Posts made by Nowhere Man

@vodot:

Beyond that, consider two other popular options that fix issues that should probably not survived playtesting (in my opinion):
1. Move the DOA China fighter towards Russia a TT or two (or just let its placement within China be determined by the US player), and
2. Close the Turkish Straits to the Italian Caucasus Kamikaze. At least, close UKR and CAUC to sea invasions.

This is standard-practice in our Anniversary games… we always allow the US/China player to place the starting Flying Tigers wherever they wish in Chinese territory, and the Dardanelles are always closed in our games… makes as much sense to leave them open as saying the Northwest Passage is navigable (of course neither is navigable in WWII).

@Schmidty1701:

I’m going to take spare Russian units for the French, and Spare UK units for the ANZAC. I’m also going to either purchase their respective controls markers on eBay, or paint some simple ones on the backs of extras I have.

Is this a good idea, or shoud I give in and purchase the '40s?

If you just want to do slight modifications to Anniversary and don’t want to spend big bucks on 1940 (I’m assuming beyond the cash issue, it’s also a time/rules issue? You don’t want to actually play 1940, you’d rather just modify the smaller Anniversary?), I’d recommend just buying the French and ANZAC UNITS from 1940 off of Historical Board Gaming’s website. If you just want French and Aussie units, this would be the far more cost-effective and hassle-free way of doing it.

If you actually WANT to play 1940, I disagree with the printing of the map suggestion if money is an issue, because having a good-sized map of Global printed is going to cost you almost as much as buying the games themselves (without getting all the units that come with it)… while the printed maps ARE superior to what you get out of the box, printing maps is never about saving money, its about getting a better map. If you really want to play 1940, just buy 1940… you’ll get everything you need and you’ll be supporting the company that made it (and might offer more in the future if supported for their work).

If you’re just looking to expand Anniversary to include France and ANZAC, just buy the 1940 units for those two countries from HBG. That’s my opinion (right or wrong).

What I’m getting at is “is it cool/ok to use a paint/primer combo”, as-in
step-1: use paint/primer
step-2: clearcoat
done

…or should you use a separate primer, as-in
step-1: primer
step-2: paint
step-3: clearcoat
done

Just wondering what other folks do and think is ok.

What about using a paint that has primer built-in and afterwards using a clear coat… is this a good way to paint without having to do a seperate primer first, then paint? Such as the example in the picture?

QA in China just isn’t what it used to be…  :oops:

If they wanted to keep the height of the box the same (I suppose to look good with other editions… uniformity), a single piece/sheet of properly sized Styrofoam as a spacer would have prevented this problem at a very cheap cost (or of course, stacking things in the right order to begin with).

Oh well, just count this as a quality-control issue from the manufacturer.

@SS:

I still got 38.9 mph

My bad, the ship is 33 knots, which is like 38 mph… thing is, I’m just not used to seeing anyone rate ship speeds in mph, hence my confusion. My main point was the difference between the actual German naval ship, vs whatever this photoshopped dirigible was supposed to be… :?

The picture does look cool in a steampunk universe, but the Germans never pursued anything remotely close to this.

@SS:

From what I read it was launched dec of 38 in Stettin but never was used. Sat there until 45 Germans sunk it. Russians raised it. Then desttoyed in 47 for target practice.

Said it could hold 42 planes. Range 9200 miles at 21 mph could go 38
Miles per hour top speed.
If its the same one in pic ?

A0 D1 M3 C12

@SS:

Like I said I may not have found the right info. It did say zeppelin carrier.

Well the original photograph of a “carrier zeppelin” is a very, Very, VERY badly photoshopped dirigible that never existed… the stats you mentioned are of the traditional sea-going aircraft carrier “Graf Zeppelin”, which was a ship, not a dirigible (and at 38knots, not 38mph).

The photograph in the OP is neat in a steampunk fantasy setting, but nothing even remotely close to it existed… in fact, to my knowledge, the only serious attempt to turn a rigid dirigible into an aircraft carrier was conducted by the Americans, the USS Akron and USS Macon could carry fighters, but they latched-on underneath to underside arrestor-gear, there was no flight deck.

We prefer to avoid 1941 unless we’re using it as a teaching tool to someone new. We usually play 1942.2 or Anniversary if we want to play something less demanding than Global.

