HBG's Amerika Game ON KICKSTARTER NOW - FUNDED!

Interesting . Thanks Flashman.

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.

Coach and Variable.

We.re seeing a lot of new markers etc. coming out of HBG lately (good work by the way). Are the HBG optional rules going to be updated to reflect the new stuff? (e.g. flak towers, bunkers, blockhouses etc.)

The group I play with is integrating some the new rules and markers into our game. We like rail and will be using minefields (naval too) next game––if they come in time.

F4U Corsairs.

IMAG0001.JPG

Irock, Warrior, and Others,

As you may already know by now we are, as we speak, working on a new series of games as I just described below.  The (proposed) name is:

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series with the 1st game to be Coral Sea and The Solomons Campaign.

We’re investigating the possibility that you could play 2 or 3 COMPLETELY separate games on the same map(at DIFFERRENT times).  the Coral Sea naval-air battle, the huge Solomons Campaign, and maybe a Battle of the Bismark Sea scenario, too.

I’ve had so many players express their interest and approval in my stated goal for a game that would be designed based on a “Battle-Specific”(the Solomons Campaign) map, Enlarged to
G-40 size, and utilizing all the new units and their new capabilities.

I think that this would be nothing short of a revolution in our A&A gameplay.

Of course none of this would be the least bit possible without HBG and FMG making available all of the wonderful new units that they plan.  My hat’s off to them for their efforts here.

Tigerman, as an experienced “Map Master”, has agreed to do the map(Haleluyah!!!) which will take a bit of time as what we’re proposing is HUGE!  Not only in the amount of changes, new rules, and improvements(?) that we plan, but in shear SIZE as well.

Stay tuned to the various postings for updates.

And if this seems the least bit interesting to you, get INVOLVED and let us know YOUR ideas or opinions.  We will all benefit from having all ideas considerred.

We’ve started our own thread here in the Variants Section for this game called
Expanded A&A-The Naval Series    Coral Sea and The Solomons Campaign.
Stop in and check it out, ask questions, or offer suggestions anytime.

Like I Say,……What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                    “Tall Paul”

Map nearing completion

A few rules different from normal A&A

The only units that can shoot down planes are AA, Art, Planes and BB

The original setup is

Every power starts with 200 Ipc of which 40 must be spent on air units, 40 must be spent on land units and 40 must be spent on naval units.

If Tasmania is added they start with 250 ipc of which 50 must be spent on each type of unit

Tow in you need to control

either
6,7,8 Vcs of which one must be in NZ
9,10 Vcs of which 2 must be in NZ
11 of which three must be in NZ

I have it, but am holding onto it for further playtesting on the set-ups.

Europe is being slightly changed in terms of the map, and there will be some minor additions to the rules.  These changes will probably be part of the map/rule package I am looking into producing.  Pacific would be released this way as well if all falls together.

Cheers

Duh!!  :lol:

Thanks!