Need Help to Finalize HBG Japan Set!

@Variable:

@DrLarsen:

Hey Coach and Variable: I was checking at your site and noticed that it looks like you’ve settled on the Kaga for your “late war/ large” carrier design.  Since the Kaga was a unique one-off conversion design, I think that Shokaku or Taiho would make more sense as they come closer to the Japanese ideal of what they wanted in a carrier, and thus would be likely to build more of.  What was the thinking on that one?

The Kaga is being included in the “Basic Set” which is the future set not being done right now. The idea of this set is that it includes “iconic” sculpts, not necessarily the most common. Akagi has now been done by WOTC, and we want to do Unryu in the Expansion Set. Coach really likes Kaga, so we settled on that as the iconic Japanese carrier for HBG. So, after all is said and done, we will have available Shinano, Akagi, Unryu, and Kaga, plus whatever FMG decides to do. That’s a lot of CV choices!

So let me make sure that I’m understanding your thinking, here:

1. The “Supplemental” set allows the player to add the pieces to oob and/or FMG and have more options. 
2. The “Expansion” set expands the above in order to make a full piece set, so that all the “bases are covered.”
3. The “Basic” set adds iconic units that HBG wants to do, even if they’ve already been done, and/or overlap in type/ characteristics with other pieces HBG has already done.

Variable and Coach,

I like the way you are thinking concerning these new units.  Awesome lineup.

WARRIOR888

I agree……schweet!!  I know that I pretty much already stated this but I’ve been waiting for these pieces for over twenty years.  This is going to be excellent!

I have a question for anyone that has an idea. In the Japan Expansion set, there will be a Light Cruiser and a Heavy Cruiser. Obviously a Light Cruiser would be something mid-way between Heavy Cruisers and Destroyers. I was wondering about the values for a Light Cruiser in a D6 system.
Cost is easy = 10 IPCs.
Movement, easy too = 2 just like the rest of the fleet.
Attack & Defense = I was thinking maybe they have a little more punch in offense and not so much in defense. Does that sound right to you guys? If so, then Light Cruisers should be:
A 3 - D 2 - M 2 - C 10

Also, would you give a Light Cruiser the same kind of ASW capabilities as Destroyers? Or perhaps some sort of Anti-Aircraft ability? There was some discussion about making Cruisers have AA capabilities on another thread. I even made a House Rule for that, but we never remember to employ it during games.

OR, here’s another idea. Would you prefer to make Light Cruisers a 3-3-2-10 unit and bump up Heavy Cruisers to 4-3-2-12? That would make Heavy Cruisers basically like one-hit Battleships in attack. That would probably be too much, don’t you think? I think my first idea is a little better. What do you guys think?

@knp7765:

I have a question for anyone that has an idea. In the Japan Expansion set, there will be a Light Cruiser and a Heavy Cruiser. Obviously a Light Cruiser would be something mid-way between Heavy Cruisers and Destroyers. I was wondering about the values for a Light Cruiser in a D6 system.
Cost is easy = 10 IPCs.
Movement, easy too = 2 just like the rest of the fleet.
Attack & Defense = I was thinking maybe they have a little more punch in offense and not so much in defense. Does that sound right to you guys? If so, then Light Cruisers should be:
A 3 - D 2 - M 2 - C 10

Also, would you give a Light Cruiser the same kind of ASW capabilities as Destroyers? Or perhaps some sort of Anti-Aircraft ability? There was some discussion about making Cruisers have AA capabilities on another thread. I even made a House Rule for that, but we never remember to employ it during games.

OR, here’s another idea. Would you prefer to make Light Cruisers a 3-3-2-10 unit and bump up Heavy Cruisers to 4-3-2-12? That would make Heavy Cruisers basically like one-hit Battleships in attack. That would probably be too much, don’t you think? I think my first idea is a little better. What do you guys think?

Between the two that you mentioned, I prefer the earlier-mentioned one which downgrades the light cruiser rather than upgrades the heavy cruiser.  Fundamentally, though, using a d12 makes the most sense.  You neededn’t even switch the whole game over to d12’s, just make use of one on occasion for certain special units, particularly naval ones.

As to special AA characteristics, that would make good sense for certain US and UK light cruisers (e.g., Atlanta & Dido classes) that had dual-purpose main armament, but I haven’t yet hear any definitive announcement that anyones is going to do any of these classes!  The Japanese classes (like the Nagara and Sendai classes) were actually rather poor in AA protection.  (This was actually true even of the latest Japanese light cruiser classes, the Agano and Oyodo, since the Japanese had great difficulty developing an adequate dual-purpose gun.)

@DrLarsen:

Between the two that you mentioned, I prefer the earlier-mentioned one which downgrades the light cruiser rather than upgrades the heavy cruiser.  Fundamentally, though, using a d12 makes the most sense.  You neededn’t even switch the whole game over to d12’s, just make use of one on occasion for certain special units, particularly naval ones.

As to special AA characteristics, that would make good sense for certain US and UK light cruisers (e.g., Atlanta & Dido classes) that had dual-purpose main armament, but I haven’t yet hear any definitive announcement that anyones is going to do any of these classes!  The Japanese classes (like the Nagara and Sendai classes) were actually rather poor in AA protection.  (This was actually true even of the latest Japanese light cruiser classes, the Agano and Oyodo, since the Japanese had great difficulty developing an adequate dual-purpose gun.)

Yeah, the USS Atlanta was actually what I had in mind. While it was considered a light cruiser, it was also often refered to as an “anti-aircraft” cruiser. However, for game purposes, if one nation has light cruisers with AA capabilities, then they should all have them, historical or not.
I guess it’s just as well to have a nice tweener warship for those times when you don’t have qute enough to get a heavy cruiser but you can afford more than a destroyer and still beef up your fleet. One think I kind of like about giving it a defense of “2” is that a destroyer could attack a light cruiser with an even chance of victory. I think with all the growing variety of different combat units being put out by HBG, we will be seeing a lot more of this where certain units will outclass others in attack but be equal on defense or visa-versa.
Especially with a D6 system which I will always use. Sorry, I just can’t get into a D12 system, not even for just certain units. It’s mainly because I use the beautiful FMG Combat Dice and don’t ever wish to stray from them.

@knp7765:

Yeah, the USS Atlanta was actually what I had in mind. While it was considered a light cruiser, it was also often refered to as an “anti-aircraft” cruiser. However, for game purposes, if one nation has light cruisers with AA capabilities, then they should all have them, historical or not.
I guess it’s just as well to have a nice tweener warship for those times when you don’t have qute enough to get a heavy cruiser but you can afford more than a destroyer and still beef up your fleet. One think I kind of like about giving it a defense of “2” is that a destroyer could attack a light cruiser with an even chance of victory. I think with all the growing variety of different combat units being put out by HBG, we will be seeing a lot more of this where certain units will outclass others in attack but be equal on defense or visa-versa.
Especially with a D6 system which I will always use. Sorry, I just can’t get into a D12 system, not even for just certain units. It’s mainly because I use the beautiful FMG Combat Dice and don’t ever wish to stray from them.

Well, I’m sure that FMG will be happy to hear that!  This is also the main reason why I’ll probably only stray from them for certain special units.

In terms of gunpower, and comparing just US ships with the exact same guns for comparison, the Atlanta class had 12-16 (depending on which subclass) of the 5"/38 guns, whereas the Sumner class had 6 of the exact same guns in nearly identical twin turrets with nearly identical fire control systems.  That means that in theory even the small “AA cruiser” has at least twice the firepower of the (exceptionally large and capable) late-war US destroyers of the same design generation.  Thus giving them identical defense arguably fails to do the light cruiser justice.  On the other hand, if you view the destroyer as primarily a torpedo weapon, it makes sense.  (And interestingly, the Atlantas were the only torpedo-armed American light cruisers by the time of the war.)  Given the Atlanta’s excellent AA capability (and its modicum of ASW capability), then, maybe it makes sense to give them a higher defense than attack; they were, after all, most in their element as defensive escorts, and rather out of their element in a more aggressive role (see “Night engagement at Guadalcanal” when two were lost in rather short order.)

Here’s yet another idea for those who aren’t afraid of a little extra complexity: Give all naval ships above destroyer two attack/ defense rolls, one representing the main armament and one representing the secondary.  The secondary would be a “2” for all, but the primary could vary based on the size of gun carried.  For standard BB’s, of course, it would be a “4.”  For standard cruisers, it would be a “3.”  For light cruisers, they could have a second roll, but both would be at a “2” which represents the fact that their guns are of about the same size, but that they have more of them.

Alternately, for those out there not afraid of using d12’s for “tweener” ships, the list below could be used to take into account the “tweener” ships as follows:

1. Super-BB’s (12x16" or 9x18"): roll @ 9 on a d12
2. Standard BB’s (8x14"-9x16"): roll @ 8 on a d12 or @ 4 on a d6
3. Battlecruisers & old BB’s (12x10"-6x15"): roll @ 7 on a d12
4. Standard Cruisers (12x6"-9x8"): roll @ a 6 on a d12 or @ 3 on a d6
5. Light Cruisers (12x5"-9x6"): roll @ a 5 on a d12

These two ideas could also be used together, with the 2 on a d6 remaining the standard for secondary armament and the above being the standard only for main armament.  (If the two ideas are used together, then the last line would apply only to 6" cruisers and AA cruisers would only get two rolls @ a “2” on a d6; since most ships’ main armament was useless against aircraft, I’ve even thought about experimenting with the “secondary ranking” being the only one that could be used against aircraft, with the main armament needing to be scored against either ships or land targets in an amphibious attack.)

Yes, I know, combining all these ideas ramps up the complexity quite a bit.  I also may never have the variety of ships that I need to implement this concept even with HBG, FMG, and oob combined.  I’d better go lie down while the urge to start painting some more panzerschiffen passes. :-D

So, you are saying Light Cruisers were more of a defensive warship? So it’s values would be better at: 2-3-2-10
Thanks, I think I will use that when I get more Light Cruisers to include in my games.

That idea of giving each ship above destroyers 2 rolls to represent primary and secondary armaments is interesting. I assume this would exclude carriers, since their armament is basically equivalent to the secondary armament of warships. I think it could definitely make any naval engagements over more quickly. Say you have one of each ship: 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CL, 1 CA & 1 BB.
Normally, you would have a possibility of 5 hits.
With the primary/secondary armament option, you would now have a possibility of 8 hits.

1. BBB (12x16" or 9x18"): 5-4-2-24 ( 3 hits) SB@5
2. BB (8x14"-9x16"): OOB
3. BC (12x10"-6x15"): 3-3-2-15 ( 2 hits) SB @3
4. CA (12x6"-9x8"): OOB ( only one hit)
5. CL 3-2-2-10  SB @1-2

@knp7765:

So, you are saying Light Cruisers were more of a defensive warship? So it’s values would be better at: 2-3-2-10
Thanks, I think I will use that when I get more Light Cruisers to include in my games.

On the other hand, now that I think about it, you could make an equally good argument that some light cruisers were better offensive weapons, like those of Japan (with their “long lance” torpedos and slightly larger, but not dual-purpose 5.5" guns.)  Once again, if you’re not afraid of a little extra complexity, perhaps is would make even more sense to make the Japanese light cruisers the opposite.  If you look at the Agano class with their 6x6" guns, which, being newer, are probably closer to the Japanese ideal for a light cruiser and close to the Atlantas in design generation, this trend is even more magnified.  Actually, this might be perfect, because, with their mirror-image-opposite strengths and weaknesses, they actually better cancel each other out than if they actually had the same stats…

That idea of giving each ship above destroyers 2 rolls to represent primary and secondary armaments is interesting. I assume this would exclude carriers, since their armament is basically equivalent to the secondary armament of warships.

Yes, exactly.  (Some of the early designs had 8" anti-surface guns, but these had pretty much all been removed by WW2.  Also, the US batted around the idea, and the Japanese actually tried, some hybrid ideas, but none of these was really fully successful anyway.)

I think it could definitely make any naval engagements over more quickly. Say you have one of each ship: 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CL, 1 CA & 1 BB.
Normally, you would have a possibility of 5 hits.  With the primary/secondary armament option, you would now have a possibility of 8 hits.

If the main armament has to be scored against ships and not aircraft, this might even add another interesting wrinkle.  On the other hand, given that successively larger ship types tended to have successively larger AA suites, a case could be made that the bigger ships were progressively more dangerous as AA platforms, so it is eually arguable that one shouldn’t make such a restriction to their aircraft-killing ability.

“Coach”,

While I truly congratulate you on your magnificent plans for Japanese sets,…

I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t include a Paratrooper unit.  Three complete sets and no Paratrooper???  I believe they’d add another dimension to our games and would be a worthwhile unit for inclusion.  After all, if we don’t get Paratroopers for ALL of the countries, my “Screamin’ Eagles” will be out of work.
Thanks for your time and consideration.

“Tall Paul”

Hey Tall Paul,
I think you might just be out of luck on this one. I understand your wish to have airborne troops for each nation, you want each nation to have that option historical or not. I’ve watched and read a lot of stuff on WW2 and have not heard of any airborne operations conducted by Japan. However, it would be nice for them to have that option for gaming purposes.

It’s like when I was arguing for a heavy tank sculpt for Japan.  I know they never actually used a heavy tank and even if they had some in the design stage, it probably wasn’t comparable to a Tiger, Pershing or JS-2. Japan’s “heavy” would probably rate more as a “medium” by other countries’ standards. Also, I just don’t want to use orange Tigers to represent a Japanese heavy tank. I want something that LOOKS Japanese. I just would like every nation to have the options of light, medium and heavy tanks.
Unfortunately, I think I was pretty much outvoted on this. Just not much need for a Japanese Heavy and most people probably wouldn’t use it anyway. Plus it leaves a mold spot open for some other unit that probably got more use by Japan in the war. I think you are in the same boat regarding a paratrooper unit for Japan.

Actually, the Japanese used paratroops during their East Indies (A.K.A Strike South) campaign of 1941-42.

@Tall:

“Coach”,

While I truly congratulate you on your magnificent plans for Japanese sets,…

I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t include a Paratrooper unit.  Three complete sets and no Paratrooper???  I believe they’d add another dimension to our games and would be a worthwhile unit for inclusion.  After all, if we don’t get Paratroopers for ALL of the countries, my “Screamin’ Eagles” will be out of work.
Thanks for your time and consideration.

“Tall Paul”

I gotta agree with Tall Paul on this one.  I mean, maybe they weren’t used and maybe they were (based on the discussion between him and knp) - either way, it’s related to a technology used by most players (part of the series) and that’s part of the dynamic of PLAYING the game - CHANGING what was done in history based on YOUR strategy with production and resources.

There is sufficient evidence to point to the historical existence of paratroopers for every major power on the board (except China) whether they were ever deployed in combat or not!  It’s also a matter of game balance - you can’t very well give them to US only without seriously tipping the balance in their favor for longer range actions.

My rules call for it being a technology owned by US/UK/Germany and available for everyone else by die roll/technology.

Now, I know we could easily use another regular sculpt painted or whatever, and if the decision’s made - then that’s what I’ll do and I won’t cry one bit, but it’d be cool if we had them.  Obviously, in the game Japan never had much opportunity for tech development anyway and if they did there are many other techs that would benefit them much more!!

@Variable:

My understanding is the Japanese paras were part of the SNLF.

Hmm.  That’s the first I’ve ever heard of this.  My understanding of the SNLF is that they were basically just sailors trained and equiped to fight on land as needed rather than true Marines, and that they were considered less capable overall than Imperial Army infantry. So it’s surprising to hear that some SNLF men would have been given specialized training as paratroopers, since paratroops are generally regarded as elite forces.  The USMC did briefly have few Paramarine batallions during WWII, but the USMC already had the status of an elite foce.

But anyway, the idea of differentiating them by colour sounds quite practical.

@Variable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_marine_paratroopers_of_World_War_II

Very interesting – thanks for the infomation.  These guys were more versatile than I thought.

Well, let’s see.

1.) KNP,…I’m sorry but you’re ill-informed as to the Japanese usage of “ARMY Airborne” troops in WW2. Most Americans don’t know much about this EARLY part of WW2 when the Japanese made their initial push into the “Southern Resources Area” of Borneo and the Dutch East Indies. The oil fields of Balikpapen(and others) were captured by Japanese ARMY Paratroopers. I have 3 really good books about these Japanese forces. If it wouldn’t take an hour or so to grab them(I just put them in deep storage) I’d give you some specifics.

2.) PacificWar and DFW,…You’re both correct and Thanks for your support.

3.) To use DFW’s phrase,…As far as “game balance” goes I also think it’s very important to have “Airborne Paratroopers” for ALL nations(except China).

4.) CWO Marc and Variable,…I’m sorry but the ARMY Paratroopers were NOT part of the SNLF forces. Your wiki mini-article even explains this. Although the SNLF “Marines” were somewhat airborne trained they were only used in amphibious attacks.
The Japanese ARMY and NAVY were so independant of one another their
non-cooperation with one another is another big reason they lost the war.

5.) Two separate “sculpts” of a Japanese NAVY “Marine” and a Japanese ARMY Paratrooper should be as completely unique as their U.S. Marine/Army Paratrooper counterparts, which have already been produced by HBG.
If HBG has already produced the U.S. versions, including 4(FOUR) other special units also,…

Then WHY wouldn’t they at least produce ONE Japanese ARMY Paratrooper along with the NAVY SNLF “Marines”???
I think a Paratrooper is an IMPORTANT and UNIQUE unit that gives it’s player VALUABLE CAPABILITIES that ALL nations(other than China) should have. It was my understanding that from the very start of this magnificent undertaking that HBG intended to make Paratroopers for ALL of the nations. Things can change,…and HBG belongs to the “Coach” so it’s entirely HIS decision.

I’m DEFINATELY NOT trying to criticize,…only to inform others of my opinions.
I am VERY THANKFUL to Doug and HBG for all of their efforts thus far. I can only hope that in THREE FULL SETS of Japanese units that they would see fit to include an Army Paratrooper. That’s my 2 cents worth,…plus another dime, too, haha.

“Tall Paul”