If I’m not mistaken, I think the only “Italian” sculpts in Anniversary are the Infantry and Tanks… I believe all other “Italian” units in Anniversary are just German and Japanese equipment molded in brown. If you want all-Italian equipment, you either have to get 1940 Europe sculpts (from the game or HBG) and/or the FMG Italian sculpts (sold by IWNGU).

The detail on everything (considering the tiny size of the sculpts) is simply AMAZING… super jelly.

@SS:

@Nowhere:

There’s a much simpler answer to China… instead of changing turn order and everything else… just allow the Chinese player to place the Flying Tigers where he wants on initial deployment, and my guess is they won’t be where they will be destroyed on turn-1 every single time Japan nukes them before the Chinese have a chance to use them once. Having access to the Flying Tigers for both offense and selective defense is critical to China, and almost never ever happens, because Japan ALWAYS kills them on turn-1 before China even moves once. This one minor change on setup changes the entire dynamic in China without people having to change turn-order or use selective bids.

Have you play tested this yet ?

Yes, standard practice on this end. The Chinese player can place the Flying Tigers anywhere he wants in China before the game begins… oddly enough, it’s never placed right next to the Japanese player… while it may not completely fix the play balance of the entire game, it does do several positive things without any noticed negatives on our playtesting.

Generally speaking, the Flying Tigers are rarely eliminated before the Chinese player ever gets to use them… if they are, it usually involves a much higher cost for the Japanese player (which then usually means it’s not worth it to the Japanese player on turn-1). It ends up giving the Chinese player some needed flexibility on attack and defense, otherwise lost when the Chinese player usually loses the Flying Tigers on turn-1 with OOB setup. It doesn’t automatically save China, it doesn’t make China invincible… but it does make them a tad more challenging to the Japanese player, and a tad more fun to play as the Chinese player.

I really see only upside, no downside to this very slight tweek to the OOB setup.

The one in Anniversary is the M14/41, the one in Europe 1940 is the M15/42… he wants more of the M14/41, which is what is in the rerelease of Anniversary (as previously pictured above). Each copy of Anniversary comes with (6)x Italian M14/41s.

@Schrecki:

Where can i see a list with the All game stuff? So if i write them, i will bei Sure that i have all miniature.

410 plastic pieces

Soviet Units: 74 pieces

20 infantry
    8 artillery
    8 anti-aircraft artillery
    10 tanks
    8 fighters
    2 bombers
    4 transports
    4 subs
    4 destroyers
    2 cruisers
    2 aircraft carriers
    2 battleships

United Kingdom Units: 84 pieces

20 infantry
    6 artillery
    8 anti-aircraft artillery
    8 tanks
    8 fighters
    6 bombers
    6 transports
    6 subs
    6 destroyers
    4 cruisers
    2 aircraft carriers
    4 battleships

United States Units: 84 pieces

20 infantry
    6 artillery
    8 anti-aircraft artillery
    6 tanks
    8 fighters
    6 bombers
    6 transports
    6 subs
    6 destroyers
    4 cruisers
    4 aircraft carriers
    4 battleships

German Units: 86 pieces

20 infantry
    8 artillery
    8 anti-aircraft artillery
    12 tanks
    8 fighters
    4 bombers
    6 transports
    6 subs
    6 destroyers
    4 cruisers
    2 aircraft carriers
    2 battleships

Japan Units: 82 pieces

20 infantry
    6 artillery
    8 anti-aircraft artillery
    6 tanks
    8 fighters
    4 bombers
    6 transports
    6 subs
    6 destroyers
    4 cruisers
    4 aircraft carriers
    4 battleships

I’m terribly sorry, I didn’t mean to upset anyone… everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I was just voicing mine, and I understand not everyone shares the same opinion. Sorry to go off-topic.

Back on topic, if I find a copy of 1941 cheap in Canada, i’ll be happy to post it here. :-D

@Midnight_Reaper:

@Nowhere:

If it’s “Hungry Hungry Hippos: 1941 edition”; Now with Japanese Tiger-Is and British and American IS-2s.

You say that like it’s a bad thing! :-D I prefer to think of them as Heavy Tanks for all the major powers. Just because the Japanese never built Tigers doesn’t mean that they could have never done so. After all, Japan never conquered India in real life either, but that doesn’t stop Japanese players from doing so on a regular basis.

