SNLF infantry would definitely be great. As it is we’re painting up some revell miniatures to do the job for now.
I like the suggestions regarding different planes. I’d definitely order this set.
Nakajima Ki-43-I Oscar wouldnt look like the zero. the zero has a fatter rounder wing, while the Oscar has more of a skinny triangular wing plus its tail is much skinnier. while the frank is a longer fighter than both. the Fighter pieces would be easy to distinguish from each other still
Nakajima Ki-43-I Oscar wouldnt look like the zero. the zero has a fatter rounder wing, while the Oscar has more of a skinny triangular wing plus its tail is much skinnier. while the frank is a longer fighter than both. the Fighter pieces would be easy to distinguish from each other still
unfortunately, at this scale, the difference between these two would be nearly negligible and VERY difficult to model. The precision the modeller would need to make them look right and different would probably be impossible, without exaggerating features. The models already suffer from scale issues, this would be a pretty tough get. The molds can’t even do a tail as thin as the Oscar. They will probably always be thicker than the zero in scale.
Zero:
Oscar
@Tall:
� �Â
� �Â
by the by, Tall Paul - that’s caused by using space more than once (in your case, indenting and after sentences). It’s a hard habit to break, and I now edit mine out on this forum because they glitch now. But technically, as monospace fonts are obsolete, it is completely unnecessary and, according to many publishing style guides, incorrect to type more than one space after a full stop (period).
For everyone’s edification:
Tony (looks a great deal like a BF109 - this led to much confusion on the allies part when deployed in 1943)
George
- 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
Historical Board Gaming has not yet finalized the models or even the types for this set yet. It is very likely that HBG will continue the trend of supplying a CVL, 4-engine bomber, Tank Destroyer, and SPG in the first Japanese set. Any and all suggestions on unit types are still welcome and encouraged. There will be room for 12 different molds as in the US set.
AG124, and Everyone,
As per your “Responce #63”:
Yes,…I completely agree, this is a GAME. A point we’d do well to remember.
The following are either my understandings of what I’ve heard, spoken to the “Coach” on the phone about, or what has been typed here on A&A.ORG. I AM NOT speaking for the “Coach”, and any misunderstandings or mistakes are MINE ALONE.
I believe the “Coach” of HBG has stated before that he was interested in making a “enlarged line-up” of the SAME UNIT TYPES for all countries. This would be in addition to the FMG units. FMG making “Full Country Sets”, and HBG making “Supplementary Sets” for all the countries. In my understanding**(?)** they both have somewhat established the UNIT TYPES that they are making in their respective sets.
Until the “Coach” states differently, I think we might take the UNIT TYPES that he made in his “HBG US Supplement Set” as the basis of out unit choices.
The “Coach” some time ago also stated his definate interest in also making an “HBG US Naval Set” that he has already taken pre-orders for. � The pre-order amounts stand at about 36%(or so) of the amount he said was needed before the set would become a “GO” proposition.
The “Coach” also stated that if/when the “US Naval Set(possibly two sets)” were made,…He intended to follow this with an “HBG Japanese Naval Set”(or two).
I believe that if/when the “HBG Naval Sets” are produced,…we could add these “NAVAL UNIT TYPES” to our list of “SUPPLEMENT UNIT TYPES” to be produced for all countries. Of course I may be wrong in this assumption,…and some countries may or may not have every UNIT TYPE made for it. I DON’T KNOW.
The thread for the “HBG U.S. Naval Sculps Pre-Order” has been a very popular discussion thread and has now grown quite lengthy. But it has a lot of info in there concerning the “Coach’s” intentions and preferences. Check it out if you haven’t already done so.
The choices of Naval Unit Types weren’t “finalised”,…but 12 units out of the following 14 were “under consideration” for the “(1st) US Naval Set”. Two TYPES needed to be trimed off the list,…(but hopefully produced along with other TYPES in a 2nd Naval Set). I’ve arranged this list in large to small size,…but this is NO REFLECTION of there possibility of inclusion in the set. � �
“Essex class” Aircraft Carrier
“Montana class” Battleship
“South Dakota class” Battleship
“Alaska” class BattleCruiser
“Brooklyn” class" Light Cruiser
“Atlanta class” Anti-Aircraft Light Cruiser
Destroyer-Escort
“AO” Oiler
PT Boat
LST (Landing Ship-Tank)
LCVP “Higgens boat” (Landing Craft, Vehicle/Personel)
LCM (Landing Craft-Mechanised)
PBY “Catalina” Patrol/Bomber
B-29 “SuperFortress”
There was discussion of possibly “scratching” the “Atlanta” class Anti-Aircraft Light Cruiser and replacing it on the list with a “Baltimore” class Heavy Cruiser. I don’t know what “final” decissions were made(if any).
