Posts made by Black Fox

I am sorry we could not make ALL the special units requested.  The cost is very high and each new unit increases the mould cost.  There is still a possibility that I can add or subtract a few but I will require a sculpt for this.

Yes, I understand that.  That’s why I’m still supporting you because I appreciate your efforts.

If there are still possibilities for changes I would like the following in this order.

Medium Bombers
Dive Bombers
Light/Jeep Carriers

Out of curiosity, why a Task Force piece?  I think the current one is fine.

Thanks

I’m a bit disappointed that some units that I really wanted to see added to the “New” list are not there.  Depending on what the special surprise is and the quality of the new units.  That may change my view.

However, I do want to see this project succeed and I am willing to make an advance payment for at least one set for now.

FMG, out of curiosity.  Are you able to give us a sneak peak of what some of the units will look like?

Also, is there anything that those of us on this forum can do to help this project move further along?

Thanks

There are pros and cons to varnish.  Overall, varnishes will give you a more durable finish and will hold up better when rubbing up against other pieces in the box.  It’s con is that it is more likely to crack and chip if the item it bent (Tank barrel) or dropped.  Where piece with out it will get more nicks and scratches.  Also, some varnishes can turn a little yellowish after a while.  We’re talking years or something with a lot of sun exposure.

The other reason for using varnished is if you want to give something with a gloss finish a flat look or visa versa.

As for me, I didn’t use any varnishes on mine.

The key for a good durable finish with any kind of painting are layers of light coats.  The thicker a paint or varnish goes on.  The more prone it is to chipping and flaking.

Here are some other tips for painting.

Preping
Washing - You can usually get away without washing but as Zero Pilot mentioned.  It it’s better to wash pieces first for best results.  If you do, make sure it dries thoroughly before painting.  If you want to speed up the drying use an air can or a hair dryer on low and cool setting.  Avoid using a cloth since little strand of fiber can stick to the plastic.

For small pieces like the A&A units you really don’t need to use a primer.  I would use it only if you wanted to paint a dark colored unit with a light color.  If you don’t, it just might take an extra 1 or 2 coats of paints.

If you can, always paint the units before you break them off the tree.  Trying to paint them as separate pieces can be more difficult.

Painting
Airbrushes will always give you a better finish but you can still get a nice finish with spray cans.  Here are some tips when using spray cans.

1.  Make sure your can is warm (room temperature).  If it is cold put it in a bowl of hot water to warm it.

2. Shake it well.

3. When spraying, do not hold it too close.  Spay can paint can sometimes be thick and if you’re too close you can have a layer of goop instead a nice coat of paint.  For best results it’s always better to start farther way and apply a 2 or 3 light coats of paint rather then doing it in one coat.  Also, if pieces are not on a tree, you can blow them all over the place if you are too close.  You’re more prone to do this with an airbrush than a paint can.

4. Practice painting something else first so you can see what works best.

Hi El Capitan

I like some of the colors that you used.  Can you tell us the names of each color that you used?

Thanks

Which leads me into this conclusions regarding new pieces:

• Keep in mind the military distinction between strategic and operational theatres. Some pieces proposed seem to fit more into a operational or even tactical kind of game, like Bulge or Guadalcanal. Mech Artillery, Tank Destroyers, Paratroopers, Cavalry, Heavy Tanks, Fighter Bombers, Naval Fighters, are more fit for those kind of game.
• Make sure that there is a specific niche for those new units, other than simply changing their stats.
  There are a few units that clearly fit into this: Transport plane is one, Commander might be another (see below for more details).
• Pay attention to the KISS principle, which I truly thank Larry Harris to have done so far. It will frustrate some people that they won’t get all the pieces they want, but not adding some units will make it more easier to integrate the new pieces with the existing game without having to create new rules. One example: Cruiser. Without the rework of AA50 on naval units and stats, they would be redundant on Revised. Fighter-bombers would also need some sort of rethinking of aerial combats.
• And finally consider the overall impact on the game. A commander unit that increases the unit stats might be a good idea but it might also imply a race for commanders early on. Bunker units make attacks harder and to me the game works much better if territories are more easily taken than just building stacks of units for defense.

