How Are You Using Your (HBG/FMG/Table Tactics/Other) Battle Pieces?

  • '17 '16

    @knp7765:

    Thanks toblerone77. I tried to keep things somewhat realistic. I’m especially excited to try out the trucks and transport planes.

    I did wonder about some units, particularly Armored Cars, Light Tanks and Self Propelled Artillery. For instance, both Armored Cars and Light Tanks can blitz. I thought, Light Tanks have 1 defense point better than Armored Cars and cost 1 IPC more, so why would anyone bother with Light Tanks when they can buy more Armored Cars? That’s one reason I decided to go to D 12. That way I could make Armored Cars just a little weaker. Therefore, you get better punch with Light Tanks.
    Self Propelled Artillery and Light Tanks have the same values, but that was easily fixed by giving them different abilities.
    Using D 12 also allowed me to give Elite Medium Tanks (SS and Guards) a little better values than regular Medium Tanks without making them Heavies.

    D12 is clearly a way to get more room for better “historical” accuracy.

    However, I still think it is possible to keep a D6 counter-part system.
    Actually, you only have 2 units with odd number value.

    With in between units (3&7 values), it can be add the “pairing with the same unit give an additional +1”.
    Armored Car A1D1M2C4, get +1A when paired to Mech Inf or an another Armored Car, can blitz.

    Why did you change OOB medium tank for a lower defensive value?

    MEDIUM TANK: 6 - 5 - 2 - 6 . Can “blitz”

    HEAVY TANK: 8 - 6 - 2 - 8 . Can “blitz”.

    Is it a Panther unit sculpt or T34/85 ?
    Tiger-class are slower and cumbersome:
    You should have this variation for it:
    Tiger 8-8-1-8. No blitz.

    Takes 2 hits to destroy. Must destroy first damaged heavy tank before damaging second heavy tank. If damaged heavy tank survives combat, it is repaired at the beginning of the next turn. However, if enemy counter-attacks before heavy tank owner’s next turn, that heavy tank is still damaged and only takes 1 hit to destroy.

    Did you get the idea from me? Just curious. 🙂
    I really think it’s the way to get it balance for ground unit.
    However, you had a better formulation: more precise.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31368.msg1206396#msg1206396

    D12 is maybe more needed with planes variant. IDK

    With D12, you can make AAA fire @1 once/rnd on 1 airplane. (Off topics.) 😉

  • '17 '16

    @SpitfirED:

    Sea

    New units:

    • Escort carrier: C8 A- D1 M2 (USA - HBG Casablanca)

    I think it is too cheap based on battle calc I made vs 2 hits CV at 16 IPCs.
    Bringing plane in a SZ is a real advantage.
    Need to be at least 9 IPCs, and better at 10 IPCs.
    When playing 1942, CV A1D2C14 with 1 hit, CVE need to be at 11 IPCs.

    At 10-11 IPCs, I like to add an ASV ability as a DD.
    (CVE planes performed escort and patrol mission for Transports vs Subs during WWII).

  • '17 '16

    @knp7765:

    Thanks toblerone77. I tried to keep things somewhat realistic. I’m especially excited to try out the trucks and transport planes.

    I did wonder about some units, particularly Armored Cars, Light Tanks and Self Propelled Artillery.  That’s one reason I decided to go to D 12. That way I could make Armored Cars just a little weaker. Therefore, you get better punch with Light Tanks.
    Self Propelled Artillery and Light Tanks have the same values, but that was easily fixed by giving them different abilities.

    Light tank should get a similar bonus as SPA: + 1 or +2 A/D when paired with Medium or Heavy Tanks.
    You wrote “+1” bonus for Artillery, but it is a remnant of D6 system. It should become +2 in a D12 system.

  • '17 '16

    HEAVY ARTILLERY: 8 - 4 - 1 - 6 . Can support infantry units like regular artillery in normal attacks. ALSO: can attack from adjacent territory @ 6 during entire combat. When attacking from adjacent territory, does NOT support infantry units.

    Really a heavy one on attack! 😄
    Why not at least give: A8-D6-M1C6 ?

    From another territory? Is it accurate or just a gaming fantasy?
    I think we are talking about 100-200 miles, no?

