Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

Bah!  Compare these to what comes with the game - sweet Jesus, it’s like going from an old Yugo to a new Mercedes.  :-D

I’m glad the planes are flat on the bottom, like they are in flight.  With the TAC Bombers, WOTC made the Japanese TAC Bombers with pegs that represent landing gear.  It looks pretty cool when they are by themselves on the board but it’s hard to place them on aircraft carriers.  The Japanese carriers are wider than the others so I can fit the TAC Bombers on them but I don’t think they would fit right on the British and German carriers.

Man I can’t wait for these pieces.  I’ve got some money saved up and it’s burning a hole in my pocket.  I think I’m going to have to get all new containers for my combat pieces for all the different types.

By the way, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but with these latest pieces, that leaves only five units left until Italy is complete.

Submarine
Bomber
Trucks
Halftracks/Mech Infantry
Transport planes

Those are the last ones we are waiting on, right?  Didn’t Jeremy say that the Bunker/Pill Boxes and Task Force Markers were going on the common pieces set with the ICs, AA Guns, etc.?  If that’s the case, then we all just have five more units to be designed and then it will be ORDER TIME.

I love them…. except for the funky lines on the airplanes. I like the clean look of A&A airplanes (and ships) and FMG has copied that clean look in the ships, and gone Eagle Games on us in regards to the airplanes.

@reloader-1:

I love them…. except for the funky lines on the airplanes. I like the clean look of A&A airplanes (and ships) and FMG has copied that clean look in the ships, and gone Eagle Games on us in regards to the airplanes.

The lines on the fighters may be a bit much … I’d have to see one up close and personal to decide for myself, but the Tac bombers have (it seems) just the right amount of detail on them.  Personally I’d lose the extra lines on the wings and just leave the ones for whateverthosethingsarecalled that control the altitude.  Otherwise, stupendous!

@cminke:

ur wrong wheres transpotplanes, bunkers,ect…

@knp7765:

By the way, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but with these latest pieces, that leaves only five units left until Italy is complete.

Submarine
Bomber
Trucks
Halftracks/Mech Infantry
Transport planes

Those are the last ones we are waiting on, right?  Didn’t Jeremy say that the Bunker/Pill Boxes and Task Force Markers were going on the common pieces set with the ICs, AA Guns, etc.? If that’s the case, then we all just have five more units to be designed and then it will be ORDER TIME.

@knp7765:

I’m glad the planes are flat on the bottom, like they are in flight.  With the TAC Bombers, WOTC made the Japanese TAC Bombers with pegs that represent landing gear.  It looks pretty cool when they are by themselves on the board but it’s hard to place them on aircraft carriers.  The Japanese carriers are wider than the others so I can fit the TAC Bombers on them but I don’t think they would fit right on the British and German carriers.

Man I can’t wait for these pieces.  I’ve got some money saved up and it’s burning a hole in my pocket.  I think I’m going to have to get all new containers for my combat pieces for all the different types.

The OOB Japanese TAC bomber has visible landing gear because the actual airplane had fixed landing gear, not retractable landing gear.  Many prewar planes were not designed with retractable gear.  The Val (Japanese Tac Bomber) was designed in 1937, at the end of most fixed gear warplane design.  We can expect (hope) that the German Stuka will also have fixed landing gear if it is the OOB german tac bomber.  As for FMG’s planes, the models don’t have fixed gear because the aircraft they’re based on didn’t have fixed gear.  It’s accuracy, not gaming convenience.  I’d rather have the models retain their actual design elements.  The Stuka shouldn’t be flat, nor the Val.

I’m also not sold on the lines.  I was afraid they’d have them, and was disappointed to have my fears confirmed.  Flap lines don’t scale well.  On the Tac Bomber they’re much better than I expected, so maybe when we see some better pics I’ll be ok with them.  And at least there aren’t any rivets or sheet metal panel lines anywhere but the wings and engine cowling. The Tac is pulling it off because the mold is likely 1.5 times larger than the fighter, if it shares scale with OOB boxes, which explains why the lines appear more crisp and thinner.  I’d much prefer the fighter pared down.  Thus far, while I like the land units and sea units FMG’s shown, I would prefer the streamlined look that is scaled to actual proportions at expense of detail for the aircraft that the OOB pieces have.

@FieldMarshalGames:

They are all of the same quality… Some of the pictures are bad.  These were made from grainy factory pictures.

Can we expect better pictures?

I will have more pictures soon.  Once I have the first production samples I will make my own pictures and they will be the correct colour etc…

To “kcdzim”
Thanks for correcting me on the Tac Bombers.  I did not know that the Val had fixed landing gear like the Stuka.  In that case, you are right and they should have landing gear.  It still makes it hard to place them on carriers though.

To “Rorschach”
Thank you for bolding my list on upcoming pieces and correcting “cminke”.  I can certainly take criticism like anyone else because Lord knows I am not perfect but I don’t appreciate being told I am wrong then being asked about something which I put right there in plain sight.

By the way, just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.  I don’t understand why no one seems to like the lines on the planes.  I think they look great.  Like the extra detail of the suspension and engine covers on the tanks, that’s one main reason I was attracted to this project.  I think it is incredible that they can make such tiny pieces with such fine detail.  In fact, after seeing the pics of the new FMG pieces, I have become much more dissappointed with the WOTC pieces.  Then again, to each their own I guess.  Maybe the more detail/less detail debate can go in the column with the black/grey Germans debate.

Can’t wait to see the production pieces in their actual colors.  I am wondering if the detail will be as noticeable on the regular color pieces as they are on the light grey prototypes.  Anybody have some thoughts on that?

I can’t believe people are complaining that the pieces are too detailed. If you want less detail, then buy WOTC pieces.

@Brain:

I can’t believe people are complaining that the pieces are too detailed. If you want less detail, then buy WOTC pieces.

People will complain even if they were hung with a new rope.

@coachofmany:

@Brain:

I can’t believe people are complaining that the pieces are too detailed. If you want less detail, then buy WOTC pieces.

People will complain even if they were hung with a new rope.

This is all too true.

Funny enough, browsing EBay for some extra pieces the other day I noticed the old (1985 old) A&A pieces had more detail than the new ones do (specifically noting the fighters that actually had almost the same amount of line detail that these new FMG pieces look to have).

@knp7765:

By the way, just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.  I don’t understand why no one seems to like the lines on the planes.  I think they look great.  Like the extra detail of the suspension and engine covers on the tanks, that’s one main reason I was attracted to this project.  I think it is incredible that they can make such tiny pieces with such fine detail.  In fact, after seeing the pics of the new FMG pieces, I have become much more dissappointed with the WOTC pieces.  Then again, to each their own I guess.  Maybe the more detail/less detail debate can go in the column with the black/grey Germans debate.

Can’t wait to see the production pieces in their actual colors.  I am wondering if the detail will be as noticeable on the regular color pieces as they are on the light grey prototypes.  Anybody have some thoughts on that?

It’s a matter of scale translation.  The larger the piece, the more detail can be added before it muddies the works, the smaller scale the piece, the less detail is apprpriate.  An infantry unit or artillery can have much more detail than plane because they aren’t the same scale.  a 2" strap or belt is clearly visible and easily modeled on an infantry piece of this size.  a 1/8" to 1/4" rivetted panel joint is not only impossible to model accurately at this scale, it’s invisible at this scale.  A crystal clear photo of an actual airplane at the distance that it is the same size as a unit will be smooth and streamlined.  You might register cowling or the gasket around the windscreen and perhaps the joint where the wing connects to the fuselage, but unless the flaps and rudder were painted it’s unlikely you could not distinguish that joint.  It actually appears less realistic to add detail at such a small scale because it’s oversized and exaggerated, which is why I don’t care for it.  But that’s only MY opinion - take it as a grain of salt.

If FMG’s planes looked like these I would be ecstatic.  They LOOK like the actual aircraft - sleek, slim through the tail, scale wing thickness and size.  And those are larger pieces than the OOB planes.

@Yoper:

The air units only look a bit cartoonish because that is what they looked like in real life.  Many of the Italian designs had that distinctive engine cowling over their radial engines.  (See the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero for another example of distinctive engine cowlings.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_Ba.65

And the Macchi C.202 Folgore does indeed look very much like the picture that FMG provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_C.202

The lines in the wings and fuselage may be a bit exaggerated, but I will take that any day to get a country-specific unit.

Thanks Craig!

It has been a lot of fun doing the research for the project.  I found that the Italians had very distinctive and stylistic designs.  You will notice that most of their planes did have radial engines.  I have two more coming very soon to share.

Craig/Jeremy,

Don’t get me wrong - I LOVE the models, both are perfectly in scale and detailed. The only beef I have is dropping the lines on the side that are wing panels/etc.

The radial engine detail is exquisite - that can and should be kept the same, but have the sculptor smooth over the lines on the fighter. Look at the link that Craig posted - do you see any lines?

Hey “kcdzim”,
What game/set are these pieces from.  I haven’t seen them before.

@knp7765:

Hey “kcdzim”,
What game/set are these pieces from.  I haven’t seen them before.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1900

@Yoper:

The air units only look a bit cartoonish because that is what they looked like in real life.  Many of the Italian designs had that distinctive engine cowling over their radial engines.

And the Macchi C.202 Folgore does indeed look very much like the picture that FMG provided.

No, I understand that the Italian planes will look different.  I think the Tac looks great, and the plane choices are what I expected and I think fairly well executed.  My only beef is that by adding lines, the wings become thicker than scale, and at that point it’s not because it’s Italian design that they begin to appear cartoonish.

All that said, I agree.  We’ll take what we can get, and once molded in the semigloss national color the lines may be less obtrusive.  They just don’t strike me as particularly necessary from a design standpoint.  Just something I would have edited.  again, that’s just me.  They are at least MUCH MUCH better than the Singapore 1942 planes, and that gives me hope my favs: the Hawker Hurricane (or Typhoon), N1K George, P-51, FW-190, and ummm…  shucks… whatever Russian fighter is chosen.

How about the MiG-1?