@vodot said
Hey MR, thanks so much for the feedback! Let me reiterate that I didn’t create the raw models for most of these, just reworked them for compatibility and printability for A&A. I’m proud of the work (in some cases, significant) it has taken to get them to a printable and playable state, but mad props to the original designers, not all of which I remember off the top of my head.
I knew going in that I was committing some historical faux pas both intentionally and via ignorance, but I’m a “easily-distinguishable-on-the-board” and WYSIWYG-first sort of person with historical fidelity coming in third; nonetheless historicity should be paramount once the first two are assured. I want my group, none of which are WW2 enthusiasts/super nerds, to just immediately “get it”.
RE: Midway’s anachronistic 50’s deck retrofit, that was a rare intentional historical solecism- which isn’t to say it was in good taste- intended to reflect a “Super Carrier” tech that was not achieved in the actual WW2 timeline. Perhaps I could achieve the same end using a rectangular (Axial? I’ll take your word for it) 40’s Midway sculpt by merely enlarging it over the essex/etc? I was worried it would look like just a huge rectange, but I confess I didn’t try printing one. Needs investigation.
Regarding the Ryujo (pardon my spelling!) and Independence as Light (not escort) carriers, you’re obviously correct. Serendipitously, in my half-hour of wikipedia research (keeping your expectations low :) ) it seems it was the Light (as opposed to escort) Carriers that were known for their speed, which was a primary mechanic I wanted these units to have- so rebranding them as CVL’s is a win-win! A caveat on the light carriers: their historical decks are so narrow (by design, of course) that it’s basically impossible to balance an A&A-scaled plane on them. So: I’ve abrogated naval design history and added a fat landing pad on the deck so a single fighter has room to live happily. Hopefully the tradeoff is worth it for most, but this will obviously make that particular model a non-starter for some.
RE: HMS Atherstone, I can see your point, given that I called the light carrier the Ryujo. It is indeed a Hunt-class sculpt.
RE: IS-2s and the awesomeness of these models in general- yes, they kick some serious ass. 100% of these props should go to m_bergman at Thingiverse, a minor deity of military history 3D modeling.
RE: Distinguishing Me-410s… you’re right. I spent some time trying to doctor up a Westland Whirlwind (damn planes and their paper-thin wings are super time-consuming to doctor for 3D printing)… and it ended up looking identical to the Me-410. I gave up. This is the reason I only have one sculpt covering heavy fighters for everyone, about which I feel bad… but not bad enough to spend another 2 hours doctoring the whirlwind.
RE: Des Moines, you’re right. When I first started working on this expansion, my “Battlecruiser” unit was called a “Heavy Cruiser” and I think that’s why I pulled the Des Moines. Later on I decided I really like the word ‘battlecruiser’. However, similar to the serendipitous mistake on the light vs. escort distinction above, this unit was also meant to be a sweet spot between the CA and the BB combining the strengths of both, but locked behind tech and advancement. Aaaaand after another half-hour of wikipedia research, it turns out that the Des Moines did not sail until 1946; so I don’t see why I can’t call this unit an advanced “Heavy Cruiser” after all.
Thanks for replying to an old crank on the internet. I also agree with the “‘easily-distinguishable-on-the-board’ and WYSIWYG-first” train of thought. But you can twist the text of something to say anything.
If you did the Midway with an angled deck on purpose, as an advanced carrier, I can see that. I retract my objection, but maintain that I’d like to see an axial-deck Midway as well.
(Short aside - for a quick article on the internet, quoting from a book on the evolution of the aircraft carrier, that explains how angled decks came to be, go here: https://www.historyonthenet.com/angled-deck-new-development-aircraft-carriers (It also shows use of the term “axial deck” to describe aircraft carriers without an angled deck.))
I’m glad that I can be of service with suggesting you rebrand your CVEs as CVLs. Getting the win-win is always good. First and foremost, game pieces should support game play, so if the decks need a little widening, such is gaming.
As for the Atherstone / Hunt, just trying to help.
As for telling bits of plastic, meant to be heavy fighters in Axis & Allies, apart, I fully understand that it’s not alway easy. My suggestion would be to go with a distinctive feature of some kind. In this case, I would go with twin-engine fighters with twin tailfins. Versions of what I’m suggested can be found by searching for Bristol Buckinghams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Buckingham), Gloster F.9/37s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.9/37), or Arado Ar 240s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_240). All three of those are different from each other and from other planes (included the P-38s from WotC), which is what I was understanding you to be after. It’s a thought. While none of them were really built in large quantities, they all could have been. Which in my opinion is one reason why they are perfect for the heavy fighter role, especially the F.9/37 and the Ar 240.
The Des Moines were truly an innovation in Heavy Cruisers, with semi-automatic 8" naval guns could be fired twice as fast as the main guns on the proceeding class, the Baltimore / Oregon City class(es). As a technologically advanced Heavy Cruiser, I can certainly get on board with that. My next question in this line of thought is: Do you plan to do up some Worchester class light cruisers to go with the Des Moines class heavies? The Worchesters were the lighter cousins of the Des Moineses and also featured semi-automatic main guns - 6" guns in this case - meant to be a bit of an evolution in the anti-aircraft cruiser idea of the Atlanta and Juneau class 5" gun armed anti-aircraft cruisers.
If you want to make some Alaskas for true battle cruiser naval superiority, I certainly wouldn’t complain about that either.
And if you want to feast your eyes on some truly wild naval designs, the likes of which weren’t built and likely would never have been built, I invite you to visit “Furashita’s Fleet” (http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm), which has a wild collection of “what might have been” WW2 designs for cruisers, battleships, aircraft carriers, and admixtures of the first two with carriers; with designs for the navies of France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, the UK, the USSR, the USA, and a smattering of other minor naval powers as well.
To quote the site: "‘Admiral U. Furashita’ was the pen-name of Craig Burke. In his words:
‘I picked that name because I liked to dally in fictitious ships. Since the Japanese tongue usually makes an ‘R’ sound out of any ‘L’ it encounters, that’s how what people often say to me would sound, or something like it.’"
Furashita’s Fleet is home to lots of interesting ideas to the would-be model maker, in my opinion.
-Midnight_Reaper
:strip_icc()/pic455412.jpg)
:strip_icc()/pic76919.jpg)
:strip_icc()/pic88496.jpg)
:strip_icc()/pic72417.jpg)
:strip_icc()/pic1006268.jpg)