Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. AG124
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 1
    • Posts 80
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by AG124

    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      @Upside-Down:

      They do have a Philippines and North Africa Version

      http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/axisguad

      http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/NorthAfrica…

      @ Upside-Down Turtle:

      I think dabapic was referring to board games, and specifically to his desire to see two board games based on the North African and Philippines campaigns, respectively. The Axis & Allies: North Africa game to which you posted a link is a collectable miniature game (in which I am quite invested) which is connected to A&A board games through its brand name only. Also, the Guadalcanal A&A board game to which you linked is not a proper response to an expressed desire for an A&A Philippines board game; Guadalcanal is located in the Solomon island chain (north-east of Australia) and has nothing to do with the Philippines or Letye Gulf, either geographically or in terms of the respective military campaigns involving those islands. I’m actually not quite sure why you posted either of those games as a response to dabapic’s post. :?

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: ITALY & CHINA COMBAT DICE - Help us design them!

      @ Imperious Leader - Great, thanks!

      posted in Marketplace
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: ITALY & CHINA COMBAT DICE - Help us design them!

      I haven’t gone through the checkout phase yet, and I can’t see a FAQ section, so I guess now is a good time to ask; do you accept Paypal? I believe you answered this in the affirmative earlier, but I cannot remember right now. Thanks.

      posted in Marketplace
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      It’s been awhile since we heard anything on the pieces project. @ FMG - is everything alright with the pieces project and with you guys in general? I hope nothing is wrong, but I tend to fear for the worst in many cases.

      Or is this maybe the ‘calm before the storm,’ so to speak? I.e. are we about to receive a large update on the status of the project; maybe even some pictures of the prototype sculpts from the sculptor?

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      @FieldMarshalGames:

      All this will come in the next week or so…  As soon as I have information I will post it here.

      Any news or updates for us yet? Please forgive my questioning, but this is all very exciting, and the more we learn about the project, the more exciting it gets. 8-) Thank you.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      Yes, the German tank mold from all A&A editions from Revised onwards is the Panther (although I am not sure what sub variant). There are differences in the molds (see Boardgamegeek for comparison pictures) but all of them are various Panthers.

      I agree to a certain degree with Imperious Leader regarding unique molds; many of us are going to retain the original pieces, and could use different molds for different house rules (or at the very least, we could enjoy a variety of molds simply for aesthetic value). However, some people may prefer to replace their old units altogether, and some of the original molds are hideously ugly and inaccurate (the German Admiral Hipper class CA and US Iowa class BB come to mind). Also, some units are so representative of their type and nation, it feels inappropriate to leave them out. The US Gato class submarine (or ‘Ray Class’ according to AAR…sigh…) comes to mind, but most US subs would look very similar at this scale anyway. Bearing, all of this in mind, I think I would settle for (in some cases, there are multiple units I think would be OK):

      US:

      • CV - Essex Class.
      • [CVE - Bogue Class].
      • BB - South Dakota Class or Iowa Class.
      • CA - Baltimore Class.
      • DD - Fletcher Class.
      • SS - Gato Class.
      • AK - Liberty or Victory Class.
      • Fighter - Wildcat, Hellcat, Mustang, or Corsair (all are very iconic and well known).
      • [Dive Bomber] - Dauntless or Helldiver.
      • Heavy Bomber - B-17 or B-29.
      • Tank - M4A3 or M4A4 Sherman (the current Sherman appears to be an M4A1). Also, I would like to note (in repsonse to an earlier post) that the US M3’s were called Lee, and not Grant, the latter being the UK lend-lease name for them.
      • Artillery - M8 Howitzer would be OK (not the SP version though).
      • Half-Track - M3 Half Track.

      UK:

      • CV - Illustrious Class (most other UK CV’s were one-offs, and most were sunk by the game’s start date).
      • [CVE - Share US Bogue mold, or use Collossus Class].
      • BB - King George V Class.
      • CA/CL - Southampton Class or County Class.
      • DD - Tribal Class.
      • SS - T Class.
      • AK - North Sands Class.
      • Fighter - mid-war Spitfire or Hurricane.
      • [Dive Bomber] - Barracuda.
      • Heavy Bomber - Lancaster or Halifax.
      • Tank - Churchill IV (most Churchills would look the same at this scale anyway).
      • Artillery - I’ll let someone else choose a UK artillery piece.
      • Half Track - Bren Carrier.

      USSR:

      • CV - Project 72.
      • [CVL - “Komsomolets” - 1920s design].
      • BB - Soyuz Class.
      • CA - Kirov/Maxim Gorkij Class.
      • DD - Type 7.
      • SS - S-IX.
      • AK - US Liberty Class, I guess.
      • Fighter - Any Mig or Yak model.
      • [Dive Bomber - IL-2, although the IL-2 was actually a ground-strike aircraft and not a true bomber].
      • Heavy Bomber - PE-3.
      • Tank - T-34/76, or if everyone else wants something different, T-34/85 or KV-1.
      • Artillery - Again, some else can choose an appropriate piece here.
      • Half Track - Either a lend-lease M3, or choose any original Soviet halftrack (I can’t think of one right now and don’t have time to look one up, but they did exist).

