It depends on what “work” means – in other words, on whether players would consider a Kursk scenario appealing. Conceptually, Kursk would be similar to A&A D-Day (minus the water) in the sense that the battle was fundamentally a frontal assault on a heavily-defended static position, and similar to A&A Battle of the Bulge in the sense that it would involve ground forces driving into enemy lines, but different from both games in the sense that from the German point of view Kursk was a pincer movement aimed at pinching off a salient, and that from the Russian point of view it was a two-stage offensive-defensive battle. Personally I think it has good potential to make an interesting game, if it’s designed properly.
Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
-
I agree with Lozmoid. I don’t understand why ALL OOB pieces HAVE to be replaced. In some cases I can understand, like if you want to get P-51 Mustangs instead of P-38 Lightnings, or FW 190s instead of Me 109s. I would LOVE to see Panzer III and Tiger I for German tanks. Also, if WOTC is going to include the Stuka, it would be great if FMG made the Me 110 for a Tac Bomber.
However, there are some other pieces I would really rather NOT change. Like the Bismarck class battleships for Germany. The Germans really didn’t have another battleship class that could compare to the Bismarck class. The Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were good ships, but they were actually battlecruisers and not true battleships. The Graf Spee was a Deutshland (excuse my spelling) class Pocket Battleship and much smaller than the Bismarck class. It had good armament and speed but lacked the armor protection of a true battleship so if you wanted to be realistic in the game, that would eliminate the “two hit” rule for German battleships. The Bismarck class was the best that Germany had to offer in the way of battleships and that is what we should have.
The same goes for the Yamato Class battleships for Japan. They were the biggest and most powerful battleships built by Japan so that is what we should have in our fleets. I remember Imperious Leader mentioned wanting to see the Kongo class (which was actually a battlecruiser, not a battleship). The Kongo class were very much outclassed by US battleships, even the older models. Why would you want an inferior class of ship to represent your battleships for Japan? Also, the Iowa class should remain the US Battleship for the same reason, they were the best and most powerful battleships put out by the US Navy.
Britain, on the other hand, should have a different battleship. The Royal Oak I think was a poor choice. I would suggest the King George V class for the same reason that I like the Iowa class for US, they were the best and most modern battleships built by Britain.
Anyway, that’s just my 2 cents worth.
-
dumb question#27. does OOB stand for “out of the box”?
-
does OOB stand for “out of the box”?
yes
-
FMG stated they don’t want to repeat molds of existing OOB figures? Seriously? For heaven’s sake, why? :? We are paying for this project; shouldn’t we get to choose which units we want? I am buying these FMG sets to replace my Chimps pieces; not to double them. The two units will be incomparable due to detail and colour! They will not sit side by side. I tell you what - as soon as I get my Italy set, my AA50 Italy units will never again see the light of day… But that’s just me.
This is my plan as well. Why would I want to place crappy pieces next to FMG masterpieces?
-
FMG stated they don’t want to repeat molds of existing OOB figures? Seriously? For heaven’s sake, why? :? We are paying for this project; shouldn’t we get to choose which units we want? I am buying these FMG sets to replace my Chimps pieces; not to double them. The two units will be incomparable due to detail and colour! They will not sit side by side. I tell you what - as soon as I get my Italy set, my AA50 Italy units will never again see the light of day… But that’s just me.
By NOT using repeats of OOB sculpts, FMG will support both your plans (to replace the OOB pieces with higher quality pieces) AND the person who wishes to supplement the OOB with extra sculpts.
By using repeats of OOB sculpts, they only support those who wish to replace their existing sets and those who want more variety are left out in the cold.
Quite frankly, based on this alone not repeating OOB is the best choice. Of course, as some have mentioned SOME OOB sculpts may be appropriate (the Bismark for example) in very limited cases.
-
As for the issue of FMG duplicating existing WOTC sculpts (say for example creating another ME 109 fighter), I think that they should avoid duplication where possible. This gives their product line the most flexibility. If a person wants to completely replace their existing WOTC pieces good. If a person wants to Supplement their WOTC pieces with additional pieces from FMG to effectively double the number of unit types in there game even better.
Bottom line the general rule should be to create new sculpts after different models than WOTC where feasible. In cases where a nation really only had one practical choice of a unit (aka Bismark Class Battleship) then that class should be used. This is of course only my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree.
I for one hope that FMG makes a healthy profit on this project which enables them to “Fast Track” the rest of the Combat Units set. I hope that they will eventually get around to creating a TECHNOLOGY/WEAPON’S DEVELOPMENT SET complete with V2 Rockets, ME 262s, Long range Aircraft ect.
-
Couldn’t agree with you more Bob. And I too would love to see the weapons development and tech. pieces.
