We use a heavy outdoor vinyl for our maps. The kind that sign shops use for promotional banners etc. Really nice on larger maps. Don’t be scared to spend the extra money over paper as it is well worth it long term.
Need Help to Finalize HBG Japan Set!
-
I’d much rather have the Model 92 Armored Car than the 87. Much cooler looking than the 87 with that dumb looking dome top. The 92 had better specs plus it’s in the game Men of War Assault Squad, if any of you played it. I realize its not one of the ones you are unsure about. Just putting my 2 cents out there.
-
@Imperious:
New version of the Yamato with original secondary battery not the AA version. Â I have this in 1-700 scale waterline.
How bout making the Musashi? then you got both OOB and 1944 version of Musashi.
I agree; definitely do the Musashi (or the Yamato for that matter; there’s really not that much difference) but make sure its noticeably bigger (without getting out of scale, mind you) so that it’s a clear “super-BB.” A Yamato-class shouldn’t look like “ho-hum just another BB” on the board like the oob pieces; it should stand out a bit next to other BB’s. I also think you should definitely do a Kongo and one of the other 3 classes of Japanese BB’s (Ise, Fuso, Nagato, I don’t care which of these… Fuso works for me…) But the Kongo is important to me because it allows Japan an entry into the battlecruiser category. Yes, I know I’m asking for 3 BB’s, but this is Japan we’re talking about. They should have a diverse ship line-up for all those Midway/ Guadalcanal-type battle games. (And anyway, what I’m really asking for is a BB/SBB/CB range, which is easily accomodated in a d12-based system.)
I also second the motion of having a Taiho. I’d also like to see 3 levels of carriers: 1. Taiho or Shinano (but preferably Taiho; Shinano was a one-off like the other BB/CB conversions but they were planning to build 5 more Taihos as their standard “supercarrier”) as an “SCV” supercarrier. 2. One Hiryu/ Soryu/ Unryu as a standard CV. (This is what they were planning to build 15 more of as their “standard fleet carrier.”) and a Shoho as a CVL, though I’m not too picky on which CVL to do for Japan as they’re all pretty much unremarkable-looking towerless flat-tops.
And I also agree with having a CL. I assume you’re talking about the post-conversion 8x10" Mogami as a CA, because it was technically a CL before then, though perhaps in name only… aside from the Mogami, though, Japanese light cruisers really were a genuine half-step between a CA and a DD, much like the French contre-torpilleurs or Italian esploratori or, perhaps, the American “AA cruisers.” Once again, given a d12 system, one half-step in between DD and CA is quite doable. As to which one, I’m torn between the Agano (an absolutely gorgeous late-war design that better represents the Japanese ideal of what a light cruiser ought to be) and doing something like a Sendai (which better represents the reality of what they actually had.)
-
I also have the Yamato and Musashi in 1/700 waterline. I found this version of the Musashi interesting because it was an earlier version. In the middle along each side they had another 6 inch triple turret instead of the cluster of smaller AA guns (which were in the later version of the ship). The 6 inch triple turrets on the sides were later replaced by the cluster of smaller weapons.
I have a picture of both ships. The Yamato is the upper ship with the cluster of smaller weapons as it was in the later versions of the class. The Musashi is the lower ship with the 6 inch triple turrets which was the earlier version.
-
To do the Musashi, it makes more sense to do the earlier version; they later removed the wing 6.1" triple turrets in order to add more heavy AA guns… but then ran into a shortage of those very heavy AA guns (100 mm, if I recall correctly), and so ended up reducing the ships anti-surface capabilities without adding the AA guns after all. (A sign of how chaotic things had gotten in the Japanese production qeue by 1944… and a stark contrast to their carefully-laid early-war plans when the 20x6.1" triple turrets taken off of the 4 Mogami class CL’s in order to replace them with 20 dual 8" turrets [and make them into CA’s] just so happened [serendipitously!] to be the right number of turrets for the planned secondaries of the 4 Yamato class BB’s and for the planned primary armament of the 2 planned Oyodo class CL’s…) They thought they had it all planned down to a tee, even going so far as to predict about when the US would figure out that the Yamatos were armed with 18" guns (they were pessimistic in this prediction, for a change), at which time they would switch to 20" guns in the Yamatos’ otherwise quite similar successors…
-
The OOB Kongo from AA41 should be good enough so no need for a Kongo class BC
But i like the hybrid Battleship?Carriers ( BBAV ISE and HYUGA).
Prefer retrofitted Musashi (10/44), not original.
whatever CVL they go with it must be one of those flattops with no superstructure to get the iconic Japanese light carrier look.
