Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

@ FMG - Thank you for the reply; everything sounds encouraging at this stage, I must say. 8-)

If you are looking for ideas for Soviet WWII Carriers, here is a thread from the AAM Forumini I remember from a little while back; it also discusses Italian and French carrier designs, but there are a good number of Soviet designs at the top of the first post. Of course, none of these designs was ever laid down, someone actually purchasing a Soviet carrier piece to use in A&A could be analogous to the Soviets actually spending time and resources building one of these in RL (of course, getting someone to make a mould for one of these for your set is another task).

In terms of appearance only, I would prefer “Project 72,” if only for its distinctiveness from carriers produced by other nations during this period:

Kostromitinov:

Project 72:

Project 71:

Link (check the top/first post):

http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about5369.html&highlight=soviet

EDIT - @ FMG; I noticed that those Italian ship moulds you posted actually came from Panzerschiffe; a company which makes 1/2400 scale warships. Will you be using Panzerschiffe models as a basis for your own molds (albeit with some detail changes to avoid copyright infringement), or are you just posting these as an example? Thanks.

@Imperious:

Except the submarine needs to not look like a toothpick, but more like the old MB AA sub, so it can stand up easily. The German subs are horrible looking IMO.

I love the A&A subs, but agree that the german sub dont stand up easily. But look at the subs from Jeff’s the Wargame, they looks like a flatfish standing up, now is that better than a toothpick ?

Id make all the naval units the same size by type, so the battleships are exactly the same, cruisers have their own size, etc.  just keep the scale just like AA so both types of sets are compatible with each other. Thats where you will make alot of sales because people will just replace entire sets with your set, much like Chess players have different sets depending on what type of game ( tournament, home study,friends house, etc) is being played.

Except the submarine needs to not look like a toothpick, but more like the old MB AA sub, so it can stand up easily. The German subs are horrible looking IMO.

I’m with IL on this!  Ship classes should have their own distinct size and not made to exact scale for ease of identification.

AG124 -  Nice find!  I like carrier on the top.

wow, those sculpts look impressive, how many fighters does the carrier hold,

D142 - Where are the pictures of the sculpts?  I didn’t see any.

@Black:

wow, those sculpts look impressive, how many fighters does the carrier hold,

D142 - Where are the pictures of the sculpts?  I didn’t see any.

the pictures of the sculpts are at page 3 of this thread

the pictures of the sculpts are at page 3 of this thread

I see it now.  I think the first time I looked at it the pictures didn’t load.  Those are very nice samples indeed.

Those Italian vessel scuplts in the pictures posted by FMG are actually produced by Panzerschiffe; a company which makes 1/2400 scale warships. I think that FMG posted those as an example of what he wanted in terms of Italian sculpts, but I am not sure if he is actually using the Panzerschiffe sculpts (there would be copyright issues in making a perfect copy of their sculpt without permission). However, if FMG is indeed going to use Panzerschiffe sculpts with permission from the company, I for one would welcome it, as Panzerschiffe has a great variety of vessels from all relevant nations, with the appropriate level of detail for this scale (other than the lack of a Soyuz class BB and any CV for the Soviets, IMO). Of course, Panzerschiffe is not a substitute for FMG, because of the great cost of purchasing enough of their units to make a complete set, and obviously because of the lack of aircraft and land units in their roster.

Here is a link, by the way (you can go to the Italian WWII section to see the models posted by FMG):

http://www.panzerschiffe.com/Catalog.html

Indeed those pictures were just posted as an EXAMPLE of the kind of ships we are going to make.  We will not use those models.  People are requesting pictures of prototypes but we are not yet at that stage.  What I wanted to represent was the ship classes we are going to use and the level of detail which these models have.  I’m not even sure if they are the correct scale.

With this kind of product there is no such thing as a prototype.  The mould cost is so great that you have your sculpts…  then you have finished product, no in between.  We have a model maker we are working with who is providing the Naval sculpts and he sent us those pictures as an example of the kind of ships he will make.

