Worst under- or oversized unit of Set IV? [Archive]

Kaufschtick

06-15-2006, 08:18 AM

For me, the Italian L3 comes off literally as a "little joke", but...

Nothing compares with the Canadian Infantry! An E-E NCO (itself probably the best Allied Commander) with a hoard of Canadian Infantry looks like an African despot with his gang of indoctrinated infant soldiers.

I agree on both of these units. The 88 is too big. The Vet Tiger I was very poorly painted. Overall, I'd say the general quality on set IV is the worst yet. IMHO, however, the quality has been dropping off slightly with each set.

I had been getting two cases of each set plus singles. So far I was on the fence about getting set IV "by the case". I won't be on this set. I'll stay away from the wrong sized pieces and keep toward getting singles off line. Don't get me wrong either, there are some good looking pieces in this set, P-38, Typhoon and the Higgins boat are all very nice. Between the wrong scaled pieces and re-paints and "obsticles", these have all combined on this set to keep me from spending so heavily on it. This will be the first set where I will not want to get some of the pieces due to bad scaling/painting/"don't want to pay hard earned money for the minefield piece".

Maybe the next set will improve quality wise...? :confused:

P.S.- The 88 makes the original oversized M18 Hellcat look as if were undersized! :eek:

Zhukov

06-15-2006, 08:28 AM

Hellcats huge. Renault is a jeep. The jeep has an mg that cant shoot, that truck thing has no mg but shoots. :D

polish_horsy

06-15-2006, 08:49 AM

Maybe the Canadians are on vehicle scale. If you want fun try this battle. 59 points each of shear mahem.

Team Lilliput
4x Canadian Infantry (12)
1x Jeep (4)
2x L3/35 (18)
2x Rennault (18)
1x Tankette (7)
vs.

Team Brobdingnag
2x Japanese Armor Car (16)
1x Hellcat (20)
1x Pak 40 (14)
1x Bofors (9)

Canuck_Captain

06-15-2006, 10:11 AM

I dont think this sets quality is as bad as some say, this set is better painted than set 3 where i have spotters that werent painted some half painted...except for the Vet Tigers color this sets quality is better than the last...my only beef with this set is that i have to do the hot/cold technique on every tank I get with a long barrel...

mlund

06-15-2006, 10:19 AM

The Flak 88 is on-scale.

It is a Soldier - Artillary unit, and is thus scaled to the soldiers, not the vehicles.

The Italian Tankette is also properly scaled, since it is a Vehicle.

Come to grips with the fact that Soldiers and Vehicles scale differently so that the basic infantry aren't microscopic.

Those aren't errors at all.

Now the Spitfire, the 3" Gun, the Japanese Armored Car, and the M18 Hellcat are actual errors.

I think the Canadian Infantry are just a victim of trying to fit them on a basic infantry base. The only other "laying down on the job" units had Machinegun Team bases, like the Piat Gunner, Snipers, and the Soviet "Antitank" Gun. It wasn't a good idea to put a laying-down pose on a small base, but I think they were trying to use the same base as the other 3 point basic infantry so I see why they tried it.

- Marty Lund

Cennedi

06-15-2006, 10:41 AM

I think that the kanucks are close enough to scale for me :)

polish_horsy

06-15-2006, 11:00 AM

is artillery supposed to be on infantry scale then? how does that explain the other artillery? I think those units are kind of random.

WinterWarCaptain

06-15-2006, 12:41 PM

Team Lilliput

vs.

Team Brobdingnag

I enjoyed this one--! :)

WinterWarCaptain

06-15-2006, 12:46 PM

It is a Soldier - Artillary unit, and is thus scaled to the soldiers, not the vehicles.
I have a feeling I'm not the only one who's noticed that the Artillery scale seems to be sometimes Infantry scale, but often enough something in between Infantry and Vehicle scale.

Come to grips with the fact that Soldiers and Vehicles scale differently so that the basic infantry aren't microscopic.
I'm sure pretty much everyone has "come to grips" with this fact. But I guess every now and then you meet someone who hasn't, so it's good to state this publicly from time to time.

I think the Canadian Infantry are just a victim of trying to fit them on a basic infantry base.
That's true. Put the Canadian Infantry side-by-side a British PIAT Gunner and have a joyous moment laughing out loud!

Kaufschtick

06-15-2006, 01:36 PM

The Flak 88 is on-scale.

It is a Soldier - Artillary unit, and is thus scaled to the soldiers, not the vehicles.

- Marty Lund

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. The 88 is 25mm or 1/72nd in scale.

Cruizin2000

06-15-2006, 01:41 PM

That would make the Japanese 37mm AT gun a "party popper".

C2000

Kaufschtick

06-15-2006, 01:44 PM

That would make the Japanese 37mm AT gun a "party popper".

C2000

:D LOL! Don't get me wrong, I like the ole' 88, but it seems way out of wack scale wise!

mlund

06-15-2006, 01:45 PM

I have a feeling I'm not the only one who's noticed that the Artillery scale seems to be sometimes Infantry scale, but often enough something in between Infantry and Vehicle scale.

Honestly, I think most of this stems from people basing the idea of size on their assumption of how big the item in question is, rather than actually examining the documentation in history.

