I’m leaning toward making the French smaller. Glad I have a little more time before cutting tools to see sales and venture capital.
Now a note to let you know that I have a set of German and American pieces on Auction at BoardGameGeek for GeekGold. I will be using the GeekGold to give away for fans to buy my new BoardGameGeek Microbadge.
Also looking into a vinyl world map 36" x 72" and was wondering if you think there would be any interest?
That idea of a vinyl world map sounds great. I bet it would be a lot easier to carry around and store than all of the different game boards for the new AA Global 1940. It would probably be easier to play on too since you wouldn’t have the cracks where the boards join or the folds in the boards themselves. Only problem I could see is getting it to lay flat. I assume something like that would come in a roll, right?
By the way, I guess I’m not as into gaming as a lot of these guys are. What is a "BoardGameGeek Microbadge?
@Table:
Also looking into a vinyl world map 36" x 72" and was wondering if you think there would be any interest?
It would depend on what the map showed. One variable would be the breakdown of the territories on the map: would it show the world as it is now or as it was in a particular past year (like for example 1939)? The other variable would be the proportions of the spaces. The world as it actually exists isn’t well proportioned for wargaming purposes: Europe is too small and the Pacific is too big, which is why the A&A games distort size and shape in order to improve playability.
My guess is that there wouldn’t be much of a wargaming market for a map showing today’s national borders and using accurate proportions – especially since those kinds of current maps can already be purchased easily. A big vinyl wargaming-oriented map showing national borders as they existed in the past, and proportioned to allow easy piece placements where they wouldl be most needed, would probably interest a lot of A&A gamers. (I think that the old Supremacy game from the 1980s had, as one of its optional accessories, a giant vinyl map version of the basic global game board.)
Yes Europe 1939 would have to be much bigger to handle my ginormus pieces. :wink:
www.boardgamegeek.com join for free. It is a huge site about games and gaming and the folks running it even have a convention in Texas.
I like that idea of a vinyl map.
Include the Azores!
I still have vinyl(plastic) maps for my old Helen of Toy naval games.Those babies are closing
on their 50th birthday.
It’s good to see TT back in the game, Jack (pun intended :-D)
I put in a starter order of 1 of each just to show my support and check them out to see if I want more.
Nothing like muddying the waters here, but…
I’m reserving judgement on the size issue until I see them. I’m thinking that maybe, if the pieces are worthy of completely replacing the previous tank units, the size difference would be irrelevant. I think I’m more concerned about color. Also, if the units are sized down, would that make the lighter tanks too small? That was one of the major problems with that Superpowers game: microscopic tanks that were so tiny, I was afraid that they’d get lost in a shag carpet!
I really like the ships idea, but I’m thinking something a little different. Forget all the smaller ships; the subs and destroyers can pretty much stay generic cannon fodder. But making a light carrier (or escort carrier), fleet carrier, supercarrior, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, battlecruiser/supercruiser, battleship, & super battleship variant for each country (that actually had and/or planned them) would be super-cool. Scale them to exactly the same scale as FMG (who, I understand, is creating a basically standard battleship/fleet carrier/heavy cruiser line up for each) rather than standard AA, which gives insufficient room for detail, and in the exact same colors as FMG.
For planes, pick key planes in different categories that FMG wasn’t able to do. (e.g., if he does a P-51, you do a Hellcat or a Corsair and vice versa…If he does a dive bomber for a tac-bomber, you do a topedo bomber, and vice versa…
Agree completely with the last post, minus the tank size part.
Look back a fee posts and you will see that Jack can make the smallest tanks 17mm or so and the largest one 22mm or so to differentiate them visually, while still keeping close to the current 20-22mm standard tank size
I guess that makes sense; one caveat, though: I would want the heavy tanks to be a bit bigger than standard; Tigers & JSII’s need to be noticeably bigger than Panthers & T-34’s, etc.
Do you like the current OOB Panther vs T-34 size distinction?
Is that the skinnier panthers or the wider ones?
The brand new AA42 model.
If you haven’t seen it, you will see it in AAE1940.
