Need Help to Finalize HBG Japan Set!

@knp7765:

This looks like a super great list. Looking forward to the final list. I found a couple of issues:

The Type 97 “Chi-Ha” is a MEDIUM tank, NOT a light tank. The Japanese LIGHT tank is the Type 95 “Ha-Go”, which is the sculpt we have from OOB.

IL is probably right, probably should include the A6M Zero fighter. As for an alternate fighter, I can’t remember the designation but there was one that was based on a German in-line engine and looked a lot like a Messershcmidt, which was a very un-Japanese look. That might be interesting to have in a Japanese set.

Not so sure we need pill-boxes or fortifications. Not that people wouldn’t use them, I just thought pill-boxes and fortifications were going to be in a universal, or commons, set with things like factories, bases and such. If Coach is planning such a facilities set, then it seems to me like fortifications should be in that set and save the slot in the Japanese set for actual Japanese equipment.

Would like to see HBG’s version of the Yamato, especially if other BB types were included so you could use the Yamato as a Super-Battleship.

I personally see no need for an Infantry carrying a Flag. I wouldn’t have any use for it in my games, especially since we don’t have that piece for any other nation.

The thing is that standards of “heavy” “medium” and “light” are moving targets.  The Chi-Ha was indeed seen as a medium tank by the Japanese, but by objective standards it could also be called a “light” tank; compare, for example, its stats with the US light tanks, especially the Stuart.  Nevertheless, I’d still like to see him do it, since the oob is the Type 95.  Perhaps adding the Chi-Nu as a true medium would be a good idea… Alternatively, if HBG does the Shinhoto version of the Chi-Ha, perhaps that might be a compromise that could be used as both.

@WARRIOR888:

All here is my wish list for the Imperial Japanese.
Naval
Mogami Heavy crusier
Nagara Light Crusier
Fuso Class Battleship because its cool
Nagato Class Battleship
Akagi Aircraft Carrier
Taiho Aircraft Carrier
Shoho Light carrier
!-400 Submarine
Fleet Destroyer
New version of the Yamato with original secondary battery not the AA version.  I have this in 1-700 scale waterline.

Aircraft
AM6 Zeke=Zero
Val Dive Bomber
B5N Kate Level/Torpedo Bomber
KI-57 Transport
KI-100 Late war Fighter
KI-57 Early war Fighter
G8N Heavy bomber

Land
Type 97 “Chi-Ha” MEDIUM tank
SNLF Marine
Type  94 6-wheel Truck
Type 87 Armored Car
Ho-Ha Half track
Type 5 Ho-Ru Tank Destroyer
Ho-Ni SP Artillery
��� costal battery
��� Pill box

WARRIOR888

you were able to convince me  Drlarson. and i agree with most of warriors picks

only differnces would be making

Naval
Mogami Heavy crusier
Nagara Light Crusier
Fuso Class Early war Battleship
Nagato Class Battleship
Kaga carrier
!-400 Submarine
New version of the Yamato with original secondary battery not the AA version.  I have this in 1-700 scale waterline.

Aircraft
AM6 Zeke=Zero mid war fighter
Val Dive Bomber
B5N Kate Level/Torpedo Bomber
KI-57 Transport
KI-100 Late war Fighter
KI-43 Early war Fighter
G8N Heavy bomber

Land
Type 97 “Chi-Ha” Light tank
Type 1 Medium Tank
SNLF Marine
Type  94 6-wheel Truck
Type 87 Armored Car
Ho-Ha Half track
Type 5 Ho-Ru Tank Destroyer
Ho-Ni SP Artillery

2 more points i would like to point out is  japan needs a wide variety of naval and aerial pieces  for games such as HBGs Midway. both America and Japan can have a lot of naval games. so pieces such as light and heavy cruisers are more valuable to the 2  nations also different classes of fighters and torpedo/dive bombers doing this will makes games like Midway soo much better and for me make it worth while to buy.

second thing is japan needs an early war fighter. i still vote Oscar for that one, and they need a REAL late war fighter and the KI-100 fits perfectly it was pretty much the best fighter japan put out there at any point during the war. plus the Tony look like any generic western fighter, it would be better if we had unique Japanese looking fighters representing japan

New version of the Yamato with original secondary battery not the AA version.  I have this in 1-700 scale waterline.

How bout making the Musashi? then you got both OOB and 1944 version of Musashi.

I’d much rather have the Model 92 Armored Car than the 87. Much cooler looking than the 87 with that dumb looking dome top. The 92 had better specs plus it’s in  the game Men of War Assault Squad, if any of you played it. I realize its not one of the ones you are unsure about. Just putting my 2 cents out there.

@Imperious:

New version of the Yamato with original secondary battery not the AA version.  I have this in 1-700 scale waterline.

How bout making the Musashi? then you got both OOB and 1944 version of Musashi.

I agree; definitely do the Musashi (or the Yamato for that matter; there’s really not that much difference) but make sure its noticeably bigger (without getting out of scale, mind you) so that it’s a clear “super-BB.”  A Yamato-class shouldn’t look like “ho-hum just another BB” on the board like the oob pieces; it should stand out a bit next to other BB’s.  I also think you should definitely do a Kongo and one of the other 3 classes of Japanese BB’s (Ise, Fuso, Nagato, I don’t care which of these… Fuso works for me…)  But the Kongo is important to me because it allows Japan an entry into the battlecruiser category.  Yes, I know I’m asking for 3 BB’s, but this is Japan we’re talking about.  They should have a diverse ship line-up for all those Midway/ Guadalcanal-type battle games.  (And anyway, what I’m really asking for is a BB/SBB/CB range, which is easily accomodated in a d12-based system.)

I also second the motion of having a Taiho.  I’d also like to see 3 levels of carriers: 1. Taiho or Shinano (but preferably Taiho; Shinano was a one-off like the other BB/CB conversions but they were planning to build 5 more Taihos as their standard “supercarrier”) as an “SCV” supercarrier. 2. One Hiryu/ Soryu/ Unryu as a standard CV. (This is what they were planning to build 15 more of as their “standard fleet carrier.”) and a Shoho as a CVL, though I’m not too picky on which CVL to do for Japan as they’re all pretty much unremarkable-looking towerless flat-tops.

And I also agree with having a CL.  I assume you’re talking about the post-conversion 8x10" Mogami as a CA, because it was technically a CL before then, though perhaps in name only… aside from the Mogami, though, Japanese light cruisers really were a genuine half-step between a CA and a DD, much like the French contre-torpilleurs or Italian esploratori or, perhaps, the American “AA cruisers.”  Once again, given a d12 system, one half-step in between DD and CA is quite doable.  As to which one, I’m torn between the Agano (an absolutely gorgeous late-war design that better represents the Japanese ideal of what a light cruiser ought to be) and doing something like a Sendai (which better represents the reality of what they actually had.)

I also have the Yamato and Musashi in 1/700 waterline. I found this version of the Musashi interesting because it was an earlier version. In the middle along each side they had another 6 inch triple turret instead of the cluster of smaller AA guns (which were in the later version of the ship). The 6 inch triple turrets on the sides were later replaced by the cluster of smaller weapons.
I have a picture of both ships. The Yamato is the upper ship with the cluster of smaller weapons as it was in the later versions of the class. The Musashi is the lower ship with the 6 inch triple turrets which was the earlier version.

To do the Musashi, it makes more sense to do the earlier version; they later removed the wing 6.1" triple turrets in order to add more heavy AA guns… but then ran into a shortage of those very heavy AA guns (100 mm, if I recall correctly), and so ended up reducing the ships anti-surface capabilities without adding the AA guns after all.  (A sign of how chaotic things had gotten in the Japanese production qeue by 1944… and a stark contrast to their carefully-laid early-war plans when the 20x6.1" triple turrets taken off of the 4 Mogami class CL’s in order to replace them with 20 dual 8" turrets [and make them into CA’s] just so happened [serendipitously!] to be the right number of turrets for the planned secondaries of the 4 Yamato class BB’s and for the planned primary armament of the 2 planned Oyodo class CL’s…)  They thought they had it all planned down to a tee, even going so far as to predict about when the US would figure out that the Yamatos were armed with 18" guns (they were pessimistic in this prediction, for a change), at which time they would switch to 20" guns in the Yamatos’ otherwise quite similar successors…

The OOB Kongo from AA41 should be good enough so no need for a Kongo class BC

But i like the hybrid Battleship?Carriers ( BBAV ISE and HYUGA).

Prefer retrofitted Musashi  (10/44), not original.

whatever CVL they go with it must be one of those flattops with no superstructure to get the iconic Japanese light carrier look.

With the proposed Japanese HBG set, it appears that the new goal is to make complete sets by nation.

Keeping that in mind, they must consider replacing the OOB pieces. It is no longer “adding in a few new units” for house rules, but making the goal to replace OOB.

The second issue is they should market these sets for other game companies who in turn will produce new games. If the iconic pieces are not in the mix ( for example not making a zero and making “tony”) the utility of these sets will not see the full potential.

Once you got a number of complete sets, companies will contact HBG because the cost of development will no longer prevent a company from producing games with plastic pieces.

The Soviet set is a complete set
The German set ( “minor axis allies”) is sort of a filler piece set.
The Neutral set is also perfect and is complete

So the choices of units should not reflect what WOTC made, because these are superior units and will replace OOB and not be thought as used with low grade WOTC units.

Hey Imperious how is the Soviet a complete set? I don’t remember seeing any naval units unless that is a change I am unaware of. The last pictures I saw were land and air units. I hope HBG does start making complete sets with the same number of units as FMG. I would pay 40 per set. If this is the case Variable let us know as that would be fantastic news.

I think IL considers the HBG Soviet set to be complete because the vast majority of Soviet action was on the land or in the air. The Soviet Navy really didn’t have the chance to contribute very much to the outcome of the war. However, Go Sanchez, you are correct that to be a truly complete set, we would have to get Soviet naval vessels as well.

With this in mind, perhaps Coach should consider expanding his sets to fully complete sets like we (should be) getting from FMG. I realize this would be more or less putting you in direct competition with FMG, but frankly HBG has had much better and more timely output with their sets. I too would be willing to pay $40 per set to HBG, perhaps a little more since from the proposed list, it appears that your sets would be somewhat larger as they would include both the basic pieces plus the sort of “in-between” units (Light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks) (Fleet Carriers, Light Carriers) (Early war BBs and Late war BBs) and so on. Such a set would probably be well over 156 pieces, maybe close to 200, depending on how many of each sculpt was included. With the high quality and such a large piece count, I would imagine $50 - $60 wouldn’t be wrong to ask for.

If IL’s proposal is correct, with HBG making complete sets to replace OOB, this set really should include the Zero. That’s just too iconic to not include and the Zero was used all throughout the war. I also vote for including the Tony. THen Japan can have a navy fighter and an army fighter, plus have a fighter that looks a little different. I just don’t think you should include another fighter that looks like another Zero.

I like where these sets are going for the most part. I highly favor matching Japan’s unit classes to the American counterparts. Actually I favor this approach to offer standardized unit classes for all nations. It makes house rules more simplistic.

Also please include a transport plane. A heavy four engine bomber would be nice too. Though I’m not sure Japan had one. Light, medium, heavy tanks (if possible) and less trucks. One or two should suffice for any nation.

Also I’m going against the croud on this one: I’m anti zero. Yes it’s iconic but I already have many dozen zeros. Adding another zero sculpt Doesnt help us create a new unit. It actually removes a new unit from the potential set which is counter to HBG’s said objectives.
Thanks for all your guys work at hbg.

i just know for my group for we would like to see the consistent pieces for the major powers. such as the early/Mid/late war fighters, early war battleship paratroopers , ect,ect. but with factions that are naval heavy/land heavy they should get extra special troops like Germany / Russia with extra tanks and Japan with there navy Britain with their Commonwealth , and America with pretty much everything. i still feel Japan should match Americas might with Naval forces, and in terms of fighters since with OOB America Has a  5 fighters they can cover early mid late and naval no problem maybe adding 2 army fighters isn’t that bad for Japan. even though a REALLY want to see the Oscar witch was used also for kamikaze attacks during the end of the war. it could work as OOB zero as early war. the TONY for mid war since a lot of people would like to see it, the new HBG improved Zero for naval fighter, and the K-100 for late war fighter.

Thanks. Updates look great.