:-D -
However, there are some other pieces I would really rather NOT change. Like the Bismarck class battleships for Germany. The Germans really didn’t have another battleship class that could compare to the Bismarck class. The Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were good ships, but they were actually battlecruisers and not true battleships. The Graf Spee was a Deutshland (excuse my spelling) class Pocket Battleship and much smaller than the Bismarck class. It had good armament and speed but lacked the armor protection of a true battleship so if you wanted to be realistic in the game, that would eliminate the “two hit” rule for German battleships. The Bismarck class was the best that Germany had to offer in the way of battleships and that is what we should have.
The same goes for the Yamato Class battleships for Japan. They were the biggest and most powerful battleships built by Japan so that is what we should have in our fleets. I remember Imperious Leader mentioned wanting to see the Kongo class (which was actually a battlecruiser, not a battleship). The Kongo class were very much outclassed by US battleships, even the older models. Why would you want an inferior class of ship to represent your battleships for Japan? Also, the Iowa class should remain the US Battleship for the same reason, they were the best and most powerful battleships put out by the US Navy.
As far as not replicating pieces, it is the advantage to avoid this because you effectively doubled the inventory of units and can design many games or use many new house rules.
The Bismarck was a one off warship. Scharnhorst is a much better candidate because it was probably the main iconic ship during the war for Germany. Graf Spee should be the cruiser for the new pieces. battlecruiser or battleship argument is immaterial. The Hood was England’s flagship and it was a battlecruiser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Scharnhorst
“The German navy always classified Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as Schlachtschiffe (battleships)”The Yamato is not an iconic japanese battleship. Japan was fond of having “pagota” style battleships of which Kongo or Mutsu was quintessential. Also, almost all of her battleships looked like the Kongo. ONLY TWO ships are Yamato class.
The goal is to represent the main iconic ships that served. Most of the work in terms of IJN Battleships were the Pagota style ships, so it makes more sence to make them in a game.
Also, both Yamato and Bismarck were not even available till 1941. All the choices i mention started the war.
If you just want the biggest or best ships represented then have Germany only get King Tiger tanks and ME-262 for fighters, and H class battleships ( DKM Friederich Der Grosse for example).
Then you got a bunch of ‘one-offs’, like Bismarck and Yamato.
-
UH,WHAT???
The YAMATO wasnt a iconic battleship???
Somebodys been drinking this weekend. hey IL The party doesnt start till tommorrow!!! -
Iconic is the way that a typical japanese battleship would look like. Yamato mostly stayed in home waters, while Kongo class and the pagoda style BB’s were the primary workhorse for Japan.
Japan had them since like 1920’s, while they made 2 yamato class ships and they lasted 4 years. The other 16 or so looked like the Kongo and not the Yamato.
If you want a typical japanese carrier your not using the Shinano which is the OOB unit.
Rather they looked more like Zuikaku or Soryo. Thats the kind of thing im talking about…. what was the typical japanese ship used in most circumstances. Yamato and Bismarck are mostly remembered for their last missions which ended in failure and they were both mid war entries.
-
ok, clarified.
but, the YAMATO and BISMARK are iconic battleships. you want to talk BISMARK. when that thing broke out into the atlantic ocean it was a pure wrecking machine. ever here the term.“SINK THE BISMARK” the ENGLISH navy were so scared of it they made an all out effort to put it out of buisness. to the shock of both sides it was crippled by a torpedeo. a foreshadowing of what was the fate of the battleship AIRPOWER. -
By the way,
dont you have house rules for a BISMARK and YAMATO? I do.
A N.O. so to speak. -
Sorry , ive been mispelling BISMARK
-
BISMARCK,
ah, now ive got it! -
The Bismarck had a shelf life of about a week. Then it sank. Then they made a game that takes place during 1942 which is a year after it sank.
Does not seem like a candidate for a basic German battleship to me.
The Tirpitz didn’t even really get out of port. It has no story other than target practice for British planes.
Scharnhorst and ships like it have a very colorful story full of adventures that went thru the war.
Now Graf Spee did get sunk in 1939, but its just one ship of a class of about 4 others, so it could be a decent candidate.
Anyway Germany should be done as the second set.
-
@Imperious:
Anyway Germany should be done as the second set.
No, I think Norway should be done next, then we can talk about effectively doubble the inventory of units, and design many new house rules.
If you dont want to play with Norway as a power, you could use the inf as german mountain troops or skii troops.
-
Yea Norway and Sweden
-
Hey IL, I get what you are saying about the more “iconic” pieces. I personally disagree because I think we would want the best, most powerful and most modern class to represent our ships, but I also understand where you are coming from. Just curious, what models would you prefer for US and British battleships?
Also, I thought Jeremy said that JAPAN was coming after Italy.
-
I see what IL is saying about the molds being of the more commonly used ships at that time. I was just stating it is rediculous to make a statement like the BISMACK and YAMATO are not iconic warships.
NORWAY or SWEDEN next? Not a bad idea. I would buy them, but i dont know how many poeple would.
What color would they be? -
NORWAY or SWEDEN next? Not a bad idea. I would buy them, but i dont know how many poeple would.
What color would they be?Sweden would fit yellow, since it is both in their flag, and their morale.
Suggested Topics