It is drop dead gorgeous
Hmm, I think I might have mixed them in with some old wider panthers. I don’t know if I noticed any difference vs previous wider panthers, but maybe I wasn’t looking close enough. The bottom line is that for me to use it, a tiger/JSII class tank MUST be at least noticeably bigger than the wider version of the panther to make sense and avoid heavy/medium tank confusion. That probably means creating a Pershing that is a little larger than scale. Same for a Cromwell if that’s what we’re stuck with for UK heavy tank, though the Cromwell was actually in the Sherman/Panzer IV/T-34 class. The UK should really use Cromwells instead of, or as an equivalent option for, Shermans in the medium class. The UK could then use Comets for a size-up heavy. (The Panther was actually heavier than the Sherman/Cromwell/Panzer IV/T-34 class of tanks; you could argue that a US Pershing and/or UK Comet was more an equivalent of a Panther than of a Tiger or JSII, but having 4 sizes is definitely too many; I’m not sure if I’d even really use more than 2 in my own house rules.)
No one else even had a tank in the heavy class that I know of.
OK, here’s my first attempt at a suped-up naval line-up suggestion
One thing I’m not sure of: since the late-30’s light cruiser designs tended to be full-size treaty cruisers with 12-15 6" guns instead of 8-10 8" guns, perhaps a light cruiser would make more sense if we’re talking something like an Atlanta Class rather than the “classic” examples like the Cleveland Class. Anyway, my first attempt…
USA
Superbattleship: Montana or Iowa Class
Battleship: South Dakota or North Carolina Class
Supercruiser: Alaska Class
Heavy Cruiser: Baltimore Class
Light Cruiser: Cleveland Class (or Atlanta Class ?)
Supercarrier: Midway Class
Fleet Carrier: Yorktown or Essex Class
Light Carrier: Independence Class
Escort Carrier: Casablanca Class
UK
Superbattleship: Lion Class
Battleship: King George V Class
Battlecruiser: Renown Class
Heavy Cruiser: County Class
Light Cruiser: Town Class (or Dido Class ?)
Supercarrier: Audacious Class or Malta Class
Fleet Carrier: Illustrious Class or Implacable Class
Light Carrier: Colossus Class
Escort Carrier: Bogue Class
Japan
Superbattleship: Yamato Class
Battleship: Nagato or Ise or Fuso Class
Battlecruiser: B65 Class
Heavy Cruiser: Myoko Class or Post-Conversion Mogami Class
Light Cruiser: Pre-Conversion Mogami Class (or smaller class ?)
Supercarrier: Shinano Class or Taiho Class
Fleet Carrier: Zuikaku Class
Light Carrier: Zuiho Class
Escort Carrier: Chitose Class
Germany
Superbattleship: H41 Class
Battleship: Bismark Class
Battlecruiser: Scharnhorst Class
Heavy Cruiser: Hipper Class
Light Cruiser: K Class or Liepzig Class
Supercarrier: NA
Fleet Carrier: Graf Zeppelin
Light Carrier: Seydlitz Class
Italy
Superbattleship: BB1936 Class (basically a scaled-up, 16”-gun Littorio)
Battleship: Littorio Class
Battlecruiser: Project 1929 Class (6x 15” guns, 23,000 tons)
Heavy Cruiser: Zara or Bolzano Class
Light Cruiser: Condottieri Class
Supercarrier: NA
Fleet Carrier: Aquila Class
Large Escort Carrier: Sparviero Class
France
Superbattleship: Alsace Class (basically a scaled-up version of the Richelieu)
Battleship: Richelieu Class
Battlecruiser: Dunkerque Class (8x 13” guns, 26,000 tons)
Heavy Cruiser: Algerie Class
Light Cruiser: La Galissoniere Class
Supercarrier: NA
Fleet Carrier: Joffre Class
Light Carrier: Bearn Class
USSR
Superbattleship: Sovietsky Soyuz (basically a scaled-up, 16”-gun Littorio)
Battleship: NA
Battlecruiser: Kronstadt Class (6x 15” guns, 36,000 tons)
Heavy Cruiser: Kirov Class
Light Cruiser: Chapaev Class
Supercarrier: NA
Fleet Carrier: NA
Light Carrier: Project 71A Class
I buy anything that has the same size as the regulare A&A pieces
I will buy anything that’s the same size as A&A, the same colours as A&A and also has Infantry pieces that resemble A&A.
It’s good to see TT back in the game, Jack (pun intended :-D)
I put in a starter order of 1 of each just to show my support and check them out to see if I want more.
