• Sponsor '17 TripleA '11 '10

    @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.

  • Sponsor '17 TripleA '11 '10

    @WARRIOR888:

    Coach,

    I noticed your picture of the IJN Kagero Destroyer looks like a Tama or Kuma Light Cruiser.

    WARRIOR888

    Gotta totally disagree here… The first pic below is our model. The second is a Kagero. Third is the Kuma. As you can see, our model and the Kagero are two-stackers. The Kuma and Tama are 3-stackers…

    kagero.jpg
    070430_01_64x36.jpg

  • Sponsor '17 TripleA '11 '10

    @Variable:

    @WARRIOR888:

    Coach,

    I noticed your picture of the IJN Kagero Destroyer looks like a Tama or Kuma Light Cruiser.

    WARRIOR888

    Gotta totally disagree here… The first pic below is our model. The second is a Kagero. Third is the Kuma. As you can see, our model and the Kagero are two-stackers. The Kuma and Tama are 3-stackers…

    Kuma

    images.jpg
    kagero.jpg

  • Sponsor '17 TripleA '11 '10

    @Pacific:

    I saw the updates to the second Japanese set and everything looks very nice!  You guys did a wonderful job on the Unryu!

    Thank you! We have some very talented modelers that Coach has found. No expense spared to produce the finest quality possible.


  • Variable,

    This is the first time ive seen your version of a Kagero Destroyer.  Previously it was not showing up on your images of this set.
    The image you have now displayed  is a real close match to my 10 each Kagero 1-700 scale waterline models.  Good job, keep up the good work.

    WARRIOR888

  • Sponsor '17 TripleA '11 '10

    @WARRIOR888:

    Variable,

    This is the first time ive seen your version of a Kagero Destroyer.  Previously it was not showing up on your images of this set.
    The image you have now displayed  is a real close match to my 10 each Kagero 1-700 scale waterline models.  Good job, keep up the good work.

    WARRIOR888

    Perhaps you saw the Nagara Light Cruiser we’re doing in the set.

    Nagara.jpg

  • Customizer

    @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.

  • Customizer

    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.

  • Customizer

    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.

  • Customizer

    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?

  • Customizer

    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.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts