While I have your attention.
Lets talk American Bombers.
What do ya’l think about the Liberator? It was actually the most common US bomber of the war and was produced more than an other US aircraft. I want to do something DIFFERENT from the WOTC units.
Your comments and feeling on this please.
The B-17 Flying Fortress:
While I have your attention.
Lets talk American Bombers.
What do ya’l think about the Liberator? It was actually the most common US bomber of the war and was produced more than an other US aircraft. I want to do something DIFFERENT from the WOTC units.
Your comments and feeling on this please.
The B-25 Mitchell:
While I have your attention.
Lets talk American Bombers.
What do ya’l think about the Liberator? It was actually the most common US bomber of the war and was produced more than an other US aircraft. I want to do something DIFFERENT from the WOTC units.
Your comments and feeling on this please.
The B-29 Super Fortress:
I LOVE that you are doing different units - that is the whole point for me, I am buying pieces to throw in the game and mix & match. For example, in Pacific 1940 I hate P-38’s on carriers, so I brought in F6F Hellcats from my old A&APacific game (Thanks WotC for keeping US colors the same) and have them as sea-based fighters and p-38’s as land based. There are no differences (game-wise) between the two, just aesthetics :-D
I like the B-24 - BUT, it looks like the stock UK bomber (Halifax). I vote for the B-29 :mrgreen:
I recently went to a touring WWII aviation show with my dad. We took a 1/2 hour flight in a B-17 (one of the few remaining functioning B-17s in the world). There was also a B-24 available for flight too that the pilots told us was the more rare find. Taking a flight in either was the same price but every single person there who paid took a flight in the B-17.
That being said, the B-17 is the iconic WWII American bomber. If you want to go by production numbers, then you could argue that a US marine wouldn’t be worthy of production either.
The point is I want to do a DIFFERENT unit. As it has been mentioned above, you can always mix your stock units to have more types!
The point is I want to do a DIFFERENT unit. As it has been mentioned above, you can always mix your stock units to have more types!
Yea, but mixing the crappy molds of the Hasbro models with the diamonds you plan on producing would seem a bit of a crime.
I agree that the B-24 would look too similar to the Halifax, unless you plan on doing a different UK strategic bomber.
What were you thinking about for the US air transport?
I have a PILE of B-17s, but I do agree with AllWork, that crappy ones next to yours would be a bit off.
I have always wanted B-25s. What if we used this as the U.S. Tactical Bomber? Would that be inappropriate? I just wanted to put one on carrier… :-D
I agree the B-24 looks a lot like the Halifax, but it will be in green instead of tan. For those painting them, what color were Halifax Bombers? I think the iconic US version was unpainted like Brain’s pic.
Finally, the B-29. I’m very mixed on this one. I really want them because of the popularity. But a few problems arise. First, they would be huge, like the Soviet bombers, but the US doesn’t have room on the map for that like the Russians do. Second, I always thought if this as a tech piece for LR Bombers. Ugh, so conflicted…
I guess my order of preference would be: B-25, B-24, B-17, then B-29 (only because I’m conflicted on this one).
Honestly, some of Hasbro’s models are pretty darn good - I actually like the B-17s, and from what I have seen FMG would be producing products as good and slightly better than Hasbro. Look at the new Panzer model, as well as the F6F Hellcat and the Spitfire… All of those are very good quality pieces. Also, I have yet to find a maker that models infantry pieces as good as Hasbro.
Mixing & matching is my whole idea - and I am sure that will be possible.
I agree with previous posters that this is one of the occurrences where WOTC got it right with the B-17’s, but for variety’s sake I vote for B-29’s. If nothing else they could be used for the Long Range/Heavy Bombers Tech pieces for the USA. Now if you’re talking US Fighters I vote for P-47’s, and I think that the B-25 would fill the more Tach Bomber Roll then a Strategic one.
Thanks, Entek.
