Need Help to Finalize HBG Japan Set!

@knp7765:

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.

I think K’s making a fairly reasonable point, here.  What’s more, it neither takes that much research to find a Japanese heavy tank protoype that truly “looks” Japanese, nor is the pool limited to ridiculous multi-turreted steampunk monstrosities.  Options include the Chi-Nu (rather light, but heavy by Japanese standards, and built in modest #s to defend vs. invasion) and the Chi-To and Chi-Ri prototypes.  All three of these would have been well within Japanese production capabilities earlier in the war if they’d been priorities, and though all three are really more “mediums” by German/ Russian/ American standards, each would be a solid step up from the Chi-Ha Shinhoto and 2 steps up from the oob type 95.

All this is not to say that I’m fully convinced that this should be a priority.  I’m just saying that it’s a reasonable approach to take, depending on where the priorities end up.  For instance, I’d still rather have 3 BB options than 3 tank options for Japan.  But if both are possibilities, I think I’d sacrifice a 3rd fighter for a 3rd tank…

Oh, and when HBG gets around to doing Italian stuff (which is admittedly a lower priority), I sure hope he does the P40, which fills the same slot for Italy that one of the 3 above-mentioned tanks would for Japan.

i just checked HBG site last night and i see you are separating japan into 3 sets. is your plant o release  them all at the same time? and im happy to see all 4 fighters will be included the KI-100, Oscar, Zero, and the tony. i think this is the perfect way to do it. this way if you combine all 3 you have a massive complete jet of the Japanese and everyone is happy. also i was wondering what the regular infantry would be? could it double as the Japanese paratrooper?

Variable and Coach,
You have just earned my ulimate respect and admiration.  You will add a diminsion to AA that I have wanted for years.  I was Extremely digusted with Milton Bradley’s Game Master series first generation AA when I discovered zero authenic forces for WW II acept the infantry.  So gentlemen take the time and do these right and I assure you will have many orders from me in the future on the Imperial Japanese and any future Axis and Allied complete battle sets.  Again Thank You for the privilege of participating in the recommendations for this set. :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D.

WARRIOR888

lol I had to opposite view I didn’t care that Classic didn’t have historic looking pieces until the original Europe game came out. When I opened it the first time I fell in love and asked why the hell haven’t they been doing this the whole time?

Now, we shouldn’t bash Classic too much. You have to remember who made it: Milton Bradley. While the overall game does have the historical feel to it, MB puts out games that will appeal to a much broader group of people. Therefore, they did good to make little tiny pieces that people could enjoy yet not worry so much about historically accurate sculpts for each nation (although they did pretty good with the infantry sculpts).
Avalon Hill on the other hand caters to a more select, and demanding, clientel. So, when they took over the A&A franchise, they went to the trouble of creating nation-specific sculpts to please the more hard-core gamers that populate their customer base. However, I must say after seeing the new sculpts in 1941, it almost seems like a step back toward Classic with all Axis getting the same sculpts and all Allies getting the same sculpts. Still, the sculpts that we are getting are nation specific to at least one of the Axis or Allies countries.
As for the pieces in Classic, I’ve always kind of guessed on what sculpts they might represent:
Aircraft Carrier= Kind of looks like the Essex class
Battleships === Perhaps an earlier US “Fast” battleship class. Maybe South Dakota?
Submarines == I drew a blank here. Anybody’s guess. They don’t really look like WW2 subs, more modern.
Transports === Similar to the Liberty Ships.
Bombers ===== Obviously look like B-17s to me
Fighters ====== These look like one of the US Early War fighters, perhaps the P-47 Thunderbolt or Brewster Buffalo
Tanks ======= These look like an odd hybrid to me, a cross between a Panzer IV and a Pershing.

@Variable:

I think for the most part the units and sculpts chosen will make everyone happy. My only concern at this point is making all of the aircraft look uniquely different enough to be distinguishable. I am doing my best to include the Ki-100! It’s up to the sculptors now and Coach’s keen eye. Ending with the set of iconic pieces next year should make this set look really cool and set the new standard for us going forward!

i think its safe to say we are all blessed to have HBG not only do they give us new pieces they listen to there customers and truly care about keeping them happy.

i know we’ve said it a bunch of times and im sure it wont be the last time.
Thank You HBG, for giving us, the A&A community what we have been asking for years and keep up the excellent work

First, I want to say that expanding the set to three separate parts, so that more sculpts can be accommodated, is an excellent choice in my opinion. Japan is my favorite nation to play, and I have always had a great interest in the Imperial Japanese Navy - the variety of naval sculpts is therefore quite important to me.