Some of the other choices that “didn’t make the cut” for the 1st Naval Set but might be produced in a possible (2nd) US Naval Set were:
“Independance” class CVL Light Aircraft Carrier–-with the “Essex” class CV included and the “Casablanca” class CVL in the HBG “US Supplemental Set” it was deemed one too many CVs (for inclusion in the 1st Naval Set anyway).
“Midway” class CV(H) Heavy Aircraft Carrier—“Ditto” the above reason,…and also this wasn’t a WW2 ship but still might be included in a 2nd Naval set.
DMS Minesweeper
“North Carolina” class Battleship
“Tennessee” class Battleship
“Colorado” class Battleship
AV Seaplane Tender
APD “Fast Tranport” (the WW1 “Four-Stacker” Destroyers that were rebuilt to transport the US Marine Raiders.)—Not thought of until after the list was made.
F-9 “Cougar” Jet—Not a WW2 unit but might be included in a 2nd Naval set.
I truly hope we get 12 of the above 14 units made in the 1st Naval Set(and hopefully get a 2nd Naval Set, too). I believe it simply came down to HBG getting enough “Pre-Order” sales for these Naval sets to get produced. So if you’re interested in buying them,…and didn’t already know about them,…PLEASE contact HBG on his web-site or phone him to place your Pre-Orders with him.
The “Coach” said he would make these Set(s) “over and above” his regular production schedule if there was enough “interest” shown in them(through Pre-Orders).
There are already several Axis & Allies players that have Pre-Orderred 10 Sets, hoping that this might help in getting these units produced. �
And the “Coach” also said he was personally very interested in seeing both an American and a Japanese Naval Set(s) produced.
Now that’s something for all of us to think about.
“Tall Paul”
Lunarwolf, and Others,
I truly understand what your saying concerning the differences between the Japanese “Oscar” and “Zeke” Fighter aircraft.
Yes, possibly all of us can discern their subtle differences,…but my main point is that when it is reduced in size to the TINY “A&A SCALE”,…IMHO it is just not dramatic enough of a diferrence to not be confused for the “Zeke”.
All of the American Fighters I listed previously had DRAMATIC differences that made it easy to diferentiate them:
Inverted gull-wings of the Corsair
Twin-boom fuselage of the Lightning
Very fat, stubby radial engine design of the Hellcat
Sleek, modern looking design of the Mustang
Older, fat-nosed design of the Warhawk
For the same above reasons(and others), I think the “Tony” by virtue of it’s being a long, slender, in-line engine shaped design that’s completely different from all other Japanese radial-engined fighter designs would be VISUALLY DISTICTIVE enough to never be confused with a “Zeke”, and thus worthy of consideration.
This along with the HISTORICAL IMPACT and NUMBERS PRODUCED of the “Tony” Fighter, and it’s being available for the ENTIRE WAR period IMHO make it an excellent choice for inclusion.
I hope you and everyone else understand my “reasonning” behind some of my choices better now. These units are soo D@%# small that we should choose Visually Distictive units that are acceptable candidates.
And BTW,…the “Tony” was originally suspected as being an ITALIAN design by the Allied Intelligence Services. That’s why it was given an “Italian” sounding “CODE” name.
When the first early encounters of the “Tony” were made at approx. 500mph closing speeds by the slightly-trained Allied pilots, these unknown new types were simply “assumed” to be the allready known German Me-109s of the Japanese Axis partners. Some racial discimination of that period probably enforced the wrong idea that these Fighters that were “Flying circles around them” could be Japanese designed and flown. They learned different very quickly.
And the “Tony” was in the Pacific War from the start all the way to the end. The Allies running across them in New Guinea against Gen. Kenney’s 5th AF of MacArthurs SouthWest Pacific Area command.
“Tall Paul”
@Tall:
And the “Tony” was in the Pacific War from the start all the way to the end. The Allies running across them in New Guinea against Gen. Kenney’s 5th AF of MacArthurs SouthWest Pacific Area command.
No, they were operationally deployed in 1943. The design started in 40, prototype flew in 41.
kcdzim,
First off, Thank You very much for educating me on the reasons for my posts having numerous squares all over them. I’ve already changed my typing “style”(?) so that now people might actually be able to read them,…haha.
IMHO the exact introduction date of the “Tony” is NOT necessarily germain to our discussion of if it should be produced or not.
The first “Tony” was built in August '42 and I have literally dozens of books on the New Guinea campaign that are filled with the “Tony”. So from an Axis & Allies 1940-Global game viewpoint, the “Tony” would be in the picture “from the start” against the Americans.
I respect everyones’ striving to present the best factual information possible,…and I’m thankful to you in your efforts in this matter,…but I respectfully disagree with you in this case. But more importantly,…like I previously stated,…whether late '42 or early '43 shouldn’t make the slightest difference in
IF the “Tony” is produced or not.
“Tall Paul”
No, I agree, it’s not relevant to whether there should be a model, as the models represent iconic aircraft, and arguably the Hein is eligible.
And I don’t want to quibble on dates either. I did not understand how you were framing “from the start”, and honestly I don’t need to debate it. I was framing it differently as I see the Global start corresponding with late 1939, early 1940 for Global and I’ve never believed that there’s a need to say what the time period of a turn is (it’s a backdrop, not a chronological reenactment - time simply isn’t represented in any correct or measurable way).
Based on that I believe all the current OOB fighters are legit for that time, so I didn’t see the Hein as a “from the start” fighter as it didn’t show up in combat until mid war (arguably late war for Japan, as they’d been at war far longer). And yes, I agree, it’s irrelevant, as I would never bother to differentiate between early and late war fighters. To me, they’re all equal opportunity pieces as I hope for the best looking (in my opinion of course) of all varients. I would NOT want a P-51 B model. I would only want a P-51 D, for example, although I’m well aware that the P-51B was more or less early war while the D was late war.
Kcdzim,
I agree with you completely on your preferences for a “D” model, verses a “B” model P-51 Mustang. The “bubble tops” are the only way to go.
And IMHO the same could be said for the “birdcage” vs. “bubble-top” F-4U Corsairs, too.
–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man, we are all SO FORTUNATE in having two companies, HBG and FMG, that are avidly introducing large numbers of highly detailed units of all types, from all countries in “A&A scale” to enrich our gaming FUN!..Wow!
Thank You Very Much Doug and Jeremy!
And I’m also thankful for this “A&A.ORG” forum, and all of it’s enlightened, passionate, and knowledgeable players that really HELP EACH OTHER out a great deal in their understanding and enjoyment of the game(s).
What a great way to start the New Year off. It looks to be a real winner, too.
I’ve read(on this forum) that FMG is expecting to complete their sets from ALL of the countries in 2012. Everyone go find your piggybanks(grin).
“Tall Paul”
it just gets so confusing on who is doing what at times, lol… but its a great resource for sure!
any news on what your going to pick coach?
which pieces will be in your japanese supplement set?
A final decision has not yet been reached but we’re getting close. Wanted to finalize a few other projects first that had priority.
cool one last pitch then Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa. for those who think it looks like the zeke.
the Hayabusa. http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki-43Oscar/Ki-43(III)-Ko.htm
the way to tell differences between the 2 fighters are the cockpit, and the wings. the Oscars Cockpit is smaller and shaped more like a Bubble than the Zeros. maybe the cockpit would be to hard to see in such a small scale
but the shape of the wings will be a lot different that you would be able to tell the difference in such a small scale. it looks triangular here is another picture to show
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki-43Oscar/Ki-43(I)-Oscar.htm.
even at a small scale you still would be able to tell the difference with the shape of the wings.
the main reason i really want to see the Oscar included is that it was an iconic fighter for japan it actually was in use in 1939, so it fits the “Early war fighter” perfectly. they were also used for the kamikaze attacks toward the end of the war.
As for the late war fighters. the 2 arguments are impact vs quality
Ki-84 Hayate/Frank was considered the Japaneses best fighter through out most of the war. plus it was the 3rd most produced fighter behind only the Zero and the Oscar. the fighter was already known to be great to counter the newer allied fighters and was known to go toe to toe with Mustangs. so with the combination of being 3rd on the list of being produced AND being a beast of a fighter this would still be my first choice.
but if it was about just the quality of the fighter i would still be OK with the Ki-100. appearance wise would be kinda compromise between those of us who like the tony and those of us that like the frank.
this is the frank
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki.84Hayate/Ki.84-1koHayate.htm
the tony
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki-61Hien/Ki.61-Ib-Hien.htm
and finally the Ki-100
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki-100/Ki-100-I-Kou.htm
this is a paragraph from wiki to describe the abilities of the KI-100 against the then greatest fighter for japan the KI-84, and i know wiki isn’t truth but yeah
“During March and April 1945 experienced instructors from the Akeno Army Flying School flew the Ki-100 in extensive tests against the Ki-84(Frank), which was considered to be the best of the JAAF fighters then in operational service. Their conclusions were that, given pilots of equal experience, the Ki-100 would always win in combat.”
so there my last push for these fighters, an again i respect every one else’s opinion on this matter its just i love ww2 fighters and its the piece i collect the most out of all A&A pieces, and i just need to express my opinion on why i would love to see these pieces produced.
thanks for reading
I hope its not too late to chip in here…
CV: Soryu or Taiho class
BB: Ise (prerefit) or Kongo class
Tank: Type 3 Chi-Nu or Type 4 Chi-To
SPG/SPA: Type 4 Ho-Ro
Tactical Bomber: Aichi B7A
These are on my top list. 8-)
Although just a dream(for me and the Japanese) the very long range bomber could have been filled by the massive Fugaku 6 engine beastie.There is some decent art out on this thing but little else.Hard to believe at that stage of the war there would be any interest.Raiden Models considered doing one for their Luft 46 range in 1/600
but later dropped the scale altogether.I think one of the Japanese mini toy outfits did a nice one.