    They work like planes A3. They cannot be destroyed by any counter attack on the just conquered territory.
    They can stay behind and never be destroyed (unlike planes on offense).
    Maybe a game changer…


    I would be more “humble” or is it just a Medium Artillery? (like Med Tank):
    6 - 6 - 1 - 5 Can support infantry units like regular artillery in normal attacks (+2A).
    D6: A3D3M1C5

  • '17 '16

    @SpitfirED:

    Sea

    New units:

    • Escort carrier: C8 A- D1 M2 (USA - HBG Casablanca)
    • Super Subs: C10 A3 D2 M2 (Ger - HBG Type XXI)
    • Basic battleship: C16 A4 D4 M2 (Long range gunnery special ability) (Ger - HBG Schleswig/USA - HBG Nevada/Japan - HBG Fuso)
    • Battlecruiser: C15 A4 D3 M3 (Long range gunnery special ability) (UK - OOB41 Hood/Japan OOB41 Kongo)

    Too expensive 1 hit battleship. Should be reduced to 14 IPCs.
    And battlecruiser to 14 IPCs also.
    To be a balance match vs other ships.

  • Customizer

    @SpitfirED:

    I’ve used the HBG units and the extra WOTC sculpts from 1941 to introduce a limited range of new units but within the D6 system and without modifying any OOB values apart from a small number of exceptions. By unit type my new units are:

    Land

    New units:

    • Heavy tank: C7 A4 D4 M1 (Ger - OOB41 Tiger sculpt/USSR - OOB41 IS2 sculpt)
    • Heavy artillery: C5 A3 D3 M1 (Can support two artillery) (Ger - OOB 88 sculpt/USSR - HBG Katyusha sculpt)
    • Self propelled artillery: C5 A2 D2 M2 (Ger - HBG Hummel /USA - HBG Priest/USSR - HBG SU76)
    • Truck: C4 A- D- M2 (Carries 2x inf or 1x inf and 1x art) (Ger/USA - HBG sculpts)
    • Flame tank: C7 A3(4 1st round amp assault) D3 M2 (USA - HBG Sherman sculpt)

    Sea

    New units:

    • Escort carrier: C8 A- D1 M2 (USA - HBG Casablanca)
    • Super Subs: C10 A3 D2 M2 (Ger - HBG Type XXI)
    • Basic battleship: C16 A4 D4 M2 (Long range gunnery special ability) (Ger - HBG Schleswig/USA - HBG Nevada/Japan - HBG Fuso)
    • High capacity transport: C9 A- D- M2 (Carries 3 units, of which 2 can be tank/art/mech etc) (Allies/Axis - OOB 1941)
    • Battlecruiser: C15 A4 D3 M3 (Long range gunnery special ability) (UK - OOB41 Hood/Japan OOB41 Kongo)
    • AA Destroyer: C10 A2 D2 M2 (AA gun special ability) (Allies/Axis - OOB 1941)
    • Heavy carrier: C20 A- D2 M2 (3 aircraft) (Japan - OOB Shinano sculpt)

    Modified units:

    • Cruiser: C12 A3 D3 M3

    Air

    New units:

    • Long range fighter: C12 A3 D4 M6 (USA - HBG P51)
    • Fighter-bomber: C12 A3(4 if no enemy fighters/tacs) D4 M4 (USA - HBG F4U/Ger - OOB41 FW-190)
    • Transport aircraft: C10 A- D- M6 (2x inf in NCM/1x inf in CM) (USA - HBG C47/Ger - HBG Ju-52)
    • Jet fighter: C12 A3 D5 M4 (Ger - HBG Me262)
    • Advanced heavy bomber: C18 A2x5+pick best D2 M7 (UK - OOB41 Lancaster)

    Modified units:

    • Medium bomber: C12 A4 D1 M6 (CANNOT attack infrastructure/industrial complexes; maritime patrol special ability - can attack subs w/o destroyer) (USA - HBG B25/Ger - OOB Ju88/Japan - OOB/Russia - HBG/Italy - OOB Ju88)
    • Heavy bomber: C15 A5 D1 M6 (Can attack infrastructure/ICs but no mp spec ab) (USA/UK/Russia - OOB/Italy - OOB 40SE/Japan and Ger - HBG)

    In effect I have reverted to the A&A Revised stats for heavy bombers but have kept the cheaper ‘heavy bombers’ from Global as medium bombers but stripped them of the ability to attack ICs.

    I have been playing with these units and stats for some time and have not had any balance issues. We just set up as OOB and if people want to play with these they simply purchase them when they want them.

    For Russian SPA I use the Katyusha  and keep the SU-76 as a TD. However I think SPA is a must for frequent house rule users and customizers.

  • Customizer

    BTW SpitfirED, ANY of your ideas are perfectly welcome here as well as anyone else with an interest in custom units. I started this thread for enthusiasts to share their ideas with everyone of like mind.

    So any customizers feel free to post.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I was looking at these lists of specialized / customized units (which tie into both the subject of house rules and the subject of HBG’s combat pieces), and it made me wonder about something.  Since the presence in a game of too many specialized units goverened by too many house rules could easily get out of hand, what methods are used by players who are fond of such units to keep them manageable?

    For example, I can see that it might be practical to have an overarching house rule which says:

    1. For the most part, the game is played with OOB pieces having performance characteristics govered by OOB rules.

    2. In addition to these OOB elements, the players have at their disposal a (potentially very large) list of specialized units, governed by special house rules and represented by non-OOB sculpts (e.g. HBG sculpts) and /or customized OOB sculpts.

    3. Some of these units are available to all player nations, while certain designated other units are restricted to just some (or just one) of these countries.

    4. Each player nation is only allowed to use one (or two or three or whatever number) of these special unit types during the course of a game.  Players can purchase as many units of these types as they wish (and can afford), but they can’t make use of more than the specified number of types.  Thus, only a small number of these special types (out of a very large potential list) get used in any single game.

    5. The overarching house rule would also specify: a) whether players must choose in advance which special units they will use, or whether they are free to make their choice later in the game; and b) whether the special units are considered purchasable at any time or (alternately) whether they are considered tech upgrades only purchasable under defined conditions.

    If people use different methods for handling this, could you describe how your personal system works?  I’d be very interested in knowing what approaches are in use in the A&A community.

  • Customizer

    @CWO:

    I was looking at these lists of specialized / customized units (which tie into both the subject of house rules and the subject of HBG’s combat pieces), and it made me wonder about something.  Since the presence in a game of too many specialized units goverened by too many house rules could easily get out of hand, what methods are used by players who are fond of such units to keep them manageable?Â

    For example, I can see that it might be practical to have an overarching house rule which says:

    1. For the most part, the game is played with OOB pieces having performance characteristics govered by OOB rules.

    2. In addition to these OOB elements, the players have at their disposal a (potentially very large) list of specialized units, governed by special house rules and represented by non-OOB sculpts (e.g. HBG sculpts) and /or customized OOB sculpts.

    3. Some of these units are available to all player nations, while certain designated other units are restricted to just some (or just one) of these countries.

    4. Each player nation is only allowed to use one (or two or three or whatever number) of these special unit types during the course of a game.  Players can purchase as many units of these types as they wish (and can afford), but they can’t make use of more than the specified number of types.  Thus, only a small number of these special types (out of a very large potential list) get used in any single game.

    5. The overarching house rule would also specify: a) whether players must choose in advance which special units they will use, or whether they are free to make their choice later in the game; and b) whether the special units are considered purchasable at any time or (alternately) whether they are considered tech upgrades only purchasable under defined conditions.

    If people use different methods for handling this, could you describe how your personal system works?  I’d be very interested in knowing what approaches are in use in the A&A community.

    To be completely honest Marc, as of yet I have a bunch of ideas scribbled into a note pad. I’d like eventually to compile and organize all of the ideas and have them in a well presented supplemental rule book, even if I just print it for myself and the people I play with. Essentially it would be a list of HRs for my custom super set.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @toblerone77:

    To be completely honest Marc, as of yet I have a bunch of ideas scribbled into a note pad. I’d like eventually to compile and organize all of the ideas and have them in a well presented supplemental rule book, even if I just print it for myself and the people I play with. Essentially it would be a list of HRs for my custom super set.

    Sounds reasonable – it’s a work-in-progress, as is often the case with creative projects.  I like the idea of the final outcome being a specialized supplementary rulebook.

  • Customizer

    @CWO:

    @toblerone77:

    To be completely honest Marc, as of yet I have a bunch of ideas scribbled into a note pad. I’d like eventually to compile and organize all of the ideas and have them in a well presented supplemental rule book, even if I just print it for myself and the people I play with. Essentially it would be a list of HRs for my custom super set.

    Sounds reasonable – it’s a work-in-progress, as is often the case with creative projects.  I like the idea of the final outcome being a specialized supplementary rulebook.

    The main reasoning for this is that I plan to use every possible unit in some way. The book will also have more than just unit stats but will include scenarios and rules involving playable minor nations as well as increase China’s ability to field different units.

    I may actually create a blog for this.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @toblerone77:

    The main reasoning for this is that I plan to use every possible unit in some way.

    Sounds ambitious.  Looking forward to hearing what you develop.

  • Customizer

    Guys,

    ––While I’ve had ideas for a few additional NEW UNIT TYPES, I’m not certain that all of them are necesary and/or wanted. I like things to be as SIMPLE and FAST to implement as possible without having to remember a thousand different rules and/or ‘situations’.

    ––Having said that, I’ve been a proponent of Long-Range Fighters for quite a while. However, IMHO they MUST be two-engine aircraft so as to ease the identity process along without having to “THINK” about it. We already have the OOB American P-38, OOB German ME-210, OOB British Mosquitto(BAD example). From Shapeways I’ve ordered and received some Japanese J1N1 Gekko’s, and British/Anzac Beaufighters. With both HBG making literally dozens more sets that include aircraft and Shapeways also available,….I don’t think there will be any trouble getting enough
    2-Engine Fighters for use as Long-Range Fighters.
    ––Wouldn’t you agree that for “GAMING PURPOSES” that it would be much better to have
    only two-engine aircraft represent our Long-Range Fighters?

    What do you think?
    “Tall Paul”

    ****

  • Customizer

    @Tall:

    Guys,

    ––While I’ve had ideas for a few additional NEW UNIT TYPES, I’m not certain that all of them are necesary and/or wanted. I like things to be as SIMPLE and FAST to implement as possible without having to remember a thousand different rules and/or ‘situations’.

    ––Having said that, I’ve been a proponent of Long-Range Fighters for quite a while. However, IMHO they MUST be two-engine aircraft so as to ease the identity process along without having to “THINK” about it. We already have the OOB American P-38, OOB German ME-210, OOB British Mosquitto(BAD example). From Shapeways I’ve ordered and received some Japanese J1N1 Gekko’s, and British/Anzac Beaufighters. With both HBG making literally dozens more sets that include aircraft and Shapeways also available,….I don’t think there will be any trouble getting enough 2-Engine Fighters for use as Long-Range Fighters.
    ––Wouldn’t you agree that for “GAMING PURPOSES” that it would be much better to have only two-engine aircraft represent our Long-Range Fighters?

    What do you think?
    “Tall Paul”

    Â

    I think it’s a good idea TP.

    I need to rephrase my “wanting to use everything”. I want to add mostly ground and air into the mix and some naval. I am not going to over specialize. At the moment I’m considering giving nations special nation specific weapons like the ME 262 and the Type XXI U-boat as Germany’s “special units”. All nations will have something. My project at times feels like I’m painting the Mona Lisa on a grain of rice LOL.

    I have not posted a whole lot information on how I’m using many of my units because frankly in open forum it can have less than desirable results. Also not everybody wants or has a full “HBG Arsenal” which for some ideas is a must.

    I do hope people who are using custom units will continue to post their ideas no matter what they are in this thread, I think the forum needs a spot like this for those of us who enjoy custom units specifically.****

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Iagree with ya and what kind of game are you making?


  • We almost have the same type of unit.