I do wish to make the following subjective comments regarding my personal preferences in the current line up:

• CVL/CVE - I think replacing the Taiyo class CVE (Chuyo) with the Zuiho class CVL (Shoho) was the best choice in the circumstances.

• AK/AP (Transport) - I guess that you haven’t decided on an auxiliary sculpt yet; may I suggest that it differ visually from the two Japanese auxiliary sculpts which we already have? (i.e. the poorly-sculpted older Hakusan Maru and the new, well-sculpted Nagara Maru from AAA41) I would like to suggest a troop transport, such as the Gokoku Maru or Argentina Maru, or at least a visually distinct freighter such as the Aki Maru. If you are willing to consider a tanker instead, Nippon Maru would be my first tanker choice.

• CV - If I had to choose two, I would choose either Soryu or the Shokaku class, and the Taiho, but certainly not Kaga or the Unryu class (will all due respect to those who prefer these latter two sculpts). I will explain why in detail:

(1) I would personally prefer to see distinct sculpts for early war and late war CV’s, but I would like the late war CV to represent more advanced, heavily armoured construction. For the US, this would be the Essex class, and for Japan, the Taiho class. For the early war Japanese CV, this could be a variety of sculpts, but I think the Shokaku or Soryu design would look best. Kaga (while being my personal favorite IJN CV) would look too much like the new Akagi sculpt (at least more so than either the Shokaku class or Soryu).

(2) The Unryu class, although being commissioned from 1944, represent an early war design (largely based on Hiryu’s internal layout), adopted to replace the planned Taiho sisters solely because of Japan’s industrial limitations in meeting early war CV losses. In Axis & Allies, if a Japanese player chose Japan’s historical path to produce weaker CV’s (i.e. early war designs) instead of investing in more expensive (and stronger) later war designs, he/she would simply build more ‘Shokaku/Soryu’ sculpts. If the same Japanese player instead chooses the path that Japan cancelled in real life, and spends more IPC’s on stronger later war CV designs, these could be represented by the Taiho’s that Japan initially intended to invest in (until Midway forced a change of plans). It is also worth noting that choosing a Soryu sculpt would provide a sculpt which appears largely similar to the Unryu class at this scale anyway.

(3) Taiho would be visually distinct from either the Shokaku class or Soryu, having a much larger island. The sculpt would also be visually distinct from the new Akagi sculpt for the same reasons (in addition to the starboard island, of course). Taiho was also originally planned to be the first of a program of at least five ships, before the remainder were cancelled in favour of the simpler and lower-cost Unryu design. For this reason, Taiho would be preferable to me over Shinano (the latter being a one-off conversion, which likely would not have even been converted to a CV at all in the absence of the Midway CV losses).

Anyway, that’s just my opinion - I realize that Coach cannot please everyone, and most other community members would probably disagree with me. Either way, I’m looking forward to this set and I’m quite glad that it’s being produced.

Also, on a side note, is FMG proceeding with any more of its sets after Germany (or after the US)? If so, it might be a good idea to include FMG in the planning process, although there are certainly enough sculpts left to do another desirable complete set, even after the newest set in this thread.

@AG124:

First, I want to say that expanding the set to three separate parts, so that more sculpts can be accommodated, is an excellent choice in my opinion. Japan is my favorite nation to play, and I have always had a great interest in the Imperial Japanese Navy - the variety of naval sculpts is therefore quite important to me.

I do wish to make the following subjective comments regarding my personal preferences in the current line up:

• CVL/CVE - I think replacing the Taiyo class CVE (Chuyo) with the Zuiho class CVL (Shoho) was the best choice in the circumstances.

• AK/AP (Transport) - I guess that you haven’t decided on an auxiliary sculpt yet; may I suggest that it differ visually from the two Japanese auxiliary sculpts which we already have? (i.e. the poorly-sculpted older Hakusan Maru and the new, well-sculpted Nagara Maru from AAA41) I would like to suggest a troop transport, such as the Gokoku Maru or Argentina Maru, or at least a visually distinct freighter such as the Aki Maru. If you are willing to consider a tanker instead, Nippon Maru would be my first tanker choice.

• CV - If I had to choose two, I would choose either Soryu or the Shokaku class, and the Taiho, but certainly not Kaga or the Unryu class (will all due respect to those who prefer these latter two sculpts). I will explain why in detail:

(1) I would personally prefer to see distinct sculpts for early war and late war CV’s, but I would like the late war CV to represent more advanced, heavily armoured construction. For the US, this would be the Essex class, and for Japan, the Taiho class. For the early war Japanese CV, this could be a variety of sculpts, but I think the Shokaku or Soryu design would look best. Kaga (while being my personal favorite IJN CV) would look too much like the new Akagi sculpt (at least more so than either the Shokaku class or Soryu).

(2) The Unryu class, although being commissioned from 1944, represent an early war design (largely based on Hiryu’s internal layout), adopted to replace the planned Taiho sisters solely because of Japan’s industrial limitations in meeting early war CV losses. In Axis & Allies, if a Japanese player chose Japan’s historical path to produce weaker CV’s (i.e. early war designs) instead of investing in more expensive (and stronger) later war designs, he/she would simply build more ‘Shokaku/Soryu’ sculpts. If the same Japanese player instead chooses the path that Japan cancelled in real life, and spends more IPC’s on stronger later war CV designs, these could be represented by the Taiho’s that Japan initially intended to invest in (until Midway forced a change of plans). It is also worth noting that choosing a Soryu sculpt would provide a sculpt which appears largely similar to the Unryu class at this scale anyway.

(3) Taiho would be visually distinct from either the Shokaku class or Soryu, having a much larger island. The sculpt would also be visually distinct from the new Akagi sculpt for the same reasons (in addition to the starboard island, of course). Taiho was also originally planned to be the first of a program of at least five ships, before the remainder were cancelled in favour of the simpler and lower-cost Unryu design. For this reason, Taiho would be preferable to me over Shinano (the latter being a one-off conversion, which likely would not have even been converted to a CV at all in the absence of the Midway CV losses).

Anyway, that’s just my opinion - I realize that Coach cannot please everyone, and most other community members would probably disagree with me. Either way, I’m looking forward to this set and I’m quite glad that it’s being produced.

Also, on a side note, is FMG proceeding with any more of its sets after Germany (or after the US)? If so, it might be a good idea to include FMG in the planning process, although there are certainly enough sculpts left to do another desirable complete set, even after the newest set in this thread.

Given that Soryu and Unryu are almost the same design, I think I’m pretty much equally OK with either.  I’d advise against Hiryu, though, with itss port side island; that was a failed experiment.  Shokaku was a better, newer design, but Soryu is more representative of the trend, since it was the pattern for the Unryu, and is also more clearly distinct from Taiho or Akagi.

Oh, and I agree completely on the Taiho: it was the definitive Japanese attempt at the “ideal carrier,” in much the same way that the Yamato was the Japanese ideal for a BB, and was a truly worthy opponent for an Essex or Invincible… (or even maybe a Midway…)  Since they were planning to build 5 more, this would have been their preferred premium design, whereas Kaga, Akagi, and Shinano were one-offs and Shokaku was a transitional type between Soryu and Taiho.  (Shame about that damage-control blunder, though…)

AG124 and DrLarsen,
I find your information on the different Japanese carriers interesting. What might you guys think of for values for these types of fleet carriers (using a D6 system)?
You mentioned the Taiho being stronger, better armored and thus more expensive. So how about this:
Attack=1, Defense=2, Move=2, Cost=20, Carry 3 planes, 3 hits to sink–1 hit still permits air operations, 2 hits NO air operations, must be repaired first

While the Soryu or Shokaku were somewhat more rudimentary, early war designs that didn’t cost as much. So:
Attack=0, Defense=2, Move=2, Cost=16, Carry 2 planes, 2 hits to sink

Does this sound about right to you guys? The early war types similar to OOB, which is what Japan starts with. The stronger Taiho class would be something that Japan could purchase later. Much like the US starting out with the OOB Wasp Class but later buying stronger Essex (or FMG’s Enterprise) Class.
Also, would you make countries wait “X” number of rounds before they could purchase the bigger carriers? Or would this be something they could buy right away if they could afford to do so. Either way, I think the smaller, early war carriers should still be available throughout the game. Even in later rounds, you might want a little cheaper carrier that only carries 2 planes.

@knp7765:

AG124 and DrLarsen,
I find your information on the different Japanese carriers interesting. What might you guys think of for values for these types of fleet carriers (using a D6 system)?
You mentioned the Taiho being stronger, better armored and thus more expensive. So how about this:
Attack=1, Defense=2, Move=2, Cost=20, Carry 3 planes, 3 hits to sink–1 hit still permits air operations, 2 hits NO air operations, must be repaired first

While the Soryu or Shokaku were somewhat more rudimentary, early war designs that didn’t cost as much. So:
Attack=0, Defense=2, Move=2, Cost=16, Carry 2 planes, 2 hits to sink

Does this sound about right to you guys? The early war types similar to OOB, which is what Japan starts with. The stronger Taiho class would be something that Japan could purchase later. Much like the US starting out with the OOB Wasp Class but later buying stronger Essex (or FMG’s Enterprise) Class.
Also, would you make countries wait “X” number of rounds before they could purchase the bigger carriers? Or would this be something they could buy right away if they could afford to do so. Either way, I think the smaller, early war carriers should still be available throughout the game. Even in later rounds, you might want a little cheaper carrier that only carries 2 planes.

I would prefer a 1/2 for attack/defense for the small (fleet) carriers, just like oob and perhaps giving a “super-carrier,” which the Taiho could perhaps be included in, having the advantage of a larger air group and a 3rd hit (if and only if there’s a similar 3rd hit BB possibility, as I can’t see having a carrier that’s tougher than a BB.)  But the key thing that theoretically could make the 3rd hit arguable is the armored flight deck, something that similar candidates for “super-carrier” status (the US Midway and British Audacious classes) also have.  I don’t see the US Essex class as a candidate for 3 hits, since it lacked this feature.  The British Illustrious class, though, could perhaps be seen as a 3-hit carrier but sacrifice carrying capability, since they sacrificed #'s of planes to have this feature.

While not a candidate for a 3rd hit, the Essex might, however, be a cadidate for a 3rd plane.

@DrLarsen:

I can’t see having a carrier that’s tougher than a BB.)  But the key thing that theoretically could make the 3rd hit arguable is the armored flight deck, something that similar candidates for “super-carrier” status (the US Midway and British Audacious classes) also have.  I don’t see the US Essex class as a candidate for 3 hits, since it lacked this feature.  The British Illustrious class, though, could perhaps be seen as a 3-hit carrier but sacrifice carrying capability, since they sacrificed #'s of planes to have this feature.

The sacrifice in planes carried which you mention is an important point. Britain’s heavily armoured carriers held up well against kamikaze attacks when Britain got involved in the final stages of the Pacific War, but not everyone was convinced that they were a good design approach because the tonnage they allocated to armour reduced their plane-carrying capacity.  It was argued that the best protection against kamikazes was to shoot them down before they could get near the carriers, and that the best way to do this was for carriers to send up strong combat air patrols – which in turn meant having carriers which could carry lots of aircraft (including fighters for protection).

@knp7765:

Therefore, they did good to make little tiny pieces that people could enjoy yet not worry so much about historically accurate sculpts for each nation (although they did pretty good with the infantry sculpts). […] As for the pieces in Classic, I’ve always kind of guessed on what sculpts they might represent

I think the Classic equipments sculpts were never intended to be anything other than generic designs, without much attention being paid (as you mention) to historical accuracy.  As you point out, the submarine in particular is notable for looking like a modern sub rather than a typical WWII design.

@CWO:

@DrLarsen:

I can’t see having a carrier that’s tougher than a BB.)�  But the key thing that theoretically could make the 3rd hit arguable is the armored flight deck, something that similar candidates for “super-carrier” status (the US Midway and British Audacious classes) also have.�  I don’t see the US Essex class as a candidate for 3 hits, since it lacked this feature.�  The British Illustrious class, though, could perhaps be seen as a 3-hit carrier but sacrifice carrying capability, since they sacrificed #'s of planes to have this feature.

The sacrifice in planes carried which you mention is an important point. Britain’s heavily armoured carriers held up well against kamikaze attacks when Britain got involved in the final stages of the Pacific War, but not everyone was convinced that they were a good design approach because the tonnage they allocated to armour reduced their plane-carrying capacity.  It was argued that the best protection against kamikazes was to shoot them down before they could get near the carriers, and that the best way to do this was for carriers to send up strong combat air patrols – which in turn meant having carriers which could carry lots of aircraft (including fighters for protection).

Yeah the British armored-deck carriers did end up being just the thing when the kamikaze attack became the primary menace… so much so that the British Pacific Fleet (also known as Task Force 57, US 5th Fleet, and which essentially operated as 1 of its several fast carrier task forces) was specifically tasked with combating the Kamikaze menace by specially targeting airfields and trying to get the kamikazes to target them rather than more vulnerable US carriers.  The thing is that its harder to shoot down a kamikaze with the limited resources of a carrier air patrol than a plane that is flying in a way that it would if its pilot is trying to get home again.  At the same time, the British started emplying American planes and American flight-deck operations (leaving many planes in a “deck park” rather than insisting on having protected hanger space for them, which two things together increased the effectiveness and numbers of planes that they could field.  Altogether, this meant that while the Americans had probably made the best choice in carrier design for fighting the battles up until Okinawa, the British design really came into its own from Okinawa on.

This brings an idea in mind to me: it might be interesting to experiment with a “kamikaze rule” in which fighters could increase their attack ranking for a one-shot suicide attack…

Gentlemen,

Have any you ever heard of the Japanese Pilot who in the evening as the sun was going down miss-took a RN Armoured deck carrier for his own and was astonished when he stepped onto the deck and found it armoured?
The only Imperial Japanese Navy carrier that I have heard might have had an armoured deck was Taiho.
Can anyone confirm this?

WARRIOR888

WARRIOR888 - I believe Shinano also had an armoured deck. The other Taiho class CV’s, on which construction never began, would also have had armoured decks.

I would like to continue the discussion of three-hit late war CV’s in the morning, but I agree that the Essex class’s lack of an armoured deck should be reflected in custom stats somehow. I would still like to see an Essex class sculpt though…

@AG124:

WARRIOR888 - I believe Shinano also had an armoured deck. The other Taiho class CV’s, on which construction never began, would also have had armoured decks.

I would like to continue the discussion of three-hit late war CV’s in the morning, but I agree that the Essex class’s lack of an armoured deck should be reflected in custom stats somehow. I would still like to see an Essex class sculpt though…

Well, I would too.  Perhaps giving Essex 3 aircraft and Illustrious 3 hits and Taiho both?  Shinano should probably be in the same category as Illustrious, with 3 hits but only 2 aircraft: as a BB conversion that was mostly finished when conversion started, it wasn’t a fully optimized design, though Shinano might have been capable of a larger air wing than had actually been projected for it.  I’m not certain if its projected air wing size, surprisingly small for such a massive ship, may have been more of an operational decision than a result of absolute design limitations… I’d have to research more to see what its actual maximum capability MIGHT have been given alternate operational concepts.  (They’d been planning to make it essentially a “reserve & refit” carrier with at least some excess capacity, so the usually-listed air wing may not have been close to its maximum possible air wing.)

Of course, I’d also love to see a Midway and an Audacious… and for that matter a Montana and a Lion or Vanguard and an Alaska and a Renown and a B65…  OK, most of these had little direct impact, most not even finished, but AA Variants are all about “might-have-beens” and I’d love to see whole sets of just cool naval units and I wish there was more interest out there in these naval designs.

Certainly many designs that seem to be being given short shrift (Scharnhorst, Richelieu, North Carolina) had more demonstrable actual impact on the war than, say, a Tiger II, which FMG is insisting on doing ALONG WITH the more important Tiger I (which we’re about to get from WotC anyway…)  We’re about to have 3 DIFFERENT Tiger I’s available from 3 DIFFERENT companies (not counting TWG’s or TT’s oversize units, which might actually work OK with a big board like GW 1939 or TWG.)  Meanwhile, no hint yet of a Pershing or Comet to oppose all these Tigers with (though apparently an oob JSII is coming…)  All the while FMG’s interminable delays go on ad infinitum.  Ah, it’s all a muddle that makes my head spin!  I keep thinking that maybe I should paint up a bunch more Panzersciffe pieces for the major warships, sub TT tanks for all the AFV’s and then I’d at least have a fully balanced range of pieces to use on a big board… but then I go lie down and the feeling goes away…

At least HBG seems to put out alot of pieces pretty quickly, with good quality.  I’ll wait and see what he does over the next year before I get desparate and start painting again…

I believe one reason the Shinano aircraft capacity was limited was that she was designed as a Battleship and then hurried to change her to a Carrier, so last minute inefficiency. The biggest reason is that American aircraft wings folded near the fuselage where Japanes folded at the wing tips. Of course this is a generality but of what I read, this is my take. American Carriers had far better fire control over the Japanese carriers as well as the Japanese carriers did not vent very well so when bombed the gases accumulated in the ship, thus creating more explosions. My two cents worth.