1940 Global table & painted pieces

Sweet, thanks man. I’ll give it a shot!

My group has taken the ultimate step that many on this and other sites are loathe to do. We have unified turns, 1:Axis 2:Allies. We mainly play a modded AA50 with slightly (5-10) more territories. This greatly increases the speed and playability for several reasons.

Positives
Firstly, the vast majority of the engagements can be done simultaneously without any real issues.

Everyone can purchase simultaneously, and if you are not particularly a-retentive some people can finish their purchasing while others are moving forward with their attack declaring, but please make sure all attacks are declared before any attacks begin, to easy to start conflict there with meant-to/didn’t-do.

The most important factor in time improvement is not the actual simultaneity of the turn but that every turn, every round, attack and defense, involves every player. No one is bored (US/USSR) for turn after turn of waiting to do anything. This engagement greatly increases the camaraderie (heh) and the pressure of the turn. Everyone’s attention is focused. We REGULARLY complete our AA50 to a satisfying surrender in about 3 hours. In fact most of us have young kiddos so we don’t really have a choice.

Another useful point is that if someone brings an uninterested significant other or newbie, Italy makes a great and dynamic option when coordinating with an expert playing Germany. I find that scheduling is one of the hardest issues with getting a group together and perhaps one of the main reasons you would want a shorter game.

Counter points/Solutions
No 1/2 punches with Italy/Germany or UK/US. This might be a bigger problem on Global but I do not feel that it is an issue in AA50. To correct this we use some special rules including a reserved 2nd attack round for unused armies that want to attempt a blitz through/drop past a recently conquered territory or Sea Zone.

Massed Allied navies, especially in Europe. Haven’t really figured this one out, but it is historically accurate and axis can usually get the allies to a surrender point without Operation Sealion anyway. Massed navies is one of the reasons we support the 7/0 Transport rule in the recent editions over the 8/1 of the old editions.

Starting positions for UK and USSR. Since Axis will move collectively ahead of them, USSR and UK might need a little tweaking in the setup. I usually move some of UK’s Pacific/Indian navies one space further from J1. Additionally we give a territory or two to USSR to absorb the assault of G1.

Conclusion
I feel like if you really want to make A&A work for you, it can. It just might take a little more willpower in working through and agreeing to some compromises on OOB rules.

P.S. It always helps if the scheduling problem is with other people, you be the one to set up ahead of time. I always end up falling on that sword.

Thank you for the positive feedback! I forgot to say that in the previous post, and it’s very important that I do. It’s very encouraging and motivating to get good feedback, and we certainly appreciate it. The above mentioned four Essex class carriers are complete, a long with several other ships of the US Navy, so its time to update the thread. Just ships by FOlewnik in this post. More aircraft are almost done but I haven’t put magnets in them yet (so not really done), so no aircraft pictures this post.

We’ll start with the two “odd men out” of the HBG sculpt Baltimore Class Heavy Cruisers. Why “odd men out”? Because in the below picture we have on the left, the USS Unnamed Baltimore Class Cruiser Wearing Measure 31a, Design 9C, and on the right is the USS Columbus (CA 74), which wasn’t commissioned until June 8, 1945. The cruiser with the long name is wearing a design that was never used, but was taken from a period design found at https://www.wikiwand.com/en/World_War_II_US_Navy_dazzle_camouflage_measures_31,_32_and_33:_cruisers. The USS Columbus is wearing a Measure 12 Modified designed by FOlewnik to match the pieces we’ll be using for the US Atlantic fleet. These will get aircraft added, but at the time of the photographs the decals on the wings of the aircraft were drying.
DSC_0510a.jpg
DSC_0511a.jpg
DSC_0512a.jpg
Pattern_sheet,_MS-31a_9C_for_Baltimore_class.jpg

Next up are some metal destroyers from GHQ. Below on the left, the very brave USS Johnston (DD-557) painted in MS-3_/6D as it looked when it was “Sunk by Japanese Warships off Samar October 25 1944,” and next to it is USS Van Valkenburgh (DD-656) painted in camouflage Measure 31, Design 9d. All Wartime photos taken from Navsource.org, a great resource for US Navy history buffs.
DSC_0514a.jpg
DSC_0515a.jpg
DSC_0516a.jpg

Below, the real USS Johnston shortly before her final battle, and the official design sheet:
DSC_0516a0555715.jpg
Pattern_sheet,_MS-31-32-33_6D_for_Fletcher_class.jpg

A great wartime picture of the USS Van Valkenburgh, which is the same on both sides:
DSC_0516a0565603.jpg

Now on to these two. From GHQ, USS The Sullivans (DD-537) painted in Measure 1, and the HBG sculpt light cruiser USS Marblehead (CL-12) who always wore Measure 2 throughout the war. If I can get FOlewnik to put the Shamrock on the first stack of The Sullivans when he puts the scout aircraft on the Marblehead, as seen in the below wartime photograph, I’ll come back and edit the post.
DSC_0520a.jpg
DSC_0522a.jpg
DSC_0519a.jpg
DSC_0520a0553740.jpg
DSC_0520a0401208.jpg

The post previous to this post showed four Essex Class sculpts from HBG getting prepped and started with a base coat. Those are now completed and I had too much fun playing with them and the aircraft (that are complete so far) while I was taking photographs. I’m pretty sure I didn’t make any wooshing sea or aircraft noises or FOlewnik would have laughed at me. I was tempted though, and here’s why:
DSC_0524a.jpg
DSC_0525a.jpg
DSC_0526a.jpg
Above we have the first of the Long Hull Essex Class, USS Ticonderoga (CV-14) on the left looking as she did after her April 1945 refit from suffering a Kamikaze Attack on January 21, 1945, and USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) on the right. The Bunker Hill is wearing Measure 33, Design 6A, of which Navsource says, “Her port side camouflage pattern was the most intricate design applied to any carrier.” One glance can confirm that!
DSC_0526a021772.jpg

The final two Essex Class carriers are the USS Essex (CV-9) herself, and the USS Bennington (CV-20). The Essex is wearing a unique pattern, Measure 32v6, Design 10D, adapted from a destroyer pattern specifically for the long hulled Essex. The Bennington is painted in Measure 32, Design 17A.
DSC_0527a.jpg
DSC_0528a.jpg
DSC_0529a.jpg
DSC_0529aPattern_sheet,_MS_32a_17A_for_Essex_class.jpg
DSC_0529aUSS_Essex_(CV-9)_in_MS_32_6-10D_camouflage.jpg

Finally, some group pictures just for fun:
DSC_0531a.jpg
DSC_0532a.jpg
DSC_0533a.jpg
DSC_0534a.jpg
Thank you for checking out the post! If you liked it, please click the little heart. I’m trying to figure out why our post is only rated with a 2 when it seems it should be a bit higher if the other likes are any indication.

When I painted my units, I had issues with Britain, I originally made 2 schemes, then decided I only wanted the tan, not green… On my painting, I used a combo of lacquer Enamel and acrylic, it was at the enamel stage, but I soaked them in paint thinner (in all preparation to consider them toast and order new units)… but they came clean, they soaked for 10 min or so, and I used my tooth brush (yes mine lol, bristle’s turned green, and yes, I still use it, the green faded away HAHA) to scrub away the paint film.

The next group of infantry, will be, DESERT LIGHT INFANTYRY.

Until next time.

Cheers!

John

**Great work! Those are awesome. **

Is there something wrong with the pictures on the first couple of pages of this thread?  I only see a placeholder, generic image icon where the pictures should be.  :?

This is a sweeeeeet table. I used a lot of the same ideas in mine.

happy gaming!