We are still in need of LAND unit sculpts.  Once again, if any of you have a lead on these please PM me the details.

Thanks again!

Ah, so the sculptor is working on the moulds for the units now, and sent you those Panzerschiffe pictures as an example of the classes he is going to produce for you. As well, he has chosen the Aquila Class CV, Littorio Class BB, and Zara Class CA for the Italians - all excellent choices, IMO.

In terms of prototypes, I indeed see your point. However, later in the production stage, if you feel like posting some of the actual sculpts sent to you by your modeller, by all means feel free to do so. Of course, you may also decide against doing so; any decision on whether and when you can show us some sculpts is entirely in your court. I am just glad to hear that everything is going OK with the set at this stage. 8-)

Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with land (or any) sculpts, as I am not a sculptor. Hopefully, someone else here can help you with that. :|

BTW - If you are considering using the Sovyetskiy Soyuz Class BB for the Soviet Union instead of the old Gangut class (which I certainly hope is the case), maybe this picture will help, as sources for this class are a little harder to find than for most other classes:

@Imperious:

The bases should all be round and a little bit larger than AH.

If these are dedicated A&A pieces the bases should stack integral with the chips. ~ZP

@Zero:

@Imperious:

The bases should all be round and a little bit larger than AH.

If these are dedicated A&A pieces the bases should stack integral with the chips. ~ZP

Great idea, but which chips?  We use the chips from Revised, Europe, and Pacific when we play AA50 as there are never enough chips that came with AA50.

Fatter submarines are needed please; and yes, the differentiation between the BB’s and the cruisers are a necessity.

I’d even suggest a squared off stern on each cruiser, even at the expense of historicity so that at a glance one can tell the difference immediately. I had to paint a white dot on top of each cruiser in AA50 so that everyone would be able to tell them apart without too much trouble.

This is a great idea! Am eagerly waiting for further developments!

i would like all the units the same as the axis and allies scale, except the battleship, the battleship could be bigger,
there should be contrast between the different national artillery pieces

@Shakespeare:

Fatter submarines are needed please; and yes, the differentiation between the BB’s and the cruisers are a necessity.

I agree; I’ve never had trouble distinguishing A&A cruisers and battleships myself, but I’ve heard that some others have had problems. Current submarines are definitely a little too thin.

@Shakespeare:

I’d even suggest a squared off stern on each cruiser, even at the expense of historicity…

:-o

I’m sorry, but there is no way I could ever accept a set that cut historical appearances that badly, even if it was for the sake of identification convenience. I’d prefer to deal with BB-CA differences through size distinctions; since the pieces are merely representative of large groups of ships on a world-scale map, I don’t expect them to be perfectly in historical scale with each other, as I would expect for a tactical wargame with individual ships on a map consistent with their own scale (such as War At Sea).

The submarines in AA are not that much of a problem folks.  Fat submarines would be objectionable.

I recommend you glue a clear plastic disk as a base to the bottom of your submarines if you don’t like them tipping over that much.  A single piece of clear plastic that would do for the job is probably in your trash can right now.  Just get an Exact-o-knife and some clear plastic cement and you’re in business.

But that does bring up a new subject …

Could you throw in a set of blue and red AA chips to add to these figures?  Then we could have grey (ones), red (fives) and blue (tens) to stack under our infantry and armor.  I hope this would not raise the cost too much, but if it did then forget it.  I’d rather keep this project affordable for a large audience.

I’m sorry, but there is no way I could ever accept a set that cut historical appearances that badly, even if it was for the sake of identification convenience. I’d prefer to deal with BB-CA differences through size distinctions;

I agree with Shakespeare.  Another way to help distinguish ships are by the number of barrels per turret.  BB - 3 barrels, CA - 2 barrels, DD 1 barrel.

Submarines - Fat like the original subs.