i still rather see variety, and I will continue to push for it. These pieces would not be worth buying for someone like me, if half the pieces looked like the pieces that came with the game. So please FMG try to stay away from duplicating pieces as possible. also i would like to add that i agree with IL early war is important Especially for those of us that want to play 1939 scenarios, and weapons that were used the most should be represented, Although i would like seeing a Pershing i would rather it replace the Sherman.
I find it funny that certain people are saying that FMG should make “early war” pieces because many of our games start in 1940. However, the majority of people ALSO want the P-51 Mustang for the US fighter piece and it didn’t come out until 1944. So all the US equipment should be the older, less reliable stuff EXCEPT for the fighter, which was not only “late war” but also the best fighter in the war. Nonsense.
I agree with you Dr Larsen. FMG pieces should be all of the best equipment that each nation had to offer, like Iowa and Yamato BBs, and not the older, less reliable models. Let coachofmany include some of those models in his supplement sets. OR, once all nations are finished, perhaps FMG could come out with new, early war sets. For these first sets though, use the best models that were actually used in numbers during the war. In other words, for example, the German fighter should be the Me109 or Fw190 and NOT the Me262. Sure, the Me262 was probably the best fighter since it was a jet, but there were many more Me109s and Fw190s.
i still rather see variety, and I will continue to push for it. …So please FMG try to stay away from duplicating pieces as possible. …early war [sculpts] are important Especially for those of us that want to play 1939 scenarios… Although i would like seeing a Pershing i would rather it replace the Sherman. [and have the P-51 Mustang for as the iconic american fighter.]
Valid points. I hope FMG is listening.
The OOB piece for the japanese CV look like the first picture, though they are supposed to look like the second picture. Also, both carriers look like classic UK or US carriers.
I’m holding the oob piece in my hand and looking at both pictures in you links and I simply can’t imagine that you say you’re seeing what you’re seeing. oob clearly looks like the second picture, not the first. What is more, the first picture looks much more like the “typical Japanese carrier”, including smallish superstructure and pylons, but is a balanced and finished-looking ship. I think that the Shokaku would be a good choice for FMG, because it does have that “typically Japanese” look, (as much as it can be said to exist), whereas Kaga and Akagi look like unfinished monstrousities, and the Hiryu/Soryu/Unryu series is just simply small and unimpressive. What’s more, the Shokaku class represents, short of Taiho, which I admit was a bit of a “black swan,” the best of Japanese technology… and was available at the war’s beginning, so it doesn’t fall into the “early vs. late” controversy at all.
Note also that the Taiho and Shinano do look much alike; IL, are you sure you’re not confusing the Shokaku with the Taiho? Shokaku looks nothing like the Shinano and nothing like oob!
If we insist that FMG shouldn’t do oob, I’d say the logical choice for US BB is still a new BB: Washington and South Dakota were battle-winners at Guadalcanal, but no old BB’s were brought into action until late in the war. Note that: new-BB’s were decisive early war battle-winners, but old-BB’s only had a brief moment to shine 2 years later. Ironic, perhaps, but true!
Oh, and take another look at the oob “Yamato” mast… it’s not just Kongo-high, it’s Fuso-high! Two quick cuts of an exacto to remove the overhang on the stern and you have an old-style pagoda-BB.
I find it funny that certain people are saying that FMG should make “early war” pieces because many of our games start in 1940. However, the majority of people ALSO want the P-51 Mustang for the US fighter piece and it didn’t come out until 1944. So all the US equipment should be the older, less reliable stuff EXCEPT for the fighter, which was not only “late war” but also the best fighter in the war. Nonsense.
I agree with you Dr Larsen. FMG pieces should be all of the best equipment that each nation had to offer, like Iowa and Yamato BBs, and not the older, less reliable models. Let coachofmany include some of those models in his supplement sets. OR, once all nations are finished, perhaps FMG could come out with new, early war sets. For these first sets though, use the best models that were actually used in numbers during the war. In other words, for example, the German fighter should be the Me109 or Fw190 and NOT the Me262. Sure, the Me262 was probably the best fighter since it was a jet, but there were many more Me109s and Fw190s.
