Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

Lookin great!  Thanks for the update!

@Imperious:

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.

IL, it seems to me that sometimes you are missing the point of this game.  It IS a fantasy war/game.  Did Sealion ever actually happen?  Did the Germans take Moscow?  Did the Japanese actually invade Hawaii, or Australia, or India?  Did the Italians ever wipe out the British and conquer all of Africa?  No, of course not.  Now how many times do you think that has happened in playing this game?
I understand your wanting historically accurate pieces and maybe you have a point in wanting the earlier equipment since this game starts in 1940, with many people enjoying the 1939 variants.  However, when you make your arguments that “No late war pieces should be made”, it sounds like you only play your game the way WW2 historically happened;  Germany blitzkriegs Europe, Pearl Harbor brings US in war, Allies invade Africa, then Italy, then Normandy and drive into Germany while the Russians take Berlin.  Meanwhile, the Allies island hop through the Pacific, destroy the Japanese fleet around the Philippines and finally end the war by nuking Japan.  But wait, we don’t have atom bomb pieces yet.  Well maybe you can get FMG to make one with the US set so you can truly end every game with historical accuracy.

Having heavy tanks, bigger bombers, longer range fighters or even jet fighters is not a bad thing.  It could actually add an extra edge to the game.  What’s more is it doesn’t really matter what units of any type are made, be them early war, mid war or late war, because unless you have special house rules for dealing with these units, they will all still have the same values in the game.  A battleship will still attack and defend at 4, move 2 and take 2 hits to sink whether it is the USS Arizona or the USS Missouri.  A tank will still attack and defend at 3, move 2 and cost 6 IPCs whether it be a Sherman or a Pershing.

but its a historical war game still, the idea of light, medium and heavy armore still sounds good to me. in the case of ships theres a whole range i would like as many warships being represented as possible. and if fmg wont do it, coach might so the possibility of getting what we want is still there. what im more concerned about is if FMG is going to make Americans close to oob, because i heard that teh combat dice are closer to oob marines from pac 2001

@Lunarwolf:

what im more concerned about is if FMG is going to make Americans close to oob, because i heard that teh combat dice are closer to oob marines from pac 2001

I don’t know about the marine mold color, specifically, but there’s an obvious difference between combat dice (kelly/hunter) green and OOB green.

@knp7765:

@Imperious:

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.

IL, it seems to me that sometimes you are missing the point of this game.  It IS a fantasy war/game.  Did Sealion ever actually happen?  Did the Germans take Moscow?  Did the Japanese actually invade Hawaii, or Australia, or India?  Did the Italians ever wipe out the British and conquer all of Africa?  No, of course not.  Now how many times do you think that has happened in playing this game?
I understand your wanting historically accurate pieces and maybe you have a point in wanting the earlier equipment since this game starts in 1940, with many people enjoying the 1939 variants.  However, when you make your arguments that “No late war pieces should be made”, it sounds like you only play your game the way WW2 historically happened;  Germany blitzkriegs Europe, Pearl Harbor brings US in war, Allies invade Africa, then Italy, then Normandy and drive into Germany while the Russians take Berlin.  Meanwhile, the Allies island hop through the Pacific, destroy the Japanese fleet around the Philippines and finally end the war by nuking Japan.  But wait, we don’t have atom bomb pieces yet.  Well maybe you can get FMG to make one with the US set so you can truly end every game with historical accuracy.

Having heavy tanks, bigger bombers, longer range fighters or even jet fighters is not a bad thing.  It could actually add an extra edge to the game.  What’s more is it doesn’t really matter what units of any type are made, be them early war, mid war or late war, because unless you have special house rules for dealing with these units, they will all still have the same values in the game.  A battleship will still attack and defend at 4, move 2 and take 2 hits to sink whether it is the USS Arizona or the USS Missouri.  A tank will still attack and defend at 3, move 2 and cost 6 IPCs whether it be a Sherman or a Pershing.

Amen!  Preach on, Brother K!

