@toblerone77:

@ Coach,

I missed the pre-order for UK but just got some delivered today. I must say, THOSE PIECES ARE FANTASTIC SIR! The pictures do not do them justice I think they are even better than the recent Japanese and German sets and those were great too! I splurged and pre-ordered a few US sets too. We now will soon have armored cars for everyone LOL. The whole line-up for that set is going to be awesome.

As for the B-29, thank you, thank you, thank you. I have wanted a B-29 forever. I have the old TT ones but well….HBG does it better LOL.

Nice Work Sir!

Thank you!

@knp7765:

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

Should have caught up with this earlier. But yep if you wanted to do as I described that’s is how I’d do it.

Had an idea at one time to allow a once-per-game “Doolittle Raid” by allowing an HBG Mitchell launch from a carrier. The idea was just for fun but never really put it into fruition.

As far as carrier based AC rules, I’ve never pushed myself on this too much however I have enough naval planes to run several games with naval fighters on everyone’s carriers just for esthetics.

For the piece collectors/junkies those old small Stuka “fighters” from way back in the old days work great as “naval TBs”.

Do you know when the Jappanese light carriers will be back in stock in pumpkin orange? and when will the individual british pieces be available

Just read your latest Newsletter. Lots of very exciting projects underway.
I am truly sorry I do not live over there, as I would gladly and happily have  play tested your Civil War game (and more).
All the best, as always. Leo.

Any chance of a Macedonian ancient army?

@Flashman:

Any chance of a Macedonian ancient army?

Sorry Flashman,
Not in the works.

question for coach, when aprx the us set will be ready for shipping?

@georgemak1:

question for coach, when aprx the us set will be ready for shipping?

Wow, I better not say, probably Feb.

Any idea when the Kursk boxed set will be released? Will it be on Kickstarter?

@coachofmany:

@Flashman:

Any chance of a Macedonian ancient army?

Sorry Flashman,
Not in the works.

So is it strictly 20th century wars?

The upcoming A&A American Civil War and Conquest of the Empire reboot of no interest, then?

@Koningstiger:

Any idea when the Kursk boxed set will be released? Will it be on Kickstarter?

We do not know yet.

@Flashman:

@coachofmany:

@Flashman:

Any chance of a Macedonian ancient army?

Sorry Flashman,
Not in the works.

So is it strictly 20th century wars?

The upcoming A&A American Civil War and Conquest of the Empire reboot of no interest, then?

Please elaborate.

Just wondering if you’d ever consider pieces for games outside the modern (i.e. industrial) period.

As I mentioned, a new version of Conquest of the Empire is in the works; this might accommodate many additional units such as archers, auxiliaries and entire Barbarian armies.

The US Civil War (strongly muted as the next official “Axis and Allies” game) might also inspire additional units such as different forms of artillery, rail or naval units.

An other established game I can think of is Ikusa, which strangely does not feature cavalry units (or ships).

Are more distant epochs considered less popular and therefore not commercial, or is it the sheer versatility of “modern” units that makes them more attractive and worthwhile?

https://edwhitfield.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/a-guide-to-the-scottish-independence-referendum-for-seven-year-olds/

Hey guys,
I recently began an inventory of my gaming pieces. I just finished with my OOB pieces from A&A WW2 games and my HBG pieces to date (I have pre-orders for the US expansion set and the AMERIKA games). I also haven’t yet counted pieces from other games like Fortress America, A&A 1914 and others.
Here is what I got so far:
12,646 OOB
16,241 HBG

28,887 Current total.

I didn’t realize I had this many. Guess I really am a piece junkie.

That is fantastic, Knp.
I didn’t preorder Amerika, as I thought shipping costs would be silly. (Forgot mine would come from Germany!). Am seriously thinking of doing so soon.
Hope you have been well.

@knp7765:

Guess I really am a piece junkie.