-
I should clarify one thing here: Since NONE of these have gone to sculpting yet, we would appreciate ANY comments you have on ANY of the units we’ve listed. Nothing is written in stone, but the list is what we compiled initially from research and previous comments, as well as our own preferences. If you see something that truly doesn’t seem right, and you can make a good argument, by all means this is the time to bring it up. Feel free to make comments, for or against, on any of the units listed. All I ask is have some info to back up your choice so we can do our research too.
A good example is the arguments against the “Tony”. I actually picked the Tony to be in our set because of it’s unconventional look, easily distinguishing it from the carrier aircraft. Granted, entering service in '43 isn’t exactly ideal for “late war”, but '44 is when it was most utilized. I’m starting to see the merit in going with the Ki-100. It was on our list as well during initial planning but I guess it was my fault the Tony made the cut.
My opinion on the Ki-43 is it presents two problems here. First, having two Army fighters (assuming we also go with one of the above) and one Navy fighter (oob) seems a bit odd for Japan. May be better to have it the other way around? Second, at 1/700 scale it looks way too close to a Zero. Even if you can tell the actual pieces apart, wouldn’t it be more fun to have something different looking?
I also think the arguments of doing our own Zero make some sense. While I think the latest WOTC sculpts are much improved, the older oob Zeros could use improvement. With Japan being Naval heavy like the U.S., would it not make better sense to choose another naval fighter? Initially we were going to wait on another navy fighter until we did the Japanese naval set but, here we are doing them together now. I think including our own navy fighter makes sense and thank those that brought this to my attention!
-
Would it be safe to say that the Sea Plane Tender idea is out? It does not appear on anyone’s list and could open a spot for another aircraft or ship.
-
The Type 97 “Chi-Ha” is a MEDIUM tank, NOT a light tank. The Japanese LIGHT tank is the Type 95 “Ha-Go”, which is the sculpt we have from OOB.
I fixed this on the first post. Thank you for the correction!
As for an alternate fighter, I can’t remember the designation but there was one that was based on a German in-line engine and looked a lot like a Messershcmidt, which was a very un-Japanese look. That might be interesting to have in a Japanese set.
I believe you are referring to the Ki-61 Tony listed currently in the set.
-
With the proposed Japanese HBG set, it appears that the new goal is to make complete sets by nation.
Keeping that in mind, they must consider replacing the OOB pieces. It is no longer “adding in a few new units” for house rules, but making the goal to replace OOB.
The second issue is they should market these sets for other game companies who in turn will produce new games. If the iconic pieces are not in the mix ( for example not making a zero and making “tony”) the utility of these sets will not see the full potential.
Once you got a number of complete sets, companies will contact HBG because the cost of development will no longer prevent a company from producing games with plastic pieces.
The Soviet set is a complete set
The German set ( “minor axis allies”) is sort of a filler piece set.
The Neutral set is also perfect and is completeSo the choices of units should not reflect what WOTC made, because these are superior units and will replace OOB and not be thought as used with low grade WOTC units.
-
Hey Imperious how is the Soviet a complete set? I don’t remember seeing any naval units unless that is a change I am unaware of. The last pictures I saw were land and air units. I hope HBG does start making complete sets with the same number of units as FMG. I would pay 40 per set. If this is the case Variable let us know as that would be fantastic news.
-
I think IL considers the HBG Soviet set to be complete because the vast majority of Soviet action was on the land or in the air. The Soviet Navy really didn’t have the chance to contribute very much to the outcome of the war. However, Go Sanchez, you are correct that to be a truly complete set, we would have to get Soviet naval vessels as well.
With this in mind, perhaps Coach should consider expanding his sets to fully complete sets like we (should be) getting from FMG. I realize this would be more or less putting you in direct competition with FMG, but frankly HBG has had much better and more timely output with their sets. I too would be willing to pay $40 per set to HBG, perhaps a little more since from the proposed list, it appears that your sets would be somewhat larger as they would include both the basic pieces plus the sort of “in-between” units (Light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks) (Fleet Carriers, Light Carriers) (Early war BBs and Late war BBs) and so on. Such a set would probably be well over 156 pieces, maybe close to 200, depending on how many of each sculpt was included. With the high quality and such a large piece count, I would imagine $50 - $60 wouldn’t be wrong to ask for.
If IL’s proposal is correct, with HBG making complete sets to replace OOB, this set really should include the Zero. That’s just too iconic to not include and the Zero was used all throughout the war. I also vote for including the Tony. THen Japan can have a navy fighter and an army fighter, plus have a fighter that looks a little different. I just don’t think you should include another fighter that looks like another Zero.