Two quick points to reinforce this:

1. The “fantasy” aspect of this war game stretches not only to the questions of strategy, tactics, & operations, but also production and research!  The decisions the “armchair field marshalls” of A&A have to make relate not only to what to attack with what and what to defend, but also what to buy and what techs to research, etc.  I remember as a kid thinking that research was pretty useless until the first time I had someone overwhelm my “Reich” with “heavy bombers” doing constant SB runs on me!  And having the pieces opens the door to experimenting with all sorts of production and research options.  What’s more, having options like a “light/ medium/ heavy” tank option (or perhaps a tank/SP/TD option) for each nation allows the player to grapple with some of those same production choices and maybe do them a little differently.  Perhaps McNair was largely right that mass-producting Shermans was more important than getting the Pershing out ASAP… Perhaps the fact that the US and USSR produced so many tanks while the Germans wasted so many resources on Tigers was a part of why the Germans lost the war… but it still could be fun to try some alternatives.

(btw, keep in mind, though, that though the US and USSR certainly did prioritize medium tank mass production over heavy tank production, the sum total of German Tiger, Tiger II, Elefant, Jagdtiger & Sturmtiger production combined still doesn’t come close to the wartime production of either the American Pershing or the Soviet JS-2–just to set the record straight.)

2. Even without resorting to 12-siders, which is probably a good idea anyway, we did come up with a way of fitting just about every size and type of WW2 AFV into the range of possiblilities, so having the pieces to do it can open up all sorts of tactical options without even stretching the basic A&A combat system much.  I believe someone even came up with a formula to this effect, something like Attack + Defense + Move - 1= Cost (in IPC’s)

Yeah Dr Larsen, I remember that formula you are speaking of.  Someone a while back, I thought it was you but maybe it was reloader-1, came up with a whole chart to incorporate 11 different land units still using the basic 6 sided dice system and they used that formula of A+D+M-1=Cost.  Here’s the list:
Infantry:                          1-2-1-3
Elite Infantry:                  2-2-1-4
Mobile Infantry:              1-2-2-4
Light Tank:                      2-1-2-4
Armored Infantry:            2-2-2-5
Artillery:                          2-3-1-5
Medium Tank:                  3-2-2-6
Medium Tank Dest/SPG:  2-3-2-6
Heavy Artillery:                2-4-1-6
Heavy Tank:                    4-3-2-8
Heavy Tank Dest/SPG:    3-4-2-8

I thought this would be really cool to enter into the game if we had the pieces to do so.  Not sure that I agree with artillery being stronger on defense than offense.  I think those should be the other way around.  Still, really cool possibilities.  I imagine we could do something like this with air and naval units too.

Hey Dr Larsen,
I was doing a little figuring and it’s going to be much harder than I thought to come up with the same kind of formula for air units and especially naval units.  The fighter is the only other piece that fits into the land unit formula:  A3 + D4 + M4 = 11 - 1 = 10 IPCs.  With a Tac Bomber, it gets more complicated: A3 + D3 +M4 = 10 - 1 = 9 IPCs.  If you take Tacs’ supported attack value and don’t subtract 1, then it comes out to the right cost:  A4 + D3 + M4 = 11 IPCs.  Strat bombers are a little more screwed up:  A4 + D1 + M6 = 11 IPCs.  I don’t know how to get them to 12.
The naval units are even worse.  Take a battleship:  A4 + D4 + M2 = 10 IPCs.  So I thought, then just multiply by 2.  But look at destroyers:  A2 + D2 + M2 = 6 X 2 = 12 IPCs!
Cruisers:  A3 + D3 + M2 = 8 X 2 = 16 IPCs
Carriers:  A0 + D2 + M2 = 4 X 2 = 8 IPCs
Submarines:  A2 + D1 + M2 = 5 X 2 = 10 IPCs

