“Coach”,
I will be HAPPY with whatever YOU decide on. :-D
And Thanks again for all of your time and effort on this project.
–----------------------------------
Having said that I previously thought I’d follow your lead in what I thought was your decision to change your mind by:
Replacing the OOB Heavy Cruiser with a much better detailed version. It would replace the CLAA Cruiser that I wanted,…but that’s COOL.
As far as the “Independance” CVL Light Carrier that Tigerman suggested we keep in the running I thought the idea had plenty of merit as it would be a carrier with a different capacity of a/c based on it (TWO).
The OOB “Wasp” Carrier is another full-sized “Fleet” Carrier,…and like your data shows it also bases THREE a/c. It shouldn’t be confused for a “LIGHT” carrier like the “Independance” class CVLs.
I only want THREE different TYPES of Carriers:
1. A CVE “ESCORT” Carrier (basing ONE a/c) that will be in your US Supplement Set.
2. A CVL “LIGHT” Carrier (basing TWO a/c) like the “Independance” class.
3. A CV “FLEET” Carrier (basing THREE a/c) like the “Essex” class.
IMHO I believe having these THREE TYPES of Carriers would be very important in everyone’s gameplay options.
But whatever you decide on I’m sure we will ALL be happy with. If you open things up for discussion, they will be discussed. Whenever you again decide on your semi-final list just post it up in a “voting poll” and let everyone vote on their favorites.
Let’s all remember to have “FUN”.
“Tall Paul”
Wasp was a light carrier.
From Wikipedia.
USS Wasp (CV-7) was a United States Navy aircraft carrier. The eighth Navy ship of that name, she was the sole ship of her class. Built to use up the remaining tonnage allowed to the U.S. for aircraft carriers under the treaties of the time, she was built on a reduced-size version of the Yorktown-class hull.
@coachofmany:
Wasp Class (OOB): 90-100 Aircraft
Essex Class, 90-100 Aircraft
I’m mostly concerned with the number of a/c based on the different Carriers we’re discussing here. It seems to me the “Wasp”, the “Yorktown’s”, and even the “Lexington’s” could all be considerred as large “Fleet” Carriers as your data above shows.
Use them any way you wish.
Reloader,
Have you seen the detail on the “Coach’s” Casablanca CVE “Escort” Carrier sculps?
Yes, they are only ships,…but HBG’s new units are much more impressive in detail than the OOB units,…by a long shot. Compare it to the OOB “Wasp” sitting beside it. There’s simply NO COMPARISON as far as the detail is concerned.
“Tall Paul”
@Tall:
Reloader,
Have you seen the detail on the “Coach’s” Casablanca CVE “Escort” Carrier sculps?
Yes, they are only ships,…but HBG’s new units are much more impressive in detail than the OOB units,…by a long shot. Compare it to the OOB “Wasp” sitting beside it. There’s simply NO COMPARISON as far as the detail is concerned.“Tall Paul”
Actually the Wasp class may of only carried about 80 aircraft.
I was only using you data, “Coach”. But I still believe the Wasp was used much more like a “Fleet” Carrier than a “Light” Carrier. And there is the size difference, too.
Who would want an OOB unit instead of one of your beautiful new units???
Just remember I’m ON YOUR SIDE, “Coach”.
“Tall Paul”
Man, there was like 2 1/2 pages of posts added to this topic in just the past day. Must be VERY popular.
Okay, I have to agree with Coach on his ideas on how to use the different types of carriers:
Light/Escort carriers: carry 1 plane, 1 hit to sink
Wasp/Enterprise fleet carriers: 2 planes, 2 hits
Essex fleet carriers: 3 planes, 3 hits
The main point is the Light and Escort carriers. You saw Coach’s stats, both types of ships were roughly the same size and carried close to the same amount of planes. I think the Light carriers had about 5 more or so. Therefore, a Light carrier should not be allowed to carry 2 planes or take 2 hits to sink. With that in mind, it seems to me that either an Escort Carrier piece OR a Light Carrier piece can really serve both roles in our games and since Coach’s US Supplement set already HAS the Casablanca class Escort Carrier, do we really need another type of carrier piece? I mean, do we really have room for both light and escort carriers in our games? Perhaps in your more close-up naval games like the Solomons, but I’m talking about basic Global 1940, or even 1939 with the bigger map. Would you really be able to distinguish one from the other in terms of cost, movement, attack and defense WITHOUT having to change to a D12 system? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against having an Independence class CL, I’m just thinking that maybe it shouldn’t be such a priority and might could wait until the 2nd set (assuming we get that far).
One other thing about the heavy cruiser. Some of you have suggested the Baltimore class, which I agree is an excellent choice. However, since FMG has already decided on the Wichita class, you might want to re-think that. The USS Baltimore and her sisters were originally planned as upgraded Wichita class heavy cruisers but the Navy changed it’s mind and decided to make the Baltimore the lead ship in a new class of heavy cruisers, which left the Wichita alone in her own class. So, the ships will probably look very similar in overall hull design and construction, especially at the small scale that these pieces will be in. If HBG makes the Baltimore and FMG makes the Wichita, you may very well end up with two ships that look the same from our point of view.
Coach, I am in for this for the long haul, what ever you decide to produce is fine by me. Just having new units to game with is going to be excellent from all stand points of this conversation. I guess I created a hornet’s nest with my eariler posts. I am ending this discussion for myself and moving on to other issues. Question you are producing a Nevada/Oklahoma class Battleship excellent Is that unit being done with a tripod mast or squirrel cage mast? I can’t get the pictures to increase in size so I can tell what type of masts this unit has.
Cheers
WARRIOR888
KNP,
LET ME REPEAT,…I WILL BE HAPPY WITH WHAT THE “COACH” DECIDES.
The OOB “Wasp” Carrier was much more like a full-sized “Fleet” Carrier than a
“Light” Carrier. The “Independance” Light Carriers were built on Cruiser hulls and were physically smaller. And they also had a smaller amount of a/c based on them.
I believe if everyone were to SEE A PIC OF ALL THREE CARRIER TYPES together(Casbalanca, Independance, Essex) they would see the obvious differences in their sizes, and therefore the # of a/c based on them. Let’s call them:
Small CVE “Casablanca” 1 a/c
Medium CVL “Light” 2 a/c
Large CV “Essex” 3 a/c
In ANY game,…like a 1940-Pacific or 1940-Global game,…
Wouldn’t you like to have the option of buying Carriers that had differing amounts of a/c based on them and of different prices?
The “Coach” decided to produce a “Baltimore” class CA Heavy Cruiser to replace the
OOB Heavy Cruiser. OK,…COOL.
But using this same logic why wouldn’t it make sense to replace the OOB Carrier with an “Independance” CVL?
This would also add a COMPLETELY NEW TYPE of unit to the pool. A medium-sized Carrier that would base TWO a/c,… instead of ONE with the CVE, or THREE with the CV.
Also, the “Independance” class CVL garnered 20 votes. That’s MORE votes than for any ship still on the list except the “Montana” Battleship and the Heavy Cruiser.
I’m simply bringing up these points for everyone to consider.
“Tall Paul”
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.
