Possible "Unoffical Pre-order"??

@All-Encompassing-Goose

How’s the map going?

It depends on what “work” means – in other words, on whether players would consider a Kursk scenario appealing.  Conceptually, Kursk would be similar to A&A D-Day (minus the water) in the sense that the battle was fundamentally a frontal assault on a heavily-defended static position, and similar to A&A Battle of the Bulge in the sense that it would involve ground forces driving into enemy lines, but different from both games in the sense that from the German point of view Kursk was a pincer movement aimed at pinching off a salient, and that from the Russian point of view it was a two-stage offensive-defensive battle.  Personally I think it has good potential to make an interesting game, if it’s designed properly.

@Variable:

The pics are working just fine…

And this looks AWESOME Pac War! I would be interested in a “how to” and a cost estimate for making other games in this fashion. Please, let us know!

Unless it was mas produced, I don’t think that something like this would be cost effective.  The material cost alone $45 and it was on sale!  The hexgrid was drawn by hand (HOURS and HOURS of mindnumbing work) as were the other graphics.  Stitching it all up was not particularly hard but there was zero room for error due to the fact that so much time went into the play area.  “Oh well, I screwed that up.  Just cut another piece of fabric.” was not an option.  You would have to start from point zero.  If I were producing this board for someone, I would not feel guilty charging $250 because it was so labor intensive.  However, if you could buy cloth with a grid already printed at the price I paid, price would drow WAY down……figure $100.  That would be $45 for material and $55 for time and graphics.

The “Heavy” armor piece from FMG was originally listed as the Semovente 75/18, which I believe is what it is.

At some point, someone put a post saying “the gun barrel was such-n-such long” and “the body was so-n-so wide” so it MUST be a 105/25. I imagine that is where HBG’s confusion lies. Coach must have seen that post and it stuck in his head so he put it on his site as such.

@Yavid:

nations with an “old bb” piece from HBG I’ve replaced improved mech inf. tech with heavy battleship tech. HBG become the standard BB and used at set up and can be purchased until you get the tech. After you get the tech you can buy the OOB battleships as heavy battleships. These Heavy Battleships are 4/4/2/20 units just like standard but take 3 hits to sink and roll two dice in combat taking the best roll and using it.

Interesting idea, though I’m not sure if I want to make it a “tech” thing, especially since all the nations had new BB’s already in production before the war started.  I’d be more inclined to make it a “tech” ability to create a TRUE SBB along the lines of Yamato, Montana or H-class (and perhaps Sovietsky Soyuz, and, perhaps even more arguably Iowa, Vanguard and Lion), of which the Yamato is the only one we’re likely to have a piece for any time soon (and of which only the Yamato was ever actually built)… I might try something along these lines, along with maybe a “super-cruiser” and/or “super-carrier” tech if and when I ever decide to try using some of my painted NAVWAR or Panzerschiffe pieces on a very big map like GW1939… but I don’t see the likelihood of having AA-scale pieces of any of the other true SBB’s any time soon.

Another idea: perhaps old BB’s could be a 3/4/2 unit or a 4/3/2 unit; the rationale here is that the “real world” speed difference may not be enough to make a difference in the category of strategic mobility (which is what speed really represents in game terms, and most especially on the smaller board versions) but rather that the old/new speed difference should be understood as more an issue of “tactical” mobility which could put old BB’s in a combat disadvantage on either defense or offense?  If so, though, in which of the two would the lack of tactical mobility be more important?  I’m leaning toward it being a bigger disadvantage on offense, but I’d be interested in hearing other opinions.

In any case, keep in mind, for all of you out there who plan to use some sort of “old BB” house rules, that classic BB pieces are about perfect for this while we’re waiting for HBG to get to all of the nations’ version of one.  Similarly, the classic version’s carriers are almost perfect for generic CVE’s.  Variable or Coach, do you guys have classic pieces available for these two unit types for most of the relevant nations for those who don’t have oodles of them lying around?

Yes CWO (one of our residents history buffs  :-)) has some good points. What would you do if you were Japan? Invade China or pool resources for attacking ANZAC, UK, Russia, or even the US! All these options are open to you!

Well you could have everyone roll a D6 and the highest one gets to move first that would make it hard to plan out the game for everyone.

Or you could take the number of battle victories that turn and use that as a basis of who goes first. The country that has the most victories has the combat initative and then gets to go first. In cases of a tie use the current IPC value to determine the tie-breaker.

Just a few thoughts.