Need Help to Finalize HBG Japan Set!

[Lunarwolf]

@korruptkaos:

I’m glad to be part of this community. I was taking a look at some of the new pieces you will be making. I like IL’s idea of remaking the Yamato super battleships and I’m glad to see Japan is getting the navy that they deserve. I think Japan should receive both a light cruiser and a heavy cruiser. Also I like to see the KI-100 included in this set as a true late war fighter. Also a mid to late war A6M Zero should be added to counter the American F4U corsair. Also is it possible to add a heavy tank.

welcome kurrupt, i pretty much agree with all of your suggestions, expect i dont think japan really needs a heavy tank. Japan really didnt have any plus i doubt the Japanese player will be buying any heavy tanks . plus they are already getting a supped up navy

[Variable]

For those that think the Zero should be included, what would you give up on the current list?

[Lunarwolf]

no more tony but depends if you add the Ki-100 instead of the tony do you still need to take one other one out?

[WARRIOR888]

Variable,

Is the Japanese set going to be limited to 28 peices per set?  If it is then I suggest you scrap the truck and the light tank.  Go with a decent med tank and add another fighter and a major fleet carrier to replace them.

WARRIOR888

[WARRIOR888]

Drlarsen:

Making SBB’s into CB’s with an exacto sounds fairly straightforward (though I’d still love to see a pic whenever it’s convenient for you.)  But the A-150 mod sounds complicated. It sounds like you’re doing some painting then?  Are you detailing or just doing a flat country-specific color?  I’d reather avoid painting things this small in the first place; detailing them sounds like a bridge too far for my lack of ability…

In response to your question about painting minatures, I have painted well over 10,000 AA, World at War, Xeno, Navwar, Sytrex, GHQ, Heroics and Ross, FMG and HBG minatures. I use mainly Model Masters paints when I can find them or Testors acrylic miltary flats.  My IJN Fleet is painted a very dark gray for hulls and superstructures and deck tan for all decks and flight decks all funnels are flat black.  All IJN Carriers have meatballs on them and some I decaled with arrestor gear. Japanese aircraft are several colors from white and green early and pre-war to mottled green and gray mid to late war, all have meatballs on the wings.  I painted my IJN ships and planes to match my 1-700 scale waterline IJN Fleet.  All Jap armour and artillery is painted yellow with green camo streaks all over. Artillery is glued to Jap roundels.  Imperial Jap Army and SNLF troops I am still exerperimenting with color patterns. Most of them are HO or 172nd scale minatures.
WARRIOR888

[Yavid]

SNLF Marine
Type 94 6-wheel Truck
Type 92 Armored Car
Type 1 Ho-Ha Mech Inf
Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-Ha Medium Tank
Type 3 Ho-Ni III Tank Destroyer
Type 4 Ho-Ro SP Artillery
Ki-57 Transport Plane
Ki-43 Oscar Early War Fighter
B5N Kate torpedo Bomber
G8N Heavy bomber
Chuyo Escort/Light Carrier
Kaga Fleet Carrier
Fuso Class Early war Battleship

this are my votes

[Variable]

@WARRIOR888:

Variable,

Is the Japanese set going to be limited to 28 peices per set?  If it is then I suggest you scrap the truck and the light tank.  Go with a decent med tank and add another fighter and a major fleet carrier to replace them.

WARRIOR888

Not necessarily. We are considering making this set slightly bigger depending on the final layout. I do know that it will most likely be split into two sets that will be done about the same time. If it does end up being 28 pieces per set, your suggestion has been noted.

[knp7765]

@Lunarwolf:

welcome kurrupt, i pretty much agree with all of your suggestions, expect i dont think japan really needs a heavy tank. Japan really didnt have any plus i doubt the Japanese player will be buying any heavy tanks . plus they are already getting a supped up navy

I disagree. While it’s true that Japan didn’t really have any heavy tanks, don’t get too caught up in what happened historically. We should have one for the game in case the Japanese player wants to buy heavy tanks. Just because it didn’t really happen doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen in our games.

Also, I DO NOT want to give up the Truck. Every set for every country should have some sort of truck. There are too many of us who will have uses for a truck piece in our games. If it comes down to one or the other, I would rather do without a heavy tank than the truck for Japan.

As a side note, I like that yellow/gold color of the painted Japanese Veteran pieces on your site. I think that would be a good third color for your Japanese sets.

[HBG]

Truck stays.

[Spitfire38]

@Variable:

For those that think the Zero should be included, what would you give up on the current list?

I would say that since there are no paratroopers in this set, scratch the transport plane and release it with the next set. It is not vital to the game IMO. In terms of getting rid of the Tony, I disagree completely (I know everyone has their own opinion  :-P) Here’s why:

1. It’s an army fighter, so it is different from all the others that were used in the navy. It could have a different purpose, perhaps in China, India, and some islands.

2. It is a very distinct shape/mold, which I always enjoy, as it brings variety to the board. It looks great.

In my opinion, get rid of the transport plane or one of the BBs for the Zero. I know they are great to have as the Japanese, but 4 BBs (3 + 1 OOB) is a lot, and they are not purchased much after the initial setup, whereas planes are much more universally used and distributed.

[Yavid]

@coachofmany:

Truck stays.

Thank you

And Japan is getting a heavy tank, everyone is. It’s going to be either the IS-2 or Tiger from '41. I know japan didn’t have tigers and UK & USA didn’t have IS-2, but they still work.

[Lunarwolf]

i’ve always hoped the US would get Pershing maybe in a future set. but i dont mind the japanese player having to use tigers as heavy, since they probably wont be buying nay anyways. and  about the tony that is the same kind of argument about the p38 it looks completely unique army fighter but still HBG made a war-hawk and a mustang even though those 2 Army fighters look alike at the scale. and no one complained about that.

[Yavid]

i’m hoping for a pershing and b-29 in future set.

The problem with a heavy japanese tank is: what they called heavy would be a light tank in the german or russian army. Same for a heavy tank for italy. I believe (and i’m being to lazy to look it up right now) that the “heavy” japanese tank mounted a 57mm gun. That’s a smaller gun than the Sherman, Panzer IV, T-34, late model Panzer III. And those are all Medium to Light Tanks, depending on the tank. 88mm for the Tiger, 122mm for the IS-2, 90mm for the Pershing. Nothing the Japanese fielded or planned to field stacked up against this tanks. They had Tank Destroyers that had the gun but not the armor to compare to these tanks.

That’s why I want a medium tank for my japanese collection and I’m fine with using a Tiger in Japanese color for a heavy.

[Lunarwolf]

@Yavid:

i’m hoping for a pershing and b-29 in future set.

The problem with a heavy japanese tank is: what they called heavy would be a light tank in the german or russian army. Same for a heavy tank for italy. I believe (and i’m being to lazy to look it up right now) that the “heavy” japanese tank mounted a 57mm gun. That’s a smaller gun than the Sherman, Panzer IV, T-34, late model Panzer III. And those are all Medium to Light Tanks, depending on the tank. 88mm for the Tiger, 122mm for the IS-2, 90mm for the Pershing. Nothing the Japanese fielded or planned to field stacked up against this tanks. They had Tank Destroyers that had the gun but not the armor to compare to these tanks.

That’s why I want a medium tank for my japanese collection and I’m fine with using a Tiger in Japanese color for a heavy.

i completely agree.and i will be doing the same

[Yavid]

On a side note. I will be using IS-2s for US and UK heavy tanks atleast until I get something better.

[Spitfire38]

@Lunarwolf:

i’ve always hoped the US would get Pershing maybe in a future set. but i dont mind the japanese player having to use tigers as heavy, since they probably wont be buying nay anyways. and  about the tony that is the same kind of argument about the p38 it looks completely unique army fighter but still HBG made a war-hawk and a mustang even though those 2 Army fighters look alike at the scale. and no one complained about that.

A Pershing would be SWEET!  :-o

Idk, maybe I’m alone in support of the Tony- I can sort of understand the Warhawk and the Mustang…different wing shapes and noses. I guess that could be argued for all planes. I just love the pointed nose of the Tony and the fact that it is an army fighter, not associated with the navy.

My two cents about the Japanese heavy tank: I don’t think it’s necessary. as Yavid pointed out, a Japanese heavy tank is wimpy compared to others. and when would you need a heavy tank?

[Yavid]

don’t get me wrong I would love a Type 97 Chi-Ha for a light tank opition. That way people do have the opition of using the Chi-ha for a light, the OOB for Medium, and/or the Tiger for Heavy if they want to. But the depressate search for a heavy japanese tank I think is pointless.

I’ve always been more of a fan of the Oscar over the Tony and only because the Oscar was in an Axis and Allies expansion already. I believe it was Dateline WW2 but i could be wrong, but that’s besides the point. But if you do the Oscar or the Tony it doesn’t matter to me. Between the Zero, Fw-190, Oscar and Tony I’m sure I can find a use for all 4.

With '41 coming out it relieves the need for an alt. aircraft carrier, heavy tank, alt. battleship. Which are all very popular. I think '41 is amazing when it comes to giving you opitions and HBG should be concerned with filling holes left after that. I also think they should give serious consideration to an AA Artillery a unit promised to us in AA '42 2nd edition.

The important things to me coming from a HBG set is a 4 engine Japanese bomber, a light tank, different Infantry (either SNLF or paratrooper), a truck, and a mech inf.

[Asterios]

no Mini subs ?

[korruptkaos]

@Lunarwolf:

i’ve always hoped the US would get Pershing maybe in a future set. but i dont mind the japanese player having to use tigers as heavy, since they probably wont be buying nay anyways. and  about the tony that is the same kind of argument about the p38 it looks completely unique army fighter but still HBG made a war-hawk and a mustang even though those 2 Army fighters look alike at the scale. and no one complained about that.

a Pershing would be great for a heavy for the US, and i can see what you are trying to say with the p38. just because it looks different doesn’t mean its the best choice.i still hope to see the KI-100, Oscar, and a new Zero to represent a Naval fighter.

[knp7765]

@coachofmany:

Truck stays.

Thank you very much.

As for a Japanese Heavy Tank piece, I think you guys are kind of missing the point. Yes, Japanese tanks (and Italian Tanks for that matter) were a cut below similarly classed tanks in Germany, Russia and America. The Type 97 Chi-Ha, Japan’s medium tank, was totally outclassed by the M-4 Sherman and was just barely comparable to the M-5 Stuart (America’s Light tank). Heck, the Type 95 Ha-Go, Japan’s light tank, had armor so thin it could be penetrated by .50 caliber bullets and even .30 caliber AP ammo. Pretty pathetic for an “armored” vehicle.
The point I’m trying to make is this isn’t necessarily “Real World” land where we have to stick to the actual statistics and capabilities of the pieces represented. This is “Axis & Allies Game” land where we can fudge a little on actual stats yet have the pieces be representative of the country that made them. For example, in our current OOB pieces, USA has the M-4 Sherman while Germany has the Pzkpw V Panther. In actual battle conditions, Shermans really couldn’t stand up to Panthers. In fact, neither could Matildas. Also, the Type 95 was NO match for a Sherman, T-34 or Matilda. However, for game purposes, ALL tanks attack and defend at 3. So in our games, a British Matilda could end up blasting a German Panther right off the map. A Type 95 could reduce a T-34 to scrap.
So, if we get a Japanese (or Italian) tank piece that was considered “heavy” by them, even though it barely compared to “mediums” for other countries in the real world, for the game we could decide that this tank had thicker armor and a bigger gun. The main reason that I would like to see a Japanese Heavy Tank piece is because I don’t want to use a Tiger in Japanese color. I want something that LOOKS like it is Japanese made. Just like we use Carro Armatos for Italian tanks. In real life they were outclassed by most Allied tanks but at least they LOOK Italian. I can always pretend they were a little tougher than they actually were for game purposes.
That being said, I also understand that it would take a lot of time trying to research a sculpt for a Japanese Heavy tank and that time could be better spent filling that slot with something else that might be more useful as far as Japan is concerned and more accessible to research. So, if space in the set is limited and a Japanese Heavy Tank needs to be sacrificed for another piece that might work better, then I would be cool with that. I would like to see all nations get heavy, medium and light tanks, but I think most people are right that Japan probably wouldn’t use heavy tanks like other countries.