It depends on what “work” means – in other words, on whether players would consider a Kursk scenario appealing. Conceptually, Kursk would be similar to A&A D-Day (minus the water) in the sense that the battle was fundamentally a frontal assault on a heavily-defended static position, and similar to A&A Battle of the Bulge in the sense that it would involve ground forces driving into enemy lines, but different from both games in the sense that from the German point of view Kursk was a pincer movement aimed at pinching off a salient, and that from the Russian point of view it was a two-stage offensive-defensive battle. Personally I think it has good potential to make an interesting game, if it’s designed properly.
Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
-
The italian transport is fine. As for the italian heavy bomber… you cant go wrong with the Savoia Marchetti SM 79, it was the most used and recognized easily. I found drawings of the two, the SM 79 and the piaggio p-108.
-
Yeah, My vote is to keep the B.20 as the transport as well.
Your call on the heavy bomber - I prefer the P.108 for the 4 engine config.
-
THANK YOU!!!
Lets hear what others think. I like the four engine bomber… it will be easily recognizable on the board.
-
THANK YOU!!!
Lets hear what others think. I like the four engine bomber… it will be easily recognizable on the board.
For what it’s worth, I prefer the SM79, as the shape and tri rotor config is more uniquely Italian and it was their primary bomber. It’s not technically a heavy bomber, but the P.108 never got out of it’s teething period and the Italians were out of the war before it could really be used. And considering the P.108 was inferior to a B17 is pretty much every way, it hardly could be called a heavy bomber.
If each power nation ends up with a 4 engine bomber I don’t see how it’s all that unique other than nation color. Not to mention that the Italians will probably NEVER get “heavy bomber” tech, so why make a figure indicative of a technology they didn’t come close to acquiring in the war, or in a game?
-
Which models were used to design the italian trucks and halftracks? Really looking forward to see those beauties! :-D
-
Which models were used to design the italian trucks and halftracks? Really looking forward to see those beauties! :-D
These are almost done! Should have images next week! …and the Italian sub I am told.
I like the SM79 also… it has a very unique look just like the 202 Fogalore Fighter
-
My vote goes to the SM79 as heavy bomber
-
I also cast my vote for the SM 79 for the Italian bomber. I thought that one was decided on when FMG first started this project. I was really looking forward to seeing the SM 79 pieces.
The transport plane looks really cool. That’s one I hadn’t seen before.
-
-
I would go with the SM79 on account of its uniqueness. Unless of course you were already planning on having all nations with 4 engine heavy bombers. If that was to be the case then go with the four engine sculpt.
P.S. Sorry about the sculpt mishap. Its nice to know that FMG cares enough about their products that they would consider resculpting instead of simply shipping out USA cruisers in orange for example.
-
The japanese bomber will be the Betty so… not all nations have 4 engine bombers, no problem with the SM 79.
-
Having all the Nations heavy bombers be 4 engine would eliminate some confusion when they are scattered around the board.
-
The japanese bomber will be the Betty so… not all nations have 4 engine bombers, no problem with the SM 79.
Good point. Go with the 3 engine SM79.
-
SM 79 here as well! I converted from the P.108 after examining the SM 79.
-
@Danger:
Having all the Nations heavy bombers be 4 engine would eliminate some confusion when they are scattered around the board.
Sure. But in what game have you ever seen Italy field heavy bombers? Italy doesn’t have the economy to get tech unless the game is pretty much over. besides, the SM 79 would NEVER be confused with another plane and when russia and italy are so close in color, two 4 engine bombers would actually be more confusing, not less. Give Italy their wacky looking planes! ;)
-
We are going to make the SM 79! Doing Italy first has really made the start of this project difficult. As you can imagine there are not as many models of WW2 Italian tanks/trucks/planes.
-
2 engines bomber is more accurate for Axis.
4 engines for UK and US.I have B24 on my game board……I love that one!!!
-
A long-range heavy bomber doesn’t necessarily have to have 4 engines. During the later part of the war, the Germans developed the Heinkel He 177 which was considered to be a long-range heavy bomber and it only had 2 engines. However, I don’t think it actually went past the prototype stage because of too heavy needs for other types of aircraft at that stage in the war. If Germany had been more successful in WW2, maybe they would have ended up producing and employing the He 177, like to hit the Soviet production facilities east of the Urals for instance.
-
Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!
-
Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!
Nope, only two engines.
In general, the Axis didn’t have as far to fly to get to the action and they didn’t ALWAYS need to cross some body of water (unlike Britain), so they didn’t need to develop 4 engine bombers until they were starting to lose the war, and by then they didn’t have the time or economy to work through the technology. The US and Britain were driven by the need for range and the ability to make it back to England or the Pacific Islands with functional engines - thus the redundancy of 4. Germany made much smaller hops, although once they had control of Western Europe they did desperately need more substantial bombers. They went with rockets instead.
As for Japan, it simply didn’t recognize the power of strategic bombing in a war of attrition; thus they were investing in naval strength and waiting for “the final decisive battle”. It wasn’t a priority of Japan to strategic bomb the allies as nearly as it was a priority of the US. Thus Japanese bombers were mainly all tactical - the Betty’s were torpedo bombers and medium payload at best and that was the primary bomber.
And Italy simply didn’t have the technology or military/political direction/ambition to build a heavy bomber.
I can only speak for myself, but I’d prefer the figures to denote the axis typical tried and true technology, not prototypes.
Suggested Topics
