@general-6-stars I have a physical map that I have made. It’s mostly rules i am trying to develop. Thanks for showing me your map.
FMG - JAPAN UNITS
-
I would go with the Kongo for BB, Shokaku or Kaga for the CV and Val for the Tac bomber.
The Kongo class and Shokaku or Kaga were the types that were more active during the parts of the war when Japan was still competing in naval battles (Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Santa Cruz, etc.) The Yamato and Musashi were not really around until late and were sunk almost immediately. Plus the kongo superstructure looks a lot cooler and unique for Japan.The Val to me is a better choice than the Kate - it is more distinct from the Zero - so players can tell it more easily apart with its wings and fixed landing gear, etc.
-
@The:
I would go with the Kongo for BB, Shokaku or Kaga for the CV and Val for the Tac bomber.
The Kongo class and Shokaku or Kaga were the types that were more active during the parts of the war when Japan was still competing in naval battles (Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Santa Cruz, etc.) The Yamato and Musashi were not really around until late and were sunk almost immediately. Plus the kongo superstructure looks a lot cooler and unique for Japan.The Val to me is a better choice than the Kate - it is more distinct from the Zero - so players can tell it more easily apart with its wings and fixed landing gear, etc.
Again, FMG has already posted that they were trying NOT to repeat molds with the existing out-of-box molds. The Val is already the AAP1940 tactical bomber: it should not be repeated. Nor should they repeat the A6M Zero.
If your suggestion is on the following list, suggest something else:
@reloader-1:Current OOB units: (per Krieghund)
Japanese Artillery: Model 92
Japanese Mechanized Infantry: SdKfz 251 (German)
Japanese Tank: Type 95 Kyugo
Japanese Fighter: A6M2 “Zero”
Japanese Tactical Bomber: D3A1 “Val”
Japanese Strategic Bomber: 24J “Betty”
Japanese Battleship: Yamato class
Japanese Cruiser: Takao class
Japanese Destroyer: Fubuki class
Japanese Carrier: Shinano class
Japanese Submarine: I class (This is probably a B-1 class Sub)
Japanese Transport: Hakusan Maru class–------------------
-
Quick note - The Haguro was a Nachi class CA, not the nameship of a DD class. Just thought I’d point that out. :-)
As well, I definitely agree that the Shinano is not the best choice for a carrier mold, due to the OOB model and due to her relative obscurity in comparison to other IJN carriers. I would still choose the Shokaku class as being well-known amongst WWII PTO enthusiasts and military historians, as well as being typical of modern IJN carrier production (at this scale, she is somewhat representative of the Soryu, and the Unryu class, the latter of which was intended for mass production, with 17 planned, 6 launched, and 3 completed).
@ Deaths Head 420 - I assume you are referencing the I-19 and Kinai Maru due to their inclusion in Axis & Allies WaS. I-19 was a B1 class submarine, which was actually my own choice (I’d be willing to settle for a different B class variant though). The Kinai Maru is a possibility for a transport, although I’d still prefer a mass-produced Standard Merchant, although due to my inability to confirm the existance of the version in the profile I posted earlier, I’d now choose a Type 2A:
Type 2A Standard Merchant:
BTW - Off topic, but in response to an earlier poster discussing Soviet carriers, the Soviets did draft plans for two serious CV designs, and had several others that never left the drawing board (none of any design were actually laid down though). These two serious designs were Project 71 (a light carrier, intended to begin production earlier in the war) and Project 72 (a fleet carrier, intended to begin production later in the war). If an appropriate thread is opened by FMG, I’ll post some line drawings (profile and overhead).
-
So what is the carrier used in Revised for the Soviets?
-
Russian carrier design:
Kostromitinov 40800t - 51200t 32 knots
16 - 5.9in (8x2)
106 aircraft
Project 72 30755t - 37390t 30 knots
16 - 5.1 (8x2)
62 - 70 Aircraft
Project 71 13150t 35 knots
8 - 4in (8x1)
30 Aircraft
Komsomolets (1927) 12000t
8 - 4in (4x2)
16 aircraft
-
So what is the carrier used in Revised for the Soviets?
It’s a British Illustrious class, I believe.
The most appropriate carrier for Russia would be a project 71, as that was a 1940ish design, partially influenced by tours of the Graf Zeppelin prior to German/Russian hostilites. Although, considering Russia captured the Graf Zeppelin, I could see that as a perfectly reasonable mold as well. the project 72 was proposed in 1945, I thought.
-
The Nakajima B5N2 ought to be the dive bomber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_B5N
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b46R07QHWi4&feature=related
It was the most advanced and prolific.
As for the Zero, the ones WOTC are pretty poor. I’d like to see a super detailed Zero. Same goes for the Yamato, though maybe a more common BB would be better. The WOTC Yamatos already look like Super Star Destroyers.
-
One problem with making a mold “too detailed” is it starts looking almost cartoonish - plastic is a hard material to work with.
-
-
The Nakajima B5N2 ought to be the dive bomber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_B5N
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b46R07QHWi4&feature=related
It was the most advanced and prolific.
As for the Zero, the ones WOTC are pretty poor. I’d like to see a super detailed Zero. Same goes for the Yamato, though maybe a more common BB would be better. The WOTC Yamatos already look like Super Star Destroyers.
I second this. Not sure what other fighter would be a good choice besides the zero but, I would love a nice looking zero if no other suitable choice could be made.
-
One problem with making a mold “too detailed” is it starts looking almost cartoonish - plastic is a hard material to work with.
Agreed. The scale required and the process of molding means that with more detail you’ll see more mold errors. I can’t imagine what could be added to the planes at that scale. Rivets and panels would look ridiculous. Even outlines for flaps and landing gear would probably look off. The only things I could see that could MAYBE be reasonably added would be the propellor hub and engine cowling. Even then, it would be hard to pull off at this scale.
And I still say, we already have one naval dive bomber and at this scale all japanese dive/torpedo bombers look very similar (Val just has external gear) so I’d rather have a ground attack plane (like the Ki-45 “Nick”) rather than a torpedo bomber (Kate’s not a dive bomber).
-
One problem with making a mold “too detailed” is it starts looking almost cartoonish - plastic is a hard material to work with.
Agreed. The scale required and the process of molding means that with more detail you’ll see more mold errors. I can’t imagine what could be added to the planes at that scale. Rivets and panels would look ridiculous. Even outlines for flaps and landing gear would probably look off. The only things I could see that could MAYBE be reasonably added would be the propellor hub and engine cowling. Even then, it would be hard to pull off at this scale.
And I still say, we already have one naval dive bomber and at this scale all japanese dive/torpedo bombers look very similar (Val just has external gear) so I’d rather have a ground attack plane (like the Ki-45 “Nick”) rather than a torpedo bomber (Kate’s not a dive bomber).
I don’t expect rivets and panels. I just want a zero with a straight tail and complete wings without mold errors like chunks missing. Thats all.
-
One problem with making a mold “too detailed” is it starts looking almost cartoonish - plastic is a hard material to work with.
Agreed. The scale required and the process of molding means that with more detail you’ll see more mold errors. I can’t imagine what could be added to the planes at that scale. Rivets and panels would look ridiculous. Even outlines for flaps and landing gear would probably look off. The only things I could see that could MAYBE be reasonably added would be the propellor hub and engine cowling. Even then, it would be hard to pull off at this scale.
And I still say, we already have one naval dive bomber and at this scale all japanese dive/torpedo bombers look very similar (Val just has external gear) so I’d rather have a ground attack plane (like the Ki-45 “Nick”) rather than a torpedo bomber (Kate’s not a dive bomber).
I don’t expect rivets and panels. I just want a zero with a straight tail and complete wings without mold errors like chunks missing. Thats all.
Apparently I got lucky. No mold errors on my planes.
-
None on mine as well - 2x Pacific 1940 and Guadalcanal, or 5x 1942.
I just don’t want FMG’s pieces to turn into Eagle Games lookalikes (overdetailed)- and I think he is doing a great job with the Italian pieces. If you look closely, the ships are simply detailed, look like 1942 pieces, but very obvious as to what power they belong to - like FMG molded the pieces for the original game. A continuation of OOB pieces, if you will.
-
“Out Of Box” - Refers to the way the game originally game from the manufacturer.
-
I don’t expect rivets and panels. I just want a zero with a straight tail and complete wings without mold errors like chunks missing. Thats all.
Here-Here!!!
-
GO FMG- KEEP UP THE EXCELLENT WORK- CAN’T WAIT TO PREORDER MY 2 FULL SETS!!! :-)
-
If you want a good fighter that isn’t a “Zero” then the Japanese Fighter ought to be the Nakajima KI84:
-
For the Tank 1 and 2, the most used were the Type 95 Light Tank and the Type 89B and Type 97 Medium Tanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJqZvhJ8OpE&feature=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0H8-O8Z4E
I say, whichever WOTC uses, the other two get used.
-
The Type 92 Battalion should be the Japanese artillery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0H8-O8Z4E
Also, the Japanese Commander Unit should have a Samurai Sword
Infantry 1 ought to have a Type 99 Nambu Machine Gun
Infantry 2 the Type 99 Rifle
Suggested Topics