I like your ideas, however I will say one thing in dissent - the P-47 is extremely similar to the F6F Hellcat (slight difference in canopy/greenhouse)
I think FMG is trying to go for “at-a-glance” recognizable figures - Hasbro scored points here with the P-38, as NOTHING else looks like it. With the P-38 and the F6F already being produced, I think a more logical choice would be the P-40 or the P-51
Note the difference between types:
Inline Engine - P-51
Inline Engine - P-40
Radial Engine - P-47
Radial Engine - F6F
Twin-Boom - P38
Naturally, the P-38 is one of the few twin-boom aircraft to have been succesfully used in WWII, so FMG will have to look elsewhere for Germany/Japan/UK. However, there is a wealth of dissimilar types, so it should be relatively easy.
The B-25 would not be a good choice for a tactical bomber in the AA games as they must be a good fit for the Aircraft carriers. I am assuming that FMG will have an SBD for that. @Entek:
I agree with previous posters that this is one of the occurrences where WOTC got it right with the B-17’s, but for variety’s sake I vote for B-29’s. If nothing else they could be used for the Long Range/Heavy Bombers Tech pieces for the USA. Now if you’re talking US Fighters I vote for P-47’s, and I think that the B-25 would fill the more Tach Bomber Roll then a Strategic one.
We do not want to get into a situation where we have two different tactical bombers similar to the deal in AAP40 where we got P-38s to put on the carriers. Then we had to rob F6Fs from another game for our navy. That would leave the B-24 and the B-29 as choices. Of course the B-29 would be a good fit for the heavy bomber tech.
I have a PILE of B-17s, but I do agree with AllWork, that crappy ones next to yours would be a bit off.
I have always wanted B-25s. What if we used this as the U.S. Tactical Bomber? Would that be inappropriate? I just wanted to put one on carrier… :-D
I agree the B-24 looks a lot like the Halifax, but it will be in green instead of tan. For those painting them, what color were Halifax Bombers? I think the iconic US version was unpainted like Brain’s pic.
Finally, the B-29. I’m very mixed on this one. I really want them because of the popularity. But a few problems arise. First, they would be huge, like the Soviet bombers, but the US doesn’t have room on the map for that like the Russians do. Second, I always thought if this as a tech piece for LR Bombers. Ugh, so conflicted…
I guess my order of preference would be: B-25, B-24, B-17, then B-29 (only because I’m conflicted on this one).
Yea - if it wasn’t the B-17, I’d say the B-25… Easy to distinguish from the Halifax by the number of engines and unique body style, and was used in every theater for the entire duration of the war (even used in the famous Doolittle Bombing Run after Pearl Harbor).
C-47 Skytrain should be the air transport in my opinion.
The B-25 would not be a good choice for a tactical bomber in the AA games as they must be a good fit for the Aircraft carriers. I am assuming that FMG will have an SBD for that. @Entek:
I agree with previous posters that this is one of the occurrences where WOTC got it right with the B-17’s, but for variety’s sake I vote for B-29’s. If nothing else they could be used for the Long Range/Heavy Bombers Tech pieces for the USA. Now if you’re talking US Fighters I vote for P-47’s, and I think that the B-25 would fill the more Tach Bomber Roll then a Strategic one.
We do not want to get into a situation where we have two different tactical bombers similar to the deal in AAP40 where we got P-38s to put on the carriers. Then we had to rob F6Fs from another game for our navy. That would leave the B-24 and the B-29 as choices. Of course the B-29 would be a good fit for the heavy bomber tech.
We’re talking strategic bombers.
For fighters, I say that the P-51 Mustang is the choice as far as historical importance.
C-47 is a definite! Who hasn’t heard of the DC-3?
I agree with previous posters that this is one of the occurrences where WOTC got it right with the B-17’s, but for variety’s sake I vote for B-29’s. If nothing else they could be used for the Long Range/Heavy Bombers Tech pieces for the USA. Now if you’re talking US Fighters I vote for P-47’s, and I think that the B-25 would fill the more Tach Bomber Roll then a Strategic one.
I’d prefer the B-24 to the B-29.