Most definitely, and it’s to your credit.  :-D  I’m surprised you had the endurance to do a detailed census of that many sculpts.  My own approach about my collection is to simply say that I have so many pieces that I couldn’t face the prospect of counting them.  One statistic (of sorts) that’s easy to give amount my collection is that the OOB pieces vastly outnumber the HBG ones, since it’s primarily the OOB in which I’m interested, with the HBG ones serving as specialized extra units.

@CWO:

@knp7765:

Guess I really am a piece junkie.

Most definitely, and it’s to your credit.  :-D  I’m surprised you had the endurance to do a detailed census of that many sculpts.  My own approach about my collection is to simply say that I have so many pieces that I couldn’t face the prospect of counting them.  One statistic (of sorts) that’s easy to give amount my collection is that the OOB pieces vastly outnumber the HBG ones, since it’s primarily the OOB in which I’m interested, with the HBG ones serving as specialized extra units.

I’m curious. Some people like to replace the OOB pieces with HBG pieces because of the greater detail and sometimes better sculpts. Are you one of those or are you happy with the OOB pieces? I would like to eventually replace the OOB pieces myself.
As of now, we can’t replace all of them but we are close to being able to replace certain nation sets. Here is what I have found so far:
Right now we have nothing for France, China, Italy or ANZAC. However, the Axis Minors set in Italian Brown could cover some Italy pieces and UK Supplement in ANZAC grey could cover some ANZAC pieces.
As for the major nations, we could replace OOB pieces with various levels of completion. There are two units we can not exchange in any set so far: Infantry and AA Artillery. So far, HBG has not made an AA Artillery for any nation, but the OOB pieces look pretty cool so I like using them anyway. The only “regular” infantry piece is in the Russia Early War set. I think all the other infantry pieces in HBG’s sets are more specialized units.
The Russia Early War set has replacements for all the land and air units, but no naval vessels so far. Then again, Russia rarely buys ships so I guess this wouldn’t really matter.
Japan comes the closest to being able to totally replace OOB pieces with HBG pieces. Between the Supplement and Expansion sets, HBG has alternate sculpts for all Japanese naval units, all but one of the air units and all but two of the land units. Japan is only missing the AA Artillery, Infantry and regular (or medium) Bomber.
Once the Axis Minors 2 set gets made, Germany will also be able to replace OOB pieces with the exception of the AA Artillery and possibly the Infantry – unless you want to use the great coat infantry as “regular” infantry.
Also interesting is HBG has replaced several German units with the exact OOB sculpts:
Mechanized Infantry = SdKfz 251 Halftrack (Germany expansion)
Tank = Panzer V “Panther” tank (Axis Minors 2)
Fighter = Bf 109 (Axis Minors 2)
Tactical Bomber = Ju 87 Stuka (Axis Minors 2)
Aircraft Carrier = Graf Zeppelin (Axis Minors 2)
Battleship = Bismarck (Axis Minors 2)

Personally, I like this. WOTC used a lot of good, iconic sculpts for their pieces and while HBG normally tries to reproduce either supplemental units to add to the game (like self-propelled artillery, light carriers, heavy bombers, jet fighters, etc.) or simply alternative sculpts to OOB sculpts. I like to see HBG versions of the OOB pieces. Not only do they look so much nicer, it makes it even easier to replace the OOB pieces.

Thanks Coach for the AWESOME stuff I just bought !!!

@knp7765:

I’m curious. Some people like to replace the OOB pieces with HBG pieces because of the greater detail and sometimes better sculpts. Are you one of those or are you happy with the OOB pieces? I would like to eventually replace the OOB pieces myself.

My approach is to consider the OOB pieces as the core ones, and to supplement (not replace) them with concentric rings of non-OOB pieces.  The HBG sculpts occupy the inner ring immediately surrounding the central core: their size, their colours, their WWII designs and their level of detail make them fully compatible for use alongside the OOB units, and their large (and increasing) variety provides a tremendous range of specialized or supplementary units.  Surrounding the HBG inner ring is a middle ring that encompasses various sculpt types that, to various degrees, fit the size and the WWII era of the OOB and HBG sculpts: FMG, Table Tactics, Xeno, Enemy on the Horizon, The War Game: WWII, and so forth.  Surrounding the middle ring is an “everything else” outer ring for sculpts that either don’t fit A&A at all (for instance ancient Roman sculpts or sci-fi sculpts), or which just might get used in A&A in special situations even though they have compatibility problems (for instance the Victorian infantry units from War: Age of Imperialism, which could be pressed into service as WWII colonial infantry).

The OOB central core itself has several sections rather than being monolithic.  I’m aiming to review and rearrange my OOB collection over the Christmas holidays, so the following description is only a draft at this point, but here’s where things seem to be going based on some partial work I did this summer.

The basic sculpt sets for the nine Global 1940 combatant nations consist of all the pieces from all the games which match precisely (in size, design and colour) the ones in the second edition of Global 1940 (G40/2), except for two adjustments.  The adjustments involve replacing the British G40/2 naval transport (actually an American Liberty ship) with the British-design Fort type naval transport from 1941, and replacing the Russian G40/2 carrier (actually a British Illustrious class vessel) with the Russian-design Kostromitinova class carrier.

The other groupings are still under review.  One grouping at the moment consists of the completely unique sculpt designs from 1941 (other than the Fort and Kostromitinova classes, which I’ve transferred to the basic sculpt sets).  Another consists of pieces which, although they’re nominally the same ones as the G40/2 ones, are actually design variants (with the differences in design ranging from the minor to the flagrant), or in some cases production variants (presumably resulting from variations in the moulding process rather than deliberate design changes).  There are also categories that reflect differences in colour or shade that have appeared over the years (in some cases paired with design changes, in others not).  And then there’s the A&A WWI: 1914 sculpts, which constitute in many ways an oddball grouping of their own.

I’ve always been interested in seeing what kind of optimum use I can make of the OOB sculpts that have appeared in all the A&A games over the years, taking advantage of the fact that there have been so many variations in design and size and colour.  One example of a decision that was easy to make when G40/2 came out was to take the G40/1 ANZAC sculpts (the same butternut grey colour as the G40/2 ones, but completely British in design) and to redesignate them as Canadian pieces (Canada has roundels on the map but no sculpts), with a few G40/2 ANZAC AAA guns being transferred to Canada to fill the gap created by the fact that G40/1 had no AAA sculpt.  I haven’t yet settled, however, on a comprehensive way of using all those other variant designs and colours.  For example: should I give China (which has no sculpts, and is technically only allowed one fighter plus some artillery) the old lime green British equipment units, with the old small-sized British battleship being redesignated as a cruiser?  Should I give China just the lime green artillery pieces, plus a P-40 Warhawk sculpt from 1941 to represent the Flying Tigers, who did in fact use the P-40?  Should I redesignate the old-style Panther tanks as tank destroyers?  Should I redesignate the old-style small-size Stukas (incorrectly used as fighters in the early games) as tankbuster Stuka models?  Should I redesignate the old-style small-size German 88s (incorrectly used as field artillery in the early games) as anti-tank guns?  Should the Tiger and IS-2 tanks from 1941 be used as specialized heavy tank units – and should I ignore the fact that on Germany and Russia had them in real life?  Should the Hood and Kongo “battleships” from 1941 be used as battlecruisers?  Should the dark brown German + Japanese equipment allocated to Italy in Anniversary and in G40/1 be paired with the dark brown Russian infantry pieces from WWI to create a sculpt set for the Axis Minors? And so on and so forth.  I find it great fun to play around with questions like that – especially since there are so many possible answers, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.

@SS:

Thanks Coach for the AWESOME stuff I just bought !!!

Glad you liked them!