The website says:
“They will be done in 2 colors, Burnt orange to match the Out of Box color and Yellow Gold for veteran pieces.”
I would like to see a third color if possible – ROSE for Siam/Thailand units.
HBG U.S. Naval Sculpts Preorder
-
Tall Paul,
I’m sorry, but I just don’t think Light Carriers should carry 2 planes. Yes, Light carriers were a little bigger than the Escort carriers, but not nearly the size of the fleet carriers. We already have the Wasp class from OOB and FMG is coming out with the Enterprise, which I believe was in the Yorktown class Fleet Carriers. Those should be able to carry 2 planes and take 2 hits. Then, of course, Coach is planning for the Essex class Fleet Carriers which were bigger and stronger than the Yorktown class, thus they carry 3 planes and take 3 hits. Being such strong units, I would imagine the cost should rise accordingly, perhaps 20-22 IPCs.
If we do eventually get a Light carrier piece, we will have to find some way to differentiate it from Escort carriers. Escort carriers were fairly slow while Light carriers were much faster. Perhaps Light carriers could move 3. I would suggest Escort carriers only moving 1, but since transports move 2 they wouldn’t be providing much of an escort. Cost should be different; perhaps Escort = 10 IPCs, Light = 12 IPCs. Maybe even the defense value could be Escort = 1, Light = 2?
Regarding the big Essex class carriers, if they take 3 hits to sink, how should we deal with 1 or 2 hits? My suggestion would be after 1 hit, they can still operate as normal, after 2 hits no air operations are possible until they get repaired at a naval base. Does that sound good to everyone else? -
KNP,
Well, with all due respect, it seems that you might be mis-informed concerning WW2 carrier warfare and the infrastructure of all the classes of ships.
I respectfully disagree with your views of the CVL Light Carriers as not being much larger or basing more a/c squadrons on them than a CVE Escort Carrier. It is a FACT that they DID. They were built on Cruiser hulls and were designed to operate with, and supplement the fast “Fleet” Carriers. Just think of them as a somewhat smaller Fleet Carrier with TWO a/c.
Some generalized descriptions follow:
The CVE Escort Carriers like the “Casablanca” class were small-sized and slow with a very limited amount of a/c based on them. They were useful for convoy escort or (in numbers) invasion air support. For our gameplay purposes they’d have ONE a/c.
The CVL Light Carriers like the “Independance” class were medium-sized and fast enough to operate with the larger “Fleet” Carriers and they had a larger number of a/c based on them than the much smaller CVEs. For our purposes they’d have TWO a/c.
The CV Fleet Carriers were the largest in size and a/c based aboard.
The OOB “Wasp”, the FMG “Yorktowns”, and the HBG “Essex’s” should all be considered Fleet Carriers. For our purposes they’d have THREE a/c.HOWEVER*******
If “Coach” decides to delay the “Independance” class CVL until the 2nd Naval Set we could PRETEND that the OOB “Wasp” was a CVL until we could get an actual one produced.
I would be disapointed if that were the case because the decision was made to REPLACE the OOB Heavy Cruiser with a new unit in addition to the Light Cruiser.
With the very large large number of votes cast for the “Indy” class CVL and Tigerman’s suggestion to keep it in the 1st Set,…I simply saw his logic and totally agreed with it.
IMHO the “Indy” CVL is a VERY important unit deserving retention in the 1st Set.
----------------------------------------------
KNP, please don’t think I was criticising you. But the CVLs were very much Attack Carriers that were just a little smaller than the Fleet Carriers. And the CVE Escort Carriers were usually referred to by flight crews as “floating postage stamps”.
As far as hit points, movement factors, etc. for these units,…these details might be better discussed elsewhere so not to “confuse” the issue here.
-
We are at 35% of the funds needed to start the project.
-
Not even halfway there with only 17 days to go. It’s not looking promising. Damn! I was looking forward to the new ships.
If there is anyone out there that really wants some new naval sculpts, you had better jump on this bandwagon quickly. Coach can’t be expected to do it ALL on his own. This is an expensive undertaking and he needs our help. I know there are guys out there that were willing to help out FMG with a pre-order over a year ago for the Italian units. C’mon and help HBG now. I’m sure it will be much less waiting time.
-
@Tall:
KNP,
Well, with all due respect, it seems that you might be mis-informed concerning WW2 carrier warfare and the infrastructure of all the classes of ships.
I respectfully disagree with your views of the CVL Light Carriers as not being much larger or basing more a/c squadrons on them than a CVE Escort Carrier. It is a FACT that they DID. They were built on Cruiser hulls and were designed to operate with, and supplement the fast “Fleet” Carriers. Just think of them as a somewhat smaller Fleet Carrier with TWO a/c.
Some generalized descriptions follow:
The CVE Escort Carriers like the “Casablanca” class were small-sized and slow with a very limited amount of a/c based on them. They were useful for convoy escort or (in numbers) invasion air support. For our gameplay purposes they’d have ONE a/c.
The CVL Light Carriers like the “Independance” class were medium-sized and fast enough to operate with the larger “Fleet” Carriers and they had a larger number of a/c based on them than the much smaller CVEs. For our purposes they’d have TWO a/c.
The CV Fleet Carriers were the largest in size and a/c based aboard.
The OOB “Wasp”, the FMG “Yorktowns”, and the HBG “Essex’s” should all be considered Fleet Carriers. For our purposes they’d have THREE a/c.Concerning size, the Independence CVL was smaller than the Bogue class CVE and about the same as the Casablancas. The CVLs were built on light cruiser hulls - which had from 10 to 15k tons. They also carried about some 33 planes in total while the CVEs listed above had 28 and 24 planes. The main difference was the speed - the CVLs were capable of keeping up with the faster and larger CVs while the CVEs did not.
Since the Yorktown and the Essex CVs carried around 90 planes it makes to me more sense that the CVL/CVEs would be grouped together in 1 unit since they carried around the same number of planes and tonnage, regardless of their different speed.
But the CVLs were very much Attack Carriers that were just a little smaller than the Fleet Carriers.
The Yorktown and Essex had standard 20k and 33k displacement. The Independence CVL had 11k and the Saipan CVL 16.5k. Casablancas 7.8k standard, Bogue 16k total, on my opinion that’s not a little smaller. Also, if you look at the numbers built during WW2, the US built 11 CVLs (Saipan and Independence classes) in comparison with 123 CVE, the most numerous being the Casablancas and Bogues (total of 95) and also the 19 Commencement Bay class (24k total displacement).
The CVLs were only a temporary measure to get more carriers into the water - afterwards the US chose to build the big CVs for fleet operations and a lot of smaller CVEs. -
as much as i want this to happen too. i think it can wait a year. cause when you think about it, this would be great for starting a new type of naval game.
that would mean you would need a bunch of other nations to play against, which would mean we would need to raise more money for other countries. For now i much rather see a national and communist china sets, poland and the dutch getting separate sets , maybe supplement for UK that could add canadian, anzac, and indian unique units. heck we still don’t even have french units yet. for now i rather coach invest in things that would be relevant to A&A first -
You know, maybe Lunarwolf is right. While I would LOVE to see these new US Naval sculpts, especially the big Montana class battleships, maybe this kind of thing would be best saved for later. Coach is already making a lot of great supplement sets and for gaming purposes, we could probably better use some of the other sets Lunarwolf mentioned (Communist China, Nationalist China, Dutch, Poles). Also, I would really like to see real French units. I know that FMG is planning on making a French set, but it seems so far away right now. We just got the Italians done, Germany is in production and USA is still in the sculpting phase. Then we have 4 or 5 other countries yet to complete before we get to France (I think they are last on the list).
I guess I could go either way. If we get the proper funding by Dec 1 and Coach goes ahead with the project, then we will have some cool new ships. If it doesn’t happen now, Coach will refund all the pre-orders and I will have that money to buy the new US Supplement set, which is also very cool. Plus I think I will need more Axis Minors sets than I have already ordered.
Ugh! I’m such a flip-flopper. Maybe I should run for political office. Whatever happens: GO COACH!
-
So to confirm this set will allow us to sub in some of these for OOB G40 pieces - the scale is the same?
-
Yes the scale is the same. HBG is making all of his units the same scale as A&A. Yes there is a need for other sets, bit this set is for the guys who want a naval game. If this set is approved and made there will also be a Japanese naval set.
-
Awesome, I hope after Japan comes UK and Germany. I think it would be great to get some Canadian pieces - perhaps as part of the UK set. I think for Atlantic convoy purposes some Canadian transports would be tremendous.
-
It would probably help if we could get enough pre-orders for this first US Naval Set to “get the ball rolling” as we say down here in the South.
If/When that happens the “Coach” has already stated his interest in producing some Japanese Naval units.
I’m sure the “Coach” would probably be interested in producing some UK and German units, too if we all SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS with enough pre-orders to make them possible.
IMHO we will ALL benefit from these efforts if we can just find enough pre-order interest.
Thanks again “Coach” for your efforts thus far.
“Tall Paul”
-
Honestly, I think the timing is not yet right for these. As HBG releases more and more sets, and more people become aware of them, the demand for a set like this might pick up(like next year).
-
I think you guys are right on waiting a year. Coach has been rolling out a bunch of great stuff the last few months and I would like to see that continue. What I don’t want for him is a project that will sink him or slow him down funds-wise. He’s got a bunch of great ideas behind this one that could be moved up the list and into our hands sooner that may lead to a project like this becoming more successful down the road. That will give those of us who have been working on the naval game projects to finish up our games and give the other people out there to discover their own need for this great set. Save the build list Coach as we will likely need it again in the future!
-
Everyone,
The total pre-order sales have been slooowly going up so I haven’t give up hope on these
set(s). Maybe the “Coach” will extend the time deadline or better yet find enough additional pre-orders to make this a viable set for production. I know he’s personally really interested in seeing this set(s) produced, whenever that would be. So everyone cross your fingers or whatever. Who knows,…maybe if his sales for the “Axis Minors Set” do real well it might help this set along? I gotta say Thanks to the “Coach” for even thinking about this set for all of us and the work he’s already done.“Tall Paul”
-
yeah right, the deadline was too short, just say decembre 2012 and we sure get it by then.
-
“Coach”,
It’s all up to you ,…but it would be OK with me if you choose to extend the “deadline” for these US Naval Set(s).
If it doesn’t give you more “head-aches”,…
And the other players with pre-orders agree,…You might consider extending the deadline. As far as I’m concerned, I’m for Whatever it takes to get these naval units produced.
“Tall Paul”
-
Coach,
I second the motion proposed by Tall Paul of extending the deadline to whatever it takes to get Montana’s, Alaska’s, Midway’s, LSTs, Oilers and the other porposed units on our game boards.All other gentlemen, the current deadline to be in on the pre-order is drawing to a close unless Coach decides to extend it. Jump in now and order 5 to 10 sets. Order 10 sets and join our exclusive 1010 club! Coach is less than 15 percent away from getting to 50 percent of the money to go forward with this project. Many others and Coach and myself really would like to see these units produced, so any takers? Step up and put your money down.
WARRIOR888
-
I would be okay with extending the deadline. After all, the order is already placed. Just let us know which way you decide to go coach. I think I am good either way.
-
Warrior,
Since you’re the “1010 Club” secretary, and everyone SO FAR has been enthusiastic about Extending the deadline, let’s do a Roll Call List.
Ask everyone who has pre-orders if they would like a deadline extension for this set.
Don’t forget to list the “Coach” FIRST. I don’t know if a deadline extension would be a “head-ache” for him or not. You might use the previous list w/numbers of pre-orders on it. It looks like Reply #106 from this thread was the last pre-order list.–-------------------------------
As for me,…YES, extend the deadline .
KNP, Warrior, and Razor I believe have already said YES, also.
–--------------------------------
Let’s “Bang the Drum” and whatever else it takes to drum up some more pre-order sales for these great Naval set(s) that we all want to see produced.
Something like this:
Roll Call of Pre-Order Customers and if they want a Deadline Extension
Name Sets Pre-Orderred Favor an Extension(Yes/No)
The “Coach” All of them ?
Warrior 10 YES
Tall Paul 10 YES
Tigerman77 10 ?
KNP 10 YES
Dangermouse 10 ?
Imperious Leader 6 ?
Razor 5 YES
Variable XXX Cancelled Order
AG124 2 + 3 YESLike I Say, What Do Ya’ll Think?
“Tall Paul”
-
How close are we to having the funds needed to start this project? Last I saw was 35%.
Also, this may sound like a stupid question, but is that 35% of the TOTAL needed to start (so we would need another 65%) or is it 35% in relation to the 50% needed to start production (so we would need another 15%)?
Suggested Topics
