Scale pieces - BIG MESS

dude you are taking a perfectly fun game and making it unfun. No offense intended.

A bit melodramatic wouldn’t you say I dont see the problem, you have already brought this up in another post.

Its a board game not a wargame and maybe the original peices where the wrong scale and the new ones are right.  The ships are all differrent scales becuase the aircraft carrier and battleships would be massive compared to the destroyers and cruisers. If the planes are out of scale it is to help players identify their peices and the other players(without them noticeing that your eyeing up a paticuler country to invade)

If you dont like them you could always replace them. I have replaced my american fighters with 1/600 hellcats and mustangs and will replace the stategics with vuaght corsairs for the pacific however that is for when i play the americans only . players who dont know world war 2 aircraft and tanks struggle to identify peices  and haveing the strat bombers bigger helps them.

In short if you dont like it then change or deal with it

Well the pieces - FOR THE PURPOSE - of recognition, are all set to a similar scale.

That scale is, the more expensive the piece, the larger it becomes in it’s class.  This is particularily pertinent to ships.

Scale is gold, if you want it different, make your own molds, and sell that on ebay.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

For example stuka was the german figther in AA2004 revised and is a tacbomber in AA1940.
stuka was much smaller in AA2004 than it is now because it was artificially made bigger.

The problem isn’t with the current scale of the Stuka, the problem is that the early A&A games incorrectly used the Stuka (a dive bomber in real life) as a fighter piece.  That mistake was eventually fixed when the BF 109 replaced the original Stuka sculpt as the German fighter unit.  That in turn freed the Stuka to be correctly used in its current role as a tac bomber, and to be provided as an upgraded sculpt sized similarly to the other tac bomber pieces.

The pieces are just fine, however the map should be actual size of the earth.

Actually in regards to the German tac bombers and fighters the scale is not just sized that way for the purpose or recognition, but also to reflect historical accuracy.

Junkers 87 Stuka Dive Bomber: 45’ W x 37’ L.
Messerschmitt Bf 109 Fighter: 32’ W x 28’ L.

Let’s use the Japanese airforce as another example.

Aichi D3A “Val” Dive Bomber: 47’ W x 33’ L
Nakajima B5N “Kate” Torpedo Bomber: 50’ W x 33’ L
Mitsubishi A6M “Zero” Fighter: 39’ W x 29’ L

It makes sense for the tactical bombers to be bigger than fighters since they actually were. Thumbs up for an increase in historical accuracy!   :mrgreen:

Bombers are a bit out of scale but that’s to be expected given the varying sizes of the different powers “standard” strategic bombers. Still it’s close enough for a board game.

Japanese Bomber:
Mitsubishi G4M “Betty” Strategic Bomber: 81’ W x 65’ L

German Bomber:
Junkers 88 Strategic Bomber: 65’ W x 50’ L

You should check your facts before starting a thread complaining about how there’s a huge mess in the scale of pieces.

The pieces are just fine, however the map should be actual size of the earth.

YES.

And like treaties for the indegenous peoples of the earth who have LOST what they once held to superior firepower, and other indigenous groups at any given time, we should give Europe back to the fascists, and live it all over again.

Wait, no…  let’s not.

Not to mention this is an abstraction of all “tactical bomber” types, which include dive bombers, night fighters, torpedo bombers, heavy fighters, ground attack, and even implies some medium bombers, almost all of which are larger than their fighter counterparts, even if the specific nation sculpt isn’t much larger from the fighter counterpart.

Besides, the sbd dauntless to p38 lightning is actually the most egregious scale switch, NOT the Stuka/Bf109.  It’s not as though the Stuka is the same size as a bf109.  The Stuka WAS a larger plane.  And because each unit SHOULD be instantly recognizable for the average gamer, it’s been scaled up by MAYBE 10% beyond the same scale as the bf109.  Boohoo.  The Stuka has a 45 ft wingspan, the BF109 has a 33 foot wingspan.  So the Stuka piece from revised wouldn’t even be scaled correctly as it’s certainly NOT larger than the aa1940 BF109 piece.  And the AA40 piece is perhaps 45% larger than the bf 109, which means with a 38% larger wingspan it’s hardly as inconsistent as some of the other pieces.  I mean, come on, this is the hill really you want to die on?

I can’t speak for your gaming partners, but the fellows I play with have to ask me which unit is a cruiser and which is a destroyer in almost every game (especially if they play as the UK/Anzac).  I’m personally VERY satisfied that the tactical bomber is visually distinct in scale from both bombers and fighters.  A fighter sized (which again, would be wrong in general) stuka, Il2, or Val would drive me batty.  If anyone mixed in AA50 hellcats, a correctly scaled dauntless would be indistinguishable for the average person, not to mention the number of people who thought the dauntless was a corsair, or who wouldn’t really understand the difference in roll between the dauntless and p-38.

Hey MEGA do you ever have anything positive to say about this game? Or anything for that matter>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hey MEGA, the scales for naval vessels isn’t quite right either.  You want to change that?  The Royal Oak, an older battleship that served in WW1, is actually shorter (620 ft) than the newer class Kent cruiser (630 ft).  So maybe we should have cruiser pieces that are bigger than battleship pieces for the Royal Navy.  While we are at it, lets make destroyers and submarines in the same scale with battleships.  They may be so tiny we can barely see them much less actually play the game with them, but at least your sense of scale will be satisfied.
You know, I was totally with you on the sub “sneak attack” subject.  Since then however, it seems like you are fussing about one thing after another.  Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the things you fuss about don’t really bother you but you just want to create controversy.  Give it a rest.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

aaminiatures hsas the right scale and aanavalminiatures also

Then play with the miniatures…

Constructive criticism is great, and even requested with the Alpha projects, but the scale of the units probably isn’t going to change, so why complain? Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes!

Yea, i really think the scale of units and sculpts (like sherman vs. whatever, france having own tank and stuff) are relatively insignificant. they are nice, and could be improved, and I would like to see a bit of improvement every version, but nothing to fuss about. Except for maybe the amount included in each set. Any one else find it funny that china has more infantry than it can possibly use (one for every territory) yet they managed to give them one less marker than they need? I know that no power has enough markers to conquer the world, but China can only get 6 places. So they give us 5.  :lol:

Actually, the Chinese territories that begin the game under Japan control already have a Chinese control marker on the board itself (Manchuria, Shantung, etc.)  You are supposed to put Japanese control markers in those territories at setup along with the military units.
According to the rules, Chinese forces are not allowed to go outside Chinese territories (those on the map with a Chinese symbol on them) with the exception of Burma and Kwangtung.  China can fight Axis forces in those two territories outside of China and if India is under Axis control, they can even control and get IPC income from those two territories.  Thus, you would need Chinese control markers for those two territories to show that China controls them.  Of course, if India is liberated, control of those territories reverts back to India so you would remove the Chinese control markers to show that they were British again.
So, basically, to play this game you really only need 3 Chinese control markers:  One for Burma, one for Kwangtung and one for the Production Chart.

The scale is fine. After a couple of scotch and waters or Grand Marniers on ice you need them to be  of a different scale. The only piece issue I have is historically accurate Italians. Thats why I ordered them from FMG. I think they should still also provide the money. I have been playing this game since high school off and on and I just turned 40. The money for me is almost essential. Just my 2 cents.

@knp7765:

Actually, the Chinese territories that begin the game under Japan control already have a Chinese control marker on the board itself (Manchuria, Shantung, etc.)  You are supposed to put Japanese control markers in those territories at setup along with the military units.
According to the rules, Chinese forces are not allowed to go outside Chinese territories (those on the map with a Chinese symbol on them) with the exception of Burma and Kwangtung.  China can fight Axis forces in those two territories outside of China and if India is under Axis control, they can even control and get IPC income from those two territories.  Thus, you would need Chinese control markers for those two territories to show that China controls them.  Of course, if India is liberated, control of those territories reverts back to India so you would remove the Chinese control markers to show that they were British again.
So, basically, to play this game you really only need 3 Chinese control markers:  One for Burma, one for Kwangtung and one for the Production Chart.

Actually not true. although it might be a good idea to do that with the japanese markers, that’s not the official rule. And also, that is not true about china taking control of the british territories. They can occupy, but not control. Even if india is japanese.

@The:

And also, that is not true about china taking control of the british territories. They can occupy, but not control. Even if india is japanese.

Knp7765 is right.  China can control those territories if India is held by the Axis.  The wording is a bit ambiguous in the Rulebook, but that’s the intent.

Knp7765 is right.  China can control those territories if India is held by the Axis.  The wording is a bit ambiguous in the Rulebook, but that’s the intent.

No offense intended, but why would you want a rule to be ambiguous?

@jim010:

Knp7765 is right.  China can control those territories if India is held by the Axis.  The wording is a bit ambiguous in the Rulebook, but that’s the intent.

No offense intended, but why would you want a rule to be ambiguous?

“that’s the intent” was not aimed at the rule being ambiguous, but at the “China can control these territories if India is held by the Axis” <- THAT is the intent of the rule (the rule just happens to read ambiguously).

This concludes the lesson on how to write ambiguously.    :lol: