Posts made by reloader-1

I vote to suspend the pre-orders and refund, so we can order more current sets from Coach and allow him to use the money for future sets.

CVL,BB, and DD/CA for me.

Plum is a great color for the Republicans as their flag incorporates that color.

Red is on the map for Russia/China and plum is not used for anyone, as far as I know…

FMG - thanks for listening to us. With better, more consistent scaling I look forward to future sets from you and HBG!

FMG - Thanks for listening to the community!

That’s what this project is all about, a community effort that gives us what we want (great pieces!) and gives FMG & HBG what they want (profit!).

Any thought on making your infantry a hair bigger?

Also, size is used as a “military effectiveness” indicator in this game - Battleships are bigger and more powerful than Cruisers or Destroyers, Bombers are bigger and more powerful than Tac Bombers, Tanks are bigger and more powerful than Mech Inf, etc.

I disagree as to balance - at the very least I would trim down the number of transports, subs, destroyers, or cruisers and add one slot for tanks.

I’ve asked HBG what units he sells the most of, the answer is tacs and land units (tanks, mechs). People use LOTS of those in the 1940 and variant games, including global. It is undeniable that A&A has a global focus.

For those few that want to play naval variant games, like Tall Paul and myself, the extra ships are nice - but honestly, given supply and demand, it is much easier for the minority that plays naval variants to pick up extra ships from HBG than for the majority who play A&A based games to pick up extra tanks, mechs, etc.

Here are some prices:

Land Units:
Tank $1.95
Truck $0.75
Mech $0.35
TD $1.05

Compared to:

Naval Units

Carrier $0.25
Battleship $0.40
Destroyer $0.25
Submarine $0.25

It won’t be the end of the world for FMG to kill one destroyer, sub, or transport slot and give us 6 more tanks and 6 less of whatever ship he axed. For those that want more of the ship, they can always buy more. However, if you want to buy more tanks, you are out of luck - HBG sold out in a couple days…

DFW,

My beef in the Italian set is with the truck and armored car.

However, in future sets if FMG sticks with the same 20mm scale for all pieces, I will have a problem with the Tiger I/Tiger II (they should be the bigger 22mm size of the OOB Panther & Sherman). The point of this poll is to make sure that future sets have the right scaling for our needs.

Regarding the Italian infantry, I agree they are very nice. However, the OOB infantry pieces are actually on par or better than any of the infantry pieces we have seen so far from HBG or FMG. Honestly, these are the last pieces I’d get rid of, as the quality is quite good OOB.

Look, I’m being a realist about this; at the current rate of production, FMG will be done with all the sets in about 6-7 years. Even at a generous 6 month/set timetable, it is still 3-4 years of production. I am trying to make sure that a. FMG scales properly so that his pieces are usable with what we currently have and b. in case he doesn’t complete all nations, we have pieces in usable scale.

It’s nice that all the trucks will match, and infantry - albeit not before 2015.

To sum it up, in this Italian set it was a happy coincidence that the 20mm scale that FMG chose for all his pieces coincided with the 18/20/22mm scale that HBG is using (light/med/heavy). The Carro Armato is a medium tank, and so it fits perfectly with the HBG PzIII. However, as previously discussed, the truck is huge, and will remain huge at the 20mm scale, and on the other end of the spectrum a German Tiger I or Tiger II would actually be undersized at the 20mm scale.

I’m going to be mixing and matching pieces from OOB, HBG, and FMG. So far, FMG has proven he can make great airplanes, has a great infantry sculptor (albeit his mold needs some HGH), and has some decent ships (quality & detail wise I would argue that OOB is better, but that is another story). What he is lacking is a cohesive scale in land units, and I would like to help him with that. Also, his well-documented problems in getting product to market are very troubling.

HBG, on the other hand, has shown great detail and scale in his land units, although his infantry could use some work. He has shown an ability to get product to market quickly - by my count he is releasing a set every two months, which is impressive. He has also shown a good ability to improve quality from his first set (Marines) to his second set (Axis Minors).

The way I look at it, I will use the best pieces from both HBG and FMG. For example, from the Italian set I kept the aircraft, the ships, and the tank, td, and artillery. I have no use for undersized infantry, and the truck and armored car were too big. I do know that HBG will probably produce an Italian set that will have an armored car and truck in good scale, and I will buy those whenever they come out. From HBG, I kept all the land units (especially the PzIII), the infantry with cap, and the artillery piece, leaving the FW 190 and the AT infantry out.

Rorsach, I agree with you that mechs are small, but BotB trucks? They are the same size as tanks in the game! I think you got a little confused there. The BotB trucks are significantly bigger than the 1940 mechs.

In fact, the trucks are taller than some tanks, and almost as wide…

If you compare with the pictures above, the HBG and OOB trucks are nearly as wide as the Sherman, which is not a small piece.

Compare the two (US mech vs US truck):

Remember that we have the luxury of two companies working together. If Germany’s truck is too big, we have the Opel Maultier from the HBG set.

However, it would be a shame for FMG to keep making huge trucks that everyone thinks are too big. By doing so, HBG is forced to waste a mold slot or two on a truck piece, rather than on other units we may want. Let’s not give up on the pieces we want just because two came out badly!