First P-51 Mustang aerial victory was in Aug. 1942 by an American flying for the RCAF. The first U.S. unit to fly the Mustang was the 154th observation squadron in Morocco in April,May 1943.
FMG stick with the iconic units that will sell best. The early war pieces can always be made later or supplemented by coachofmany. Do not be swayed to make exclusively early war models or you will not sell as many as you would like.
However, the majority of people ALSO want the P-51 Mustang for the US fighter piece and it didn’t come out until 1944. So all the US equipment should be the older, less reliable stuff EXCEPT for the fighter, which was not only “late war” but also the best fighter in the war. Nonsense.
Right, but how then did four squadrons fly in Aug 1942?
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html
Aug. '42 - Dieppe Raid
The “reconnaissance in force” on August 19 gained little for the Allies, except the expensive and bloody lesson in how tough the German defenses were, both on the ground and in the air. The raid, Operation Jubilee, introduced the Typhoon and the Spitfire Mk. IX, and marked the first Mustang aerial victory. Four Mustang squadrons, No. 26, 239, 400, and 414, provided tactical recon for the ground troops.
If we followed what Larson wants the standard German fighter should be the Horton flying wing or He-162, and the standard German tank should be the Maus. Yea good move. Just inflate the units like Pershing tank of which a whole 20 or so saw service in the last month of the war. Lets just ignore all the units that fought in 1939-1943 and keep making games based on 1940 using units that didn’t exist till 1944 or 1945 like the Pershing tank. because we must ignore old units with distinguished service records and hype stupid drawing board uber late war units that “could have seen action”
How bout instead we get a hold of our senses and actually have pieces that look like the units typically found fighting during the war and stop this nonsense? The Pershing was not even used in pacific and not more than 20 used like a month before VE- day. Yea great iconic choice for a tank. :roll:
and not the older, less reliable models
Instead of saying this you might make the point by saying:
we want late war experimental models that could have been used, and not the types of units that actually fought most of the battles and typify the look of American units during 1939-1945. Instead lets just deal with drawing board units and post 1943 units exclusively. They still fight with the same values so this ‘reliable’ comment has no water. Looking for realitic units that would be fighting in 1940, 41 or 42, not units that fought just in pacific in 45 or 44-45 ships.
It looks really stupid having a Pershing tank in 1940, just because they made 50 of them and they were stronger.
Do not be swayed to make exclusively early war models or you will not sell as many as you would like.
Nobody said this. What was actually said was to make the most common unit that fought most of the time and avoid models that look like OOB. The other side if you read their posts just wants late war units which is extreme point of view. My point of view is most flexible, as some units may be early, mid, or late war.
Because we are favoring the most common and unique look of the unit that saw the most actions in the war, this can be from any part of the war.
P-51 midwar
JU-87 early war
Tiger tank late war
Lexington early war
Liberty ship midwar
Kongo early war
All this late war/early war model griping about the p51 seems to ignore something that should be obvious… If one or the other (fmg or oob) is early or late war, it doesn’t matter if a P51 D is in with FMG early war naval units…
'Cause, duh, we already have an early war fighter! The freaking P38 was in service in mid '41 and the only plane in production throughout the entirety of the war.
That said, all this early war/late war mumbo jumbo was moot with the German units. At this point we don’t have an FW190 for late war, or a Scharnhorst for BB, etc etc etc. Doubles are already in play.
I guess I’m the only one that’s WAY more concerned about the color of the US units. The combat dice green is… well… not MY favorite. But I guess I’m alone.
I guess I’m the only one that’s WAY more concerned about the color of the US units. The combat dice green is… well… not MY favorite. But I guess I’m alone.
I’m hoping that also FMG also produces a OOB green along with combat dice like they announced that they will do with the gray and OOB black German versions.
I for one would buy both.
I really want FMG to match OOB colors.
Otherwise, these might as well be xeno games pieces - I’ve never had a problem with the quality of the pieces, but the variety. I.e., give us more stuff!
