HBG's Japanese Sets

@Variable:

@knp7765:

Just noticed the change in the Type 97 tank. Didn’t think I was being heard, but apparently I was. Thank you guys at HBG.

Yep, we heard you. At first we weren’t sure which we wanted to do. I suggested the Shinhoto but the early version was in the model queue. So just for YOU (and me  :-D) Coach was kind enough to change the model instead of doing the early version. Thanks for helping to catch that! I like this one much better.

Yeah, I do too. I might not have caught it if I hadn’t built models of both versions.

Really love your ship sculpts. That 3D modeling is amazing. I would love to see it up close some time. It’s really fascinating the things that you can do with computers these days. (Geez, I sound like some old fart.)
At one time, I was attempting to rebuild the entire Japanese Navy that served in WW2 in 1/700 scale waterline models. I was doing pretty good at finding models of each ship too. Most were made by Tamiya and Hasegawa. There might have been a couple of other manufacturer names too, although I think they might all be the same company now. I got all 12 Battleships, all but 1 carrier, all the Heavy Cruisers and most of the Light Cruisers and twenty-some Destroyers. I even had some submarines and auxiliary ships.
Then I got a book all about the Imperial Japanese Navy from 1889 - 1945. I made listings of all the different classes and models of ships that served from 1940-1945. That’s when I found out that Japan had about 160 different destroyers in service throughout the war. Not all at the same time of course. As some were lost in battles, others were built to replace them. Still, I realized I would not be able to get that many destroyer kits. I wasn’t even sure if all of them were even available. Shortly after I guess I just lost interest and gave up on that quest. Ended up selling most of the kits un-built. Still have the Battleships though.

Variable,

Yes that it the one I first noticed on the site.
Thanks for straighten me out on that.

WARRIOR888

At one time, I was attempting to rebuild the entire Japanese Navy that served in WW2 in 1/700 scale waterline models. I was doing pretty good at finding models of each ship too. Most were made by Tamiya and Hasegawa. There might have been a couple of other manufacturer names too, although I think they might all be the same company now. I got all 12 Battleships, all but 1 carrier, all the Heavy Cruisers and most of the Light Cruisers and twenty-some Destroyers. I even had some submarines and auxiliary ships.
Then I got a book all about the Imperial Japanese Navy from 1889 - 1945. I made listings of all the different classes and models of ships that served from 1940-1945. That’s when I found out that Japan had about 160 different destroyers in service throughout the war. Not all at the same time of course. As some were lost in battles, others were built to replace them. Still, I realized I would not be able to get that many destroyer kits. I wasn’t even sure if all of them were even available. Shortly after I guess I just lost interest and gave up on that quest. Ended up selling most of the kits un-built. Still have the Battleships though.

knp7765,  I have 140 1-700 scale waterline IJN ships from Tamiya, Fujimi, Hasegawa and Pit Road
Mine are 19 to 33 years old. Just like you I thought man, I can build the entire IJN of WWII in waterline.
Never got it done, to many ships to build.  My entire collection of 1-700 scale ships is over 300 models and they sit in storage since my son born 19 years ago. Maybe willing to sell them if the price is right.

So now I am building all the WWII Navies in AA scale instead.

WARRIOR888

@Variable:

Well crew, your opinions have been heard. Coach and I spoke today on the carrier subject. We are shelving the Shinano for now, but expect to see it back some day… :wink:

In it’s place, our plan is to go back to plan A, a regular fleet carrier sized Unryu. I’m working to convince him that the Shokaku/Zuikaku need to be included as the fleet carrier in set 3, The Basic Set. How does that grab everybody? Give us your feedback.

This sounds great! I’m definitely on board with the Unryu and Shokaku/Zuikaku. May I also recommend a Ryuho being added to one of the sets at some point? Sort of an IJN equivalent of the Casablanca in the US/Neutral set.

BTW, I’ve got the three of them (Unryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku) in 1/700 scale plastic kit form if you need any measurements or scaling info for your CAD work or sculpts. I also have the Ryuho if your so inclined.

The Ryuho is already in production.  It’s part of the set on preorder now and to be released in August.

It’s the Ryujo.

You are right, it is.  OOPS!

A thought on the carrier sculpt for the final (basic) Japanese set.  I agree with Variable that it should be Shokaku.  This  would be an excellent choice because you are actually knocking out two carriers (Shokaku and Zuikaku) with one sculpt.  Add to this that both carriers saw extensive service spanning from Pearl Harbor up through mid-late 1944 and you have a winner.

We are going to have a lot of Japanese fleet carriers once we get through the basic HBG set.
Current OOB = Shinano (which some people may want to use as Japan’s super or heavy carrier)
A&A 1941 = Akagi
HBG Supp = Kaga
HBG Exp  = Unryu
HBG Basic = Shokaku/Zuikaku (which I guess are basically the same model/design)

So that’s 5 different fleet carriers for Japan (4 if you use Shinano as a heavy carrier). While I like all the different little sculpts too so I’m not trying to complain, but are any of these going to be different other than their physical appearance? Would they have different values for attack, defense, movement or cost? Would any of them have different special abilities? Say you have a Japanese fleet on the game board and in it you have a Kaga and an Unryu, would there be any difference between the two other than how they look?

A while back, Variable was talking about having the Shinano as a heavy carrier in the expansion set but a lot of you said don’t use the Shinano because it wasn’t used in the war and didn’t see action. So they decided to go with yet another fleet carrier, the Unryu, which did actually participate in the war.
I understand the wanting for more historical accuracy and in getting more sculpts that actually participated in the war. However, we are not playing A&A War at Sea Miniatures here. In that game, the different ships do matter because each ship has specific values and a lot more values to work with. In the A&A board games, we don’t generally get into so many specifics. Our units are a lot more basic: attack, defense, move and cost. Some may get additional values like carrying 3 planes or taking 2 hits to sink. Basically though, a carrier is a carrier. How many different fleet carriers do we really need?
Also, isn’t the point of an expansion set to introduce NEW TYPES OF UNITS? Ships that have different characteristics from those we already have, like a heavy carrier. I know a lot of you will probably disagree with me because the Shinano didn’t see action, but I think HBG should go back to adding the Shinano to the expansion set. Or if you don’t like the Shinano as a heavy carrier, perhaps there was another even bigger carrier that the Japanese had plans to build but never got to because they lost the war and you could use that one. Remember, we are not dealing with ACTUAL history in this game. With the expansion sets, we are setting the stage for all of us to be able to introduce units in our games that never actually occurred in real life.
As for having the Shinano in OOB pieces, well, we ALL know that HBG’s pieces look MUCH nicer with the added detail and realism.  Most of us here I think fully plan to replace their OOB pieces as soon as HBG pieces are available. I know in most cases I will and have in some cases (T-34s, Shermans, P-40s etc.)
Well, that’s my two cents for what it’s worth. I know that HBG must cater to public/customer opinion and if the majority want to include yet another fleet carrier which will be basically no different from what we already have but will look neat on the game board, I will simply deal with it. I just think it’s a waste of a slot in the expansion set.
By the way, I’m okay with another fleet carrier in the Basic set because it is just that, a Basic set.

But you already have a Shinano in the various A&A incarnations.  IMO the primary idea should be getting as many options as possible to choose from, not redo what has already been done.  Personally, I would love to see a better Akagi sculpt because that is my favorite carrier.  But the fact is that an Akagi has already been done so I wholeheartedly support a new sculpt.  The more the merrier if you ask me.

Yes, we do have the OOB Shinano. However, if HBG made it as a “heavy” carrier, not only would it be better detailed than the OOB, they would make it a little bigger physically like they are doing with the Yamato heavy battleship. HBG’s Yamato is going to be a little bigger than the standard battleship piece so everyone will know that it is a heavy. That’s the other reason I think the Shinano should be included in the expansion set as a heavy Aircraft Carrier.
I still don’t understand why you want another fleet carrier. Yes, I do understand that it will be cool to have all these different carrier classes. But for game purposes, you’re just getting another version of what you already have. They may look a little different, but they all perform exactly the same for the game.
It’s like the German bombers. Standard OOB is the Ju-88, 1941 gave us the He-111 and the HBG German supplement set gave us the Do-17.  All three are 2-engine medium bombers with roughly the same capabilities, even in real life. Sure it may look kind of cool on the board but do we really need 3 types of what’s basically the same German bomber? I don’t think so.

You have to remember that these pieces are not just designed for A&A.  To quote HBG’s own description:

“HBG is producing its seventh series of plastic gaming pieces that may be used in miniature games such as Axis & Allies, Memoir44, and many other miniature war games.”

As with anything good in life, options, options, options.  Now, if HBG were to do a set of strictly “heavy carriers” (the term makes me grimace) for the various nations, then fine, include the strange dinosaur.  But the Shinano as part of a Japanese set deserves to be where the real one is……sunk.

There was no such thing as a ‘heavy carrier’ in WWII :P

Can we get a submarine?

Okay, so now no one wants a “heavy” carrier for Japan? Or “heavy” carriers for any nation? Then why did I see so much talk about including the Midway class, which would be considered a “heavy” carrier since it was bigger and carried more planes than the Essex class, in a possible US expansion set?
It’s like you said, “options, options, options”. I know that there were no “heavy carriers” actually used in WW2, but for the game I would like the OPTION of developing one. What’s more, I think that option should be available for each nation, no matter how ludicrous it might have been in real life (e.g. super carriers for Germany, Italy or Russia).
That’s why I made my argument for a heavy tank for Japan, even though I got shot down in flames on that one.

Just stamp an “H” on one of the 500 (slight exaggeration) Shinano that you already have and call it a day.  I’m not trying to be flippant.  It’s just that there are only going to be so few precious sculpts when it’s all said and done.  They should be considered carefully and used on relevant, salient subjects; not wasted on units that had absolutely zero impact on history.  From almost every possible point of view, a Shokaku sculpt is the way to go.  Almost any possible Pacific carrier action scenario would include either or both the Zuikaku and Shokaku.  No carrier action would include the Shinano.  If you absolutely must have a Shinano for some purpose, the sculpt already exists in multitudes.  And, as I believe was already pointed out, even if it had reached true operational status, it’s useful aircraft complement was actually LESS than many of the other Japanese carriers.  It was big and ugly but that hardly qualifies it as a “heavy” carrier in a combat sense.

@knp7765:

Okay, so now no one wants a “heavy” carrier for Japan? Or “heavy” carriers for any nation? Then why did I see so much talk about including the Midway class, which would be considered a “heavy” carrier since it was bigger and carried more planes than the Essex class, in a possible US expansion set?
It’s like you said, “options, options, options”. I know that there were no “heavy carriers” actually used in WW2, but for the game I would like the OPTION of developing one. What’s more, I think that option should be available for each nation, no matter how ludicrous it might have been in real life (e.g. super carriers for Germany, Italy or Russia).
That’s why I made my argument for a heavy tank for Japan, even though I got shot down in flames on that one.

I use the Japanese tigers from 41 as well as the Stalin tanks as heavy tanks for a sort of “lend-lease” unit. I guess hypothetically it was possible. It does give options. Before the german and Japanese expansions I used HE111s as transports for Japan and Germany.  If you can get your hands on some the FMG SM 79 works well as a transport for Italy. Its slightly larger than the OOB SM79 from AAESE.

As a side note, it might be nice to get the German set in Italian Brown.

@Pacific:

It’s just that there are only going to be so few precious sculpts when it’s all said and done.  They should be considered carefully and used on relevant, salient subjects; not wasted on units that had absolutely zero impact on history.

While I see the merit in your overall points (and in general share your opinion), I think something can be said for the fact that no single Axis & Allies game is an exact exercise in historical happening. Most of them are from it.

By that I mean, that no game will play out exactly as World War II did. There are changes based on a players decisions and the roll of the dice. By playing the game we are engaging in a what-if history. Therefore, I believe it is applicable, if not preferable, that some machines which were being developed or not fully utilized at the end of the actual war be present for further development or use by the person playing the game. KNP7765 has made similar comments.

I am not advocating for inclusion of pieces like a the He-111z or helicopters or any of the really experimental stuff, but I don’t believe we need to be limited to only what saw significant combat use… or use in the fashion that it was utilized in WWII.

For example, HBG has included Me 262s in their German set. They are labeled as jet fighters and will almost certainly be used to represent those during gameplay. However, it is common knowledge that Me 262s were used by Hitler as fighter-bombers rather than their ideal role as interceptor aircraft. Should this mean that the Me 262s only be used as a light bomber, because that is how they really functioned in the war? Because that is how Hitler wanted to use them?   …  Obviously I don’t think so.

Similarly with Shinano: While I understand that, “The navy decided that Shinano would become a heavily armored support carrier, with only a small complement of aircraft and she was not intended to act as a fleet carrier despite her size; instead, she was to carry reserve aircraft, fuel and ordnance in support of carrier task forces.” (wikipedia) … There are mitigating historical factors that should be considered for Axis & Allies purposes.

(1) Shinano was never purpose built as an aircraft carrier, therefore the historical end result cannot be what the Japanese would have preferred in such a vessel. There would be no logical reason to invest in such a large yet underqualified design with the original intent for it to be just that.

(2) Following my previous line of reasoning, it would obviously be the A&A player’s intent to construct a large and capable fleet carrier when they decide to buy a Shinano during gameplay. Therefore, in the fictional A&A world, the Shinano would have been designed as a purpose built and capable fleet carrier.

The Shinano’s very attributes as the largest aircraft carrier of the war make this ship a logical choice as a fleet carrier unit (in my understanding, a fleet, aka heavy, carrier, or heavy anything, should be your biggest, best and most expensive). The reasoning for including it as such would be that in the A&A universe, the Shinano is treated as having been a top line fleet carrier.

On that point: are fleet carriers and heavy carriers different (from HBG’s perspective)? … If so, that would change the terminology for my argument.

I have never agreed completely with what pieces came as OOB for each country anyway. In that situation, something more representative of history should be used, because there are not the number of different options such as those that come with ordering from HBG.

This is really a very different topic anyway, but I will continue:

Shinano for Japanese carrier?    While the Japanese never settled on or were able to produce a large number of carriers from a single class, Shinano is a poor choice because it had no contribution to the war other than take 4 torpedoes from the USS Archer Fish.
  - any of the Midway carriers would have been a better choice, though best would have been Shokaku.

Wasp for US carrier?    Again, a one time unit and not even a fleet carrier. Was around for one battle and went to the bottom.
  - This should have been Essex, hands down. Though Yorktown-class would have been a more than fine alternative.

P-38 for US fighter   It fought in every theater and the design is quite distinctive, but I am sure when you think US WWII fighter (or anyone else is given that prompt), the first thought is not P-38 Lighting!
  - Popular choice would probably be P-51 or F4F/F6F… both of which would have been better.

**Ju-88 for German bomber  **  Might have been one of the more produced and versatile German aircraft, but I would think this almost has to be the He-111, which was more iconic and could carry almost double the payload. This should have been more comparable to the B-17 and Halifax.

**Ju-87 for German fighter (A&A Revised)  **  Revised was sort of the preliminary reboot, so I take this with a grain of salt, and on the surface really is not an awful or illogical pick, but they got it right when they switched to the Me 109.

@LHoffman:

  - any of the Midway carriers would have been a better choice, though best would have been Shokaku.

I’m not sure, but do you mean “any of the Pearl Harbor carriers”?  Shokaku and Zuikaku were there along side the other four, but they were both absent at Midway.