Shinano sunk because the crew were not experienced in counter flooding, so it listed heavily and broke the other compartments and sunk the ship.
Anyway:
CVL/CVE: 0-1-2-10 ( one hit, one plane)
CV: 0-2-2-16 ( two hits, two planes)
CVB: 1-2-2-22 ( three hits, three planes)
@Imperious:
Shinano sunk because the crew were not experienced in counter flooding, so it listed heavily and broke the other compartments and sunk the ship.
Anyway:
CL/CVE:Â 0-1-2-10 ( one hit, one plane)
CV: 0-2-2-16 ( two hits, two planes)
Super Carrier: 1-2-2-22 ( three hits, three planes)
I presume you mean CVL (Light Fleet Carrier), not CL (Light Cruiser?) In any case, I think I’d prefer:
CVL/CVE: 0-1-2-10 ( one hit, one plane)
CV: 1-2-2-16 ( two hits, two planes)
Super Carrier: 1-3-2-22 ( three hits, three planes)
This still only gives the standard CV the same A/D stats as in AA42 and the SCV the same A/D as in classic.
Perhaps there could also be room for a CVE below a CVL as a 0-1-1-8 (1 hit, 1 plane)
In my July tournament with the kids I might try using a bunch of classic pieces to try the CVE along with (slow) old BB’s, (slow) 6 IPC transports and maybe (slow) DE’s, too on a classic board, (and use AH pieces for their standard “fast” equivalents) just to see how it goes.
@Imperious:
Shinano sunk because the crew were not experienced in counter flooding, so it listed heavily and broke the other compartments and sunk the ship.
Anyway:
CL/CVE:Â 0-1-2-10 ( one hit, one plane)
CV: 0-2-2-16 ( two hits, two planes)
Super Carrier: 1-2-2-22 ( three hits, three planes)
and she was sailing with a skeleton crew, and she didn’t have her fire control systems complete, and didn’t have her water tight doors installed.
I think giving SuperCarriers a defense of 3 would make them overpowered. They already carry 3 planes for defense plus take 3 hits to sink. You would need an armada just to attack 1 fully loaded Super Carrier.
A little curious about your CVE idea. I’m not sure that having a ship with a movement of 1 would be good for anything other than coastal defense. All other ships move 2 so it wouldn’t be able to keep up with anything. Or is that your idea for the “old” battleships and 6 IPC transports, that they only move 1 as well? I guess that might be an interesting idea. You could have a “fast” fleet take off to do an attack then a “slow” fleet comes up behind and makes a sort of second wave attack.
I think giving SuperCarriers a defense of 3 would make them overpowered. They already carry 3 planes for defense plus take 3 hits to sink. You would need an armada just to attack 1 fully loaded Super Carrier.
A little curious about your CVE idea. I’m not sure that having a ship with a movement of 1 would be good for anything other than coastal defense. All other ships move 2 so it wouldn’t be able to keep up with anything. Or is that your idea for the “old” battleships and 6 IPC transports, that they only move 1 as well? I guess that might be an interesting idea. You could have a “fast” fleet take off to do an attack then a “slow” fleet comes up behind and makes a sort of second wave attack.
That’s exactly my idea. Much like the 3rd/5th Fleet [a mobile strike force] (dominated by CV’s & CVL’s, supported by New BB’s & CA’s, along with the latest CB’s, CL’s and DD’s) was supported by the 7th Fleet [the amphibious force] which contained the slow transports supported by older BB’s and CA’s for fire support, CVE’s for air support, and DE’s for ASW/ screening. I’ve get one set of classic (& classic-style EotH, Xeno and/or TT) pieces for the amphibious task forces and one set of revised/AA40 pieces for the strike forces.
Note that slowing the slow ships down to 1 is premised on the assumption that I use a small board (probably the classic board.) Either next year (or maybe this year if I get a large # of kids who want to play) I’ll try a bigger board and speed up the fast ships to a 3 instead.
For me having at least 2 different ship speeds is about the only thing that makes any sense of Coach’s insistence on an old BB for everybody. Otherwise, just have the latest SBB/BB/CB for everybody, because the biggest difference between old and new BB’s was speed and efficiency. (Yes there were all sorts of other improvements, but most old BB’s were retrofitted with all of these improvements. Even in areas where this wasn’t possible, there was still such a scale & capability gap between any BB and any CA that you couldn’t reasonably lower old BB capabilities that much, besides the key speed exception. At worst, you could maybe say that a typical old BB would roughly equate to a slow CB.)
Another way to look at it is that you have your fast-attack “blue water navy” to gain control of the sea and your “brown water navy” that specializes in amphibious work… which is pretty much exactly what the US Navy learned to do, first in having 2 different types of task force in the mid-war island-hopping campaigns (Solomons, Marshalls, Marianas) and then in having two whole different “numbered fleets” (the 7th vs. the 3rd/5th) in the last couple of really big campaigns (Philippines, Okinawa.)
Remember, now, that during WW2, transports were nearly always much slower than warships anyway, so having a group of slower (and thus cheaper and/or legacy) warships that specialized in supporting transport ships actually made perfect sense. Given that DE’s were much cheaper than DD’s and that CVE’s were much cheaper (and more plentiful) than CV’s (or even than CVL’s, for that matter), using them to support transports freed up more of the latest, fast, state-of-the-art warships for the point-of-the-spear sea-control mission. Likewise, supporting the amphibs was the perfect role for legacy, slow BB’s (and then they came in handy in a defensive role at Leyte Gulf, and certainly could have a similar secondary defensive function in an AA amphib campaign.)
Basically, the difference between fleet carriers (CVs), light fleet carriers (CVLs) and escort carriers (CVEs) is as follows. Fleet carriers operated large numbers of top-of-the-line naval aircraft of all types. CVLs operated the same aircraft types, but in smaller numbers; they were essentially reduced-sized fleet carriers. Escort carriers were less capable ships, built cheaply and in large numbers, intended for a support role rather than a front-line fleet combat role. They didn’t operate the latest high-performance aircraft or the full range of naval airplene types, unlike fleet carriers and light fleet carriers.
@CWO:
Basically, the difference between fleet carriers (CVs), light fleet carriers (CVLs) and escort carriers (CVEs) is as follows. Fleet carriers operated large numbers of top-of-the-line naval aircraft of all types. CVLs operated the same aircraft types, but in smaller numbers; they were essentially reduced-sized fleet carriers. Escort carriers were less capable ships, built cheaply and in large numbers, intended for a support role rather than a front-line fleet combat role. They didn’t operate the latest high-performance aircraft or the full range of naval airplene types, unlike fleet carriers and light fleet carriers.
Yes, but you missed the other key distinction: CVL’s were fast to operation with fast carrier task forces, whereas CVE’s were slower (and thus cheaper) as they only had to keep up with merchant convoys (in their original role) or slow transports (in their secondary amphibious role). Also, escort carriers carried the same TBF Avenger torpedo/ level bombers and SBD Dauntlass scout/ dive bombers as other carriers. They did tend to carry smaller and less capable fighters, though, (like the F4F Wildcat) and I’m unsure if this was just a matter of prioritizing the best fighters for the “point-of-the-spear,” “blue-water” fleet/ light fleet carriers or because the faster and more powerful fighters like the F6F Hellcat or F4U Corsair had trouble operating from the shorter deck or some other such operational reason. The Bottom line, though, is that the planes carried were pretty similar: the Wildcat was a pretty good fighter, not that much inferior to the Hellcat, with many advantages over the Zero.
I.ve been waiting for nice Japanese pieces in the classic yellow gold color for over twenty years!!! Way to go HBG!!!
@Pacific:
I.ve been waiting for nice Japanese pieces in the classic yellow gold color for over twenty years!!!�  � Way to go HBG!!!
Amen to that! Â While I have the one small philosophic disagreement in preferring CB’s to old BB’s and CVL’s to CVE’s (since I’ve been assuming that Classic pieces can serve as old BB’s and CVE’s anyway, like I’ve always done, and since I don’t see much point in old BB’s or CVE’s without a speed distinction anyway) I still find HBG’s overall line-up for the Japanese impressive and a huge step up and I can’t wait for it to be available!
@CWO:
I have quite a few reference books at home that probably include specifications on Shinano, so I’ll have a look this weekend and see if I can turn up anything useful.Â
Here are the figures I found. The basic conclusion is that Shinano had stronger deck protection than Yamato but considerably weaker side protection.
Main belt armour (amidships):
Shinano 160mm
Yamato 410mm
Lower belt:
Shinano 200mm tapered to 75mm
Yamato 270mm tapered to 75mm
Deck armour (centerline):
Shinano 250mm total
Yamato 240mm total
Deck armour (outboard):
Shinano 380mm
Yamato 293mm
Both ships had a maximum speed of 27 knots. Shinano carried 47 aircraft: 20 fighters (including two dismantled), 20 bombers (including two dismantled) and 7 scouts (including one dismantled).
Hey Coach and Variable: I was checking at your site and noticed that it looks like you’ve settled on the Kaga for your “late war/ large” carrier design. Since the Kaga was a unique one-off conversion design, I think that Shokaku or Taiho would make more sense as they come closer to the Japanese ideal of what they wanted in a carrier, and thus would be likely to build more of. What was the thinking on that one?
Hey Coach and Variable: I was checking at your site and noticed that it looks like you’ve settled on the Kaga for your “late war/ large” carrier design. Since the Kaga was a unique one-off conversion design, I think that Shokaku or Taiho would make more sense as they come closer to the Japanese ideal of what they wanted in a carrier, and thus would be likely to build more of. What was the thinking on that one?
The Kaga is being included in the “Basic Set” which is the future set not being done right now. The idea of this set is that it includes “iconic” sculpts, not necessarily the most common. Akagi has now been done by WOTC, and we want to do Unryu in the Expansion Set. Coach really likes Kaga, so we settled on that as the iconic Japanese carrier for HBG. So, after all is said and done, we will have available Shinano, Akagi, Unryu, and Kaga, plus whatever FMG decides to do. That’s a lot of CV choices!
Geez! That is a lot. We’re looking at 4 and possibly 5 different fleet carriers for Japan now. I know people like some variety, but doesn’t that seem a bit much for these games? Is each carrier type going to have different specific values? Or will some of them simply be for a different “look” on the game board? This isn’t even including the Light carriers and Escort carriers, which we know will also have different values.
BY the way, HBG has really outdone himself on the Japanese sets. That is a LOT of different types of units to put into play. Looks great. Can I assume that eventually we will have this selection for just about all the different countries? I know some of the smaller ones like France, ANZAC and Italy won’t be quite so big, and Russia and Germany probably won’t have as many naval choices, but I’m talking the major countries like USA and Britain. WOW! That would really be some kind of lay out.
I’m starting to feel a little sorry for Britain now. They are the only major nation that nobody has made any new stuff for, unless you count the 1941 sculpts and stuff from Singapore.
Hey Coach and Variable: I was checking at your site and noticed that it looks like you’ve settled on the Kaga for your “late war/ large” carrier design. Since the Kaga was a unique one-off conversion design, I think that Shokaku or Taiho would make more sense as they come closer to the Japanese ideal of what they wanted in a carrier, and thus would be likely to build more of. What was the thinking on that one?
The Kaga is being included in the “Basic Set” which is the future set not being done right now. The idea of this set is that it includes “iconic” sculpts, not necessarily the most common. Akagi has now been done by WOTC, and we want to do Unryu in the Expansion Set. Coach really likes Kaga, so we settled on that as the iconic Japanese carrier for HBG. So, after all is said and done, we will have available Shinano, Akagi, Unryu, and Kaga, plus whatever FMG decides to do. That’s a lot of CV choices!
So let me make sure that I’m understanding your thinking, here:
1. The “Supplemental” set allows the player to add the pieces to oob and/or FMG and have more options.
2. The “Expansion” set expands the above in order to make a full piece set, so that all the “bases are covered.”
3. The “Basic” set adds iconic units that HBG wants to do, even if they’ve already been done, and/or overlap in type/ characteristics with other pieces HBG has already done.
While I can’t give away all of our plans and secrets for what we have in store, basically:
The Supplement set is meant to introduce new unit types to oob.
The Expansion set is meant to give some additional nation specific options i.e. early/late, light/heavy, or just different.
The Basic set will be meant to both fill in standard units with iconic pieces and be a sort of “stand alone” set for a very basic game like Classic or AA41.
Variable and Coach,
I like the way you are thinking concerning these new units. Awesome lineup.
WARRIOR888
I agree……schweet!! I know that I pretty much already stated this but I’ve been waiting for these pieces for over twenty years. This is going to be excellent!
I have a question for anyone that has an idea. In the Japan Expansion set, there will be a Light Cruiser and a Heavy Cruiser. Obviously a Light Cruiser would be something mid-way between Heavy Cruisers and Destroyers. I was wondering about the values for a Light Cruiser in a D6 system.
Cost is easy = 10 IPCs.
Movement, easy too = 2 just like the rest of the fleet.
Attack & Defense = I was thinking maybe they have a little more punch in offense and not so much in defense. Does that sound right to you guys? If so, then Light Cruisers should be:
A 3 - D 2 - M 2 - C 10
Also, would you give a Light Cruiser the same kind of ASW capabilities as Destroyers? Or perhaps some sort of Anti-Aircraft ability? There was some discussion about making Cruisers have AA capabilities on another thread. I even made a House Rule for that, but we never remember to employ it during games.
OR, here’s another idea. Would you prefer to make Light Cruisers a 3-3-2-10 unit and bump up Heavy Cruisers to 4-3-2-12? That would make Heavy Cruisers basically like one-hit Battleships in attack. That would probably be too much, don’t you think? I think my first idea is a little better. What do you guys think?
I have a question for anyone that has an idea. In the Japan Expansion set, there will be a Light Cruiser and a Heavy Cruiser. Obviously a Light Cruiser would be something mid-way between Heavy Cruisers and Destroyers. I was wondering about the values for a Light Cruiser in a D6 system.
Cost is easy = 10 IPCs.
Movement, easy too = 2 just like the rest of the fleet.
Attack & Defense = I was thinking maybe they have a little more punch in offense and not so much in defense. Does that sound right to you guys? If so, then Light Cruisers should be:
A 3 - D 2 - M 2 - C 10Also, would you give a Light Cruiser the same kind of ASW capabilities as Destroyers? Or perhaps some sort of Anti-Aircraft ability? There was some discussion about making Cruisers have AA capabilities on another thread. I even made a House Rule for that, but we never remember to employ it during games.
OR, here’s another idea. Would you prefer to make Light Cruisers a 3-3-2-10 unit and bump up Heavy Cruisers to 4-3-2-12? That would make Heavy Cruisers basically like one-hit Battleships in attack. That would probably be too much, don’t you think? I think my first idea is a little better. What do you guys think?
Between the two that you mentioned, I prefer the earlier-mentioned one which downgrades the light cruiser rather than upgrades the heavy cruiser. Fundamentally, though, using a d12 makes the most sense. You neededn’t even switch the whole game over to d12’s, just make use of one on occasion for certain special units, particularly naval ones.
As to special AA characteristics, that would make good sense for certain US and UK light cruisers (e.g., Atlanta & Dido classes) that had dual-purpose main armament, but I haven’t yet hear any definitive announcement that anyones is going to do any of these classes! The Japanese classes (like the Nagara and Sendai classes) were actually rather poor in AA protection. (This was actually true even of the latest Japanese light cruiser classes, the Agano and Oyodo, since the Japanese had great difficulty developing an adequate dual-purpose gun.)