Hobbes makes some excellent observation here.  Another thing I would consider adding to the above is when you are considering creating a new unit for an A&A strategic game (A&A, A&A Revised and A&A 50AVN.)  I ask myself, in WWII, were large military forces (such as Divisions/Brigades, Air Wings/Groups or Naval Groups) formed around that particular unit as the core element of that force and did they exist historically? (For reference purpose, here is a break down of a military Force Structure http://www.aapavatar.net/carepackages/unitsize.htm)
Note: Other nations nations sometimes used different terms that could be confusing but this gives you a general idea.

Some units though I view differently depending on the game.  In the case of ship BB, CA & DD.  In A&A, A&A Revised and A&A 50 Anv. I consider them to represent Naval Groups.  Thus a Battleship actually represent a combined group of DD, CA with the BB representing the largest ship in that group.  CA-represents DD & CA.  DD represents a squadron of DDs.  Where as in Guadalcanal I see them representing a small unit of that class of ship.

So that is something else for FMG to consider.  Do they want to make pieces that will support the main A&A strategic games or for make pieces that would get the most use for all strategic and tactical A&A games?

On a slightly different note.  One reason I would like to see units such as Medium Bombers, Dive bombers, Mech Infantry and CVE, is because it would offer more economic diversity as well as strategic diversity.  There may be times where you can’t afford that Bomber, CVE or Tank but a lesse unit of that type might be sufficient as well as economical.

Out of curiosity FMG, when you say high quality pieces.  Are you saying your units would match the quality of GHQ units (Which I consider very high quality) or something in between GHQ and A&A pieces?  Just curious.

For the Italians I would light to see a green gray but light gray is okay.

Green-Grayhttp://www.diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms4/italy-Paracadutista.jpg
Light-Gray

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms4/italian-Sirte.jpg

IL, I miss Klink :-(

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.

AG124 - I somehow miss placed it when I took the picture.  Only to find it later in another box when I was putting it all way.

When I first started this project I intended copying the colors of the original A&A pieces with the exception of the Japanese since it’s colors were too close to the UK.  So I started to research Japanese uniform colors to find a good contrasting color.  This lead me to researching everyone else’s uniform.  It turns out that the original piece actually do a pretty good job matching those countries uniform colors.

Anyway, I found this Japanese Uniform paint, which is a Khaki/Green and it matches one type of Japanese uniform very well.  I really like this color and it makes a nice contrast.  With the UK I originally chose a Khaki color but it blended a little too well with the original A&A map colors so I chose a brown UK uniform color (commonly used in Europe).  With the US I decided on the Medium Green which I thought offered a better contrast.

Boy, for us color challenged persons, even the above painted units are a challenge.

Constantinople, for those of us who are not color challenged can you give us a better explanation of your problem.  For example what specifically about my colors are difficult for you.  I think this might be useful information for FMG.

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

I agree with AG124.  This would be the best solution for all if it is economically feasible to do.

From reading the post, there seems to be 2 primary camps.  Those that prefer military colors and those that prefer primary colors.  My choice of course would be for military colors.

Tin-Snip also makes a good point.  If FMG can not replace all the pieces then it would probably be best to match colors that are currently being used.  Not my first choice but perhaps the most practical.

Since we are sharing pictures of our pieces here is one of mine. (See below).

The colors that I decided to use were uniform colors that each country used.  I prefer military colors.  I really don’t care for the non military colors such as blue, red, yellow (Sorry IL, nothing personal) and so on.  I did a lot of research and found colors that came close to the actual uniforms as possible.  Of course every country used several different colors.  I chose ones that were the most common but at the same time showed enough color distinction between each country.  So here are the colors I selected. are as follows

US - Medium Green (Model Masters 4734)
GR - RLM02 Gray (Polly Scale F505075)
UK - Dark Tan (Madel Master 4709)
JP - Japan Uniform (Vallejo 923)
SV - Incomplete but plan to use dark brown

Later I will do IT (Green-Gray) & FR (Gray-Blue)

The pieces are a mix of A&A units with a few exception.  If you notice I have 2 carriers.  The larger one represents a CV and the smaller one a CVE/CVL (original A&A CV).

The DD is actually a Xenon (I hope that is right) CA.  It was smaller that the A&A DD.  So I use the A&A DD as a CA and the Xenon CA as a DD.

For the Heavy Bombers I use a combo of the original and new A&A 4 engine bombers.  For the Medium Bombers I used A&A 2 engine bombers and 1/700 scale models found at Hobby Town USA.

