Effect of the latest round of AH releases on the ongoing HBG/ FMG pieces project



  • Well, we’ve now finally seen the culmination of a remarkable string of releases from WotC with the release of 2nd editions of AA40 Europe & Pacific, with more new sculpts in one round of revisions then I think they’ve done since at least the release of the original AA Europe/ Pacific/ Revised.  I think it’s pretty clear that the aftermarket piece sets and maps being produced by upstarts like HBG and FMG have had an effect on the corporate monopoly known as the Hasbourg, forcing them to listen (a little anyway) to their customer base and offer more.  So how does the sum of these new releases (and the set of new scuplts that they represent) impact the ongoing project of replacing and/or supplementing oob with small-company/ aftermarket items?

    On this forum, I know many are eager to know and many (most?) have their own strong opinions.  For what it’s worth, here’s my 2 cents:

    1. RE the New Italian sculpts: a shot across the bow of FMG, of course, but maybe not as directly aimed a shot as you might think.  Yes, they picked mostly the same units to do, but the choices for Italian pieces were 90% no-brainers IMHO.  What other choices would you make but Littorio for BB, Aquila for CV, Zara for CA, Soldati for DD, C. 202 for fighter, SM-79 for at least one of the bombers and one of the last three of their versions of a medium tank (which look mostly alike on this scale anyway) for a tank?  The key thing is, in not one case did the new oob sculpt come close to the detail of the FMG equivalent.  The real question on everyone’s mind is whether FMG is a one-trick pony, or can they get past their recent reverses and start producing new pieces again… to that I wish I had an answer.

    2. RE the New ANZAC sculpts: paradoxically, I think that the new ANZAC sculpts both take off some short-term pressure for new Commonwealth pieces, and yet actually improve the long-term prospects for HBG or FMG to succeed with such a set.  Yes, they give the fan base some satisfaction that new pieces are finally available for a previously-neglected player, but both FMG and HBG had had ANZAC at the bottom of their list for new piece sets anyway.  Since everyone knows that, like all Commonwealth countries, the ANZACS made use of mostly UK and/or US gear, I don’t know that there was much expectation for much more than a new, unique, infantry sculpt.  Long-term, though, WotC’s mistakes in implementing a new ANZAC set will make this even more of an opportunity for either FMG or HBG in, say, a year or two.  The new piece set consists of:

    a. A new infantry piece scaled to look like Goliath next to the others and with the most deformed, misshapen, misinterpretation of an Aussie field hat I’ve ever seen.  FMG’s Italian infantry were a little small, true, and HBG’s do tend to be a little bobble-headed, but this colossal production error dwarfs those by at least as much as its end product does theirs on the gameboard.

    b. Obscure US and UK bombers disguised as “uniquely ANZAC” ones… and not even especially good or iconic ones at that.  For the cost of adding 2 new sculpts to the game, sticking with Mosquito and Lancaster (and/or Halifax) would have made infinitely more sense…  and to make it worse, 2 bombers of nearly the same size and capability were just assigned two different roles and one scaled up a notch and the other scaled down a notch so that they could call them “tactical” and “strategic!”

    c. Mediocre and little-used homemade tanks and fighters replacing iconic ones that actually had an impact in theatre.  Yes, under the circumstances the rapid development of the Boomerang fighter and Sentinel tank were remarkable achievements for the Australians… but that didn’t make them fully competitive products on the first attempt (though arguably the Sentinel wouldn’t have needed to be, since Japanese tanks were so bad…)  Neither did it mean that either had much of an impact.  The Boomerang at least found some useful life as a tough-as-nails ground attack fighter.  The Sentinel barely got out of the warehouses before it was replaced by the increasingly plentiful British and US designs.  So, to the question of what tank and plane actually made the most impact in Australian hands… I’d say the fighter choice would actually have to be the P-40, which was used by fully half the squadrons of the RAAF’s First Tactical Air Force upon its foundation as Australia’s premier tactical air unit.  (The rest of the squadrons were split evenly between Beaufighters and Spitfires at this point.)  So, for a fighter the logical choice would have been for them to simply mold their already-existed P-40 sculpt in the ANZAC colors (which, not incidentally, also happens to be one of their best sculpts and one of their few that is competitive with HBG’s equivalent in level of detail.)  For a tank, it would have made more sense to stand pat with the Matilda II, strangely enough.  Though ridiculously slow for fast-moving armored warfare in open country it proved excellent in jungle terrain, and since Japanese tanks were not competitive with the standards of the European theatre, it was perfectly adequate as far as protection and firepower went.

    d. A Canadian APC, presumably chosen solely because it was known as the “Kangaroo.”

    e. BB and CV designs that never got near the place before the end of the war…

    And some other odd choices among the lower-profile piece choices.