    • Heavy tank: YES CinC TANK
    • Heavy artillery: YES HBG and CinC tank)
    • Self propelled artillery: YES HBG and CinC
    • Truck: C4 NO YET
    • Flame tank: NO

    Sea new units:

    • Escort carrier: YES CinC
    • Super Subs: HBG and A&A and custom
    • Basic battleship: YES, HBG,A&A and custom.
    • High capacity transport: YES HBG, A&A and custom
    • Battlecruiser: YES (Light and heavy cruiser)…CinC and custom
    • AA Destroyer: YES CinC
    • Heavy carrier: custom
    • Convoy Cargo…custom

    Air

    All different type of plane like Long range fighter, Fighter-bomber, Jet fighter, heavy bomber, Medium bomber and dive bomber are from 1/700 airplane and HBG.

  • Customizer

    Tobleone77 & others,

    @toblerone77:

    @Tall:

    Guys,

    ––While I’ve had ideas for a few additional NEW UNIT TYPES, I’m not certain that all of them are necesary and/or wanted. I like things to be as SIMPLE and FAST to implement as possible without having to remember a thousand different rules and/or ‘situations’.

    ––Having said that, I’ve been a proponent of Long-Range Fighters for quite a while. However, IMHO they MUST be two-engine aircraft so as to ease the identity process along without having to “THINK” about it. We already have the OOB American P-38, OOB German ME-210, OOB British Mosquitto(BAD example). From Shapeways I’ve ordered and received some Japanese J1N1 Gekko’s, and British/Anzac Beaufighters. With both HBG making literally dozens more sets that include aircraft and Shapeways also available,….I don’t think there will be any trouble getting enough 2-Engine Fighters for use as Long-Range Fighters.
    ––Wouldn’t you agree that for “GAMING PURPOSES” that it would be much better to have only two-engine aircraft represent our Long-Range Fighters?

    What do you think?
    “Tall Paul”

    I think it’s a good idea TP.

    I need to rephrase my “wanting to use everything”. I want to add mostly ground and air into the mix and some naval. I am not going to over specialize. At the moment I’m considering giving nations special nation specific weapons like the ME 262 and the Type XXI U-boat as Germany’s “special units”. All nations will have something. My project at times feels like I’m painting the Mona Lisa on a grain of rice LOL.

    I have not posted a whole lot information on how I’m using many of my units because frankly in open forum it can have less than desirable results. Also not everybody wants or has a full “HBG Arsenal” which for some ideas is a must.

    I do hope people who are using custom units will continue to post their ideas no matter what they are in this thread, I think the forum needs a spot like this for those of us who enjoy custom units specifically.

    –-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----When I said NEW UNIT TYPES,…I meant over and above all of the OOB & HBG unit TYPES that have already been produced,…such as Long-Range Fighters.

    ––I think that LRFs would be a very useful unit that could escort Bombers all the way,…or simply have an enlarged radius of action. In most of my A&A games I would certainly PAY for the increased capabilities these LRF units would have!

    ----I doubt that most A&A gamers would want to include ALL of the different UNIT TYPES in their games, especially if they’re only playing G-40.2E
    ----HBG’s new game Global Warfare 1939 is a much more inclusive game as far as unit TYPES and has many of the “new” rules already play-tested and balenced. If you haven’t already done so, I’d invite you to d/l their free unit list and rules i order to “check them out”.
    –-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----As far as other completely new UNIT TYPES I favor would be:
    Fighter/Bombers, single engine a/c like a P-47 Thunderbolt or F-4U Corsair
    just consider it like a "flying tank), and
    Attack Bombers, a two-engine longer-ranged version of the above.
    like an A-20 Havoc or Mosquitto

    “Tall Paul”

    Shapeways A-20 Havoc

    674x501_664833_528379_1344874597.jpg****

  • Customizer

    Right now everything is on scribbled note pads. Here are just some my goals and what I’m doing. This isn’t a “pipe dream” I have a complete stock of pieces that includes multiple sets of all sculpts HBG makes plus multiple copies of all but two editions of A&A. I also pieces from many other games that would be compatible.

    1.I want to create essentially a “Bible” of my HRs and stats for use with my custom super set.

    2.Create new stats, tech, NAs, NOs, and playable minor nations.

    3. Create hypothetical and alternative history scenarios.

    4. Create a variant that allows for a communist block in addition to the western powers and fascists.

    5. Use old MB and Table Tactics pieces for both advanced and “desperation” weapons as well as Cold War scenarios.

    6. I have multiple G40 boards one set I intend to modify for this idea.

    These are just some of the general ideas I’m working with.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Tall:

    Having said that, I’ve been a proponent of Long-Range Fighters for quite a while. However, IMHO they MUST be two-engine aircraft so as to ease the identity process along without having to “THINK” about it.

    Fair point about easy sculpt identification – but note that, out of the three US fighters which excelled as long-range fighters / escort fighters during WWII, two of them (the  P-47 Thunderbolt and the P-51 Mustang) were single-engine aircraft.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @toblerone77:

    These are just some of the general ideas I’m working with.

    There are more!? That is a lot of ideas!  😮

    Keep it up though. Like to see innovation. Will probably steal some of your rules or modify them for myself.


  • I like things to be as SIMPLE and FAST to implement as possible without having to remember a thousand different rules and/or ‘situations’.

    I understand that but I can’t resist to get all those different types of unit on a gameboard!! :evil:

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    OOOOOOOHHHHHH YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAA!!!  😄 😄 😄 😄 😄

  • Customizer

    @CWO:

    @Tall:

    Having said that, I’ve been a proponent of Long-Range Fighters for quite a while. However, IMHO they MUST be two-engine aircraft so as to ease the identity process along without having to “THINK” about it.

    Fair point about easy sculpt identification – but note that, out of the three US fighters which excelled as long-range fighters / escort fighters during WWII, two of them (the  P-47 Thunderbolt and the P-51 Mustang) were single-engine aircraft.

    Yes I bought my Mustangs with this in mind. Though visually I see TP’s point about using twin-engine aircraft.

    I have looked at Shapeways and 3D printing in general as well as looking into classes about the subject. There are table-top 3D printers available on the market for home use but they are still expensive and best for making prototypes for plastics. HBG designs the initial prototype using this method but relies on injection molding for mass production as it is less expensive once molds have been produced as well as being more efficient.

    Additionally there is a small company producing small, single piece injection molding machines enabling hobbyists to make their own plastic items. The heaviest cost is the mold. However my brother-in-law is a machinist and could possibly machine molds for this particular machine.

    Believe me I have any number of crazy ideas rolling in my head when it comes to plastics and miniatures LOL.


  • I’ve been looking at all the different units that are both coming out in the future and at are already out, and I have quite a few myself.  I’ve been working on rules for the different units and trying to make things balanced.  That is the hard part.  One of the things I’m working on is some of the units are only available after a tech is developed.  That way its not over powering right from the start.  I’m also looking at replacing some of the OOB units with the HBG units, and then using the OOB units for different developments, or other types of units.  and example of this would be changing the OOB P-38 fighter into a long range fighter, and using the HBG P-40 as the basic fighter.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @toblerone77:

    I have a complete stock of pieces that includes multiple sets of all sculpts HBG makes plus multiple copies of al but two editions of A&A. I also pieces from many other games that would be compatible.

    This is an astonishingly accurate description of my own situation, so clearly we’re operating on similar wavelengths.

    The idea of putting a range of possible extra unit types at the disposal of the various player countries raises a point which could make an interesting house rule.  Your super-set Bible could describe these units as conceptual ones (created on the drawing boards of the applicable nations), and each player would then have to decide how many of these extra unit types it would decide to put into actual productions.  The more types a player puts into production, the more capabilities he gains but the more he has to pay a penalty of some sort (probably in terms of cost required or numerical output of units) due to the required dispersal of production efforts.  This was an actual question which both sides faced IN WWII, and which they handled in different ways.  Germany, for instance, spread itself out too thin by creating too many tank types (the Maus being an extreme example of the law of diminishing returns) and chasing too many technological hares (developing jet planes and guided missiles, yet failing to produce such basics as Jeeps, with the result that the Anglo-Americans were fully motorized by 1944 while Germany continued to use horses).  The USSR, by contrast, stuck to just a few basic tank types, periodically giving them realistically-scaled incremental upgrades, and thus was able to concentrate on producing large numbers of units.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 16
  • 155
  • 46
  • 2
  • 3
  • 1
  • 35
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

41
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts