If guadalcanal played this way without the dice battle box, I think it would be a lot more popular. Battle of midway is everything you would want out of Guad. Simple movements and combat resolves quite simply, roll a 1 and attacker chooses casualty, roll a 2 and defender picks.  Great game.

@Imperious:

Is this the same map as global 39? or close?

No. This map is based on the old AAE and AAP. At the time I wanted a way to play both maps seemelessly. AAG40 acomplished the goal of this project, albeit in a slightly different way. Therefore, this map has been mostly forgotten since then.

@knp7765:

Well, we have to get the FMG Tigers first. There was a pic of two of the prototype FMG King Tigers with an OOB Panther to give you some idea of size comparison.
The HBG Shermans are a bit smaller than the OOB Shermans, which I think makes them look more realistic compared to the OOB Panthers. The OOB Shermans were a little too large in my opinion. The Panther was a pretty big tank.
However, I think WOTC made the Shermans this way because all OOB pieces seem to be within a certain range for each different type of unit. For Example, all Aircraft Carriers are 64mm long, all battleships are between 58 and 62 mm long, and so on. I think all the tanks were between 20 and 22 mm long. I think this was WOTC’s way of keeping some sort of continuity between sculpts. So while the Panthers and Tigers look okay, Shermans look a little too big. That’s especially true with Japan’s Type 95. On the board, it’s as big as a Sherman yet in real life, the Type 95 was a tiny tank. Not nearly as big as a Sherman and not even close to the size of a Panther. I think if a Type 95 was made to the same scale as the Panther, the piece would be around 13-15mm in length and end up looking like the tiny mech inf units.

Hey KNP, the OOB Sherman in the AA50 is smaller and pretty much the same size as the HBG Sherman (btw).

lol my storage boxes get setup for the new HBG pieces as soon as they are ancounced.

Hey Regi_Cide,
Very interesting concept. I like the idea of a non-historical land mass to fight over. I once had a strategy game called Tactics II which was a battle that took place on a totally fabricated land mass. I used to have lots of fun with that game.

One small suggestion about your trains idea. Historicalboardgaming.com sells these small acrylic markers for rail lines, rail stations and even rail guns. I think those would be really good in a game like yours.

Rounded dice are against my religion, they take so damn long to roll! lol…

Those are bleachers (houses) from NFL Monopoly. I glued short dowels to the back and painted them brick red to use as minor factories.

I think I asked you for your Med map long ago.  I am working on a game and wanted to see what yours looked like. (I have always enjoyed your map style)

Thanks for sharing!

Jeremy

@CWO:

1. Atomic bombs (Loaded on bombers)
3. Fission Bomb

In what way is an atomic bomb different from a fission bomb in your rules?  The two terms mean the same thing.

Here:

@empireman:

SuperPowers
2-8 players

Fission Bomb - roll 4 dice. The sum total of the rolls is the damage inflicted.

Atomic is 1 less

I think you are making Block Houses too strong; all infantry defend @ 4? That’s too high. It should be a 3.
Also, if you use the HBG Marines and attack with a flamethrower unit, that should negate the block house advantage.

2004 UK Revised green (celery)
2009 UK Tan
2010 ANZAC Grey
2012 HBG Neutral Light Grey
2012 HBG Neutral Ivory
1986 AA Classic Forest Green
or 2010 Chinese Yellow-Green

Coach and Variable.

We.re seeing a lot of new markers etc. coming out of HBG lately (good work by the way). Are the HBG optional rules going to be updated to reflect the new stuff? (e.g. flak towers, bunkers, blockhouses etc.)

The group I play with is integrating some the new rules and markers into our game. We like rail and will be using minefields (naval too) next game––if they come in time.

Yeah, it’s true that we’ve been working on solving this issue. We didn’t like the way the system displayed the pricing. If you notice, when we did the Neutral individual pieces it was set up better, the way you would expect to see it. You choose the piece and the price, then select from colors. The old way had you select the set, then the piece and would change the price according to the selected piece. I have updated the Axis Minors to the new system today. The other sets will follow suit but require individual pictures and some photo editing to make everything look nice for the site. In the meantime, the US and Marine sets are still the old way. Thank you for your understanding! We’re always looking to be better.

