Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

The US old-BB’s had long war-time careers all right… in secondary and rear-echelon missions.  The new BB’s, like Washington, North Carolina and South Dakota were all right in the thick of things as soon as they were finished, and all were taking front-line hits as early as Guadalcanal.  Check your Guadalcanal facts.  New BB’s operated with the main “Blue Water” battle-fleets meant to duke it out with the Japanese Combined Fleet ASAP (it alternated between being called 3rd/5th, depending on whether it was Halsey’s or Spruance’s turn to command) whereas the old-BB’s were grouped with the transports, CVE’s & DE’s of the 7th Fleet in what was supposed to be a supporting role in MacArthur’s “Brown Water Navy”… and that was in the “Late War” era, late 1944, actually.  For the entire first half of the war the former denizons of “Battleship Row” were either being rebuilt/ modernized or were cooling their heals in San Diego…

The new-BB’s were the US “front line” battleships, not the old-BB’s from the point of Pearl Harbor to the signing of the armistace (on the Missori, Halsey’s flag ship, no less!)  And there were 10 of them built (to only 10 Japanese old BB’s: double check your figures)  Oh, and the Yamato wasn’t a 1-off: it was to be the first of 4.  That it ended up being only the first of 2 was an accident of history that could have gone the other way.  If the Japanese hadn’t changed their building priorities after Midway, and had incurred the same losses as they did in Guadalcanal and elsewhere, there would have been more Yamato’s in their fleet than any other single BB class by the time of the Leyte Gulf conflict, and their 7 remaining old BB’s would have accounted for much less of their BB total tonnage than their four Yamato’s.

FMG should do a proper Yamato and we can use the oob Japanese BB’s as the old BB’s.  They look like pagoda-masts to me anyway.  Hopefully then, Coach will do some proper “Pagoda’s” for us and we’ll have the best of both worlds!

M35 (Pershing as second choice)  both late war M36 saw action in Sept 1944. How nice to have these in global 1940,4 years early.

Yes, because the US tanks ENTERED the war late.  And so would tanks likely in A&A, since it will take time for the US to build them!  THIS IS MY POINT!

Pershing was like the last month of the war. ridiculous

Yes, but this easily could have been different if the US had chosen different building priorities! THIS IS MY POINT!  In any case, I’ve conceded that the Pershing would be a good choice as a tech unit for a “heavy tanks” tech that Germany could be given free as a “National Advantage” but which the others would have to research according to their priorities…

Transport: Liberty Ship

SS: GATO CLASS

DD: SUMNER CLASS (Fletcher as second choice)

CA: BALTIMORE CLASS (Wichita as second choice, then Cleveland, then Brooklyn)

You critique my choices as oob when yours are too!  …and Baltimore is not, I repeat NOT, oob, and doesn’t even look much like the oob Portland.  Neither is the Sumner oob, and my Sumner has a gun arrangement more different from oob than your Gearing.

Essex saw action in late 1943…again late war.

Yes, the Essex entered late in the war… because the US was practically out of carriers between Guadalcanal and the entry of the Essexes and had to reorganize their battle fleet around them in order to wage the second half of the war!  Again, as I said earlier, the early war US and Japanese fleets had nearly annihilated each other by 1943 and the US then went on to win the war largely with the new ships it had built… much as is likely to happen in any scenerio of A&A where the US wins!  In A&A, the drama comes from the Axis trying to win the war before the allies can get in gear and build up, and the allies try to hold them up until they can get their new stuff into the field.  I want FMG to offer us some of that exciting new stuff, not the obsolete old stuff that was barely adequate.  His excellent pieces should be of excellent ships, planes and tanks, not of mediocre ones!

Do the new, FMG!  DO THE NEW!

Bomber: B-29 (B-24 as second choice)–this is late war

Yes, the B-29 was also late-war, but it was THE BOMBER that bombed the heck out of Japan… because it was the only plane that could!  That’s why they were nearly all sent to the Pacific rather than to Europe: it was the only bomber with the necessary range to hit Japan from the Marianas.  And please note that it looks pretty different from the oob B-17!

I do concede that it might also be a good “heavy bombers” or “long-range bombers” tech piece… which is why I offer the B-24 as a 2nd choice.  But I do hope SOMEONE does it!

i still rather see variety, and I will continue to push for it. These pieces would not be worth buying for someone like me, if half the pieces looked like the pieces that came with the game. So please FMG try to stay away from duplicating pieces as possible. also i would like to add that i agree with IL early war is important Especially for those of us that want to play 1939 scenarios, and weapons that were used the most should be represented, Although i would like seeing a Pershing i would rather it replace the Sherman.

I find it funny that certain people are saying that FMG should make “early war” pieces because many of our games start in 1940.  However, the majority of people ALSO want the P-51 Mustang for the US fighter piece and it didn’t come out until 1944.  So all the US equipment should be the older, less reliable stuff EXCEPT for the fighter, which was not only “late war” but also the best fighter in the war.  Nonsense.

I agree with you Dr Larsen.  FMG pieces should be all of the best equipment that each nation had to offer, like Iowa and Yamato BBs, and not the older, less reliable models.  Let coachofmany include some of those models in his supplement sets.  OR, once all nations are finished, perhaps FMG could come out with new, early war sets.  For these first sets though, use the best models that were actually used in numbers during the war.  In other words, for example, the German fighter should be the Me109 or Fw190 and NOT the Me262.  Sure, the Me262 was probably the best fighter since it was a jet, but there were many more Me109s and Fw190s.

@Lunarwolf:

i still rather see variety, and I will continue to push for it. …So please FMG try to stay away from duplicating pieces as possible. …early war [sculpts] are important Especially for those of us that want to play 1939 scenarios… Although i would like seeing a Pershing i would rather it replace the Sherman. [and have the P-51 Mustang for as the iconic american fighter.]

Valid points. I hope FMG is listening.

The OOB piece for the japanese CV look like the first picture, though they are supposed to look like the second picture.  Also, both carriers look like classic UK or US carriers.

I’m holding the oob piece in my hand and looking at both pictures in you links and I simply can’t imagine that you say you’re seeing what you’re seeing.  oob clearly looks like the second picture, not the first.  What is more, the first picture looks much more like the “typical Japanese carrier”, including smallish superstructure and pylons, but is a balanced and finished-looking ship.  I think that the Shokaku would be a good choice for FMG, because it does have that “typically Japanese” look, (as much as it can be said to exist), whereas Kaga and Akagi look like unfinished monstrousities, and the Hiryu/Soryu/Unryu series is just simply small and unimpressive.  What’s more, the Shokaku class represents, short of Taiho, which I admit was a bit of a “black swan,” the best of Japanese technology… and was available at the war’s beginning, so it doesn’t fall into the “early vs. late” controversy at all.

Note also that the Taiho and Shinano do look much alike; IL, are you sure you’re not confusing the Shokaku with the Taiho?  Shokaku looks nothing like the Shinano and nothing like oob!

If we insist that FMG shouldn’t do oob, I’d say the logical choice for US BB is still a new BB: Washington and South Dakota were battle-winners at Guadalcanal, but no old BB’s were brought into action until late in the war.  Note that: new-BB’s were decisive early war battle-winners, but old-BB’s only had a brief moment to shine 2 years later.  Ironic, perhaps, but true!

Oh, and take another look at the oob “Yamato” mast… it’s not just Kongo-high, it’s Fuso-high!  Two quick cuts of an exacto to remove the overhang on the stern and you have an old-style pagoda-BB.

@knp7765:

I find it funny that certain people are saying that FMG should make “early war” pieces because many of our games start in 1940.  However, the majority of people ALSO want the P-51 Mustang for the US fighter piece and it didn’t come out until 1944.  So all the US equipment should be the older, less reliable stuff EXCEPT for the fighter, which was not only “late war” but also the best fighter in the war.  Nonsense.

I agree with you Dr Larsen.  FMG pieces should be all of the best equipment that each nation had to offer, like Iowa and Yamato BBs, and not the older, less reliable models.  Let coachofmany include some of those models in his supplement sets.  OR, once all nations are finished, perhaps FMG could come out with new, early war sets.  For these first sets though, use the best models that were actually used in numbers during the war.  In other words, for example, the German fighter should be the Me109 or Fw190 and NOT the Me262.  Sure, the Me262 was probably the best fighter since it was a jet, but there were many more Me109s and Fw190s.

First P-51 Mustang aerial victory was in Aug. 1942 by an American flying for the RCAF. The first U.S. unit to fly the Mustang was the 154th observation squadron in Morocco in April,May 1943.

FMG stick with the iconic units that will sell best.  The early war pieces can always be made later or supplemented by coachofmany.  Do not be swayed to make exclusively early war models or you will not sell as many as you would like.

All this late war/early war model griping about the p51 seems to ignore something that should be obvious…  If one or the other (fmg or oob) is early or late war, it doesn’t matter if a P51 D is in with FMG early war naval units…

'Cause, duh, we already have an early war fighter!  The freaking P38 was in service in mid '41 and the only plane in production throughout the entirety of the war.

That said, all this early war/late war mumbo jumbo was moot with the German units.  At this point we don’t have an FW190 for late war, or a Scharnhorst for BB, etc etc etc.  Doubles are already in play.

I guess I’m the only one that’s WAY more concerned about the color of the US units.  The combat dice green is… well…  not MY favorite.  But I guess I’m alone.

@kcdzim:

I guess I’m the only one that’s WAY more concerned about the color of the US units.  The combat dice green is… well…  not MY favorite.  But I guess I’m alone.

I’m hoping that also FMG also produces a OOB green along with combat dice like they announced that they will do with the gray and OOB black German versions.

I for one would buy both.