    Given this series of mis-steps, and add in that it’s unlikely now that WotC will redo the ANZAC piece sculpts now for at least a couple of years now that they’ve just completely redone them, and I’d say that this actually opens up an opportunity for HBG and/ or FMG once they’re ready to contemplate doing  UK/ Commonwealth piece sets.  In fact, I’d say that while it might have decreased immediate opportunity, it increased long-term opportunity; you see, short term everyone is excited about the new pieces and absorbing all the new stuff.  Long-term, though, given that a whole new set of ANZAC pieces has been released, expectations have increased for Commonwealth uniqueness.  As players learn more and more about the odd collection of pieces the ANZAC’s have been given, and as they are continually confronted by the incongruity of the ginormous ANZAC infantryman next to his rivals on the board over time, the desire for new Commonwealth pieces may actually grow larger than it ever would have if WotC had left the ANZAC piece set alone in the first place.

    3. RE the lack of new French sculpts: This may be the biggest mistake of all.  WotC would have met and exceeded expectations for a revised AA40 Pacific if it had made all necessary corrections and upgrades to rules and board added a new ANZAC infantry piece that wasn’t radically out-of-scale and simply replaced or added one or two other pieces.  For example, the new P-40 in ANZAC and Chinese colors!  What an obvious choice, since it was so widely used by Australia and so iconically used in Chinese service.  Instead, they seem to have decided that they needed one complete-country set of new sculpts for each of the two new AA40 games, and this led them to do all kinds of obscure pieces for the ANZACs and, I believe, to neglect the French entirely, again in the AA40 Europe game while they concentrated on redoing the whole Italian piece set over.  They didn’t even do the smart thing and give the French a US and/or UK non-infantry piece set, which would have made so much more sense overall, than a Soviet piece set.  This means that the TRUE French piece set continues to be a yawning vacuum begging to be filled by the aftermarket.  The sooner the aftermarket fills it, the bigger will be the yawn when WotC finally gets around to fixing this.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    HBG will stand better for these pieces. Why? Because they sell just pieces, WOTC can only reprint games…they never sell just pieces.

    The benefit is two fold:

    1. It allows many new and old game companies to sub out their games with these pieces ( once Coach has a complete inventory by nation)
    2. If games don’t get reprint, Coach will do batter because people want upgraded pieces and the awareness factor of his business is only getting better and better.

    The only missing from WOTC that Coach might want to do is make the French set and streamline the sets. To streamline i mean to just make a basic set for each nation, rather than a list of wish list late war specialty pieces.

    Just fill in all the needed slots for each nation, and latter if profitable go with an additional set of wish list items. Part of this problem is their is no compatibility from one set to another. Some sets got different types of units, when it should be a clear matchup from unit to unit.

    For example the marines didn’t have anything to do with anybody except USA. How do we fit these pieces in games, while the other nations got nothing.

    Each set should have

    Infantry
    Artillery
    heavy artillery
    SPA
    early war tanks
    mid war tanks
    late war tanks
    halftrack
    fighter
    fighter bomber
    Plus naval ( matching AA by type, plus light carrier, light cruiser, Early war battleship)
    strategic bomber



  • I see this as a win/win for us the costumers. WotC has made the game and finally listened to the fact there are piece junkies out there. HBG and FMG and whoever else what’s in on this. Now know what A&A is doing for the next few years, because there’s no way WotC has a new A&A game planned for 2013 not after 4 games were released in '12. Now we the costumers know what we have, what we want and who to ask to get it, HBG. If WotC cont. to react to FMG and HBG the way they already have then it would mean new games and new sculpts from WotC. As much as piece junkies we here at A&A.org are what we all really are is game junkies. Nothing makes us happier than a new game. Now WotC could react by doing yet another thing that people want to see, an expansion pack for A&A, yet another win for the costumers. HBG should be trying to standardize the unit types not just making units that would be “neat” to have. Not to seem ungrateful but how many different kinds of German tanks to we need? We already have 4 and you’re making 2 more. Each nation should have the same line up of units and you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube so if you make something for one nation you should be prepared to make it for all nations. By doing this to helps You the company keeping the product moving because some people are going to buy sets because it has units in them there gaming group won’t use because not everyone else has one just like it. It helps us as the costumer not to have to send money on units we can’t use or won’t use. Such as 6 different german tanks or 4 different fighters for japan or how many AC are being planned to Japan? And by doing this it helps WotC it shows them people will shell out more money for A&A stuff aftermarket if needed. Seeing as they ignored the vast number of expansions that were available for classic maybe this opens there eyes to this basic and simple fact.