@Yavid:

As for me, I don’t mind having 2 colors for the “major powers,” 1 for standard troops and 1 for elites.

When everything is finished I’m going to have 2 color schemes(Europe/Pacific) for “standard” troops of all countries(except China) plus another scheme for certain areas on the map. This doesn’t include the Special Forces units.

For example, the U.K. would have units in a “European” scheme, a “Far East” scheme(shown above), a “Desert” scheme, and specific schemes for their “Airborne” and “Special Forces” units.

America, Germany, France & Italy would also have “Desert” schemes.
Russia, Germany, & China would have “Winter” schemes.
Special Forces units galore.
Etc., Etc., Etc.

Those really are amazing. � Whose your painter again?

“Allworkandnoclay” is my painter and I’m very happy with his work. I love his idea of painting the national ensigns of each country on their Infantry bases. I come up with what I want and pay for them and he paints them. As long as his eyes don’t go blind,…or I go bankrupt from paying for them, we’ll eventually get ALL of the units done. We still have a ways to go as all of the HBG and FMG units haven’t been produced yet.

“Tall Paul”

Yes, it was an excited manual!  :-D

The “Heavy” armor piece from FMG was originally listed as the Semovente 75/18, which I believe is what it is.

At some point, someone put a post saying “the gun barrel was such-n-such long” and “the body was so-n-so wide” so it MUST be a 105/25. I imagine that is where HBG’s confusion lies. Coach must have seen that post and it stuck in his head so he put it on his site as such.

@DrLarsen:

though the EotH destroyer is my favorite of the three, though it is just a bit too big.  I’m not sure what you’re talking about in terms of an EotH "cruiser."  If you mean by this the destroyer, I can’t agree that it makes a good heavy cruiser; maybe light cruiser, but definitely not a heavy cruiser.  (But perhaps there’s some other EotH set that I’ve never heard of…)

Sorry, I meant the EotH destroyer.  I called it a cruiser because that’s how I tend to use it because, as you mention, it’s rather big relative to the A&A destroyers.

That sounds kind of fun and interesting, but it also supposes a Japanese invasion of Hawaii which wasn’t their intent. The attack on Pearl Harbor was only an air strike against US Air Bases and the Pacific Fleet. Japan had no plans for actually invading Hawaii, at least not at that point. Still an interesting idea.

What about a WW2 style Fortress America game? You could have Japan be the Western Invader, Germany the Eastern Invader and Italy the Southern Invader. Make it just like Fortress America where each player gets 60 units split up between Infantry, Artillery, Mech Inf, Tanks, Fighters, Tac Bombers and Bombers. America would also get Partisan reinforcements, perhaps represented by HBG Marine Infantry units, or the Marine Infantry from the old Pacific game if you have them. Heck, they could even be represented by the Light Grey Axis Minor Infantry since Partisan units in the new Fortress America game are grey. Another idea would be to use the Light Green Neutral Infantry from HBG. Even Chinese Infantry would work in a pinch.
Perhaps the Laser Complexes could be replaced by Atom Bombs. USA gets some sort of marker to represent an Atom Bomb base each turn, placed in a US controlled city, and they get so many Atom Bomb strikes per turn, depending on how many Atom Bomb Bases they have. When Invaders capture cities with A Bomb Bases, they destroy them immediately. A low-yield Atom Bomb would be enough to destroy 1 military unit and could possibly fail, thus the roll of the dice.
Perhaps the USA should also get AA Guns for defense. A certain number of AA guns in each city and only in cities and don’t count toward the 5 unit per territory limit. They act as normal AA guns in Global, up to 3 shots per gun or 1 shot per attacking aircraft, whichever is lower, and can be taken as casualties in defense. If you don’t like the Atom Bomb idea, perhaps AA guns could be the extra defense ability for USA. Each city starts with a certain number of AA guns, maybe 2, and each round USA gets a new AA gun to place in any city they still control. Again, AA guns would not count toward the 5 unit per territory limit.