How Are You Using Your (HBG/FMG/Table Tactics/Other) Battle Pieces?

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 just purchased this game.  Before I get started, I had a number of questions, all revolving around the rule stating that one cannot strategic bomb or fire artillery into a space shared by opposing forces (i.e. Japan cannot fire artillery is a space shared by both Japanese troops and U.S. troops).  Given this point, when is a space shared?

If the U.S. lands troops on the beach adjacent to Nago, is the U.S. now sharing space with Japanese troops in Nago, Yabu, and Hokubu?  Once the U.S. lands on a beach, can the troops immediately attack either Nago, Yabu, and/or Hokobu?  Or must they wait until the beginning of next turn?  If they are able to immediately attack Nago, Yabu, and/or Hokobu, can they elect not to and just remain on the beach?

Does combat continue until one side is eliminated, the attacker withdraws, or the U.S. retreats when defending?  The rules seem to suggest combat works like in Axis and Allies World War I; one attack roll for each attacking unit, one defense roll for each defending unit.  If any troops are left on both sides, the combat ends, and the space becomes contested.

And finally, when the 23rd/26th Shipping Engineer Regiments attack Unaha and Uchima, the rules state that 4 IJN marines attack without U.S. return fire.  This rule suggests that combat only lasts for one attack roll per attacking unit (as I suggested above).  If combat occurs until one side wins, this rule suggests that the IJN marines destroy all units in Unaha and Uchima as the U.S. cannot return fire.

Now for two questions not revolving around shared spaces: When an LVT is offloaded from a transport, can it immediately move two spaces?  Or, as with regular Axis and Allies rules, once a unit offloads, it has no movement points remaining.

The rules state that Japanese troops within fortifications are impervious to air, artillery, and shore bombardment attacks.  Does that mean that fortifications cannot be hit by air, artillery, or shore bombardments?  If they can, then a unit in a bunker is impervious only until two hits are received.  The first hit destroys the bunker, the second hit destroys the unit.  If one reads accounts of the Battle of Okinawa, the fortifications were virtually impervious to shore bombardments and aerial bombings.

Any help would be appreciated!

Rounded dice are against my religion, they take so damn long to roll! lol…

This is a very novel idea! Seems like board games are getting more like video games. I blame Civilization for merging the two ( and I own both board and video games  :-D)  Can’t wait to try it. We already have a “Risk” playgroup. This takes it to the next level. Maybe certain factions would only be allowed certain brands of alcohol…

@Tigerman77:

This was my idea exactly for my 39 setup. All nations start out with medium bombers and have to develop heavy bombers….so if Japan and Germany want to skip this technology for another they can. These new pieces are going to open the games for more house rules…isn’t that what we want? It’s what I want…! I think making Heavy bombers for the countries that don’t have an OOB heavy and making medium bombers for the countries that don’t have an OOB medium is the smart thing to do.

I agree with you here on the possibility of house rules.  In my house rules version major warships already get 2 attacks, one for primary and one for secondary armament, so giving heavy bombers two chances to hit isn’t much of a stretch, any more than having 2-hit warships (or in my case, even 3-hit ones, though I haven’t quite settled on whether the 3-hit ones should be rare “super-BB’s” or standard BB’s, giving BC’s and carriers 2 hits…)

As far as making it a tech, you could also make certain techs be already awarded to certain nations as a national advantage: e.g., Germany could automatically get Heavy Tanks whereas the US & UK could automatically get Heavy Bombers, which to some degree reflects the realities of the war and of each nation’s research priorities in the early-war period up to 1942 (when some game scenerio’s begin, after all…)

Giving the oob 4-engines a “tech” status, though (even if it’s automatically awarded to the US, say) does somewhat push the B-29 out of the picture as an “upgrade” options, though… but this may become a non-issue, as I have yet see anyone firmly commit to doing a B-29 piece… (Other than TT’s old piece which is maybe too small…)

@knp7765:

Hey coach, I was just looking at your list for the Axis Minors set and it says there will only be 2 Panzer IIIs per set.  About a week or so back, I could have sworn it said 4 Panzer IIIs.  I take it you decided to put in more of one of the other units?
I was wondering, when you get these pieces going, will you be selling them individually as well as in sets?

I am playing with the numbers and sculpts right now.
It is not always what I want in a mold but comes down to money. I will sell these as sets but will offer them for sale on individual pieces after a couple months. At least that is the plan. You might even see it in another set of German pieces.

http://www.fieldmarshalgames.com/field-marshal-games-accesories/field-marshal-connect-hex/fmg-pcs-project-italy-aaa-org-project-support-pre-order-1.html

No, sorry, same thing; it’s sometimes spelled one way and sometimes the other.  I’m trying to get used to spelling it IS-2, but I’m used to spelling it JS-2.

It stands for “Joseph Stalin 2” (in standard English romanization) which is also spelled Iosef Stalin in a more literal/accurate romanization, I believe.  Either way, “ole Joe Stalin” is the same person and the second model of tank named after him is the same tank.