Need Help to Finalize HBG Japan Set!

So, you are saying Light Cruisers were more of a defensive warship? So it’s values would be better at: 2-3-2-10
Thanks, I think I will use that when I get more Light Cruisers to include in my games.

That idea of giving each ship above destroyers 2 rolls to represent primary and secondary armaments is interesting. I assume this would exclude carriers, since their armament is basically equivalent to the secondary armament of warships. I think it could definitely make any naval engagements over more quickly. Say you have one of each ship: 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CL, 1 CA & 1 BB.
Normally, you would have a possibility of 5 hits.
With the primary/secondary armament option, you would now have a possibility of 8 hits.

1. BBB (12x16" or 9x18"): 5-4-2-24 ( 3 hits) SB@5
2. BB (8x14"-9x16"): OOB
3. BC (12x10"-6x15"): 3-3-2-15 ( 2 hits) SB @3
4. CA (12x6"-9x8"): OOB ( only one hit)
5. CL 3-2-2-10  SB @1-2

@knp7765:

So, you are saying Light Cruisers were more of a defensive warship? So it’s values would be better at: 2-3-2-10
Thanks, I think I will use that when I get more Light Cruisers to include in my games.

On the other hand, now that I think about it, you could make an equally good argument that some light cruisers were better offensive weapons, like those of Japan (with their “long lance” torpedos and slightly larger, but not dual-purpose 5.5" guns.)  Once again, if you’re not afraid of a little extra complexity, perhaps is would make even more sense to make the Japanese light cruisers the opposite.  If you look at the Agano class with their 6x6" guns, which, being newer, are probably closer to the Japanese ideal for a light cruiser and close to the Atlantas in design generation, this trend is even more magnified.  Actually, this might be perfect, because, with their mirror-image-opposite strengths and weaknesses, they actually better cancel each other out than if they actually had the same stats…

That idea of giving each ship above destroyers 2 rolls to represent primary and secondary armaments is interesting. I assume this would exclude carriers, since their armament is basically equivalent to the secondary armament of warships.

Yes, exactly.  (Some of the early designs had 8" anti-surface guns, but these had pretty much all been removed by WW2.  Also, the US batted around the idea, and the Japanese actually tried, some hybrid ideas, but none of these was really fully successful anyway.)

I think it could definitely make any naval engagements over more quickly. Say you have one of each ship: 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CL, 1 CA & 1 BB.
Normally, you would have a possibility of 5 hits.  With the primary/secondary armament option, you would now have a possibility of 8 hits.

If the main armament has to be scored against ships and not aircraft, this might even add another interesting wrinkle.  On the other hand, given that successively larger ship types tended to have successively larger AA suites, a case could be made that the bigger ships were progressively more dangerous as AA platforms, so it is eually arguable that one shouldn’t make such a restriction to their aircraft-killing ability.

“Coach”,

While I truly congratulate you on your magnificent plans for Japanese sets,…

I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t include a Paratrooper unit.  Three complete sets and no Paratrooper???  I believe they’d add another dimension to our games and would be a worthwhile unit for inclusion.  After all, if we don’t get Paratroopers for ALL of the countries, my “Screamin’ Eagles” will be out of work.
Thanks for your time and consideration.

“Tall Paul”

Hey Tall Paul,
I think you might just be out of luck on this one. I understand your wish to have airborne troops for each nation, you want each nation to have that option historical or not. I’ve watched and read a lot of stuff on WW2 and have not heard of any airborne operations conducted by Japan. However, it would be nice for them to have that option for gaming purposes.

It’s like when I was arguing for a heavy tank sculpt for Japan.  I know they never actually used a heavy tank and even if they had some in the design stage, it probably wasn’t comparable to a Tiger, Pershing or JS-2. Japan’s “heavy” would probably rate more as a “medium” by other countries’ standards. Also, I just don’t want to use orange Tigers to represent a Japanese heavy tank. I want something that LOOKS Japanese. I just would like every nation to have the options of light, medium and heavy tanks.
Unfortunately, I think I was pretty much outvoted on this. Just not much need for a Japanese Heavy and most people probably wouldn’t use it anyway. Plus it leaves a mold spot open for some other unit that probably got more use by Japan in the war. I think you are in the same boat regarding a paratrooper unit for Japan.

Actually, the Japanese used paratroops during their East Indies (A.K.A Strike South) campaign of 1941-42.

@Tall:

“Coach”,

While I truly congratulate you on your magnificent plans for Japanese sets,…

I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t include a Paratrooper unit.  Three complete sets and no Paratrooper???  I believe they’d add another dimension to our games and would be a worthwhile unit for inclusion.  After all, if we don’t get Paratroopers for ALL of the countries, my “Screamin’ Eagles” will be out of work.
Thanks for your time and consideration.

“Tall Paul”

I gotta agree with Tall Paul on this one.  I mean, maybe they weren’t used and maybe they were (based on the discussion between him and knp) - either way, it’s related to a technology used by most players (part of the series) and that’s part of the dynamic of PLAYING the game - CHANGING what was done in history based on YOUR strategy with production and resources.

There is sufficient evidence to point to the historical existence of paratroopers for every major power on the board (except China) whether they were ever deployed in combat or not!  It’s also a matter of game balance - you can’t very well give them to US only without seriously tipping the balance in their favor for longer range actions.

My rules call for it being a technology owned by US/UK/Germany and available for everyone else by die roll/technology.

Now, I know we could easily use another regular sculpt painted or whatever, and if the decision’s made - then that’s what I’ll do and I won’t cry one bit, but it’d be cool if we had them.  Obviously, in the game Japan never had much opportunity for tech development anyway and if they did there are many other techs that would benefit them much more!!

@Variable:

My understanding is the Japanese paras were part of the SNLF.

Hmm.  That’s the first I’ve ever heard of this.  My understanding of the SNLF is that they were basically just sailors trained and equiped to fight on land as needed rather than true Marines, and that they were considered less capable overall than Imperial Army infantry. So it’s surprising to hear that some SNLF men would have been given specialized training as paratroopers, since paratroops are generally regarded as elite forces.  The USMC did briefly have few Paramarine batallions during WWII, but the USMC already had the status of an elite foce.

But anyway, the idea of differentiating them by colour sounds quite practical.

@Variable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_marine_paratroopers_of_World_War_II

Very interesting – thanks for the infomation.  These guys were more versatile than I thought.

Well, let’s see.

1.) KNP,…I’m sorry but you’re ill-informed as to the Japanese usage of “ARMY Airborne” troops in WW2. Most Americans don’t know much about this EARLY part of WW2 when the Japanese made their initial push into the “Southern Resources Area” of Borneo and the Dutch East Indies. The oil fields of Balikpapen(and others) were captured by Japanese ARMY Paratroopers. I have 3 really good books about these Japanese forces. If it wouldn’t take an hour or so to grab them(I just put them in deep storage) I’d give you some specifics.

2.) PacificWar and DFW,…You’re both correct and Thanks for your support.

3.) To use DFW’s phrase,…As far as “game balance” goes I also think it’s very important to have “Airborne Paratroopers” for ALL nations(except China).

4.) CWO Marc and Variable,…I’m sorry but the ARMY Paratroopers were NOT part of the SNLF forces. Your wiki mini-article even explains this. Although the SNLF “Marines” were somewhat airborne trained they were only used in amphibious attacks.
The Japanese ARMY and NAVY were so independant of one another their
non-cooperation with one another is another big reason they lost the war.

5.) Two separate “sculpts” of a Japanese NAVY “Marine” and a Japanese ARMY Paratrooper should be as completely unique as their U.S. Marine/Army Paratrooper counterparts, which have already been produced by HBG.
If HBG has already produced the U.S. versions, including 4(FOUR) other special units also,…

Then WHY wouldn’t they at least produce ONE Japanese ARMY Paratrooper along with the NAVY SNLF “Marines”???
I think a Paratrooper is an IMPORTANT and UNIQUE unit that gives it’s player VALUABLE CAPABILITIES that ALL nations(other than China) should have. It was my understanding that from the very start of this magnificent undertaking that HBG intended to make Paratroopers for ALL of the nations. Things can change,…and HBG belongs to the “Coach” so it’s entirely HIS decision.

I’m DEFINATELY NOT trying to criticize,…only to inform others of my opinions.
I am VERY THANKFUL to Doug and HBG for all of their efforts thus far. I can only hope that in THREE FULL SETS of Japanese units that they would see fit to include an Army Paratrooper. That’s my 2 cents worth,…plus another dime, too, haha.

“Tall Paul”

The thing is with sculpting SNLF is that there was almost no difference in their combat uniform versus the army: usually just a different symbol on the helmet if I remember correctly.  That’s OK, though, as whatever sculpt Coach uses should be accurate for both, and the color difference between the three color options that he’s doing them in gives us one for some sort of allied nation, one for Army and one for SNLF.  It would be nice, though, to see a Japanese paratrooper, as they did have a very distinct uniform.

So… bottom line: I agree with Tall Paul on this one.

Seeing as we have a Marine with a flamethrower and a Bulgarian with a panzerfaust (which is close enough to a German or a Romanian on this scale that it can serve for all of Germany’s allies, really) maybe a third with some sort of heavy weapon would be nice, so that “heavy infantry” would be another category we could play with… But perhaps this is a bridge too far… Anyway, the para would be nice!  If not, I can always use markers or the third color, but para’s usually have cool uniforms with a unique look…

…Not to mention the HUGE parachutes on their backs. Just check out these guys.

“Tall Paul”

Well, I guess I will go against the grain here, but I don’t see a need for a paratrooper unit for Japan. With the exception of those drops on Borneo and the DEI that Tall Paul mentioned (By the way I never said they didn’t happen, only that I hadn’t heard of it) I don’t believe airborne drops were used very much if at all by Japan during the rest of the war. It’s simply something that Japan was not known to do. Personally, I don’t even use paratroop drops for US, UK or Germany and they actually used them to a much greater extent.
I would much rather each nation have a heavy tank than a paratrooper as I would be much more inclined to use a heavy tank. However, HBG has made the lists for the Japanese sets and my heavy tank is not on them. So, I will deal with it. I have looked at the units on each list, and I would not want Coach to remove anything that is on any of those lists just so I could have my heavy tank. When it comes down to it, Coach is right: Japan doesn’t need a heavy tank.
Frankly, the same can be said for a designated paratrooper unit.
The units in the three Japan set lists are all types of units that Japan actually used in the war to a somewhat great extent. Most of them throughout the WHOLE war, with the possible exception of certain units that are specifically “early war” units that were upgraded later on, NOT units that were used a couple of times early in the war then probably never again.
Would any of you guys want Coach to remove one of the units listed so that your paratrooper could be added? If so, what do you want to do away with? I believe a while back, one person suggested not giving Japan a truck. The fact that more players would use trucks than paratroopers was irrelevant. Seems kind of selfish to me.
A while back, Coach and Variable was asking for suggestions of what to include in the Japan set. Then it was up to us to tell them what we wanted to see. Now he has made the lists and is working on creating these fine units. Stop harassing him about whatever units aren’t on the list and be glad that he is doing this.

WoW Paul!!!  Phenomenal painting skills!!!

i also agree with having a paratrooper for all the major nations just as all the major nations are getting early war BB’s but if coach really feels he doesn’t want to sculpt one, i will be ok with useing a substitute piece. maybe the Hbg basic infantry or just making the japanese marine unit into a super unit which is a marine and paratrooper.

@knp7765:

Hey Tall Paul,
I think you might just be out of luck on this one. I understand your wish to have airborne troops for each nation, you want each nation to have that option historical or not. I’ve watched and read a lot of stuff on WW2 and have not heard of any airborne operations conducted by Japan. However, it would be nice for them to have that option for gaming purposes.

It’s like when I was arguing for a heavy tank sculpt for Japan.  I know they never actually used a heavy tank and even if they had some in the design stage, it probably wasn’t comparable to a Tiger, Pershing or JS-2. Japan’s “heavy” would probably rate more as a “medium” by other countries’ standards. Also, I just don’t want to use orange Tigers to represent a Japanese heavy tank. I want something that LOOKS Japanese. I just would like every nation to have the options of light, medium and heavy tanks.
Unfortunately, I think I was pretty much outvoted on this. Just not much need for a Japanese Heavy and most people probably wouldn’t use it anyway. Plus it leaves a mold spot open for some other unit that probably got more use by Japan in the war. I think you are in the same boat regarding a paratrooper unit for Japan.

also with the heavy tank for japan a lot of people were saying since WOTC made Japanese tigers they could be used for Japanese heavy tanks for game play purposes . but in the case of paratroopers there are no real substitutes. personally im going to be using those Japanese tigers for their heavy’s since im pretty sure the Japanese players wont be building to many of these.

@Tall:

…Not to mention the HUGE parachutes on their backs. Just check out these guys.

“Tall Paul”

Another idea to help us all Paul is this (ESPECIALLY if you’re painting anyway like we are/will)…

Assuming the SNLF vs Army uniform statement by DrLarsen below is correct…

@DrLarsen:

The thing is with sculpting SNLF is that there was almost no difference in their combat uniform versus the army: usually just a different symbol on the helmet if I remember correctly…

…then you could use Fimo to sculpt an added-on parachute prior to painting on some of the SNLF troops.  My grandma used Fimo when I was a kid to completely sculpt a replacement Japanese (curious coincidence) infantry that a dog chewed from my original game - you could hardly tell the difference!!

I may try that to make Tieshin Shudan paratroopers!!  :-D

PS - Fimo (for those unfamiliar) is a clay-like substance they sell at most major craft stores - comes in many colors, adheres easily to plastic, AND takes paint well!

Gentlemen,

MY wife says Hobby Lobby sells FIMO.  i am checking this stuff out this weekend, Think of the re-sclupting that can be done with a molding clay!  I can easily see a BB/CV ISE class being constructed by me in the future.

WARRIOR888