I have been playing around with different configurations for a custom table and wanted to note some things I’ve landed on that I really like. A main one thing is having the map mounted so that it can slide around as needed on top of a bigger playing area. My table is 65” x 95” in total with a 5.5” arm rest around the outside and the middle is a recessed neoprene surface. I have the OOB Global map mounted on 1/2” rigid foam with a 1/2” aluminum frame around it. This allows the map to slide up close to whoever’s turn it is, but then be in the middle so both players can roll dice In front of them without disturbing the map and in easy view of the other player. (Plus we like lots of room to roll the bones). This ability to adjust the surface along with a standing height, makes it comfortable for long uses because you can move around more and don’t feel as tied down.
Things I’ve learned and changed from original design - I originally used too big of a frame for the map and mounted it on too high of a foam block (you can see these pictures at the bottom) - it made it hard to see the other player’s dice and the big frame took up too much real estate. My global map is mounted on much thinner foam (the framing is bad, you can see if you look closely) but I also used much thinner aluminum angle for the frame. This gives just enough grip when needing to move the map around (I use furniture slides on the bottom, which glide very nicely on the neoprene) but doesn’t make the whole thing too bulky. Having it an inch or so off the surface keeps the dice off, but isn’t so heigh that you can’t see the other player’s dice rolls. When playing other versions (such as Zombies) the board is much smaller, but it can easily swap in and out on the same table since it can move around where ever it is needed or be pushed aside.
I originally made it normal table height, but found long reaches while sitting were harder and it just felt cramped. Standing height with a bar stool is a great way to have the best of both worlds.
The 5.5” rim around the table itself gives you a nice arm rest that doesn’t interfere with the gaming surface. I’m playing with how to best add some cushion to this part - open to suggestions. Sometimes I just lay a piece of leftover neoprene on it.
Dice bounce nice on the neoprene and stay off the floor. It also feels nice and has enough give to allow things to slide but be picked up easily. Wouldn’t definitely go with neoprene again as a surface covering.
I made the drawers open to the inside of the table so you can stay hunched over the action while accessing and stowing stuff away. 50/50 on whether I would keep this if I were to do it again. If I were doing it again, I might try to build customer drawers form scratch using actual drawer glides, but that was beyond my ability when I first did this, so I just used clear plexiglass boxes with aluminum pulls mounted on them. It’s nice having them clear, and I was happy with how the pulls came out, but without glides they can be a little fussy sliding in and out of their slots.
I originally designed the table so that I could put a cover surface back on top when not in use, but find I don’t really ever do that, so if I were to do it again, I might not mess with that part (I never even finished staining those as you can see in the pictures).
CF362D52-269F-4480-8CBB-08139099138F.jpeg A9E12EA1-66EB-4671-86AC-68C62FD30AD5.jpeg 858DE1F2-030A-4D5A-93E4-70A7D1180ADB.jpeg 8F513EE0-DA37-4BA9-880E-4D5EF7BF431F.jpeg F0188165-757B-4CC1-BF67-5045832283C9.jpeg 2E3CD627-0D31-4121-ACF8-682F9F58A40B.jpeg
United States Set from Historical Board Gaming!
-
@coachofmany:
I hope my sales in the first two sets allow me to do two colors for the US set.
Well, while I can’t speak for everyone else, I think you will do okay. Your pieces are looking really cool and when some people get their first sets, they will probably order even more. I’ve already orderd 5 of the dark green Marines and plan to order 5 sets of the olive drab Marines. Will be ordering a LOT of the Axis Minors when they get in, especially black and grey. Plus I already know that I will be getting 5 sets of the US supplement set and if you offer a 2nd color, then I will get 5 more. The pre-production samples look fabulous.
Hey coach, could we get a couple of close-ups on the battleship and escort carrier?
-
These look amazing. When can we expect to be able to purchase them?
-
US olive set is leaving today, I should have them in 10 -14 days.
Minor set colors have finally been approved, allow 4-5 weeks.
US set sculpts have minor revisions, they will then go to making mold.
Colors have been approved.
Probably 8 weeks away. -
@coachofmany:
US olive set is leaving today, I should have them in 10 -14 days.
Minor set colors have finally been approved, allow 4-5 weeks.
US set sculpts have minor revisions, they will then go to making mold.
Colors have been approved.
Probably 8 weeks away.WOW! Three full sets all coming out within 2 months. Way to crank them out coach!
Man, you are going to be really busy filling orders. On the plus side, that means lots of $$$$$$.
-
Some Close ups of Models
-
more
-
more
-
Wow Coach, these look absolutely amazing. Stuff we’ve all been missing for far too long. Looks like I will have to get the credit card back out before too long!
-
I love these!!! Wow, look awesome! Keep up the good work.
-
What class is the U.S. battleship supposed to represent? It seems to have a total of ten main guns: a two-gun turret superimposed over a three-gun turret forward, and the same thing aft. This was the main gun layout for the British KGV class and for the U.S. Nevada class, but the Nevada class only had one bridge/director tower after its 1927 refit (unlike the two on the sculpt). It had two cage masts before its refit, but at the time the funnel structure was close to the forward mast not attached to the rear one as in the sculpt.
-
@CWO:
What class is the U.S. battleship supposed to represent? It seems to have a total of ten main guns: a two-gun turret superimposed over a three-gun turret forward, and the same thing aft. This was the main gun layout for the British KGV class and for the U.S. Nevada class, but the Nevada class only had one bridge/director tower after its 1927 refit (unlike the two on the sculpt). It had two cage masts before its refit, but at the time the funnel structure was close to the forward mast not attached to the rear one as in the sculpt.
