@jkprince indeed 🙂
Thank you both for your interest!
Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
-
I meant the Douglas A-20 which is an early-mid war twin engine bomber and the B-26 Marauder a mid-late war twin engine bomber. I prefer the B-26.
-
Well, the A-20 was a smallish twin engine, putting it more-or-less in the same range as the Mosquito… (hence the “A” for attack desination, rather than “B” for bomber…) and it was pretty fast, faster than most medium bombers, so it might fit the tac bomber profile OK… though it was kind of an early-war phenomenon… But the B-26 was a bigger and slower medium bomber. The A-26 was the replacement for the A-20 and even though it was big enough to be in the medium bomber range it was actually faster than the A-20… almost Mosquito fast. So maybe the A-26 would make a good tac bomber, even if it is rather large for the role…
The B-26, though… it opens the whole medium bomber can of worms… Since the axis powers only have medium bombers, the B-26 (and B-25, for that matter) seems like more of a bomber than a tac bomber to me, unless we’re ready to add another air-unit category and separate “medium bombers” from “heavy bombers”… something I’ve contemplated but never tried, given that I’ve never had the pieces to do it before.
-
While I think it would be cool to have medium bomber pieces for the US, that creates a problem for the Axis. FMG has already shown us the German and Italian bomber pieces and they are really medium size. We don’t really have a heavy bomber for the Axis. At least not yet. Maybe they could come out with a heavy bomber piece in some future set, or one of coachofmany’s supplement sets. I thought the Fw200 Kondor would have made a great bomber piece for Germany and could be used as a heavy bomber since it was a big, 4-engined, long-range bomber. Although, I don’t think it carried a large enough bomb load to be considered “heavy”, but we could use a little creative license on that.
-
I love the FW-200 Condor - quite possibly one of the most beautiful airplanes ever made.
-
my list
Tank 1 – M18 Hellcat OR Jackson. (they both look really similar, so the piece could represent both)
Tank 2 – M26 Pershing (would be the heavy tank for the US. OOB Sherman would represent the light tank for the US.)
Transport – Liberty Ship
SS – Narwhal Class
DD – Gleaves-class OR Sumner class
CA – New Orleans class OR the Boston class
CV – USS Lexington class or Hornet class
BB – Pennsylvania Class(really want this one) 2nd would be the North Carolina Class
Bomber – B-24 Liberator
Tac – TBM Avenger
Truck – Standard Army
Air Trans – Douglas C-47
Fighter – P51 Mustang (PLEASE)
Artillery - M101 105 MM howitzer
Infantry 1 – Standard European theater Uniform – M1 Rifle
Infantry 2 – Airborne Uniform – Thompson -
What the heck is a “Boston class?”
-
I really don’t understand why people want the Pershing. I’m all for tech units but not in the normal US set. The Pershing, no matter who caused it Larsen, was not deployed in WW2 but for a matter of months. It is silly to put in a heavy tank because the US did not use heavy tanks, as you have pointed out in other posts. I agree with you on some things, like the 76mm Sherman, but not the Pershing. I would be very disappointed if the Pershing was included in the US set. FMG has said he is doing a tech piece set, Coachofmany is doing supplement sets as well, ask for the Pershing in those sets. The US set should be a Sherman and a Tank Destroyer, period. We can argue about models, but the US had a tank destroyer doctrine not a heavy tank doctrine and for better or worse that is how they fought WW2.
-
its the Baltimore class, i made a mistake i was looking at the wrong name. and yeah i agree with dadler i guess the Pershing can just be a tech unit for later, BUT i would still love to see the m18, cause for me when i was young that was my first
ww2 US toy tank. so when i think US tank i usually think about the m18 first -
I think the 2 US Armor pieces should be the M3 Stuart light tank and a tank destroyer/SP. Then again, I wanted a Panzer III and Tiger I for the Germans. I think all the nations should have at least 1 light tank in their inventory.
-
From a game perspective, I’d rather see a “heavy” tank “upgrade” than a “light” tank “downgrade,” since the light tank begins to intrude on Mech unit capabilities. In game terms the only situation where it would have made more sense to reverse this is in the case of the Germans, since they have a unit that oob was arguably more of a “heavy” unit.
I also understand that AA fans like to see units that are “iconic” and that there can be some real tension between what makes sense game-wise and what fits best historically. Still, though, I’d rather see those who are making pieces that are “upgrades” to oob making units that are also “upgrades” to the “standard” units oob given the choice. That’s why I’m also hoping to see the BB units from FMG be representatives of the best each nation had to offer, so that it gives us a true “super-BB” option. Of course, if we can have both, that changes everything… Thus, if FMG was making 2 BB’s for the US and Japan, that whole, long multipage argument between me and Imperious would have been unnecessary…
-
The decision on making a late war versus early war should be based on the use of the unit in the actual war.
First consider the number of units made during war. Volume rates higher.
Next consider when it was in use
If the late war unit arrives in late 1944, forget it.
