AG124

AG124 · Sep 6, 2012, 1:16 AM

One item I did see was “light carrier” which I don’t understand. Does it mean a light aircraft carrier? To the best of my knowledge, Germany only had 1 aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, which was a fleet sized carrier. I don’t think they ever had any light carriers.

Germany planned several one-off converted CVL’s, although the only vessel on which any conversion work was completed was the CA Seydlitz (renamed Weser while undergoing conversion). I personally would like to see a CVL/CVE for each nation, including Germany (Seydlitz/Weser would be my first choice for Germany), but I can understand that most players would probably rather the iconic and widely produced and used Panzer IV.

AG124 · Jul 6, 2012, 10:48 PM

@ Imperious Leader - Actually, the line drawing in your post depicts a different Soviet CV project; specifically, Project 71. The “Kostromitinova” design was much larger, and was proposed later in the war. Interestingly, the Kostromitinova design was never seriously considered for production by the Soviet Navy (to the best of my knowledge), although 4 Project 71 ships and later 2 Project 72 ships were seriously planned (I think Project 71 was reduced from 4 ships to 2 sometime before Barbarossa).

I wonder why the Kostromitinova design was chosen instead of either Project 71 or Project 72?

AG124 · Jul 6, 2012, 2:13 AM

Looks like the Allied CV really was the Kostromitinova. Still a bit surprised at that choice, but I was always a fan of the incomplete CV projects of the USSR, so I wouldn’t complain.

AG124 · Jun 29, 2012, 1:47 AM

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 · Jun 28, 2012, 2:11 AM

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 · Jun 21, 2012, 2:11 AM

My thoughts on this matter:

SNLF Marine - Non negotiable, but OK anyway
Type 94 6-wheel Truck - OK
Type 87 Armored Car - Prefer the Type 92
Ho-Ha Mech Inf - OK (OOB is actually German sculpt anyway)
Light Tank? - Type 95 would be OK, as OOB is quite bad. Type 89 would work too
Type 97 Medium Tank - OK, or Type 3 Chi-Nu
Type 5 Ho-Ru Tank Destroyer - Prefer Ho-Ni as Tank Destroyer, and Ho-Ro as SP Artillery (Leave out Ho-Ru altogether)
Ho-Ni SP Artillery - See above
Ki-57 Transport Plane - OK
Ki-61 Tony late war Fighter - Not my first choice, but agree with Variable re appearances.
Val Dive Bomber - Good
B5N Kate torpedo Bomber - Good - glad to see both Kate and Val are mandatory
G8N Heavy bomber - Prefer G6N, but G8N is OK
I-400 Class Sub - Not interested, personally
Destroyer? - Maybe, not highest priority for me with new Akizuki sculpt
Nagara Light Cruiser? - OK, first choice for CL
Mogami Class Heavy cruiser - OK, first choice for CA
Chuyo Class Escort/Light Carrier - OK, but prefer Zuiho class
Kaga carrier - Would like as many IJN fleet carriers as possible, but if I had only one choice, I would choose Taiho. Shokaku class would be second, then Soryu, then Kaga.
Fuso Class Early war Battleship - OK, Fuso preferable over Kongo with new AAA41 Kongo sculpt
Nagato Class Battleship - OK

OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Infantry Carrying Flag - Not interested
Yamato / Musashi Class Hvy Battleship - OK, any refit
Shoho Light Carrier instead of Chuyo Escort Carrier - See above
Taiho Fleet Carrier instead of Kaga - See above
A6M Zero “Zeke” Navy Fighter - OK
Ki-43 Early War Army Fighter - 2 fighters are sufficient
Type 92 Armored Car instead of Type 87 - See above
Type 1 Medium Tank if Type 97 used for Light Tank - Prefer Type 3 Chi-Nu as alternative, but prefer Type 97 as medium tank anyway
Ki-100 Late War Army Fighter - Ki 61 is more distinct within Japanese pieces

AG124 · Jun 10, 2012, 10:57 PM

I just made a post indicating that the only Allied CV design which comes close to the new sculpt is the cancelled Soviet Kostromitinov design - however, I posted a link within this site to another thread with images, and my post was marked as spam and removed. I apologize if I unknowingly violated the site’s rules regarding links, but the link was purely internal (to another thread). Anyway, I’m too lazy to repost my comparison right now - maybe later.

AG124 · Jun 10, 2012, 10:53 PM

back to the original subject, after carefully studying line drawings of all UK and US fleet carrier, I don’t think the new sculpt matches any of them.

The funnel is somewhat split from the bridge, which really eliminates all classes except the Lexington class (and the funnel is certainly not large enough to qualify as that of the Lexington class).

In addition, the AA weapons platforms on each side of the hull do not confirm to any of the following classes; Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, Essex/Ticonderoga, Midway, Illustrious, Implacable, or Ark Royal.

The only class which comes close, in my opinion, is the cancelled Soviet Kostromitinov project. It may seem like a stretch, but compare the weapons platforms on both sides of the forward hull of the new sculpt, and the shape of the flight deck; they are pretty close, and just do not appear similar to any UK or US design.

EDIT - Removed my link (Which was internal to AAA.org anyway), as my post was flagged as spam.

AG124 · Jun 10, 2012, 2:05 AM

I believe the transport is a Nagara Maru class (definitely not Hakusan Maru class). I’ll look into it in more detail if no one else conclusively identifies it.

I will say that I like most of the new navel sculpts very much; the tanks and aircraft are an improvement over the old OOB sculpts, but are not quite up to HBG/FMG standards.

AG124 · May 25, 2012, 3:03 PM

I would personally like to see another Japanese set with more capital ships, but I imagine that is not likely at this stage. My next preference would be a facilities set, then a UK/ANZAC set after that.

I do think another US set is necessary as well.

AG124

@AG124

Latest posts made by AG124

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

2024 Playoff OOB Round 1 Pacifiers Board (+42) v Gamerman01

Ragnell804(Axis) vs. TGC(Allies) Tournament Game

1914 Game - Ragnell804 (CP) vs TGC (Entente), 1914 Balanced

L25 PTV Argothair (X+12) vs MikawaGunichi

L25 PTV Surfer (X+12) v Mikawagunichi (L)

pacifiersboard (X) -vs- FlyingBadger (L +45) OOB

L25 BM BombsAway (Axis) v simon33 (Allies + 20)

L24 PtV Gorshak (Axis+10) vs ArtofWar1947 (Allies) #2

56

17.6k

40.2k

1.7m