For example, the PAK 38. Take a look. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaK_38) It takes up about as much space as a horse. It is to scale with the Infantry. The PAK 40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaK_40) is significantly larger. The Bofors is similar (http://www.machinegunnest.co.uk/bofors.htm) in size to the PAK 40. The Type I Antitank Gun is the same smaller size (https://www.infantry.army.mil/museum/outside_tour/guns/japanese_47mm.htm) as the PAK 38.

The Bofors and Flak 88 are likewise huge gun placements compared to the 38 and the Type I and your General Infantry. The only artillary piece that's incorrectly scaled that I can think of off the top of my head is the 3" gun.

- Marty Lund

Lotus

06-15-2006, 02:11 PM

Gotta say, tho I like the pose of the Canadian Infantryman...WoTC really put the infant in infantry. It's a kid. There can be no other explanation.

Other than that...ok by me. At least Canada's getting units finally.

Kaufschtick

06-15-2006, 02:24 PM

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not some kind of "Scale" police or anything. It's just when the pieces begin to look out of place in relation to the bulk of the other pieces that I tend to balk at them. The height of pieces comes into play here also. The Italian tankette is about half as high as a spotter jeep. That makes it appear that someone invented a tank that was only waist high! I'm sure someone did, too. :) But those two pieces (88 & Italian tankette) are not in line with the bulk of the rest of the pieces. They look decidedly out of place to me, but hey, that's just me.

The good news is that there are plenty of pieces that are cool looking and plenty others to keep things interesting!

Col_Portnoy

06-15-2006, 04:56 PM

You wouldnt believe how easy it would be for these things to be made to a proper scale. I work building props for tv, and some of that includes building scale models of vehicles with shapes and moving parts considerably more complex than say, a plane, the propeller on which doesnt even move.

Its a matter of being a good enough builder to get it right, and make it to scale, which leaves only a couple of explanations for the hodge-podge of scales that have come out:weak links in the building team (ie. incompetence), cheapness in getting said good enough builders, or they just arent really going for consistently scaled vehicles in the first place.

In the meantime, all you need is a calculator and a schematic of the vehicle to get the measurements you need to get a close enough build in scale. I'm inclined to think that they just arent interested in it, because it is so achievable. Maybe they hired sculptors instead of some serious technical craftsmen, who knows?

And as for any blaming of the factory in China (a very convenient excuse) this is a near impossibility, because unless the master models are built in China, they are sent over to have molds made right from WotC. I dont see how once the finished master is sent to China or wherever, thats its size could change, thats just not how it works. And if that is how it worked, one would assume all the models would shrink or grow about the same amount meaning they were still out of scale in the first place. And if they did have the masters built in China, then this game should cost 5 bucks a booster.

So I'm inclined to think that WotC just isnt really that concerned about the accuracy of the models, because it is exactly the kind of problem that you could throw a little money at and it would go away. And I know they've got the money to throw, considering I've spent about 300 dollars so far on about 50 cents worth of plastic.

The Colonel

mlund

06-15-2006, 05:25 PM

I can see your point, however I've built too many 1/72nd scale models to believe that the 88 is anything but 1/72nd in scale.

What's the scale for the infantry in this game again?

If you were to take all the anti tank guns from this game and line them up side by side, the 88 has a problem in relation to every other AT/AA gun out.

This guy (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.militaireluchtvaartmuseum.nl/collectie/restauratie/flak88/images/Flak88-3-groot.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.militaireluchtvaartmuseum.nl/collectie/restauratie/flak88/win_flak88_3.html&h=375&w=500&sz=71&tbnid=g9pC33kj8jhJHM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflak%2B88&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2"), right?

Looks to be about 4 infantry bases long to me - comparable in space the Bofors and PAK 40 take up on the table. They seem pretty close IRL too, though the 88 has that bulky 4-wheels and chasis on it.

I might be a little off-scale from the Bofors and PAK 40 though. I couldn't say for certain.

The piece is very nearly the size of a King Tiger, in height and everything!

Which is completely irrelevant. The Vehicles aren't on the same scale as the Soldiers. Compare a SMLE No. 4 rifle to an M4A1 Sherman in the game, then IRL. See the disparity?

I admit it looks pretty darn weird, but so are "giant" soldier / "tiny" tanks. The Infantry are scaled larger so you can see them clearly in the hexes. If they made the hexes larger, we could have everything on the same scale, but then the maps would be too big for the tables.

The Italian "Tankette" has a problem in relation to the other vehicles too. It may have been tiny, but I feel they gave it a little "shrink ray" action.

This is the problem. You assume rather than examine the reality. The L3/35 was 1.28 m tall - about 4 ft. It came up to a my stomache / lower chest. It was 1.4 m wide.

I may be wrong on the Italian tankette, but it sure looks like a go-cart to me in relation to other vehicles. Even the spotter jeep is bigger than it!

The thing really WAS an armored go-cart with a machine gun, and yes, the F.O. Jeep is bigger than it in real life too. The jeep has tires and a raised suspension and chasis while the tankette is tracked and sits low to the ground.

I was happy to see the Italians getting an uncommon vehicle, but after seeing one, I will be passing on this unit do to it's size.

I'm passing on it due to its Stats myself. The Panzer II Ausf. C is also pretty much useless.

