I can understand the wanting for “early war” fighters and “late war” fighters, but do we really want a distinction between an “army” fighter and a “navy” fighter? I mean, in general, navy fighters would basically be carrier based and army fighters would be land based and not capable of landing on carriers due to pilot training and equipment variations.
A lot of times I will fly out planes from a land base for an attack then have them land on carriers, or visa-versa. If some planes are considered army planes, technically that would mean they couldn’t land on a carrier.
Is this a rule some of you are considering? If so, this could severly hamper some air operations, especially for Japan and USA in the Pacific. Imagine having 5 or 6 fighters available for a sea battle but due to range limits they could only land on a carrier. However, they are “army” fighters so they can’t land on a carrier because they aren’t designed for it. So they are basically useless for this battle. Although, it might be interesting making players be more careful about which fighters they put where. Perhaps “navy” fighters would cost 1 IPC extra to represent the extra equipment and training involved in carrier landings? Or you simply have to choose between one or the other and deal with the restrictions. It might be noted that a navy fighter could still operate from land bases making it a little more versatile.
How about a Pillbox or some other unit to represent a half-infantry equivalent for Japanese island garrisons?
KNP,
I’m NOT proposing a RULE distinction between Army land-based and Navy carrier-based Fighters. I’m looking at these aircraft in G-40 terms. As far as the standard game rules are concerned, a Fighter is a Fighter.
Japanese aircraft were described as “Army” or “Navy” types in their official designations and this is what I meant. As a DESCRIPTION only. I’m looking at my copy of “Japanese Aircraft Code Names and Designations” by Robert Mikesh and Army or Navy is definately part of the descriptions.
–-----------------------------------------------
Tigerman and I might include the land or sea based RULE as one of the many “OPTIONS” in our Solomons Campaign game for the player choose if he wants to use it or not.
-------------------------------------------------
I think you hit the “nail on the head” when you said “WANT”. I certainly WANT to have both “Zeke” and “Tony” Fighters for my Japanese player. And it certainly looks SOOOO much better to have a F-6F “Hellcat” on my Enterprise CV than a P-38 “Lightning”! My point,…looks only. Let’s everone have FUN!
“Tall Paul”
knp i never though about it that way, maybe the land based fighter could be on ipc cheaper and the naval fighter can stay at its normal price.
and i actually meant the Frank would be great for a late war fighter since they produced a lot and it was supposed to be one of the japanese greatest fighters. but my second choice would be the Oscar, since so many were produced and it was a the second most produced fighter for the japanese
knp i never though about it that way, maybe the land based fighter could be on ipc cheaper and the naval fighter can stay at its normal price.
and i actually meant the Frank would be great for a late war fighter since they produced a lot and it was supposed to be one of the japanese greatest fighters. but my second choice would be the Oscar, since so many were produced and it was a the second most produced fighter for the japanese
Before we go off on many types of fighters, we need to cover all the basics first.
“Coach”,
Although I forgot to say so,…the aircraft that I thought to be the “necessary basics” I put in Bold Face type. And my chart was meant as a reference guide.
BTW, which Japanese a/c has FMG planned on producing?
“Tall Paul”
@Tall:
“Coach”,
Although I forgot to say so,…the aircraft that I thought to be the “necessary basics” I put in Bold Face type. And my chart was meant as a reference guide.
BTW, which Japanese a/c has FMG planned on producing?
“Tall Paul”
I haven’t the slightest idea what FMG is preparing for sculpts.
“Coach”
OK, thanks just the same.
“Tall Paul”
@coachofmany:
@Tall:
“Coach”,
Although I forgot to say so,…the aircraft that I thought to be the “necessary basics” I put in Bold Face type. And my chart was meant as a reference guide.
BTW, which Japanese a/c has FMG planned on producing?
“Tall Paul”
I haven’t the slightest idea what FMG is preparing for sculpts.
So until we actually know what sculpts or units FMG is going to finalize for its Japanese units this is all speculation because we dont want to end up duplicating what FMg may produce in a set, not to mention getting the color of the units wrong.
No,
I am moving forward with the sets and will do the OOB and my Global 1939 colors until I know for sure the colors for FMG. I will supplement the sets and if there are duplications, there will not be that many.
As for colors, I’m pretty sure FMG Japanese will be the OOB color too. Jeremy said their combat units will match their combat dice and the Japanese combat dice are nearly identical to the OOB combat units color.
Hey Coach, what is the color for your Japanese in your Global 1939? Is it different from OOB?
Sounds good, Coach. Any set made by you would be most welcome.
Militaryman077,
I couldn’t agree more that ANY set that the “Coach” makes is worth having!
And I, like most players, intend to buy everything he makes. Thanks again, Doug.
“Tall Paul”
Ditto!!!
Everyone,
I made the above somewhat all-inclusive listing of Japanese Aircraft Types for use as a reference. You should note that the aircraft that I thought were important to be produced I put in Bold Face type. Even so, I wasn’t imagining that all of these aircraft would be produced in only ONE set. Between HBG and FMG I think 3-4 sets would probably cover these units.
If only ONE aircraft made it into the HBG Japanese Suplement set I would choose the G5N “Liz”. We not only need a Japanese 4-Engine Bomber, but this aircraft design is so “Japanese looking” with the twin tails and so unique-looking I think it is a great choice for inclusion in the HBG Japanese Supplement set.
As a possible 2nd unit (of the 12 in HBGs Set) I might suggest the Ki-61 Tony Fighter. It was unique as it was the only mass-produced Japanese Fighter with a liquid-cooled in-line engine. It was powerful, defensively armored, fast, and good looking also.
–-----------------------------------------
I think all of us would agree that we want an improved “Zeke”, “Val”, and “Kate” some day(soon?).
What Do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul”
i agree with your heavy bomber its unique looking. but i still rather see the oscar or the frank for the fighters over the tony or zero
I would vote B5N and G8N. Not sure which fighter to pick though…
I would like to pose another question regarding this set:
If only 3 naval units are produced in this set, would you rather have a CV,CVL,BB combo or a CVL,BB,CA combo?
Cvl, BB, CA. At first anyway!
