Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

I really don’t understand why people want the Pershing.  I’m all for tech units but not in the normal US set.  The Pershing, no matter who caused it Larsen, was not deployed in WW2 but for a matter of months.  It is silly to put in a heavy tank because the US did not use heavy tanks, as you have pointed out in other posts.  I agree with you on some things, like the 76mm Sherman, but not the Pershing.  I would be very disappointed if the Pershing was included in the US set.  FMG has said he is doing a tech piece set, Coachofmany is doing supplement sets as well, ask for the Pershing in those sets.  The US set should be a Sherman and a Tank Destroyer, period.  We can argue about models, but the US had a tank destroyer doctrine not a heavy tank doctrine and for better or worse that is how they fought WW2.

its the Baltimore class, i made a mistake i was looking at the wrong name. and yeah i agree with dadler i guess the Pershing can just be a tech unit for later, BUT i would still love to see the m18, cause for me when i was young that was my first
ww2 US toy tank. so when i think US tank i usually think about the m18 first

I think the 2 US Armor pieces should be the M3 Stuart light tank and a tank destroyer/SP.  Then again, I wanted a Panzer III and Tiger I for the Germans.  I think all the nations should have at least 1 light tank in their inventory.

From a game perspective, I’d rather see a “heavy” tank “upgrade” than a “light” tank “downgrade,” since the light tank begins to intrude on Mech unit capabilities.  In game terms the only situation where it would have made more sense to reverse this is in the case of the Germans, since they have a unit that oob was arguably more of a “heavy” unit.

I also understand that AA fans like to see units that are “iconic” and that there can be some real tension between what makes sense game-wise and what fits best historically.  Still, though, I’d rather see those who are making pieces that are “upgrades” to oob making units that are also “upgrades” to the “standard” units oob given the choice.  That’s why I’m also hoping to see the BB units from FMG be representatives of the best each nation had to offer, so that it gives us a true “super-BB” option.  Of course, if we can have both, that changes everything…  Thus, if FMG was making 2 BB’s for the US and Japan, that whole, long multipage argument between me and Imperious would have been unnecessary…

If you don’t check in here at least every other day you can really miss some good stuff!
Nice tread from DrLarsen/IL.Been working too much(plus trying to get a drugy tenant out) and missed some great entertainment.I love the idea of the Pershing however
futuristic it seems.But the Atlanta/Sumers/Gearing rocks! I know you guys are aware that the Shinano was laid down as a Yamato(as well as the # 111) and that the B64 was never considered to be a BC but just the next step in the evolution of the Jap. heavy cruiser(as the US did the Alaskas).Great job on the discussion of the Jap./US releases guys.

lol so true

@knp7765:

I think the 2 US Armor pieces should be the M3 Stuart light tank and a tank destroyer/SP.  Then again, I wanted a Panzer III and Tiger I for the Germans.  I think all the nations should have at least 1 light tank in their inventory.

Coachofmany has said he will make a Stuart in his US set so FMG really doesn’t have to make one.  Stick with a 76mm Sherman and a TD (M18!) FMG.

@Imperious:

The decision on making a late war versus early war should be based on the use of the unit in the actual war.

First consider the number of units made during war. Volume rates higher.

Next consider when it was in use

If the late war unit arrives in late 1944, forget it.

If the early war unit is not used past 1940, forget it

If the early war unit was used from 1939-42 and the late war unit was a 43-45, so with early war

If the unit was used from 1940-45 , go with that

The truth will be that some units depending on nation will be early mid or late, with no preference for any except for the number produced, time they were in use, and combat experience.

This means no Me-264, Comets, Pershings, He 162, Hortons, lazers, Shinano battleships, Godzilla, etc…

Note that by this measure there should be no Tiger II’s, which FMG has already decided to do…

In any case, the game should be about what “could have” been rather than what was, because if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be a game… at least it wouldn’t be a very interesting game because it would always unfold in exactly the same way!  Would such a thing even BE a game?  It’s a philosophical question, I suppose.

Now Imperious, throwing in things such as “Godzilla” and “lazers” is both a false analogy and the sort of straw man argument that gentlemen ought not to engage in.  Clearly there are conflicting preferences and presuppositions involved in these arguments.  When faced with the range of units that could be included, your preferences are clearly different than mine.  I prefer consistency and comparability between units so that the overall piece set has a maximum of coherence within each nation’s piece set and between the different nations’ piece sets.  You want a maximum of historical accuracy.  We have some presuppositional differences behind our arguments.  That does not mean that either of us are absurd or irrational in these preferences.

@dadler12:

@knp7765:

I think the 2 US Armor pieces should be the M3 Stuart light tank and a tank destroyer/SP.  Then again, I wanted a Panzer III and Tiger I for the Germans.  I think all the nations should have at least 1 light tank in their inventory.

Coachofmany has said he will make a Stuart in his US set so FMG really doesn’t have to make one.  Stick with a 76mm Sherman and a TD (M18!) FMG.

I find both of these to be fairly acceptable compromises, especially as both would clearly contrast with oob if done right, and there is some substantial capability difference between the two; the M18 Hellcat may not be the hardest-hitting TD we could find, but it’s remarkable speed actucally makes it a viable light-tank substitute…

Just wanted to share a funny picture sent to me by production dept.

NEED I SAY MORE?

WOW They look better than I thought they would. That is why I say I am replacing my units with FMG. They are AWESOME Jeremy. Thank you. Can’t wait to order and see these on my table.

@FieldMarshalGames:

Just wanted to share a funny picture sent to me by production dept.

Great picture!  You could say that it illustrates the advantage that true tanks have over tank destroyers: they have rotating turrents!

Yeah, Jeremy, these got to have rotating turrets.  :-)

Lookin great!  Thanks for the update!

@Imperious:

This is why the consistency approach is also faulty since not all nations employed various types of units to the same degree and to pull out drawing board inventions that never were built is not representing this war, but a fantasy war.

IL, it seems to me that sometimes you are missing the point of this game.  It IS a fantasy war/game.  Did Sealion ever actually happen?  Did the Germans take Moscow?  Did the Japanese actually invade Hawaii, or Australia, or India?  Did the Italians ever wipe out the British and conquer all of Africa?  No, of course not.  Now how many times do you think that has happened in playing this game?
I understand your wanting historically accurate pieces and maybe you have a point in wanting the earlier equipment since this game starts in 1940, with many people enjoying the 1939 variants.  However, when you make your arguments that “No late war pieces should be made”, it sounds like you only play your game the way WW2 historically happened;  Germany blitzkriegs Europe, Pearl Harbor brings US in war, Allies invade Africa, then Italy, then Normandy and drive into Germany while the Russians take Berlin.  Meanwhile, the Allies island hop through the Pacific, destroy the Japanese fleet around the Philippines and finally end the war by nuking Japan.  But wait, we don’t have atom bomb pieces yet.  Well maybe you can get FMG to make one with the US set so you can truly end every game with historical accuracy.

Having heavy tanks, bigger bombers, longer range fighters or even jet fighters is not a bad thing.  It could actually add an extra edge to the game.  What’s more is it doesn’t really matter what units of any type are made, be them early war, mid war or late war, because unless you have special house rules for dealing with these units, they will all still have the same values in the game.  A battleship will still attack and defend at 4, move 2 and take 2 hits to sink whether it is the USS Arizona or the USS Missouri.  A tank will still attack and defend at 3, move 2 and cost 6 IPCs whether it be a Sherman or a Pershing.

but its a historical war game still, the idea of light, medium and heavy armore still sounds good to me. in the case of ships theres a whole range i would like as many warships being represented as possible. and if fmg wont do it, coach might so the possibility of getting what we want is still there. what im more concerned about is if FMG is going to make Americans close to oob, because i heard that teh combat dice are closer to oob marines from pac 2001

@Lunarwolf:

what im more concerned about is if FMG is going to make Americans close to oob, because i heard that teh combat dice are closer to oob marines from pac 2001

I don’t know about the marine mold color, specifically, but there’s an obvious difference between combat dice (kelly/hunter) green and OOB green.

