Posts made by WOPR

He 177:

He 277:

@Imperious:

None of this is found in the VC for any AA game, so people complain that these games are always the same old “Japanese tanks rolling against Moscow” thing.

That only happens when the Allies try the same old “Kill Germany first” thing. If something as ahistorical as Japan invading Moscow is happening in your games it’s probably because you’re doing something that is equally ahistorical, like ignoring the Pacific.

@Panzer:

One of the new adders for the AA50 that I really like that did kinda address the “unrealisticness” of ther game compared to real history is the addition of the victory cities. With them you do not actually have to attack all out everywhere, you can selectively attack the victory cities and win that way. It also shortens the game because it does not go until one side is gone. We beat the Axis in 41 set-up as the Allies because Japan went too far into Russia and the US and UK came in from below and took the victory cities in Asia and won before Japan could counter in time. Japan was pissed because they actually had way more troops but overlooked their rear defenses, thinking they were safe. :lol:

So Japan can be vulnerable if they over extend themselves into Russia. It is up to the Allies to read the strategy and counter to smarten Japan up.

Exactly. The only way Japan can usually threaten Russia is when the Allies let them do it. No new rules need to be written in order to prevent Japan from invading Moscow, your game play should do that.

@coachofmany:

Yes, along with new infantry units from Italeri 1/72 of each country. I even have China and Australia from another brand.
1/285 armor from GHQ (Light, med, and heavy depending on country)
1/2400 ships from Pazerschiffe
all represenatative of the actual weapons.
canada will prouce M4A1 tanks……
etc.
Not cheap but it will look nice on the 47" X 94" map of IL’s !

I would be tempted to go that route but most model sets at those scales are metal. I don’t like metal pieces.

@FieldMarshalGames:

NEWS

The mould Maker now has all our sculpts and our directions for the project!  He is formulating a quote for me and I should have the answer in a few days.  The COST he comes up with will determine how fast this project moves forward.

It may come time soon to place pre-orders to fund the project.

WE ARE NOW IN A NEW PHASE ON THIS PROJECT - PRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT

If pre-orders are needed to fund the project I think a complete list of represented units is called for. A couple of renders from the artist depicting the sculpts would be appreciated as well.

Very cool. 1/700 scale is the right size for an A&A bomber. Fighters should be 1/600 though otherwise they’re too small to handle imo.

Nation’s Pride. LMAO. Inglourious Basterds is probably my favorite movie of the year so far.

@Captain:

70th Anniversary of New Zealand declaring war on Germany today, 3 September 1939.

Yep, we got stuck in early  :-D

Wicked. Did you guys kill any nazis?

If we’re talking about adding a dedicated heavy tank unit to the game (something that will not happen in AAP40 or AAE40) then I support 4-4-2-8. If we’re talking about adding a heavy tank tech then I propose a simple plus 1 on defense for all tanks, that is, with tanks starting at 6 IPCs (as in AAP40).

Tanks:
3-3-2-6

With heavy tank tech:
3-4-2-6

Perhaps we could create a poll for every unit and nationality to see which ones people would like to see included. Just an idea if FMG hasn’t already decided on this.

@FieldMarshalGames:

@crusaderiv:

Yes,yes,yes.

I want more piece for my World at War game game but what will be the scale of the pieces?

We need more warships but the scale must be between 1/3000 and 1/4000 not bigger…
Carrier, cruiser, transport and cargo,landing craft.
1/250 for tanks and trucks.
1/700 for planes.
1/87 or 1/72 for figurines.

We are using the same scale as the existing AAA pcs.  I know this product will be used 99% of the time for Axis & Allies…  but just like COMBAT DICE, I say they are for WW2 games in general so the Chimps will not Sue me out of business.

Well, if you measure the A&A pieces the scales inexplicably vary from mold to mold.  :? If one is familiar with the units represented it’s pretty obvious in some molds. For example, the Yamato mold is shorter than the Bismarck mold when it should be the opposite. The B 17 wingspan is far greater than the Halifax wingspan when they should be identical. The Bf 109 fighter mold is one of the largest while it should be the smallest. What’s going on here? This is a gripe for people who appreciate historically accurate models.

What I would like to see is a consistent scale for each unit type: All BBs at 1/zzzz scale, CVs at 1/yyyy scale, CAs at 1/xxxx scale, DDs at 1/wwww, figthers at 1/vvv scale, bombers at 1/uuu scale and so on. Exceptions might need to be made here and there if a mold ends up being too big or too small. However, I feel every attempt should be made to keep the relative size of the pieces in each unit type as accurate as possible.

I think it would be ideal if a scale was chosen for each unit type that would allow something like the following rule:

DDs <= 35mm (~1/3333)
CAs 42-47mm (~1/4444)
BBs 55-62mm (~1/4444)
CVs >= 60mm (~1/4444)

fighters 20-26mm (wingspan) (~1/600)
bombers 30-60mm (wingspan) (~1/700)

The following is my dream list of airborne units.