As for the tactical bomber fig featuring a B-25 Mitchell or B-26 Marauder… Well, it would allow the history geek to differentiate between the carrier dive bombers and the roll of medium bombers on land. The Dauntless is similar enough in appearance to the Helldiver and Avenger that with AA50 Hellcats mixed in, there’d be quite a few grummany looking flying bathtubs if another prototypical US divebomber were mixed in. Other options for tactical could be the P-39 as it had such a huge role in the pacific and was built around a 37mm cannon, but it was outclassed by pretty much everything as a fighter. But if it’s going to just be another grumman carrier torp bomber, then I vote Avenger.
And as a US fighter, well, I’d like a mustang or a P-40. The AA50 Hellcat looks enough like a P-47 for me. And a P-40 would finally get an accurate Flying Tiger.
And absolutely, a DC-3 (C-47) skytrain for transport.
I’d prefer the B-24 to the B-29.
As for the tactical bomber fig featuring a B-25 Mitchell or B-26 Marauder… Well, it would allow the history geek to differentiate between the carrier dive bombers and the roll of medium bombers on land. The Dauntless is similar enough in appearance to the Helldiver and Avenger that with AA50 Hellcats mixed in, there’d be quite a few grummany looking flying bathtubs if another prototypical US divebomber were mixed in. Other options for tactical could be the P-39 as it had such a huge role in the pacific and was built around a 37mm cannon, but it was outclassed by pretty much everything as a fighter. But if it’s going to just be another grumman carrier torp bomber, then I vote Avenger.
And as a US fighter, well, I’d like a mustang or a P-40. The AA50 Hellcat looks enough like a P-47 for me. And a P-40 would finally get an accurate Flying Tiger.
And absolutely, a DC-3 (C-47) skytrain for transport.
I would also love to see a B-24 piece, but I love the look of the B-29. It’s so art deco, which is also why I like the P-38.
B-26 would be great too for a TB, but a B-25 with the ability to “bring to bear 10 machine guns coming and four going, in addition to the 75 mm cannon, a brace of eight rockets and 3,000 lb (1,360 kg) of bombs.” would be awesome. I think that the P-51 looks closer to the F6F then a P-47. Don’t get me wrong I love the P-51, but I’d like to see something different like a P-47 or even a F4U Corsair. Isn’t the tac bomber we have an Avenger? A P-39 would be cool too, but that’s more of a fighter then a tac, I think a Dauntless or even a Devastator would be neat.
For the transport there is no question it has to be a C-47.
I would also love to see a B-24 piece, but I love the look of the B-29. It’s so art deco, which is also why I like the P-38.
B-26 would be great too for a TB, but a B-25 with the ability to “bring to bear 10 machine guns coming and four going, in addition to the 75 mm cannon, a brace of eight rockets and 3,000 lb (1,360 kg) of bombs.” would be awesome. I think that the P-51 looks closer to the F6F then a P-47. Don’t get me wrong I love the P-51, but I’d like to see something different like a P-47 or even a F4U Corsair. Isn’t the tac bomber we have an Avenger? A P-39 would be cool too, but that’s more of a fighter then a tac, I think a Dauntless or even a Devastator would be neat.
For the transport there is no question it has to be a C-47.
Really? You think this:
looks more like this:
than this?:
As for the corsair, well, the fact that the tactical has gull wings, I think too many people would get them confused. But I too like the corsair.
As far as the SBD Dauntless and Avenger… Well, the fig has no rear belly turret, the tail is somewhat rounded, and there’s a slight gullwing. So I thought it was a Dauntless.
The point is I want to do a DIFFERENT unit. As it has been mentioned above, you can always mix your stock units to have more types!
Yea, but mixing the crappy molds of the Hasbro models with the diamonds you plan on producing would seem a bit of a crime.
Agree totally, As far as I am concerned FMG pieces will completely replace the WOTC pieces.
And as far as I’m concerned they will supplement the WotC pieces! :evil:
FMG’s best course of action is to make great pieces, unique and well-made, in the OOB colors. Those who want them as stand alone pieces will be happy, and those who want to mix and match will also be happy!
And as far as I’m concerned they will supplement the WotC pieces! :evil:
FMG’s best course of action is to make great pieces, unique and well-made, in the OOB colors. Those who want them as stand alone pieces will be happy, and those who want to mix and match will also be happy!
Good news, we are all gonna be happy, even though you can’t please all of the people all the time.
