@Imperious-Leader First of all, chill man, secondly I have contacted renegade but it will take time for them to respond, I just thought that perhaps someone on “Axis&Allies.org” may know some place that sells the unique counters as I know places that sell the other pieces. I didn’t mean to be picky or rude and I assume that’s why you reacted badly.
Thanks again for your help.
HBG - Axis & Allies Parts/Accessories and Custom Piece Sets Store!
-
HBG has a few games in the works. I think the next one planned will be Midway.
There is another called “Plan Orange” which covers a great naval conflict between the US and Japan in the 1930s that of course never came about. Apparently there were to be interesting ship classes that never actually got built. In the pictures to the side, they show a couple of Japanese battleship models that were planned but never built as well as the Kaga aircraft carrier with 3 flight decks. I would like to see that one, not only the sculpt but that would have been a really cool ship to see for real. I wonder how a 3 deck carrier would have worked. Just imagine the elevator system that would have to be in place. -
HBG has a few games in the works. I think the next one planned will be Midway.
There is another called “Plan Orange” which covers a great naval conflict between the US and Japan in the 1930s that of course never came about. Apparently there were to be interesting ship classes that never actually got built. In the pictures to the side, they show a couple of Japanese battleship models that were planned but never built as well as the Kaga aircraft carrier with 3 flight decks. I would like to see that one, not only the sculpt but that would have been a really cool ship to see for real. I wonder how a 3 deck carrier would have worked. Just imagine the elevator system that would have to be in place.Midway, is the one I’m interested in, but may consider the other. The German and Russian board game, I am interested, as well as the Civil War. Lots of great stuff, HBG has in the works.
Hopefully, someday, my Vietnam game, will be made as well. :-D
-
Maybe I’m imagining it, but I think there’s a Japanese Battleship/Carrier, AKA a battleship with a flight deck. That’s a cool if not impractical vessel.
-
Maybe I’m imagining it, but I think there’s a Japanese Battleship/Carrier, AKA a battleship with a flight deck. That’s a cool if not impractical vessel.
No, you are not imagining it. There were two battleship/carrier hybrids; the Ise and the Hyuga. They came about after the devastating loss of 4 fleet carriers at Midway. Japan was desperately trying to make up for the lost carriers. It was a novel idea, but I don’t think either one of the ships worked out very well.
-
No, you are not imagining it. There were two battleship/carrier hybrids; the Ise and the Hyuga. They came about after the devastating loss of 4 fleet carriers at Midway. Japan was desperately trying to make up for the lost carriers. It was a novel idea, but I don’t think either one of the ships worked out very well.
I likewise don’t recall those two hybrids being very successful. Battleships and aircraft carriers are too different to be amalgamated into a single ship serving both purposes. The WWI-era HMS Furious, as originally completed, had even worse problems because it tried to combine features from four different ship types: the size and speed of a battlecruiser, the light hull construction and thin armour of a light cruiser, a carrier-type flying-off deck, and an 18-inch twin-gun battleship turret comparable to the three-gun 18.1-inch turrets used on the Yamato in WWII. It turned out to be a lemon; the hull was so lightly constructed and its main guns were so powerful that sheared rivet heads would fall from the ship every time a salvo was fired. The Royal Navy eventually cut its losses and converted it to a full carrier.
-
Guys,
––I remember HBG had some time ago announced their future “Tank-Busting Stuka” to be in their future “KURSK” game, so here’s a pic. Enjoy!
Tall Paul
-
Maybe I’m imagining it, but I think there’s a Japanese Battleship/Carrier, AKA a battleship with a flight deck. That’s a cool if not impractical vessel.
No, you are not imagining it. There were two battleship/carrier hybrids; the Ise and the Hyuga. They came about after the devastating loss of 4 fleet carriers at Midway. Japan was desperately trying to make up for the lost carriers. It was a novel idea, but I don’t think either one of the ships worked out very well.
Slated for 2015
-
@coachofmany:
Slated for 2015
The detail on that computer model is incredible. Hope the physical process retains it all. Nice piece!
-
cool…
-
The detail on that computer model is incredible.
Agreed – with that much detail, it would look good even if it was produced as a much bigger sculpt. Looking forward to its release!
-
@coachofmany:
Maybe I’m imagining it, but I think there’s a Japanese Battleship/Carrier, AKA a battleship with a flight deck. That’s a cool if not impractical vessel.
No, you are not imagining it. There were two battleship/carrier hybrids; the Ise and the Hyuga. They came about after the devastating loss of 4 fleet carriers at Midway. Japan was desperately trying to make up for the lost carriers. It was a novel idea, but I don’t think either one of the ships worked out very well.
Slated for 2015
What set will it be in? One of the Global Expansion sets or the upcoming boxed games?
-
A global war expansion set.@knp7765:
@coachofmany:
Maybe I’m imagining it, but I think there’s a Japanese Battleship/Carrier, AKA a battleship with a flight deck. That’s a cool if not impractical vessel.
No, you are not imagining it. There were two battleship/carrier hybrids; the Ise and the Hyuga. They came about after the devastating loss of 4 fleet carriers at Midway. Japan was desperately trying to make up for the lost carriers. It was a novel idea, but I don’t think either one of the ships worked out very well.
Slated for 2015
What set will it be in? One of the Global Expansion sets or the upcoming boxed games?
-
A global war expansion set.@knp7765:
@coachofmany:
Maybe I’m imagining it, but I think there’s a Japanese Battleship/Carrier, AKA a battleship with a flight deck. That’s a cool if not impractical vessel.
No, you are not imagining it. There were two battleship/carrier hybrids; the Ise and the Hyuga. They came about after the devastating loss of 4 fleet carriers at Midway. Japan was desperately trying to make up for the lost carriers. It was a novel idea, but I don’t think either one of the ships worked out very well.
Slated for 2015
What set will it be in? One of the Global Expansion sets or the upcoming boxed games?
Global War (Pacific) Expansion Set
-
@coachofmany:
A global war expansion set.@knp7765:
@coachofmany:
Maybe I’m imagining it, but I think there’s a Japanese Battleship/Carrier, AKA a battleship with a flight deck. That’s a cool if not impractical vessel.
No, you are not imagining it. There were two battleship/carrier hybrids; the Ise and the Hyuga. They came about after the devastating loss of 4 fleet carriers at Midway. Japan was desperately trying to make up for the lost carriers. It was a novel idea, but I don’t think either one of the ships worked out very well.
Slated for 2015
What set will it be in? One of the Global Expansion sets or the upcoming boxed games?
Global War (Pacific) Expansion Set
pacific as in island war, or a new expansion?
-
Coach, Is there any reason why HBG and company has not produced a B-29 besides the Shapeways version? I do like the Shapeways units but frankly I’m not all that eager to deal with them.
-
Coach, Is there any reason why HBG and company has not produced a B-29 besides the Shapeways version? I do like the Shapeways units but frankly I’m not all that eager to deal with them.
Maybe in allied super weapons.
-
Coach, Is there any reason why HBG and company has not produced a B-29 besides the Shapeways version? I do like the Shapeways units but frankly I’m not all that eager to deal with them.
coming in Spring 2015
-
@ Coach,
I missed the pre-order for UK but just got some delivered today. I must say, THOSE PIECES ARE FANTASTIC SIR! The pictures do not do them justice I think they are even better than the recent Japanese and German sets and those were great too! I splurged and pre-ordered a few US sets too. We now will soon have armored cars for everyone LOL. The whole line-up for that set is going to be awesome.
As for the B-29, thank you, thank you, thank you. I have wanted a B-29 forever. I have the old TT ones but well….HBG does it better LOL.
Nice Work Sir!
-
@ Coach,
I missed the pre-order for UK but just got some delivered today. I must say, THOSE PIECES ARE FANTASTIC SIR! The pictures do not do them justice I think they are even better than the recent Japanese and German sets and those were great too! I splurged and pre-ordered a few US sets too. We now will soon have armored cars for everyone LOL. The whole line-up for that set is going to be awesome.
As for the B-29, thank you, thank you, thank you. I have wanted a B-29 forever. I have the old TT ones but well….HBG does it better LOL.
Nice Work Sir!
Thank you!
-
Hey toblerone77,
A while back, I made up a set of new set-up charts for all the older games (Europe, Pacific, Revised, Anniversary) to include the new units we get in the 1940 games. So basically, I went back and added Tactical Bombers, Mechanized Infantry and Cruisers to the earlier games (except Anniversary which already included cruisers). The setup changes weren’t too difficult. In some cases I would replace a destroyer with a cruiser, or a fighter for a tac. In other cases, I simply added the new units here or there. I didn’t really wreck the balance. The main thing was making those units available in the other games.
Of course, you have to use the 1940 Battle Board because those are the only one with the newer units. Then you also have to remember that in the older games, Carriers weren’t considered capital ships. They only take 1 hit to sink and they attack @ 1.
I didn’t add the new style AA guns because I did this before 2nd edition came out and all the games still used the old style AA guns (1 per territory, can shoot at all planes attacking).
I haven’t done this for Classic yet.By the way, on land-based versus carrier-based planes, it sounds like a good idea to have naval planes be 1 IPC more for the ability to take off and land on carriers, but they can also land on land as well. The difference being that land-based planes can not land on carriers.
If we do this, I would imagine the US and Japan would be the only ones buying them from now on. Britain might, but most of their targets can be hit from land bases unless they expand into the Pacific. I think this would kill the G1 buy of CV,DD, SS or CV & 2 Transports. Germany wouldn’t want to spend that extra IPC on just 2 planes with all the rest of the Luftwaffe being ground based. Plus, Germany just buys the carrier round 1. The planes that land on it are usually from Norway or W Germany after attacking the Royal Navy. Since those are ground based planes, they would not be allowed to land on that carrier.
This rule would also change what the UK does with it’s 1 carrier in the Med. It starts out with 1 tac bomber, so that would be UK’s only carrier based plane. They would have to purchase a carrier capable fighter to join it. Also, Taranto would be out of the question if you plan to use 2 fighters from London. In this case, even if you sent the carrier to SZ 97, those 2 London fighters would not have a place to land.
One way around this rule is to allow players to spend 1 IPC per plane during their purchase units phase to convert any fighter or tac bomber to a carrier capable plane. Then that player would switch the chosen planes out immediately. Then they do combat move, combat, NCM and can land on an existing or newly purchased carrier.
For Example: G1 Germany buys a carrier and spends 2 IPCs to convert the Norway fighter and 1 W Germany fighter into carrier capable planes. Now CM, combat and NCM go as normal and if those planes survive, they can land on the newly purchased carrier. HOWEVER, ONLY those 2 planes are carrier capable. Say the W. Germany carrier capable plane goes to SZ 110. UK scrambles and gets good dice and the German planes are wiped out. Germany can not pick a different plane to land on the carrier. Assuming the Norway fighter survived, now Germany only has ONE (1) plane that can land on the carrier, at least until he/she converts another one or simply buys a naval plane next round.
So, this rule wouldn’t necessarily BAN any other countries from buying carriers or carrier planes, it would just be a little extra expense all around. And if you use my addition to the carrier/land based plane rule, then no nation is stymied on round 1.So I am assuming this rule would apply to fighters and tacs, right?
Land based fighter = 10 IPCs, carrier capable fighter = 11 IPCs
Land based tactical = 11 IPCs, carrier capable tactical = 12 IPCsShould have caught up with this earlier. But yep if you wanted to do as I described that’s is how I’d do it.
Had an idea at one time to allow a once-per-game “Doolittle Raid” by allowing an HBG Mitchell launch from a carrier. The idea was just for fun but never really put it into fruition.
As far as carrier based AC rules, I’ve never pushed myself on this too much however I have enough naval planes to run several games with naval fighters on everyone’s carriers just for esthetics.
For the piece collectors/junkies those old small Stuka “fighters” from way back in the old days work great as “naval TBs”.
Suggested Topics
