Neutral Set

Had to bump this. I’m looking forward to this set.

thanks for the update you guys are the best. Can I ask what set is after UK?

@Variable:

LHoffman-

Feel free to use the stickied HBG thread for this. I think it’s a good place. We read it daily.

Ah, did not know that was its purpose… thank you Variable.

it would be really funny to see them putting training wheels on the Bicycles just so the molds stand up on there own.

Well, I still like the Crusader, although I know it was more on the side of a light to medium tank.  I’m not as familiar with the Cromwell, though I do know it was more comparible with the Sherman and other medium tanks.
The Churchill was heavy in terms of armor and size, but I thought the gun was somewhat underpowered.  Now that I think about it, not really sure what caliber gun the Churchill had.
Perhaps HBG could make the Crusader in his British supplement set as a light tank, like his M-3 Stuart in the US set (those look great by the way).

If you’re going for Amerika Bombers, why not also consider the HE277, JU-390 (ooo, six engined), or the TA-400.  Also, the HE-274 would be appropriate.

I had someone paint my Chinese but pulled the project and started painting them myself. They painted the Chinese Communist with Black Uniforms, I left them but they should be a blue.

Yes, communist uniform was dark blue and sometimes the pant was dark gray.
Nationalist uniform was light beige and dark tan for the officers.

Photo 1 = Nationalist http://www.mediafire.com/?rlwtnmgykwj
Photo 2 = Communist http://www.mediafire.com/?4nyqvzdgjmz

if neutrals are building infantry and such, then we go back to who gets to decide that?  if they are neutral they we can’t say the other side, because both sides are the other side.  if we give neutrals a standing army, and a military growth chart that sets how they grow each round or so, but deciding what Spain or Saudi Arabia could build is gonna be a big argument in game by the two sides and really isn’t going to be worth playing with, unless we made all the neutrals a standing 7th player and let them work together the whole game, but that’s so far from history…

–if we give neutrals a standing army, then to declare war I would think shouldn’t need to cost anything, as they have to fight enemy troops and there is a cost to that. 
–if we don’t give them a standing army, then yes, there should be a cost to declaring war, whether in dice, or that they have to move the number of units equal to the value of the territory in, or that the other side gets to roll equal number of dice to the value of the territory, then divide in half, round up to take the economic toll.  in some way should be a cost, beyond the classic 3IPC cost.
–if it is just diplomatic, then the cost of the dice work for that.