Edit: Also, even if 2 molds have been done, that still leaves:

US
UK
USSR
Japan
France
China
Canada
Anzac
Neutrals

There’s an elephant in the room - oh, it’s just the Italian truck:

@DFWSupertrooper:

No offense, but I don’t like the idea of changing future sets when some are already done - you’d only create MORE inconsistency among the product.  If inconsistency is what you’re trying to avoid, let’s just leave well enough alone.

Disagree completely. As of now, FMG has great pieces, and so does HBG. Only a few are badly sized, such as infantry or the absolutely huge truck.

The good news is that HBG will most likely produce a truck for Italy that is proper sized, so we will have a usable piece. It would be a shame for future sets to keep making Godzilla sized truck and elven infantry just for the sake of consistency. As it stands, if FMG changes his scale all he really has that is out of scale is the infantry, truck, and possibly armored car.

I have yet to see one person like the scale of the truck, militaryman being the exception and I don’t think even he likes it. What is the point of continuing something that the market strongly dislikes?

Also, I think that HBG’s Axis Minor soldier is in perfect scale with OOB units. His Marines are big, and FMG’s are small.

Infantry:

Which looks out of place?

OOB comparison:

Stug III is a Tank Destroyer / Self-Propelled Gun

Hummel is a Self-Propelled Artillery.

Direct fire vs indirect fire.

Please vote! I know that FMG’s German set is probably in molding by now, but we still have time to change future sets.

This is your chance to be heard if you don’t like the size of the FMG truck, or think HBG’s pieces should match the FMG scale.

Just to update… as of last count, HBG had 9 Italian tanks in stock, as opposed to 345 Italian transport ships in stock.

Assuming that you get 12 ships and 6 tanks per set, and assuming that HBG has sold at least a couple transport ships, it seems that his initial stock was 30 sets of Italian pieces, which means he had:

180 Italian Tanks
360 Italian Transport Ships

Since then, he has sold 171 tanks, and 15 ships. Which means for every set he has to buy to fill additional tank orders, he is going to be stuck with quite a few transport ships that no one buys….

military man, you can’t just “order more tanks”… First off, the mold only has one slot for a tank, and you can’t just mold tanks without anything else in the mold. To order more tanks, or anything else, Jeremy at FMG would have to place a minimum order (normally 1000 mold runs) which would give him:

1000 tanks

AND

1000 carriers
1000 battleships
2000 transports
2000 subs
2000 destroyers

etc.

The mold has a fixed number of slots, many units only have one slot (including the tank). To make more of one piece, you have to run the entire mold. This all costs quite a lot of money, hence why his sets cost $40 in the first place!

No offense, but no one is making a killing here…

Militaryman,

Nearly ALL of us want more tanks, just as nearly all of us needed more tacs and mechs for the 1940 games. If coach only gets 6 tanks per Italian set from FMG, he needs to sell them at a price that makes sense. Let’s say FMG is selling him Italian sets wholesale at $30, that means that if he sells the tanks at $0.55, he recoups $3 of his cost and is stuck with a TON of pieces that a lot of people don’t need. It gets even worse if people order lots of tanks - say you order 30 tanks, or 5 sets worth, at $0.55 - coach gets roughly $15, but is left with $135 worth of inventory to sell that is not as desirable!

And that is without Coach MAKING A SINGLE DIME OF PROFIT (see I can use all caps too!). I still think the tanks are too cheap, btw. $9 for 6 tanks is not that bad…

Want a quick laugh? Go to the legion gaming site, click on forums.

DO NOT CLICK ANY LINK IN ANY POST… Just see what damage bots can do on a forum…

At a bare minimum we need at least one more tank slot in the mold for all countries, especially US/Germany etc. 6 tanks for $40 is not viable, and lots of us will have the same idea in buying them from HBG. I can see HBG charging $5-6 per tank, as someone who buys a $40 FMG set doesn’t really need more ships or planes, but definitely needs more tanks. Remember that HBG doesn’t want to lose money selling the tanks from the Italian sets and being stuck with 6,352 carriers and battleships…

Knp - it’s not that hard to reduce the number of ships.

Currently, the Italian mold has 1 slot for carriers, 1 for battleships, 2 for destroyers, 2 for transports, 2 for subs, etc.

In future molds, just cut down one or two of those extra destroyer/sub/transport etc mold spaces, and swap in a land piece. Obviously, for the Italians the mold is done, but for future sets I believe we still have time.

All china does is bag each mold run in a separate bag, it would add no complexity whatsoever if the mold swapped a couple of slots.

Lunar, the fighter is probably me being nitpicky, I feel it has a couple more detail lines than necessary (hence “overworked”). The artillery is a two-piece mold, and while most are glued pretty well some are not it is something that might break down the road.

Both have great detail, however.

FMG - just a final note that I am very appreciative of your pieces, along with many other members here. Honestly, improve the sizing of the land units, and increase the number of land unit slots in the mold and you have a great product on your hands. My criticism is only to make your future sets better!

The same goes for HBG, scale your anti-tank infantry better and perhaps make the artillery pieces a one-piece unit and you also have a great set.

I completely disagree with making all vehicles the same size “bumper to bumper”.

In the same post, you confirm that sea unit classes will be different lengths, based on class, but on land you will not make the same distinction?

So a Tiger II will be the same size as an Italian medium tank?! I know this isn’t miniatures, I am not asking for exact scaling but rather what HBG has wisely done and standardized unit scaling, i.e. medium tanks smaller than heavy tanks.

Your “standard” bumper to bumper sizing makes no sense whatsoever.