It is a bad thing. The Japanese didn’t build Tiger tanks, the Germans did… the Americans and British didn’t build IS-2s, the Russians did. Using the wrong equipment for the wrong country is a bad thing… just watch the Iron Eagle movies and tell me how cool Russian F4 Phantom Migs are and tell me its a great movie… bad things are made by people being lazy and loose with history… like Iron Eagle and 1941.

Japanese tanks were terrible from start to finish. When all your tanks make the M4 Sherman look like an overpowered, unstoppable juggernaut, your nation has serious tank-design problems.

Look, I don’t have a problem with alternate history… I don’t have a problem with saying “maybe if the Japanese tried a little harder here, and committed some more forces there, and the British foolishly let their guard down, a different history in Burma or India might occur”… that’s one thing… but to give the Japanese tank industry Tiger tanks? To say America and England just threw up their hands and said “you know what, we’ll just mass produce Russian tanks instead”!!! No thanks.

If I want heavy tanks for the US, England and Japan, i’ll just go to HBG and buy a few of the actual tanks produced by those nations. 1941 has some nice unique sculpts… and I use them for the appropriate nation… American & British IS-2s, Japanese Tiger-Is? I tossed every one of them in my trash can… it was fun hoops practice.

@Midnight_Reaper:

It’s Hungry Hungry Hippos: Eastern Front edition! Now with German Tiger Is and IIs and Soviet KV-1s and IS-2s! :-D

If it’s “Hungry Hungry Hippos: 1941 edition”; Now with Japanese Tiger-Is and British and American IS-2s.

@FastHeinz:

I used Corsair fighters from HBG as carrier fighters. A close eye can spot the U.S.S. Missouri.

I like your work, it’s top notch… very serious, its really fine painting… I will say however, choosing the Corsair as your default carrier fighter, while it looks very nice, historically speaking, is hard to accept as the main carrier fighter… The combination of an aft cockpit and the Corsair’s long nose made landings hazardous for newly trained pilots. During landing approaches it was found that oil from the hydraulic cowl flaps could spatter onto the windscreen, badly reducing visibility, and the undercarriage oleo struts had bad rebound characteristics on landing, allowing the aircraft to bounce out of control down the carrier deck… It was also found that the Corsair’s right wing could stall and drop rapidly and without warning during slow carrier landings. In addition, if the throttle were suddenly advanced (for example, during an aborted landing) the left wing could stall and drop so quickly that the fighter could flip over with the rapid increase in power… there were so many problems with the F4U’s use on carriers, Corsair deployment aboard U.S. carriers was delayed until late 1944… by which time there were almost no Japanese left to fight in Carrier battles. The Corsair’s claim to fame mostly comes from the USMC’s use on island bases, not the Navy’s use on carriers.

When I think carrier battles in the Pacific, I think of F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat. Of course, that’s just me… I’m a stickler for the standard.

None of my musings have anything to do with the fine work you’ve done… I’m super-jelly of all the fine detail (down to the battleship numbers, and different deck colors you’ve used) and wish I had a thimbleful of talent that you have.

@vodot:

Thanks YG, this is terrific!

Interesting that someone decided that Russia is likely to out-navy Italy (+2 TR and +2 CA)- just in case Stalin decided to float the mighty Caspian Armada? Bummer for those of us for whom the italy units were always a big selling point :)

I actually have a beefier Italian army/navy pool of units… I use “national bins” for each country that are filled by combining my multiple copies of A&A into a single bin per nation, and use them for whichever A&A game I’m playing that day. I also purchased extras from HBG, so my Italian bin has more of everything than what comes in Anniversary, plus I have the proper Italian unit sculpts from Europe 1940, since Anniversary uses German and Japanese sculpts for Italy. Italy was a big selling point for me on Anniversary as well… I always missed having Italy as a separate nation when playing 1942.2 (and Classic for that matter).

As for the Soviet Union… about the only time I see Russia build a fleet is in an end-game where Germany was defeated and Russia is trying to build a fleet to invade Japan!

Thanks YG for this list, it is very nice to have on the forum.

I always had a problem capsizing a battleship to represent the first hit, so I finally broke-down and bought the HBG “damaged ship” tokens… even if the use of the marker is short-lived, it’s a nicer visualization than a capsized ship.