  • Customizer

    Dr Larsen,
    Man, you sound kind of harsh on WOTC. I agree with you that they should have re-done France with real French sculpts and not blue Soviet units. Also, you are right that US or UK equipment would have even been an improvement. In a lot of cases, French and British units looked pretty similar.
    As for the Italian sculpts, I like the new Italian pieces. Granted, they aren’t as nice as FMG’s pieces and it does almost seem like they were ripping off FMG by using most of the same sculpts, but like you said there really wasn’t a whole lot of other choices for them to make with Italy. I do find it odd using the SM.79 as a tac bomber, but I do like the piece. I also really like at least one of the Axis powers finally getting a big 4-engine strategic bomber, even if it is the minor Axis power.
    As for the ANZAC sculpts, I think you are being too picky on them. I don’t like the GIANT infantry piece and I may use the old ANZAC infantry in my games for the same reason that even when I use FMG Italian pieces I often will still use OOB Italian infantry, because FMG’s are too small.
    With the tank and fighter pieces: You mentioned they weren’t used as much by the ANZAC forces as US or UK equipment were. Frankly, I think you are missing the point here. I think they wanted to find actual Australian built units to represent those pieces because they felt that is what most of the game enthusiasts wanted. Something uniquely Australian, even if it didn’t actually get as much use. It’s more for looks than historical accuracy. Also, remember that in this game, ALL tanks attack @3, defend @3, move 2 and cost 6. The type of sculpt is strictly cosmetic. We all know in real life a Carro Armato M13/40 or Type 95 Ha-Go were nothing more than thinly armored blasting targets when compared to Shermans, Panthers or T-34s. However in the game that doesn’t matter. I like having a real Australian built tank. In fact, I didn’t even know they existed until this game came out.
    WIth the tac and strat bomber pieces: You said they were obscure UK and US bombers. You must have looked those up because I didn’t know that. One thing I will say is it’s cool to me that one of the Allies has a 2-engine strategic bomber, even if it’s a minor Ally.
    As for the Carrier and Battleship, aren’t those actually British ships anyway? I’m pretty sure the Warspite was, I think I have that one in one of my “War at Sea” miniatures sets. I don’t think ANZAC actually had any capital ships of their own. I think WOTC simply used two other British ship classes that weren’t already used for Britain. As for them not being close to Australian waters during the war, you may have a point there but would you think of any other capital ship types that would better suit this purpose? Personally, I like having two new sculpts that aren’t the same as the UK sculpts.
    I know you were simply voicing your opinions and you make several valid points, many of which I agree with. It’s just that so many of us have slammed WOTC before for their many mis-steps, particularly giving us all German Italians and British ANZACs and Soviet French. I just think they deserve some Kudos for finally giving us actual Italians and ANZACs. Plus, the game looks much better now too.



  • The Warspite was a Queen Elizabeth class Battleship. It was kind of like the like Forrest Gump, everytime something big or important was going down The Warspite was there. She served her country in both WW1 and WW2. The British tax payers really got there money’s worth out of the Warspite.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Here are some thoughts arising from DrLarsen’s post.

    The key thing is, in not one case did the new oob sculpt come close to the detail of the FMG equivalent.  The real question on everyone’s mind is whether FMG is a one-trick pony, or can they get past their recent reverses and start producing new pieces again; to that I wish I had an answer. <<

    Agreed.  FMG’s Italian set was top-notch, and I look forward to future sets FMG produces…but at the rate things have been going, I decided a long time ago that I should count on the full FMG piece-creation project taking about a decade to complete.  The initial Italian set took over two years to create – and that was before Jeremy ran into the added problem of seeing the factory run off with his money, thus requiring the German set to be re-financed and re-started with a different factory.  We’re approaching the first anniversary of the release and delivery of the Italian sets, and so far it’s still the only one to have seen the light of day.  I’ll be delighted to get the German sets I pre-ordered when they arrive, but I’m still working on the assumption that it will take a decade for FMG to produce a set for every country which has pieces in the Global 1940 game.

