Next Sets from Historical Board Gaming

@Imperious:

The look of the map needs to be really redone with a different aesthetic if you want to make it a success. It appears that the easy way out was taken by using that old map or rehashing an old map already made for another purpose.

Yes it is IL. Play testing it with different territory values of Russian , China and Islands.
Making Japan have to go and get and defend islands if they want any money.

@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

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

@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.

@cminke:

why not?

I’m gonna buy more painted army factions and maybe the italian set of FMG

@Tater_07:

Sounds like it could be interesting. I will have to get into miniatures and see if I like it. Thanks for the help!

My pleasure.  Something else to keep in mind is that there are additional differences between various game levels.  The higher the game level, the more the combat process is abstracted; conversely, when you go all the way down to skirmish level, the combat processes can be so finely detailed that they can involve the effects of individual weapons being fired at individual targets and inflicting specific damage on them.  Another difference is the level of command represented by the player himself.  Way up at the grand strategy level, the player basically has the role of a country’s national command authorities (the top civilian and military leadership running the war).  Down at the skirmish level, the player would probably have the role of a squad or platoon leader.

call flames of war company

is it an inlarged W@W board?