It’s like each type of ship would have to have it’s own special formula which would make it nearly impossible to add new ship classes, unless you specifically designate the type of ship you are wanting to add to belong to a certain class.  For example, say we have a formula just for cruisers:  A3 + D3 = 6 X 2 = 12 IPCs.  Then say you wanted to add in light cruisers.  Then you have to figure are light cruisers weaker on offense or defense than regular cruisers?  Let’s say weaker on offense, equal on defense.  So, light cruisers attack at 2, defend at 3 and move 2.  Thus the formula:  A2 + D3 = 5 X 2 = 10 IPCs.  That seems pretty good to me, but that formula will work ONLY for something close to a Cruiser class ship.  Say you wanted to add escort carriers to supplement the fleet carriers, you would have to use whatever formula that applies to carriers (A+D+MX4?).  If you wanted to add a battlecruiser or pocket battleship, you would have to use the battleship formula.  Of course, now that FMG has come out using the Graf Spee pocket battleship for the German cruiser piece,  maybe that unit should use the cruiser formula.  Personally, I think pocket battleships should attack at battleship strength but perhaps defend at 3 or 2, as they were much lighter armored.  Then again, the reason for that was so they had the speed to outrun enemy battleships so maybe a special rule for them would be the ability to retreat from battle on attack or defense.  Or give them a move of 3 to get away from an enemy battleship.  I guess I’m getting into more house rules now.

That picture is great and symbolic too. Your pieces are about to blow Wotc’s away.

I have to agree.  Tech units will come later.  The units that saw the most fighting should be the units in the standard set.  Between FMG’s regular sets, tech sets, and Coach’s supplement sets, I’m sure almost everyone will get every model they want.

@dadler12:

I have to agree.  Tech units will come later.  The units that saw the most fighting should be the units in the standard set.  Between FMG’s regular sets, tech sets, and Coach’s supplement sets, I’m sure almost everyone will get every model they want.

But keep in mind that FMG is doing 2 tanks, so it still doesn’t strike me as a bad idea to have 2 units with significantly different capabilities.  Add in the fact that there is also a set of oob units, and it makes sense for FMG to be able to think outside the box a little for at least one of his tank molds.  Doing an early-war Sherman and an M10 TD is simply a missed opportunity.  Doing a late-war Sherman and either an M18 or an M36 or a Pershing opens up some interesting opportunities for house rules and/or interesting sculpts that distinguishes the units both from oob and from each other.  And we’re not talking “pie-in-the-sky” far-out technology here, like a Horton flying wing.  Like I’ve said before, even the Pershing, the least produced tank that has been seriously suggested for the US was produced in quantities over 2,000 DURING the war, #'s larger than all of the Tiger variants and versions combined.  And both the M18 and M36 came out even earlier and in even bigger #'s.  So none of these suggestions are even really “tech” units, much less far-fetched.

Even doing the M24 Chaffee would be a better choice than doing the oob-style early-war Sherman over, since it gives us the option of creating a light tank unit (and had the same cannon).  But the early war Sherman has been done oob ad nauseum, and given its very simple rounded shape I can’t imagine how FMG will be able to do much better with it to produce something “new and better.” If he does the Iowa and the Yamato over, I’m OK with that, because I have every confidence that he’ll be able to produce something much nicer with considerably more visual appeal.  He’s already produced the best battleship that Italy & Germany actually made, each one in turn the biggest baddest BB of its time, and since he’s only doing one BB per nation, I can see the logic in him doing the best and most famous BB from the US and Japan too.  I’m fine with that, and hope for Coach to do a wider range of naval options.  But in the tank category, with 2 slots per country, and with the early Sherman and M10 being such similar and mediocre vehicles with little visual appeal, I simply can’t grasp why someone would want him to not go with something really interesting for one of them and at least an upgraded Sherman for the other.

I just don’t think that one of FMG’s tanks should duplicate the OOB Sherman.  We have tons of them already so both of FMGs tanks should be something different.

@knp7765:

I just don’t think that one of FMG’s tanks should duplicate the OOB Sherman.  We have tons of them already so both of FMGs tanks should be something different.

Absolutly correct on that issue. We even have U.K. OOB Shermans. The two U.S. tanks should be the M3 Stuart and the M26 Pershing for upgrades to heavies. Some of these global games go clear into 1946 for heavens sake. Got to be able to purchase that heavy tank!

