Next Sets from Historical Board Gaming

@CWO-Marc
Thanks for your thoughts. I intend to revise the top posts for this and the other two “expansion posts” sometime this weekend, I now have some food for thought.

Thanks again!

-Midnight_Reaper

@Tall:

“Coach”,

––As far as the Island Warfare set in your Global Warfare-1939 series sets goes,….Do you have plans for making,…or could you PLEASE include an APD Attack Transport? These were the WW1 era 4-piper Destroyers that were rebuilt into Attack Transports for the Marine Raiders and other units. The Japanese also had simular Attack Transports and both were seen starting in the Guadalcanal campaign.
––My Marine Raiders are anxiously awaiting their rides into battle.

––I’m including a drawing & some pics, below.

“Tall Paul”

100400114.jpg
ban_apd009dent.jpg

@Imperious:

I prefer this:

Infantry 6
Artillery 3
Mechanized Infantry 3
Tanks 3

Fighter 3
Tactical Bomber 2
Bomber 1

Transport 2
Submarine 2
Destroyer 2
Cruiser 1
Battleship 1
Carrier 1

Trucks 2

TOTAL = 32 pieces set

I really like your numbers IL. This would provide a much better ratio of more common units (infantry, tanks, fighters) to less common units (capital ships, bombers). Even more so than FMG’s current set. For example: With FMG’s sets, you only get 12 tanks per 6 Carriers. With your proposed numbers, you could buy 4 sets, get 12 tanks but only 4 Carriers.

“Build” is misspelled in the Russian box.  Just in case it got missed and/or has not gone to print yet.

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).

Well, relative to the tanks, if we were looking for an objective, uniform scale it would be a bit big, I think, but since that isn’t our goal, I think it’s fine.

I’d be fine with the WF colors, too, if they had a complete piece set.

As it is, I still might find several of their models useful for “special unit” upgrades (like how the original AAP used dark green for USMC)

But what I’d really like to see is a cool array of options for ships, especially the marquis ones, the BB’s & CV’s (and even the CA’s).  I’d definitely spend some money on that. I already have… but my Panzerschiffe plastics and 1/3000 metals are still just too big.  I even tried some 1/6000 metals, but they were too small.  If FMG or WF or TT made some of these, I’d be all over that!  You could maybe sell them by the piece; I don’t know if you could make the ROI come together on such a radically different sort of project, but I’d easily spend the same per piece that Panzerschiffe, Navwar, & Skytrex are charging per piece to get models that are much closer to AA scale (and AA colors, though I’d willingly take the time to paint them if necessary)…

Idk, just thinking aloud, here, but maybe this is an opportunity?

I have been considering this question privately for some time too.  My own particular anoyance is that islands are completely surrounded by a single sea zone.  I think many islands should have more than one sea zone touching them.  For examnple, I think the Phillipine Islands should at least have an Asian side and a Pacific Ocean side.  I think Japan should have one sea zone with Korea, one to the south and another to the north and east.  While we are on the subject, I also do not understand why the sea zones have to end coincident with several (most) adjacent land borders.  This forces many strategic manuvers and I would appreciate some more tactical flexibility.  However, I see that the game is very delicately balanced (at least until someone finds a real deal breaker) so such tactical choices may make the game difficult to balance.

I would be interested in a more accurate Pacific map, including the expansion of the Pacific Ocean to its true size.  The biggest problem I see is that it may become unplayable for the Japanese.  Two factors that made it tenable for them was the hidden movement (for of war) of sea forces in general, and the benefit they received from their attack on Pearl Harbour.

My copies are of the 2nd version, otherwise I wouldn’t have recommended it.

The pieces are in the primary colours: red, blue, green & yellow.

Also the board is simpler, as you get a “console” for each player to store units, reserves etc:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/82252/power?size=original

Also browsing around my collection I noticed these planes from Airways:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/525846/airways?size=medium

Just wondered if people would prefer aircraft mounted on stands like this; you could have them on a peg that slotted into the stand or into a corresponding slot on a carrier.
More expensive to produce, but gives a more imposing impression of air power.