How Are You Using Your (HBG/FMG/Table Tactics/Other) Battle Pieces?

[CWO Marc]

@Tall:

Having said that, I’ve been a proponent of Long-Range Fighters for quite a while. However, IMHO they MUST be two-engine aircraft so as to ease the identity process along without having to “THINK” about it.

Fair point about easy sculpt identification – but note that, out of the three US fighters which excelled as long-range fighters / escort fighters during WWII, two of them (the  P-47 Thunderbolt and the P-51 Mustang) were single-engine aircraft.

[LHoffman]

@toblerone77:

These are just some of the general ideas I’m working with.

There are more!? That is a lot of ideas!  :-o

Keep it up though. Like to see innovation. Will probably steal some of your rules or modify them for myself.

[crusaderiv]

I like things to be as SIMPLE and FAST to implement as possible without having to remember a thousand different rules and/or ‘situations’.

I understand that but I can’t resist to get all those different types of unit on a gameboard!! :evil:

[General 6 Stars]

OOOOOOOHHHHHH YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAA!!!  :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

[toblerone77]

@CWO:

@Tall:

Having said that, I’ve been a proponent of Long-Range Fighters for quite a while. However, IMHO they MUST be two-engine aircraft so as to ease the identity process along without having to “THINK” about it.

Fair point about easy sculpt identification – but note that, out of the three US fighters which excelled as long-range fighters / escort fighters during WWII, two of them (the  P-47 Thunderbolt and the P-51 Mustang) were single-engine aircraft.

Yes I bought my Mustangs with this in mind. Though visually I see TP’s point about using twin-engine aircraft.

I have looked at Shapeways and 3D printing in general as well as looking into classes about the subject. There are table-top 3D printers available on the market for home use but they are still expensive and best for making prototypes for plastics. HBG designs the initial prototype using this method but relies on injection molding for mass production as it is less expensive once molds have been produced as well as being more efficient.

Additionally there is a small company producing small, single piece injection molding machines enabling hobbyists to make their own plastic items. The heaviest cost is the mold. However my brother-in-law is a machinist and could possibly machine molds for this particular machine.

Believe me I have any number of crazy ideas rolling in my head when it comes to plastics and miniatures LOL.

[Buran]

I’ve been looking at all the different units that are both coming out in the future and at are already out, and I have quite a few myself.  I’ve been working on rules for the different units and trying to make things balanced.  That is the hard part.  One of the things I’m working on is some of the units are only available after a tech is developed.  That way its not over powering right from the start.  I’m also looking at replacing some of the OOB units with the HBG units, and then using the OOB units for different developments, or other types of units.  and example of this would be changing the OOB P-38 fighter into a long range fighter, and using the HBG P-40 as the basic fighter.

[CWO Marc]

@toblerone77:

I have a complete stock of pieces that includes multiple sets of all sculpts HBG makes plus multiple copies of al but two editions of A&A. I also pieces from many other games that would be compatible.

This is an astonishingly accurate description of my own situation, so clearly we’re operating on similar wavelengths.

The idea of putting a range of possible extra unit types at the disposal of the various player countries raises a point which could make an interesting house rule.  Your super-set Bible could describe these units as conceptual ones (created on the drawing boards of the applicable nations), and each player would then have to decide how many of these extra unit types it would decide to put into actual productions.  The more types a player puts into production, the more capabilities he gains but the more he has to pay a penalty of some sort (probably in terms of cost required or numerical output of units) due to the required dispersal of production efforts.  This was an actual question which both sides faced IN WWII, and which they handled in different ways.  Germany, for instance, spread itself out too thin by creating too many tank types (the Maus being an extreme example of the law of diminishing returns) and chasing too many technological hares (developing jet planes and guided missiles, yet failing to produce such basics as Jeeps, with the result that the Anglo-Americans were fully motorized by 1944 while Germany continued to use horses).  The USSR, by contrast, stuck to just a few basic tank types, periodically giving them realistically-scaled incremental upgrades, and thus was able to concentrate on producing large numbers of units.

[General 6 Stars]

What you could do is have most of the advance pieces for each country ( the 5 ) available in a weapons development tech chart starting on a certain turn where you roll for weapons tech ( doesn’t start maybe until  turn 5 or 6 and depends on type of game ) and then when you get into the turns of lets say turn 9 ( depends on your date and year frame for lenth of game ) you start getting those certain weapons automatically. Then by turn 16 or so all the country’s will get all the techs do to development late in war. This way you add them as time goes on and it won’t overwelm some people.

[toblerone77]

@LHoffman:

@toblerone77:

These are just some of the general ideas I’m working with.

There are more!? That is a lot of ideas!  :-o

Keep it up though. Like to see innovation. Will probably steal some of your rules or modify them for myself.

Thanks man. Yes there’s more. Feel free to use anything. This is a slow-going project for me some ideas are ones that have been stewing for years, I just want to have them well presented.

[toblerone77]

@SS:

What you could do is have most of the advance pieces for each country ( the 5 ) available in a weapons development tech chart starting on a certain turn where you roll for weapons tech ( doesn’t start maybe until  turn 5 or 6 and depends on type of game ) and then when you get into the turns of lets say turn 9 ( depends on your date and year frame for lenth of game ) you start getting those certain weapons automatically. Then by turn 16 or so all the country’s will get all the techs do to development late in war. This way you add them as time goes on and it won’t overwelm some people.

Yes, I’ve thought of something similar for quite some time. Some tech will also be what I consider “desperation weapons” that become available when a country hits a certain threshold they will be able to produce certain units. The idea of a timed tech ladder is a good one though.

[knp7765]

@SS:

What you could do is have most of the advance pieces for each country ( the 5 ) available in a weapons development tech chart starting on a certain turn where you roll for weapons tech ( doesn’t start maybe until  turn 5 or 6 and depends on type of game ) and then when you get into the turns of lets say turn 9 ( depends on your date and year frame for lenth of game ) you start getting those certain weapons automatically. Then by turn 16 or so all the country’s will get all the techs do to development late in war. This way you add them as time goes on and it won’t overwelm some people.

Some very good ideas here, but do you think the turn numbers are a bit long? The reason I ask this is with our games, particularly with Axis victories, the games are fairly short, about 8-10 rounds most of the time. Now, our Allied victory games tend to last longer, roughly 12-15 rounds.
So, if you don’t even start trying to develop tech weapons until rounds 5 or 6, most of these nifty things might not even get used.
You mentioned having a certain turn (you used turn 9 but I understand it could be varied) nations would start getting some of the tech weapons automatically. So after that point, you would no longer have to roll dice for tech development, you can simply purchase those units. Would they be a little higher priced than normal units or would it be an automatic change over.
For example, lets say Germany has Jet Fighters on it’s chart. Once the “tech turn” arrives and Germany gets Jet Fighters, would all of Germany’s fighters be converted to Jet Fighters? Or would they simply be able to purchase Jet Fighters from then on? Would the Jet Fighters be more expensive than regular fighters (fighters = $10, Jets = $11 or $12) or would all fighters for Germany from that point on simply be Jets?
I could see pros and cons of both sides. On one hand, it would be kind of cool if Germany still had the option to buy regular fighters OR jet fighters, but that would only work if they were different prices. You could price Jets at $11 since they would be effectively replacing tactical bombers.
On the other hand, it would kind of suck for Germany to get jet fighters but still have to pay more for them.

Still, I think having a tech list that is based on round numbers is pretty cool. In our games, we like playing with tech but rarely do because no body wants to spend the money on research tokens. We are all too busy buying regular units to attack or defend. This is why I have had a hard time introducing new types of units into the game (land mines, fortifications, rail markers and stations, etc.).

[General 6 Stars]

Yes, as i said in last post, you will have to adjust your turn numbers to how long your games are. So maybe start tech rolls on turn 3 or 4 and auto techs on turn 7. You still want to roll for tech because you may need a certain one. On tech chart if you roll ( 5 icp’s per die ) a 6, you get to pick your tech so you don’t have to wait for it. You just hope you don’t roll a 6 for 3/4 turns and not get any tech. When you get jet fighters (  A4 D5 M5 C12/ C11?)  for Germany, you have to purchase them and no your fighters do not convert to jet fighters that you already have.

[crusaderiv]

Believe me I have any number of crazy ideas rolling in my head when it comes to plastics and miniatures LOL.

LOL…welcome in the club…

Still, I think having a tech list that is based on round numbers is pretty cool. In our games, we like playing with tech but rarely do because no body wants to spend the money on research tokens. We are all too busy buying regular units to attack or defend. This is why I have had a hard time introducing new types of units into the game (land mines, fortifications, rail markers and stations, etc.). Yes, I’ve thought of something similar for quite some time. Some tech will also be what I consider “desperation weapons” that become available when a country hits a certain threshold they will be able to produce certain units. The idea of a timed tech ladder is a good one though.

Your right so that’s why I introduced ‘‘time tech’’
And it works!!!

[crusaderiv]

Yes, as i said in last post, you will have to adjust your turn numbers to how long your games are. So maybe start tech rolls on turn 3 or 4 and auto techs on turn 7. You still want to roll for tech because you may need a certain one. On tech chart if you roll ( 5 icp’s per die ) a 6, you get to pick your tech so you don’t have to wait for it. You just hope you don’t roll a 6 for 3/4 turns and not get any tech. When you get jet fighters (  A4 D5 M5 C12/ C11?)  for Germany, you have to purchase them and no your fighters do not convert to jet fighters that you already have.

:-D……you get my voted for the best A&A player of the year!!!

[General 6 Stars]

Your killin me :-D :-D :-D

[knp7765]

@SS:

Yes, as i said in last post, you will have to adjust your turn numbers to how long your games are. So maybe start tech rolls on turn 3 or 4 and auto techs on turn 7. You still want to roll for tech because you may need a certain one. On tech chart if you roll ( 5 icp’s per die ) a 6, you get to pick your tech so you don’t have to wait for it. You just hope you don’t roll a 6 for 3/4 turns and not get any tech. When you get jet fighters (  A4 D5 M5 C12/ C11?)  for Germany, you have to purchase them and no your fighters do not convert to jet fighters that you already have.

Okay, I think I get it now. This sounds really cool, tech pieces that become automatically available at a certain round, or you can roll for them earlier. I like that you have to buy the new units too, not automatically convert all your existing units to the new tech. I always thought that was kind of cheesy – you have a half dozen fighters on the board and get Jet Fighters, now suddenly all those fighters are jets. Also like the idea that you can spend a little less and get the regular units.
Regular fighter = $10, Jet fighter = $11 or $12
Regular Bomber = $12, Heavy Bomber = $14 or $15
This is making new ideas swirl around in my brain. I’ll have to give this some more thought. Thanks SS.

[BJones]

I didn’t see this mentioned, but an exception to the twin engine fighters would have to be the P-51 mustangs, they carried drop tanks allowing a range of 1600+ miles while the P-38 had a range of only 1300. I think the twin engine fighter/bomber planes are best used in an expanded tactical role to include use as torpedo planes, heavy fighters , night fighters to simulate the U.K.'s night time bombing campaign over the Germans.

[Tall Paul]

BJones & Others,

––While I completely understand and respect that all players can make their own versions of
House Rules, the reasons I prefer making only twin-engine fighters into Long-Range Fighters is for the logical , ease of identity, and ‘gameplay’ concerns. We must remember,….that this is a game.
----I’m as serious a military historian as anyone, probably more than most. Heck, I’m about to build a museum. But my point is that we are usually better off (in this game) when we decide to make certain ‘concessions’ to reality in order not needlessly complicate matters and to ‘speed’ along the game.
----IMHO, any/all home rules should be logical, easy to implement, and not complicate the gaming process any more than necessary. Otherwise, we’ll slow our already long games down to where they possibly wouldn’t be as fun.
----Think of the time it would take to distinguish if there were any long-range fighters among all of the single-engine fighters. IMHO, it would be much faster and greatly superior to only have ‘twin-engine’ fighters to represent    Long-Range Fighters.
–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----In a simular thought process, I have decided that all of my Air Transports will have a White nose and wingtips in order that they would be distinctive enough to give everyone a visual clue to their special capabilities of Paratroop Drops. The White coloring is not only disticntive, but sub-consiously suggests the White parachutes it’s capable of carrying. Check them out, below.

“Tall Paul”

[CWO Marc]

@MidnightExpress:

I haven’t seen much on the Table Tactics pieces so I thought I’d chime in.

Thanks for the interesting post that I’ll study in more detail when I have a chance, since I have all the TT pieces too, but I have a question in the meantime about the “TT Mustang Fighter” to which you refer.  I can’t visualize what unit this is.  Are you referring to the twin-boomed fighter?  I always assumed this was a Lightning.  The Mustang was a single-engined fighter with a conventionally-shaped fuselage.

[Yavid]

I do believe that the Jet Fighter from Table Tactics is a He 162 not a Me-262. And thank you I’ve been trying to figure out how to use them with every nation that got Jet Fighters getting Jet Fighters from HBG. Jet Tactic Bombers. I’ll have to do research to see if they were developed and experimented with.

As far as the '41 carriers go for the Allies they are stand-ins for Midway and Malta Class carrier with HBG small carrier being Jeep Carriers.