.  Naval or Army. 
    Cost is same, but capabilities are not:  Naval tactical bombers and fighters can land on carriers, Army cannot.  Army tactical bombers get the combined arms bonus, Naval do not.  Naval fighters change to D3 on non-island territories, it remains D4 on islands and sea zones.  Any type scrambling fighter defends with D4.  (Optional air superiority rule in effect only if both planes in their native environment - Army/territories; Naval/sea zones-islands).


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    @CWO:

    @Chris_Henry:

    I agree though, would need a bit more something to create some spice other than just transporting infantry.

    A transport plane could also have the ability to carry artillery units and/or anti-aircraft artillery units, as well as infantry units and paratrooper units (though of course not all at once).  This would make them similar to the truck units in Battle of the Bulge, which can carry infantry or artillery or the Bulge-specific supply tokens.  That’s probably realistic in terms of what a WWII transport plane could carry.  A naval transport can carry any type of land unit, but remember that ships can carry much greater payloads than planes.  If A&A tank and mech infantry units were subdivided into finer groups than the unit categories allow, a plane could conceivably transport a light tank or a half-track…but if tanks and mech infantry are treated (as in the OOB rules) as undividable unit classes, then I’d disqualify them for air transport.

    What if you were able to just carry 2 inf or 1 truck or 1 mech or 1 art or 1 aa gun per plane only in non combat ?

    400px-Aaffc-routes-jun-1942.jpg
    400px-Atcroutes-1sep1945.jpg


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @SS:

    What if you were able to just carry 2 inf or 1 truck or 1 mech or 1 art or 1 aa gun per plane only in non combat ?

    I’d recommend the following payload options.

    For runway-landing missions:
      - 2 infantry (standard OOB unit)
          or
      - 1 artillery (standard OOB unit)
          or
      - 1 anti-aircraft artillery (standard OOB unit)

    For paratrooper-drop missions;
      - 2 paratroopers (special house-ruled unit)

    No other OOB unit types could be transported. OOB generic tanks units and OOB generic mech infantry units would be too heavy for a WWII transport plane.  The only A&A game that has a truck unit (meaning as an actual unit, not as a sculpt) is Battle of the Bulge; in other A&A games, it would count as a house-ruled special extra unit.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    @CWO:

    @SS:

    What if you were able to just carry 2 inf or 1 truck or 1 mech or 1 art or 1 aa gun per plane only in non combat ?

    I’d recommend the following payload options.

    For runway-landing missions:
      - 2 infantry (standard OOB unit)
           or
      - 1 artillery (standard OOB unit)
           or
      - 1 anti-aircraft artillery (standard OOB unit)

    For paratrooper-drop missions;
      - 2 paratroopers (special house-ruled unit)

    No other OOB unit types could be transported. OOB generic tanks units and OOB generic mech infantry units would be too heavy for a WWII transport plane.  The only A&A game that has a truck unit (meaning as an actual unit, not as a sculpt) is Battle of the Bulge; in other A&A games, it would count as a house-ruled special extra unit.

    Sounds good CWO.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017

    Yea, I’d agree with that as well. Makes sense to have different capabilities to drop into combat or just transport in a non-combat move.


  • 2018 2017 '16

    Anything but Zombies. It’s more likely they could have had robots in WW 2 than zombies. Zombies aren’t a real thing, you might as well have leprechauns or easter bunnies.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Chris_Henry:

    Yea, I’d agree with that as well. Makes sense to have different capabilities to drop into combat or just transport in a non-combat move.

    To expand on this idea a bit: one detail that would have to be worked out regarding non-combat-move runway-landing missions would have to do with whether transport planes can transport things in both directions.  To give an example: if a transport plane takes off from territory X, carrying 2 regular infantry, and lands on territory Y, where it unloads the infantry, does it have to fly out of territory Y empty?  Or can it carry out a payload, if the player wants to take something out of territory Y for use elsewhere?  In most cases, a player probably wouldn’t need to fly something out after bringing something in…but having that option could be handy, and I can’t think of any reason why the plane would be prohibited from carrying something on the way out.  (In war, it’s common to fly supplies and reinforcements into a combat zone, and to fly out wounded personnel on the return trip, but A&A doesn’t have a mechanic for wounded infantry.)

    A potential application of the fly-something-out concept would be a situation in which a player would want to fly something out which is more valuable that what was flown in.  Interestingly enough, one possibility would be a scenario in which some paratroopers had been previously air-dropped into a territory to help capture it.  Assuming that the paratrooper unit is more expensive than a standard infantry unit, and given that (as I’ve mentioned) paratroopers are usually relieved by ground troops soon after they’ve accomplished their mission, a player might want to fly in some regular infantry to take their place once the territory is secure, and to extract the valuable paratroopers on the way out.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    @CWO:

    @Chris_Henry:

    Yea, I’d agree with that as well. Makes sense to have different capabilities to drop into combat or just transport in a non-combat move.

    To expand on this idea a bit: one detail that would have to be worked out regarding non-combat-move runway-landing missions would have to do with whether transport planes can transport things in both directions.  To give an example: if a transport plane takes off from territory X, carrying 2 regular infantry, and lands on territory Y, where it unloads the infantry, does it have to fly out of territory Y empty?  Or can it carry out a payload, if the player wants to take something out of territory Y for use elsewhere?  In most cases, a player probably wouldn’t need to fly something out after bringing something in…but having that option could be handy, and I can’t think of any reason why the plane would be prohibited from carrying something on the way out.  (In war, it’s common to fly supplies and reinforcements into a combat zone, and to fly out wounded personnel on the return trip, but A&A doesn’t have a mechanic for wounded infantry.)

    A potential application of the fly-something-out concept would be a situation in which a player would want to fly something out which is more valuable that what was flown in.  Interestingly enough, one possibility would be a scenario in which some paratroopers had been previously air-dropped into a territory to help capture it.  Assuming that the paratrooper unit is more expensive than a standard infantry unit, and given that (as I’ve mentioned) paratroopers are usually relieved by ground troops soon after they’ve accomplished their mission, a player might want to fly in some regular infantry to take their place once the territory is secure, and to extract the valuable paratroopers on the way out.

    But then not all planes could land or take off with dirt runways. So would you need an airbase or airport strip to land and take off only ?


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 5
  • 3
  • 7
  • 1
  • 7
  • 10
  • 17
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

60
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts