Posts made by AG124

@knp7765:

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.

@ 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?

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.

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…

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

@knp7765:

These will be available in both the OOB Maroon color and the Burgandy color of FMG’s Soviet Combat Dice?

@Variable:

Russian set will actually be done in 4 colors. G40 OOB (black-cherry color), maroon from Europe 41 (1999 ed), red for Communist Chinese, and plum (purple) for Spanish Republic. Of course, you can use the 4 colors any way you wish!

Will the planned red colour for the HBG Soviet pieces closely match the FMG red Soviet Combat Dice?

@ Coachofmany - Further to Lunarwolf’s reminder regarding the French and Japanese sets, have you had an opportunity to consider my questions from Reply #43 (currently near the end of page 3 in this thread)?

@ Coach - A few questions regarding the upcoming sets, and ideas for clarifications regarding the information recently added to HBG’s online store:

France - Although the current paragraph with the basic information for France (such as colours) is correct, the actual list of colours (and list of units) appears to be a repeat of the Polish/Dutch/neutral information. I imagine this will soon be corrected, but I suppose it’s as good a time as any to ask if there have been any decisions regarding unit types (and/or specific classes) for France at this stage? Alternatively, will there be any community polls for suggestions?

Japan - I see that there is currently no information available under Japan’s entry in the HBG store, as there is for France. My above questions regarding any current unit choices and/or classes are posed for Japan as well.

USSR (early) - The Soviet pieces from FMG will not match the OOB maroon/reddish-brown colours, but will match the FMG Soviet Combat Dice, which are flat red. The colour difference is nearly as striking as the black-to-gray German colour change, although there has been surprisingly no discussion on the issue at all (very unlike the case of Germany). You have already announced red as one of several colours for your own Soviet pieces (intended for Communist Chinese forces); will this red colour come close to the red colour of the future FMG Soviet pieces? Personally, I prefer the red colour choice of FMG for Soviet pieces anyway…

Finally, if demand is high enough, will there be any further US or German sets? I would personally like to see a modern BB for the US (maybe South Dakota class), together with a modern CV (Essex class), late-war heavy tank (maybe M-26 Pershing), and maybe a jet fighter tech piece. Germany could perhaps use a CVL/CVE (Seydlitz/Wesser), plus a OOB-replacement Panther for aesthetic purposes (a Jagdpanther would be nice as well, perhaps). It might also be nice to see each nation with one freighter/transport and one tanker, )for possible oil transport rules) which is currently not the case for either the US or Germany.

@Tall:

�  � Having large numbers of these units might not be historically correct but IMHO I think ALL players will want this option of having 4-engine heavy Bombers for every country. � And “FUN” trumps reality (in some cases).

I think an important point to make in support of your argument here, is that a player’s choices during a game of Axis & Allies Global 1940 are not required to correspondence to the historical actions of the country played by them. Japan may not have constructed any significant numbers of heavy bombers, but there is certainly nothing stopping an Axis & Allies Japanese player from developing and constructing heavy bombers (in which case, a four-engined bomber would be useful as an in-game sculpt, despite the exceedingly-low historical numbers of such aircraft actually produced in Japan during WWII).

Ultimately, it appears that FMG and HBG have provided us with some variety in that regard, and have expressed an intent to continue with this goal in mind. I don’t know if there is any firm consensus on the new unit types to be added to the standard 1940 linup, but discussions on this forum indicate that at least a heavy bomber, light/escort carrier, self-propelled artillery, and tank destroyer will exist for each nation. I think a pre-war and modern BB are established choices as well. I’m not sure if there is any consensus regarding tank types, but Germany and (to a lesser extent) the US seem to have a very good selection so far.

I would point out that Germany has not received a CVE/CVL, the US doesn’t have a heavy tank or modern BB, Italy does not have a four-engined bomber, CVE/CVL, pre-war BB, or SPG; thus, there are some inconsistencies in unit choices thus far. Some unit choices will also, of course, depend upon the unit choices of FMG, and I do not recall seeing any certain FMG choices for Japan thus far (other than the G3M Betty). However, for a Japanese supplementary set from HBG, there are several basic points which can still be made:

Basic Naval Units:

Battleships - If FMG and HBG are each producing a set, this would provide the opportunity for us to receive a pre-war BB and modern BB. From earlier discussions of this community, the Kongo and Yamato classes would be most appropriate for each respective sculpt. I do hope, however, that FMG and HBG do not each choose to produce an early was BB for Japan as they did for the US; the AAA war may start in 1940, but it progresses into the mid and late war range. I would hope that we receive at least one modern (and iconic) IJN BB sculpt to represent wartime production. I would also point out that IMO, the OOB Yamato sculpt is devoid of significant details, and needs to be replaced.

