Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

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.

@coachofmany:

@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?

It would be great for an “early-war” oriented set, but a lousy fit for FMG’s overall line-up.  I mean Grant’s vs. Tiger II’s!?!  He’s already done pretty much the best that Germany had to offer (…though it would have been nice to have an FW-190 instead of an Me-109, though the performance of each improved greatly over the course of the war as each got new engine upgrades, so it’s not as though the 109 is really a BAD fit; it’s just that it seems like a missed opportunity to stray from the oob norms without downgrading…) but anyway, seeing as how he’s giving us all of Germany’s best, it seems backwards in the extreme to go backwards rather than forwards.  I see how some think the Pershing is a “bridge too far” for some, though I still think the perfect line-up would be late-war Sherman and Pershing, with the M36 as an acceptable compromise for second tank.  M18 is then my 4th choice (or perhaps, as my 3rd choice for second tank; I certainly think that one of them needs to be a tank rather than a TD), with early-war Sherman and M10 being ones I truly hope FMG doesn’t do.

@coachofmany:

@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?

The Grant was the one with the 75mm gun mounted on the side and a turret mounted 37mm gun, right?  That would be cool for FMG to make along with some sort of SPG/TD for the second armor.  Of course, Dr Larsen is right that we would be taking a step backwards in that case.  Since you are making the M5 Stuart, I think a late war Sherman would still be the best bet, like the M4A3.  Didn’t some Shermans come out with something like an 85mm gun to try and match the Tiger’s firepower?  And the turrets on those were a little different from the earlier M4A1 Shermans with 75mm guns, I think.

Well, Shermans came in a confusing variety of versions, but from a visual standpoint the two key changes that will distinguish it from the oob version are:

1. Welded rather than cast hull; this gives a more squared look.  (This characteristic isn’t necessarily an improvement per se, but does lend a very different look than the highly rounded cast-hull look)

2. 76mm rather than 75mm gun (which involves both a longer barrel and a different turret, again giving a significantly different look for FMG to mold.)

The difference in capability between the 75mm and 76mm Sherman is very analogous to the difference between the short-barrelled and long-barrelled Panzer IV or between the T-34/76 and T-34/85.  There were Shermans with even bigger guns, “Super-Shermans” if you will, but they were mostly a post-war tank and used mainly by allies and not the US itself because the US had already moved beyond the Sherman to the M-26… to the M-46… to the M-47 but by this point we’re deep into the Korean War.

There were also suspension changes, perhaps the biggest being the HVSS suspension, typified by the “-E8” variants referred to by the troops in a deliberate pun as the “Easy 8” both because of their smoother ride and “Easy” being the military shorthand for the letter “E.”  And, of course, there were numerous engine variants, though this would hardly be visible in a game piece.  In theory, I suppose, any given M4 Sherman can be found with any given combination of hull-type, gun-type, suspension-type and engine type, though of course in practice the ones that worked better gradually  replaced the ones that didn’t work so well, so that the HVSS suspension models tended to have the later gun and engine versions since it was one of the last innovations to come into use… The “-A3” (or “-A1” or “-A2” or “A4” or “A6”)  designation after the M4 in the terminology was mostly about engine type, rather than being a simple linear improvement, so an “M4A4” isn’t necessarily better than and “M3A3.”  Probably the definitive war-time variant was the “M4A3E8(76)W,” which incorporated all of the improvements learned by war-time experience.

@knp7765:

@coachofmany:

@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?

The Grant was the one with the 75mm gun mounted on the side and a turret mounted 37mm gun, right?  That would be cool for FMG to make along with some sort of SPG/TD for the second armor.  Of course, Dr Larsen is right that we would be taking a step backwards in that case.  Since you are making the M5 Stuart, I think a late war Sherman would still be the best bet, like the M4A3.  Didn’t some Shermans come out with something like an 85mm gun to try and match the Tiger’s firepower?  And the turrets on those were a little different from the earlier M4A1 Shermans with 75mm guns, I think.

I think you’re thinking of the Sherman M4A3’s equipped with 105 mm howitzers. These really didn’t see action until the US was already in Germany.

@dadler12:

@knp7765:

@coachofmany:

@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?

The Grant was the one with the 75mm gun mounted on the side and a turret mounted 37mm gun, right?  That would be cool for FMG to make along with some sort of SPG/TD for the second armor.  Of course, Dr Larsen is right that we would be taking a step backwards in that case.  Since you are making the M5 Stuart, I think a late war Sherman would still be the best bet, like the M4A3.  Didn’t some Shermans come out with something like an 85mm gun to try and match the Tiger’s firepower?  And the turrets on those were a little different from the earlier M4A1 Shermans with 75mm guns, I think.

I think you’re thinking of the Sherman M4A3’s equipped with 105 mm howitzers. These really didn’t see action until the US was already in Germany.

No, there were assault gun versions with the 105mm’s, but there was also the 76mm versions and the earlier M3 Lee/Grant that had the 75mm in the hull and a 37mm in the turret.  Oddly enough, the one with the 105 looks more like the “typical” early war version than the one with the 76mm.  The ones with the 105 were rare, but I’m not so sure that they were strictly late war.  In any case, it was a very short 105, which is part of the reason why they didn’t look so different…

Hey FMG,
Any word on the France and ANZAC combat dice?