For Fighter/Dive bombers I used the original A&A fighters since they are smaller then the newer A&A fighters.

For Mechanized Infantry I used halftracks from GHQ.  I used the M3 for the US & SV, Sdk-25 for GR & JP, and the Bren Carrier for the UK.

I think that you mean to say the following:

IPC - 1 or 2 less than a fighter  ( think 8 IPC)
Att - 3
Def - 3 or 2 if attacking fighter is present
Rng - 4

It doesn’t make sense to have altered defense when attacking.

This is an interesting unit, though.

Bardoly

Thanks for correcting my mistake.  You, IL and AG 124 got me thinking about this some more.  This can actually work both ways for Bombers and Fighter-bombers.

For example: If an attacking Bomber or Fighter-Bomber attacks a territory with no Fighters present then it attack with it’s full attack value but if defending Fighters are present then it’s value is reduce by one.  The reason is that we all know when Bombers & Fighter bombers attack with out fighter escorts, defending Fighter are more effective is disrupting the attack by breaking up formations and shooting them down.  Thus reducing the bombers ability to inflict damage.  However, if they are escorted by Fighters then there is no change.  Since defending Fighters are being engaged by attacking Fighters.

On the reverse, if Bombers are attack we know that their defenses are weaker against Fighters.  Thus their defense value is decreased.  But if defending Fighters are present, then it stays the same.

So here is how the rules would look like.

Fighter/Dive-Bombers
Att - 3 or 2 if attacking without fighter escort and defending fighter is present.
Def - 3 or 2 if attacking fighter is present and no defending fighter is present.

This would also apply to Bombers except for the defense stat.  Since a Bomber already defends at one, it can be reduced any further.

Something to think about.

On Medium-Bombers, I’m going to continue to stick to my guns on these.  I feel they have an important role to play.  On the labeling of bombers.  I consider the Heavy Bombers in the R&D role to be Super Bombers (B-29).  So we should have Medium, Heavy & Super Bombers.

AG124

Very nice post indeed.  I like your in depth explanations.  Obviously you have put a lot of time and research into this.  Here are my thoughts on some of the units you discussed.

While I would love to have all the pieces that you describe.  My concern is that if we start to add a lot of pieces it would move A&A away from a strategic game to a tactical one.  I think the selection of units should be choses for their over all strategic importance.

Light or Escort Carrier/CVL or CVE:

I am strongly in favor of this piece.  Carriers are expensive and I think by adding these units it would allow more flexibility in spending IPC.  This unit would benefit the Japanese, US (Historically they built the most) and and to a lesser extent England but the Japanese would benefit the most.  They are already under funded compared to other nation and they need to make the most of the purchases.

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:

I agree.

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.

Yes, agree.

Tank Destroyers:

I’m not in favor of these units.  Over all these units did not have a significant importance on the strategic level.  Very rarely were battalions or division were made primarily with TD.  Most of these units served primarily with mechanized unit.  They did serve with armor units as scout and infantry units as support.  Also, I agree that trying to incorporate them in A&A would be difficult.

Light Tanks:

I feel this unit would serve no purpose in A&A.  Mainly because it would have the same cost and stats as mechanized infantry. (PIC-4, Att-2, Def-2, Mov-2).  Although Lt Tanks did serve as front line units in the very beginning of the war they quickly became obsolete and were eventually assimilated by mechanized units.

If they do make a light tank, the only thing I would change from your list is that I would give the US an M-5 Stuart instead of a M-3.

Fighter-Bomber/Medium Bomber:

To me these are two very different units and should not be lumped together.  However I feel both have important roles and are high on my list of new pieces that I would like to see.

Fighter-Bombers:  I would also included Dive & Torpedo Bombers in this category.  As I stated in a earlier post.  These units were designed for ground support and to take on individual targets.  So I would give them high attacks but lower defense since most were not able to defend themselves well against fighters.  I would give them the following stats.

IPC - 1 or 2 less than a fighter
Att - 3
Def - 3 or 2 if defending fighter is present
Rng - 4

Medium Bombers:  I would give medium bombers strategic capabilities but at half that of heavy bombers. I would give them the following stats.

IPC - 12 for A&A or 10 for A&A50
Att - 3
Def - 1
Rng - 6

Over all by incorporating FT/DV & Medium Bombers, it gives everyone the option to obtain an economical Air Force.  This would be most benifical to the Axis sincw they start the game with the most territory to attack and defend.

Heavy Tanks:

I would make this an R&D role.

Mechanized and Motorized Infantry ( elite infantry)
US/Russia - M3 Halftrack
Germany - SdKfz 251 Bren Carrier
British - M3 Halftrack
Japan -SdKfz 251
Italy - Krauss-Maffei KM m 11 or SdKfz 251

Sorry IL, the British have to have a Bren Carrier :-)

I also like the SdKfz 251 but I thought the 250 looked closer to the Japanese one and this could be shared by both.  I have a friend in Arizona that owns one. (Actually these are OT-810s.  These are the Czech built version of the 251).

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/gracefuldragons/Feb23-252007CampNavajo.jpg037.jpg

If anyone want to see nice pictures of a real one you can go here.
http://www.sdkfz251.com/

Fighter-Bombers
Russia - Il-2M3 Shturmovik or PE-3

I really like the PE-3 too but my concern was that it could be mistaken for a Bomber but on the other hand the IL-2M3 can be mistaken as a fighter.  One way to avoid confusion with the PE-3 is to make it the same size as a fighter.  Anyway, I was using the following criteria for selecting Fighter/Dive Bombers.
1. Avoid choosing a plane that looked too much like a fighter or bomber to avoid confusion with those units.  This was easy except for the British.  They were the only country who really did not have a successful dive bomber that was built in large number.  They made great fighter-bombers but look too much like fighters.
2.  Recognition.
3.  Numbers built.

Self Propelled Artillery:
Personally I don’t think SPA are needed as a separate unit.  I usually consider them as part of the mechanized infantry which usually comprised of light tanks, halftracks, armored cars and self propelled artillery.

However if SPAs are made.  I would prefer pieces with open tops.  Again this will help confusing SPAs with tanks.  So here are my choices for SPAs

Self Propelled Artillery:
Germany:   SdKfz16 or SdKfz 124 Wespe
Soviet: SU-76 http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/russia/su76_marjorana.html
American: M-7 Priest  http://planetarmor.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3132
Italy: Italian Tank Destroyer Semovent 47/23
Japan: Ho-NiType1TankDestroyer

I am not sure if the COMMANDER unit is covered in this forum (Im sure it is somewhere)  There are several expansions (One that I am creating) where you can purchase a COMMANDER.  This unit gives the army attached to it special abilities and access to certain DOCTRINES.

I understand now thanks.

A couple of questions.  Now when you say you will make them of better quality.  Do you mean better than anything A&A has produced or make them of equvilent quality of the previous A&A games such as the revised addition?

If you are going to make Mechanized Infantry and Fighter (Dive) Bombers. here are the units I would like to see.

Mech Inf
US/Russia - M3 Halftrack
Germany - SdKfz 250
British - Bren (Universal) carrier
Japan - Truck or  SdKfz 250
Although Japan did develop and armored APC (Type 1 Ho-Ha) They felt they were too slow and so built very few and primarily used trucks (However, trucks are classified as “Motorized” infantry.  If you wish to give Japan an APC then I would use the Sdk fz 250
Italy - Krauss-Maffei KM m 11 or Autoblinda 41
Italy did used and produced a licence version of the German KM m 11 but were bigger users of Armored cars such as the Autoblinda 41

If you plan to make Fighter (Dive) Bombers I recommend the following.
Note:  On a strategic level I classify Fighter, Torpedo and Dive - Bombers in the same groups because their primary mission was to attack surface/ground targets.

Russia - Il-2M3 Shturmovik
Germany - Stuka
British - Hawker Typhoon or A-31 Vengeance
U.S.A - SBD Dauntless
Japan - Aichi DA3 Val
Italians - Breda 65
If you want to combine.  The Italians used the Breda Ba-201 which looked very similar to the Stuka

Bernard Shaw: “if the Democrats are able to create a division of the white men and the black men, there will be no Republican Party in the future.”  (1927 Chicago Mayoral Race, Republicans stood for black rights!)

“You pro-choice people, you need Roe v. Wade.  You’re desperate for it, not because you’re sure of your opinion but because you’re not.  You need to cling to that ruling as moral validation for a position you’re not entirely comfortable with, deep down.”

Ever since the Democrats have taken Congress in 2006 the economy has tanked.  Now they also have the Presidency, can America survive?

