HBG WW1 Set

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.

@ghr2:

You should definitely get some sort of protective layer for that map.

I’m going to at some point. Until, I get a permanent place to play, it is rolled up in a cylinder tube. I’m going to have a man cave built, and then I will work on things like that. I’m going to have to either buy or have someone build me a table to fit the map. This is the plan, anyway. :-)

@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.

2004 UK Revised green (celery)
2009 UK Tan
2010 ANZAC Grey
2012 HBG Neutral Light Grey
2012 HBG Neutral Ivory
1986 AA Classic Forest Green
or 2010 Chinese Yellow-Green

@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?

WW2 in Europe/ Europe at war Questions and suggestions

So after having read the rule book and getting a feel for the game and its mechanics, I’m now ready to play a more serious (solo) game. However, I do still have a fairly large number of questions:

1.) Does attacking artillery also fire in the shore bombardment step? The rules suggest that it does as it states: “artillery that fired in step 2 cannot fire now” or something along those lines (land combat sequence).

Mt 2cts: I suggest renaming “shore bombardment” into “opening fire” when it comes to land combat. I’d also go for giving both sides a choice: Either fire your artillery in the opening fire step and any casualties caused are removed immediately (firing side’s choice on a roll of “1”) or attack/ defend during each round of normal combat along with other units. In this case any casualties caused are always the owning player’s choice.

2.) I still don’t really get that under some units it is stated that on die rolls of “2” they can choose which unit is hit, but then strangely enough it goes on to say that this is always the owning player’s choice. What exactly does the  firing player get to choose then?!

My 2 cts: allow the firing player to choose the target rather than the owning player (and on a 3 or 4 in case of a tactical bomber, for instance, the owning player decides.

3.) Can the Russians attack the lone Polish infantry on their side of the demarcation line in Fall ‘39? The rules say they may move into the areas designated to them, but it doesn’t say anything about attacking.

My 2 cts: Allow it! This is also what happened historically!

4.) Illustration Page 9 advanced rules: Assuming Belgium is being attacked here for the first time and is therefore suffering from the penalties related to “surprise attack”, how can they possibly reinforce Liege from Brussels as the rules state that units suffering from surprise attack may not move, neither in the movement phase nor in the blitzkrieg phase. Or is this done by “British” units (as the Belgians are now represented by British units after having been attacked) using British redeployment points? From the example I certainly don’t get that impression…I assume this is a faulty illustration??

5.) Does the UK collect money from the neutral territories whose forces it represents? I guess not, but just wanted to make sure…

6.) Do neutrals get to build any forces if they are not defeated at the end of a turn?

My 2 cts: I’d allow them to build units up to the value of the territories they still control, as long as they are still in possession of their capital (to be placed in box 1)
7.) Can ships belonging to belligerent nations pass through ports [with ships in them] belonging to neutral powers? (I.e. French and British ships, for example, while not yet at war with Italy could pass through the sea zone containing the port of Tripoli or French ships could trace a convoy through the sea zone containing the port of Barcelona).

My 2 cts: I’d leave it to the nations controlling the port; they can either allow it or deny it. A denial would not be a declaration of war!

8.) Please emphasize in the rules that if the Axis attacks either the USA or the USSR prior to Spring 1942 both can only receive up to 25% of their income. This is a bit vague.

9.) Why do fighters have such a low combat value when it comes to attacking ground units? (and why such a high one while attacking other air units)?

10.) If I understand it correctly the “4” combat value of fighters is only used in air to air combat? (I.e. escorts vs interceptors and when air units ONLY meet in a certain territory? (for instance in order to pin enemy air units there?)

11.) Was an air-to-air combat phase deliberately left out of the land combat sequence? It would make sense to me if attacking and defending aircraft would first engage one another and that any surviving fighters and tactical bombers (from both sides) would then  get to make a(n) (pre-emptive) attack against an enemy ground unit of their choice.

12.) Do naval units exercise sea control while still neutral? (i.e. would Italian naval units and tac bombers  -that are still neutral in 1939- inflict movement penalties on e.g. a British convoy?

My 2 cts: No. Not until they are at war with one another do such penalties apply

13.) While a (major) nation  is neutral, does it receive supply automatically or does a convoy still need to be established to receive supplies from overseas?

14.) Is it possible for naval units of befriended nations to ever share a port together at the end of a turn? (E.g. British ships in a French port; when dropping off transported units the rules state a transport must return to its port of origin, so e.g. a British transport transporting a unit to Brest would have to return to Bristol rather than remaining in Brest, right?)

15.) The text underneath “Minor flag space” differs significantly between the basic and advanced rules. Is this intentional? For example, in the basic rules it says that units located in a minor flag space only suffer the movement penalty in case of a surprise attack, but this is not listed in the advanced rules.

16.) Why does Italy receive money from the start for Tripoli while the UK doesn’t for its African territories? Because the UK is at war and Italy is still neutral?

17.) Are British and French naval units also bound by the rules governing surprise attack in Fall ’39? If so, this seems like the time for the Germans to attack e.g. Scapa flow!! If so, would the port bonus apply regardless?

18.) It took me a long time before I got the air redeployment example. Air units can only land/refuel/rebase on “factory spaces”, right? And not on NRZ’s? I take it they can also refuel on carriers?

19.) Can air units with a movement value ever fly from the US to Britain or is the only way to do this by means of transporting them by ship? (refueling on Iceland still doesn’t give them enough movement points).

20.) The US starts with $20, however its income is $50 (1/4 of 200). Is this correct? Or do they get to spend $20 on their first turn and afterwards $50? If I’m not mistaken neutral countries do not get to actually buy and place units until activated?(But they do get them to advance up the build boxes?)

21.) How is a convoy set up to the Pacific holding box? (simply to the “picture”?)

22.) What happens when a convoy needs to spend more than 10 mp’s? Does this then count against [naval] rp’s? Do rp’s then need to be saved from the redeployment phase?

Hallo guys, I would like to share something about this topic.

Thank you for reading.

I have created SITREP, The day after… It’s basically Axis and Allies in a modern setting, starting the day after 9/11.

Modern units, a complete redesigned worldmap. It is all there.

In this boardgame, six powers are involved.

United States of America, United Kingdom, NATO at one side. On the other side, there are The Arab league, Russia and China.

I spend lots and lots of time to translate the ‘real’ situation into an Axis and Allies setting and according play style.
So far, I am very pleased and satisfied with the result.

I have recently created a new website to share the details with other players.
The introduction may be Dutch
The game rules however, are written in English.

See my website for some details, and feel free to comment.

sitrep-the-day-after.jouwweb.nl

Hicks

@cminke:

speeking of order when can we expect to pre order?  aprox.

Im waiting on factory.  All I can say is “soon”