Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
-
And as far as I’m concerned they will supplement the WotC pieces! :evil:
FMG’s best course of action is to make great pieces, unique and well-made, in the OOB colors. Those who want them as stand alone pieces will be happy, and those who want to mix and match will also be happy!
Good news, we are all gonna be happy, even though you can’t please all of the people all the time.
-
OK you guys, now I feel like an idiot. I thought the tac we had was a corsair because of the wings. I thought it was a little bit of an odd choice for this role, and a bit out of scale, but I figured WOTC was going for recognizable molds. After this discussion, I went to good old Wiki and discovered the Tacs are, in fact, SBDs. Definitely not Avengers, wings are totally different.
So for the fighters, I must change my opinion. Now that we have P-38s and F6Fs already, I would be happy with the F4U or P-51 simply because the P-47 does look too similar to the F6F. I would be happy with a P-40 I guess as well.
So order of preference here: F4U (small enough to not confuse me on the SBD/Corsair thing again :-D), P-51, P-40
For the Tacs then, since we have the SBD for carrier based stuff, we should go with the B-24 or B-25, which would follow suit with the British molds.
Assuming we do the above, that would leave room for the B-29 as the new bomber to compliment the existing B-17s. Of course, now I will need a separate tackle box just for US aircraft but so what…
-
Also, found this site to be a great resource this morning:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/world-war-2-aircraft.asp
-
Variable - I like your options, but I would send the F4U to the back of the pack. Take a look:
Pretty similar, eh?
-
Variable - I like your options, but I would send the F4U to the back of the pack. Take a look:
Pretty similar, eh?
I agree, they are similar, especially at the scale we use. But, I think the wings would be different enough and, well, I really want Corsairs.
Plus, here is some more reasoning. We already have a “land based” fighter (P-38), and a “carrier based” fighter (F6F), so we should choose what would be more useful for the US. Here are two arguments:
I generally use more US air in the pacific than in europe so I would like another carrier fighter or a land fighter that was used in the pacific. My preference here is the Corsair. It’s iconic and multi-roled.
But, if we got P-51s to replace P-38s for the “land based” fighter (mainly for Europe), we could use our P-38s for long-range fighters. This also helps the argument for making the B-29.
There is a third solution. FMG could make 2 US fighter moulds. :-D 8-)
-
I went to good old Wiki and discovered the Tacs are, in fact, SBDs. Definitely not Avengers, wings are totally different.
I stand corrected. The US Tac is a SBD Dauntless…
I also agree with Yoper that the P-47 would probably make a good Tac. I am also starting to thing that the fighter should be a Corsair.
As for the P-47, F6F, similarities I was thinking of a more top down view with the wing shapes of the planes, since most of the time that’s how it’s viewed in game.
As for the UK fighter it has to be a Hurricane and I think WOTC hit it on the head with Mosquito but a Typhoon would be great to see too.
-
Just wanted to mention also that I REALLY like the Corsair. It was a fighter/Tac bomber.
If it was only up to me I would use it as the Tac bomber… But Im sure most will wnat a more “iconic” Tac bomber for the USA.
-
As for the P-47, F6F, similarities I was thinking of a more top down view with the wing shapes of the planes, since most of the time that’s how it’s viewed in game.
Wings on the P-47 varied over the length of its production. They were rounded on the earlier models and the final model (N) went to squared off wings as it increased roll rate and gave extended range
I’d prefer the FMG figs use the definitive model of a plane (P47N, P51D) rather than the earlier models, as I’d hate to see a razorback P-47D or P-51B.
-
I’d prefer the FMG figs use the definitive model of a plane (P47N, P51D) rather than the earlier models, as I’d hate to see a razorback P-47D or P-51B.
This is just difference of opinion, but I’d prefer the razor back P-47D to the Bubble canopy, and I think if they were to make a piece they’d want to use the iconic version not the definitive version which they’d be making more pieces of then were produced.
But there’s no question, if they were to go with a P-51 it’d have to be a “D” model, as the razor back version just doesn’t look as nice.
-
Come on FMG, is there no way we can get the F4U and P-51D? I’d still want them both as fighters though. Still holding out for the B-24 or B-25 for Tacs with B-29 on LR Strategic duty.
-
The only problem with that, Variable, is that the US is the only country in A&A that has already had 2 unique nation-specific fighters molded for it, in the F6F and the P-38. (I am ignoring Germany - the JU-87 is NOT a fighter!)
