I will clarify and modify what I was trying to say. You could make it so that simply passing through the Turkish strait is seen an act of war. You don’t have to control Turkey itself in order to pass, but it IS seen as an act of war on a strict neutral. You could then place a cruiser or sub or something like that in the black sea to signify their small navy. With this method, it would be possible to move into the Black Sea and drop a small army behind enemy lines, taking a Russian territory (or two, or three).
Yes, you could make the rules exactly as you say, however it does not seem very realistic or in keeping with the game’s established convention. I mean, don’t you think the Turks would see the Germans/Italians entering the straits and have a problem with it (and therefore use all that artillery that you later mention)? I believe Turkey was known for having coastal fortifications on the straits with guns large enough to threaten ships. It just seems like the Axis could not pass through freely and then once they are finished passing through have it be seen as an act of war. Would Turkey not then close the strait and lock them in the Black Sea? I think it has to be viewed like any of the other straights in the game: to pass through your Power (or allied power) must hold the territory controlling the strait (e.g. Denmark and Gibraltar).
I’m still not sold on why this would ever become a desirable course of action, but I am all for being able to do so if you choose.
It may be true that Neutral navies were rather insignificant, but I would point out that that forum also mentions that Turkey has 37 Artillery regiments, as opposed to 66 infantry (95 including cavalry). So while maybe tanks, planes, and ships aren’t that great, artillery are still significant, yes?
Yes, I would say their artillery would be significant, or at least a significant part of their force. That being so, I think it would be more accurate to include some artillery in the activated Turkish forces. Maybe at the cost of replacing an infantry or two in the process. I personally don’t believe it would be appropriate to have 6 infantry (or 9, I forget exactly how many they get) and 4 artillery in a Neutral nation. Just seems like we are straying from simplicity and trying to be too precise.
Touche, Hoffman. I honestly don’t have anything left to argue (Turkish-Strait-related), although the idea of non-infantry neutral units still does appeal to me. And either way, I agree that it is nice to have the option open to invade neutrals is one so chooses. And if nothing else, those lovely infantry units will still make a nice replacement for the silhouettes on the board.
Touche, Hoffman. I honestly don’t have anything left to argue (Turkish-Strait-related), although the idea of non-infantry neutral units still does appeal to me. And either way, I agree that it is nice to have the option open to invade neutrals is one so chooses. And if nothing else, those lovely infantry units will still make a nice replacement for the silhouettes on the board.
Touche back at you. Good discussion.
We got way off topic, but that doesn’t matter to me; I enjoyed doing so. It is true that having unique units for Neutrals would be nicer. I think we normally use French infantry in their place because there usually aren’t many French on the board.
A little off topic methinks… but a good way to get generic neutral/HR pieces is to find an old used copy of the game “Attack!” and/or it’s expansions. I don’t care for the game but it’s chaulk full of parts all close in scale to A&A and would make great pieces for neutrals or whatever you come up with. The old Table Tactics pieces were really nice until they stopped making them, but if you can find them they’re pretty damn cool too.
I just picked up a whole bunch of pieces from HBG. Most were aircraft and ships. I bought the OD green for army units. and Dark Green for Marines. I’ll be using it in 1942.1. A suggestion for the LVT is to use it as a “Marine Tank” the HR stats will be the same as a regular tank just Marines for flavor. As for the Avenger It will be used as a fighter. IIRC I bought just a couple of the B-25s which will have same stats as a fighter in my version but two will be placed on carrier in tribute to the Doolittle Raid. I also bought extra Tiger tanks, escort carriers, Warhawks, Mustangs, Falschirmjagers, and a personal favorite…HE-111s
Here are all aircraft types together.
From left to right back row:Â Â P-38, Hellcat, HBG Corsair, HBG Fw-190, Bf-109.
Middle row:Â Â HBG P-51, OOB Zero, HBG Avenger, OOB Avenger, HBG P-40.
Front:Â Â HBG B-25 Mitchell medium bomber, OOB B-17.
An overall comparison… The B-25s are nice. The HBG Avenger is much more detailed than the OOB piece, complete with ball turret and panes of glass in the cockpit canopy. It is very barely smaller than the OOB Avenger, but that is not a bad thing; more contrast between the tactical bomber and the strategic bombers, plus it might fit on the carrier more easily.
Second picture is a different shot. The only addition being the middle plane in the back row: HBG C-46 Commando Transport plane.
Actually the OOB dive bomber is a Dauntless not an Avenger.