Nothing like muddying the waters here, but…
I’m reserving judgement on the size issue until I see them. I’m thinking that maybe, if the pieces are worthy of completely replacing the previous tank units, the size difference would be irrelevant. I think I’m more concerned about color. Also, if the units are sized down, would that make the lighter tanks too small? That was one of the major problems with that Superpowers game: microscopic tanks that were so tiny, I was afraid that they’d get lost in a shag carpet!
I really like the ships idea, but I’m thinking something a little different. Forget all the smaller ships; the subs and destroyers can pretty much stay generic cannon fodder. But making a light carrier (or escort carrier), fleet carrier, supercarrior, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, battlecruiser/supercruiser, battleship, & super battleship variant for each country (that actually had and/or planned them) would be super-cool. Scale them to exactly the same scale as FMG (who, I understand, is creating a basically standard battleship/fleet carrier/heavy cruiser line up for each) rather than standard AA, which gives insufficient room for detail, and in the exact same colors as FMG.
For planes, pick key planes in different categories that FMG wasn’t able to do. (e.g., if he does a P-51, you do a Hellcat or a Corsair and vice versa…If he does a dive bomber for a tac-bomber, you do a topedo bomber, and vice versa…
You comment on tank size was where I was originally. When I looked at my 3D models at full scale some of them were really small. Then I tried to make a scale when I guess I could have just used 17mm / 20mm / 23mm for small, medium, large and maybe drop the Tiger.
I like the Corsair & Hellcat but once you shirk them down to 1 inch you tend to lose detail.
Now could I get away with generic carrier’s?
Hmm, I think I might have mixed them in with some old wider panthers. I don’t know if I noticed any difference vs previous wider panthers, but maybe I wasn’t looking close enough. The bottom line is that for me to use it, a tiger/JSII class tank MUST be at least noticeably bigger than the wider version of the panther to make sense and avoid heavy/medium tank confusion. That probably means creating a Pershing that is a little larger than scale. Same for a Cromwell if that’s what we’re stuck with for UK heavy tank, though the Cromwell was actually in the Sherman/Panzer IV/T-34 class. The UK should really use Cromwells instead of, or as an equivalent option for, Shermans in the medium class. The UK could then use Comets for a size-up heavy. (The Panther was actually heavier than the Sherman/Cromwell/Panzer IV/T-34 class of tanks; you could argue that a US Pershing and/or UK Comet was more an equivalent of a Panther than of a Tiger or JSII, but having 4 sizes is definitely too many; I’m not sure if I’d even really use more than 2 in my own house rules.)
No one else even had a tank in the heavy class that I know of.
The older wide ones didn’t have skirts.
Hmm, I think I might have mixed them in with some old wider panthers. I don’t know if I noticed any difference vs previous wider panthers, but maybe I wasn’t looking close enough. The bottom line is that for me to use it, a tiger/JSII class tank MUST be at least noticeably bigger than the wider version of the panther to make sense and avoid heavy/medium tank confusion. That probably means creating a Pershing that is a little larger than scale. Same for a Cromwell if that’s what we’re stuck with for UK heavy tank, though the Cromwell was actually in the Sherman/Panzer IV/T-34 class. The UK should really use Cromwells instead of, or as an equivalent option for, Shermans in the medium class. The UK could then use Comets for a size-up heavy. (The Panther was actually heavier than the Sherman/Cromwell/Panzer IV/T-34 class of tanks; you could argue that a US Pershing and/or UK Comet was more an equivalent of a Panther than of a Tiger or JSII, but having 4 sizes is definitely too many; I’m not sure if I’d even really use more than 2 in my own house rules.)
No one else even had a tank in the heavy class that I know of.
This is where rules need to be made. The Sherman was a higher profile and would have a lesser defense then a Cromwell or Crusader. The Japanese tanks were kings of the battle field until another tank showed up. Now a new pricing system may need to be put in place. Sherman tanks were cheap, fast and burned easy. :-o While some low profile diesels may not have had much of a gun for offense.
@Table:
I buy anything that has the same size as the regulare A&A pieces
I will buy anything that’s the same size as A&A, the same colours as A&A and also has Infantry pieces that resemble A&A.
OUCH! but I hear my infantry make nice pill boxes. :cry:
Don’t get me wrong. Your armor units are great! They’re just the wrong size. But your infantry is just not my cup of tea.