    RE the New ANZAC sculpts: paradoxically, I think that the new ANZAC sculpts both take off some short-term pressure for new Commonwealth pieces, and yet actually improve the long-term prospects for HBG or FMG to succeed with such a set.  […] Long-term, though, WotC’s mistakes in implementing a new ANZAC set will make this even more of an opportunity for either FMG or HBG in, say, a year or two.  The new piece set consists of:  a. A new infantry piece scaled to look like Goliath next to the others and with the most deformed, misshapen, misinterpretation of an Aussie field hat I’ve ever seen.  FMG’s Italian infantry were a little small, true, and HBG’s do tend to be a little bobble-headed, but this colossal production error dwarfs those by at least as much as its end product does theirs on the gameboard. <<

    Given that ANZAC now has a set of distinctive OOB equipment pieces (questionable as some of the choices might be), but that the ANZAC infantry sculpt has got serious height and base-diameter issues (and a problematic hat design), I think this creates a situation in which players would have a high demand for a revised troop sculpt while considering the rest of the OOB ANZAC pieces to be reasonaly acceptable for the moment.  So perhaps HBG should consider producing a specialized all-infantry set of pieces for ANZAC to satisfy this need.  It would only require the creation of one or two sculpt designs (manufactured in multiple copies in the mould, of course), so the design turnaround time would be faster than for a full set of troop and equipment pieces.

    HBG has never produced an all-infantry set, so at first glance this might seem too much of a niche product, but the situation created by Pacific 1940 (2nd ed) is a special one which I don’t think anyone could have anticipated, and which frankly I consider more than a little bizarre.  (If, as DrLarsen states, “the aftermarket piece sets and maps being produced by upstarts like HBG and FMG have had an effect on the corporate monopoly known as the Hasbourg, forcing them to listen (a little anyway) to their customer base and offer more,” then WotC ought to have realized how the fan base would react to a troop sculpt so far out of kilter with the other infantry pieces, and which doesn’t fit the mini poker chips.)  HBG has a well-established practice of selling individual pieces to fill customized orders, so HBG should be able to estimate how well an all-infantry set would sell and whether it would be profitable.

    RE the lack of new French sculpts: This may be the biggest mistake of all.  WotC would have met and exceeded expectations for a revised AA40 Pacific if it had made all necessary corrections and upgrades to rules and board added a new ANZAC infantry piece that wasn’t radically out-of-scale and simply replaced or added one or two other pieces.  For example, the new P-40 in ANZAC and Chinese colors!  What an obvious choice, since it was so widely used by Australia and so iconically used in Chinese service. <<

    Very much agreed.  WotC’s long-term strategy (assuming they have one) may be to save national sculpt set upgrades for subsequent editions of games.  Italy and ANZAC were given re-purposed existing foreign sculpts in the first games in which they appeared, but they have now been bumped up into the distinct-sculpt league with the arrival of Global 1940(2).  France got the same treatment in Europe 1940(1), and continued to get the same treatment in Europe 1940(2), so it’s the logical target for distinct-sculpt upgrade in a hypothetical Europe 1940(3) – but that game is only a speculative prospect at this point, and almost certainly not one that will be turned into reality in any less time than the interval between the release of the first and second editions of Europe 1940.  So yes, I agree that France should be a high priority for HBG…and indeed for FMG too, once the German set being produced at this time has been shipped.  And DrLarsen makes a good point that China – despite its very limited military forces and low industrial capacity – should at the very least have been given OOB A&A 1941-style Curtiss P-40 Warhawks in its national colour, to reflect the role of the Flying Tigers.  Some appropriately-coloured artillery would have been nice too.


  • Customizer

    I agree it would be really cool to have an OOB China colored P-40, WOTC can’t do that with the P-40 sculpt from the 1941 game. Remember how the molds are made: it has ALL the different sculpts in the mold in varying numbers. So, WOTC would have to make a whole set of 1941 pieces (IS-2 tank, Hood BB, Lancaster bomber, etc.) in the OOB China color just to get a few P-40 fighters. Not very cost efficient.
    They would have to create a whole new mold, probably along with the Chinese infantry mold, to make Chinese colored P-40s. Also a very expensive proposition and probably simply not worth it for a small nation like China, especially since they only get 1 fighter in the game and once it’s killed, it’s gone for good.



  • I will respond to how I feel about the new sculpts after I recive mine on Tuesday.