If the early war unit is not used past 1940, forget it
If the early war unit was used from 1939-42 and the late war unit was a 43-45, so with early war
If the unit was used from 1940-45 , go with that
The truth will be that some units depending on nation will be early mid or late, with no preference for any except for the number produced, time they were in use, and combat experience.
This means no Me-264, Comets, Pershings, He 162, Hortons, lazers, Shinano battleships, Godzilla, etc…
-
If you don’t check in here at least every other day you can really miss some good stuff!
Nice tread from DrLarsen/IL.Been working too much(plus trying to get a drugy tenant out) and missed some great entertainment.I love the idea of the Pershing however
futuristic it seems.But the Atlanta/Sumers/Gearing rocks! I know you guys are aware that the Shinano was laid down as a Yamato(as well as the # 111) and that the B64 was never considered to be a BC but just the next step in the evolution of the Jap. heavy cruiser(as the US did the Alaskas).Great job on the discussion of the Jap./US releases guys. -
lol so true
-
I think the 2 US Armor pieces should be the M3 Stuart light tank and a tank destroyer/SP. Then again, I wanted a Panzer III and Tiger I for the Germans. I think all the nations should have at least 1 light tank in their inventory.
Coachofmany has said he will make a Stuart in his US set so FMG really doesn’t have to make one. Stick with a 76mm Sherman and a TD (M18!) FMG.
-
@Imperious:
The decision on making a late war versus early war should be based on the use of the unit in the actual war.
First consider the number of units made during war. Volume rates higher.
Next consider when it was in use
If the late war unit arrives in late 1944, forget it.
If the early war unit is not used past 1940, forget it
If the early war unit was used from 1939-42 and the late war unit was a 43-45, so with early war
If the unit was used from 1940-45 , go with that
The truth will be that some units depending on nation will be early mid or late, with no preference for any except for the number produced, time they were in use, and combat experience.
This means no Me-264, Comets, Pershings, He 162, Hortons, lazers, Shinano battleships, Godzilla, etc…
Note that by this measure there should be no Tiger II’s, which FMG has already decided to do…
In any case, the game should be about what “could have” been rather than what was, because if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be a game… at least it wouldn’t be a very interesting game because it would always unfold in exactly the same way! Would such a thing even BE a game? It’s a philosophical question, I suppose.
Now Imperious, throwing in things such as “Godzilla” and “lazers” is both a false analogy and the sort of straw man argument that gentlemen ought not to engage in. Clearly there are conflicting preferences and presuppositions involved in these arguments. When faced with the range of units that could be included, your preferences are clearly different than mine. I prefer consistency and comparability between units so that the overall piece set has a maximum of coherence within each nation’s piece set and between the different nations’ piece sets. You want a maximum of historical accuracy. We have some presuppositional differences behind our arguments. That does not mean that either of us are absurd or irrational in these preferences.
-
I think the 2 US Armor pieces should be the M3 Stuart light tank and a tank destroyer/SP. Then again, I wanted a Panzer III and Tiger I for the Germans. I think all the nations should have at least 1 light tank in their inventory.
Coachofmany has said he will make a Stuart in his US set so FMG really doesn’t have to make one. Stick with a 76mm Sherman and a TD (M18!) FMG.
I find both of these to be fairly acceptable compromises, especially as both would clearly contrast with oob if done right, and there is some substantial capability difference between the two; the M18 Hellcat may not be the hardest-hitting TD we could find, but it’s remarkable speed actucally makes it a viable light-tank substitute…
-
In any case, the game should be about what “could have” been rather than what was, because if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be a game… at least it wouldn’t be a very interesting game because it would always unfold in exactly the same way! Would such a thing even BE a game? It’s a philosophical question, I suppose.
it that influenced the decision process all the units for Germany would look like a reprint of The War Game: World War Two, since all they did was use 1944-45 models for all candidates for units. Needless to say it looks ridiculous.
The choices for sculpts has no bearing on the outcome of games. The “could have been” argument should also have no issue in a game about the war. The only units that should be represented are the ones that actually did most of the fighting, for better or for worse. IN some cases like Japan and Italy you should only see light and medium tanks, while Germany might have a late war tank, since they are USSR are the only real players that used these types of tanks. This is why the consistency approach is also faulty since not all nations employed various types of units to the same degree and to pull out drawing board inventions that never were built is not representing this war, but a fantasy war.
A tank is a tank and if FMG just makes say one tank, you best select the one that was used the most and was built the most and saw the most action on the most fronts. This is the only aspect of consistency that should be applied.
Let coach make the Hortons, walter u-boats, etc
-
Just wanted to share a funny picture sent to me by production dept.
NEED I SAY MORE?
-
WOW They look better than I thought they would. That is why I say I am replacing my units with FMG. They are AWESOME Jeremy. Thank you. Can’t wait to order and see these on my table.
-
Just wanted to share a funny picture sent to me by production dept.
Great picture! You could say that it illustrates the advantage that true tanks have over tank destroyers: they have rotating turrents!
Suggested Topics