      Germany:

      • CV - Graf Zeppelin.
        -[CVL - Seydlitz].
      • BB - Bismarck or Scharnhorst Class (not the Deutchland class though, as they were little more than 11" CA’s and were later classified as such anyway).
      • CA - Hipper Class (I hate the current mold).
      • DD - Z-36 Class (again, I hate the current mold).
      • SS - Type IXC.
      • AK - I do not have a preference for a German transport, but I do want a unique German mold here.
      • Fighter - FW-190 would be fine.
      • [Dive Bomber] - JU87B Stuka.
      • Heavy Bomber - HE 111.
      • Tank - Panzer IV F2/G/H, or Tiger I (Panther Ausf. D seems too early and limited production for me, and Tiger II/King Tiger seems too much of a late war tank).
      • Artillery - A 7.6mm artillery piece would be OK.
      • Half Track - Sd Kfz 251.

      Italy:

      • CV - Aquila.
        -[CVL - Sparviero].
      • BB - Littorio Class.
      • CA - Zara Class.
      • DD - Navigatori Class.
      • SS - Marconi Class.
      • AK - Any, but must be unique.
      • Fighter - C202 Folgore.
      • [Dive-Bomber] - Share Stuka mold.
      • Heavy Bomber - SM79 Sparviero
      • Tank - either M11/39 or M13/40.
      • Artillery - Don’t have a preference for Italian artillery.
      • Half Track - Not too familiar with Italian halftracks, so someone else can make a suggestion here.

      Japan:

      • CV - Shokaku Class
        -[CVL - Zuiho Class]
      • BB - Nagato Class, or Kongo Class.
      • CA - Mogami Class, or Tone Class.
      • DD - Kagero Class.
      • SS - Type B1.
      • AK - “Standard Merchant;” mass-produced freighter with aft engines.
      • Fighter - A6M2 Zero
      • [Dive Bomber - D3A Val, or B5N2 Kate]
      • Heavy Bomber - G3M Nell
      • Tank - Type 97 Chi-Ha
      • Artillery - 70mm field artillery.
      • Half Track - Type 1 Ho-Ha.
      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      Ah, enjoy your vacation then; you certainly deserve it. 8-) And when you get back, we shall be waiting to hear of your latest progress with the new unit set (or at least to hear of any information with which you can provide us at that time). Can’t wait for the next progess report.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      @ FMG - I know that you have stated previously in this thread that you are still working with the modeller to choose the naval sculpts which are to be used, but I was wondering if any had been settled upon yet. I gather that from the images sent to you by the modeller, the Italian CV, BB, and CA will be the Aquila, Littorio, and Zara classes, respectively, but the others are still unknown. I don’t mean to be annoying, so if you don’t want to (or can’t) share this info with us yet, please feel free not to. I can’t help but ask such questions, as this is an exciting project which just seems better as more info trickles out to us.

      EDIT - I see three new posts have been made while I was typing all of this stuff up; it may no longer be relevant, as I haven’t had time to read the new posts yet, but here is what I have been writing intermittantly for the last half hour or so.

      EDIT 2 - National colours, as suggested by Imperious Leader could work as well; just switch units upon capture. It depends on what would work better for FMG, especially in terms of cost.

      On another note, if this set is successful, do you plan to do a “common unit” set, with a new IPC, AA Gun, and maybe some other units? I know it is a bit much to expect now with the vast effort and expense which you are committing to the current set, but it could be an idea for the future (if the current units are successful, as noted). You could possibly even produce two different IPC’s; a small-scale one [maybe with a peaked roof, as in the old A&A PC Game, and one stack], and a larger scale one (with a longer rectangular shape, the multiple horizontal peaked roof parts of the current unit albiet with more detail than the current ugly 1930s-cartoony-looking one, and two or three stacks); house rules could perhaps be developed as to their output levels. The current AA gun is OK for a shared unit, but I never seem to have enough of them, so it doesn’t hurt to have more (and with a better mold).

      Other ideas for shared units could include a shipyard (required for production of naval units, although this might over-complicate the game and make production too expensive. I would suggest a shared bunker/pillbox unit, but you are already providing one per each nation already.

      Another idea I had was for an incomplete capital ship piece; one would have to purchase the incomplete hull for a certain amount of IPC’s (maybe 7?), and then either complete it as a CV or BB for the remaining amount the next turn, or suspend or cancel construction next turn, as the military and economic situation of one’s country allows. This could be representative of Germany’s large scale cancellation of Z-Plan ships in favour of more important strategic needs, or the USSR’s similar suspension of a number of its own BBs and CBs upon the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. As well, incomplete hulls could be captured by occupying powers, much as Germany managed to capture a number of incomplete hulls from France, the Soviet Union, the Netherlands, and Italy upon occupation of those nations. The greater amount of time needed to produce large fleet carriers would not only be historically accurate, but could make a new class of light or escort carrier a more viable strategic option (as was the case for Japan, or to a more limited extend for the US). I don’t know how much support there is from the community for such a unit, though.

      I assume that if a common unit set is released, it would be a flat, light gray, as the current A&A common units are coloured. If not, then likely a flat white, as per the common units of the original MB A&A common units.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      @Shakespeare:

      Fatter submarines are needed please; and yes, the differentiation between the BB’s and the cruisers are a necessity.

      I agree; I’ve never had trouble distinguishing A&A cruisers and battleships myself, but I’ve heard that some others have had problems. Current submarines are definitely a little too thin.

      @Shakespeare:

      I’d even suggest a squared off stern on each cruiser, even at the expense of historicity…

      :-o

      I’m sorry, but there is no way I could ever accept a set that cut historical appearances that badly, even if it was for the sake of identification convenience. I’d prefer to deal with BB-CA differences through size distinctions; since the pieces are merely representative of large groups of ships on a world-scale map, I don’t expect them to be perfectly in historical scale with each other, as I would expect for a tactical wargame with individual ships on a map consistent with their own scale (such as War At Sea).

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      Ah, so the sculptor is working on the moulds for the units now, and sent you those Panzerschiffe pictures as an example of the classes he is going to produce for you. As well, he has chosen the Aquila Class CV, Littorio Class BB, and Zara Class CA for the Italians - all excellent choices, IMO.

      In terms of prototypes, I indeed see your point. However, later in the production stage, if you feel like posting some of the actual sculpts sent to you by your modeller, by all means feel free to do so. Of course, you may also decide against doing so; any decision on whether and when you can show us some sculpts is entirely in your court. I am just glad to hear that everything is going OK with the set at this stage. 8-)

      Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with land (or any) sculpts, as I am not a sculptor. Hopefully, someone else here can help you with that. :|

      BTW - If you are considering using the Sovyetskiy Soyuz Class BB for the Soviet Union instead of the old Gangut class (which I certainly hope is the case), maybe this picture will help, as sources for this class are a little harder to find than for most other classes:

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      Those Italian vessel scuplts in the pictures posted by FMG are actually produced by Panzerschiffe; a company which makes 1/2400 scale warships. I think that FMG posted those as an example of what he wanted in terms of Italian sculpts, but I am not sure if he is actually using the Panzerschiffe sculpts (there would be copyright issues in making a perfect copy of their sculpt without permission). However, if FMG is indeed going to use Panzerschiffe sculpts with permission from the company, I for one would welcome it, as Panzerschiffe has a great variety of vessels from all relevant nations, with the appropriate level of detail for this scale (other than the lack of a Soyuz class BB and any CV for the Soviets, IMO). Of course, Panzerschiffe is not a substitute for FMG, because of the great cost of purchasing enough of their units to make a complete set, and obviously because of the lack of aircraft and land units in their roster.

      Here is a link, by the way (you can go to the Italian WWII section to see the models posted by FMG):

      http://www.panzerschiffe.com/Catalog.html

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      @ FMG - Thank you for the reply; everything sounds encouraging at this stage, I must say. 8-)

      If you are looking for ideas for Soviet WWII Carriers, here is a thread from the AAM Forumini I remember from a little while back; it also discusses Italian and French carrier designs, but there are a good number of Soviet designs at the top of the first post. Of course, none of these designs was ever laid down, someone actually purchasing a Soviet carrier piece to use in A&A could be analogous to the Soviets actually spending time and resources building one of these in RL (of course, getting someone to make a mould for one of these for your set is another task).

      In terms of appearance only, I would prefer “Project 72,” if only for its distinctiveness from carriers produced by other nations during this period:

      Kostromitinov:

      Project 72:

      Project 71:

      Link (check the top/first post):

      http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about5369.html&highlight=soviet

      EDIT - @ FMG; I noticed that those Italian ship moulds you posted actually came from Panzerschiffe; a company which makes 1/2400 scale warships. Will you be using Panzerschiffe models as a basis for your own molds (albeit with some detail changes to avoid copyright infringement), or are you just posting these as an example? Thanks.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

      I will definitely buy at least one set if the quality is what I am currently expecting it to be. 8-)

      However, I do need more information from FMG first, (although I realize you/FMG may not yet be in a position to supply said information):

      • What units have been ultimately chosen for each unit of each nation?

      • How many moulds, if any, will have to be shared, and which ones for which nations?

      • What level of detail can actually be expected (although I assume from this thread higher than the current plastic units)?

      • What quality plastic can be expected (although I gather from this thread that it is at least as good as that of WoTC?

      • What will the colours look like when applied to the actual plastic from which the units will be made? Will they look exactly as the colours of the dice, including appearance in terms of hue and lightness?

      • What colour has been chosen for Italy?

      • Will our discussion re unit choices be factored in your actual choice of units for the set?

      And of course, eventually, I would like very much to see a prototype or prototypes of some type.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Plastic Playing Pieces

      All I can say is that I hope FMG can afford quite a few new molds; I am trying to draft up a list with only 48 new molds, but I can’t get it down past 75 so far (and that is with such corner-cutting measures as cutting out unique molds for the entire Soviet navy, a Japanese halftrack and transport aircraft, and a lot of the Italian Navy). My list also assumes six new unit types; mechanized infantry/half track, rockets, commander, self-propelled artillery, transport aircraft, and bunker, shared molds for IC, AA, rockets, and bunker, and doesn’t include France and a neutral set. I just can’t cut it down much more without any sense of satisfaction. :-(

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Plastic Playing Pieces

      @ TG Moses VI - Yes, this indeed what FMG is planning to do; replace the entire existing nation sets with new ones.  It remains to be seen how many of these new molds will be unique, and how many will have to be shared; FMG is obtaining a price quote first before relaying this information back to us.

      @FieldMarshallGames:

      …My Goal so far is the following:  (I am still working with factory on cost)

      1. To make a FULL set for each Nation in AA50.  Better quality and greater quantity than provided in the stock game.  These can fully replace the stock units OR complement them.

      2. To add two additional colors for expansions ie; BLUE for France and one other color with general sculpts to be used as Neutrals or other nation as required by expansion.

      3. To add some new SPECIAL Expansion units to the game.  “Why would some one buy this?” Something new will give the set greater appeal to the general public and and help pay of the cost of the production investment.

      …

      @FieldMarshallGames:

      …Once I get a decent quote on cost of this project I will finalize the unit types and numbers.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Plastic Playing Pieces

      I personally don’t have a problem with the colours pictured, but I understand how some people might get confused.  Therefore, I think that FMG should keep this potential problem in mind when choosing colours in which to cast.  This is why I believe they should offer a variety of colours which can be chosen by the purchaser when ordering their molds (as Xeno games does); some people will want to match the current colours for whichever game editions they possess (as I will), others will want historical colours which match WWII-era uniforms, and others will want pretty much any colours which contrast deeply with each other.  A wide variety of interchangeable colours would certainly take care of this, and attract some customers who might otherwise hesitate to make a purchase - just something I believe should be kept in mind.

      By the way, Black Fox, why doesn’t your painted Japanese fleet possess any CVL/CVEs (i.e. MB CV molds)? I don’t see one pictured in your image.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Plastic Playing Pieces

      @ Black Fox - Yes; thank you for the reply (I like seeing the continuation in-depth discussion on this subject).  I never felt terribly comfortable with the idea of Tank Destroyers, and after reading your analysis, I now fully agree that they are inappropriate for a basic set for a strategic game on this level.  I also see your point in relation to light and heavy tanks; they would serve no purpose that is not already served on the A&A battlefied by other unit types.

      @ Black Fox and Imperious Leader - I like your ideas for Fighter/Bombers, and agree with Imperious Leader and yourself that a reduction in attack values imposed by the presence of enemy fighters would be a good idea.  I’m afraid I have to agree with Imperious Leader about the Medium Bomber class however; one aircraft type to fall between fighters and bombers in terms of capabilities is enough.  I wouldn’t despair to see Medium Bombers included though (however, we must remember that the more unit types that are included in an initial basic add on set, the more shared unit molds there will have to be due to the financial impossibility of including unique molds for every type of unit).

      That leads me to another thought - does anyone here think that it would be a good idea for FMG (or Table Tactics) to do a more advanced set for players who want to develop a more complex and/or tactical set of rules, or even players who want a greater variety of molds for purely asthetic value?  The release of such a set would have to be contingent upon the financial success of a basic set aimed at A&A players as a whole however, and should probably depend upon indicators of interest from the community (here and elsewhere, such as BGG).  I would imagine there is considerable interest in a variety of German and Soviet armour molds, as well as multiple molds for Japanese and US naval units.

      BTW - Black Fox or Imperious Leader; just to keep the discussion active for the benefit of Field Marshall Games (or Table Tactics), as well as other community members, do you have any commentary in regards to my post on the previous page?  And what is the total list of new unit types which you think would be appropriate for an initial basic set for the whole community, and a possible later advanced/asthetic set?

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Plastic Playing Pieces

      BTW - Here are some boardgamegeek links to images demonstrating the variations in A&A colours which should be taken into account; I don’t know if either Boardgamegeek or this forum allow image hotlinking, so for now, I’ll just post page links:

      • Different shades of red and burgundy for the USSR, as illustrated by the T-34.
        http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424483

      • A better illustration of the difference between USSRs shades of red.
        http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424452

      • Different colours for the UK, as illustrated by the Matilda and UK Sherman.
        http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424344

      • Two different colours for Japan, as illustrated by several different Japanese pieces.
        http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424338

      • Different colours for Germany, as illustrated by the Panther.
        http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/424334

      • The 6 current unit colours of AA50, excluding IC’s and AA units, and China.
        http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/417596

      @ FieldMarshallGames - Glad to hear of any progress you make with this project; please keep us informed of any developments, if you can. I think there appears to be a considerable amount of support here for such pieces, as long as they are of high quality (which I have no doubt that they will be). :-)

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Plastic Playing Pieces

      Thank you very much, but after checking over my post, I did forget a few things I had wanted to mention:

      New Unit Types:

      Light or Escort Carrier/CVL or CVE:

      • I don’t know how useful a piece this would be, but as long as we are discussing new unit types, it IS a possibility. A smaller carrier mold, which is allowed to carry only one aircraft, would be clearly distinguishable from the current fleet carrier unit; however, the issue of its usefulness to the game is one which requires more consideration. Anyway, if such a unit type were to be decided upon, these would be my choices per nation:
      • USSR - I am not familiar with any Soviet CVL or CVE designs, and anyway, Soviet carriers do rate low in terms of priority to me. In this case, I would be satisfied with a UK or US CVE mold as a lend-lease carrier.
      • US - Bogue class CVE; the CVL Independence Class or CVE Casablanca class would be preferable for me, but the Bogue mold could be shared with the UK to save money on molds (the Bogue and Casablanca classes would look pretty much the same at this scale anyway).
      • UK - As noted, the Royal Navy can share the US Bogue mold; normally I would prefer an indigeneous mold over a lend lease one, but this opportunity to share a mold seems too convenient to pass up (probably because a UK-built CVE such as the Campania or Pretoria Castle would look quite similar at this scale anyway).
      • GE - Post-conversion Seydlitz CVL; not even close to being completed in WWII, but the closest Germany came to completing either a CVL or CVE at that time.
      • IT - Sparviero; even more dubious for completion than the Seydlitz, but I’ve always been interested in this carrier for some reason, and the Seydlitz bore no resemblence to her (and thus would look more out of place than a US-UK lend lease carrier).
      • JP - Either Zuiho class CVL, or Taiyo class CVE (Zuiho class would not only be representative of the Zuiho and Shoho themselves, but also the very similar Ryuho, and post-conversion Chitose and Chiyoda at this scale) (Taiyo class would not only be representative of the Taiyo, Unyo, and Chuyo, but also the similar Kaiyo and Shinyo).
      • FR - Lend lease Bogue class would OK here too, I suppose (representing the Dixmude, only CVE or CVL operated by France that I can remember right now).

      Light Cruiser/CL:

      • I don’t think this would be a very good choice, as it feels like splitting hairs when we already have a good cruiser unit type which works well at this level of strategic abstraction; plus, it would just be another similar-looking piece to confuse certain members of this community. I wouldn’t recommend considering such a unit, but here are my choices anyway:
      • USSR - Krasnyy Krym, I guess, although this ship interests me very little.
      • UK - Dido class (Fiji class if similar-looking Southampton class not the choice for UK CA).
      • US - Cleveland Class.
      • GE - Leipzig/Nurnberg Class (not sisters, but would look the same at this scale anyway).
      • IT - Capitani Romani Class.
      • JP - Agano Class, or Kuma/Nagara Class if Mogami class was chosen for JP CA).
      • FR - La Galissonniere Class.

      Self-Propelled Artillery:

      • This is an idea I like; the unit molds would look distinctive, and they could have a well-defined role in the game - they could either support tanks the way current artillery supports infantry, or they could support infantry themselves but differ in having a movement of two instead of one. My mold choices would be:
      • USSR - Katyusha, SU-152, or ISU-122.
      • UK - Bishop or Sexton.
      • US - M12 or Bishop.
      • GE - Hummel or Wespe (would look the same at this scale anyway).
      • IT - Semovente 90/53, or maybe another older Semovente model.
      • JP - Type 4 Ho-Ro
      • FR - Don’t know much about French self-propelled artillery or multi-purpose tank destroyers, so I’ll leave this up to someone else.

      Tank Destroyers:

      • This unit is workable, in my opinion, but it would not be the most useful or integration-friendly unit type I could imagine. I guess such a unit could work by rolling its dice separately from other units in its position on the battle board, and then being able to hit only tanks and self-propelled artillery (in a battle without such units, it would be largely useless, which would not be entirely historically inaccurate). I don’t know if such a rule would fit well with A&A mechanics, but if not, I’ll leave the solution up to someone else; in any event, my choices here would be:
      • USSR - SU-85.
      • UK - Archer.
      • US - M10 or M18.
      • GE - Elefant.
      • IT - Semovente 75/18, or 47/32.
      • JP - Type 1 Ho-Ni
      • FR - Again, I am unfamiliar with French tank-destroyers - maybe a lend-lease M10 would by OK to save mold costs.

      Light Tanks:

      • Although this is an interesting concept, I am not sure how useful they would be; maybe they could hit on a 2 instead of a 3? Anyway, these would be my light tank/tankette choices:
      • USSR - T-70
      • UK - No UK light tank jumps out at me, so a lend-lease M3 would probably be OK.
      • US - M3 light tank.
      • GE - Panzer III (E, F, G, H, or J, although they probably couldn’t be distinguished at this scale).
      • IT - L6/40.
      • JP - Type 95 Ha-Go.
      • Fr - Renault R35.

