@Imperious-Leader Only the setUp cards of all the dropbox documents can be opened. The rest of documents aren’t there any longer.
Table Tactics New Product Release
-
That would be a 9 country set with land, sea & air units. In the scales and units requested.
Yes thats great BEFORE and DURING each point in this process, get input from us so you avoid making mistakes. This is what FMG did and they will do very well from it.
WE are like a live studio audience providing feedback. Use us and you will prosper.
Lets us know which types of units you want and we can do research on sculpts to get good candidates, You can make polls of the choices and see the results really quickly.
Just go step by step unit be unit nation by nation.
-
What he said :-D
-
One thing I know for sure is that Jack has incredible plastic quality - his is as good or better than WotC.
Judging by his color matching of the 1984 set, he will be able to produce quality sets that match existing colors and can augment our forces.
Where do I send my money for a pre-order? :-D
-
I got my order of jacks tanks…
American have some tanks that are usable, which are 4 in each pack. The others i had to toss out
German pieces are a bit simple, but good. I got a yield of 12 tanks each set. The elephant looks really nice but it makes the smaller American tanks look like rats next to elephants
Its almost like these pieces are for 3 different games, Memoir 44, Axis and allies, and god knows what. They are not even compatible with each other.
Please by all thats holy, look at what FMG is doing and just commit to a similar line of pieces, perhaps drawing from alternative models of tanks so that the maximum number of pieces are produced.
-
Exactly! Let’s go for as big a range of units as possible!
-
Any chance the TT tanks are big enough for Tide of Iron?
The U.K. tanks from TT are close to the U.K. tanks in ToI. The other TT tanks are slightly smaller than ToI but the ToI tanks are far from uniform scale themselves.
-
I think they should work. Especially using the larger tanks.
-
CWO Marc-
Sounds like the two of us have the same pieces and thus share the same views and opinions about “the unit scale debate”, I agree word for word and thought for thought with your entire post! I could not have said it any better.
Thanks for a very well thought and worded post!
Thoes426 :evil: -
-
Continuing what CWO said, I would argue against Table Tactics making infantry pieces. FMG has two different infantry units for each nation, and I think any more will be overkill.
I would focus more on actual vehicles/tanks/planes/extra unit classes. Some ideas:
Self-propelled artillery – Katyushas, M7 Priest, Wespe, etc. A good idea in the A&A universe, and a logical development to artillery.
Recon unit – Smaller tank/armored car (Hotchkiss, for example)
Escort Carrier – Smaller carrier than fullsize
My main recommendation? Focus on filling out 1939-1941 units. Your French set, by definition, will be in that period, so it would be worthwhile to have the other sets have at least 1 tank from that period (I.e., a PzII/T-26/M3). That way, you have a unit set that can be used for any 1939 scenarios or even Spanish Civil War scenarios.
-
I use original MB carriers as escort carriers 8-)
-
I use original MB carriers as escort carriers 8-)
-
OUCH! :?
-
OK, serious question;
Does anybody think that by having different classes of tanks, artillery, infantry , planes ,etc. opens up the inevitable fact that the combat system would have to be expanded to a 12d system to accommidate all these units. the 6d system seems stretched to the max to me. what do you think? -
In answer to the “Isn’t the d6-based system already maxed out?” question, I have 2 comments:
1. If it does get to the point where there’s too many variations for a d6-based system, I say, fine; I’ve got plenty of d12’s that I could use. And then one could even go hog-wild and start introducing d4, d8, and d10 units… Why not? They already do it in TWG and in A&A Battle of the Bulge… MB’s Gamemaster series already did it in Shogun and in Fortress America… and I’d already started doing it in my own A&A-inspired creations even before I’d had the opportunity to fully explore all of those systems.
2. Nevertheless, I think there’s still room left in the d6 world for more possibilities than currently exist in A&A40. For instance, here’s how I would do a system that adds a couple of units without going to d12’s. This also doesn’t include other unit types whose key advantages consist chiefly in special abilities rather than these sort of pure fighting stats listed below. For instance, there could be:
- a “super-transport” that can carry more stuff across the water, but can’t participate in amphibious landings (shaped like an oceanliner?)
- a “super-carrier” that can carry more planes/ take more hits (?)
Unit Attack Defense Move Cost
Infantry 1 2 1 3
Elite Infantry* 2 2 1 4
Armored Infantry 2 2 2 4
Artillery 2 3 1 5
Armor 3 2 2 5
Heavy Armor 3 3 2 6
Fighter 3 4 4 12
Tac Bomber 4 2 4 12
Bomber 2 (x2) 1 6 15
Submarine 2 1 2 8
Destroyer 2 2 3 12
Cruiser 3 3 3 18
Battleship 4 4 2 24
Superbattleship 5 5 2 30*Elite Infantry lacks the built-in mobility of armored infantry, but would have other specialized advantages, like a bonus for amphibious landings for marines or an ability to attack by air for airborne troops.
-
OOps… I keep trying to get these table things to line up, but they never do. Hopefully, you can interpret the mess above and get my point.
-
Continuing what CWO said, I would argue against Table Tactics making infantry pieces. FMG has two different infantry units for each nation, and I think any more will be overkill.
I would focus more on actual vehicles/tanks/planes/extra unit classes. Some ideas:
Self-propelled artillery – Katyushas, M7 Priest, Wespe, etc. A good idea in the A&A universe, and a logical development to artillery.
Recon unit – Smaller tank/armored car (Hotchkiss, for example)
Escort Carrier – Smaller carrier than fullsize
My main recommendation? Focus on filling out 1939-1941 units. Your French set, by definition, will be in that period, so it would be worthwhile to have the other sets have at least 1 tank from that period (I.e., a PzII/T-26/M3). That way, you have a unit set that can be used for any 1939 scenarios or even Spanish Civil War scenarios.I disagree on the Infantry: FMG’s two Italian Infantry are practically identical except for weapons. I’d like to see:
- one in the “Folgore Division” uniform and (especially) helmet to be used for the paratrooper
- at least one other in a more visibly different uniform, perhaps a “X MAS” (“Decima Mas”) dude with beret that could be used either as some sort of “elite” or employed in some different political scenerios or an “Alpini” with their distinctive cap… or even a bersigliari
-
For Dr. Larsen:
| Unit
Infantry
Elite Infantry*
Armored Infantry
Artillery
Armor
Heavy Armor
Fighter
Tac Bomber
Bomber
Submarine
Destroyer
Cruiser
Battleship
Superbattleship | Attack
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
2(x2)
2
2
3
4
5 |
Defense
2
2
2
3
2
3
4
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
| Move
1
1
2
1
2
2
4
4
5
2
3
3
2
2 | Cost
3
4
4
5
5
6
12
12
15
8
12
18
24
30 | -
Re: The infantry units.
Having the OOB infantry unit and 3 other types is a bit much for a game where visual identification is key.
I also think it is much harder to sculpt infantry than units (more cost for Table Tactics)
-
Thanks, reloader! (Is there some secret to it that I’m missing, btw?)
Back to the topic at hand: I concur that it might be more difficult. If TT thinks that this increased difficulty is a problem, then I agree that he is best focusing his efforts elsewhere, no question. Go where you have a comparitive advantage and/or a market opening, and don’t try to do what you can’t do well.
I would say, though that as long as he could do pieces at least as good as OOB A&A infantry figures, there’s still some potential here. That is, however, assuming he can match colors and sizes near perfectly, though, as I have HO’s for nearly everything I could ask for, but would still replace them in a minute for pieces that “fit” better.
Of course you’re right that visual identification is key, but here the fact that different units that would be good candidates used either different headgear or different small arms or both makes ID not too difficult, I think. Here headgear is important, because it’s easy to distinguish from a distance. Examples of distinctive headgear that could be seen on different units which may or may not be a part of FMG’s “list” include:
-Italian “Folgore” paratrooper with distinctive para helmet
-Italian “X MAS” soldier with distinctive beret
-Italian “Alpini” or “Bersiglieri” with distinctive hats
-British para’s with distinctive para helmet
-British commandos with distinctive cap
-ANZAC soldier with distinctive hat
-German “Fallschirmjager” with distinctive para helmet
-US para with distinctive helmetIt’s already fairly certain, it seems like, that FMG won’t be doing any of these Italian options. I also seem to recall that he said that his ANZAC’s would be recasts of his Brits in another color. I don’t remember what he said about Brit, German or American para’s or Brit commandos, but if FMG neglects these, I see them as opportunities.
Suggested Topics