-
The proposed list above for the Japanese will likely be split into two separate sets. The difference this time is we are molding them at the same time. We will likely go back and do the other fill-ins some day. The good thing about the way Coach does his sets is you can get the basics bundled for 10 or 15 bucks per set, and then fill in what you want more of for a few pennies each by-the-piece. Anyone can make their own custom set.
Also, if we do go back and make more German, Russian, or US pieces someday, they can easily be added to our current stock and grouped into “complete sets” as IL mentions above. Since HBG pieces do not stay on the sprues like the old Table Tactics pieces, we can mix and match any number of pieces to make the set required.
Hope this info helps. Going forward now, what do you feel is missing or not needed on the current list?
-
First post updated with new info and suggestions.
-
I like where these sets are going for the most part. I highly favor matching Japan’s unit classes to the American counterparts. Actually I favor this approach to offer standardized unit classes for all nations. It makes house rules more simplistic.
Also please include a transport plane. A heavy four engine bomber would be nice too. Though I’m not sure Japan had one. Light, medium, heavy tanks (if possible) and less trucks. One or two should suffice for any nation.
Also I’m going against the croud on this one: I’m anti zero. Yes it’s iconic but I already have many dozen zeros. Adding another zero sculpt Doesnt help us create a new unit. It actually removes a new unit from the potential set which is counter to HBG’s said objectives.
Thanks for all your guys work at hbg. -
i just know for my group for we would like to see the consistent pieces for the major powers. such as the early/Mid/late war fighters, early war battleship paratroopers , ect,ect. but with factions that are naval heavy/land heavy they should get extra special troops like Germany / Russia with extra tanks and Japan with there navy Britain with their Commonwealth , and America with pretty much everything. i still feel Japan should match Americas might with Naval forces, and in terms of fighters since with OOB America Has a 5 fighters they can cover early mid late and naval no problem maybe adding 2 army fighters isn’t that bad for Japan. even though a REALLY want to see the Oscar witch was used also for kamikaze attacks during the end of the war. it could work as OOB zero as early war. the TONY for mid war since a lot of people would like to see it, the new HBG improved Zero for naval fighter, and the K-100 for late war fighter.
-
Updated first post.
-
Thanks. Updates look great.
-
The OOB Kongo from AA41 should be good enough so no need for a Kongo class BC
With the proposed Japanese HBG set, it appears that the new goal is to make complete sets by nation.
Keeping that in mind, they must consider replacing the OOB pieces. It is no longer “adding in a few new units” for house rules, but making the goal to replace OOB
Given the latter statement, Imperious, which I think is correct, I’m all the more concerned to see an HBG Kongo, and thus disagree with the former statement. Â Keep in mind also, that we do not yet know what the size of the AA41 oob Kongo will be. Â If it isn’t visually distinct enough from the oob Yamato, then the possibility of using it as an early-war BB and/ or CB is greatly diminished. Â (And given that in the pictures from the preview that DJensen provided seem to indicate that the new Kongo will be slightly BIGGER than the new Hood [!?!], I’m not optimistic.) Â Doing a Kongo + Yamato allows players to choose either an old BB/ new BB or a BB/CB dichotomy. Â Adding one of the other 3 classes (Fuso, Ise or Nagato, again, I don’t have any strong feelings about which, but Fuso seems the popular choice so far) allows the Kongo to slip into the CB role, while the Yamato/ Fuso allows the player to choose either an “old BB/ new BB” or “SBB/BB” dichotomy for the remaining two ships. Â HBG could then eventually do the Iowa (or maybe Montana if he’d rather not reduplicate oob and/ or FMG) and the Alaska to give the US the same 3-ship range of capital ships.
But i like the hybrid Battleship?Carriers ( BBAV ISE and HYUGA).
The Hybrids were pretty much all a useless waste of time and materials. Â I think it would be just as much a waste of time and materials for HBG to do one now.
whatever CVL they go with it must be one of those flattops with no superstructure to get the iconic Japanese light carrier look.
I’m in complete agreement with this!
Prefer retrofitted Musashi  (10/44), not original.
It’s impossible to tell for sure whether the oob Yamato is the retrofitted version or not, given its level of detail. Â It looks to me, though more likely that it is. Â It thus seems to me that the initial version would be more distinct. Â Was there a particular reason that you preferred it? Â Again, it doesn’t seem as though they added anything in the “refit” except tiny AA guns too small to show up on this scale, but only took something away, the 6.1" turrets that HBG might actually be able to do a nice job with…
-
Variable, which version of the Type 97 Chi-Ha tank were you planning on doing? The original version or the upgraded “Shinhoto” version?
-
We could do either one, but the Shinhoto version seems more appropriate.
Suggested Topics