@DrLarsen:

@dadler12:

I have to agree.  Tech units will come later.  The units that saw the most fighting should be the units in the standard set.  Between FMG’s regular sets, tech sets, and Coach’s supplement sets, I’m sure almost everyone will get every model they want.

But keep in mind that FMG is doing 2 tanks, so it still doesn’t strike me as a bad idea to have 2 units with significantly different capabilities.  Add in the fact that there is also a set of oob units, and it makes sense for FMG to be able to think outside the box a little for at least one of his tank molds.  Doing an early-war Sherman and an M10 TD is simply a missed opportunity.  Doing a late-war Sherman and either an M18 or an M36 or a Pershing opens up some interesting opportunities for house rules and/or interesting sculpts that distinguishes the units both from oob and from each other.  And we’re not talking “pie-in-the-sky” far-out technology here, like a Horton flying wing.  Like I’ve said before, even the Pershing, the least produced tank that has been seriously suggested for the US was produced in quantities over 2,000 DURING the war, #'s larger than all of the Tiger variants and versions combined.  And both the M18 and M36 came out even earlier and in even bigger #'s.  So none of these suggestions are even really “tech” units, much less far-fetched.

Even doing the M24 Chaffee would be a better choice than doing the oob-style early-war Sherman over, since it gives us the option of creating a light tank unit (and had the same cannon).  But the early war Sherman has been done oob ad nauseum, and given its very simple rounded shape I can’t imagine how FMG will be able to do much better with it to produce something “new and better.” If he does the Iowa and the Yamato over, I’m OK with that, because I have every confidence that he’ll be able to produce something much nicer with considerably more visual appeal.  He’s already produced the best battleship that Italy & Germany actually made, each one in turn the biggest baddest BB of its time, and since he’s only doing one BB per nation, I can see the logic in him doing the best and most famous BB from the US and Japan too.  I’m fine with that, and hope for Coach to do a wider range of naval options.  But in the tank category, with 2 slots per country, and with the early Sherman and M10 being such similar and mediocre vehicles with little visual appeal, I simply can’t grasp why someone would want him to not go with something really interesting for one of them and at least an upgraded Sherman for the other.

I’m the one who suggested the M36 in the first place, and I backed you up on the 76mm Sherman, those are the two units I want.  I just don’t want obvious tech units like heavy tank Pershings or Heavy Bomber B-29s.

@Fishmoto37:

@knp7765:

I just don’t think that one of FMG’s tanks should duplicate the OOB Sherman.  We have tons of them already so both of FMGs tanks should be something different.

Absolutly correct on that issue. We even have U.K. OOB Shermans. The two U.S. tanks should be the M3 Stuart and the M26 Pershing for upgrades to heavies. Some of these global games go clear into 1946 for heavens sake. Got to be able to purchase that heavy tank!

Coachofmany has already said he will be making a Stuart.  As has been previously discussed, the Pershing is an obvious choice for a tech set (which FMG has already said it will be doing) or for Coachofmany to do in his supplemental US set.  The Pershing should not be in the regular US set, there are other places it can fit in.  The regular US set should use the units that were used the most or most influential.  The Pershing saw combat for the last months of the war, which makes it hardly worth a spot in the regular US set.

@knp7765:

I just don’t think that one of FMG’s tanks should duplicate the OOB Sherman.  We have tons of them already so both of FMGs tanks should be something different.

What about a “Grant” medium tank?

@Imperious:

American Tech set:

Tank: Pershing
Fighter : Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
Bomber: B-29
SPA: T-92 240mm SP Howitzer  (http://www.battletanks.com/t92_sp_240mm.htm)
Submarine:Tench class
Carrier: Essex

Tech Carrier should be “midway” class,
There were 18 Essex class carriers in use during WW2.

Agreed.  The Essex is hardly a tech piece.  There were more Essex class carriers used in WW2 than any other class.

@dadler12:

Agreed.  The Essex is hardly a tech piece.  There were more Essex class carriers used in WW2 than any other class.

I like IL’s other choices though.
I wonder about the B-29 as a Tech piece, but it could be.