HBG Japan Supplement Set

   I think it should be obvious to produce the same TYPES OF UNITS HBG produced for their US Supplement set.

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

  HBG’s US Supplement Set included:       Japanese Supplement Set

 Early Battleship       “Nevada Class”        “Kongo Class”
 CVE Escort Carrier   “Casablanca Class”   “Hosho Class”

 Torpedo Bomber      TBF “Avenger”         B5N Type 97 “Kate”

 Early Fighter           P-40 “Warhawk”      A6M Type 0 “Zeke”
 Late Fighter            P-51 “Mustang”      Ki-61 “Tony”
*Medium Bomber        B-25 “Mitchell”       *G5N “Liz”
 Transport Plane       C-46 “Commando”   Type LO “Thelma”
 
 Light Tank              “Stuart”                Type 95 Ha-Go
*Tank Destroyer        “Hellcat”                            
 S/P Artillery             “Priest”                Type 1 Ho-Ni II
 Transport Truck       “Mack”                
 Paratroop Infantry    “Airborne”
 
   *One obvious exception should be noted here. Â

   1.  HBG produced a 2-engine Medium Bomber(B-25) in it’s US Supplement Set.  Since the Japanese OOB already have a 2-engine Bomber, but do not a 4-engine Bomber, I believe a Japanese 4-engine Bomber(G5N Liz) should be substituted for the 2-engine Bomber TYPE(B-25) in the HBG Japanese Supplement Set.

                                                                                   “Tall Paul”

      Â

  Â

Sorry if my above text is “messed-up” somehow.  I don’t know how that happenned, probably my big fingers.
                                                                                “Tall Paul”

What Tall Paul said ^^^

Perfect.

tall pall i agree with all of your pieces accept for your choices of fighters.
for me i rather not see pieces we already have such as the zeros. so for the early war fighters i rather see the Ki-43 Hayabusa. these were actually the second most produced fighters japan released during WW2. also they were the fighters that were used the most, for the Japanese infamous kamikaze attacks.

second for the late war fighter Ki-84 Hayate because it was considered to be the best japanese fighter to see the large operations during World War 2.
i would also agree with Kawasaki Ki-100 which was released 1945 and was considered one of japans best fighters

Lunarwolf and Others,

The following are only my opinions and I don’t believe there are any “right” or “wrong” answers.  I believe a thorough discussion can bring about a better understanding on everyone’s part.

I can understand any difference of opinion, especially on Japanese Fighters since there are so many good choices, like yours.

HBG and FMG have already made(or anounced) duplicate units such as two different Trucks, both making the TBF “Avenger” Torpedo Bomber and have discussed replacing the OOB Heavy Cruiser with a newer, better detailed version of the same.  So I don’t think there are any problems with producing a better “Zeke” as well as other units, “Kates” and “Vals” immediately come to mind.

And eventually, I would love to have many many different units available,…eventually.

------------------------------------------

Point #1

I think we should primarily look at this from the perspective UNIT TYPES instead of simply what might be “Cool” to have.  We need to end up with units of simular types from all countries.

For example, IMHO we don’t need an “Ise/Hyuga-Type” Battleship/Carrier hybrid as there is no comparable Allied equivilent.

I personally would love to have a Ki-46 Type 100 “Dinah” as I believe it to be one of the COOLEST LOOKING WW2 aircraft ever designed.  It was used as an Attack/Light Bomber/Night Fighter/Recon aircraft.  But until it’s decided to produce Attack/Light Bomber/Night Fighter/Recon aircraft I haven’t even mentioned my wish.  The DeHavilland Mosquitto is already available OOB, and the Douglas A-20 “Havoc” would be the American equilvilent.  The A-20 “Havoc” was used as a Light Bomber and modified as an Attack aircraft w/6 50 cal. for strafing and skip-bombing(along with the B-25s).  Can you say "Battle of the Bismark Sea? You know,…this might be something to consider.

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

Also, I believe each unit needs to be as unique as possible, and keeping in mind historical values and the production totals of each choice.

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

Also, "“Bang for the Buck” is a term we should all keep in mind.  Whenever one unit was used as several TYPES or by more than one COUNTRY we’ve just multiplied our units available!

Some examples:

The Japanese Type LO “Thelma” Transport could also be used as an Allied Transport or to represent an Allied Patrol/Bomber plane, the Lockheed
PV-1 “Ventura” that many Allied countries used.

The American Douglas C-47 “SkyTrain” (to be produced by FMG) could also be used as a Japanese Transport as they were one of four allied types that the Japanese built under license.

There are several examples of this kind.

A little paint and/or decals and you have several more choices available.  And this should help HBGs and FMGs sales.  And personally, I want them to make a profit on their huge investment so we can have even more units!

Point #2

Your choice of the Ki-43 Type 1 “Oscar” is an EXCELLENT choice for a Japanese Early(Army) Fighter and I would be happy with this unit if it were produced.

But if it were a choice between an (Army) “Oscar” and a much better detailed version of a (Navy) “Zeke” I would choose the “Zeke”.  Mainly because it would look better flying the “Zekes” off my Carriers.  And the “Zekes” were produced in much larger numbers and much better known.

I originally listed the A5M Type 96 “Claude” for my choice as a Japanese Early War Fighter.  Realizing that the “Claude” was “too early”(Chinese/Japanese War) for our WW2 Pacific game I changed it to the A6M Type 0 “Zeke”.

Point #3

The Ki-100 is a late war radial version of the Ki-61 “Tony”. 
IMHO the Ki-61 “Tony” is a better choice on many levels:

Ki-61 “Tony”                                      Ki-100
Available      Entire war                                          Feb. 1945
Total          3,078                                                396

Also, since the Ki-61 “Tony” was the ONLY in-line engine Fighter the Japanese had, IMHO I believe it garners points for it’s “uniqueness” as well.

What Do YA’ll Think?

“Tall Paul”

i also believe that these aren’t right or wrong answers i’m just stating my opinions as you are. but to me the tony would just be an burnt orange Bf109 on the board, so i wouldn’t see the Tony as unique, plus Ki-84 Hayate was one of the only japanese fighters that could compete with the late war fighters. that would make a better choice as the counter part to the US supplement sets P-51 mustang.

Lunarwolf,

You’re of the opinion that the Ki-61 “Tony” is simply a “burnt orange Bf-109”.  I respectfully disagree.  First, although both a/c are long and slender the “Tony” has a drooping nose and other characteristics that would make it easily identifiable as a “Tony”, not to mention it is a JAPANESE a/c.

IMHO the Ki-84 “Frank”, although a good choice, looks VERY simular to a “Zeke” and I believe we might be better served by something more VISUALLY DISTINCTIVE in our choices.  I’m  certainly not against the “Frank”, but I believe we might make a better, more VISUALLY DISTINDTIVE choice.

My choice for a late war Japanese Fighter would be the N1-K1-J Shinden “George”.  It had a much thicker fuselage, somewhat like an American P-47, and would be easy to differentiate from the “Zeke”.

–------------------------------------

IMHO I think our primary consideration should be the TYPES OF UNITS.

And as for the choices for each TYPE, we should choose ones that are as VISUALLY DISTINCTIVE as possible.  Remember, these are very small units.  I believe we should avoid any future confusion by not producing visually simular units.

Also, like the “Coach” says, “Unique” or “Visually Distinctive” units are a plus for him, too.

I respect any and all opinions and I believe we can all discuss our ideas freely.
And by learning the reasons behind different people’s choices come to a better understanding of WHY they chose the units they did.

Although I’m a serious history buff,…I choose to look at these choices more along the lines of a LOGICAL viewpoint considerring all of the variables.  For example, there are several units I’d love to have produced, but it wouldn’t be logical to do so, for whatever reason, so I accept that.

I hope everyone keeps their interest up and continues sharing their opinions with the rest of us.  Eventually we will get the finish line.

“Tall Paul”

By the way,

Here are a couple of web-site links that people can look at pics/drawings of the different Japanese aircraft(ships, tanks and others, too).

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/index.htm

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/Japanese.htm

The first web-site has large size color drawings of many units.  It is a great place to compare the German Bf-109 and the Japanese Ki-61 “Tony”.  Enjoy!

“Tall Paul”

my picks for the Ki-84 Hayate are solely based on how much of an impact it had during the war, regarded as one of the Japanese elite, as for the early war Ki-43 Hayabusa is my pick, because i would really hate to see a zero from OOB a Zero from HBG and then another zero from FMG, i know FMG hasn’t released anything official but seeing that they redid the Bf109 for their German set, im about 95% sure they’ll use the most iconic Japanese fighter for their Japanese set.

BTW the tony does really look nice but the Ki100 II looks better =) plus it kinda looks like the Hayate so i could just pretend it is

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.

I also don’t think we need to rely on painting and/or decals to make our pieces stand out.  I know that some of you enjoy painting your pieces to make them more realistic looking and I applaud your dedication and patience in undertaking such endeavors.  I love looking at your pics of painted pieces.  I also think you are just a little bit crazy taking on such a task.  I couldn’t go through that myself, too many pieces and not enough patience.
The point I’m trying to make is that we should not need to rely on painting our pieces to make them unique.  They need to be MADE as such, so everyone can clearly tell them apart from other units, whether painted or in the simple molded colors.  This should be kept in mind when choosing the sculpts.

@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