Next Nation to sculpt at HBG

What I would like is a package of poker chips (compatible with existing A&A versions) to use with 1914. I find that there simply isn’t room on the board for all the different stacks for each army, especially on the crowded western front.

So I just give each nation a single stack of chips with the required infantry unit on top.

The system I use is:

grey/white = infantry
red = artillery
green - tanks
blue = fighters

Additional colours might be reserved for new units vis:

black = bombers
yellow = cavalry

A nice touch would be for each colour to be embossed with the appropriate unit type.

Equivalent pieces for ships aren’t as important but maybe double sided chips for naval units?

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.

@Yavid:

nations with an “old bb” piece from HBG I’ve replaced improved mech inf. tech with heavy battleship tech. HBG become the standard BB and used at set up and can be purchased until you get the tech. After you get the tech you can buy the OOB battleships as heavy battleships. These Heavy Battleships are 4/4/2/20 units just like standard but take 3 hits to sink and roll two dice in combat taking the best roll and using it.

Interesting idea, though I’m not sure if I want to make it a “tech” thing, especially since all the nations had new BB’s already in production before the war started.  I’d be more inclined to make it a “tech” ability to create a TRUE SBB along the lines of Yamato, Montana or H-class (and perhaps Sovietsky Soyuz, and, perhaps even more arguably Iowa, Vanguard and Lion), of which the Yamato is the only one we’re likely to have a piece for any time soon (and of which only the Yamato was ever actually built)… I might try something along these lines, along with maybe a “super-cruiser” and/or “super-carrier” tech if and when I ever decide to try using some of my painted NAVWAR or Panzerschiffe pieces on a very big map like GW1939… but I don’t see the likelihood of having AA-scale pieces of any of the other true SBB’s any time soon.

Another idea: perhaps old BB’s could be a 3/4/2 unit or a 4/3/2 unit; the rationale here is that the “real world” speed difference may not be enough to make a difference in the category of strategic mobility (which is what speed really represents in game terms, and most especially on the smaller board versions) but rather that the old/new speed difference should be understood as more an issue of “tactical” mobility which could put old BB’s in a combat disadvantage on either defense or offense?  If so, though, in which of the two would the lack of tactical mobility be more important?  I’m leaning toward it being a bigger disadvantage on offense, but I’d be interested in hearing other opinions.

In any case, keep in mind, for all of you out there who plan to use some sort of “old BB” house rules, that classic BB pieces are about perfect for this while we’re waiting for HBG to get to all of the nations’ version of one.  Similarly, the classic version’s carriers are almost perfect for generic CVE’s.  Variable or Coach, do you guys have classic pieces available for these two unit types for most of the relevant nations for those who don’t have oodles of them lying around?

Sorry guys,

I think I misunderstood the question. I meant that G40 had enough different unit types to cover the units in the game. But you are correct Empireman, pieces would need to be painted to have enough colors. Or, you could buy some other colored pieces. Playable powers are France, UK, Russia, Italy, Serbia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Japan, USA, China, ANZAC. Serbia and China have no Air or Naval ability.

Those are bleachers (houses) from NFL Monopoly. I glued short dowels to the back and painted them brick red to use as minor factories.

I bought the same types of pieces from Rolco a few years ago:

http://www.rolcogames.com/search.php?runsearch=true&catid=14

They are indeed a bit big, but they look good.  The tanks and subs are clones of pieces that were originally designed for the Supremacy board game.  I also bought some of the Rolco rocket pieces in white: laid on their sides rather than vertically, they make pretty good atomic bomb pieces.

i voted Kursk, but stalingrad, north africa and Market Garden would be cool either