@vodot Thanks!
FMG, HBG, OOB Pieces Comparison
-
Coach is very particular when it comes to the size of the pieces. We are a millimeter off from OOB here and there but we do this in some cases to make room for future unit types that need to fit in between.
Oh yes, I understand. And my compliments on a great product. Look forward to all future incarnations.
I did not check to see if FMG pieces were available for individual sale on your site. I just assumed it was like on the FMG site where you have to buy the whole set for $40. Very good to know. Thanks!
-
to me the P-51, P-40, and Fw-190 seem alittle undersized Army and Navy units look great the rest of the airforce units look great too but those 3 seem alittle small. The acid test is how to HBG’s Shermans look next to the OOB Shermans. How do the HBG’s T-34s look next to the OOB T-34s and as far as the Shermans go it’s dead on.
-
HBG vehicles are proportional to the size of the actual vehicles.
This explains why the OOB panthers are larger than HBG’s panzer III.
Ive compared HBG and OOB vehicles against the very accurate 1/285 GHQ vehicles and have come to this conclusion.
the Sherman is around 1/285 but is longer because the running gear is too large. Everthing else is proportional
except the gun due to the needs of durability as game pieces.
The older Panthers are also 1/285 but the newer ones are more around 1/300.
The Japanese is way out of scale.
The Matilda is 1/285, the T-34 is 1/285, the mechanized units are 1/300. The Tiger is 1/300
Haven’t measured the scale of the ships or planes.
The battleships have grown a bit larger except the Yamato which is WAY underscale. It is the only battleship which has
retained it’s size from the second generation AA games and the more modern AA games. The Yamato was THE largest battleship ever built. -
As a consumer/player, I am really looking for something historically accurate/detailed while being of a pleasing size to handle. I do think that overall, the OOB pieces are of a good size: not too small and not too big. HBG and FMG have definitely improved on the detail while in many ways improving on the size as well. Yes, some things are a tiny bit smaller, but not unreasonably so, plus the more accurate scaling between pieces is appreciated where it can be done. None of us expect the submarines to be half the length (or less) of a battleship or carrier, or all aircraft to be much larger than the land vehicles… We expect them to be playable and as precise as possible. Very fortunate for us that we have such dedicated aftermarket companies. I hate to use that word, because it tends to connote a less than brand name quality, but in our case it is the opposite.
-
I really like the HBG panzer III and halftrack from the axis minors set in Brown for Italy. HBG also sells the FMG Italian artillery in singles which are very nice (they look better in person than in their pictures). I also have some brown Russian transports from classic that are good for Italy instead of those stupid German barges. Most important thing of all is to get the proper roundels instead of the Iranian ones that came with the first edition - yuck.
-
What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).
-
What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).
I would certainly put those up, but I don’t have any particular desire to buy the Neutrals set. If anyone else has them, be my guest.
-
What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).
I purchased a set of the yellow-green pieces in the hope they’d match the colour OOB Chinese infantry, but they don’t. The lime-green British pieces from revised are much more compatible with the Chinese infantry.
-
@CWO:
What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).
I purchased a set of the yellow-green pieces in the hope they’d match the colour OOB Chinese infantry, but they don’t. The lime-green British pieces from revised are much more compatible with the Chinese infantry.
I purchased a couple of the neutral sets, but not that color. Thanks, Marc. I suppose, though, you could still just use a completely different color for them, so that all the Chinese are that color (eg. HBG Yellow-green, Light Blue, Yellow, etc.)
-
@CWO:
The lime-green British pieces from revised are much more compatible with the Chinese infantry.
That brings up another point. How do the Light Green HBG Neutrals compare to the light green UK units from Revised? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
-
I couldn’t bring myself to use British sculpts for Chinese units. I’d rather have the colors not match.
-
Reply #28 in this thread…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23787.15
…has a comparative of the yellow-green Neutrals next to an OOB Chinese infantry piece.
Reply #33 has a picture of all the neutral colours.
-
Nice.
Although, can anyone tell me the use for all those Neutral units? I mean, I am all for the superfluous, but how do neutrals buy cruisers or fighters, or even tanks? House rule?
-
One of the main things I was thinking is that instead of just infantry in those neutral zones, you could have other units there also, like fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. Sea units could be located in an adjacent sea zone and claimed or fought separately from the land units, or claimed when the land units are claimed. Strict neutral units in sea zones, however, could be ignored (as long as no one invades a strict neutral, of course) or maybe they would block movement. There are lots of possibilities there.