@knp7765:

@Imperious:

This is why the consistency approach is also faulty since not all nations employed various types of units to the same degree and to pull out drawing board inventions that never were built is not representing this war, but a fantasy war.

IL, it seems to me that sometimes you are missing the point of this game.  It IS a fantasy war/game.  Did Sealion ever actually happen?  Did the Germans take Moscow?  Did the Japanese actually invade Hawaii, or Australia, or India?  Did the Italians ever wipe out the British and conquer all of Africa?  No, of course not.  Now how many times do you think that has happened in playing this game?
I understand your wanting historically accurate pieces and maybe you have a point in wanting the earlier equipment since this game starts in 1940, with many people enjoying the 1939 variants.  However, when you make your arguments that “No late war pieces should be made”, it sounds like you only play your game the way WW2 historically happened;  Germany blitzkriegs Europe, Pearl Harbor brings US in war, Allies invade Africa, then Italy, then Normandy and drive into Germany while the Russians take Berlin.  Meanwhile, the Allies island hop through the Pacific, destroy the Japanese fleet around the Philippines and finally end the war by nuking Japan.  But wait, we don’t have atom bomb pieces yet.  Well maybe you can get FMG to make one with the US set so you can truly end every game with historical accuracy.

Having heavy tanks, bigger bombers, longer range fighters or even jet fighters is not a bad thing.  It could actually add an extra edge to the game.  What’s more is it doesn’t really matter what units of any type are made, be them early war, mid war or late war, because unless you have special house rules for dealing with these units, they will all still have the same values in the game.  A battleship will still attack and defend at 4, move 2 and take 2 hits to sink whether it is the USS Arizona or the USS Missouri.  A tank will still attack and defend at 3, move 2 and cost 6 IPCs whether it be a Sherman or a Pershing.

Amen!  Preach on, Brother K!

Two quick points to reinforce this:

1. The “fantasy” aspect of this war game stretches not only to the questions of strategy, tactics, & operations, but also production and research!  The decisions the “armchair field marshalls” of A&A have to make relate not only to what to attack with what and what to defend, but also what to buy and what techs to research, etc.  I remember as a kid thinking that research was pretty useless until the first time I had someone overwhelm my “Reich” with “heavy bombers” doing constant SB runs on me!  And having the pieces opens the door to experimenting with all sorts of production and research options.  What’s more, having options like a “light/ medium/ heavy” tank option (or perhaps a tank/SP/TD option) for each nation allows the player to grapple with some of those same production choices and maybe do them a little differently.  Perhaps McNair was largely right that mass-producting Shermans was more important than getting the Pershing out ASAP… Perhaps the fact that the US and USSR produced so many tanks while the Germans wasted so many resources on Tigers was a part of why the Germans lost the war… but it still could be fun to try some alternatives.

(btw, keep in mind, though, that though the US and USSR certainly did prioritize medium tank mass production over heavy tank production, the sum total of German Tiger, Tiger II, Elefant, Jagdtiger & Sturmtiger production combined still doesn’t come close to the wartime production of either the American Pershing or the Soviet JS-2–just to set the record straight.)

2. Even without resorting to 12-siders, which is probably a good idea anyway, we did come up with a way of fitting just about every size and type of WW2 AFV into the range of possiblilities, so having the pieces to do it can open up all sorts of tactical options without even stretching the basic A&A combat system much.  I believe someone even came up with a formula to this effect, something like Attack + Defense + Move - 1= Cost (in IPC’s)