      Fighter-Bomber/Medium Bomber:

      • An interesting concept; I won’t comment on their possible rules, except to say that I would like to see them as carrier-basable. My only concern would be confusion with fighters for some people; the molds would probably have to be a little bit larger than fighter molds, even if the scale was wrong, just to avoid said confusion. My choices here would be:
      • USSR - IL-2.
      • UK - Fairey Barracuda
      • US - SBD Dauntless.
      • GE - JU87B Stuka.
      • IT - Could share the Stuka mold; I don’t think Italy ever developed any really iconic or effective dive bomber, and the Italian air force did operate a large number of early Stukas.
      • JP - D3A Val or B5N2 Kate.
      • FR - France did have some early light bombers, but I can’t think of them right now.

      Blockhouses, Bunkers or Pillboxes:

      • I think a fortification unit is something the game has been missing for a while (I know they were in D-Day, but didn’t extend to any other game in the series). I think that a generic unit would be sufficient; also, I believe it could be in the same shared colour as ICs and AA units, depending on the rules drawn up for it (maybe put them in a separate tree, and let players decide what colour they want to order them in).

      Heavy Tanks:

      • I guess these could work; maybe they could only move one space, or have a higher attack value, or some such rule variation. Not all AAM nations actually developed very heavy tanks, so some unit choices here might seem a bit odd:
      • USSR - KV-1 or IS-2.
      • UK - Centurion A41.
      • US - M26 Pershing.
      • GE - Tiger or Tiger II.
      • IT - P26/40 (Not much else to choose from here).
      • JP - Type 3 Chi-Nu (really, only a medium tank).
      • FR - Either use Char 2C, or use Char 1 BIS (if the latter is chosen, then use S35 for regular tank).

      I would like to finish up by talking about plastic colours a little bit more. First, I may have mentioned this, but it is extremely important to match previously existing AAM colours (these seem to have been largely consistent, other than the UK and Germany). Remember to borrow or otherwise obtain samples to check the existing colours, or at least see uploaded comparison pictures under AA50 on Boardgame geek. Anyway, the main colours to consider replicating are these:

      • Dark Red/Burgundy (USSR, AAR, AA50).
      • Wine Red (USSR, AAE).
      • Light Tan (UK, AAR sometimes, AA50).
      • Seafoam Green (UK, AAR sometimes).
      • White (or off-white) (UK, AAE?).
      • Olive Green (US)
      • Metallic Blue (Germany, early AAR copies).
      • Black (or really dark grey) (Germany, late AAR and AA50).
      • Various shades of dark grey (Germany, other AA editions, can’t think which has what colour right now).
      • Bright Red (Japan, early AAP copies).
      • Burnt Orange (Japan, all other editions including Japan, I believe).
      • Light Brown (Italy, AA50).
      • Light Green (China, AA50).
      • Flat Grey (IC and AA in all editions with them, other than the MB original, where they were white).
      • There are probably other variants, (actually I know there are) but I can’t think of them right now.

      I believe you may also want to consider the following colours:

      • Dark Brown (many people want this colour for Soviet units).
      • Steel Grey (as above, but for Germany).
      • Khaki Tan (darker than AA50 UK colour).
      • Light Grey-Blue.
      • Navy Blue.
      • White (maybe some people would like neutrals in this colour).
      • Light, Pale Yellow.
      • Dark, Amber Yellow (less orange than current Japanese colour).
      • Dark Purple (I can’t imagine using this colour, but some people may want it).
      • Dark Orange.

      I would also like to suggest that rather than have fixed colours for certain nations’ units, you should allow customers to choose the colour in which they would rather order their units, if this is at all possible (or at least allow a few colours per unit tree).

      One other thing; mentioning neutrals above made me realize that I forgot to mention neutral unit choices. As noted, it would be best to combine nations (mostly Sweden, Spain and Turkey), so I will list choices for those three units combined for one neutral ‘nation’ slot:

      • BB - Yavuz (Turkish).
      • CV - Not aware of any at all - just use a German or Italian mold, or skip this unit type for neutrals.
      • CVL/CVE - See above comment re CVs.
      • CA - Canarias (Spain)
      • CL - Gotland (Sweden) or Libertad Class (Spain).
      • DD - Goteborg Class (Sweden)
      • SS - Draken Class (Sweden)
      • AK - Generic freighter (same mold could be used for Italy and USSR, IMO).
      • Fighter - A Swedish J-Series would be OK.
      • Medium Bomber - Saab B-17.
      • Heavy Bomber - HE 111 (Spain - could share mold with Germany).
      • Tank - Strv M38 or M40 (Sweden); I would also settle for a German Panzer IV mold (Turkey).
      • Light Tank - Strv M37 (Sweden) or share French R35 mold (Turkey).
      • Heavy Tank - Strv M42, I guess (Sweden).
      • Tank Destroyer - See CV post.
      • SP Artillery - See CV post.
      • Artillery - 37mm artillery.

      For neutral nations, we probably wouldn’t need most of these unit types anyway.

      I have more I want to say about unit choices, but I have to go and do some work now - lots of readings to do for class tomorrow.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      AG124A
      AG124
    • RE: Plastic Playing Pieces

      I’ve never posted here before (I generally prefer to read what others have written), but the possibility of obtaining high quality pieces in a new variety of molds is too interesting a topic to pass up. I’ve never felt too discontented in regards to the quality of AAM pieces since Revised, but they could stand to be improved (although I have not yet purchased AA50, I have seen pictures of its pieces online and see that a few have indeed decreased in quality, particularly the T-34). As well, even if the quality of the pieces was high, I am not entirely satisfied with some unit choices and would be happy to see them replaced with others.

      As I understand Field Marshall Games’ earlier post, the plan is to produce a complete set for each nation, regardless of whether certain pieces are currently deemed acceptable by the community at large.  Thus, as an example, a new UK set could not only include a new destroyer mold, but a new carrier mold (even if the UK carrier was almost universally accepted as being adequate as it stands; as noted, this would provide purchasers with a more balanced number of units for each nation and avoid the need to pick and match parts from various games.  With this in mind, I will list my own preferences for each nation in regards to each unit type, then post my 15 top wants at the end (I realize that although each nation will receive a unit mold for each type, some molds of deemed lesser importance will be shared between nations, but this list is best-case scenario for me). I also realize that by now, FMG is probably already beginning production and is no longer noting ideas, but I feel like posting anyway, if only for fun:

      USSR:

      • BB - Sovietskaya Ukrainia - I posted my thoughts on a Soviet BB on Larry Harris’ forum a while ago; Although none of the ships of this class were completed in RL, I think that a Soviet player actually building BB units in A&A would be analogous to the class being completed in RL. Thus, this would be the most appropriate class to include as a plastic unit. If it would be preferable to include a class which actually saw service, then maybe the Petropavlovsk class would be more appropriate.
      • CV - A Soviet CV mold is a very low priority for me; I would be quite content to see them share a UK or German mold (German Graf Zeppelin might be best, since the Soviets did capture the wreck of this vessel in 1945). I would like to note that I recently read a post on an AAM-related forum that the Soviets did indeed engage in their own carrier designs, but none of these left the drawing board. However, as noted, considering the low importance of a Soviet navy in A&A, and the purely hypothetical nature of such designs, these should receive very low priority.
      • CA - Kirov or Maxim Gorkij (indistinguishable at this scale).
      • DD - Type 7
      • SS - S IX (low importance to me)
      • AK/AP - Either a generic freighter, or use US Liberty Freighter (low importance to me).
      • Tank - T-34/76.
      • Artillery - most artillery pieces look the same at this scale; I see no pressing need for a unique Soviet piece.
      • Fighter - Yak 1 (there are actually several Soviet Yak or Mig fighters which would be OK with me).
      • Heavy Bomber - PE-3 (although again, there are several that would be OK).

      UK:

      • BB - King George V class.
      • CV - Illustrious class.
      • CA - Southampton class (I feel these would be the best representation of modern UK cruiser construction, but I do acknowledge that the County classes are more iconic - I thus would not complain if we received a generic County class CA instead. Also, yes - I do realize that most sources list the Southampton class as a CL…)
      • DD - Tribal class (I never understood why the UK never received its own DD mold, considering the iconic importance of its DD’s during the Battle of the Atlantic - I also believe that the Tribal class is the best choice, as it was used by the UK’s two largest naval power Commonwealth allies; Australia and Canada - thus, when one builds a Tribal class DD at a Canadian or Australian IC, it will be all the more appropriate).
      • SS - T Class
      • AK/AP - North Sands class
      • Tank - Mid-war Churchill.
      • Artillery - 6 pounder anti-tank gun.
      • Fighter - Mid-war Spitfire
      • Heavy Bomber - Halifax or Lancaster

      US:

      • BB - Iowa Class (South Dakota class would be OK too, if an earlier-period BB was thought more appropriate).
      • CV - Essex Class.
      • CA - Baltimore Class.
      • DD - Fletcher Class.
      • SS - Gato Class.
      • AK/AP - Liberty Class.
      • Tank - M4 Sherman (any sub-variant).
      • Artillery - 37mm gun would be OK.
      • Fighter - F4F Wildcat.
      • Heavy Bomber - B17.

