HBG WW1 Set

Greeting and salutations! I have recently created overlays for HBGs Global 1936 map that represent the political borders of 1861. I am aware that several years ago now HBG worked on a Global 1861 game. However as far as I can tell, HBGs Global 1861 project seems to have been shelved. Myself being a firm believer in the versatility of the Axis and Allies game mechanics have thus decided to create my own Global 1861 scenario. While further testing is still required and new political and possibly unit rules still have to be written. I am confident I can eventually create a comprehensive Global 1861 game. Although I feel I must apologize in advance if this project takes a long while as I tend to jump from project to project quite spastically, any help and or feedback would be greatly appreciated.

IMG_7100.jpg

IMG_7096.jpg

IMG_7097.jpg

IMG_7095.jpg

IMG_7094.jpg

IMG_7098.jpg

IMG_7099.jpg

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.

I played my first game of Amerika last night. It was pretty easy to learn once I was finally able to remember which sculpts were the self propelled anti-aircraft units and and which ones were the self propelled artillery units. It took awhile to play because I was carefully going through every step and double checking to make sure I didn’t develop any bad habits as far as the rules go. I can see being able to play a game in under 2 hours including setup if you had 2 or 3 players who already knew how to play. That would be perfect for the lake in the summer when you go into the cabin to wait out a rainstorm. A&A on the other hand would be more of a whole day this is never going to clear up type of game.

It’s a good game and very well made. I picked up the Strategic Markers expansion set with the game but didn’t use any of the extra rules that come with the pieces so I could learn the game first and decide which rules and extra pieces would be appropriate to make it a better game. I did find the map a little small so I am going to get a bigger one for use at home on the big table. I like lots of elbow room and space to line up my tanks without using chips. In the game the Japanese got bogged down in the northwest with the allies holding the line at Hanford Nuclear Research Facility. They had better luck in the south moving inland and taking out Los Alamos NRF. The Germans made it as far as Detroit in the north and Nashville in the south but couldn’t capture Oak Ridge NRF. On the fifth turn the allies were lucky enough to roll big and go first, which meant that they had 2 turns in a row and were able to take back Los Alamos and 3 cities and accumulating enough points to win the game. If the axis would’ve went first on the fifth turn it would have been a different outcome and they might have won on the fifth or sixth turn. It all came down to that one roll…

Those are bleachers (houses) from NFL Monopoly. I glued short dowels to the back and painted them brick red to use as minor factories.

So say we all.
:-D

just got my olive marines, and i got to say that they are really  close to oob i am very happy with the product. thanks again Coach

@Variable:

Neutrals are now available by the piece!

awesome I’ve been waiting for this for awhile now thank you.

In Battle Cry u do specific battles not the entire war. Never played it but most people on the net say its good. I ll get it when I can.