-
One of the main things I was thinking is that instead of just infantry in those neutral zones, you could have other units there also, like fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. Sea units could be located in an adjacent sea zone and claimed or fought separately from the land units, or claimed when the land units are claimed. Strict neutral units in sea zones, however, could be ignored (as long as no one invades a strict neutral, of course) or maybe they would block movement. There are lots of possibilities there.
True. I kind of like those ideas. I did not really consider using these units for the Pro-Axis or Pro-Allies Neutrals, since obviously only infantry are able to be activated, per the game itself. Though you could modify that to include ships and tanks and the like. I would just be wary of upsetting any balance the game has. To be honest I haven’t kept up on the revisions to Alpha (Global) +++ or whatever they are on now. If anyone has a link to a latest and greatest set of rules/placements that would be great.
As for strict Neutrals, again, I am all for superfluous. Even to the point of allowing strict Neutrals ships and planes. But I have never before encountered a situation in which it was even slightly advantageous for Russia to build ships, let alone someone to attack a strict Neutral. I just cannot conceive of the application of having extra units for strict Neutrals.
-
If you could make it balanced, it would add a very interesting dynamic, to have neutral ships especially. (Imagine parking a weak UK navy behind a pro-allied neutral destroyer, preventing the Germans from wiping you out.) One thing you could do (to try not to upset the balance too much) is switch out units so that the neutrals have the same IPC value of units. Maybe just switch one Inf out for an Art? Something else that might be cool: Usually there is some kind of rule about whether or not the Black Sea is open or not. What if, instead, there is a strict neutral navy blocking the way (connected to Turkey)? However you put it, though, you could still use the infantry to place on Neutrals as a more tangible record of how many Inf are there…
As far as the different revisions to Global rules: Once I saw how much Europe 1940 was going for, I sold mine (making almost $200 off of it) and decided to just wait until 1940 Second editions came out. I was getting tired of all the revisions anyway.
-
Yes, I have considered similar ideas in the past, though not with neutrals. It is an interesting thought.
Are the Second editions out yet? Or when will they be?
-
The Second Editions are not out yet. The planned release date is September 18.
2012_07_09_AA1940Europe2_Solicitation_en_US.pdf
2012_07_09_AA1940Pacific2_Solicitation_en_US.pdf -
As for strict Neutrals, again, I am all for superfluous. Even to the point of allowing strict Neutrals ships and planes. But I have never before encountered a situation in which it was even slightly advantageous for Russia to build ships, let alone someone to attack a strict Neutral. I just cannot conceive of the application of having extra units for strict Neutrals.
You and I have NEVER played a game hoffman.
You don’t know how exciting it can get, when you play against people who consider ALL their options EVERYturn, and ALL time the time.
Also, it’s not exactly -extra- units, more than it is just -different- units. And the pro-allies/pro-axis territories would also benefit from this change.
-
You and I have NEVER played a game hoffman.
You don’t know how exciting it can get, when you play against people who consider ALL their options EVERYturn, and ALL time the time.
Also, it’s not exactly -extra- units, more than it is just -different- units. And the pro-allies/pro-axis territories would also benefit from this change.
I would love a game. Unfortunately, it sounds like you live in BC. I am in Ohio. We might have to meet halfway in a field in Montana or Saskatchewan.
I try to consider all options every turn also, but then people complain because you take such a long time. When you play Global anyway you have more options. But I don’t care too much about that. You have to think everything through.
I would disagree that it is “not exactly -extra- units, more than it is just -different- units”. For example, Greece. In a normal game the Allies can activate, what, 4 infantry? With modified units would ships or tanks be added to those infantry, or maybe replace a couple of them? Same could be said of Bulgaria or Iraq or whatever Pro-Axis Neutrals have. It just seems like adding/replacing Neutral activation units would add be both largely (historically) inaccurate and add an imbalance. I am sure there is a way you could sweeten the deal for both sides (tanks for German activation, ships for the Allies), but just infantry is simpler and more accurate.
So, you could replace units instead of just adding them, but again as far as strict Neutrals go… I cannot fathom why attacking one is in any way beneficial. Prove me wrong.
Suggested Topics