I really want FMG to match OOB colors.

Otherwise, these might as well be xeno games pieces - I’ve never had a problem with the quality of the pieces, but the variety. I.e., give us more stuff!

@Imperious:

Do not be swayed to make exclusively early war models or you will not sell as many as you would like.

Nobody said this. What was actually said was to make the most common unit that fought most of the time and avoid models that look like OOB. The other side if you read their posts just wants late war units which is extreme point of view. My point of view is most flexible, as some units may be early, mid, or late war.

Because we are favoring the most common and unique look of the unit that saw the most actions in the war, this can be from any part of the war.

P-51 midwar
JU-87 early war
Tiger tank late war
Lexington early war
Liberty ship midwar
Kongo early war

Don’t pick on my quotes IL, I’m not trying to start anything with you.  I do not advocate the Pershing, or any other dumb unit choices, read my posts.  I was trying to let FMG know that some people are not upset with his unit choices.  That’s all.

@reloader-1:

I really want FMG to match OOB colors.

Otherwise, these might as well be xeno games pieces - I’ve never had a problem with the quality of the pieces, but the variety. I.e., give us more stuff!

Agreed.  I’m waiting for OOB colors or something close to it.  I hope the Germany black units come out soon because I’m not that interested in buying the Gray units.

Isn’t the  P38 an early war fighter for the United States? So Fmg would be filling in the gap between early and late if they were to produce Mustangs. So I still push for P51 Mustang. i find it kind of funny how FMG hasn’t replied about the Americans in a while, i wonder if its already to late to make these changes =/

If we followed what Larson wants the standard German fighter should be the Horton flying wing or He-162, and the standard German tank should be the Maus. Yea good move.  Just inflate the units like Pershing tank of which a whole 20 or so saw service in the last month of the war. Lets just ignore all the units that fought in 1939-1943 and keep making games based on 1940 using units that didn’t exist till 1944 or 1945 like the Pershing tank. because we must ignore old units with distinguished service records and hype stupid drawing board uber late war units that “could have seen action”

Dude, IL, you’re simply misrepresenting my points entirely.  I’ve already conceded that maybe the Pershing would be best as a “tech” unit, and offered the Late-War Sherman and M36 as reasonable compromises, both of which say plenty of action, and both of which were produced in greater numbers than EITHER Tiger variation.  But note that the Pershing was far from being a “stupid drawing board” unit.  It was not at all a technological stretch for the US automotive industry and was only delayed by poor Ordnance Dept decision-making.  Here’s a quote from Wikipedia on the events that prevented the Pershing’s fielding in time for Normandy:

Gen. Lesley J. McNair was head of Army Ground Forces. McNair, an artilleryman, championed the tank destroyer doctrine within the U.S. Armored Forces. Tanks were to support the infantry, exploit breakthroughs, and avoid tank-to-tank battles. Enemy tanks were to be engaged by the tank destroyer force, composed of a mix of towed and self-propelled tank destroyers. Towed “tank destroyers” were towed antitank guns. Self-propelled tank destroyers, called “gun motor carriages”, were similar to tanks but were lightly armored with open topped turrets. The tank destroyers were supposed to be faster and carry a more powerful anti-tank gun than tanks; armor was sacrificed for speed. The tank destroyer doctrine played a large role in the lack of urgency in improving the firepower of the M4 Sherman, as the emphasis was on its role as infantry support.[37]

McNair approved the 76 mm upgrade to the M4 Sherman and production of the 90 mm M36 tank destroyer, but he staunchly opposed development of the T26 and other proposed heavy tanks during the crucial period of 1943 because he saw no “battle need” for them.

In mid-1943, Lt. General Devers, commander of U.S. forces in the European Theater of Operations (ETO), asked for 250 T26s for use in the invasion of France. McNair refused. Devers appealed to General George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff. Marshall summarily ordered the tanks to be provided to the ETO as soon as they could be produced. Soon after the Normandy invasion, General Dwight D. Eisenhower urgently requested heavy tanks (now designated M26 Pershing), but McNair’s continued opposition delayed production. General Marshall intervened again and the tanks were eventually brought into production. However, only a few saw combat on February 25, 1945, too late to have any effect on the battlefield.[38]

This was no “pipe-dream” flying wing prototype here!  This was actually technology that was ready and available for production, but was held up by the stubbornness of a few bureaucratic big-wigs.  Since the Germans did take the step to field a very comparable tank, I’m prepared to say, yes, give the Germans a heavy tank tech for free as a national advantage and make the US invest in it, but I’d also like to see the A&A armchair generals out there not be forced to make the same decisions as old head-full-of-air General McNair.  But since FMG is only doing two tanks, I’ll concede, OK, let’s compromise on the Late-War Sherman and the M36, both of which saw plenty of action and both of which gives FMG some differentiation beyond oob, which in nearly every other category seems to be your over-riding concern!  An early-war Sherman give FMG yet more oob clones…