Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    i would also get rid of the limit, although IL’s are symetrical i have yet to hear the historical reasoning behind them.

    In terms of what was capable the Americans and Germans raised the most Airborne, UK and Japan had less of these, and Italy and the Soviets had even fewer, though the Soviets claimed they had a few units they were poorly trained.

    a good game limits units by their utility not by some artificial cap.

    Well Airborne units are not just raised in a vacuum tube. It take years to develop them, and once they are gone they were very hard to replace. Look at the Germans after Crete and how it effected subsequent operations and how rinky dink operations were like at the Bulge. The cap makes it impossible to create huge armies of airborne units dropping every turn in interior lines as a tactic. They should be used a few times per game, and represent elite trained forces and not large scale armies of airborne. Airborne units were never larger than division level, while Army level is what an infantry piece represents. So a realistic game about WW2 would have some reflection albeit a very casual treatment of reality.

    also, if dont c how tanks keep airborne soldiers from getting to the rear and executing their first strike ability.

    Because Airborne are men with sub machine guns and are dropped with little provisions. Armor units are highly mobile and heavily armed units with lots of logistical support, So it stands to reason like at Arnhem when the largest airborne drop was made in History, that the airborne got wiped out because among other things it had to fight SS Waffen Panzer division that was resting. The same result may not have transpired if it was facing infantry like it was planned to fight.

    For every advantage you must have some disadvantage or counter to also make a good game.


  • '10

    the main porblem with those rules is that you have made transports obsolete

    id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war and airbourne units are very differently equiped from infatry units.

    I now think airbourne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once. airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.

    Emperor_Taiki

    I understand your concerns and you do have some validity to your points.  However I don’t feel that this rule will make Transports obsolete.  Although it is cheaper in the short run, it is very expensive in the long run.  With a transport, you spend 7 IPC for something that be used over and over and can be very cost effective in the long run (as long as it isn’t sunk).  Plus you can transport armor.  With the exception of the Pacific islands, no assault is going to survive in the long run unless you have armor.  So transports will always be needed.

    Also for clarification, the Airborne marker under my rule is a one time use.  Once the unit has been moved by air, the marker is removed.

    I now think airborne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once.

    I think 3 IPC to move Airborne Inf. is too expensive.  At this cost I would never use it.
    Personally I think 3 IPC for 2 Airborne Inf. is better but what do you charge for 1 Air. Inf.?  The purpose of charging to move Inf by air is to prevent it from being over used and abused.  You want to make cost effective enough so that you can use that option once in a while but make it too expensive to use it frequently

    they also cannot capture territory

    I disagree with this.  If you have boots on the ground and you’re in control.  You own it.

    airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.

    This is a game play issue and not a historical one.  One issue that I always had with the AA map is that some zone in the Atlantic and Europe makes movement to easy. (I always felt that the Atlantic should have extra sea zones so that transport would have to sit a sea for at least one turn, to make them more vulnerable like they really were)  Where in the Pacific everything is so far apart.  If you limit Air. Inf. to a range of two, it will make this option useless in the Pacific.  You’ll never be able to go from one island to the next unless you consider islands as part of the sea zone for movement purposes.

    I also defend the airbourne units having a defence of 1, airbourne units are lightly equiped and can only take and hold terriotry if supported by other units.

    I think their defense should be kept at 2 for two reason.  One is for game simplicity.  The other reason is that Airborne guys were tough.  These guys were considered the cream of the crop and had a very long training time compared to your average soldiers.  So even though they were not as heavily armed compared to your standard infantry unit.  They made up for this with their extra training and toughness.  So in my opinion I think it balances everything out.

    i would also get rid of the limit, although IL’s are symetrical i have yet to hear the historical reasoning behind them.  a good game limits units by their utility not by some artificial cap.

    I agree with you on this.  If the cost issue can be worked out right, then caps would not be needed.  The cost alone will pretty much dictate how many can be built.  That said though.  There is still the potential for abuse.  I remember the day where guys would build a factory in South Africa then pump out 6+ armor from it.  The Germany would do the same in Libya.  So I think a cap still may be necessary but it should be set the same for all nations, such as a max of 3, and not according to historical use.  A&A has always been exploring about how things would have turned out if things were done differently (within reason of course).

    also, if dont c how tanks keep airborne soldiers from getting to the rear and executing their first strike ability.

    I think what IL is thinking here is that because they were lightly equipt that they were not as adept to take on armor.  But I agree with you on the account of game playability.  In Europe there is almost always least one in Germany, Western & Southern Europe where the highest chance of airborne will be used.  If that rule is used, then most likely airborne will rarely get to use the first strike option.  However, I think this one will need a little game testing to see how it will work.

    id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war.

    You have a very good point.  Perhaps a way avoid this is that when a player purchases an airborne marker, it starts from the factory with an infantry unit and remains with that unit until it engages in combat.  Up until that point it can move as an aircraft.

    Ultimately, the best way to resolve this would be to have some aircraft transport unit for both parachute drops and non-combat movement.  Air transports were used heavily by all side to move troops around.


  • '10

    Airborne units should be dropped from bombers. One bomber could carry one infantry at a cost of 1IPC. (Airborne Marker)

    supermestizo

    I’m not fond of this idea.  I have thought about this and have concluded that I would never use airborne under this rule.  The reason is that a bomber is simply too powerful to use it to transport infantry and is a terrible waste of resources.  Generally an attack last several turns.  If I had a choice to use my bomber to fly an infantry in so it can attack at 1 per turn or use my bomber so I can pound at 4 per turn.  Its pretty obvious which one I’m going to choose.  The only way I would do this is if I pay 1 IPC to fly the Airborne unit in on the first turn, then allow my bomber to attack as normal on the following turn.  But then that would be like flying in as a transport then turning into a bomber in mid flight to start pounding away.  Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

    If Paratroopers win, they defend on a 1, until they get supply, either through other friendly ground forces come to that area or through Airborne Supply (Airborne Supply Marker) dropped by bombers in the non-combat movement at the cost of 1IPC.

    I think using supply line rules creates unnecessary complexity into the game.  And again, any use of a bomber to drop off supplies would be a waste of good resources.



  • Hi

    Bomber should of course BOMB under the attack as well!


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    yes as per the rules under that technology.

    I don’t like them dropping in Germany or any other home territories. Id rather like them used to retake islands or less important centers. Usually you wont find tanks around, so to defend against them to a limited extent at least you have to garrison a territory with a fancy tank. Again for play balance they gain something and for a price you can defend or limit somewhat the advantage with some counter.

    Id add airborne duty with the attributes of a commando unit, so perhaps you can land these by ship and they can take out some unit like a rocket/aa gun or ?

    just ideas.



  • Any chance you guys could spin off this rules discussion into another thread?  I keep seeing replies to this thread and come in hoping to see something new about the plastics and getting stuck with paratrooper discussion.

    Just a friendly request!  😄



  • another aspect of the multiple Infantry sculpts, some may want to use multiple infantry sculpts for multiple theaters:

    Atlantic/Pacific
    UK/Commonwealth
    European/African
    Eastern E/Western E
    etc/etc



  • @bongaroo:

    Any chance you guys could spin off this rules discussion into another thread?  I keep seeing replies to this thread and come in hoping to see something new about the plastics and getting stuck with paratrooper discussion.

    Just a friendly request!  😄

    you dont want to talk about paratroopers with us 😢


  • '10

    Bangaroo’s request is a valid one.

    I think Imperious Leader is the appropriate persone to direct this conversation to the proper section.



  • @Emperor_Taiki:

    @bongaroo:

    Any chance you guys could spin off this rules discussion into another thread?  I keep seeing replies to this thread and come in hoping to see something new about the plastics and getting stuck with paratrooper discussion.

    Just a friendly request!  😄

    you dont want to talk about paratroopers with us 😢

    Not really.  It would be nice to hear ideas for what sculpts should be sought and purposes for them, but having to look through all the rules posts for an update on the project isn’t very much fun.  You guys seem very interested in the rules aspects, perhaps you could spin it off into another thread?

    Not trying to be a backseat moderator, just a friendly request!  😄



  • FMG guys-
    I’ll pre-order two piece sets when you get ready to set up pre-sales!
    Imperious can vouch for my adiction to plastic A&A pieces! haha
    can’t wait to see some production shots.
    laters,
    Pete(Thoes426)


  • '10

    @bongaroo:

    Any chance you guys could spin off this rules discussion into another thread?  I keep seeing replies to this thread and come in hoping to see something new about the plastics and getting stuck with paratrooper discussion.

    Just a friendly request!  😄

    Thanks, I did start this thread specifically for discussion on the project.



  • I don’t agree with limiting the number of airborne.  IMO, it’s a gratuitous rule. 1 airborne inf cost 3/4 IPCs, + 1 bomber cost of 12 IPCs = 16 IPCs for one airborne op!  Italy would never use airborne.  One of the great things about A&A is the WIF (What If Factor).  If someone wants to foot the cost for a massive 10 inf airborne op (150/160 IPCs!), well God bless 'em.  They deserve to take whatever territory they land in.

    Also, IMO, the Paratrooper Tech for AA50 would have been better named as Gliders.  Being able to both carry inf and bomb makes no sense unless the fully loaded bomber is also hauling a glider, which justifies the range limit.

    Therefore, the “elite inf” piece, whatever nation specific power it gets, should also be the airborne unit, coat 4 (for the extra training) and each bomber carries 1, but cannot attack unless you have “gliders”.



  • btw, FMG, my stock just went up.  put me down for one pre-order 😄


  • '10

    Posted by: bongaroo

    Any chance you guys could spin off this rules discussion into another thread?  I keep seeing replies to this thread and come in hoping to see something new about the plastics and getting stuck with paratrooper discussion.

    Just a friendly request!  Cheesy

    Okay Gents, IL has created a new thread to continue the conversation on Paratroopers.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14208.0



  • And back to the topic at hand!

    More news! Anything  😛

    On a slightly related note I put my order in for the new dice set today. I’m hoping pre orders for these go up soon.



  • aaahhh here’s what I think about paratroopers….:

    1. made you look.

    FMG mentioned in the dice thread that they haven’t anything new yet about the pieces, but would post again when they did.
    (this is where we try to patiently wait and twiddle our thumbs with visions of new scuplts dancing about our daydreams…)

    @FieldMarshalGames:

    Thanks, I will give you an update on the other project as soon as I have something exciting to report.



  • I vote the 5.5 inch gun for the British artillery piece

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_5.5_inch_Gun

    “[5.5” (140mm) were the standard medium field piece of the British Army in the Second World War]."  quoted from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-t.htm



  • What!  No, no 25 pounder is a much better choice!  😄

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_pounder



  • 25 pounder, no doubt. As Iconic as the spitfire.

    Although a bishop self propelled gun would be good



  • I’m in for 1 preorder.

    @Imperious:

    The Japanese BB should be Kongo Class, so people can make the Yamato into a 5-5 battleship

    Interesting idea, though I doubt anyone would bother spending more IPs on a 5-5 unit… perhaps instead Yamato class ships could each roll 2 dice (still 4-4).

    In any case, I would like to see a Yamato piece in the set (don’t care if it’s the normal BB or something else).

    Thanks for putting this together.



  • We definately need new molds for everything.  New BBs, new CV, new CA, new DD (maybe even a tiny bit smaller).  This is going to be great.



  • The Yamato class already comes w/ AA50.  Although, a new, well detailed one is certainly a good thing.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    yes but they don’t have money to remake every cotton picking warship. Just one is needed and we already got Yamato. its time for something else and new, then we get both this way and not yet another remake of yamato, knowing that in 4 months another yamato will appear and we are stuck with 3 Yamatos. Its ridiculous IMO>



  • true that.

    The AA50 and AAR Yamatos are pretty much identical.

    I was disappointed when I didn’t see P-38s in AA50.  Oh well.  They were kind of clumsy on the carriers anyway.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 83
  • 2
  • 21
  • 7
  • 24
  • 5
  • 2
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

55
Online

14.0k
Users

34.3k
Topics

1.4m
Posts