- Marty Lund

whitewind

06-15-2006, 10:47 PM

I agree on both of these units. The 88 is too big. The Vet Tiger I was very poorly painted. Overall, I'd say the general quality on set IV is the worst yet. IMHO, however, the quality has been dropping off slightly with each set.

I had been getting two cases of each set plus singles. So far I was on the fence about getting set IV "by the case". I won't be on this set. I'll stay away from the wrong sized pieces and keep toward getting singles off line. Don't get me wrong either, there are some good looking pieces in this set, P-38, Typhoon and the Higgins boat are all very nice. Between the wrong scaled pieces and re-paints and "obstacles", these have all combined on this set to keep me from spending so heavily on it. This will be the first set where I will not want to get some of the pieces due to bad scaling/painting/"don't want to pay hard earned money for the minefield piece".

Maybe the next set will improve quality wise...? :confused:

P.S.- The 88 makes the original over sized M18 Hellcat look as if were undersized! :eek: Finally someone else who is with holding their dollar from WOTC for this latest outrage. I use to get two cases and have not this time out. There are quite a few mini's I won't get. Picked up a Priest the other day for 6 bucks and quite a few infantry and two vehicles for 10. I left the game store feeling like I got my monies worth with A&A min's and that has not happened for a long time. I just can't pay for cases knowing they are doing nothing about even some of the issues this game has. I don't think they will drop the game either cause they want a customer base for there next cash guzzler War @ Sea coming up.

tarkin1980

06-16-2006, 02:42 AM

Sturmgrenadier

06-16-2006, 04:02 AM

I don’t care about paint job on minis coz i repainting my stuff anyway(imo its no one single piece set I-IV that is painted good enough). I wish they was no painted at all. Anyway scale/bad modelling on those pieces + that they used same models over again(3 times now: set II SS-Panzer and set III elite Panzer IV have exactly same body, they just changed turret; Set I and set IV tigers + of course Messerspit) is something that really sux.
I just watch all those oversized and bad modeller vehicles. If ya compare lets say Stug III and Sherman 105 whit regular Sherman and Comet, the last 2 looks just like joke. Its proofing that they have somewhere there good modellers, however they got many really poor ones to (prolly coz of some economy aka “make a lot money fast and cheap” reasons).
I don’t have anything against soldiers vs vehicles scale, its not bothering me, but pls try to keep ALL soldiers in one SAME scale and ALL vehicles in another SAME scale.
When I looking on King Tiger and Jagdtiger that are build on exactly same body it just hurts me. Same whit all “type IV chassis” vehicles. Panzer IV, SS-Panzer IV, Sturmpanzer IV (brummbar), Jagdpanzer IV, Flakpanzer IV (wirbelwind) and Elite Panzer IV. All those vehicles were built on same just modified chassis. Why then, in the Gods Name, have all of them different hull scale (whit exception to SS-Panzer and Elite Panzer, but its just coz they was too lazy to make new model, they used exactly same hull for both of them)?
Then of course units like Japanese Armour Car or Hellcat. Sometimes I really wonder if its suppose to be like that or they just mixed models from different games…

Kaufschtick

06-16-2006, 09:38 AM

What's the scale for the infantry in this game again?

- Marty Lund

The soldiers are not 1/72nd in scale.

Autarch

06-16-2006, 10:10 AM

I agree. I think the infantry in the A&A boardgames are 1/72 though, if people need something for comparison.

Kaufschtick

06-16-2006, 10:10 AM

I might be a little off-scale from the Bofors and PAK 40 though. I couldn't say for certain.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be "scale police".

Which is completely irrelevant. The Vehicles aren't on the same scale as the Soldiers. Compare a SMLE No. 4 rifle to an M4A1 Sherman in the game, then IRL. See the disparity?

I'm not talking about the Sherman and the SMLE No. 4.

I admit it looks pretty darn weird, but so are "giant" soldier / "tiny" tanks.

I have no problem with the differing scales they have gone with. The scales are just fine in relation to one another.

If they made the hexes larger, we could have everything on the same scale, but then the maps would be too big for the tables.

I built 3 inch terrain and made 3 inch hex maps on an idea Cruizin2000 came up with. 3 inch hexes are much better, less crowding. A four pannel map fits just fine on a kitchen table and the differing scales as they have now are just fine.

This is the problem. You assume rather than examine the reality. The L3/35 was 1.28 m tall - about 4 ft. It came up to a my stomache / lower chest. It was 1.4 m wide.

I didn't assume anything. As I stated, the 88 is too big at 1/72nd scale in relation to the bulk of the other pieces and likewise the Italian tankette is too small in relation to the bulk of the other pieces, to me. I'm not out to ruin anybody else's fun or try to start a revolt. They struck a nice blend on the scaling they chose for the different pieces, of which aircraft are yet another scale. Again, I'm not the "scale police". I am saying in relation to one another.

The thing really WAS an armored go-cart with a machine gun, and yes, the F.O. Jeep is bigger than it in real life too. The jeep has tires and a raised suspension and chasis while the tankette is tracked and sits low to the ground.

That's interesting. Really, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Doesn't change my mind one bit about the piece though. They could have bumped up the size on this piece to put it into perspective with all the other pieces. The M18 got super sized along with the Japanese armored car and the 88 needlessly, in this case it would have been a good thing if they had, IMHO.

Kaufschtick

06-16-2006, 10:27 AM

Thanks Marty Lund. It's good to see that at least someone is arguing the facts, instead of getting their knickers in a knot about every single piece in the game. Then again, the old analogy about arguing on the internet springs to mind.... :rolleyes:

Just to clarify, there are 183 pieces so far in this game. My comments refer to two of them specifically in this thread.

There's no knot in my knickers...

Arguing? I'm just stating my opinions, or is that against the rules?

Cruizin2000

06-16-2006, 10:31 AM

Just to clarify, there are 183 pieces so far in this game. My comments refer to two of them specifically in this thread.

Trouble maker :D

C2000

mlund

06-16-2006, 10:35 AM

I'm not talking about the Sherman and the SMLE No. 4.

Inadequate response. You complained, "The piece is very nearly the size of a King Tiger, in height and everything!" when talking about the Flak 88.

As I've noted, the Flak 88 is a Soldier unit, on the Soldier scale - not a Vehicle. Trying to make an argument that it is too big when compared to the Tiger is the same thing as making an argument that the SMLE No. 4 is too big compared to the Sherman.

You can either argue the Soldier-to-Vehicle scale ratio as being annoying, or you can gripe that a particular piece is off-scale within its scale class. But trying to argue a specific Soldier-to-Vehicle comparison to the exclusion of all others strikes me as nonsensical and inconsistant.

I have no problem with the differing scales they have gone with. The scales are just fine in relation to one another.

Your gripe about the Flak 88 vs. King Tiger seems to indicate otherwise.

I built 3 inch terrain and made 3 inch hex maps on an idea Cruizin2000 came up with. 3 inch hexes are much better, less crowding.

It would certainly be nice, but I'd never be able to fit a 2 x 3 setup on a game store table at that scale for larger games. That's just a personal preference.

I didn't assume anything. As I stated, the 88 is too big at 1/72nd scale in relation to the bulk of the other pieces and likewise the Italian tankette is too small in relation to the bulk of the other pieces,

I'd like to see your reasoning and / or evidence to this, please.

If you want to say, "It just looks stupid to me," I'll just have to shrug my shoulders at your opinion and say, "Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction."

If you want to say, "They screwed up on this model," I'd invite you to illustrate why that is a factual statement.

Doesn't change my mind one bit about the piece though. They could have bumped up the size on this piece to put it into perspective with all the other pieces.

Please define "in perspective with the other pieces," and give some supporting rationale as to why such a change should be made at the expense of consistancy in scaling with other models in its type-class ("Vehicle").

The M18 got super sized along with the Japanese armored car needlessly, in this case it would have been a good thing if they had, IMHO.

Those where production errors in which Vehicles got put on Soldier scale, and people scream bloody murder about their historical inaccuracy / violation of scale. Now you want WotC to commit the same error, on purpose, so you can pretend that a go-kart sized Tankette is larger in proportion to other tanks Vehicles than it really was?

I just don't understand the reasoning here at all. It boggles my mind.

In other news, I forgot to put the 20mm Flak 38 on my list of screwed-up Artillary / AA guns. It looks like a case of a Soldier-Type unit being put on Vehicle scaling.

You know, I wonder if the Armored Car and the Flak 38 got their scaling designations switched in production, since each is from Set III and each has the other's scale improperly applied to it.

- Marty Lund

Cruizin2000

06-16-2006, 10:40 AM

Inadequate response. You complained, "The piece is very nearly the size of a King Tiger, in height and everything!" when talking about the Flak 88.

As I've noted, the Flak 88 is a Soldier unit, on the Soldier scale - not a Vehicle. Trying to make an argument that it is too big when compared to the Tiger is the same thing as making an argument that the SMLE No. 4 is too big compared to the Sherman.

You can either argue the Soldier-to-Vehicle scale ratio as being annoying, or you can gripe that a particular piece is off-scale within its scale class. But trying to argue a specific Soldier-to-Vehicle comparison to the exclusion of all others strikes me as nonsensical and inconsistant.

Your gripe about the Flak 88 vs. King Tiger seems to indicate otherwise.

It would certainly be nice, but I'd never be able to fit a 2 x 3 setup on a game store table at that scale for larger games. That's just a personal preference.

I'd like to see your reasoning and / or evidence to this, please.

If you want to say, "It just looks stupid to me," I'll just have to shrug my shoulders at your opinion and say, "Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction."

If you want to say, "They screwed up on this model," I'd invite you to illustrate why that is a factual statement.

Please define "in perspective with the other pieces," and give some supporting rationale as to why such a change should be made at the expense of consistancy in scaling with other models in its type-class ("Vehicle").

Those where production errors in which Vehicles got put on Soldier scale, and people scream bloody murder about their historical inaccuracy / violation of scale. Now you want WotC to commit the same error, on purpose, so you can pretend that a go-kart sized Tankette is larger in proportion to other tanks Vehicles than it really was?

I just don't understand the reasoning here at all. It boggles my mind.

In other news, I forgot to put the 20mm Flak 38 on my list of screwed-up Artillary / AA guns. It looks like a case of a Soldier-Type unit being put on Vehicle scaling.

You know, I wonder if the Armored Car and the Flak 38 got their scaling designations switched in production, since each is from Set III and each has the other's scale improperly applied to it.

- Marty Lund

Kaufschtick got his scaling of the 1/72 and 1/32 88 from me. I'll have to measure stuff and post it over the weekend. If I had a digital camera, I'd post pics of the 8 Ton Prime Movers next to my 88s.

1/72: 1" = 6'.

C2000

Kaufschtick

06-16-2006, 11:32 AM

Those where production errors in which Vehicles got put on Soldier scale, and people scream bloody murder about their historical inaccuracy / violation of scale.

When a person purchases a high dollar item such as an automobile, they tend to have high expectations on what they've purchased. Would you accept a new automobile from the dealer with a scratch on it? Seems like a small thing compared to an automobile overall. I mean, when you think about it, I'd be more concerned about the condition of the engine, but I wouldn't take a car home with a scratch either. It's not what I paid for and it shows lack of attention to detail. Alot of people have spent some serious cash on this game and therefore have high expectations as to what they spent their hard earned dollars on.

It doesn't mean you can't like the game as it is. I doubt that anyone wants to ruin things for anyone else. I have read very few items on here recently that were not valid issues. If you don't have a problem with it, that's great, game on.

mlund

06-16-2006, 04:22 PM

When a person purchases a high dollar item such as an automobile, they tend to have high expectations on what they've purchased.

That's not the point. The point is your are inconsistant.

If it is bad to be inconsistant with the scale, then why are you complaining that the L3/35 should've been made bigger when it is the correct size on the scale of the other Vehicles?

Meanwhile, Axis and Allies Minis is not a high dollar item. Trying to compare it to a new car or a new house is utterly apples to oranges, which seems to be a recurring theme here ...

- Marty Lund

Kaufschtick

06-16-2006, 04:39 PM

That's not the point. The point is your are inconsistant.

- Marty Lund

You seem to have taken some issue with my opinion regarding the 88 and the Italian tankette, which is that the 88 is in 1/72nd scale IMO and the Italian tankette is too small for my liking. That seems to be the point, not my inconsistantcy.

Kaufschtick

06-16-2006, 04:51 PM

Meanwhile, Axis and Allies Minis is not a high dollar item.- Marty Lund

Tell that to people who've spent some big dollars on it Marty.

Kaufschtick

06-16-2006, 05:07 PM

The Italian tankette is about half as high as a spotter jeep. That makes it appear that someone invented a tank that was only waist high! I'm sure someone did, too. :) But those two pieces (88 & Italian tankette) are not in line with the bulk of the rest of the pieces. They look decidedly out of place to me, but hey, that's just me.

If it is bad to be inconsistant with the scale, then why are you complaining that the L3/35 should've been made bigger when it is the correct size on the scale of the other vehicles? - Marty Lund

I'm sorry you've taken issue with my opinion on the Italian tank Marty, but like I said before, that's just me.

mlund

06-16-2006, 05:21 PM

Tell that to people who've spent some big dollars on it Marty.

Considering I've bought:

A.) A New Car

and

B.) Significant quantites of Axis and Allies Minis (over $500 easily, if we don't count what I bought before the last 5 months)

in the last 5 months, I think I'm going to have to stand by my point.

Scratch on the brand-new card - a bit annoying after all the hassel of buying the card, and they fixed it before delivery.

Common US 3" gun miss-sized in a few boosters of A&A minis - much less of a bother, I'm afraid.

Now if the rules system for the game were unplayable, I'd be more upset. On the other hand, I wouldn't have invested the money that I did in it anyway.

And even then, it is not a "big money item like a car." When you say "big money item like a car" you're into the $5,000+ range, easy - and that's if you consider a Hyundai or a Kia to be an honest-to-goodness car. ;) Then you get to cry about scratches.

When you're talking about a dinky little plastic mini like the 3" Gun or the Flak 38 you are not addressing a "big money item like a car." I can at least understand much more the grief over the M18 Hellcat and the Supermarine Spitfire Mk1 as they are both rares.

- Marty Lund

Stealth

06-16-2006, 06:18 PM

That's not the point. The point is your are inconsistant.

If it is bad to be inconsistant with the scale, then why are you complaining that the L3/35 should've been made bigger when it is the correct size on the scale of the other Vehicles?

Meanwhile, Axis and Allies Minis is not a high dollar item. Trying to compare it to a new car or a new house is utterly apples to oranges, which seems to be a recurring theme here ...

- Marty Lund

By making this a collectible game, they dang well did make this a high dollar game. For the quality we are getting, they should be charging MAYBE 5 bucks a booster rather than 15. For the price of three boosters, I can buy a top notch board game from almost any other company, one which has more pieces, better pieces, a top notch board, and more importantly, well written, designed, and TESTED rules. Not the hodgepodge crap they are content with.

mlund

06-17-2006, 10:03 PM

By making this a collectible game, they dang well did make this a high dollar game.

Sure did, but high-dollar games != "high dollar item like a car."

No dice.

For the quality we are getting, they should be charging MAYBE 5 bucks a booster rather than 15.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

$5 might get you a booster of Yu-Gi-Oh cards (printed cardboard) with no pieces, or half a blister of a GW model. Try using 2006 dollars.

For the price of three boosters, I can buy a top notch board game from almost any other company, one which has more pieces, better pieces, a top notch board, and more importantly, well written, designed, and TESTED rules. Not the hodgepodge crap they are content with.