Here are all aircraft types together.
From left to right back row:� � P-38, Hellcat, HBG Corsair, HBG Fw-190, Bf-109.
Middle row:� � HBG P-51, OOB Zero, HBG Avenger, OOB Avenger, HBG P-40.
Front:� � HBG B-25 Mitchell medium bomber, OOB B-17.
An overall comparison… The B-25s are nice. The HBG Avenger is much more detailed than the OOB piece, complete with ball turret and panes of glass in the cockpit canopy. It is very barely smaller than the OOB Avenger, but that is not a bad thing; more contrast between the tactical bomber and the strategic bombers, plus it might fit on the carrier more easily.
Second picture is a different shot. The only addition being the middle plane in the back row: HBG C-46 Commando Transport plane.
Actually the OOB dive bomber is a Dauntless not an Avenger.
No… pretty darn sure it’s an Avenger.
Compare with the plane on the bottom carrier in the picture attached:
You can check the section here under “Tactical Bombers”: http://www.axisandallies.org/p/axis_allies_pacific_1940_pictures_and_fact_sheet/
Not sure what the rule book says because I don’t have it in front of me.
Dauntless is close, but the leading wing edge and side profile don’t match the OOB sculpt.
Yep you’re right. I can tell the difference in real-life or drawings on a larger size pic. At this scale WOTC didn’t exactly put a lot of detail in theirs. I think the HBG is much better looking. You almost can’t see the ball turret on the OOB WOTC. I just got AAP40.1 in august and could’ve sworn they have US tac bomber listed as a Dauntless in the rulebook, but hey I’ve only looked at it twice just to get it punched and bagged for play later.
BTW I just got my Avengers today along with my Corsairs, Warhawks and Mustangs. I’m alittle bit down about my Warhawks and Mustangs though. Thier molding isn’t the best and they seem a bit on the frail side. These will definately need paint and glaze at a minimum to give them some substance. Same with FW190, although light seems to be molded better
Yep you’re right. I can tell the difference in real-life or drawings on a larger size pic. At this scale WOTC didn’t exactly put a lot of detail in theirs. I think the HBG is much better looking. You almost can’t see the ball turret on the OOB WOTC. I just got AAP40.1 in august and could’ve sworn they have US tac bomber listed as a Dauntless in the rulebook, but hey I’ve only looked at it twice just to get it punched and bagged for play later.
Well, I was pretty sure, but your comment made me question myself before I corrected your correction. I do agree that it is pretty hard to tell. And yes, the HBG ones are much nicer.
BTW I just got my Avengers today along with my Corsairs, Warhawks and Mustangs. I’m alittle bit down about my Warhawks and Mustangs though. Thier molding isn’t the best and they seem a bit on the frail side. These will definately need paint and glaze at a minimum to give them some substance. Same with FW190, although light seems to be molded better
I had similar… concerns. They do look very nice, but the moulding is a little thinner than the OOB pieces. I am looking forward to comparing them with the new OOB Spring '41 pieces that I ordered.
The 41 planes look a lot better IMO. The HBG FW190 isn’t that bad but it doesn’t feel nearly as solid as the OOB. I may just paint the FW190 solid gray or black, stain and seal them jut to give them some weight.
I will be converting my HBG FW190s into Ki43s as the OOB FW190s are perfectly fine to me and scale well with the other pieces.
Like LHoffman, I prefer to use OOB units when possible since I already have the pieces. I’m thinking also of using the B25s as
USAAF Tac bombers by converting them into A20 Havocs since the land forces didn’t use Navy Planes.
I will be converting my HBG FW190s into Ki43s as the OOB FW190s are perfectly fine to me and scale well with the other pieces.
Like LHoffman, I prefer to use OOB units when possible since I already have the pieces. I’m thinking also of using the B25s as
USAAF Tac bombers by converting them into A20 Havocs since the land forces didn’t use Navy Planes.
That will be cool. I’d like to see those. I am personally less concerned with having every unit-type be accurate for its usage in the game (e.g. having A-20s on land and SBDs/TBFs on the water) however, it will still be very cool to know that the option is out there. Plus they will just look great, so maybe I’d have to get some for that reason.
Wil & Lucas,
I will be converting my HBG FW190s into Ki43s as the OOB FW190s are perfectly fine to me and scale well with the other pieces.
Like LHoffman, I prefer to use OOB units when possible since I already have the pieces. I’m thinking also of using the B25s as
USAAF Tac bombers by converting them into A20 Havocs since the land forces didn’t use Navy Planes.