Jennifer, when can we get married? :-D

Die Flottenmörderin

And who’s the poor sap that got slaughtered to earn you this title? lol

Where were we, Ohh the Prince of Wales.  Yes, big ears.  Sorry the wrong one.

Okay, seriously now.

There is nothing wrong with trying to place units to match the history but you also need to keep the balance of game play in mind.

When I modify the game by adding new units I do this.

Total the value of all the units for each country.  Now add the total value for each country in the Allies and do the same for the axis.  So if you give the British a BB & DD (34 IPC) Then you should give the Axis or in this particular case the Japanese 34 IPC worth of units that would be a counter balance against this such as ships and aircraft.

When adding opposing units I try to research what units were available in that area. I also ask the list.  As you can see, others have already given some great example.

Finally, if you’re still in a dilemma, use your best judgement.

IL

Earlier FMG said he was planning on making the following units.

So far I think these should be:

a) The Truck or Half track unit
b) The bunker unit
c) The commander unit
d) The Rocket unit (Maybe… I just think it is cool)
e) Transport Plane
f) Other…Huh (we will all figure this out)

Letter “C” says “The Command Unit”.  This is what I was asking about.  I know what a bunker unit is but not a commander unit.

Personally though, I think bunkers are worthless.  Look how much time and money Germany spent building the Atlantic wall.  And how long did it hold off the allies, one day.

So far I think these should be:

a) The Truck or Half track unit
b) The bunker unit
c) The commander unit
d) The Rocket unit (Maybe… I just think it is cool)
e) Transport Plane
f) Other…Huh (we will all figure this out)

The commander unit is new to me.  What are the rules on this?

As for the peices, if the numbers still aren’t there, then perhaps you can contact hobby store chains to see if they would be interested in carrying them.

Are these prices to have them made in the US or China?  Also, when were these prices quoted?  The way the economy is right now I’m sure you can negotiate a lower price but it’s still going to be expensive.

Just out of curiosity, when they say 48 cavity molds, do they mean 48 units in one mold or 48 molds?

Lets give them practical suggestions. Pretend you had a budget only for 12 new molds. Decide and fill the obvious immediate problems and add a few other candidates. Dont be concerned with the actual pieces at this point ( Graf Spee, SU-155 etc).

I here you IL.  My list is primarily for reference.  If I were considering making new units those would be my choices.  Maybe if FMG can give us some parameters as to what is feasible then I think it would help us provide more useful suggestion.  If 12 new units is the most they can do financially for now, then I can narrow my list and suggestions to their needs.

By the way, I agree with most of your list but why do you want the Kongo for the Japanese when they already have the Yamato?  Just curious.

Field Marshal,
If you do make ships, here are my suggestions.  For BB I would choose ships with 3 barrels per turret or 2 barrels but with 4 turrets.  For CA, 2 barrels per turret with 2 turrets at the bow and 1 at the stern.  For DD, 1 barrel per turret and 1 turret at the bow and one at the stern.  And of course make the sizes more distinct between one another.  I think these features will help make the ships more distinguishable from one another.  My ship list above are already set with these conditions.

Thanks

I think that list above is a bit too much.

Well I did say it was a wish list.  No harm in shooting for the moon.  :-D

It should be noted that these are sister ships. The Lutzow(originally Deutschland) was the first in the class of panzerschiff (armored ship). She was followed by the Scheer & the Graf Spee

C_Strabala
I’m aware of this.  I have Jane’s Fighting Ships of WWII.  Even though they are sister ship they all look different.  That’s why I listed them.

Making custom units like mechanized infantry and air transports would be a terrible mistake.

TG Moses VI
We all have our own ideas of what we like and not everyone is going to agree on the same thing.  If you have a disagreement with someone that’s fine but be nice about it.  But don’t insult me or others by calling their idea a “Terrible Mistake”.  Just because you post on here frequently doesn’t mean all of your idea’s are always correct or the most popular.  For the most part, everyone on this forum are nice people and respectful of one another, even when they disagree.  I would appreciate if you followed this lead.

Now my reason for wanting special units are because I want pieces that are difficult to find.  That will entice me to buy these.  If it’s just the same old pieces then I probably won’t buy it because I already have them.  The only exception to this is if the pieces are of high quality like the GHQ miniatures.  Then I will buy them.

Since FMG will be making them.  Ultimately the decision will be theirs.