Rare IJN Destroyer?

[Stormhawk4107]

What are peoples thoughts on the possibility of seeing this unique destroyer in a future set?

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

Shimakaze was a one-off super-destroyer built for the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. A virtual cruiser, she was armed with six 127mm dual purpose guns and conventional anti-aircraft and anti-submarine weaponry. More importantly, she was also armed with 15 torpedo tubes each capable of firing the deadly 24-inch Long Lance torpedo. The ship was a testbed for an enormously powerful high-temperature, high-pressure steam engine that was able to develop nearly 80,000 shaft horsepower. This made her possibly the fastest destroyer in the world: her designed speed was 39 knots, but on trials she made 40.9 knots. Ordered in 1939 under the Fourth Naval Replacement Programme (the Maru Yon programme), Shimakaze was laid down in Maizuru naval dockyard in August 1941 and completed on 10 May 1943. She saw action in the evacuation of Kiska in July 1943 and was present in 1944 at the Battle of the Philippine Sea. While flagship of the 2nd Torpedo-Boat Flotilla, she was sunk by American aircraft on 8 November 1944 during the Battle of Ormoc Bay. Japan had intended to lay down sixteen similar destroyers, with long term plans for a total of 32 to equip 4 destroyer squadrons, but a lack of industrial capacity prevented them from being realized.

[Muenchausen]

Any thing new is welcome as far as I'm concerned. What kind of stats do you think it would have?

[swarbs]

A sweet ship, no doubt, perhaps even worthy of uncommon status. I'd rather see the Akizuki class though, a Japanese destroyer with good AA, decent anti-sub, and not too overcosted (since it only had one bank of torpedoes) would be very welcome.

[swarbs]

Any thing new is welcome as far as I'm concerned. What kind of stats do you think it would have?

As far as armament goes it sounds a lot like the Jintsu. Armor, I have no idea. The high speed thing would make it a good cantidate for one of the SA's that provide an extra space of movement.

[Diamondback]

OK, guys, I'm gonna say this again. Akizuki's confirmed for Set 2, from a PM group I exchanged with Richard Baker on destroyer designs (was trying to figure out what determinants he'd use for "restat vs. new mini vs. reissue with new name").

And there was another Shimakaze in WWII before this superdestroyer was built, we might wanna refer to them as (I) and (II) to prevent confusion.

I'd say maybe Speed 3, double Yukikaze's torps with L-L of course. Guns and AA, don't know.

[Autarch]

An interesting ship but I'm certain we won't be seeing anymore unique ships since their molds can't be reused for sister ships. The only exception I could think is for early war vessels that had significant changes through the course of the war like paint schemes that could be reflected on the model while other changes like more AA and SAs that could be reflected on the stat card.

[Muenchausen]

OK, guys, I'm gonna say this again. Akizuki's confirmed for Set 2, from a PM group I exchanged with Richard Baker on destroyer designs (was trying to figure out what determinants he'd use for "restat vs. new mini vs. reissue with new name").

So, whats your point? No one, other than yourself said anything about set II. The discussion was about "a future set". And yes, I too, like everyone else, like to be in the loop. What I have learned recently is just because a mod or designer posts it, Doesn't mean it going to happen. I believe the excuse is, "things have changed since my post."

[Diamondback]

Swarbs said something about Akizuki, I was responding to that.

My apologies, it's been a rough day and it's not over yet... I'm outta here for a while, at least until my blood-pressure settles down.

[Muenchausen]

What are peoples thoughts on the possibility of seeing this unique destroyer in a future set?

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

Shimakaze was a one-off super-destroyer built for the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. A virtual cruiser, she was armed with six 127mm dual purpose guns and conventional anti-aircraft and anti-submarine weaponry. More importantly, she was also armed with 15 torpedo tubes each capable of firing the deadly 24-inch Long Lance torpedo. The ship was a testbed for an enormously powerful high-temperature, high-pressure steam engine that was able to develop nearly 80,000 shaft horsepower. This made her possibly the fastest destroyer in the world: her designed speed was 39 knots, but on trials she made 40.9 knots. Ordered in 1939 under the Fourth Naval Replacement Programme (the Maru Yon programme), Shimakaze was laid down in Maizuru naval dockyard in August 1941 and completed on 10 May 1943. She saw action in the evacuation of Kiska in July 1943 and was present in 1944 at the Battle of the Philippine Sea. While flagship of the 2nd Torpedo-Boat Flotilla, she was sunk by American aircraft on 8 November 1944 during the Battle of Ormoc Bay. Japan had intended to lay down sixteen similar destroyers, with long term plans for a total of 32 to equip 4 destroyer squadrons, but a lack of industrial capacity prevented them from being realized.

According to my reference material, the Shimakaze offered little advantage over smaller designs. This was another reason why they didn't produce any more.

[weedsrock2]

An interesting ship but I'm certain we won't be seeing anymore unique ships since their molds can't be reused for sister ships. The only exception I could think is for early war vessels that had significant changes through the course of the war like paint schemes that could be reflected on the model while other changes like more AA and SAs that could be reflected on the stat card.

I think the announcement for De Rutyer proves they are still willing to do 'one offs.' They have not said they won't do one-offs, and there aren't that many anyway. I hope they do one or two per set. I am sure it will depend on how well sales keep up. I think they will do very well.

[weedsrock2]

A sweet ship, no doubt, perhaps even worthy of uncommon status. I'd rather see the Akizuki class though, a Japanese destroyer with good AA, decent anti-sub, and not too overcosted (since it only had one bank of torpedoes) would be very welcome.

I agree completely! One of my gaming group pointed out the IJN desperately needs a unit with a 7-8 pt cost to allow for filling in gaps. Not to mention a reasonably costed destroyer.

A reasonably costed Agano class light-cruiser would also be very welcome in my opinion. The Agano's had 8 torpedoes, but their gunnery was fairly weak. I think about a 15-16 point cost would be more than reasonable.

[Autarch]

Huh, I must have missed that one. Making an uncommon Koln sized mold and slotting it in place of a larger more expensive capital ship rare is yet another cost saving measure. Guess you could still use extras for the Java and other unmade cruisers.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Another overcosted Japanese DD is not welcome in my FLEET ;)

[PaulG]

My understanding is that the vessel spent almost the entre war in the Aluetians and saw minimal, if any combat. The fact that the Japanese put it on second line duty when they were short of destroyers should tell you all you need to know about the ship. Me I'd prefer it if they didn't go for the wargamer wet dream type ships and aim more for the saw actual hard service ships.

If we are talking about unique DDs, how about something that actually saw a lot of service like the HMNS Isaac Sweers or the HMAS Stuart.

[Torps]

Lets hope the new Akikaze DD has the ability to lay smoke. With a couple of those in an IJN destroyer group battles like Tassafaronga can be faught.

[swarbs]

OK, guys, I'm gonna say this again. Akizuki's confirmed for Set 2, from a PM group I exchanged with Richard Baker on destroyer designs (was trying to figure out what determinants he'd use for "restat vs. new mini vs. reissue with new name").



I appreciate the information Diamondback, I hadn't heard this yet, sorry I took this thread down the what I really want in set II road. But then again knowing this fine ship will be included makes me want to spend a bunch of money this summer.

[Muenchausen]

An interesting ship but I'm certain we won't be seeing anymore unique ships since their molds can't be reused for sister ships. The only exception I could think is for early war vessels that had significant changes through the course of the war like paint schemes that could be reflected on the model while other changes like more AA and SAs that could be reflected on the stat card.

I hope your wrong. If WOTC adopts this marketing strategy there are a lot of Japaneese A/C carriers we will not see. Basically all the other ones at Midway.

[Stormhawk4107]

I found a second article about the ship which might answer some questions. I do realize it was written for another game but the author , co-founder of Avalanche Press, has some credentials in military history. That said we can only take him at his word for now until I can hit the university library and read more about this ship.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/Shimakaze.php

[aquarius]

I agree completely! One of my gaming group pointed out the IJN desperately needs a unit with a 7-8 pt cost to allow for filling in gaps. Not to mention a reasonably costed destroyer.


Just use 2 subchasers :D ;)

[Autarch]

I hope your wrong. If WOTC adopts this marketing strategy there are a lot of Japaneese A/C carriers we will not see. Basically all the other ones at Midway.

Oh happily I am wrong. I didn't realize that there was an even better cost cutting measure than reusing large rare molds for repaints. That is, making unique light cruisers as rares. Too bad the De Ruyter didn't last longer in the war, it could have reappeared in later sets as a repaint and saved even more money for WotC. Surely destroyer squadron leaders slotted as rares can't be too far behind... say set V for the Shimakaze.

The good thing about the unique Japanese carriers is that they can be used as repaints. They didn't have the hinomaru until Midway (or Indian Ocean campaign, there is some debate) so we can get a Pearl Harbor version and a Midway version. Woo hoo!

[Brass]

Lets hope the new Akikaze DD has the ability to lay smoke. With a couple of those in an IJN destroyer group battles like Tassafaronga can be faught.


Hopefully, you mean the new Akizuki, since the Akikaze was a puny little 1920's-vintage can (most likely to smoke from being on fire :D) .

LT

[weedsrock2]

Oh happily I am wrong. I didn't realize that there was an even better cost cutting measure than reusing large rare molds for repaints. That is, making unique light cruisers as rares.

Autarch,

Not much pleasing you. I am guessing you are really angry about the repaints? I suspect De Rutyer will be an uncommon like most other light cruisers. They will need to make new sculpts for uncommons and commons too. Or we won't see new destroyers (like Akizuki), planes, subs, etc. So far the revealed new sculpts are weighted toward rares (Warspite, San Francisco, Japanese BB). I would expect more new uncommons and commons to show up.

[Torps]

Hopefully, you mean the new Akizuki, since the Akikaze was a puny little 1920's-vintage can (most likely to smoke from being on fire :D) .

LT

Well spotted!
Yes, Akizuki is what I meant to say.:o

['Warspite']

Lets hope the new Akikaze DD has the ability to lay smoke. With a couple of those in an IJN destroyer group battles like Tassafaronga can be faught.



All destroyers and most larger ships were able to lay smoke.

[Rick]

Oh, this sounds like a good addition to the "What if fleet?" that I had in another post.

Rick

[Barry Kendall]

I can appreciate any ship buff's zeal for a favorite design, but personally I'd prefer to see frequently-seen destroyer classes used in the limited slots available for new sculpts rather than a one-off experimental design.

Also, I'm wondering if the French Le Fantasque-class "super DD" from set I could be cut and modified to represent the Japanese ship. The hull size should be about right.

[Torps]

All destroyers and most larger ships were able to lay smoke.

Indeed they could!
At the moment we are limited to smoke only being laid by ships with that SA.
Unless there is a rule change to allow smoke laying by DDs and CLs at least, it would be good for each nationality to have a DD available which has the "Lay Smoke" SA.

[dracos42]

Well spotted!
Yes, Akizuki is what I meant to say.:o

I would like to see the Akizuki class also. Japan can use a good AA escort ship. Another Japanese destroyer class I want to see is the Matsu, a DD/DE built for ASW work. http://www.combinedfleet.com/lancers.htm

Mike L.

[weedsrock2]

I would like to see the Akizuki class also. Japan can use a good AA escort ship. Another Japanese destroyer class I want to see is the Matsu, a DD/DE built for ASW work. http://www.combinedfleet.com/lancers.htm

Mike L.

I would like to the Matsu class too. They would make a nice counterpoint to the Samuel B. Roberts. They mostly had very short lives since they were commissioned in 1944, but they were the right idea - too late. But I am glad to see the Akizuki first.

[Autarch]

Autarch,

Not much pleasing you. I am guessing you are really angry about the repaints? I suspect De Rutyer will be an uncommon like most other light cruisers. They will need to make new sculpts for uncommons and commons too. Or we won't see new destroyers (like Akizuki), planes, subs, etc. So far the revealed new sculpts are weighted toward rares (Warspite, San Francisco, Japanese BB). I would expect more new uncommons and commons to show up.

Lol, no I am past anger and am in the 6th stage of the Kübler-Ross cycle: seeking my own solutions (modding, making stat cards for sister ships, acquiring similar scale ship and plane models, making my own scenarios). Most of the people I know are either completely oblivious to this (stage zero) or have entered the 7th stage, acceptance that this game is over and have moved on to Victory at Sea. But I'm not ready to fully go there yet. And because of that when I see something that reminds me of that I vent a bit.

I've been following development notes closely and was elated that Set I did well enough to justify Set II. But then bit by bit it became apparent that it was more of a money grab than a real effort to continue the brand. It's just that little revelations like the de Ruyter are a stinging reminder of this. I wouldn't have any problem with it being uncommon, but it was stated awhile back that unique ships would only take up rare slots. Moreover Richard stated he was unhappy with having so many unique rares in Set I implying it wouldn't happen in Set II (though I took this to mean at all as opposed to as much which apparently is the case). With a normal set of mostly new rares and few repaints, it's only slightly annoying. But in Set II since with so many rare slots going to repaints, it's aggravating in the extreme.

[swarbs]

I would like to the Matsu class too. They would make a nice counterpoint to the Samuel B. Roberts. They mostly had very short lives since they were commissioned in 1944, but they were the right idea - too late. But I am glad to see the Akizuki first.

I'm actually surprised we don't already have Matsu instead of the nearly useless subchaser, it would have been nicer.

[aquarius]

NEARLY useless...
I killed a PT boat with it last night :D

[unc_samurai]

I've been following development notes closely and was elated that Set I did well enough to justify Set II. But then bit by bit it became apparent that it was more of a money grab than a real effort to continue the brand. It's just that little revelations like the de Ruyter are a stinging reminder of this. I wouldn't have any problem with it being uncommon, but it was stated awhile back that unique ships would only take up rare slots. Moreover Richard stated he was unhappy with having so many unique rares in Set I implying it wouldn't happen in Set II (though I took this to mean at all as opposed to as much which apparently is the case). With a normal set of mostly new rares and few repaints, it's only slightly annoying. But in Set II since with so many rare slots going to repaints, it's aggravating in the extreme.

I would temper this by saying it's a lot easier and more fun to let people know about the reprints first. It makes more sense. What do you want to bet that most of the new sculpts will be kept under wraps until the Opening Salvo? So far we've confirmed four reprints (possibly six) and we've confirmed three new sculpts. That's not as bad of a ratio as some people beleive, but I have every suspicion they're waiting until they get some good sculpts back before saying, "Hey, here's that Nagato and Warspite we told you about, and here's X, Y, and Z that you had no idea about!"

[weedsrock2]

I'm actually surprised we don't already have Matsu instead of the nearly useless subchaser, it would have been nicer.

You took the words right out of my keyboard!

Did the Japanese have something similar to PT/MT boats? I don't recall hearing or reading about anything similar in the IJN. That seems strange since the MTB was an old concept by WWII. They were the reason to create destroyers (motor torpedo boat destroyers) in the first place!

Maybe the subchaser was the closest thing Richard could find for a small, low point patrol boat in the IJN.

[weedsrock2]

Lol, no I am past anger and am in the 6th stage of the Kübler-Ross cycle: seeking my own solutions (modding, making stat cards for sister ships, acquiring similar scale ship and plane models, making my own scenarios). Most of the people I know are either completely oblivious to this (stage zero) or have entered the 7th stage, acceptance that this game is over and have moved on to Victory at Sea. But I'm not ready to fully go there yet. And because of that when I see something that reminds me of that I vent a bit.

I've been following development notes closely and was elated that Set I did well enough to justify Set II. But then bit by bit it became apparent that it was more of a money grab than a real effort to continue the brand. It's just that little revelations like the de Ruyter are a stinging reminder of this. I wouldn't have any problem with it being uncommon, but it was stated awhile back that unique ships would only take up rare slots. Moreover Richard stated he was unhappy with having so many unique rares in Set I implying it wouldn't happen in Set II (though I took this to mean at all as opposed to as much which apparently is the case). With a normal set of mostly new rares and few repaints, it's only slightly annoying. But in Set II since with so many rare slots going to repaints, it's aggravating in the extreme.

I have played Victory at Sea a few times and I like it, but it is slow and oriented more for the naval simulation crowd. I don't think War at Sea is dead by any estimation. I do know that Mongoose timed the release of Victory at Sea to be close to War at Sea knowing full well the WaS mini's would be good for VaS. (Short discussion I had with them at Origins.) Nothing wrong with that in my mind!

I don't recall Richard saying that unique ships would take up only rare slots. In his post to this group he clearly stated he was given permission to make 30 new models. There wasn't any restriction on whether they would be commons, uncommons, rares, or uniques would only be rares. If I were him I would limit the number of sculpts I did for one-off ships per set too. There actually were not that many. So doing one or two a set should get us there if the game lasts long enough for three or more sets. And some people seem to be irritated with the one-offs because they are not as valuable for trading. You can't please everyone.

I think calling it a money grab is a bit too cynical. Profit certainly plays in here of course! I think a lot of players actually want the sister ships with unique SA's. They are not painters/modders and just want to play with more pieces. I don't mind getting them either if it provides more tactical diversity for the game. This is definitely a part of the 'collectible' mini's market. Mechwarrior releases at least 6 to over a dozen variants of the same sculpt over time! Plus WotC have to think about how to stretch out a limited number of ship classes into many sets. If they did 64 new sculpts each set they would run out of 'Rank A' (and probably B rank) ship and plane classes after Set III. I have gone through that exercise myself.

I am now in the 7th stage myself: acceptance that new sets will be a mix of new sculpts and sister ships/planes and the game will still do just fine. ;)