It is the Nevada Class.
-
King George Class Battleship had only 3 turrets with a 10 gun configuration, where the Nevada had a 4 turret design.
-
@CWO:
What class is the U.S. battleship supposed to represent? It seems to have a total of ten main guns: a two-gun turret superimposed over a three-gun turret forward, and the same thing aft. This was the main gun layout for the British KGV class and for the U.S. Nevada class, but the Nevada class only had one bridge/director tower after its 1927 refit (unlike the two on the sculpt). It had two cage masts before its refit, but at the time the funnel structure was close to the forward mast not attached to the rear one as in the sculpt.
Take a close look at the photos. The battleship piece is actually backwards with the aft closer to the camera and the bow pointing away from the camera. So the funnel is close to the forward mast, not the rear. I don’t know about the bridge/director tower.
Thanks for the closeups Coach. Isn’t FMG doing the Pennsylvania class (which also includes the Arizona)? It iwll be cool having two classes of older US battleships.
Now if we could get someone to do the South Dakota and North Carolina classes, we will have representatives of all US battleship classes used in the war.
-
@CWO:
What class is the U.S. battleship supposed to represent? It seems to have a total of ten main guns: a two-gun turret superimposed over a three-gun turret forward, and the same thing aft. This was the main gun layout for the British KGV class and for the U.S. Nevada class, but the Nevada class only had one bridge/director tower after its 1927 refit (unlike the two on the sculpt). It had two cage masts before its refit, but at the time the funnel structure was close to the forward mast not attached to the rear one as in the sculpt.
Take a close look at the photos. The battleship piece is actually backwards with the aft closer to the camera and the bow pointing away from the camera. So the funnel is close to the forward mast, not the rear. I don’t know about the bridge/director tower.
Thanks for the closeups Coach. Isn’t FMG doing the Pennsylvania class (which also includes the Arizona)? It iwll be cool having two classes of older US battleships.
Now if we could get someone to do the South Dakota and North Carolina classes, we will have representatives of all US battleship classes used in the war.
I will do the South Dakota Class on my next US mold!
-
Hey Coach, received notice my Marines are on the way to Enid, thank you. IDEA: :-D :-D :-D Question have you considered for additional USN ships in the future doing the Washington Class 9 x 16 inch guns 2 ships, The Colorado Class 8 x 16 inch guns 3 ships, Idaho Class 12 x 14 inch guns 3 ships and last but not least the New York Class 12 x 14 inch ie USS Texas only WWI Dreadnought still intact berthed at Laporte, Texas 2 ships, or the BB Arkansas 12 x 12 inch guns 2 ships. Then we would have every USN class of battleship that was engaged in WWII.
? -
I do not plan on doing that many Battleships.
Early war
OOB
Late war….“Montana Class”Depending on sales…who knows!!!
-
@coachofmany:
I do not plan on doing that many Battleships.
Early war
OOB
Late war….“Montana Class”Depending on sales…who knows!!!
Oh Wow! The Montana class would be SOOO COOL! That could be a US Super Battleship to match up with the Yamato. You know, Germany and Russia also had plans for big Super Battleships which never got finished too. For Germany, it was the “H” type battleship. The first one was unofficially named either Friedrich der Grosse or Hindenburg. For Russia, it was the Sovyetskiy Soyuz.
I know this is WAY ahead of schedule, but perhaps you could do tiny sculpts of these monster battleships in future German and Russian supplement sets. I know a lot of players like to include Yamato type Super Battleships in their games. It would be cool to have pieces to represent them and since these types usually have limited builds, nobody would probably need too many of them. Well, unless they are piece junkies like me. -
Another AA piece junkie, excellent. Coach mine was a suggestion, Montana Class will be an excellent choice for taking on the IJN Yamato Class Do what you plan to do and expect lots of sales of these custom sets in the future. Question are you eventually going to sell pieces from your custom sets or are you just going to sell them in the sets?
-
My dad was a Navy man, so I love Naval pieces. I believe that the US and Japan should have many different Naval pieces.
I need to sell pieces to continue to make the sets I am currently making but if enough people were interested, I could do a pre-order for US Naval/Air set and once there was enough interest, i could do the set along side the others.
Examples would be:Montana Class Heavy Battleship
South Dakota and or North Carolina class BB
Essex class and or Midway class Heavy Carrier
Tennessee Class battleship
Colorado Class battleship
LCM
LST
B-29 heavy Bomber
Seaplane Tender
oilerWhat do you think?
-
“Coach”,
I’m in, definately! I think a LOT of people would buy these additional naval units.
Also, I would like to suggest that you and/or your associates look into designing an entire A&A NAVAL game. I would really like to see a game that wasn’t restricted to a set strategy or tactical movement such as the battle of Midway. A game that would be much more “universal” in it’s offerring of many strategies/plans to win and would be so large in sea area would make it possible(even necesary) for several smaller battles to occur all over the map. I imagine it would help sales of these additional naval units too. Don’t forget about seaplane tenders and PBYs (or their enemy equivilents).
I seriously hope you’ll spend some “gray matter” on developing a NAVAL A&A game for all of us to enjoy. It would be so differrent to have a game that the main focus was in building a navy to fight an enemy navy rather than just as an adjunct to assisting the “land campaign”. Please consider it.
What does everyone else think about a Naval A&A game?
p.s.-my US Marines arrived and look GREAT! your delivery speed is as always to be commended.
“Tall Paul”****
Suggested Topics
