I’ve got Memoir '44 but only played it twice, not my cup of tea really. I should sell it on eBay I guess.
Effect of the latest round of AH releases on the ongoing HBG/ FMG pieces project
-
I will respond to how I feel about the new sculpts after I recive mine on Tuesday.
WARRIOR888
-
Dr Larsen,
Man, you sound kind of harsh on WOTC.Not trying to be harsh, just objective. Many WotC mistakes are just silly and unnecessary. I mean, think about it, if a little “mom-and-pop-shop” like HBG can avoid making mistakes like making an infantryman 2-3 sizes too big, what possible excuse does a giant like WotC have?
-
I am not complaining about WOTC they seem to have gotten the message that we love the pieces and it is a BIG reason why we buy these games when they come out with new sculpts. However I still think HBG and FMG’s are better. We need them to start making AAA’s now to supplement our sets we have been buying from them. Keep up the good work HBG and FMG looking forward to the new sets.
-
Dr Larsen,
Man, you sound kind of harsh on WOTC.Not trying to be harsh, just objective. Many WotC mistakes are just silly and unnecessary. I mean, think about it, if a little “mom-and-pop-shop” like HBG can avoid making mistakes like making an infantryman 2-3 sizes too big, what possible excuse does a giant like WotC have?
Acutally I think you hit the nail on the head as for the reasons for WOTC’s game/piece errors as compared to HBG. The fact that HBG is a relatively small business means he is more closely connected to all of us gamers (and is one himself) so he will take the time to make his pieces just right and clean up any mistakes right away.
WOTC/Avalon Hill on the other hand, being so big I imagine they simply have too many things going on so certain details get missed. The big guys will line up certain projects and say “Push this through” then it gets handed off to “worker drones” to get it done. Many of these people may not even care for the games like we do, and may not even know much about history so they wouldn’t even know if they were making any mistakes even if they did care about it. As for the big guys on top, while I imagine they want to please their customer base to some extent, let’s face it; it’s mostly about making the bucks for them. -
Acutally I think you hit the nail on the head as for the reasons for WOTC’s game/piece errors as compared to HBG. The fact that HBG is a relatively small business means he is more closely connected to all of us gamers (and is one himself) so he will take the time to make his pieces just right and clean up any mistakes right away. WOTC/Avalon Hill on the other hand, being so big I imagine they simply have too many things going on so certain details get missed.
Some companies understand user satisfaction even when they’re big ones. When Japanese auto manufacturers first got into the US market in a big way and shocked Detroit by becoming such successful competitors to the Big Three, someone interviewed a Japanese auto executive and asked him what his company’s secret was. He answered, “It’s very simple. You build a quality product, you sell it at a reasonable price, and you treat your customers nicely when they buy it. It’s not complicated.”
-
Gentlemen as stated here is my take on the AA 1940 Pacific second Edition Units.
ANZAC:
Destroyer Tribal excellent choice.
Heavy Cruiser Kent class HMAS Australia was actually one of this class. Good Choice.
HMS Warspite for a Battleship bad choice. 4 Royal Sovereigns would have been more acceptable seeing they were actually used in the Indian Ocean at the same time the Japanese attacked Ceylon. I am taking my Warspites and putting them into my Royal Navy and replacing them with Royal Sovereigns.
Canadian APC? Only reason I can think it was choosen it because of its name of Kangaroo.
Sentinel tank, different but does anyone recall them actually using them in combat???
Fighter and bomber and do not know much about them, but they are different. P-40 War Hawk would have been my choice for a fighter.
Aircraft carrier is unique but was not actually launched till after the war was over. I do like since it gives a different carrier to the ANZACs.
Transport is excellent choice.
40mm AA is a good choice. This unit was used by just about all Common Wealth Forces worldwide.
ANZAC Infantry, they blew it. My Hawsagawa and AirAFix 1/72nd men will replace these guys. Maybe I will convert them to a 1776 war game. I will not use them for AA.
Atillery: 5.5 inch Howitzer a good choice, I know the UK used them after D-Day but before???Japanese:
AH Wizards really missed a good chance to improve all these units.
Battleship Yamato, just how many do we really need? They could easily replaced it with a Fuso or Mutsu class sculpt, but alas they stuck with a Yamato. I have so many I am converting them to all kinds of IJN Never Where ships such as B-64 Battle Cruisers, A-150 and A-140 Super Yamato’s and a catarmaran BB/dual CV combo.
Cruiser another missed Chance, they should have re-worked this exsisting one into a Mogami or Nachi Class Heavy Cruiser.
Artillery: Should have been upgraded to a IJA 105mm Howitzer.
Tank should have replaced with a medium Tank.
Transport this should have been converted to the new one from new mini AA game.
Bomber Betty should have bee replaced with a Nell.
Zero, sclupt could have added more detail to.
Dive Bomber, I would have added more detail.
Sub could have been changed to a different I- Class boat.
Infantry: Could have been re-sculpted into a charging unit.
AA Gun is cool and so is the IJA Halftrack. German SDKFZ 251 just never did fit the IJA. Should have been replaced along time ago.USA
Battleship Iowa, Too many Iowas, This should have been converted to an earlier war Battleship such as the Washington or South Dakota Class.
Carrier: Wasp should have been replaced by a Essex Class or Yorktown class.
Cruiser, A Baltimore Heavy Cruiser Class or Cleveland Light Cruiser would have been great.
Destroyer, Fletcher class.
Transport, No change.
Submarine, No Change.
Fighter should have been a Hellcat or P-40.
TBF Avenger, No Change.
Bomber, B-17 no Change.
Tank, M4-Lee instead of that ugly new stlye Sherman. If they wanted to use a Sherman should have used the one from the original AA Pacific 1940. The new Sherman is just Ugly. Going to get rid of them and use the older AA Shermans and my Davco’s instead.
AA 90mm Excellent Choice.
M-3 halftrack perfect.
Infantry no change.UK
Battleship Royal Sovereign should have been replaced by a Prince of Wales or the Warspite.
Carrier: How many Illustrious does one need? an actual Ark Royal would have been perfect.
Cruiser, No Change
Destroyer, excellent choice.
Transport, no Change.
Infantry, coverted to Gurkas would have bee perfect.
Tank, a Crusader or M-3 Grant would have been my choice.
Fighter, I would have converted to a Hawker Hurricane.
Bomber, convert to UK bomber from new mini AA game.
APC, Looks like they took a 105 Priest and dis-armed it. Kinda wierd but they did use them.
Artillery, 25 Lb Field gun excellent choice.
AA gun, perfect.
Tac Bomber, no Change.One new unit they could have added would have been nation specific trucks used for supply and troop movements.
Plastic Factories, Airbases and Naval Bases I would have added back in. Cardboard never did cut it for me.
For the price AH is charging retail this game, these should have been in the mix. -
Gentlemen as stated here is my take on the AA 1940 Pacific second Edition Units.
Thanks for the analysis. For many of the Japanese, British and American units, your verdict essentially seems to be that WotC has been using the same equipment models and classes for too long, that people who’ve been buying the games since the early days are now heavily overstocked with units of those types, that some of the models and classes used were bad choices to begin with (like the Wasp-type carrier), and therefore that WotC should introduce some variety by switching to new models and classes. It would be nice if they did so (I’d find it hard to argue otherwise, since I’ve lost count of how many Wasp carriers I have in my collection), though I’d be surprised if they did. The 1941 game did bring in some nice variety, but with some oddities of its own (like those British and American IS-2 Russian tanks), and it didn’t seem to affect the pieces used later in 1942(2) and Global 1940(2).
I was intrigued by your reference to a new Sherman in 1940(2). How substantially did it change from the earlier versions? Over the years, the Sherman has changed in minor details from game to game – such as the shape of the turret, the shape of the hatch on top of the turret and the positioning of the turret on the hull – but the basic design has remained fairly constant. Perhaps I’ve missed something about the latest one.
-
CWO Marc,
The Shermans I received in my new game have non-standard turrents. They are grossly de-formed.
It looks like a mold issue or they did it on purpose. The are molded with the heavy part of the turrent on top and the small part close to the hull. It looks like in the process they got the tank turrent mold upside down. -
The Shermans I received in my new game have non-standard turrents. They are grossly de-formed.
It looks like a mold issue or they did it on purpose. The are molded with the heavy part of the turrent on top and the small part close to the hull. It looks like in the process they got the tank turrent mold upside down.Interesting. I’ll look at my new pieces at home tonight to see if they have the same problem.
-
I was lucky enough to buy 3 copies of Europe 40 2nd edition for just 45 dollars a copy. woaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! :evil:
Suggested Topics
