HBG US Sculpts

It makes sense, to me at least.

Also from a collecting standpoint, I think even a good set of Generics or Generics by side can be desirable. It was rather novel for example in 1941 how the sets were done, because many people have uses for certain units in certain colors which might not come standard in other national sets. For special forces units, or a lend lease feel, or to include minor nations somewhere. In the same way that some people enjoy getting their hands on Lime Green Brits, or the nice cool Grey germans from Revised, because they have a color scheme that works for whatever purpose; similarly, the units from 1941, because they are generics, could potentially be included in other scenarios.  Basically 41 gives you an incentive to pick it up just to grab a few of those special units for the arsenal in a nice color spread. The Japanese Tigers for example, or the nice Warhawks.

What you are discussing with ships is exactly on point. The sort of confusion that arises between cruisers destroyers and the like, because of the shapes/sizes used by different nations for the same basic type. I think you could do a lot just with size on the length dimension.

If for example all destroyers were exactly the same length, and there was a reasonable spread between the length of the types. For example, start with the cheapest combat capable units and develop some exact ratio that is consistent for all nations.

So, using normal A&A size units, maybe something like…

Subs are 1 inch
Destroyers 1 inch and a third
Cruisers 1 inch and two thirds
Carriers 2 inches
Battleships 2 inches, since its fairly easy to distinguish between the carrier and battleship by shape.

So the sub is the baseline (whatever its length is determined to be) and all other warships build off that.
Sub x 1, x 1.333, x 1.666, x 2 etc to keep it all visually simple and immediately recognizable.

Or in the case of micro, you could make the base sub length smaller by 25% or 33% or whatever seems to make it feel visibly more micro, when compared with the normal scale A&A. With the ships listed above, plugged into set length ratios by type, I think it would be pretty easy to tell them apart, whether generic or national in shape. I do agree, squared vs rounded is very important for differentiation of units (more than width in many cases) so I would try to use that to differentiate if I could. Likewise height features also help to differentiate units provided they are markedly different.

That just leaves you with the Transport unit, which should be generic for all players, and (critically!) should be able to “seat” any land unit capable of being transported. In other words the ship should break relative scale to be more in line with the land units it transports rather than other ships. Because this requires a flat topped transport (no smoke stacks!) I would suggest a very different visual shape from the carrier deck. So elliptical transports and squared carriers for example. The transport should likewise have a well balanced and flat bottom so that it “slides” easily with units aboard, or stacks well atop a chip in the case of large unloaded transport stacks. The Transport unit is highly abstract to begin with, and so I think its sculpt should be more functional rather than decorative.

Carriers, Transports, or any unit on which another unit can can be loaded or “parked”, should have a good center of gravity, flat bottom, and no wobble. Likewise, any unit which can rest on other units should have a good center of gravity and a flat bottom to minimize wobble while atop the other unit.

It would be nice for example if units like Mech, or Artillery were designed to sit more snugly on top, or alongside of units they are paired with. I think micro has the potential to do this, and provides a nice opportunity, since you’d have smaller infantry and fighters etc, but by introducing a really strong relative scale by ship type, you could still have pretty large Carriers and Transports. I think that with Tanks, as long as they were paired exactly by size, you could probably find a nice way to scale it using Nationals. But I do agree that if you wanted to do generic by side, the models knp mentioned sound pretty solid to me. I think I’d be happy with those.

The only unit that seems to really call out for Nationals is infantry, but this also has to do with how large the infantry currently are. At a smaller size helmet differentiation becomes a little less significant, and that is the main distinguishing characteristic of infantry. If you did do generic by side even for infantry, I think I would more readily accept German helmets on the Japanese, than I would all the same helmets for the Allies. You have to go down pretty small before the differences become negligible, I’d say something along the lines of the 40th anniversary Risk units, before people wouldn’t be all sad that the Brits and Americans and Russians look too similar with their helmets.

@GoSanchez6:

I know you guys are busy and this question was bound to get asked so here goes. Larry’s WW1 game in my opinion needs some updated pieces how far on the depth chart would these be if they are even on it. I know I am getting greedy any info would be good. Keep up the good work guys it shows.

Thanks
Dave

I agree that the new WW1 game falls short in many ways and also that IL is talking about a new WW1 game in development that will add many units left out by WOTC. We are evaluating to see where we can fill in fro both games. We may do a set for WW! Neutral but with French pieces since a lot of nations used them. I will start a thread to see if there is any interest.

Had a few questions regarding this game.

It says AA guns, supplies and trains are destroyed if targeted by SBR and hit. Was curious if 1 hit destroys all supplies/AA guns/or trains in a targeted zone or just 1 of them? The way it describes them in plural terms throws me off.

What happens when multiple generals meet in battle? For example 2 Russian generals meet 2 German generals in a battle, do you add their skill levels and roll ? Or do u only use the highest skill level and roll? And how is it decided which attribute is used or is the winner of roll able to use multiple attributes?

What are considered vehicles? For times when vehicles get a modifier to their roll. I was thinking vehicles would be all armor, mechs, SP artillery, and maybe tank destroyers but wasn’t sure. I figured SS grenadiers would be considered infantry since their counterparts for Russia are Guard Rifles.

I understand that all units being used for combat are moved in the combat move phase and then all units can be moved in the non combat phase, even those used in combat. However it specifically mentions aircraft are able to move up to their move limit during combat move and then must land in a tt that has been friendly since beginning of the turn. My question is : Are aircraft able to move in the combat move phase even if they aren’t going into combat and then land in the non-combat phase and if so do they need a supply to be used each time like other units?

I wasn’t sure about this since it seemed strange that aircraft could move their limit in combat move and then again in non combat move, but only if they are going into combat.

Any help or info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I was refering to fitting them into G40. � I need to pick up G39 from HBG.

Forgot to add that that during setup, the German units in Hungary and Romania should be switched to minors.

The controlling axis players may purchase only their own units in the purchase phase, if they wish.  They can decide in the Place New Units Phase which ones the minors will get.

As an afterthought, Hungary and Romania were larger contributers.  Maybe they can build 2 units per turn as long as at least one is an infantry.

And for the rule lawyers:  If the minor is building in a factory outside its home territory, their home territory must have been friendly at the start of the player turn. � I.e. , no building Bulgarian units in Romania if Bulgaria is held by the allies. Bessarabia and Vyborg do not count as home territories of Romania and Finland for this rule.

Thanks for the kind words guys.  :-)

The website says:
“They will be done in 2 colors, Burnt orange to match the Out of Box color and Yellow Gold for veteran pieces.”
I would like to see a third color if possible – ROSE for Siam/Thailand units.

So say we all.
:-D

just got my olive marines, and i got to say that they are really  close to oob i am very happy with the product. thanks again Coach

Hey All,

Our group has gotten a chance to play several rounds of this game now and I have to say that this a GREAT GAME!!  In soo many of the games Italy gets a pretty glossed over look, whether you talk about Italy as a power or just that section of the map, but here, now, finally we have a game that really shows the scope, scale, and desperation that not only the Allies fought for, but that the Axis did as well, determined to keep Italy from being the ‘soft-underbelly’.  Special units, from Tigers to the dreaded Fallschirmjager and the good old American Airborne all are pitted together in a desperate struggle for Italy.

We are working on a bit more detailed review to share here, but we quite enjoyed it.  It blends the classic AA style with special units, territory details, and supply correlation at a scale that is useful for it (read- makes sense) and works for play.  Patton or Smiling Albert, bring on the FMG Italy units and Italy is the battle ground!