@SuperbattleshipYamato I fixed it now! :) Should be good to go!
Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
-
b-29 for usa defentely(heavy bomber)
m-29 peshering(hevey tank)2 more things. 1)im verry impressed at the time between molds!
2)what nation is next?FMG has already stated that they plan on Germany next.
-
Does anybody know if FMG have declared the unit models for the Germany molds yet? I’d be most interested to know what they are planning! I would like to see:
Armour 1 - Pz Kpfw IV (I think it is the obvious choice; you don’t see too many Panthers or Tigers in France 1940!)
Armour 2 - Hummel or Wespe (I hope we will get a SPG, assault gun or some kind of mech. arty - Italy got the Semovente…)
Fighter - Messerschmitt Me109 (It is the staple workhorse fighter plane.)
Tac Bomber - JU 87 Stuka (You know it’s gotta be done!)
Strat Bomber - JU 88A-5 (The mainstay of the Luftwaffe bomber fleet?)
Those are a few ideas for starters… I’m hungry for the German pieces!! Bring them on! :-D
-
Does anybody know if FMG have declared the unit models for the Germany molds yet? I’d be most interested to know what they are planning! I would like to see:
Fighter - Messerschmitt Me109 (It is the staple workhorse fighter plane.)
Tac Bomber - JU 87 Stuka (You know it’s gotta be done!)
Strat Bomber - JU 88A-5 (The mainstay of the Luftwaffe bomber fleet?)FMG has stated they do not want to nor intend to repeat the molds of existing OOB figures. The BF(Me) 109 and Ju88 are OOB pieces, and the Stuka will almost certainly be in AAE40. Also, some images and discussion of German Air Pieces can be found on page 72.
-
German bomber will be Heinkel 111, Fighter could be FW-190.
The policy as stated was to not replicate existing OOB units… why? Because by making new molds you effectively double the units.
For example: it would be possible to make a Battle of Britain game with no fewer than 6 national plane sculpts using both inventories of pieces.
So all these units have to be different. Heinkel 111 was a primary bomber and the best looking one at that.
-
FMG has stated they do not want to nor intend to repeat the molds of existing OOB figures. The BF(Me) 109 and Ju88 are OOB pieces, and the Stuka will almost certainly be in AAE40. Also, some images and discussion of German Air Pieces can be found on page 72.
They should make the most popular pieces. Who cares if WOTC already made them. The FMG pieces will be better.
-
@Brain:
FMG has stated they do not want to nor intend to repeat the molds of existing OOB figures. The BF(Me) 109 and Ju88 are OOB pieces, and the Stuka will almost certainly be in AAE40. Also, some images and discussion of German Air Pieces can be found on page 72.
They should make the most popular pieces. Who cares if WOTC already made them. The FMG pieces will be better.
we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’d rather see the FW190, an HE111 and Me 110 (or Hs 129) rather than duplicate molds, considering they all were decorated and capable planes. And I’d rather see a typhoon than another spitfire and certainly not another A6M Zero mold.
-
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.
-
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
Suggested Topics