Fleet Carriers - I have posted my thoughts on IJN CV’s elsewhere, but Japan has a variety of unique and well-known carrier classes; for aesthetic purposes, I would like to see at least two represented. Kaga, the Shokaku class, and Taiho rank near the top of my personal list.

Cruiser - If we are looking for a CA that is visually distinct from the two-funneled OOB Takao class (a horrible sculpt though, IMO), then the one-funnelled Mogami and Tone classes are suitable choices. If one of these is the choice of FMG, then I doubt HBG would use a supplementary slot to produce a second CA. If so, then I would hope for a two-funneled CA (any of the four available classes).

Destroyer - If both FMG and HBG decide to produce a DD for Japan, there are several choices available; the Kagero and Akitsuki classes are my top two choices.

Submarine - I think we need only one class of submarine for Japan; FMG can produce any of the “B-Type” variants, and HBG can leave this one of a supplementary set.

Transport/Auxiliary - I would personally like to see at least one new freighter or troop transport, and a tanker sculpt. FMG and HBG can each produce one of the two.

Supplementary Naval Units:

Light/Escort Carrier - Although this unit type has not been consistently produced so far, I would hope that Japan does receive one. My first choice would be the Zuiho class, followed by the Taiyo class. I assume FMG will not produce this unit in its standard set, and that as such, we will receive only one sculpt.

Light Cruiser - I don’t know if HBG will actually produce this unit, as it has not been a standard supplementary unit so far. If we were to get one, I would recommend a Nagara/Kuma class as being visually distinct from an IJN CA, and generally representative of older IJN CL’s.

Basic Land Units:

Infantry - I have no input to suggest regarding infantry; I assume FMG and HBG will continue with their current trends.

Tank - There are a wide number of choices here, but I don’t know if FMG and HBG are planning to coordinate production so that we get at least one light, medium, and heavy tank for Japan. Although I would not be adverse to receiving a Japanese heavy tank, I will point out that no Japanese heavy tank design even reached the complete prototype stage, let alone full-scale production. Anyway, I could settle for a Type 3 Chi-Nu as a heavy, with the Type 95 Ha-Go as a light, and Type 97 Chi-Ha as a medium. There are other choices which would suffice as well.

Artillery - One new sculpt is enough; FMG can produce one, and HBG will be relieved of the burden, IMO.

Mechanized Infantry - Type 1 Ho-Ha Half Track.

Supplementary Land Units:

SPG - Type 4 Ho-Ro.

Tank Destroyer - Type 1 No-Ni.

Truck - One is enough; FMG can produce a Type 97 Isuzu, and HBG does not need to produce another.

Basic and Supplementary Air Units:

Fighter - There has been extensive discussion in this thread surrounding the sub-types of Japanese fighters to be produced to counter the wide variety of fighters already produced for the US. I would personally add that although some such breakdown is important to other players, I do not personally intend to distinguish between different fighter types in my global games, other than for aesthetic purposes. I will therefore leave this portion of the discussion to other community members, but I will add that I would most like an A6M2 Zero “Zeke”, and an N1K1 “George.”

For the sake of speeding up this long-winded post, I will just repeat my earlier thoughts on other Japanese air unit types:

Heavy Bomber - I am glad to see that HBG will continue to ensure that each nation receives a four-engined bomber; my Japanese choice would be the G5N “Liz”, an aircraft which I have always liked.

Medium Bomber - If FMG is already producing a two-engined bomber (confirmed to be a G4M “Betty”), then I wouldn’t place any priority on receiving a second sculpt).

Tactical/Fighter-Bomber - Between FMG and HBG, I would like to see both the D3A “Val” and B5N “Kate”.

Finally, I will add that currently, we lack two pieces of important information:

• Most importantly, I feel that we need some more detailed input from coachofmany regarding his intention for the number of sculpts for a supplementary Japanese set, and the types which he would like to produce, although it was a good idea for coachofmany to ask for input to establish fighter-sub-types; and

• Some idea from Jeremy regarding his intentions for his main Japanese set (other than the “Betty” as a two-engine Japanese bomber; as this set is a long time away from completion, I wouldn’t really expect to receive any such input yet.

I would love to see HBG produce a Japanese set sooner rather than later (although I hope to see continued coordination with FMG to avoid too many duplicates). Anyway, the following are some of my thoughts:

CV - Japan has a variety of CV’s from which to choose, and I’d like to see at least two classes represented. Kaga, Soryu, and the Shokaku class rank near the top of my personal list of preferences. I also wouldn’t complain if either FMG or HBG chose the Taiho (I think FMG may have expressed an intention to produce Taiho as the Japanese CV choice, but I’m not sure now).

CVL/CVE - I hope to see at least one CVL or CVE for each nation (although Germany did not receive the Seydlitz/Wesser in any of its current sets), and Japan is no exception. I would personally prefer the Zuiho class CVL, followed by the Taiho class CVE (only one is necessary for this set; the other could follow in a dedicated supplementary set).

BB - The two main classes I would hope to see are the Kongo class and the Yamato class (as a note to earlier posters in this thread, the Kongo class were no longer classified as battlecruisers following their post-WWI reconstruction). I know that HBG expressed a preference for one over the other, and indicated that FMG may produce the other choice. Any further IJN BB choices can be produced through a supplementary naval set should such a set be produced.

CA/CL - If FMG produces a CA, then HBG will probably produce a CL, based on past comments from coachofmany. A Nagara class CL would have a markedly differing visual appearance from any IJN CL, and thus may be a good choice for this reason. Another factor in favour of the Nagara class could be the sheer number of vessels represented by the sculpt; 6 vessels of the Nagara class, and 5 of the very similar Kuma class. If FMG and HBG are both producing CA’s, then my top three preferences are the Mogami, Takao, and Tone classes.

DD - If HBG and FMG each produce one of the Kagero class and Akitsuki class, that would be fine, IMO.

SS - I think that only one sub sculpt is really necessary, hopefully the B1 class.

AK/AP/AO - I would be satisfied with one auxiliary sculpt from FMG, but I hope that every nation receives a tanker sometime in the future.

Armour - The two main choices here are obviously the Type 95 Ha-Go and the Type 97 Chi-Ha, but depending on FMG’s choices, the Type 89 I-Go (“Chi-Ro”) and Type 3 Chi-Nu medium tank would work as well (particularly the Chi-Nu)

SPG and Tank Destroyer - I hope that HBG remains consistent in choosing to produce these unit types; I would personally hope to see the Type 1 Ho-Ni and the Type 4 Ho-Ro.

Mechanized Infantry - Type 1 Ho-Ha Half Track.

Heavy Bomber - I am glad to see that HBG will continue to ensure that each nation receives a four-engined bomber; my Japanese choice would be the G5N “Liz”, an aircraft which I have always liked.

Medium Bomber - If FMG is already producing a two-engined bomber (confirmed to be a G4M “Betty”), then I wouldn’t place any priority on receiving a second sculpt).

Tactical/Fighter-Bomber - Between FMG and HBG, I would like to see both the D3A “Val” and B5N “Kate”.

Fighter - Between FMG and HBG, I would like to see the KI-43 “Oscar,” A6M2 Zero “Zeke”, and N1K1 “George.”

I am in favour of extending the deadline, and I will order another three sets - just trying to figure out how to place an order which requesting an invoice change to combine shipping with my previous order; no luck so far.

@ Coachofmany - Thank you for reply. I do understand your reasoning, and I would not at all be adverse to a new CL sculpt. :wink: However, with FMG producing a single-ship class (one of the few FMG sculpt choices with which I would disagree), and with so many other iconic US CA’s left unproduced, I would subjectively prefer to see a New Orleans or Baltimore over a Cleveland, Brooklyn, or Omaha. I would personally just use the Atlanta to represent a conventional CL at this scale.

I didn’t consider the OOB ‘Portland’ representation in my post, as I intend never to use the poor-quality OOB pieces after having receiving full sets of FMG and HBG units. I believe I am not the only one who will cease using them, based on other community posts.

As well, regarding my earlier inquiry, is there any way for me to add two more pre-order US supplementary naval sets to my current pre-order?

In relation to coachofmany’s list, and the need to drop two units, I would definitely cut the LCM. Although I would keep the LST without a doubt, the LCVP seems a little below the scale of combat in the series of AAA games we have to date (or any existing boardgame of which I can think). There seems to be quite some demand here for this unit, but I personally do not see a role for it, as I would prefer to just ‘abstract’ the actual beach landing. Maybe my gaming preferences just differ from those of others in this regard.

Also, I would include a CA instead of a CL in the set, in light of the inclusion of the Atlanta-class CLAA. I know that FMG is already producing a Wichita-class CA, but that unit is, of course, a one-off class and I would like to see some CA variety in these sets. There were also more votes for a new CA than CL. Coachofmany - regardless of whether a CA or CL is included in your set, will you accept input from the community (via a second poll) as to the specific sculpt choice?

As well, I would place an pre-order for two more supplementary naval sets if I could combine them into my present pre-order without paying extra shipping.

Great footage - I think all of these units turned out quite nicely. 8-) I noticed the finished chips and dice over on the left side; those look quite interesting as well… :wink:

Can’t wait to get these in hand, and I intend to place my Germany pre-order very, very soon as well.

Just placed an order for two sets, if it helps a bit.

@ coachofmany - have you tried promoting this product on other sites (i.e. Axis & Allies Forumini, BoardGameGeek, etc.)?