The problem would be that other nations would now have 2 fighter pieces (OOB and FMG), and the US would have 4!(2x OOB and 2x FMG) A bit much, eh?
-
@Yoper:
The wouldn’t be as much confusion between the B-24 and the Halifax if FMG went with the Lancaster for the UK. It was THE main bomber for British and it is an even more distinct silhouette.
Here is a list of the main types of land-based World War 2 bombers, with the approximate quantity produced of each type .
British bombers
Wellington (11400) - long range medium bomber carrying 2 tons of bombs. Produced before and during the war, bombed Germany until October 1943. For comparison, the Mosquito carried 1.8 tons to Berlin at twice the speed of the Wellington.
Lancaster (7300) - 4-engine long range heavy night bomber. The main British bomber in the second half of World War 2, carried up to 10 tons of bombs, including a huge 10 ton bomb, or the special dam buster bomb, but typically carried up to 6 tons of bombs to a range which covered all of Germany. Had 3 turrets with 8 machine guns. Lancasters flew over 150,000 sorties, and almost half of them were lost in action, together with over 21,000 airmen.
Halifax (6100) - 4-engine long range heavy night bomber since 1941, carried 5.4 tons of bombs. Similar to the later Lancaster, which had greater bomb load and range. The first bomber equipped with the H2S navigation-targeting RADAR.
Mosquito (7700) - a very fast long range medium bomber which carried a 1.8 ton bomb and successfully relied on its high speed and agility instead of guns and gunners for self-protection. Although its loss rate was lowest of all allied bombers and its bombing precision the highest, British decision makers remained firm in their conservative belief that the main bomber must have gun turrets, so instead of becoming the main bomber type, the excellent Mosquito’s advantages were used mainly in support of the main force of the slow heavy bombers, and less than 1/4 of the Mosquitoes produced were of bomber types. The other Mosquitoes excelled in multiple other combat roles. (read the full Mosquito essay).
A comparison between the operational order of battle of the British bomber command in July 1941 and at the end of 1943 can show how much it grew in strength and aircraft quality during the war :
In July 1941 Bomber Command had 732 operational bombers. There were 253 Wellington, 40 Halifax, and 24 Stirling bombers, but the other 415 bombers were of types which were phased out by 1943. Of this force, only the Halifax remained in the main force by the end of 1943.At the end of 1943, Bomber command was a totally different force, much more powerful both in numbers and in the higher quality of its new bombers. It had 1249 operational long range bombers. 1008 were of new types (573 Lancaster, 363 Halifax, 72 Mosquito) and the other 241 were older types (208 Stirling, 33 Wellington) and were used for secondary missions. (source: Royal Air Force)
-
Wellington
-
Lancaster
XLVI
-
Halifax
-
Mosquito
-
Halifax and Lancaster, at the scale of A&A, would be darn near indistinguishable…
-
Halifax and Lancaster, at the scale of A&A, would be darn near indistinguishable…
They are very similar.
-
Besides, they both look like Strategic Bombers. I thought a Tactical Bomber was smaller than a strat. I play Hearts Of Iron II and just using that as a resource, it has another class of plane called ‘Close Air Support’ (what we think of as a Dive Bomber).
Now, it’s my opinion that a dive bomber and a tactical bomber are two completely different things, with the dive bomber being extremely precise in its execution of ground attack. For example, the German Close Air Support (CAS) is the Stuka JU 87, and the German Tactical Bomber is the Junkers JU 88.
Just my thoughts.
-
The only problem with that, Variable, is that the US is the only country in A&A that has already had 2 unique nation-specific fighters molded for it, in the F6F and the P-38. (I am ignoring Germany - the JU-87 is NOT a fighter!)
The problem would be that other nations would now have 2 fighter pieces (OOB and FMG), and the US would have 4!(2x OOB and 2x FMG) A bit much, eh?
I know, and I agree with you. It was a greedy pipe dream. I’d be happy with either the Corsair or P-51 for the new fighter. Either one would allow me to use the P-38 as the LR Fighter. That said, the B-29 can be the new LR Strat bomber if FMG uses that one. Now we just need to figure out what the best Tac bomber would be. We have a carrier based one so its still between all the 20 series bombers…
Suggested Topics