––You both make some valid, worthwhile points regarding unit sizes,…very logical.
----As I also already have both OOB & HBG FW-190s and P-40s, modifying some
HBG FW-190s into Ki-43s seems very interesting to me. :-D
––And as far as A-20s, I had inquired of HBG about their making some when they were planning their Japanese and American Naval Supplements a year or so ago. Too bad the sets were post-poned.
––I had originally intended to introduce a few new unit types, one type being
“Attack Aircraft” (B-25, A-20, etc.), another being “Fighter-Bombers” (P-47, F-4U, etc.) as well as some others. By moving to a 12-sidied die we have enough ‘wiggle room’ to make them viable.
––I hadn’t mentioned any of these projects other than the B-25 “Commerce Destroyer” low-level, parafragging, straffers as we already have soo many units in the que for the near future.
----Wil, I’m truly happy that you’re investigating the ‘possibilities’ of these projects. And with your talents for modification, and Lucas’s painting talent, I’m certain anything that the “WARMACHINE Team” turns out will be outstanding!
“Tall Paul”
This is a Sherman from Anniversary Ed. and the HBG Sherman Firefly from the US Marines set. While you can see it is a bit shorter than the OOB piece, it is much more detailed and Sherman “looking”. Can’t say that this is much of a contest. If HBG starts selling these individually (at the time of purchase they do not) I will have to buy a couple more.
Um not sure how to bring this up but the HBG Sherman is a flame throwing tank, It was called Sherman Zippo. The Sherman Firefly was a British Sherman with a 17-pounder anti-tank main gun instead of the stock American gun
This is a Sherman from Anniversary Ed. and the HBG Sherman Firefly from the US Marines set. While you can see it is a bit shorter than the OOB piece, it is much more detailed and Sherman “looking”. Can’t say that this is much of a contest. If HBG starts selling these individually (at the time of purchase they do not) I will have to buy a couple more.
Um not sure how to bring this up but the HBG Sherman is a flame throwing tank, It was called Sherman Zippo. The Sherman Firefly was a British Sherman with a 17-pounder anti-tank main gun instead of the stock American gun
Correct. I was under an improper assumption at the time. A misnomer that the “Firefly” is not the flame-throwing version…
It’s ironic that the flamethrower version of the Sherman was called the Zippo (the name of a popular lighter) because the standard Sherman – whose poorly designed ammunition storage often led it to catch fire when hit – was nicknamed the Ronson (after another popular lighter whose manufacturers claimed that it would “always light the first time”).
Guys,
––Not to ‘nit-pic’, and I hate to disagree, but IMHO the OOB tac-bomber in the above posts and drawings is
definately an SBD Dauntless. Just look at the;
1.) curved wintips (on the Dauntless)
2.) lack of ball turret machinegun (on the Dauntless)
3.) the somewhat narrow fuselage (on the Dauntless).
––The TBD Avenger had a TALL, FAT fuselage that had the radio operater/belly gunner INSIDE the fuselage. The main reason it was nick-named the “Turkey”.
“Tall Paul”
The rule book lists it as such. And I think that’s what its supposed to be. The detail on OOB units isn’t that great so I suppose with some paint and creativity it could be whatever you need it to be LOL.
I’m calling it a Dauntless as I might be using my HBG Avengers differently. To me it looked like a Dauntless and WoTC calls it a Dauntless but they do get stuff wrong sometimes. I suppose when we get some more goodies from HBG for the USN it won’t matter as much. LOL.
@Tall:
Guys,
––Not to ‘nit-pic’, and I hate to disagree, but IMHO the OOB tac-bomber in the above posts and drawings is
definately an SBD Dauntless. Just look at the;
1.) curved wintips (on the Dauntless)
2.) lack of ball turret machinegun (on the Dauntless)
3.) the somewhat narrow fuselage (on the Dauntless).
––The TBD Avenger had a TALL, FAT fuselage that had the radio operater/belly gunner INSIDE the fuselage. The main reason it was nick-named the “Turkey”.“Tall Paul”
Yeah I saw what you saw before. WOTC has it listed as an SBD in the rulebook. However just like all OOB units it can be an approximation. I know the Hellcat from AA50 AAP41 AAGC has been called a Wildcat many times due to the minimum detail in OOB parts. So I could see how one might mistake the Dauntless for an Avenger.
I think for those us with both OOB and HBG US Tacs, WE know the difference LOL. That’s all that matters.
