HBG - Axis & Allies Parts/Accessories and Custom Piece Sets Store!

[Witt]

It wasn’t me, but I always thought that Carrier based planes should not be interchangeable with Land  based ones. It is a question of skill and experience.
The Carrier ones should cost more. Maybe just 1 IPC, but something.

[John Brown]

@wittmann:

It wasn’t me, but I always thought that Carrier based planes should not be interchangeable with Land  based ones. It is a question of skill and experience.
The Carrier ones should cost more. Maybe just 1 IPC, but something.

That was the house rule, I was talking about. I agree, they shouldn’t be interchangeable. We are getting enough planes from these two countries, as well as the British that it could work.

We need a list for the other countries and more pieces, LOL, but those will come in time. :-)

[crusaderiv]

but I always thought that Carrier based planes should not be interchangeable with Land  based ones. It is a question of skill and experience.
The Carrier ones should cost more. Maybe just 1 IPC, but something.
I agree, we have both in our house rules….Air force air plane and naval air plane are not interchangeable but same price.

AL

[toblerone77]

I’ve heard and thought of lots of ideas on carrier based planes. One idea was to have planes “built-in” to carriers.

The idea I think I like the best is to have carrier planes cost more but operate just like the OOB fighters except the can land on carriers. My reasoning is that many times during the war, carrier planes would land on land.

So for example Corsairs operated on land and carriers but Mustangs did not. To reflect this I wouuld up the price of a Corsair. That’s just an example of an idea I think that has been tossed around by myself and others.

Not saying it’s the best way but it’s the one I would use if I were to have this in my HRs.

[John Brown]

@toblerone77:

I’ve heard and thought of lots of ideas on carrier based planes. One idea was to have planes “built-in” to carriers.

The idea I think I like the best is to have carrier planes cost more but operate just like the OOB fighters except the can land on carriers. My reasoning is that many times during the war, carrier planes would land on land.

So for example Corsairs operated on land and carriers but Mustangs did not. To reflect this I wouuld up the price of a Corsair. That’s just an example of an idea I think that has been tossed around by myself and others.

Not saying it’s the best way but it’s the one I would use if I were to have this in my HRs.

It sounds logical enough. :-)

[toblerone77]

The last few games I’ve played were with people learning to play the game so… It was an OOB series of games no HRs. However, one game we played was Classic but with custom units. Man was it fun! To see all those cool minis on an ancient classic board was just phenominal and in a way paying homage to that old, old, old board that had seen so many games in the 1990’s. It was great to say the least.

I got that copy in 1993 and played it with brand new custom pieces. It was litterally a historical moment for me. Had I known then that I would still be playing this game, and all that would evolve relating to it, I would have never imagined it.

[knp7765]

Hey toblerone77,
A while back, I made up a set of new set-up charts for all the older games (Europe, Pacific, Revised, Anniversary) to include the new units we get in the 1940 games. So basically, I went back and added Tactical Bombers, Mechanized Infantry and Cruisers to the earlier games (except Anniversary which already included cruisers). The setup changes weren’t too difficult. In some cases I would replace a destroyer with a cruiser, or a fighter for a tac. In other cases, I simply added the new units here or there. I didn’t really wreck the balance. The main thing was making those units available in the other games.
Of course, you have to use the 1940 Battle Board because those are the only one with the newer units. Then you also have to remember that in the older games, Carriers weren’t considered capital ships. They only take 1 hit to sink and they attack @ 1.
I didn’t add the new style AA guns because I did this before 2nd edition came out and all the games still used the old style AA guns (1 per territory, can shoot at all planes attacking).
I haven’t done this for Classic yet.

By the way, on land-based versus carrier-based planes, it sounds like a good idea to have naval planes be 1 IPC more for the ability to take off and land on carriers, but they can also land on land as well. The difference being that land-based planes can not land on carriers.
If we do this, I would imagine the US and Japan would be the only ones buying them from now on. Britain might, but most of their targets can be hit from land bases unless they expand into the Pacific. I think this would kill the G1 buy of CV,DD, SS or CV & 2 Transports. Germany wouldn’t want to spend that extra IPC on just 2 planes with all the rest of the Luftwaffe being ground based. Plus, Germany just buys the carrier round 1. The planes that land on it are usually from Norway or W Germany after attacking the Royal Navy. Since those are ground based planes, they would not be allowed to land on that carrier.
This rule would also change what the UK does with it’s 1 carrier in the Med. It starts out with 1 tac bomber, so that would be UK’s only carrier based plane. They would have to purchase a carrier capable fighter to join it. Also, Taranto would be out of the question if you plan to use 2 fighters from London. In this case, even if you sent the carrier to SZ 97, those 2 London fighters would not have a place to land.
One way around this rule is to allow players to spend 1 IPC per plane during their purchase units phase to convert any fighter or tac bomber to a carrier capable plane. Then that player would switch the chosen planes out immediately. Then they do combat move, combat, NCM and can land on an existing or newly purchased carrier.
For Example: G1 Germany buys a carrier and spends 2 IPCs to convert the Norway fighter and 1 W Germany fighter into carrier capable planes. Now CM, combat and NCM go as normal and if those planes survive, they can land on the newly purchased carrier. HOWEVER, ONLY those 2 planes are carrier capable. Say the W. Germany carrier capable plane goes to SZ 110. UK scrambles and gets good dice and the German planes are wiped out. Germany can not pick a different plane to land on the carrier. Assuming the Norway fighter survived, now Germany only has ONE (1) plane that can land on the carrier, at least until he/she converts another one or simply buys a naval plane next round.
So, this rule wouldn’t necessarily BAN any other countries from buying carriers or carrier planes, it would just be a little extra expense all around. And if you use my addition to the carrier/land based plane rule, then no nation is stymied on round 1.

So I am assuming this rule would apply to fighters and tacs, right?
Land based fighter = 10 IPCs, carrier capable fighter = 11 IPCs
Land based tactical = 11 IPCs, carrier capable tactical = 12 IPCs

[LHoffman]

Differentiating between carrier based and land based planes may work decently for Japan and the United States, since they tended to have certain types that were exclusively land or carrier based. However, this would be less easy with the UK and Germany, and for that matter Italy, USSR and Anzac also. There were both land and naval versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane and would have been of the Bf-109 had Germany produced any carriers. Even the US F4U Corsair, while employed as a naval fighter, was used even more prominently as a land based fighter flown by the Marine Corps. Not even sure where USSR and Italy fit into this since Italy more than likely used navalized versions of land based fighters and as far as I know the USSR never even had plans for naval aircraft at the time.

My point being that there are blurred lines here and it may be impractical to really try differentiating between land and carrier based planes in A&A. Particularly by the sculpt alone. I would say that of my regular play group, I am the only one who would have no trouble naming unit types/names/classes. While the others in my group are quite educated about the war, they are not technically knowledgeable and having to identify different fighters as land or carrier based would be an unnecessary burden on gameplay for them. I suspect this would be the case with 97% of people who would play Axis & Allies.

I don’t mean to shoot down ideas, but it does seem impractical from a number of standpoints. Granted, you can do as you please, and I will be differentiating naval and land based planes in my game through paint schemes. However, I doubt that I would institute a rule that a Mustang or a Jug couldn’t land on a carrier. Just simpler for everyone if I don’t go that deep. At least not at first.

From a theoretical standpoint I like the idea and agree with it to some degree. The challenge is hassle-free implementation.

[General 6 Stars]

I been using for Japan the OOB color for reg fighters, red for veteran fighters, and dark yellow for naval fighters and dive bombers. US is using OOB color for reg fighters and dark green for naval fighters and dive bombers. I can tell pretty good what they are. Japan and US are the only countries that have those planes for now in game.

[HBG]

@SS:

I been using for Japan the OOB color for reg fighters, red for veteran fighters, and dark yellow for naval fighters and dive bombers. US is using OOB color for reg fighters and dark green for naval fighters and dive bombers. I can tell pretty good what they are. Japan and US are the only countries that have those planes for now in game.

Unless HBG add these to the bottom of Carrier Based Tac Bombers and a Bomb to fighter, so any ordinance would be carrier based.

[Witt]

Nice Coach!

Problem is we are all nerds (and perfectionists) here and if we have a group with whom we play, they wouldn’t be and it would be too much tfor them to understsnd and appreciate.
We can still dream and hope we can change the inaccuracies.

[HBG]

@wittmann:

Nice Coach!

Problem is we are all nerds (and perfectionists) here and if we have a group with whom we play, they wouldn’t be and it would be too much tfor them to understsnd and appreciate.
We can still dream and hope we can change the inaccuracies.

it makes the game more fun when one knows the hardware!

[Tall Paul]

Guys,

––I don’t see being able to DIFFERENIATE between land and carrier based aircraft should be any problem at all. I figured out a solution a long time ago. To put it simply you use different PAINT SCHEMES to identify between land or sea based aircraft. You don’t have to go to extreme lengths to have them painted EXACTLY the right way,…just enough to represent it’s service.
----For example, for someone that is NOT an artist or doesen’t want to paint intricate paint schemes and might be playing a game with “rookie” players you can simply paint the naval-based aircraft with a spraycan of overall Blue. OR, you could paint just a part of the aircraft Blue, such as the nose and/or wingtips that would ‘mark’ them as Naval aircraft. This is the simplist method and leaves the overall color showing for that country.
––If you paint the entire naval aircraft you could use different colors of Blue for each country with naval aircraft that further differenciates them.
----With this method even if you utilized the SAME unit for both land and naval based versions there should be no confusion because the naval version is CLEARLY MARKED as such.
For example: in a game you have
A Black JU-87 Stuka,…and
A Black JU-87 Stuka with a large BLUE nose and wingtips ( or BLUE overall)
----I don’t think anyone should have any difficulty in determining that the Black Stuka, like all of the other Black unit is land-based, and the Black Stuka w/large Blue nose & wingtips was a Naval version.
----This solution seems very simple, effective, and easily implemented.

----I am going to have well detailed and painted versions including decals, etc.,…but that isn’t necesary in order to have aircraft that are EASILY differenciated between land and naval based.
----An example of Naval-based aircraft painted in Naval colors is below. Also, I plan to have both land-based and naval-based versions of my Japanese “Val” dive bombers,…and the PAINT JOB is what differentiates the two versions.

Tall Paul

[LHoffman]

@coachofmany:

Unless HBG add these to the bottom of Carrier Based Tac Bombers and a Bomb to fighter, so any ordinance would be carrier based.

Awesome! Adding ordnance makes great sculpts even better! I am in love with the idea, however, I personally do not see the need to only have bombs on navalized aircraft. Why not do it on all of them? Otherwise, people will constantly be flipping planes over to check their gender, as it were. Seems like having such an identifying feature on the bottom is less than ideal. In either case, I love the concept and hope it is adopted.

I know there was talk of adding a torpedo to the Kate a while back, but as I understand it there were some balance issues involved. Which brings up another point of contention… how will bombs be implemented for aircraft that don’t have their landing gear out and have a flat bottom? Seems like the balance issue comes back again.

@Tall:

––I don’t see being able to DIFFERENIATE between land and carrier based aircraft should be any problem at all. I figured out a solution a long time ago. To put it simply you use different PAINT SCHEMES to identify between land or sea based aircraft. You don’t have to go to extreme lengths to have them painted EXACTLY the right way,…just enough to represent it’s service.

Agreed. Very easy to do and to recognize.

The issues I brought up dealt more specifically with pieces that would not be painted. Plus, I question how many people even on these forums could differentiate between an F6F and a P-47 … let alone closer comparisons like:

a Zero and an Oscar
or Val and a Kate
or an Avenger and a Dauntless
or Dauntless and Helldiver
or a P-40 and a P-51

I suspect many people in the customization area likely can, but perhaps not as many elsewhere.

[HBG]

HBG has always wanted to add simple ordinance just for this BUT, NOT everybody paints their pieces, NOT every knows their aircraft, NOT everybody even cares, they just want to play, so HBG has tried to offer many different pieces as well as sizes for the various players. Global 1936 WILL have optional rules for Land and Carrier aircraft so we will have some pieces showing the torpedoes and bombs.

[John Brown]

@coachofmany:

HBG has always wanted to add simple ordinance just for this BUT, NOT everybody paints their pieces, NOT every knows their aircraft, NOT everybody even cares, they just want to play, so HBG has tried to offer many different pieces as well as sizes for the various players. Global 1936 WILL have optional rules for Land and Carrier aircraft so we will have some pieces showing the torpedoes and bombs.

That is awesome, Coach! :-D

[LHoffman]

@coachofmany:

HBG has always wanted to add simple ordinance just for this BUT, NOT everybody paints their pieces, NOT every knows their aircraft, NOT everybody even cares, they just want to play, so HBG has tried to offer many different pieces as well as sizes for the various players. Global 1936 WILL have optional rules for Land and Carrier aircraft so we will have some pieces showing the torpedoes and bombs.

Right on! More power to you guys. You certainly know what you are doing.

[crusaderiv]

My point being that there are blurred lines here and it may be impractical to really try differentiating between land and carrier based planes in A&A. Particularly by the sculpt alone. I would say that of my regular play group, I am the only one who would have no trouble naming unit types/names/classes. While the others in my group are quite educated about the war, they are not technically knowledgeable and having to identify different fighters as land or carrier based would be an unnecessary burden on gameplay for them. I suspect this would be the case with 97% of people who would play Axis & Allies.

I must be lucky because I don’t have this problem. 90% of our group can recognize the pieces.(Including airplane)
Like some guys I repainted my naval and air force airplane

I don’t mean to shoot down ideas, but it does seem impractical from a number of standpoints. Granted, you can do as you please, and I will be differentiating naval and land based planes in my game through paint schemes. However, I doubt that I would institute a rule that a Mustang or a Jug couldn’t land on a carrier. Just simpler for everyone if I don’t go that deep. At least not at first.

Impractical? maybe for you but not for us. We play with different air plane for a decade…

I felt alone 10 years ago. HGB didn’t exist. I ordered a lot of stuff from different companies.
Now it’s easier to get what you want…

AL

[LHoffman]

@crusaderiv:

Impractical? maybe for you but not for us. We play with different air plane for a decade…

I felt alone 10 years ago. HGB didn’t exist. I ordered a lot of stuff from different companies.
Now it’s easier to get what you want…

AL

Hey, more power to you man. And good for your guys that they don’t call a B-29 a B-17 or call a P-38 a P-47. I still hold that 97% of Axis & Allies players would not be able to visually identify the majority of sculpts by their actual designations. Perhaps that is beside the point.

It is awesome to have a company like HBG around. I used to think it was awesome when OOB added a new unit type/sculpt because it meant more variety and usually detail. Now OOB is pretty useless to me. HBG is great beyond what I could have hoped for when I began playing A&A. I hope we never take them for granted.

[HBG]

Take for Instance the A1 Skyraider, we show a torpedo, which it did carry, and bombs and missiles. (Carrier fighter or Tac Bomber)
HBG will use it as a Tac Bomber in an upcoming set.