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


  • I also request a real glider too.
    Oh yeah….
    me 321
    me 323.

    USSR G11.
    USA Waco series
    UK Horca…
    HUm it will be great in my colletion…

  • Sponsor '17 '13 '11 '10

    HBG has a shapeways sight and a Me-321, Horsa, etc


  • Coach, you comin out with a US naval fighter at all ?

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @SS:

    Coach, you comin out with a US naval fighter at all ?

    F6Fs will be in pre-order for upcoming US sets. Already have a F4U in the first US set.


  • Looking to buy just the fighters.


  • HBG has a shapeways sight and a Me-321, Horsa, etc

    I know coach…
    But you should consider to make it on your own.
    But I understand you make business with shapeways.

    AL

  • Customizer

    @SS:

    Looking to buy just the fighters.

    Well, since they are including the F6Fs with the US Expansion set, I would imagine HBG will do with them like with the Japanese Expansion Set. First they have to get the sets made and fill all the pre-orders. Then once the sets are available as a regular item on the site for a little while, they will offer individual units in groups of 5 each. I think this is great. While you can’t buy just 1 or 2 like with previous sets, when you get them in 5 piece sets, the buying discount is already included.
    Normally, with single pieces, HBG has to charge around 60 - 65 cents a piece, which he will lower if you get 5-9 pieces and lower even further if you get 10+. However, the 5 piece sets are priced at $2.50 (50 cents a piece) so you are basically getting the 10+ discount already.

    I believe the F4U Corsairs from the US Marines sets are already available individually.


  • Nice MkIII Knp. You keeping that avatar?

  • Customizer

    Thanks Wittmann. You betcha I’m keeping it. When I first got on the Forum here, it was more of a “just checking it out” sort of thing so I set up my account as simple as possible. After that, I guess I was just too lazy to bother with the avatar. Didn’t think it was important. Now that I have one, I really like it.
    You can think toblerone77. He kind of spurred my interest. Then I looked through my pictures and found this one and was like “Ahhh, that’s perfect.”

    By the way, I was just going over the different piece options available to us between OOB and HBG. Did any of you guys realize the US will have 8 options for fighter pieces once the US Expansion sets get here (9 if you include jets)?
    1 > P-38 Lightning = OOB all games
    2 > F6F Hellcat = Pacific (2001) and Guadalcanal
    3 > P-40 Warhawk = A&A 1941
    4 > F4U Corsair = HBG US Marines set
    5 > P-40 Warhawk = HBG US Supplement set
    6 > P-51 Mustang = HBG US Supplement set
    7 > F6F Hellcat = HBG US Expansion set
    8 > P-47 Thunderbolt = HBG US Expansion set
    9 > P-80 Shooting Star = HBG US Expansion set

    Now, I know that technically, 2 of the fighter types above are repeated between OOB and HBG, but they are still options for us. Some gamers are so house-rule crazy, they could probably come up with different uses for all 9 types, even the OOB  and HBG repeats.


  • Thank you for pointing that out, Knp.
    I am not sure how many of those I have. Will check. I only own one HBG set. I forget which. (I don’t play live games any more.)


  • Did any of you guys realize the US will have 8 options for fighter

    Oh yeah…and not only with fighter, light bomber, artillery, truck, tank…
    I think HBG might be able to make 4 differents additional set…if it’s not more.
    For those who likes naval stuff…I would like to see a US Navy Blimp.
    And why not… US anti airplane balloon…!!!

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @knp7765:

    Thanks Wittmann. You betcha I’m keeping it. When I first got on the Forum here, it was more of a “just checking it out” sort of thing so I set up my account as simple as possible. After that, I guess I was just too lazy to bother with the avatar. Didn’t think it was important. Now that I have one, I really like it.
    You can think toblerone77. He kind of spurred my interest. Then I looked through my pictures and found this one and was like “Ahhh, that’s perfect.”

    By the way, I was just going over the different piece options available to us between OOB and HBG. Did any of you guys realize the US will have 8 options for fighter pieces once the US Expansion sets get here (9 if you include jets)?
    1 > P-38 Lightning = OOB all games
    2 > F6F Hellcat = Pacific (2001) and Guadalcanal
    3 > P-40 Warhawk = A&A 1941
    4 > F4U Corsair = HBG US Marines set
    5 > P-40 Warhawk = HBG US Supplement set
    6 > P-51 Mustang = HBG US Supplement set
    7 > F6F Hellcat = HBG US Expansion set
    8 > P-47 Thunderbolt = HBG US Expansion set
    9 > P-80 Shooting Star = HBG US Expansion set

    Now, I know that technically, 2 of the fighter types above are repeated between OOB and HBG, but they are still options for us. Some gamers are so house-rule crazy, they could probably come up with different uses for all 9 types, even the OOB�  and HBG repeats.

    If remember, not to long ago, someone posted about a house rule for land base fighters and naval fighters for Japan and the US.

    It might have been you, Tolerone77, Hoffman or CWO Marc. I can’t remember, but I think one of you came up with it, and it was cool.

    You can now implement this in games, and you might have already, but it is cool, that we have all these options, now. :-D


  • 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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @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. :-)


  • 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

  • Customizer

    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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @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. :-)

  • Customizer

    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.

  • Customizer

    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

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    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.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts