Mi Akagi

Don't really think Mi Akagi obsoleted the original.

Here's an idea; put a small piece of tape over the name Mi Akagi then write

"Amagi"

Now it's the sister that was destroyed in the slipway by an earthquake

I should know better than to argue, but....I numbered your points above so I could respond to them in order.

1)  Akagi was a Set1 unit and an expensive one.  For as big a ship as it was it should have been statted Hull5, by the guidelines for units that firmed up as the game expanded.  I believe even RB mentioned this somewhere.  Set I was fine as a standalone set, but the additional sets made some of the "errors/decisions" of set 1 stand out.  The original Akagi is far from disliked, it is still one of only 2  carriers (Saratoga) to carry all 3 primary expert abilities and it has Flag 2.  But with no TD or TorpProtection (which didn't exist in Set1), 4 hull points didn't add up right.  Lots of people (myself included) choose to leave Akagi on the shelf (more often - not always) because of that extra vulnerability. 

2) For the teams, Operational units have been kept to a purposefully small number each set since the third one, because while they are well-liked in some circles and groups they are despised in others.  For the Axis in particular our "big ship" choices tend to be between a Scylla and Charbydis of "fantasy" and "operational".  Wherever you fall on your acceptance of either side, this argument won't change your mind, but the teams do not willy-nilly decide which ship needs a redo.  We take great pains (and often considerable debate) while choosing which ships to do or redo and then we try to keep the original in mind as we do it.  We are aware (mostly because we are involved) which ships don't "play" right in the long term, or which ships have "I wish it had been like this instead..." potential. 

3)  As to your open debate remark:  Set 4 was a completely publicly developed set.  The list was created in public, the cards were developed and vetted in public and it was a very messy process but it got done.  The public chose to do no Operational Variants in Set4 and none are on the list.  Set 5 went a different way with development, but it is just wrong to say the public forum had no say.  Set 5 polled the forum for ships of interest by nation and navy and those results were compiled and used to define the set list.  Roughly half the set came from the top vote-getters of the publicly chosen cards, and even though the other half was team-chosen, many of them were on the public list, they just weren't disclosed until the set reveal or the opening salvos.  Each of the the operational variants that were included had support from the overall community or they would not have made the cut.  Bolzano in particular had a very strong backing, but additionally Scharnhorst and A-Go Mogami were all PUBLIC choices.   Akagi was a TEAM choice, but had been mentioned on the public side - and it ended up being a late "surprise" add.  That slot came down to an in-team debate over including a Taiho-Kai fantasy carrier or redoing an operational Akagi.  Fantasy vs. Operational debate.  And the Operational won a MAJORITY of the team vote (6-3 I believe).  Furthermore, while those on the team are insiders for that deck, we are also part of the overall game-playing and game-enjoying public as a whole and here on this forum.

4) Obsoleting units. Several units are obsolete.  RB himself obsoleted many of the Set1 cruisers when Set2 was released.  That's ok.  It happens.  For the most part though the Operational ships do not obsolete the originals.  In fact, when developing the operational variants care is taken so that the original is left intact except in two cases, and it's probably not the cases you think it is.  MI Akagi doesn't obsolete original unless you want it to.  Original still has all 3 experts, great guns, and Flag 2.  And it's cheaper than MI.  It is still a very good card and absolutely usable.  Cerberus Scharn doesn't obsolete original Scharnhorst either.  The original is one of my favorite KM Battleships because it is nicely costed for what it delivers.  The operational variant simply gives me a different option that happens to be named the same.  I get more bells and whistles, but I pay for them too.   This bleeds into the next point, so let's just go there.

5)  First the teams have actually done only 7 (really 5, but that's below) operational units out 360 units released (7/360 = 1.9%).  Let's not start freaking out about the proliferation of operational units.  RB did 2 operational units in his last deck out of 291 cards released (0.678%) and he still had plenty of historic ships that could've been added or done in their place (after all most of the 360 added by the teams are historic).  You say that RB refined the operational units rather than defined them.  I'd say his record is 50-50. 

Operational units done by RB:  Set 6 Bismarck and Yamato.  Neither "iconic" ship really needed the redo, but by putting the operational unit in, RB was able to re-imagine those ships in different roles, give the Axis 2 more BB choices (when for historical ship rosters they were running out), and from the WotC business sense, re-use 2 molds.  Since this was the last set that RB was able to release we do not know if he would have done additional Operational variants in a 7th set or not. 

From my opinion, original Yamato has been nearly completely usurped from the navies by the Sho-Go version and/or Mushashi.  I still like the original best, but Mush is too cheap to argue with and ShoGo has an SA kit that is very game-friendly.  RB himself DEFINED what Yamato should be rather than refining the original.  He basically obsoleted the original in most situations that are not 1942 capped. 

To Bismarck!  Rheinubung Bismarck is a cool effect, but otherwise, both Bismarcks are still overshadowed by Tirpitz.  Rheinubung offered a choice of Bismarcks (vanilla or flavored) and the option of having your choice refined the selection.  Good Job RB!

Operational units done by the teams by set - and you'll note please that all but one are Axis!
Set 2 - Aufurgeruste (Awful) Scharnhorst - really a radical refit that completely restatted Scharnhorst.  Probably doesn't really even count as an operational variant as it is more of a fantasy-upgrade refit.  Original definitely not obsoleted.

Set 3 - Operation Catapult Hood - Hood was one of those iconic ships that was pretty unplayable as a unit because of high-cost and very dangerous Negative SA.  While the SA of the  original granted historical flavor, it was actually too penalizing, and for 48 point the ship was overcosted and overshadowed by RB's own offerings in Sets 2 and 3.  Original Obsoleted long before the team released a newer version.
Set 3 - Coral Sea Zuikaku - The entire Kido Butai was already done by here and Zuikaku clearly was underdone compared to her squad mates.  Uninteresting, meh SA's, and a higher cost than could be readily explained especially considering what sister Shokaku had to offer, Zuikaku was dust bin fodder.  Set 3's revamped Zuikaku STILL doesn't see much table-top time, but neither did it obsolete the original if you are so inclined to play it.

Set 5 - Cerberus Scharnhorst - the Scharny redo we could've and should've had earlier, but that topics been over-killed.  There were LOTS of operational possibilities for Scharn.  This was a publicly chosen unit, so Scharny was getting a redo - the team just narrowed down the operation.  The original Vanilla-flavored 38 point battleship is STILL not obsoleted.  It would be less so if it had had TD.
Set 5 - Cape Teluada Bolzano - One of the most publicly supported Axis unit of Set 5.  Operational Bolzano.  The original card is a Set 1 overcost Cruiser plain and simple.  It is also of a class of 1.  There are no sisters (Trentos come close...) or planned sisters for fantasy and the original card is egregiously overpriced.  It worked within the cruiser cost structure of Set 1, but RB went away from that almost immediately in Set2.   The original has been obsolete since Set2's release.  The Operational variant should actually get some play.
Set 5 - A-Go Mogami - Like awful Scharny above this is more of a radical refit than a true operational variant.  After refit Mogami is very different than before-refit Mogami, but neither one is fantasy and both participated in battles.  It would be like future teams releasing a pre-refit Ise, or a post-refit Hyuga.  Very different ships, but named the same.  It was also publicly chosen.
Set 5 - MI Akagi - explained above.  It had plenty of support, and won a majority of votes within the team that made the choice to bring it to life. 



Thank you for taking the time to respond; I'll try briefly to do like wise.
   
To your first point;;   I call it an Intangible of war gaming; If you want to bean count by all means do;
 To me it makes for dull play; You said it yourself in the last sentence we tend to leave it on the shelve;
Historically none of the 5 hull point Carriers were worth their weight nor did anything but sink with grace. 


To your second;;   No mater what circle you travel for expansion to continue with relevance, Operational if you want to all them that are needed.
   As i explained to Ticat i don't think they have to be made to obsolete the Original.


To your third point;; How further decks are done is not in my control as were past decks;; but i have written expensively how i believe both the 
  Community and Teams can have plenty of say and work hand in hand on most units and the process.

To your forth point;;  Probably were we disagree strongly; Yes RB had to make some changes, he's the designer he has the right to
 Teams do not!! its not their game.  Teams have added to the game with new units very well, but when you take on
a unit in the originals name it should be done with that avenue of multiple uses as RB did with Bismarck and Yamato.
  I don't believe as you stated he obsolete anything in the way some Operational expansion units did;;
even in the Haguro -- Myoko case they are different ships; play it as you wise; all sisters are Haguro or if you want 
  four different sisters they are what they are an Intangible to the game.


To the fifth point;   Doesn't matter how many Capital Units you remake i say if expansion goes on you'll remake them all one day.
      I just hope they are redone more in the likeness of RB's  Rheinubung Bismarck and Sho Go Yamato than Cat. Hood; River P. Graf Spee
Coral Sea Zui or Cape T. Bolzano.
 I did not say RB refined instead of defined Operational units i said we should.


 Your point on RB's Units;;  To me a better R Bismarck  would have had the Operation date 1941; maybe its way we look at these ridiculous start date instead of the remakes. An actual Operations date gives so much more leeway to none obsoleting.
   True the Sho Go Yamato gave a third wheel to the Musashi -- Yamato  drama, but still on how you play the game there are avenues of use.


Your point on Team units; Outside of the ones i spoke o,f Expansion has done what it had to do with the others not the worst thing
  I've been critical about Akagi although as stated some avenues have been left open for the Original;
how much more if it had the date of the operation though something i think the Community should have discussed.
  Another note on remaking said named units you have have to be careful with under cost units thats why i believe Coral Sea missed the mark
if it at least had the Operational date you can overcome that fault.


  All i've tried to bring to light is; whats done is done;; is there interest in going a little different direction or is the status quo sealed 
the future of expansion which i think really limits relevant unit progress with a danger of obsoleting to much.

 

Make Forumini Great Again !

The original had a specific question amd it was answered. There was no need tp drag the soapbox in hear and bend it to something else

Make Forumini Great Again !

The original had a specific question amd it was answered.