    WARRIOR888



  • @knp7765:

    Dr Larsen,
    Man, you sound kind of harsh on WOTC.

    Not trying to be harsh, just objective.  Many WotC mistakes are just silly and unnecessary.  I mean, think about it, if a little “mom-and-pop-shop” like HBG can avoid making mistakes like making an infantryman 2-3 sizes too big, what possible excuse does a giant like WotC have?



  • I am not complaining about WOTC they seem to have gotten the message that we love the pieces and it is a BIG reason why we buy these games when they come out with new sculpts. However I still think HBG and FMG’s are better. We need them to start making AAA’s now to supplement our sets we have been buying from them. Keep up the good work HBG and FMG looking forward to the new sets.


  • Customizer

    @DrLarsen:

    @knp7765:

    Dr Larsen,
    Man, you sound kind of harsh on WOTC.

    Not trying to be harsh, just objective.  Many WotC mistakes are just silly and unnecessary.  I mean, think about it, if a little “mom-and-pop-shop” like HBG can avoid making mistakes like making an infantryman 2-3 sizes too big, what possible excuse does a giant like WotC have?

    Acutally I think you hit the nail on the head as for the reasons for WOTC’s game/piece errors as compared to HBG. The fact that HBG is a relatively small business means he is more closely connected to all of us gamers (and is one himself) so he will take the time to make his pieces just right and clean up any mistakes right away.
    WOTC/Avalon Hill on the other hand, being so big I imagine they simply have too many things going on so certain details get missed. The big guys will line up certain projects and say “Push this through” then it gets handed off to “worker drones” to get it done. Many of these people may not even care for the games like we do, and may not even know much about history so they wouldn’t even know if they were making any mistakes even if they did care about it. As for the big guys on top, while I imagine they want to please their customer base to some extent, let’s face it; it’s mostly about making the bucks for them.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @knp7765:

    Acutally I think you hit the nail on the head as for the reasons for WOTC’s game/piece errors as compared to HBG. The fact that HBG is a relatively small business means he is more closely connected to all of us gamers (and is one himself) so he will take the time to make his pieces just right and clean up any mistakes right away. WOTC/Avalon Hill on the other hand, being so big I imagine they simply have too many things going on so certain details get missed.

    Some companies understand user satisfaction even when they’re big ones.  When Japanese auto manufacturers first got into the US market in a big way and shocked Detroit by becoming such successful competitors to the Big Three, someone interviewed a Japanese auto executive and asked him what his company’s secret was.  He answered, “It’s very simple.  You build a quality product, you sell it at a reasonable price, and you treat your customers nicely when they buy it.  It’s not complicated.”



  • Gentlemen as stated here is my take on the AA 1940 Pacific second Edition Units.

    ANZAC:
    Destroyer Tribal excellent choice.
    Heavy Cruiser Kent class HMAS Australia was actually one of this class. Good Choice.
    HMS Warspite for a Battleship bad choice.  4 Royal Sovereigns would have been more acceptable seeing they were actually used in the Indian Ocean at the same time the Japanese attacked Ceylon.  I am taking my Warspites and putting them into my Royal Navy and replacing them with Royal Sovereigns.
    Canadian APC?  Only reason I can think it was choosen it because of its name of Kangaroo.
    Sentinel tank, different but does anyone recall them actually using them in combat???
    Fighter and bomber and do not know much about them, but they are different. P-40 War Hawk would have been my choice for a fighter.
    Aircraft carrier is unique but was not actually launched till after the war was over.  I do like since it gives a different carrier to the ANZACs.
    Transport is excellent choice.
    40mm AA is a good choice.  This unit was used by just about all Common Wealth Forces worldwide.
    ANZAC Infantry, they blew it. My Hawsagawa and AirAFix  1/72nd men will replace these guys.  Maybe I will convert them to a 1776 war game.  I will not use them for AA.
    Atillery: 5.5 inch Howitzer a good choice, I know the UK used them after D-Day but before???

    Japanese:
    AH Wizards really missed a good chance to improve all these units.
    Battleship Yamato, just how many do we really need?  They could easily replaced it with a Fuso or Mutsu class sculpt, but alas they stuck with a Yamato.  I have so many I am converting them to all kinds of IJN Never Where ships such as B-64 Battle Cruisers, A-150 and A-140 Super Yamato’s and a catarmaran BB/dual CV combo.
    Cruiser another missed Chance, they should have re-worked this exsisting one into a Mogami or Nachi Class Heavy Cruiser.
    Artillery: Should have been upgraded to a IJA 105mm Howitzer.
    Tank should have replaced with a medium Tank.
    Transport this should have been converted to the new one from new mini AA game.
    Bomber Betty should have bee replaced with a Nell.
    Zero, sclupt could have added more detail to.
    Dive Bomber, I would have added more detail.
    Sub could have been changed to a different I- Class boat.
    Infantry: Could have been re-sculpted into a charging unit.
    AA Gun is cool and so is the IJA Halftrack. German SDKFZ 251 just never did fit the IJA. Should have been replaced along time ago.

    USA
    Battleship Iowa,  Too many Iowas, This should have been converted to an earlier war Battleship such as the Washington or South Dakota Class.
    Carrier:  Wasp should have been replaced by a Essex Class or Yorktown class.
    Cruiser, A Baltimore Heavy Cruiser Class or Cleveland Light Cruiser would have been great.
    Destroyer, Fletcher class.
    Transport, No change.
    Submarine, No Change.
    Fighter should have been a Hellcat or P-40.
    TBF Avenger, No Change.
    Bomber, B-17 no Change.
    Tank, M4-Lee instead of that ugly new stlye Sherman.  If they wanted to use a Sherman should have used the one from the original AA Pacific 1940. The new Sherman is just Ugly.  Going to get rid of them and use the older AA Shermans and my Davco’s instead.
    AA 90mm Excellent Choice.
    M-3 halftrack perfect.
    Infantry no change.

    UK
    Battleship Royal Sovereign should have been replaced by a Prince of Wales or the Warspite.
    Carrier: How many Illustrious does one need?  an actual Ark Royal would have been perfect.
    Cruiser, No Change
    Destroyer, excellent choice.
    Transport, no Change.
    Infantry, coverted to Gurkas would have bee perfect.
    Tank, a Crusader or M-3 Grant would have been my choice.
    Fighter, I would have converted to a Hawker Hurricane.
    Bomber, convert to UK bomber from new mini AA game.
    APC, Looks like they took a 105 Priest and dis-armed it. Kinda wierd but they did use them.
    Artillery, 25 Lb Field gun excellent choice.
    AA gun, perfect.
    Tac Bomber, no Change.

    One new unit they could have added would have been nation specific trucks used for supply and troop movements.
    Plastic Factories, Airbases and Naval Bases I would have added back in.  Cardboard never did cut it for me.
    For the price AH is charging retail this game, these should have been in the mix.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @WARRIOR888:

    Gentlemen as stated here is my take on the AA 1940 Pacific second Edition Units.

    Thanks for the analysis.  For many of the Japanese, British and American units, your verdict essentially seems to be that WotC has been using the same equipment models and classes for too long, that people who’ve been buying the games since the early days are now heavily overstocked with units of those types, that some of the models and classes used were bad choices to begin with (like the Wasp-type carrier), and therefore that WotC should introduce some variety by switching to new models and classes.  It would be nice if they did so (I’d find it hard to argue otherwise, since I’ve lost count of how many Wasp carriers I have in my collection), though I’d be surprised if they did.  The 1941 game did bring in some nice variety, but with some oddities of its own (like those British and American IS-2 Russian tanks), and it didn’t seem to affect the pieces used later in 1942(2) and Global 1940(2).

    I was intrigued by your reference to a new Sherman in 1940(2).  How substantially did it change from the earlier versions?  Over the years, the Sherman has changed in minor details from game to game – such as the shape of the turret, the shape of the hatch on top of the turret and the positioning of the turret on the hull – but the basic design has remained fairly constant.  Perhaps I’ve missed something about the latest one.



  • CWO Marc,

    The Shermans I received in my new game have non-standard turrents.  They are grossly de-formed.
    It looks like a mold issue or they did it on purpose. The are molded with the heavy part of the turrent on top and the small part close to the hull.  It looks like in the process they got the tank turrent mold upside down.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @WARRIOR888:

    The Shermans I received in my new game have non-standard turrents.  They are grossly de-formed.
    It looks like a mold issue or they did it on purpose. The are molded with the heavy part of the turrent on top and the small part close to the hull.  It looks like in the process they got the tank turrent mold upside down.

    Interesting.  I’ll look at my new pieces at home tonight to see if they have the same problem.



  • I was lucky enough to buy 3 copies of Europe 40 2nd edition for just 45 dollars a copy. woaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! :evil:


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

55
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts