Pro-Capitalist Minor Powers
Mechanized Infantry: Same as SEATO
Rocket Artillery: Same as NATO
Tank: Same as NATO
AA: M42 ‘Duster’?
Air Superiority Fighter: DH-100 Vampire
Strike Fighter: DH-112 Venom
Bomber: Same as SEATO
Warsaw Pact
Mechanized Infantry: BTR-152
Rocket Artillery: BM-24
Tank: T-55
AA: S-75 Desna
Air Superiority Fighter: MiG-19 ‘Farmer’
Strike Fighter: Sukhoi Su-7 ‘Fitter-A’
Bomber: Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’
Transport: Tapir-Class
Submarine: Whiskey-Class
Destroyer: Kanin-Class
Cruiser: Sverdlov-Class
Aircraft Carrier: Kiev-Class
Communist China
Mechanized Infantry: WZ-551
Rocket Artillery: Type 63
Tank: Type 59 (Rebranded T-55)
AA: Same as Warsaw Pact
Air Superiority Fighter: Shengyang J-6 (Rebranded MiG-19)
Strike Fighter: Nanchang Q-5
Bomber: Harbin H-5
Transport: Type 072
Submarine: Type 03 (Rebranded Whiskey-Class)
Destroyer: Anshan-Class
Cruiser: Same as Warsaw Pact
Aircraft Carrier: Same as Warsaw Pact
Pro-Communist Minor Powers
Mechanized Infantry: BTR-40? BTR-152?
Rocket Artillery: Same as Warsaw Pact
Tank: Same as Warsaw Pact? T-34?
AA: ZSU-57-2?
Air Superiority Fighter: Same as Warsaw Pact
Strike Fighter: Sukhoi SU-7 MK ‘Fitter-A’
Bomber: Ilyushin Il-28 ‘Beagle’
@Militarized-Milkmen said in Cold War: It's Finally Done:
NATO
Mechanized Infantry: M59
Rocket Artillery: Douglas MGR-1 Honest John
Tank: M48 Patton
AA: MIM-3 Nike Ajax
Air Superiority Fighter: North American F-100 Super Sabre
Strike Fighter: Republic F-84 Thunderstreak
Bomber: Boeing RB-29 Stratofortress
Transport: Raleigh-Class or maybe Austin-Class
Submarine: Tang-Class
Destroyer: Forrest Sherman-Class
Cruiser: Baltimore-Class
Aircraft Carrier: Forrestal-Class
You seem to have quite a few sculpt ideas, both this set and the following sets. I have some commentary (from the peanut gallery) on this set, if you please. While I agree in general that the more sculpts the better, I thought you might have overlooked some other options, which I think would be improvements over what you have gathered.
No comments, sound good:
Mechanized Infantry: M59
Rocket Artillery: Douglas MGR-1 Honest John
Tank: M48 Patton
AA: MIM-3 Nike Ajax
Transport: Raleigh-Class or maybe Austin-Class
Destroyer: Forrest Sherman-Class
Aircraft Carrier: Forrestal-Class
Some commentary
Bomber: Boeing RB-29 Stratofortress / B-47 or B-50
RB-29s were a photo-reconnaissance variant of the B-29 made from repurposed WW2-design B-29s. The post-war version of the B-29 were the B-50s, which were production copies of the “Silverplate” modified, nuclear capable B-29s. They are, admittedly, hard to tell apart from B-29s. B-47 jet bombers, on the other hand, were the first major jet bombers used by the Air Force and notably visually different from WW2 era bombers. I think that either B-47s or B-50s would be better than RB-29s.
Submarine: Tang-Class / Skipjack
Skipjacks were the first production nuclear-powered subs with a hull design optimized for underwater speed (the very first production nuclear-powered subs, the Skates, were Tangs with nuclear-power). The rounded hull shape would be different from WW2 submarine designs.
Cruiser: Baltimore-Class / Boston or Des Moines Classes
The Baltimore class was another WW2 design. After the war the Navy took two Baltimores and modified them to carry anti-aircraft missiles, making them the first class of missile-armed cruisers, the Boston class. If Bostons are a bridge too far, the ultimate gun-armed cruisers were the Des Moines class. I think that sculpts of either Bostons or Des Moines would be better than “more” Baltimores.
Air Superiority Fighter: Republic F-86 Sabre
Strike Fighter: Republic F-84 Thunderstreak -
maybe F-84 Thunderjets, to be different from F-86s
F-84 Thunderstreaks look very much like like Sabre jets - single engine swept-wing jets. F-84 Thunderjets, on the other hand, have straight wings and would be much easier to tell apart from Sabre jets. Why are both called “F-84” when they look so different? Ask the Air Force, I don’t know. Some pictures to help show the differences.
Straight wing Thunderjets:
Sabres, with their swept-wings:
Swept-wing Thunderstreaks:
Just some thoughts of mine, likely worth every penny you paid for them.
-Midnight_Reaper
@Midnight_Reaper First of all, you are totally right about the b-29 thing! I really meant the b-52 stratofortess, I’m not sure how I got those two confused. I did think about using the B-47 Stratojet, mostly because HBG already has a mold for it, however, by 1955, when this game takes place, stratofortesses were already being introduce, and they emulate the heavy bomber vibe I was looking for. I’ll update the post right now.
@Midnight_Reaper Secondly, I am aware of the existence of nuclear powered shipjacks, however, in this game, you specifically have to research nuclear powered subs, so if NATO starts with a nuclear sub it wouldn’t make sense. Thanks for the thoughts though!
@Midnight_Reaper Lastly, on the subject of the sabre and the thunderstreak…
You make a decent point that they are similar, however, as NATO uses the super sabre as their air superiority fighter, which has a tailplane that is in line with the wings, I don’t think it will be too similar. The Sabres that SEATO is using will look nearly identical to that of the thunderstreak, now that I think about it, but the plastic will be in a different color so they shouldn’t be too confusing. Especially since MiGs also look identical to Sabres at that scale. Worst case scenario, I could pull a total cop out like Avalon Hill did and just make the strike fighters bigger then the air superiority fighters. Why I would consider using the thunderjet, it was already being phased out at the time and being replaced with the thunderstreak by 1955.
I do appreciate your thoughts and would love to hear what you think about the other sets. If your interested in the subject in general, just DM me and you can be part of the team!
So I was finishing the parts list, and it occurred to me how many dice are needed to play the game as I intended. Considering each nuclear attack allows for 15 dice and each thermonuclear 30, the game is pretty dice intensive. So then it occurred to me, should nuclear weapons be that powerful. I mean, each territory is such a large space, what are the chances that thirty separate armies are all going to be that close together? Part of me thinks I should make them less powerful, however, I feel like it takes away from the Cold War feel, and there are already heavy repercussions for using these weapons. Any thoughts?
Make each nuclear attack roll a specified number of dice, preferably 10 dice or lower ,to reduce the need for a large number of dice. Then, the damage dealt by each nuclear attack is determined by adding together specific number results. Examples below:
Standard nuclear- roll 6 dice, add results of 4 and 5 together for total damage.
Salted nuclear- roll 6 dice, add results of 2, 3, and 4 together for total damage.
Thermonuclear- roll 8 dice, add results of 5 and 6 together for total damage.
Enhanced radiation- roll 8 dice, add results of 4, 5, and 6 together.
These are rough stats and need some modifications to not make nuclear weapons too overpowered.
@MonsieurMurdoch What do you mean by damage? That would make sense for facilities but not units. Are you saying that you would remove that many units or something?
@Militarized-Milkmen
Yes, you would remove the same number of units from the territory equal to the total damage.
Nukes are gone! sort of… Okay not really. All of the nukes have been condensed down to a more accurate strategic and tactical…
TAC NUKES ABLE TO BE USED BY ALMLOST ALL UNITS EXCEPT DOES NOT PROVOKE SECOND STRIKE, RELATIVELY WEAK, MAYBE 3-8 DICE HIT ON 5-4 OR LESS OR SOMETHING COST 1 IPC 1-3 turns of fallout killing 1-2 units per turn.
STRAT NUKES, ONLY ABLE TO BE USED BY AIR BASES, SUBS, AND BOMBERS, COMPLETELY OTHER TIER OF POWER ROLL 6-12 DICE OR SOMETHING, TAKE NUMBER OF CASUALITES EQUAL TO TOTAL. AUTO DESTROYS FASCILITIES. 5-10 turns of fallout killing 2 units per turn.
The reason there is a range is because I’m not 100% sure on a number yet.
why are the rules 68 pages!!! Its too long nobody has time to read and memorize such a document! Ideally 16 pages tops
@Imperious-Leader Well, not to be rude, but no $&#@ it’s to long. That’s why I’m simplifying the rules. I will be removing parts about Vietnam and simplifying the nukes. The rules will also be worded differently. Originally, the rules were intended to sound a lot like the g40 rules, so that it would be more familiar, but the community isn’t showing a whole lot of interest, so we’re planning on completely rewording, and likely simplifying the rules so that it doesn’t sound as much like an Axis and Allies game. This will also allow us to launch it on kickstarter possibly for profit. I would argue that it can be longer then 16 pages however, g40 is 40 pages.
We will also be transferring to 12 or maybe even 20 sided dice to further diverge from Axis and Allies standard. I may be removing page references to trim down on length as well. This may mean that the rules might be slightly more confusing, but the game is only intended for veteran players anyway. while this game will not be an Axis and Allies game anymore, we will continue posting here because our game is meant for this community, and is still similar at heart.
Of course, none of this is certain. We have the ability to make pieces and sell materials and what not, but only in a very limited way.
@Militarized-Milkmen said in Cold War: It's Finally Done:
We will also be transferring to 12 or maybe even 20 sided dice to further diverge from Axis and Allies standard. I may be removing page references to trim down on length as well. This may mean that the rules might be slightly more confusing, but the game is only intended for veteran players anyway. while this game will not be an Axis and Allies game anymore, we will continue posting here because our game is meant for this community, and is still similar at heart.
If you do a system dice change to pieces I’d go no further than D12. D20 you could use for certain tech etc…
Okay, d12 is easier anyway since I can almost always just double the values
