FMG, HBG, OOB Pieces Comparison

As a consumer/player, I am really looking for something historically accurate/detailed while being of a pleasing size to handle. I do think that overall, the OOB pieces are of a good size: not too small and not too big. HBG and FMG have definitely improved on the detail while in many ways improving on the size as well. Yes, some things are a tiny bit smaller, but not unreasonably so, plus the more accurate scaling between pieces is appreciated where it can be done. None of us expect the submarines to be half the length (or less) of a battleship or carrier, or all aircraft to be much larger than the land vehicles… We expect them to be playable and as precise as possible. Very fortunate for us that we have such dedicated aftermarket companies. I hate to use that word, because it tends to connote a less than brand name quality, but in our case it is the opposite.

@mastermind93:

What I would really like to see is a comparison of the OOB Chinese inf (pacific 1940) to the HBG “WW2 Neutral Set (Yellow Green)” to see if they’re compatible (specifically the artillery, but house rules could be made to add other units).

I would certainly put those up, but I don’t have any particular desire to buy the Neutrals set. If anyone else has them, be my guest.

I couldn’t bring myself to use British sculpts for Chinese units. I’d rather have the colors not match.

Nice.

Although, can anyone tell me the use for all those Neutral units? I mean, I am all for the superfluous, but how do neutrals buy cruisers or fighters, or even tanks? House rule?

@mastermind93:

One of the main things I was thinking is that instead of just infantry in those neutral zones, you could have other units there also, like fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. Sea units could be located in an adjacent sea zone and claimed or fought separately from the land units, or claimed when the land units are claimed. Strict neutral units in sea zones, however, could be ignored (as long as no one invades a strict neutral, of course) or maybe they would block movement. There are lots of possibilities there.

True. I kind of like those ideas. I did not really consider using these units for the Pro-Axis or Pro-Allies Neutrals, since obviously only infantry are able to be activated, per the game itself. Though you could modify that to include ships and tanks and the like. I would just be wary of upsetting any balance the game has. To be honest I haven’t kept up on the revisions to Alpha (Global) +++ or whatever they are on now. If anyone has a link to a latest and greatest set of rules/placements that would be great.

As for strict Neutrals, again, I am all for superfluous. Even to the point of allowing strict Neutrals ships and planes. But I have never before encountered a situation in which it was even slightly advantageous for Russia to build ships, let alone someone to attack a strict Neutral. I just cannot conceive of the application of having extra units for strict Neutrals.

Yes, I have considered similar ideas in the past, though not with neutrals. It is an interesting thought.

Are the Second editions out yet? Or when will they be?

@Gargantua:

You and I have NEVER played a game hoffman.

You don’t know how exciting it can get, when you play against people who consider ALL their options EVERYturn, and ALL time the time.

Also, it’s not exactly -extra- units, more than it is just -different- units.  And the pro-allies/pro-axis territories would also benefit from this change.

I would love a game. Unfortunately, it sounds like you live in BC. I am in Ohio. We might have to meet halfway in a field in Montana or Saskatchewan.

I try to consider all options every turn also, but then people complain because you take such a long time. When you play Global anyway you have more options. But I don’t care too much about that. You have to think everything through.

I would disagree that it is “not exactly -extra- units, more than it is just -different- units”. For example, Greece. In a normal game the Allies can activate, what, 4 infantry? With modified units would ships or tanks be added to those infantry, or maybe replace a couple of them? Same could be said of Bulgaria or Iraq or whatever Pro-Axis Neutrals have. It just seems like adding/replacing Neutral activation units would add be both largely (historically) inaccurate and add an imbalance. I am sure there is a way you could sweeten the deal for both sides (tanks for German activation, ships for the Allies), but just infantry is simpler and more accurate.

So, you could replace units instead of just adding them, but again as far as strict Neutrals go… I cannot fathom why attacking one is in any way beneficial. Prove me wrong.

@mastermind93:

And I do agree that, generally, attacking strict Neutrals is rather foolish, but not as much if you add other units, especially sea units. For example, my idea with the Turkish strait being blocked by strict neutrals (ie. strict neutral sea units in the black sea)… Germany (or Italy) might see it as beneficial to attack a strict neutral if they can also dump 8 units behind Russian lines right next to a Russian VC and IC.

Do-able, yes. I think it warrants experimentation. Unfortunately, I do not have that kind of time.

I still tend to be very skeptical that attacking Strict Neutrals is in any way beneficial. Supposing we did modify Neutral unit activations to include additional types like ships and tanks, maybe planes, I say that it makes attacking a Strict Neutral even less appealing and more dangerous. As you know, by attacking a Strict Neutral, all of the other Strict Neutrals then ally with the other side and can be activated by that side.

Let us use your example of Germany or Italy attacking Turkey. They would have to control the land mass of Turkey in order to navigate the Dardanelles. To do so, The Axis will have to fight off at least 7 infantry, likely some artillery and maybe one or two small ships. That is just to be able to make an invasion in the Black Sea. That burns one turn which will give the USSR plenty of time to move forces in for defense or counter-attack. Regardless of how well the battle for Turkey goes, it would almost certainly be a one time attack. Even in Global, the Axis simply do not have the resources or leeway to make such a move more than once (if that).

Which brings us to a preliminary point: how do the Axis get into a position to make such a move viable in the first place? (1) They will have to divert precious funds from more immediately effective expendatures (mainly land units) to a naval force which ultimately has no hope against the Allies, consituting a long run waste of money. (2) Preparation for such an attack will take multiple turns, causing you to focus on a secondary objective rather than concentrating forces on something more tactically or strategically relevent. It will likely leave either Germany or Italy weak on their main combat fronts: Russia and Africa. You could work a Turkey attack strategy into Italy’s mission somehow I guess, but to be effective they need money and for money they NEED Africa. Taking Africa will consume a number of turns on a good day, not to mention the problem of dealing with Royal Navy harassment. This will further delay the plan. And we haven’t even mentioned the biggest deal breaker of all yet.

Pissing off the other Neutrals. Once Turkey is attacked by the Axis, all other Neutrals and their activation forces become pro-Allied. In the regular Global, this only means upwards of 20 extra infantry for the Allies plus IPC income, but in a modified game including ships and tanks, the Allies would gain enough equipment to seriously threaten the Axis from all sides.

That said, I still don’t see much application for extra Neutral units because historically they had next to nothing to fight a modern war with. Every country has manpower and some semblance of an army, which is why Infantry activation is a simple, accurate and universal medium. Unless I am mistaken, Turkey had one of, if not the, largest armed forces of any Neutral nation in WWII. Even then Turkey had a few subs, a couple destroyers and a cruiser. The post on this forum outlines their naval forces, calling them “insignificant”. Which I would venture to say includes armor and aircraft as well. http://www.ww2f.com/north-africa-mediterranean/27491-turkey-ww2.html � (see the second reply on the thread)

If this is the case, Neutral navies/air forces/armored forces being “insignificant”, I do not know how they could be accurately or justifiably included in Axis and Allies… only because the scale of our game, big as it is, is not big enough to show how small and ill trained the forces of Neutral nations were compared to even tertiary combatants in the war.