Table Tactics New Product Release

@DrLarsen:

Hmm, I think I might have mixed them in with some old wider panthers.  I don’t know if I noticed any difference vs previous wider panthers, but maybe I wasn’t looking close enough.  The bottom line is that for me to use it, a tiger/JSII class tank MUST be at least noticeably bigger than the wider version of the panther to make sense and avoid heavy/medium tank confusion.  That probably means creating a Pershing that is a little larger than scale.  Same for a Cromwell if that’s what we’re stuck with for UK heavy tank, though the Cromwell was actually in the Sherman/Panzer IV/T-34 class.  The UK should really use Cromwells instead of, or as an equivalent option for, Shermans in the medium class.  The UK could then use Comets for a size-up heavy.  (The Panther was actually heavier than the Sherman/Cromwell/Panzer IV/T-34 class of tanks; you could argue that a US Pershing and/or UK Comet was more an equivalent of a Panther than of a Tiger or JSII, but having 4 sizes is definitely too many; I’m not sure if I’d even really use more than 2 in my own house rules.)

No one else even had a tank in the heavy class that I know of.

The older wide ones didn’t have skirts.

@Table:

@Raeder:

@Razor:

I buy anything that has the same size as the regulare A&A pieces

I will buy anything that’s the same size as A&A, the same colours as A&A and also has Infantry pieces that resemble A&A.

OUCH! but I hear my infantry make nice pill boxes.  :cry:

Don’t get me wrong. Your armor units are great! They’re just the wrong size. But your infantry is just not my cup of tea.

Umm - FMG is making pieces in the exact same scale as Axis & Allies pieces.

There is plenty of room for detail in a piece of that size.

I know Table Tactics will do an amazing job with the upcoming French set. I think that the best use of mold money would be to make 5 pieces total: 3 tanks (discussed previously), an artillery or mech infantry unit, and a fighter. No infantry/gun units needed.

@reloader-1:

Umm - FMG is making pieces in the exact same scale as Axis & Allies pieces.

There is plenty of room for detail in a piece of that size.

I know Table Tactics will do an amazing job with the upcoming French set. I think that the best use of mold money would be to make 5 pieces total: 3 tanks (discussed previously), an artillery or mech infantry unit, and a fighter. No infantry/gun units needed.

Does France need 3 tanks? It only starts with 1 tank and isn’t going to build more

Possibly with different shaped bases.
1. Square base- marines
2. Triangle base- paratroopers
3. Round- regular infantry
4. 5 pointed Star base- commander

I actually don’t need any different types of infantry.

Think of the Axis & Allies Dice convention - we have too many units at the lower end of the scale. How would you slot addt’l infantry?

PLEASE make Corsairs i would love to have them part of my US airforce/navy plus I love coaches Idea about the infantry

@Lunarwolf:

PLEASE make Corsairs i would love to have them part of my US airforce/navy plus I love coaches Idea about the infantry

Personally that is my favorite US war plane.

To TT on Tanks:

You’re under-rating the Sherman and buying into some of the anti-Sherman mythology that’s out there.  The Sherman’s high profile could be a disadvantage, true, but it’s sloped armor was overall at least as good as the Cromwell’s unsloped armor.  The Brits were very happy to get Shermans, as they were clearly better than anything else they had up to the Cromwell, which was about as good, maybe incrementally better.  The worst Shermans were at least as good as (probably better than) the worst Panzer III’s & IV’s and the best ones were about as good as the best Panzer IV’s, (which actually made up the bulk of German armor by D-Day.)  Shermans also performed pretty reasonably well in Korea against North Korean T-34’s.  Yes the Shermans had trouble with the Panthers, but Panthers were relatively rare in the West (and it must be noted that the Panther is really a much heavier tank, more a “medium-heavy” than a “medium,” being significantly heavier than Panzer IV, T-34, Cromwell or Sherman)

The Panther is actually as heavy as the M26 Pershing and considerably heavier than the UK Comet, which was basically an up-gunned Cromwell with very little armor improvement.

So you could have a 4-tiered system:

1. Heavy (only Tiger & JSII)
2. Medium Heavy (Panther, Comet, M-26 Pershing)
3. Medium (Panzer IV, Cromwell, Sherman, T-34)
4. Light (pretty much anything else)

But I really can’t conceive of needing more than 2 (much less more than 3) levels of tank

What’s more, the fact that the AA standard has made the Panther the de facto “standard” German tank means that to have a German “upgrade” it would have to be a little bigger (though not much bigger; we’re obviously not talking TWG bigger)  and be a Tiger or Tiger II to make sense.  Unless we went a little down in size and did a Panzer IV and made the wider versions of those old Panthers (which seem to be the new standard mold) the upgrades…  But I would think that more people would be motivated to buy an “upgrade” than a “downgrade” product… (Pure marketing psychology, but such things are important.)

So, if you create a carefully calibrated “Tiger” upgrade tank (which perhaps you already have; like I said, I’m reserving judgment until they arrive and I can actually compare them.), “Pershing” upgrade Tank, JSII upgrade tank, Cromwell upgrade tank, that would probably be as much as I’d use, realistically.

Then again, maybe FMG is about to roll out these very models as part of their new product line…

Reloader:

Actually, as I recall, FMG said his ships, at least, were going to be slightly bigger to allow for more detail.

Coach:

I like your idea, though I’d have some concern about the issue of piece stability (i.e., not falling down)

Also, when it comes to special units, certain distinguishing features would stand out in certain cases: unique helmets/ longarms for UK and German Para’s, StG 44’s could be used for German SS, etc.

For me, a key thing for Para’s is those unique UK and German Para helmets

Thing is, I already can get much of this dynamic by using off-the-shelf HO’s for Para’s and alternate color AAA pieces for elites.  Here’s my current set-up:

Germany:

Standard Infantry: MB AAA pieces in grey
Elite Infantry: (SS) AH AAA pieces in black
Para’s: Airfix German Para’s in blue-grey

US:

Standard Infantry: AAA Standard
Elite Infantry: (USMC)  AAA US Marines in Dark Green
Para’s: Airfix US Para’s in Dark Green

UK

Standard Infantry: AAA Standard
Elite Infantry: (Royal Marines) AH UK Infantry in light tan
Para’s: ESCI UK Para’s in dark brown

Japan

Standard Infantry: AAA Standard
Elite Infantry (SNLF): Early AAP Japanese Infantry in red
Para’s: ESCI Japanese Infantry

USSR

Standard Infantry: AAA Standard
Elite Infantry: (Red Guards?): AAA Russian Infantry in bright red (from an AAP Pacific set, presumably originally designed to be “Chinese” infantry, but same sculpt as Russians)
Para’s: Airfix Russian Infantry

FMG’s pieces show more detail, but at the same size as current pieces.

Check out his pictures of a transport side-by-side.

Reloader:

Actually, much earlier on in the FMG pieces project thread, in direct response to my question to this effect, FMG said that his ships (or perhaps it was just his BB’s?) would be slightly bigger to show details.  But I haven’t followed every post since then, so maybe he changed his mind?  IDK

@DrLarsen:

Italy

Superbattleship: BB1936 Class (basically a scaled-up, 16”-gun Littorio)

I haven’t checked my copy of Garzke and Dulin’s reference book on Axis battleships, but I don’t recall Italy ever having planned to build any 16" uprated version of the Littorio class.  Is this a fictitious design or, if not, could you let me know where the information on this projected class comes from?

Remember that was before 1942 came out with “bigger” ships.

No, it’s not a fictitious design, though it’s obviously not one that they decided to go through with.  In fact, the Sovietsky Soyuz design that the Soviets launched but never finished was based on this Italian Ansaldo design (though maybe not as closely as I’d originally thought; still if you compare the Sovietsky Soyuz and the Littorio side-by-side, the family resemblance is obvious).  I got my info from Wayne Scarpaci’s recent book on Italian BB’s.  So, like most of the “superbattleships” on my list, it’s not one that was built, but it’s one that could have been if the Italians had decided it was a priority (though they probably wouldn’t have been able to finish it on time in the real world.)

The French had likewise created three different alternative up-sized versions of the Richelieu class, my favorite being the version with 3 four-barrel 15" turrets.  (I think 12 15" probably beats 8-9 16" unless possibly you’re going toe-to-toe with a real monster like a Yamato.)  Wayne seems to think that they’d ultimately decided on a more conventional 9x16" though in his book on French BB’s.

for coaches idea with infantry, Samurai Swords had some units with unique bases taht worked out fine heres a link to a pic http://boardgamegeek.com/image/385022/samurai-swords

Well, TT:

They arrived (very quickly, I might add) and I really like them!  I would have to say though, that I have to agree that they are a bit on the big side for mixing with standard AAA pieces.  I also kinda wish you’d done Soviet units (with JSII’s!) in the first run instead of the Italians, so I could use them as upgrade heavies for the Soviets, seeing as the Italians didn’t have any heavy tanks.  I’m thinking of using the Italian panthers as temporary stand-ins until something better presents itself… Maybe FMG will have a solution in its up-coming pieces line-up, though it seems to be taking forever to roll out…

The small arms on stands are an interesting concept and well-executed, except that I wish that all the standard rifles didn’t have the same SMLE profile.  Given the level of detail, I’d think you could’ve done a creditable Kar98, M1 Garand and Mannlicher Carcano in the scale.  But this is probably trifling, especially since I probably won’t use them anyway.  I still say it’s better to stick with soldier-figures for the infantry.