Need Help to Finalize HBG Japan Set!

[Imperious Leader]

The OOB Kongo from AA41 should be good enough so no need for a Kongo class BC

But i like the hybrid Battleship?Carriers ( BBAV ISE and HYUGA).

Prefer retrofitted Musashi  (10/44), not original.

whatever CVL they go with it must be one of those flattops with no superstructure to get the iconic Japanese light carrier look.

[Variable]

I should clarify one thing here: Since NONE of these have gone to sculpting yet, we would appreciate ANY comments you have on ANY of the units we’ve listed. Nothing is written in stone, but the list is what we compiled initially from research and previous comments, as well as our own preferences. If you see something that truly doesn’t seem right, and you can make a good argument, by all means this is the time to bring it up. Feel free to make comments, for or against, on any of the units listed. All I ask is have some info to back up your choice so we can do our research too.

A good example is the arguments against the “Tony”. I actually picked the Tony to be in our set because of it’s unconventional look, easily distinguishing it from the carrier aircraft. Granted, entering service in '43 isn’t exactly ideal for “late war”, but '44 is when it was most utilized. I’m starting to see the merit in going with the Ki-100. It was on our list as well during initial planning but I guess it was my fault the Tony made the cut.

My opinion on the Ki-43 is it presents two problems here. First, having two Army fighters (assuming we also go with one of the above) and one Navy fighter (oob) seems a bit odd for Japan. May be better to have it the other way around? Second, at 1/700 scale it looks way too close to a Zero. Even if you can tell the actual pieces apart, wouldn’t it be more fun to have something different looking?

I also think the arguments of doing our own Zero make some sense. While I think the latest WOTC sculpts are much improved, the older oob Zeros could use improvement. With Japan being Naval heavy like the U.S., would it not make better sense to choose another naval fighter? Initially we were going to wait on another navy fighter until we did the Japanese naval set but, here we are doing them together now. I think including our own navy fighter makes sense and thank those that brought this to my attention!

[Variable]

Would it be safe to say that the Sea Plane Tender idea is out? It does not appear on anyone’s list and could open a spot for another aircraft or ship.

[Variable]

@knp7765:

The Type 97 “Chi-Ha” is a MEDIUM tank, NOT a light tank. The Japanese LIGHT tank is the Type 95 “Ha-Go”, which is the sculpt we have from OOB.

I fixed this on the first post. Thank you for the correction!

@knp7765:

As for an alternate fighter, I can’t remember the designation but there was one that was based on a German in-line engine and looked a lot like a Messershcmidt, which was a very un-Japanese look. That might be interesting to have in a Japanese set.

I believe you are referring to the Ki-61 Tony listed currently in the set.

[Imperious Leader]

With the proposed Japanese HBG set, it appears that the new goal is to make complete sets by nation.

Keeping that in mind, they must consider replacing the OOB pieces. It is no longer “adding in a few new units” for house rules, but making the goal to replace OOB.

The second issue is they should market these sets for other game companies who in turn will produce new games. If the iconic pieces are not in the mix ( for example not making a zero and making “tony”) the utility of these sets will not see the full potential.

Once you got a number of complete sets, companies will contact HBG because the cost of development will no longer prevent a company from producing games with plastic pieces.

The Soviet set is a complete set
The German set ( “minor axis allies”) is sort of a filler piece set.
The Neutral set is also perfect and is complete

So the choices of units should not reflect what WOTC made, because these are superior units and will replace OOB and not be thought as used with low grade WOTC units.

[GoSanchez6]

Hey Imperious how is the Soviet a complete set? I don’t remember seeing any naval units unless that is a change I am unaware of. The last pictures I saw were land and air units. I hope HBG does start making complete sets with the same number of units as FMG. I would pay 40 per set. If this is the case Variable let us know as that would be fantastic news.

[knp7765]

I think IL considers the HBG Soviet set to be complete because the vast majority of Soviet action was on the land or in the air. The Soviet Navy really didn’t have the chance to contribute very much to the outcome of the war. However, Go Sanchez, you are correct that to be a truly complete set, we would have to get Soviet naval vessels as well.

With this in mind, perhaps Coach should consider expanding his sets to fully complete sets like we (should be) getting from FMG. I realize this would be more or less putting you in direct competition with FMG, but frankly HBG has had much better and more timely output with their sets. I too would be willing to pay $40 per set to HBG, perhaps a little more since from the proposed list, it appears that your sets would be somewhat larger as they would include both the basic pieces plus the sort of “in-between” units (Light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks) (Fleet Carriers, Light Carriers) (Early war BBs and Late war BBs) and so on. Such a set would probably be well over 156 pieces, maybe close to 200, depending on how many of each sculpt was included. With the high quality and such a large piece count, I would imagine $50 - $60 wouldn’t be wrong to ask for.

If IL’s proposal is correct, with HBG making complete sets to replace OOB, this set really should include the Zero. That’s just too iconic to not include and the Zero was used all throughout the war. I also vote for including the Tony. THen Japan can have a navy fighter and an army fighter, plus have a fighter that looks a little different. I just don’t think you should include another fighter that looks like another Zero.

[Variable]

The proposed list above for the Japanese will likely be split into two separate sets. The difference this time is we are molding them at the same time. We will likely go back and do the other fill-ins some day. The good thing about the way Coach does his sets is you can get the basics bundled for 10 or 15 bucks per set, and then fill in what you want more of for a few pennies each by-the-piece. Anyone can make their own custom set.

Also, if we do go back and make more German, Russian, or US pieces someday, they can easily be added to our current stock and grouped into “complete sets” as IL mentions above. Since HBG pieces do not stay on the sprues like the old Table Tactics pieces, we can mix and match any number of pieces to make the set required.

Hope this info helps. Going forward now, what do you feel is missing or not needed on the current list?

[Variable]

First post updated with new info and suggestions.

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

I like where these sets are going for the most part. I highly favor matching Japan’s unit classes to the American counterparts. Actually I favor this approach to offer standardized unit classes for all nations. It makes house rules more simplistic.

Also please include a transport plane. A heavy four engine bomber would be nice too. Though I’m not sure Japan had one. Light, medium, heavy tanks (if possible) and less trucks. One or two should suffice for any nation.

Also I’m going against the croud on this one: I’m anti zero. Yes it’s iconic but I already have many dozen zeros. Adding another zero sculpt Doesnt help us create a new unit. It actually removes a new unit from the potential set which is counter to HBG’s said objectives.
Thanks for all your guys work at hbg.

[Lunarwolf]

i just know for my group for we would like to see the consistent pieces for the major powers. such as the early/Mid/late war fighters, early war battleship paratroopers , ect,ect. but with factions that are naval heavy/land heavy they should get extra special troops like Germany / Russia with extra tanks and Japan with there navy Britain with their Commonwealth , and America with pretty much everything. i still feel Japan should match Americas might with Naval forces, and in terms of fighters since with OOB America Has a  5 fighters they can cover early mid late and naval no problem maybe adding 2 army fighters isn’t that bad for Japan. even though a REALLY want to see the Oscar witch was used also for kamikaze attacks during the end of the war. it could work as OOB zero as early war. the TONY for mid war since a lot of people would like to see it, the new HBG improved Zero for naval fighter, and the K-100 for late war fighter.

[Variable]

Updated first post.

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

Thanks. Updates look great.

[DrLarsen]

The OOB Kongo from AA41 should be good enough so no need for a Kongo class BC

With the proposed Japanese HBG set, it appears that the new goal is to make complete sets by nation.

Keeping that in mind, they must consider replacing the OOB pieces. It is no longer “adding in a few new units” for house rules, but making the goal to replace OOB

Given the latter statement, Imperious, which I think is correct, I’m all the more concerned to see an HBG Kongo, and thus disagree with the former statement.  Keep in mind also, that we do not yet know what the size of the AA41 oob Kongo will be.  If it isn’t visually distinct enough from the oob Yamato, then the possibility of using it as an early-war BB and/ or CB is greatly diminished.  (And given that in the pictures from the preview that DJensen provided seem to indicate that the new Kongo will be slightly BIGGER than the new Hood [!?!], I’m not optimistic.)  Doing a Kongo + Yamato allows players to choose either an old BB/ new BB or a BB/CB dichotomy.  Adding one of the other 3 classes (Fuso, Ise or Nagato, again, I don’t have any strong feelings about which, but Fuso seems the popular choice so far) allows the Kongo to slip into the CB role, while the Yamato/ Fuso allows the player to choose either an “old BB/ new BB” or “SBB/BB” dichotomy for the remaining two ships.  HBG could then eventually do the Iowa (or maybe Montana if he’d rather not reduplicate oob and/ or FMG) and the Alaska to give the US the same 3-ship range of capital ships.

But i like the hybrid Battleship?Carriers ( BBAV ISE and HYUGA).

The Hybrids were pretty much all a useless waste of time and materials.  I think it would be just as much a waste of time and materials for HBG to do one now.

whatever CVL they go with it must be one of those flattops with no superstructure to get the iconic Japanese light carrier look.

I’m in complete agreement with this!

Prefer retrofitted Musashi  (10/44), not original.

It’s impossible to tell for sure whether the oob Yamato is the retrofitted version or not, given its level of detail.  It looks to me, though more likely that it is.  It thus seems to me that the initial version would be more distinct.  Was there a particular reason that you preferred it?  Again, it doesn’t seem as though they added anything in the “refit” except tiny AA guns too small to show up on this scale, but only took something away, the 6.1" turrets that HBG might actually be able to do a nice job with…

[DrLarsen]

Variable, which version of the Type 97 Chi-Ha tank were you planning on doing?  The original version or the upgraded “Shinhoto” version?

[Variable]

We could do either one, but the Shinhoto version seems more appropriate.

[AG124]

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

[gliven]

The Type 3 Chi-Nu mounted one Type 3 75 mm Tank Gun, one of the largest guns ever to be fitted on a World War II Japanese tank. i would love to see that as the medium tank for japan or even as a heavy tank for japan since they didn’t really have any heavy tanks that weren’t experimental.

[WARRIOR888]

KNP,  I have those same two models only my 1-700 Tamiya Yamato has the 6.1 secondary and my Aoshima Mushashi has the enhanced AA.  I still have the original boxes from 30 years ago.

I think if a Yamato is re-done it should be with the 6.1s  OOB Yamatos can be modified into B-64 Battle Cruisers as I have done.  I am toying with taking 4 OOB Yamato’s and doing some serious mod into fantasy AA  A-150 and A-140 Super BBs with 20 inch guns.

WARRIOR888

[DrLarsen]

@Variable:

We could do either one, but the Shinhoto version seems more appropriate.

If you are only doing 1 tanks, do a Type 97 Chi-Ha Shinhoto

If 2 tanks, do a Type 95 (light) and a Type 97 medium (either model, but I’d say preferably the Shinhoto)

If 3 tanks, do a Type 95 (light) a Type 97 (either model, but I’d say preferably NOT the Shinhoto) and a Type 3 Chi-Nue (medium-heavy)

3 tanks might be overkill for Japan, but you did say that you were trying to do ALL the sculpts for Japan and you do have 3 levels of tanks for most of the nations you’re doing…

Whatever you do DON’T do the Type 89 which by Japanese standards wasn’t considered a “light” tank but rather a medium (but was a really old and weak one.)

The Type 3 Chi-Nu mounted one Type 3 75 mm Tank Gun, one of the largest guns ever to be fitted on a World War II Japanese tank. i would love to see that as the medium tank for japan or even as a heavy tank for japan since they didn’t really have any heavy tanks that weren’t experimental.

I agree IF you’re going ahead and doing 3 tanks.  It didn’t see action, but would’ve if the US had invaded Japan, and was the closest thing to a tank competitive with a Sherman that the Japanese had in any significant numbers of at all.  I suppose an argument could be made for a prototype, since some of the tech units you’re doing for, say, Germany, weren’t really used, perhaps, and the Chi-Nu is hardly a direct competitor with, say, a Tiger or a JS-II… (by objective late-war standards it still barely qualifies as a “medium” much less a “heavy”) but I’d still rather see the actually produced units before the prototypes unless there’s a really compelling reason for it, and I don’t see a compelling reason for a Japanese heavy tank.