GERMANY:

fighters:
standard fighter: Bf 109 (already in game) or FW 190
long range fighter: Do 335
jet fighter: Me 262
long range jet fighter: Ho 229

bombers:
standard bomber: Ju 88 (already in game)
long range bomber: He 177
heavy bomber: He 277 or Ju 488 or Me 264
long range heavy bomber: Ta 400 or Ho XVIII

US:

fighters:
standard fighter: F6F hellcat (already in game)
long range fighter: P 38 (already in game) or P 51
jet fighter: P-80 / F-80 or F-84
long range jet fighter: F-86

bombers:
standard bomber: B 25 (this should be the standard us bomber not the B 17)
long range bomber: B 17 (already in game)
heavy bomber: B 24 or B 29
long range heavy bomber: B 29 or B 36

(US had the most badass bombers)

UK:

fighters:
standard fighter: Spitfire (already in game)
long range fighter: RAF Mustang Mk.III
jet fighter: Gloster Meteor
long range jet fighter: DH.100 Vampire

bombers:
standard bomber: Vickers Wellington (this should be the standard uk bomber not the Halifax)
long range bomber: Handley Page Halifax (already in game)
heavy bomber: Avro Lancaster
long range heavy bomber: Avro Lincoln or Victory Bomber

RUSSIA:

fighters:
standard fighter: Yak 1 (already in game)
long range fighter: MiG 5 T DIS
jet fighter: MiG 9
long range jet fighter: MiG 15

bombers:
standard bomber: Tu ANT-40/SB or Tu-2  or Pe-2 (should be the standard russian bomber not the Petlyakov Pe-8)
long range bomber: Yermolayev Yer-2
heavy bomber: Pe-8 (already in game)
long range heavy bomber: Tu-4 or Tu-85

JAPAN

fighters:
standard fighter: Zero (already in game)
long range fighter: Zero (already in game)
jet fighter: Nakajima J9Y Kikka
long range jet fighter: Nakajima Ki-201 or Kyushu J7W2 Shinden

bombers:
standard bomber: Ki-67 Hiryu “Peggy” (this should be the standard jap bomber not the P1Y)
long range bomber: P1Y Ginga “Frances” (already in game) or Mistubishi G4M-2/24c “Betty”
heavy bomber: Nakajima G8N Renzan “Rita”
long range heavy bomber: Nakajima G10N

ITALY

fighters:
standard fighter: C.202 Folgore
long range fighter: G.55 Centauro
jet fighter: Campini N.1 or Re.2007
long range jet fighter: Re.2007

bombers:
standard bomber: SM.79 “Sparviero”
long range bomber: Fiat BR.20
heavy bomber: Piaggio P.108
long range heavy bomber: Piaggio P.108

@Black:

I would prefer to stick with tech items that were actually built during WWII.  I would include proto-types in this definition.  If a country cannot met this qualification if they had at least one test trial.  If a country could not meet this requirement, we could do one of two option.

1.  They could use a proto type design that was closest to having a proto type built.

2.  They use an allies tech unit.

Everybody’s list of desired units is going to be different. If you find your favorite piece missing from FMGs set and don’t know where to turn, I’ll sculpt it for you.

@Black:

One thing I’m not in favor of is jets using Long Range technology.  No jet simply could not match a long range prop aircraft.

Well in A&A it’s possible to achieve long range and jet aircraft so if we’re talking about tech molds there should be a dedicated mold to represent that tech. Personally, I wouldn’t want to have a prop aircraft representing a jet on my board.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Wouldn’t the Horton require a Stealth Tech along with a jet tech?

Horton was given the contract because the Ho 229 was the first design to come close to meeting Hermann Göring’s “1000, 1000, 1000” performance requirements. In specific terms Goring wanted an aircraft capable of carrying a 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) load over 1,000 km (620 mi) at 1,000 km/h (620 mph). Stealth characteristics were an added bonus in the design, but range and speed were the primary considerations.

@Imperious:

Well these are AutoCad. where is the picture of the actual piece?

You using aluminite?

I don’t own a 3d printer myself. We’re probably close to a decade away from them being affordable enough to go mass market. There are many 3D printing services to choose from however. All the ones I’ve looked at so far have a minimum order so I need to have a more complete set before I can actually have them printed. Once I do that though there should be a quick turn around. In less than 10 days I should have my pieces.

I’ll probably go with a service that has a Z-Corp printer. From what I understand they provide the highest quality printing available.

@coachofmany:

Do you have a pic of your Aircraft?

I don’t want to hijack this thread so I started a new one called ‘Tech Pieces’.

Here are some of the models I’ve done that are ready for printing.

P51:

Do 335:

Me 262:

Ho 229:

@Imperious:

yea all technology pieces should be represented. Heavy bomber, super subs, heavy tanks, rockets, radar, etc.

Yeah, I agree and that’s probably where I’ll be doing some sculpting of my own. For example, if the US achieves long range aircraft you can swap the F6F Hellcats for P-38s or P-51s. In some cases though a new sculpt for a tech isn’t needed. If the Japanese achieve long range aircraft there is no need to update the zeros. Zeros are already long range!

Tech pieces, where appropriate, should account for combinations as well. For example, if the Germans achieve long range aircraft the ME 109s become Do 335s. If the Germans achieve jet fighters they get Me 262s. If they achieve both long range aircraft and jet fighters they get Ho 229s. I’ve actually already completed the models for the German aircraft and P-51s.

@aequitas:

Yupp 70 years ago German SS soldiers in polish Uniforms captured a German radio station and declared that Poland is attacking the Reich…

Oldest trick in the book.

Bismarck’s sister ship Tirpitz was badass too. It had taken over 40 attacks from British forces. In the end, when all else failed to sink her, the British had to get inventive:

Only the massive 20ft tall, 12,000lb “Tallboy” bombs, which traveled faster than the speed of sound, capsized Tirpitz. Those babies left craters 100ft wide and 35ft deep!

@Imperious:

AS far as firepower i prefer Musashi, because it took more punishment than any other warship to sink. Like 20 torpedoes and 15 bombs to sink it.

The Yamato class battleships were beasts no doubt, but what about Bismarck?

Bismarck absorbed a total of 400 shells of various calibers fired by British ships. 80 of which were heavy caliber 14-inch and 16-inch shells. This, in addition to at least 5 torpedo hits was still not enough to sink her! Everything above the waterline was completely destroyed but her hull was still sound and the engines were still functioning. The Germans decided to scuttle the ship rather than risk her being captured.

Dogfights: Sink the Bismarck