HBG Japan Supplement Set

@knp7765:

I think both of you guys make very valid points. One thing that bugs me a little is while many of the fighter types you have mentioned may have very distinct characteristics in real life, at the scale that we are talking about many of them will tend to look the same. Granted, both HBG and FMG have surpassed anybody else up to this point in including minute details to their sculpts, but these are still really small pieces and in a lot of cases, I think it will be fairly hard to distinguish one model from another, especially when you are talking about planes made by the same country.

Wingnuts usually wouldn’t have too many problems differentiating, based on horizontal and vertical stabilizer shape, wing shape, dihedral, etc assuming they’re molded right. The average player certainly would, and that is something to consider (I still don’t understand how anyone thought the OOB US tac bomber was an F4U Corsair, but it happened). At the same time, most planes of that era (or really of any single era) look more or less the same. They were usually refinement of the working design, rather than a new untested design that could lead to spectacular failure.

If HBG had set the standard with a prototype as a late war, rather than a historically significant airframe, it wouldn’t be a problem. But since as he went with an inline fighter for the US (Mustang P-51D), he should probably continue to represent best of the best planes that were produced in larger numbers rather than planes that look “unique” with potential.

And yes, there will be planes that look similar as most japanese planes look more or less like the A6M. And like the P51, the A6M had early war and late war varients - the A6M5 being a superior plane in almost every respect to the A6M2, and only substantially visually different in the wingtips.

As much as I’d like to see a Gloster Meteor, J7W1 Shinden or an HO 229, they just don’t fit in.

I’d prefer to see the George to the Tony though.

@Tall:

IMHO I think our primary consideration should be the [b]TYPES OF UNITS[/b].

I totally agree - this should be the primary consideration. The supplement sets should truly supplement the OOB parts mix in a uniform way so that every nation has the opportunity to purchase, for example, light aircraft carriers.

Knp 7765, Kcdzim and Others,

I’m glad you’re getting involved in the discussion.

IMHO I think there are several LOGICAL points that should be taken into consideration of ALL units produced:

That these units are SMALL, and should be VISUALLY DISTINCTIVE. � Also to be taken into account should be the HISTORICAL IMPACT of the unit. � And to some degree, the NUMBER PRODUCED.

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hi-61 “Tony” as the ONLY Japanese Fighter a/c to have an in-line engine vs. a radial, would be a perfect example of this. � It would be long and slender and very easy to distinguish from the “typical” Japanese Fighter. And it was produced in large numbers throughout the entire war(3,078).

And it would NOT NEED TO BE PAINTED AND/OR DECALLED to be visually distinctive. It would be so in only it’s molded burnt orange plastic.

I believe EVERYONE could easily distinguish an Orange Japanese “Tony” from a Black German Bf-109.

Somehow I mistakenly listed the “Tony” as a Late-war Fighter(countering the P-51) instead of as an Early-war Fighter(countering the P-40). � Probably when my “screen glitched”.

Let’s look at the American Fighter a/c that have been produced so far:

Early-war Fighter �  �  P-40 “Warhawk” �  �  (HBG US Supplement set)
Mid-war Fighter �  �  � P-38 “Lightning” �  �  (OOB)   
Late-war Fighter �  �  � P-51 “Mustang” �  �  �(HBG US Supplement set)
Naval Fighter �  �  �  �  F-6F “Hellcat” �  �  �   (FMGs planned USA set)
Fighter/Bomber �  �  �  � F-4U “Corsair” �  �  �  �(HBG US Marine set)

Each of these a/c are visually distinctive as well as (POTENTIALLY) having different Attack/Defense/Cost/Movement factors and uses.

And we should bear in mind that we don’t have to get ALL of the units we want in any ONE set.

Since we’re dealing with HBGs Japanese Supplement set here, we should be considerring the Early-war and Late-war Fighters, both being land-based Army types. My choices are in red.

Early-war Fighter Ki-61 “Tony”
Mid-war Fighter
Late-war Fighter N-1K1-J Shinden “George”
Naval Fighter      A6M Type 0 “Zeke” (whether OOB or a replacement)
Fighter/Bomber

Both the Ki-84 “Frank” and the N-1K1-J “George” would be good choices. And technically the “Frank” was more widely produced,…but since it is SOO SIMULAR to the “Zeke” I think we would be better served by producing the “George” since it is has a much “thicker” airframe(like a P-47) and wouldn’t be confused easily with the “Zekes”.

There are MANY good choices,…but IMHO I believe we would be better served if we chose units that were as visually distinctive as possible from each other.

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another consideration we should take into account is that this is a GAME, and sometimes historical accuracy and/or numbers produced might need to take a “back seat” to gaming “FUN”.

A case in point would be HBGs stated goal of producing 4-Engine Bombers for all of the countries in the game, such as the German Ju-488 and Japanese G8N1 “Rita”.

Having large numbers of these units might not be historically correct but IMHO I think ALL players will want this option of having 4-engine heavy Bombers for every country. And “FUN” trumps reality (in some cases).

I truly hope everyone will feel free to “get involved” in these discussions and give their viewpoint on them. � We may all be better for it.

What Do YA’LL Think?

“Tall Paul”

@Tall:

�  � Having large numbers of these units might not be historically correct but IMHO I think ALL players will want this option of having 4-engine heavy Bombers for every country. � And “FUN” trumps reality (in some cases).

I think an important point to make in support of your argument here, is that a player’s choices during a game of Axis & Allies Global 1940 are not required to correspondence to the historical actions of the country played by them. Japan may not have constructed any significant numbers of heavy bombers, but there is certainly nothing stopping an Axis & Allies Japanese player from developing and constructing heavy bombers (in which case, a four-engined bomber would be useful as an in-game sculpt, despite the exceedingly-low historical numbers of such aircraft actually produced in Japan during WWII).

Ultimately, it appears that FMG and HBG have provided us with some variety in that regard, and have expressed an intent to continue with this goal in mind. I don’t know if there is any firm consensus on the new unit types to be added to the standard 1940 linup, but discussions on this forum indicate that at least a heavy bomber, light/escort carrier, self-propelled artillery, and tank destroyer will exist for each nation. I think a pre-war and modern BB are established choices as well. I’m not sure if there is any consensus regarding tank types, but Germany and (to a lesser extent) the US seem to have a very good selection so far.

I would point out that Germany has not received a CVE/CVL, the US doesn’t have a heavy tank or modern BB, Italy does not have a four-engined bomber, CVE/CVL, pre-war BB, or SPG; thus, there are some inconsistencies in unit choices thus far. Some unit choices will also, of course, depend upon the unit choices of FMG, and I do not recall seeing any certain FMG choices for Japan thus far (other than the G3M Betty). However, for a Japanese supplementary set from HBG, there are several basic points which can still be made:

Basic Naval Units:

Battleships - If FMG and HBG are each producing a set, this would provide the opportunity for us to receive a pre-war BB and modern BB. From earlier discussions of this community, the Kongo and Yamato classes would be most appropriate for each respective sculpt. I do hope, however, that FMG and HBG do not each choose to produce an early was BB for Japan as they did for the US; the AAA war may start in 1940, but it progresses into the mid and late war range. I would hope that we receive at least one modern (and iconic) IJN BB sculpt to represent wartime production. I would also point out that IMO, the OOB Yamato sculpt is devoid of significant details, and needs to be replaced.

Fleet Carriers - I have posted my thoughts on IJN CV’s elsewhere, but Japan has a variety of unique and well-known carrier classes; for aesthetic purposes, I would like to see at least two represented. Kaga, the Shokaku class, and Taiho rank near the top of my personal list.

Cruiser - If we are looking for a CA that is visually distinct from the two-funneled OOB Takao class (a horrible sculpt though, IMO), then the one-funnelled Mogami and Tone classes are suitable choices. If one of these is the choice of FMG, then I doubt HBG would use a supplementary slot to produce a second CA. If so, then I would hope for a two-funneled CA (any of the four available classes).

Destroyer - If both FMG and HBG decide to produce a DD for Japan, there are several choices available; the Kagero and Akitsuki classes are my top two choices.

Submarine - I think we need only one class of submarine for Japan; FMG can produce any of the “B-Type” variants, and HBG can leave this one of a supplementary set.

Transport/Auxiliary - I would personally like to see at least one new freighter or troop transport, and a tanker sculpt. FMG and HBG can each produce one of the two.

Supplementary Naval Units:

Light/Escort Carrier - Although this unit type has not been consistently produced so far, I would hope that Japan does receive one. My first choice would be the Zuiho class, followed by the Taiyo class. I assume FMG will not produce this unit in its standard set, and that as such, we will receive only one sculpt.

Light Cruiser - I don’t know if HBG will actually produce this unit, as it has not been a standard supplementary unit so far. If we were to get one, I would recommend a Nagara/Kuma class as being visually distinct from an IJN CA, and generally representative of older IJN CL’s.

Basic Land Units:

Infantry - I have no input to suggest regarding infantry; I assume FMG and HBG will continue with their current trends.

Tank - There are a wide number of choices here, but I don’t know if FMG and HBG are planning to coordinate production so that we get at least one light, medium, and heavy tank for Japan. Although I would not be adverse to receiving a Japanese heavy tank, I will point out that no Japanese heavy tank design even reached the complete prototype stage, let alone full-scale production. Anyway, I could settle for a Type 3 Chi-Nu as a heavy, with the Type 95 Ha-Go as a light, and Type 97 Chi-Ha as a medium. There are other choices which would suffice as well.

Artillery - One new sculpt is enough; FMG can produce one, and HBG will be relieved of the burden, IMO.

Mechanized Infantry - Type 1 Ho-Ha Half Track.

Supplementary Land Units:

SPG - Type 4 Ho-Ro.

Tank Destroyer - Type 1 No-Ni.

Truck - One is enough; FMG can produce a Type 97 Isuzu, and HBG does not need to produce another.

Basic and Supplementary Air Units:

Fighter - There has been extensive discussion in this thread surrounding the sub-types of Japanese fighters to be produced to counter the wide variety of fighters already produced for the US. I would personally add that although some such breakdown is important to other players, I do not personally intend to distinguish between different fighter types in my global games, other than for aesthetic purposes. I will therefore leave this portion of the discussion to other community members, but I will add that I would most like an A6M2 Zero “Zeke”, and an N1K1 “George.”

For the sake of speeding up this long-winded post, I will just repeat my earlier thoughts on other Japanese air unit types:

Heavy Bomber - I am glad to see that HBG will continue to ensure that each nation receives a four-engined bomber; my Japanese choice would be the G5N “Liz”, an aircraft which I have always liked.

Medium Bomber - If FMG is already producing a two-engined bomber (confirmed to be a G4M “Betty”), then I wouldn’t place any priority on receiving a second sculpt).

Tactical/Fighter-Bomber - Between FMG and HBG, I would like to see both the D3A “Val” and B5N “Kate”.

Finally, I will add that currently, we lack two pieces of important information:

• Most importantly, I feel that we need some more detailed input from coachofmany regarding his intention for the number of sculpts for a supplementary Japanese set, and the types which he would like to produce, although it was a good idea for coachofmany to ask for input to establish fighter-sub-types; and

• Some idea from Jeremy regarding his intentions for his main Japanese set (other than the “Betty” as a two-engine Japanese bomber; as this set is a long time away from completion, I wouldn’t really expect to receive any such input yet.

SNLF infantry would definitely be great. As it is we’re painting up some revell miniatures to do the job for now.

I like the suggestions regarding different planes. I’d definitely order this set.

Nakajima Ki-43-I Oscar wouldnt look like the zero. the zero has a fatter rounder wing, while the Oscar has more of a skinny triangular wing plus its tail is much skinnier. while the frank is a longer fighter than both. the Fighter pieces would be easy to distinguish from each other still

@Lunarwolf:

Nakajima Ki-43-I Oscar wouldnt look like the zero. the zero has a fatter rounder wing, while the Oscar has more of a skinny triangular wing plus its tail is much skinnier. while the frank is a longer fighter than both. the Fighter pieces would be easy to distinguish from each other still

unfortunately, at this scale, the difference between these two would be nearly negligible and VERY difficult to model. The precision the modeller would need to make them look right and different would probably be impossible, without exaggerating features. The models already suffer from scale issues, this would be a pretty tough get. The molds can’t even do a tail as thin as the Oscar. They will probably always be thicker than the zero in scale.

Zero:

Oscar

@Tall:

�  �Â

�  �Â

by the by, Tall Paul - that’s caused by using space more than once (in your case, indenting and after sentences). It’s a hard habit to break, and I now edit mine out on this forum because they glitch now. But technically, as monospace fonts are obsolete, it is completely unnecessary and, according to many publishing style guides, incorrect to type more than one space after a full stop (period).

For everyone’s edification:

Tony (looks a great deal like a BF109 - this led to much confusion on the allies part when deployed in 1943)

George

AG124, and Everyone,

As per your “Responce #63”:

Yes,…I completely agree, this is a GAME. A point we’d do well to remember.

The following are either my understandings of what I’ve heard, spoken to the “Coach” on the phone about, or what has been typed here on A&A.ORG. I AM NOT speaking for the “Coach”, and any misunderstandings or mistakes are MINE ALONE.

I believe the “Coach” of HBG has stated before that he was interested in making a “enlarged line-up” of the SAME UNIT TYPES for all countries. This would be in addition to the FMG units. FMG making “Full Country Sets”, and HBG making “Supplementary Sets” for all the countries. In my understanding**(?)** they both have somewhat established the UNIT TYPES that they are making in their respective sets.

Until the “Coach” states differently, I think we might take the UNIT TYPES that he made in his “HBG US Supplement Set” as the basis of out unit choices.

The “Coach” some time ago also stated his definate interest in also making an “HBG US Naval Set” that he has already taken pre-orders for. � The pre-order amounts stand at about 36%(or so) of the amount he said was needed before the set would become a “GO” proposition.

The “Coach” also stated that if/when the “US Naval Set(possibly two sets)” were made,…He intended to follow this with an “HBG Japanese Naval Set”(or two).

I believe that if/when the “HBG Naval Sets” are produced,…we could add these “NAVAL UNIT TYPES” to our list of “SUPPLEMENT UNIT TYPES” to be produced for all countries. Of course I may be wrong in this assumption,…and some countries may or may not have every UNIT TYPE made for it. I DON’T KNOW.

The thread for the “HBG U.S. Naval Sculps Pre-Order” has been a very popular discussion thread and has now grown quite lengthy. But it has a lot of info in there concerning the “Coach’s” intentions and preferences. Check it out if you haven’t already done so.

The choices of Naval Unit Types weren’t “finalised”,…but 12 units out of the following 14 were “under consideration” for the “(1st) US Naval Set”. Two TYPES needed to be trimed off the list,…(but hopefully produced along with other TYPES in a 2nd Naval Set). I’ve arranged this list in large to small size,…but this is NO REFLECTION of there possibility of inclusion in the set. � �

“Essex class” Aircraft Carrier
“Montana class” Battleship
“South Dakota class” Battleship
“Alaska” class BattleCruiser
“Brooklyn” class" Light Cruiser
“Atlanta class” Anti-Aircraft Light Cruiser
Destroyer-Escort
“AO” Oiler
PT Boat
LST (Landing Ship-Tank)
LCVP “Higgens boat” (Landing Craft, Vehicle/Personel)
LCM (Landing Craft-Mechanised)
PBY “Catalina” Patrol/Bomber
B-29 “SuperFortress”

There was discussion of possibly “scratching” the “Atlanta” class Anti-Aircraft Light Cruiser and replacing it on the list with a “Baltimore” class Heavy Cruiser. I don’t know what “final” decissions were made(if any).

Some of the other choices that “didn’t make the cut” for the 1st Naval Set but might be produced in a possible (2nd) US Naval Set were:

“Independance” class CVL Light Aircraft Carrier–-with the “Essex” class CV included and the “Casablanca” class CVL in the HBG “US Supplemental Set” it was deemed one too many CVs (for inclusion in the 1st Naval Set anyway).

“Midway” class CV(H) Heavy Aircraft Carrier—“Ditto” the above reason,…and also this wasn’t a WW2 ship but still might be included in a 2nd Naval set.

DMS Minesweeper
“North Carolina” class Battleship
“Tennessee” class Battleship
“Colorado” class Battleship
AV Seaplane Tender

APD “Fast Tranport” (the WW1 “Four-Stacker” Destroyers that were rebuilt to transport the US Marine Raiders.)—Not thought of until after the list was made.

F-9 “Cougar” Jet—Not a WW2 unit but might be included in a 2nd Naval set.

I truly hope we get 12 of the above 14 units made in the 1st Naval Set(and hopefully get a 2nd Naval Set, too). I believe it simply came down to HBG getting enough “Pre-Order” sales for these Naval sets to get produced. So if you’re interested in buying them,…and didn’t already know about them,…PLEASE contact HBG on his web-site or phone him to place your Pre-Orders with him.

The “Coach” said he would make these Set(s) “over and above” his regular production schedule if there was enough “interest” shown in them(through Pre-Orders).

There are already several Axis & Allies players that have Pre-Orderred 10 Sets, hoping that this might help in getting these units produced. �

And the “Coach” also said he was personally very interested in seeing both an American and a Japanese Naval Set(s) produced.

Now that’s something for all of us to think about.

“Tall Paul”

Lunarwolf, and Others,

I truly understand what your saying concerning the differences between the Japanese “Oscar” and “Zeke” Fighter aircraft.

Yes, possibly all of us can discern their subtle differences,…but my main point is that when it is reduced in size to the TINY “A&A SCALE”,…IMHO it is just not dramatic enough of a diferrence to not be confused for the “Zeke”.

All of the American Fighters I listed previously had DRAMATIC differences that made it easy to diferentiate them:

Inverted gull-wings of the Corsair
Twin-boom fuselage of the Lightning
Very fat, stubby radial engine design of the Hellcat
Sleek, modern looking design of the Mustang
Older, fat-nosed design of the Warhawk

For the same above reasons(and others), I think the “Tony” by virtue of it’s being a long, slender, in-line engine shaped design that’s completely different from all other Japanese radial-engined fighter designs would be VISUALLY DISTICTIVE enough to never be confused with a “Zeke”, and thus worthy of consideration.

This along with the HISTORICAL IMPACT and NUMBERS PRODUCED of the “Tony” Fighter, and it’s being available for the ENTIRE WAR period IMHO make it an excellent choice for inclusion.

I hope you and everyone else understand my “reasonning” behind some of my choices better now. These units are soo D@%# small that we should choose Visually Distictive units that are acceptable candidates.

And BTW,…the “Tony” was originally suspected as being an ITALIAN design by the Allied Intelligence Services. That’s why it was given an “Italian” sounding “CODE” name.

When the first early encounters of the “Tony” were made at approx. 500mph closing speeds by the slightly-trained Allied pilots, these unknown new types were simply “assumed” to be the allready known German Me-109s of the Japanese Axis partners. Some racial discimination of that period probably enforced the wrong idea that these Fighters that were “Flying circles around them” could be Japanese designed and flown. They learned different very quickly.

And the “Tony” was in the Pacific War from the start all the way to the end. The Allies running across them in New Guinea against Gen. Kenney’s 5th AF of MacArthurs SouthWest Pacific Area command.

“Tall Paul”

@Tall:

And the “Tony” was in the Pacific War from the start all the way to the end. The Allies running across them in New Guinea against Gen. Kenney’s 5th AF of MacArthurs SouthWest Pacific Area command.

No, they were operationally deployed in 1943.  The design started in 40, prototype flew in 41.

kcdzim,

First off, Thank You very much for educating me on the reasons for my posts having numerous squares all over them. I’ve already changed my typing “style”(?) so that now people might actually be able to read them,…haha.

IMHO the exact introduction date of the “Tony” is NOT necessarily germain to our discussion of if it should be produced or not.

The first “Tony” was built in August '42 and I have literally dozens of books on the New Guinea campaign that are filled with the “Tony”. So from an Axis & Allies 1940-Global game viewpoint, the “Tony” would be in the picture “from the start” against the Americans.

I respect everyones’ striving to present the best factual information possible,…and I’m thankful to you in your efforts in this matter,…but I respectfully disagree with you in this case. But more importantly,…like I previously stated,…whether late '42 or early '43 shouldn’t make the slightest difference in
IF the “Tony” is produced or not.

“Tall Paul”

No, I agree, it’s not relevant to whether there should be a model, as the models represent iconic aircraft, and arguably the Hein is eligible.

And I don’t want to quibble on dates either. I did not understand how you were framing “from the start”, and honestly I don’t need to debate it. I was framing it differently as I see the Global start corresponding with late 1939, early 1940 for Global and I’ve never believed that there’s a need to say what the time period of a turn is (it’s a backdrop, not a chronological reenactment - time simply isn’t represented in any correct or measurable way).

Based on that I believe all the current OOB fighters are legit for that time, so I didn’t see the Hein as a “from the start” fighter as it didn’t show up in combat until mid war (arguably late war for Japan, as they’d been at war far longer). And yes, I agree, it’s irrelevant, as I would never bother to differentiate between early and late war fighters. To me, they’re all equal opportunity pieces as I hope for the best looking (in my opinion of course) of all varients. I would NOT want a P-51 B model. I would only want a P-51 D, for example, although I’m well aware that the P-51B was more or less early war while the D was late war.

Kcdzim,

I agree with you completely on your preferences for a “D” model, verses a “B” model P-51 Mustang. The “bubble tops” are the only way to go.

And IMHO the same could be said for the “birdcage” vs. “bubble-top” F-4U Corsairs, too.

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man, we are all SO FORTUNATE in having two companies, HBG and FMG, that are avidly introducing large numbers of highly detailed units of all types, from all countries in “A&A scale” to enrich our gaming FUN!..Wow!

Thank You Very Much Doug and Jeremy!

And I’m also thankful for this “A&A.ORG” forum, and all of it’s enlightened, passionate, and knowledgeable players that really HELP EACH OTHER out a great deal in their understanding and enjoyment of the game(s).

What a great way to start the New Year off. It looks to be a real winner, too.

I’ve read(on this forum) that FMG is expecting to complete their sets from ALL of the countries in 2012. Everyone go find your piggybanks(grin).

“Tall Paul”

it just gets so confusing on who is doing what at times, lol… but its a great resource for sure!

any news on what your going to pick coach?

@Lunarwolf:

any news on what your going to pick coach?

I guess I was asleep, pick what?

which pieces will be in your japanese supplement set?