Does anybody know if the next set after the Germans is going to be the US? Ive read that some think it will be Japan but I’m starting this post to maybe influence the US coming next. Axis already have 2 sets in production. Any ideas on what pieces FMG should make for the US set?
Jeremy said in one of his posts that after Germany, he wants to do the USA next so they aren’t far off. I think Japan will be after the USA.
As for what units they are making, there has been a lot of talk about fighters. I think most people are voting for the F-4 Corsair or the P-51 Mustang. There seems to be a lot of interest in the B-24 for the Strategic bomber. There was also some talk about what tank models to use. The M-26 Pershing and M-5 Stuart are possibilities there. Also the M-7 Priest and/or the M-10 Hellcat if they decide to go with a SPG/Tank Destroyer. Other than those, I haven’t seen a lot of suggestions for unit types. Some have posted whole lists of ideas for all the different nations in the “FMG Game Pieces Project” thread, if you want to look through all 125 pages.
I’m sure that when Germany is near completion and they are getting ready to start sculpts for the US, there will be more discussion about what types to use, maybe even some polls.
We will do the USA after GERMANY.
Awesome!!! I desperately want at least one fighter, hopefully two, to replace those P-38s. Id like to see either a P-40 or P-51, and if they make two then I’d like to see the Corsair as well (maybe make the corsair the tactical bomber?). My thinking is, the tactical bomber made by WOTC, Dauntless, is already a pacific theater plane so I think the FMG fighter, if there is only one, should be something used in Europe. Id like to see some LCM 3’s as transports (maybe the can be sculpted to actually load units inside them!). I know there has been a lot of talk of not repeating pieces WOTC has made, but I want an FMG Sherman with a moving turret! Maybe it can have something cool added onto it like homemade armor or hedgerow cutters to separate it from WOTC pieces (or it could be a late model like those used in Europe), although judging from the Italian sculpts I think the added detail and rotating turrets will be enough. I want a B-17 as well, most used bomber in the war. I’d like the B-24 to be the transport plane/alternate bomber since the transport planes are sort of useless in AAG1940 due to new paratrooper rules. Or maybe it could be made the tactical bomber? As for mechanized infantry, I’m on the fence between between an M3 or M5 and a Jeep like the Bantam with a mounted .50 cal. I know the M series half tracks makes more sense as mechanized infantry but the US jeeps are so iconic. Or maybe they can do both! Making one half tracks and the other trucks? Personally I’d rather see both of those than one and a supply truck. Also I don’t know where it would fit (Italy has 2 tanks tough), but a M18 Hellcat, M10 Wolverine, or M7 Priest would be awesome. I personally don’t really care for the Pershing, it was such a late war vehicle. The whole US armor philosophy was light to medium tanks supplemented by tank destroyers and mobile artillery so I think it makes a lot of sense to include at least one of those vehicles. I cant wait for the US set!!!
FMG,
please don’t do as some suggest and replace one of the tanks with an additional fighter. I for one want a matching set with each country having an identical types of units. If there is enough interest and desire may I suggest you add a second fighter as a bonus unit, but please don’t add a 2nd fighter at the expense of the 2nd tank.
Just my two cents. keep up the great work FMG.
I think the P-51 would be the best choice for an American fighter (and contrary to popular belief they were used in the Pacific, albeit ina somewhat limited fassion. ) Seriously who doesn’t want the P-51 Mustang?
I think the P-51 would be the best choice for an American fighter (and contrary to popular belief they were used in the Pacific, albeit ina somewhat limited fassion. ) Seriously who doesn’t want the P-51 Mustang?
Not to mention that the the Corsair, designed as a carrier fighter, was used by the US almost exclusively in the Pacific theater (far less carry over than the Mustang, which had the range to escort B-29s over Japan). Use in Europe was mainly by the RAF. And, while it was used for groundattack in WW2 and served as a fighter bomber, the Corsair served only exclusively as a tactical bomber in the Korean war. It was still considered an air superiority fighter in WW2 so relegating it to a tac bomber role hurts my tummy. I’d accept it for a fighter although I’d prefer the P51 (cause we already have people confusing the Dauntless for the Corsair, which again, hurts my tummy).
I’d prefer to see an A-26 Invader or B-26 Marauder for the US tac bomber.
is there no possible way you can make the F-4u AND the p51 fighters?
USA will have two tanks also.
USA will have two tanks also.
Does the also at the end of this sentence mean the USA will have two tanks and two fighters?!
Also, is that going to be two tanks, or one tank and one tank destroyer? Personally I’d rather see a Sherman and a TD like an M18 or M10 over something like a Stuart. Light tanks aren’t as cool and were not as useful as tank destroyers. And I know people want a Heavy tank like the Pershing, but let’s face it, the US didn’t have a heavy tank until near the end of the war. They used tank destroyers, which look awesome and will be more realistic for a WW2 game. They were used from N. Africa to Berlin. And if you’re previous post meant that there will be two fighters, please make a P-51D and a Corsair. Pacific and Atlantic fighters, this idea is so awesome. I wish you made US first!
Well, I’m still in favor of the Pershing. I’d like to see a medium-tank upgrade and a heavy tank as the options for each power. (Italy, Japan & France would be exceptions, since they really didn’t have any heavy tanks, and their mediums were pretty mediocre, too.) For Germany, it isn’t really possible to upgrade on the Panther as a “medium,” so I’m OK with the already-announced decision to do the Panzer III, but I’d like to see the Tiger or Tiger II for the heavy. (What more iconic tank could you get?)
That would naturally lead to having a line-up as follows
US:
Heavy Tank: Pershing
Medium Tank (upgrade): Late-Model Sherman (with the more angular welded hull, bigger turret and longer gun, a late-model Sherman is perfect for this role as an upgrade on the OOB Shermans… and would look significantly different from the OOB Sherman, yet have an “iconic” Sherman as part of the overall set: perfect compromise!)
USSR:
Heavy Tank: IS-2 (AKA: “JS-2”… I’ve given an extensive argument for why this is the natural choice over the mediocre-at-best KV-1 on the other thread, so I’ll refrain from diverging from the core topic to do so again…)
Medium Tank: (upgrade): T-34/85 This has all the same advantages of using a late-model Sherman: you get to have both an iconic T-34 model and one thats different from the OOB T-34 (but still iconic)… and still an upgrade!
UK:
Heavy Tank: Comet
Medium Tank (upgrade): Cromwell
I still think a M18 or M10 should be the US second tank. If you’re going to make exceptions for other countries, why not the US? I don’t think the Pershing even saw combat until 1945.
What I’m looking for is a consistent model line of roughly equivalent types. Three nations would have to be exceptions, since they DIDN’T HAVE anything remotely comparable to the Tiger or IS-2 (or even Panther, for that matter…)
Two other nations (the US and UK) had competitive tanks that came too late to make much of an impact, but they COULD HAVE if decision makers had made wise decisions. The whole idea of A&A isn’t just to “refight” battles, (to some small extent and in admittedly an “armchair general” fashion) but to explore “might have beens.”
I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree on having heavy tanks for the UK and USA. They simply did not see combat long enough to merit being used. They were not even a part of Allied tank strategy until very late in the war. The allies used medium tanks supported by tank destroyers, artillery, and air support. I understand the armchair general thing, but design and production of heavy tanks had very little to do with the generals on the ground. I mean if you’re going to make a Pershing, why not a B-29? They are cool vehicles but they are more Post-war than WW2 era. They both saw service for a year at most during the war. I don’t think were going to talk one another into changing our minds though, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Yeah, I suppose so, especially as I think doing the B-29 isn’t a bad idea at all… (though perhaps it would be best reserved for a “tech unit” I still sometimes use TT’s B-29’s for exactly that.)
Oh, one more thing: remember that A&A, being a strategic-level game, is actually MORE about procurement decisions than it is about tactics. For tactical games, something like Memoir '44 or ToI is more appropriate (though admittedly, the battle-level A&A versions like D-Day and Battle of the Bulge are more tactical.)
I think if FMG ever gets around to tech units, the heavy bomber should be a B29. Come to think of it, why isn’t heavy tank a tech? I don’t think any country entered the war with a true heavy tank. They were all developed mid to late war were they not? And I understand what you mean about procurement, as a huge part of AA is buying a deploying units. My bad on that one.
I actually have made heavy tanks a tech in some of my experimental variants; then I just went ahead and gave the Germans automatic credit for it as a “national advantage” (note that this game was set in 1942, after the Germans had already started fielding some Tigers and Panthers.)
@Yoper:
US tac bomber should be a P-47 with high velocity aircraft rockets (HVAR) molded onto the wings.
UK tac bomber should be a Hawker Typhoon similarly decked out with wing rockets.
I like the typhoon idea but I think the US tac bomber should be a b-26 marauder.
I actually have made heavy tanks a tech in some of my experimental variants; then I just went ahead and gave the Germans automatic credit for it as a “national advantage” (note that this game was set in 1942, after the Germans had already started fielding some Tigers and Panthers.)
I like the idea of heavy tanks being a tech. I usually play with custom tech rules anyway so maybe I will add that in some how. What cost, attack, defense, and movement values do you give them? I’m thinking 8 IPC 4/4/1? (I would be using them in Global 40)
Movement: I wouldn’t drop their movement to 1. Heavies were generally slower than mediums of the same design-generation, but they’re still much faster than infantry… That’s with the exception of some early-war designs designated “Infantry tanks,” like say the Matilda. Even there, the tanks’ sustained overland speed (think “strategic speed” as opposed to “tactical speed”) would probably justify a 2 movement.
Combat: 4/4 Is probably too strong. I usually drop mediums back to the old MB values of 2/3 and give the heavies a 3/3. If you leave mediums at a 3/3, you could increase one of the values to a four, but I wouldn’t do it for both.