Yup, that's why I suggested that people who can't deal with the realities of the collectable gaming market should probably stick to board games. Avalon Hill makes some exceptional WWII board games that are outright better deals in those categories than Axis and Allies miniatures.

You'll never match the quantity / price and quality / price ratios for fixed-content boardgames with collectable games - ever. Collectable games exist because they provide a steady supply of new pieces that shift the metagame and expand your content - that's their industry niche.

- Marty Lund

Kaufschtick

06-18-2006, 02:00 PM

Sure did, but high-dollar games != "high dollar item like a car."

No dice.

- Marty Lund

I didn't say AAM equals "= high dollar item like a car." I said there are some people who have spent some serious money on this game and therefore have some high expectations on what they've spent their money on. I made the reference to the automobile as an example that people often have high expectations when they spend alot of money on something.

Your next comment to this was:

That's not the point. The point is you are inconsistent.

Once again, the point is that I feel the 88 is mis-scaled, it being 1/72nd scale. You disagree, you feel that 1/72nd is the scale of all the infantry pieces. I disagree. I think 18mm is the "Target" scale of the infantry pieces. At least that's what I recall reading in an interview with Mons. I also don't care for the Italian tankette. I feel it is scaled too small. It may be scaled correct. It's just too small a piece for my liking if that is the case. That's my opinion, you're welcome to yours.

You followed by stating:

Axis and Allies Minis is not a high dollar item.

I would have to say that depends on each person and how much money they choose to spend on it.

that's why I suggested that people who can't deal with the realities of the collectable gaming market should probably stick to boardgames.

Marty, I"ll finish my final post to this thread simply by stating that I disagree with you on several issues not the least of which being your suggestion that I or anyone else who voice their opinions on here "can't deal with the realities" and that they should quit or otherwise "stick to board games".

Cennedi

06-18-2006, 09:29 PM

MLund does come off as a bit rude at times.

200.00 ish dollars US a case is serious money even if you only buy 1 case per set.
I have spent at least 1,000.00 US dollars on A&AM. that is more than I have spent on my 3,000 point WH40K imperial guard army that includes 10 28mm scale tanks. 3 leman russ, 2 hellhound, and 5 chimera.

Do we even need to compare quality of A&AM minis verses GWs 40K line?
Do we need to compare A&AM quality with that of the $1.59 toys you can buy in wal-mart?

for 15.00 dollars a booster I expect better sculpts, better paint schemes, and units to be in a uniform scale.. not to mention the whole spitfire fiasco.

TBH the main reason I buy A&AM is I like to open the booster packs. I like the suprise of getting a decent rare. The game is pretty fun also but honestly could as easily be played with wal-mart figs that are not only cheaper but look much much better.

Sturmgrenadier

06-19-2006, 05:26 AM

OtterSC

06-19-2006, 09:38 AM

Sd Kfz 250 from set 4 is different in scale from the Base Set Sd Kfz 251. is this correct? or could this be an error.

http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/images/dday_gallery/sdkfz250.jpg http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/images/aam_base_gallery/tn_251_jpg.jpg

seems to be better scale and detail with the one from the base set.

i know they are different vehicles. however, they are similar. therefore, why not simmilar size. and if the reason is so that you can tell the two apart when on the board, why not paint the one a different color like grey.

mlund

06-19-2006, 10:07 AM

MLund does come off as a bit rude at times.

Ripping apart people's logically inconsistant arguments can be perceived as rather abrasive, certainly. Other times, yeah, I'm being outright rude. Anywhere near as rude as some of the inconsiderate and non-factual rants that are posted day after day here to complain about the product? Not even close. My patience with certain forms of discourse (slander, libel, fast-talk, lying, and melodrama being high on the list) can wear thin at times

200.00 ish dollars US a case is serious money even if you only buy 1 case per set.

The retail price for a box of Magic: The Gathering is what? 36 x US$3.69 = 132.84 - and you need at least 1.25-1.5 boxes every set to keep competitive, so approx 166.05 - 199.26 a set.

Legend of the Five Rings - 48 x 3.29 = 158.92 per set

Axis and Allies Minis - 12 x 14.99 = 179.88 per set

It really isn't off the scale for any sort of collectable game, even when comparing it to collectable games that give you just the cards.

You could certainly make the argument that, "Collectable games make for expensive hobbies."

TBH the main reason I buy A&AM is I like to open the booster packs. I like the suprise of getting a decent rare. The game is pretty fun also but honestly could as easily be played with wal-mart figs that are not only cheaper but look much much better.

Of course it could be.

But do your Wal-mart figs come with Stat cards?
Maps?
Rulebook?
Any of the overhead involved in making it a playable game rather than a static collectors set?

Yes, baseball cards were far less expensive of an investment than CCGs. They had photo-quality art and tons of stats and information on them. They weren't part of a game, though.

Demand for quality is great and all, but all the whining is kinda sad, especially when people try to justify its severity and immaturity with faux arguments keying off of points that are either factually untrue or purely innaccurate comparisons.

Some of the "points" being tossed about are along the line of "I can buy a pound of sugar for $0.50 down at the grocery store. It provides vital energy to keep me alive. A pound of Axis and Allies minis doesn't provivd me with any nutrients at all and costs a fortune. I'm not getting my money's worth from this game!"

In the focus of this thread, there are definitely incorrectly sized sculpts. Of which, the L3/35 is not one of them - despite a slew of people pointing at it and crying "they screwed up another piece!" Additionally, the arguments for the Flak 88 ("its as big as the Tiger!") have also been illustrated to be groundless.

Perhaps it someone could take an accurate comparitive measurement we could truly see if the Flak 88 is incorrectly scaled, but there seems to be a lack of interest in accuracy of claims made when complaining. Remember "under- or over-sized unit" means "sized inconsistantly for its scale," not "looks stupid to me due to being properly in-scale." That's a completely different discussion.

In Set IV - the Spitfire is messed up, but obviously is not off-scale / incorrectly sized, since it is using the entirely wrong sculpt to begin with - which is a much bigger problem.

i know they are different vehicles. however, they are similar. therefore, why not simmilar size. and if the reason is so that you can tell the two apart when on the board, why not paint the one a different color like grey.

Well, it seems like the 250 has the extended reenforced transport cab from the 251 removed to make way for a position to which your could hitch a heavy gun - hence why the 250 has Gun Transport while the 251 has Fighting Platform.

All things considered, though, the 250 should probably only be able to move Guns + their small crews with a cab as small as that, but that might have overly complicated the SA or made the unit useless. It is also hard for me to really visualize how many infantry on the Vehicle Scale would fit into such a vehicle.

Ah well, they probably fit the same way 10 Space Marines fit in a Rhino APC in 40K. ;)

- Marty Lund

Cruizin2000

06-19-2006, 10:11 AM

Marty, what scale do you think the 88 is?

C2000

mlund

06-19-2006, 10:27 AM

Well, if I go by this

http://wnet.suomi.net/kotisivu/harri.kaarre/images/88mm01.JPG

I'd say the variant on the model in Set IV (there were a lot of different Flak 88s) I'd say for at or around Infantry Scale. Setting a Fucile Modelo next to the thing makes it look pretty close to the mark.

- Marty Lund

Cruizin2000

06-19-2006, 10:33 AM

So, by your answer and based on the current and available A&A minis rule book, 1/120 scale?

If I remember correctly, the A&A minis 88 is close to 3" long. And at 1/72 scale, that would make it close to 18' long in real life scale. I think that's what my 1/32 88 translates into - close to 18' deployed.

BTW, your pic is nice but doesn't show the base used for the A&A minis 88. This pic depicts the actual gun more so and not it's limber.

C2000

mlund

06-19-2006, 10:54 AM

So, by your answer and based on the current and available A&A minis rule book, 1/120 scale?

Not sure. I'm just comparing it to the Fucilo Modelo.

BTW, your pic is nice but doesn't show the base used for the A&A minis 88. This pic depicts the actual gun more so and not it's limber.

True, but it was one of the few pictures I could get with a human being standing right next to the gun on wheels, rather than legs. :)

- Marty Lund

Lynx7725

06-19-2006, 10:58 AM

That's a pic of the Flak 18, the direct predecessor of the Flak 36. It's pretty similar to the later gun, so it's a fair comparison.

IIRC, vehicles tend to be at 1/120 (as stated), but infantry tends to be more of 1/100.

Cennedi

06-19-2006, 02:53 PM

Ripping apart people's logically inconsistant arguments can be perceived as rather abrasive, certainly. Other times, yeah, I'm being outright rude. Anywhere near as rude as some of the inconsiderate and non-factual rants that are posted day after day here to complain about the product? Not even close. My patience with certain forms of discourse (slander, libel, fast-talk, lying, and melodrama being high on the list) can wear thin at times

Not at all, you feel the need to be right and you enjoy the challenge of the debate. otherwise you would find more constructive things to do with your time than argue on a message board about sub standered quality micro machines.

Saddly i am the same.

The retail price for a box of Magic: The Gathering is what? 36 x US$3.69 = 132.84 - and you need at least 1.25-1.5 boxes every set to keep competitive, so approx 166.05 - 199.26 a set.

Legend of the Five Rings - 48 x 3.29 = 158.92 per set

Axis and Allies Minis - 12 x 14.99 = 179.88 per set

It really isn't off the scale for any sort of collectable game, even when comparing it to collectable games that give you just the cards.

This game advertised high quality historically accurate pre painted miniatures.
Im really of the opinion that they have failed to reach that mark at this time.

You could certainly make the argument that, "Collectable games make for expensive hobbies."

Of course it could be.

But do your Wal-mart figs come with Stat cards?
Maps?
Rulebook?
Any of the overhead involved in making it a playable game rather than a static collectors set?

Do you really believe a few paper maps and 10 pages of rules justifies the increase in cost compared to DDM or SWM and the decreased quality? you can DL WW2 rules sets of line that are as good or better than A&AM for free.

Yes, baseball cards were far less expensive of an investment than CCGs. They had photo-quality art and tons of stats and information on them. They weren't part of a game, though.

apples and oranges.

Demand for quality is great and all, but all the whining is kinda sad, especially when people try to justify its severity and immaturity with faux arguments keying off of points that are either factually untrue or purely innaccurate comparisons.

Some of the "points" being tossed about are along the line of "I can buy a pound of sugar for $0.50 down at the grocery store. It provides vital energy to keep me alive. A pound of Axis and Allies minis doesn't provivd me with any nutrients at all and costs a fortune. I'm not getting my money's worth from this game!"

No the argument is that this game being collectable does not excuse WotC for the lack of quality. compareing it to magic or any other non-miniatures game is just semantics.

In the focus of this thread, there are definitely incorrectly sized sculpts. Of which, the L3/35 is not one of them - despite a slew of people pointing at it and crying "they screwed up another piece!" Additionally, the arguments for the Flak 88 ("its as big as the Tiger!") have also been illustrated to be groundless.

As I said. you enjoy proving your superior skill and knowledge. I hope it feels nice.

Perhaps it someone could take an accurate comparitive measurement we could truly see if the Flak 88 is incorrectly scaled, but there seems to be a lack of interest in accuracy of claims made when complaining. Remember "under- or over-sized unit" means "sized inconsistantly for its scale," not "looks stupid to me due to being properly in-scale." That's a completely different discussion.

looks about the size of a 250/251 to me.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/weapons-german-ww2/88mm-FLAK.jpg

In Set IV - the Spitfire is messed up, but obviously is not off-scale / incorrectly sized, since it is using the entirely wrong sculpt to begin with - which is a much bigger problem.

I agree

Well, it seems like the 250 has the extended reenforced transport cab from the 251 removed to make way for a position to which your could hitch a heavy gun - hence why the 250 has Gun Transport while the 251 has Fighting Platform.

All things considered, though, the 250 should probably only be able to move Guns + their small crews with a cab as small as that, but that might have overly complicated the SA or made the unit useless. It is also hard for me to really visualize how many infantry on the Vehicle Scale would fit into such a vehicle.

I agree

Ah well, they probably fit the same way 10 Space Marines fit in a Rhino APC in 40K. ;)

or six infantrymen in the back of a M2

- Marty Lund

JMcKee

America ^%$ Yeah! comeing through to save the mother&^%(*& day yeah!

mlund

06-19-2006, 03:43 PM

Not at all, you feel the need to be right and you enjoy the challenge of the debate.

A desire to reach conclusions that are factually correct is not the same thing as a "need to be right." In fact, the latter implies that one is typically prejudiced against facts contrary to a theory previously held.

Also, do historians who bring factual information to the table to dispell ignorance necessarily "enjoy debate?"

I do happen to enjoy debate to some moderate extent from time to time. I enjoy gaming far more most of the time.

otherwise you would find more constructive things to do with your time than argue on a message board about sub standered quality micro machines.

Of course, meta-posting in regards to the nature of the poster rather than the topic of the thread is poor form in a forum to begin with, and usually violates rules as it is wildly tangental to the topic.

This game advertised high quality historically accurate pre painted miniatures.

See, this is where fact conflicts with perception:

Let's pull the advertisement text:

"This high-quality skirmish game is playable right out of the box. With these faithful reproductions of real WWII combat vehicles and fighting units, you can recreate historical battles from World War II with authentic Shermans, Panzers, infantry, and more! Or create your own battles!"

This high-quality skirmish game - I'd have to say this is true in the context of collectable games (not comparing it to fixed-content board games). The game is pretty darn high-quality as collectable games go. The good qualities of this game include - highly modular, good UI, very high replay value, easy to learn, fast paced, fairly balanced, and extremely customizable.

faithful reproductions of real WWII combat vehicles and fighting units - Well, they are real, and for the most part the models are at least designed faithfully, barring production errors and the like. The game mechanic elements aren't faithful to history, certainly (modular maps, game balance, rarity, and point values all being divergent up-front), but I don't think it would be a good idea to expect them to be if we take "high-quality skirmish game" as being a goal.

Im really of the opinion that they have failed to reach that mark at this time.

See, I don't share that opinion. The game overall strikes me as a quality system. The figures aren't exceptionally high-quality, such as you might look for in a stand-alone model or toy, but they are a means to the greater ends of the game. Diplomacy only has bricks and sticks, but it is still a high-quality game.

Do you really believe a few paper maps and 10 pages of rules justifies the increase in cost compared to DDM or SWM and the decreased quality?

I'd certainly rather see a 12.99 price point on boosters than 14.99. :)

In terms of system costs, though, D&D Minis and Star Wars Minis were pre-existing games. They both use a dumbed-down version of the d20 combat system battle-map rules that WotC already developed for their RPG lines. That saves on overhead.

No the argument is that this game being collectable does not excuse WotC for the lack of quality. compareing it to magic or any other non-miniatures game is just semantics.

I disagree. Comparing one collectable game to another is not semantics. It puts the discussion in a far better context than comparing the individual pieces of a game to random stand-alone models.

If you feel WotC should be directing more of its attention to making quality models and less to the other aspects of making a high-quality skirmish game that people enjoy, that's fine.

As I said. you enjoy proving your superior skill and knowledge. I hope it feels nice.

Actually, it just feels good to resist ignorance in what little way you can every now and then. Seeing 3 or 4 threads at a time stating as fact that WotC screwed up the new Italian tank or the 88 without ever bothering to find a factual basis for the statement is just sorry when you consider how easy it is to search the darn things on Wikipedia or Google before shooting your mouth off - or just swallowing the vitrol and rephrasing as a question first, even a disbelieving one.

- Marty Lund