It seems kind of weird to me that they are using the older sculpts from 1940 and previous games. (Excluding the new ones of course)
For some reason, I just assumed they would use the 1941 sculpts in any new games, or at least the ones that were correct for each country (Germany=Tiger tank, Japan=Kongo Battlecruiser, UK=Hood Battlecruiser, etc.)
So, 1941 is kind of a “stand alone” game and not a part of the Axis & Allies succession of games? Here’s the way I see it:
First was Europe (1999), Pacific (2001) and Revised. These kind of set the rules and sculpts for future games. However, UK had Sherman tanks and Germany had tiny Stukas for fighters. Also, the German Panthers underwent a number of variations.
Then a few small level games: D-Day, Guadalcanal and Battle of the Bulge. While rules for these games were pretty different, the sculpts pretty much stayed the same.
Next came Anniversary which gave us a number of new sculpts: UK Matilda tanks, German Me109 fighters, New Cruisers for all countries (except Russia which used the UK version), Italian Infantry and Tanks and Chinese Infantry. Unfortunately, the rest of the Italian stuff was German and Japanese sculpts in brown. Also, most of the sculpts were very poor quality.
Next came Spring 1942 which was basically an updated Revised. With this game they vastly improved the sculpts and seemed to settle on a final color for England, Germany and Russia. Also, Russia got their own Battleship, Cruiser and Destroyer.
Next came the 1940 games which gave us Tactical (Dive) Bombers and Mechanized Infantry (Halftracks). Italy was represented again, but sadly now only their infantry was unique. Also we got ANZAC which is represented by British units in a steel grey color and France which is represented (except for the French Infantry) by Soviet units in blue. Of course, the 1940 games also include much more complex rules for play and are much bigger than any previous A&A game.
Next comes 1941 with totally different and simple rules and ALL NEW SCULPTS, although each country on the same side share the same sculpts.
Now we have 1942 2nd Edition which has basically the same sculpts as in previous games with a few new changes: UK gets their own artillery, destroyer and sub, Russia gets their own sub and Germany gets a new artillery that is a true field artillery. Plus, the new AA Artillery pieces to add flavor. However, in spite of the new sculpts, it seems to go back to previous versions. It’s almost like 1941 is somehow separated from the rest.
Do you see what I mean?
I have to say I was surprised that they didn’t use the new sculpts from 41 in this one. (Tiger and Js2) I thought these would become the new units provided in all of these games.
Yes it’s weird about those Tiger Tanks. Maybe they’ll show up again in the E&P 1940 reprints?
Do you see what I mean?
Yes, I was thinking about this too last weekend. One way of looking at it would be to see the A&A games as falling in three different evolutionary streams.
The main evolutionary line is the one for the global-scope games that start in the spring of 1942 (chosen because it was the highwater mark of Axis expansion). The games in that stream are the Classic (Milton Bradley) version, the Revised edition from 2004, the first edition of Spring 1942 from 2009, and now the second edition of Spring 1942 from this year.
The second evolutionary line is the one for the regional-scope games which start at a date other than the spring of 1942. The original Europe game (which starts in mid-1941) and the original Pacific game (which starts in late 1941) were the first ones in that stream, followed by D-Day, Battle of the Bulge and Guadalcanal, then by the first edition of Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and now by the second edition of both those games.
The third – and strangest – evolutionary line is the one for the global-scope games which start in 1941, of which there have only been two so far: the Anniversary Edition, and now the new 1941 game. It’s striking that both games have essentially the same box cover artwork. It’s as if Anniversary was conceived as a souped-up version of the basic global game, while the new 1941 game was conceived as a stripped-down version of the basic global game…one which combines elements of Anniversary (the date and the box art) with elements of Classic (a simple map and a partial move back towards Classic’s use of identical sculpt sets for all countries).
The second paragraph of Larry’s designer notes in the 1942 2nd ed rulebook seems to reflect those three evolutionary streams. The end product of the main evolutionary line is the one he describes as being “front and center in the family portrait.” The two end products of the second stream are the one he describes as being “on the right”, and the end product of the third stream is the one he describes as being “on the left”. I’d say the third stream is the oddball side of the family line, highlighted by the fact that the new 1941 game has a completely distinct set of sculpts. But as Lozmoid has just said, it’ll be interesting to see where the sculpts in the 2nd ed of Global 1940 will fit into all of this.
hi guys.
My first post in this forum :)
its quite easy why they didnt use the new sculpts from AAA 1941 in this game:
they want you to buy both games!
no AAA player would buy the beginner version if he has the same sculpts somewhere else.
but everyone loves tiger tanks… as i do… thats why i already ordered two copys of the beginner version.
BTW: The german transport in the sculpt identification table is spelled wrong: the right name would be Hilfskreuzer not Hilfskruezer (i think they just switched the letters).