Note also that the Taiho and Shinano do look much alike; IL, are you sure you’re not confusing the Shokaku with the Taiho? Shokaku looks nothing like the Shinano and nothing like oob!
At the scale of these ships having any japanese carrier that looks like a British carrier is not good enough. It must have the classic small superstructure and pylons under the front and rear flight deck. If you had to draw a typical japanese carrier it might be the Akagi or Shoho. IDK as long as the Carrier has that classic Japanese “look” to it, easily identifiable….
If we insist that FMG shouldn’t do oob, I’d say the logical choice for US BB is still a new BB: Washington and South Dakota were battle-winners at Guadalcanal, but no old BB’s were brought into action until late in the war. Note that: new-BB’s were decisive early war battle-winners, but old-BB’s only had a brief moment to shine 2 years later. Ironic, perhaps, but true!
It should avoid OOB but also avoid ships looking like OOB. Most of the fast battleships looks the same, All the standard ships look the same. This is why we make the standard BB’s since OOB covered the Missouri . American made only two types of battleships and since the OOB is decent, we should turn to make the other design.
Oh, and take another look at the oob “Yamato” mast… it’s not just Kongo-high, it’s Fuso-high! Two quick cuts of an exacto to remove the overhang on the stern and you have an old-style pagoda-BB
The OOB piece is garbage. Its nothing like a Kongo class ship. The shape of the hull alone for yamato is totally unlike any other. Most of the Japanese BB’s should look similar to Royal Oak, except with a decent Pagoda style superstructure. Let the OOB cover Yamato, but make the classic ship that represents most of the typical FUSO- Nagato- Kongo- Kirishima looking ships.
@Imperious:
Do not be swayed to make exclusively early war models or you will not sell as many as you would like.
Nobody said this. What was actually said was to make the most common unit that fought most of the time and avoid models that look like OOB. The other side if you read their posts just wants late war units which is extreme point of view. My point of view is most flexible, as some units may be early, mid, or late war.
Because we are favoring the most common and unique look of the unit that saw the most actions in the war, this can be from any part of the war.
P-51 midwar
JU-87 early war
Tiger tank late war
Lexington early war
Liberty ship midwar
Kongo early war
Don’t pick on my quotes IL, I’m not trying to start anything with you. I do not advocate the Pershing, or any other dumb unit choices, read my posts. I was trying to let FMG know that some people are not upset with his unit choices. That’s all.
I really want FMG to match OOB colors.
Otherwise, these might as well be xeno games pieces - I’ve never had a problem with the quality of the pieces, but the variety. I.e., give us more stuff!
Agreed. I’m waiting for OOB colors or something close to it. I hope the Germany black units come out soon because I’m not that interested in buying the Gray units.
Isn’t the P38 an early war fighter for the United States? So Fmg would be filling in the gap between early and late if they were to produce Mustangs. So I still push for P51 Mustang. i find it kind of funny how FMG hasn’t replied about the Americans in a while, i wonder if its already to late to make these changes =/
If we followed what Larson wants the standard German fighter should be the Horton flying wing or He-162, and the standard German tank should be the Maus. Yea good move. Just inflate the units like Pershing tank of which a whole 20 or so saw service in the last month of the war. Lets just ignore all the units that fought in 1939-1943 and keep making games based on 1940 using units that didn’t exist till 1944 or 1945 like the Pershing tank. because we must ignore old units with distinguished service records and hype stupid drawing board uber late war units that “could have seen action”
Dude, IL, you’re simply misrepresenting my points entirely. I’ve already conceded that maybe the Pershing would be best as a “tech” unit, and offered the Late-War Sherman and M36 as reasonable compromises, both of which say plenty of action, and both of which were produced in greater numbers than EITHER Tiger variation. But note that the Pershing was far from being a “stupid drawing board” unit. It was not at all a technological stretch for the US automotive industry and was only delayed by poor Ordnance Dept decision-making. Here’s a quote from Wikipedia on the events that prevented the Pershing’s fielding in time for Normandy:
Gen. Lesley J. McNair was head of Army Ground Forces. McNair, an artilleryman, championed the tank destroyer doctrine within the U.S. Armored Forces. Tanks were to support the infantry, exploit breakthroughs, and avoid tank-to-tank battles. Enemy tanks were to be engaged by the tank destroyer force, composed of a mix of towed and self-propelled tank destroyers. Towed “tank destroyers” were towed antitank guns. Self-propelled tank destroyers, called “gun motor carriages”, were similar to tanks but were lightly armored with open topped turrets. The tank destroyers were supposed to be faster and carry a more powerful anti-tank gun than tanks; armor was sacrificed for speed. The tank destroyer doctrine played a large role in the lack of urgency in improving the firepower of the M4 Sherman, as the emphasis was on its role as infantry support.[37]
McNair approved the 76 mm upgrade to the M4 Sherman and production of the 90 mm M36 tank destroyer, but he staunchly opposed development of the T26 and other proposed heavy tanks during the crucial period of 1943 because he saw no “battle need” for them.
In mid-1943, Lt. General Devers, commander of U.S. forces in the European Theater of Operations (ETO), asked for 250 T26s for use in the invasion of France. McNair refused. Devers appealed to General George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff. Marshall summarily ordered the tanks to be provided to the ETO as soon as they could be produced. Soon after the Normandy invasion, General Dwight D. Eisenhower urgently requested heavy tanks (now designated M26 Pershing), but McNair’s continued opposition delayed production. General Marshall intervened again and the tanks were eventually brought into production. However, only a few saw combat on February 25, 1945, too late to have any effect on the battlefield.[38]
This was no “pipe-dream” flying wing prototype here! This was actually technology that was ready and available for production, but was held up by the stubbornness of a few bureaucratic big-wigs. Since the Germans did take the step to field a very comparable tank, I’m prepared to say, yes, give the Germans a heavy tank tech for free as a national advantage and make the US invest in it, but I’d also like to see the A&A armchair generals out there not be forced to make the same decisions as old head-full-of-air General McNair. But since FMG is only doing two tanks, I’ll concede, OK, let’s compromise on the Late-War Sherman and the M36, both of which saw plenty of action and both of which gives FMG some differentiation beyond oob, which in nearly every other category seems to be your over-riding concern! An early-war Sherman give FMG yet more oob clones…
At the scale of these ships having any japanese carrier that looks like a British carrier is not good enough. It must have the classic small superstructure and pylons under the front and rear flight deck. If you had to draw a typical japanese carrier it might be the Akagi or Shoho. IDK as long as the Carrier has that classic Japanese “look” to it, easily identifiable….
Yes, I conceded that Taiho looks much like Shinano, but Shokaku looks very different than either and has those typically “Japanese” characteristics, like an open hanger and a small superstructure, without being a mishapen-looking ship like Kaga or Akagi, and is an all-around more-impressive ship than the small, mediocre Hiryu/Soryu/Unryu sisters. It’s the logical choice for a ship that Typifies the best that Japan produced… and both of them had long and distinguished careers, almost rivalling the Enterprise and Saratoga on the US side… unlike Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga, and Agaki, whose main role was to all get sunk together at Midway…
Now, on the US side, the fact that the New BB’s look much alike is simply an argument for using the oob as North Carolina class/ South Dakota class treaty-BB stand-in’s, whereas FMG doing an Iowa then gives us a true upgrade option. I just can’t see using the “garbage” oob units (as you describe them) as “upgrades” over FMG’s excellent pieces. FMG’s pieces should BE the upgrades. Which is also why I can’t see using the “garbage” oob Yamato as an upgrade over what I expect to be an impressive FMG Japanese BB piece.
Of course, I wish he was doing 2 BB’s for both the US and Japan, one old & one new, but it looks as though that isn’t to be… but then that’s where hopefully Coach will come in to do the old-BB’s.
BOTTOM LINE: I’m not arguing for FMG doing anything rare or not built (you’ll note that even the Pershing was my 3rd option). I’m arguing for him doing the best units done in quantity:
M36: more made than Tiger I’s, 3x as many as Tiger II’s
Late-War Shermans: more made than all German tanks combined
Iowa: 4 made, as many as any class since WW1, iconic ship, Halsey’s flagship, ship upon which Japan’s very surrender ceremony was performed…
Baltimore: 14 made, as many as Japan had heavy cruisers at the war’s beginning, not including the very similar Wichita and Fargo classes…
Sumner: 58 made
Essex: 24 made, pivotal ship in winning the war
P51: 'nuff said
bomber: B-29 (3,970 made, pivotal in the Pacific War, offers a “heavy bomber” or “long-range bomber” tech upgrade option) or B-24 (18,482 made, pivotal in both theaters)
The M36 is a poor choice in my opinion, the M10 and M18 saw more action. Id prefer either of those models to an M36.
These are your choices for FMG pieces: In nearly every case you successfully avoided any mid or early war units. IN the other cases you selected the same units as OOB. All these are in bold…
US:
Tank 1: M36 (Pershing as second choice) Both of these are late war
Tank 2: SHERMAN (LATE WAR!) OOB is sherman
Transport: Liberty Ship OOB is Liberty
SS: GATO CLASS OOB is Gato
DD: SUMNER CLASS (Fletcher as second choice) Fletcher is OOB
CA: BALTIMORE CLASS (Wichita as second choice, then Cleveland, then Brooklyn)
CV: ESSEX CLASS (Lexington as second choice) Essex is late war
BB: IOWA CLASS (South Dakota as second choice, then North Carolina) Iowa is OOB
Bomber: B-29 (B-24 as second choice) B-29 is late war
Tac: TBM/TBF AVENGER
Truck:GMC 6x6
Air Trans: C-47 DAKOTA
Artillery: 155 MM LONG TOM
Infantry 1: STANDARD W/ M1
Infantry 2: AIRBORNE W/ M3 (folding-stock M1 carbine as second choice; Thompson was rather heavy/ unwieldy for airborne troops…)
so you got 4 late war ships and you also want them to remake 5 of your choices.
Why not just make all original units? Avoid the idea about focusing on the last design that saw limited action and try to make choices that fought during MOST OF THE WAR AND SAW THE MOST ACTION AND ARE ORIGINAL?
my LIST CONTAINS UNITS FROM ALL STAGES OF THE WAR.
Obviously the Sherman must be the tank. no other iconic tank would look right.
Fighter should be Mustang since it fought on both theaters and also fought from 42+ It also looks different than P-38 and can work as a late war plane ( long range aircraft)
Carrier should avoid the typical OOB looking Yorktown carrier. Essex class looks like a Yorktown on steroids. Lexington has a unigue looking profile and can work as different looking US carrier
B-29 did not see alot of action in Europe since it came out mid 1944. Not a good choice B-24 is perfect since it saw action on both fronts for most of the war. The B-17 OOB can be the heavy bomber candidate.
Iowa class is OOB, so avoid this profile. Since like 14 other battleships have the look of the west Virginia, this might be the choice. The OOB Iowa already exists, so use it for late war
Cruiser is fine. Baltimore seems fine. no issues
Destroyer is fine, but Fletcher is what we already got. The choice should look different. ( not sure if they do or not, so no comment)
OOB pieces:
CV wasp ( this is just a Jr. Yorktown class Carrier)
BB Iowa
CA Portland ( heck they only made 2 of these, bad choice)
DD Johnston ( freaking Fletcher class)
SS Ray ( Gato class)
AP Liberty
Bomber B-17
tank Sherman
Artillery 105 MM
It’s the logical choice for a ship that Typifies the best that Japan produced
That would be the Akagi and kaga. These carriers had the best pilots and trained crews. Poor strategy is not taking anything away from them.
Japans only real naval victory came from them. If you want to compare the service record of the Taiho to the Akagi, you got an uphill argument.
Taiho:
Commissioned: March 1944
Sunk:August 1945
Sent out in one mission and got sunk in the turkey shoot. Wonderful service record. Yea lots of action. When you think japanese carrier you think of Taiho? NO you think Akagi, or Kaga
Akagi:
Commissioned: 25 March 1927
Sunk: June 1942
Fought in Hawaii, Ceylon, Rebaul, Marshall Islands, Midway