      Japan:

      • BB - Yamato, Kongo or Nagato class - I would normally point to the Yamato as being representative of any newly constructed Japanese BB’s being placed upon the A&A game board; However, they were not generally representative of most IJN BBs. The Nagato class, with its tall pagoda and single funnel would be fairly representative of the six ships which collectively comprised the Fuso, Ise, and Nagato classes, at least at this scale, so there is an argument there as well.  Plus, one can easily argue for the Kongo class, since with four members, this was the most numerous single class of IJN BB, and these vessels tended to see more surface action than other IJN BBs. As an end result, I cannot really make up my mind on which would be best, although I do rather hope for a class other than the Yamato class (we already have some decent Yamato models with our current boardgames and some variety might be OK).
      • CV - Shokaku class.
      • CA - Takao or Mogami class.
      • DD - Kagero class.
      • SS - Type B1.
      • AK/AP - ‘Standard Merchant’ (with aft engines).
      • Tank - Type 97 Chi Ha
      • Artillery - 70mm Artillery
      • Fighter - A6M2 Zero
      • Heavy Bomber - G3M ‘Nell’ or G4M ‘Betty.’

      Germany:

      • BB - Bismarck Class.
      • CV - Graf Zeppelin
      • CA - Admiral Hipper Class (and please make a better mold than the horrible one which we currently have).
      • DD - Type 1936.
      • SS - Type IXC (although the Type VIIB and Type VIIC were more widely used, I think a type IXC would look better and would be more easily handled at this scale).
      • AK/AP - A unique German transport or freighter is needed here, but I don’t really have a preference.
      • Tank - Panzer IV (F2 or G, although any F2, G, H, or J would probably look exactly the same at this scale).
      • Artillery - 88mm flak gun.
      • Fighter - BF109.
      • Heavy Bomber HE 111.

      Italy:

      • BB - Littorio Class.
      • CV - Aquila (I do want to see a unique Italian CV).
      • CA - Zara Class.
      • DD - Soldati Class or Navigatori Class.
      • SS - Marconi Class (again, not my highest priority).
      • AK/AP - Either use an Italian liner converted to a transport, or share a unit with Germany).
      • Tank - either M11/39 or M13/40.
      • Artillery - Don’t have a preference for Italian artillery.
      • Fighter - C202 Folgore.
      • Heavy Bomber - SM79 Sparviero.

      France (assuming France will be added):

      • BB - Richelieu Class.
      • CV - Joffre Class (For the same reasons as my choice for the Soyuz class Soviet BB, although I would be generally OK with the Bearn as well).
      • CA - Suffren Class.
      • DD - Le Hardi Class.
      • SS - Redoutable Class.
      • AK/AP - Generic freighter, or use UK mold.
      • Tank - either Char I Bis, or Somua S35.
      • Artillery - Don’t have a preference for French artillery.
      • Fighter - Dewoitine D520.
      • Heavy Bomber - F-222, not high priority choice.

      I didn’t mention infantry, as I assume each nation will receive an accurate and unique infantry piece.

      • Colors - I definitely believe that it is important to keep the colors of AA50 and AAR (for the most part they are the same, although Germany in AAR has varied through metallic blue, grey, and black, and the UK has received a variety of different colored pieces in the past, including light tan, white, and ugly lime green. You may want to keep some of these varieties in mind - there are a number of pictures on Boardgamegeek comparing varying AA colors that you may want to observe. Some new colours, such as navy or light blue, light yellow, and dark brown may be of some interest to some players as well (particularly those who do not like the current ones) so this should be kept in mind as well - unit trees should be able to be ordered in different colours.

      New Unit Classes:

      • I would prefer to see the following unit types introduced (or re-introduced); Half-Tracks/Mechanized Infantry, Trucks, Fighter-Bomber or Medium Bomber, and Blockhouse or Bunker. Other possibilities could include light or escort carriers (carry only one aircraft), light tanks, or heavy tanks. I never really thought much interest in commanders, but I have to admit, the idea is beginning to intrigue me. I also like the idea of specific pieces for techs, but I can’t think of appropriate ‘super sub’ pieces for any nations other than Germany and Japan (with Type XXI and I-400, respectively); the US, UK and France each had large ‘cruiser subs,’ but none were ‘cruiser subs’ in terms of performance.

      Anyway, for Half-Tracks:

      • USSR - prefer a unique HT, but lend-lease M3 will do.
      • US - M3.
      • UK - Universal Bren Carrier.
      • Italy - Can share German mold.
      • Germany - SD Kfz 251
      • Japan - Type 1 Ho-Ha
      • France - no preference.

      Trucks:

      • USSR - ZIS-5 3 Ton (low priority).
      • US - CCKW.
      • UK - Bedford QL 3 ton.
      • Germany - Opel 3 ton.
      • Italy - Fiat.
      • Japan - Type 97 Isuzu.
      • France - Renault.

      Top 12 Molds (as differing from AAR/AA50, although I realize that none will be copied from those games):

      • 1. UK DD.
      • 2. IT BB
      • 3. IT CA
      • 4. IT DD
      • 5. IT Bomber
      • 6. IT CV
      • 7. IT Fighter
      • 8. JP CV
      • 9. UK SS
      • 10. UK Tank
      • 11. SU BB
      • 12. SU CA

      That’s all for now, I can’t think of anything else I want to say at the moment.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      AG124A
      AG124
    • 1 / 1