Since I am a miniatures addict :-D, I probably won’t be playing these new A&A games but I will be using all the new units for sure with Global War 1939 :-). And with all the new units coming from HBG and hopefully FMG, the choices will be insane :evil:. So far I am planning to buy one 1941 and two new 1942 games :wink:.
My 2¢
J. 8-)
Since I am a miniatures addict :-D, I probably won’t be playing these new A&A games but I will be using all the new units for sure with Global War 1939 :-). And with all the new units coming from HBG and hopefully FMG, the choices will be insane :evil:. So far I am planning to buy one 1941 and two new 1942 games :wink:.
My 2¢
J. 8-)
Funny thing I agree with you but I’m planning on 2 of the '41 games and maybe 2 of the '42 but most likely 1. With the same piece count in '41 the second one is just to get a full 300+ pieces you get from basically every other game.
To me it seems '41 has the more interesting new sculpts. Very disappointed '42 is not getting those as well.
Since I am a miniatures addictÂ
“Piece junkie” is another term used for such folks (a group that includes me).
Me too. I need to see how much work I need to do before I paint them.
WHERE ARE THE PICS???!!!
Me too. I need to see how much work I need to do before I paint them.
WHERE ARE THE PICS???!!!
Variable’s photos of the AAA units are available here:
Already saw those. I want the other pieces.
Does the 25 pounder have the traversing wheel and the new ships?
Those AA cured my ADD for a day
Hey Guys,
I’ve seen a lot of people wonder about the scale of A&A pieces so I decided to check things out. Basically, I just looked the different classes up on Wikipedia, got the length in meters and converted that to millimeters, then divided that number by the length of the sculpts. I came up with a lot of very weird numbers. Obviously these pieces are not a uniform scale.
In fact, it looks like what WOTC decided to do was to make all the pieces in each class a roughly uniform size – all carriers are 64mm long, all battleships are 58-62mm long, all cruisers are 50-56mm long, etc. I think that probably makes more sense for gaming purposes. That way each class of unit fits within a certain size limit so they will be easier to recognize by gamers. If they went by actual sizes, we would end up with some battleships being larger than carriers, some cruisers being larger than battleships and so on. In fact, the Gangut class Soviet battleship is shorter than the cruisers of all five nations in real life.
Here’s what I came up with for the US units:
USS Wasp Carrier – 1/3530
USS Iowa Battleship – 1/4433
USS Portland Cruiser – 1/3720
USS Johnston Destroyer – 1/2442
USS Ray Submarine – 1/2066
Liberty Transport Ship – 1/2990
B-17 Flying Fortress – 1/687
P-38 Lightning fighter – 1/577
M4 Sherman Tank – 1/265
In fact, it looks like what WOTC decided to do was to make all the pieces in each class a roughly uniform size – all carriers are 64mm long, all battleships are 58-62mm long, all cruisers are 50-56mm long, etc. I think that probably makes more sense for gaming purposes. That way each class of unit fits within a certain size limit so they will be easier to recognize by gamers. If they went by actual sizes, we would end up with some battleships being larger than carriers, some cruisers being larger than battleships and so on.
Yes, an example of that being the three types of aircraft in Global. The strategic bombers are all large, the fighters are all small, and the tac bombers all about midway between the two other types of units. The size variations between groups of planes and ships tends to be greater than the size variations within each group. For gaming purposes, the size-based visual cue about a unit’s general type is a useful thing to have. If I’m not mistaken, by the way, all the destroyer sculpts ever used in A&A games have had transom sterns, which is another instance of a useful visual cue.
A little more on scale.
The numbers I got for other countries’ units were just as odd and none seemed to match up on the same scale. The carriers for Germany and Japan were bigger than the US and British models so their scale was much smaller (USA = 1/3530, UK = 1/3542, Germany = 1/4102, Japan = 1/4156).
It would therefore be almost impossible to come up with some sort of “average” scale. Another example for Battleships: the USS Iowa (1/4433) and Yamato (1/4458) are close, but then you have the HMS Royal Oak (1/3259) and the Gangut (1/2970). The Bismarck sort of rides the middle (1/4048).
Even the tanks had a wide variety for their comparative scale:
US Sherman = 1/265
UK Matilda II = 1/286
Soviet T-34 = 1/304
German Panther = 1/289
Japanese Type 95 = 1/231
While it’s been suggested that 1/285 scale (from GHQ) is the scale for A&A, while some are close others are quite far off. So while 1/285 would probably be close enough for most, if someone were really particular it wouldn’t be accurate. A 1/285 scale T-34 would be quite a bit bigger than it’s A&A sculpt. A 1/285 Type 95 would be significantly smaller.
So, if someone asks me what scale A&A pieces are, I guess I have to say “I don’t know”.
There are other threads that have looked at this topic, by the way, for example:
