War at Sea Minis

[WotC Bob]

You may remember me saying I didn't want to show anyone pics of the War at Sea miniatures until I had production copies. Well I have some now and here is a picture I took of a miniature about 15 minutes ago. The only things I did to this picture was cut the ship out from its background and color correct it so the picture matches the mini in my hand. It still seems a little dark though, but that might just be my monitor.

http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/images/SansWaveMotionGun.jpg

This ship is 5 11/16" long from tip of bow to the stern.

[DarkMercy]

Wow. That is one sweet looking 6" ship. Plenty of detail.

[WotC Bob]

Oh, and the turrets are all facing to the side because I turned them that way.

[DarkMercy]

So can you use your super powers to speed up time so I can get one?

[TheCygnysGuardian]

:eek:
My gosh man. Remarkable. That's all I can say...

[Joisey]

Very handsome looking Yamato. Wood colored deck looks very nice, as does the spotter planes on the rear deck.

Best of all, those gun barrels are all nice and straight, and the turret lines look clean and crisp!

Well done, guys.

Can't really see the tertiary guns around the superstructure too well. Is the model ready for her Extreme Closeup? :D

I'm ready for the next preview....:)

[Surfer_Sam]

I was thinking about ignoring this game. But with this picture I may try it out.


Please tell me your including the french navy!!

Com' on floating renaults!!:D


*1004 posts!*

[Flyboy]

*drooling* I like the mold and the little airplains on the stern:D

[Remember-OWS-]

I've just made it a little bite more light

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/897/sanswavemotiongunum5.jpg

[Joisey]

Of course, this Yamato mini is also pretty cool: :D

[Joisey]

Go to this site to order:

http://www.mugentoys.com/54311293784.html#images

[WotC Bob]

nobody has looked at the name of the pic I posted yet

[jeffgoboom]

Ouch my wallet is screaming and I'm getting a headache. Oh well, I'll just have to win the lottery, because I've got to have those ships.

[Remember-OWS-]

BOB I did when reposting, SansWaveMotionGun

[Joisey]

nobody has looked at the name of the pic I posted yet


Sans (that's French for "without" for you folks in Rio Linda) wave motion gun! Ahh, another Space Cruiser Yamato fan. :D

[TheCygnysGuardian]

nobody has looked at the name of the pic I posted yet

Ah, I get it now!
:D

[horacus]

Nice picture, but, I still don't get it.....

[Photoner Hawkwind]

Yes the larger size does lend itself to better detail. I guess this is what I want. Oh, well. That means I'm buying in to the next release.:(

Hey, any close ups of a carrier and planes?:D

[shousa]

that is glorious. Any chance we could see a lineup of the various ship sizes/classes relative to Yamato?

[horacus]

that is glorious. Any chance we could see a lineup of the various ship sizes/classes relative to Yamato?

Yes please:)

[Muenchausen]

It's too bad the Japanese only had two fo these cause I want four or five.

[shousa]

It's too bad the Japanese only had two fo these cause I want four or five.

Nothing wrong with alternate history, my friend. Nothing at all.

[Imaclone76]

yes please use those super powers of yours as i would like those as well

[Muenchausen]

Nothing wrong with alternate history, my friend. Nothing at all.

Once I've created the conversion rules from A&A to WAS Japan will buy as many Yamato's as they can afford and I have available.

[whitewind]

Is this a master model? I mean are the ships going to look like this? Very nice. Hey, Starblasers is Alternate history... Just in the future.

[Autarch]

I wonder if there is going to be a limit, other than point costs, on having multiple copies of named ships.

[GijoeNumberOne]

Of course, this Yamato mini is also pretty cool: :D

Ah, yes, the Yamato from Star Blazers. My oldest daughter and I used to watch that show back in the '80's. Good pic. This would probably be the most accurate example of a WaS's ship, as far as I'm concerned. :D

[hornet69]

o how sweet it is. thanks bob

http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/images/SansWaveMotionGun.jpg

[hornet69]

It's too bad the Japanese only had two fo these cause I want four or five.

the japanese originially intended the yamato class to be 4 ships with the shinnano being converted to a aircraft carrier and the 4th one being stopped at 30% constructed. and a follow up class yamato kai class of another 4 being built only one was started 10%constucted .they were to have 3 main turrents of 2 20 inch guns .

[MarcusAurelius]

Bob,

Thanks for the photo. The Yamato looks great. I am intrigued. You mentioned in your post that you have "some" production copies. As in, more than one. Any chance you could post pics of the others? I'd also love to see the Yamato from different angles.

[TheCygnysGuardian]

The Yamato has, if I'm not mistaken, two Zero, or Hayate fighters, on it's stern catapults. Do you think will this give it some sort of advantage when repelling air attacks?

[Photoner Hawkwind]

Once I've created the conversion rules from A&A to WAS Japan will buy as many Yamato's as they can afford and I have available.

And I will buy as many carriers and keep them out of Range and send my planes to do the damage. :D

I only hope I get a few planes back afterwards. ;)

[Joisey]

The Yamato has, if I'm not mistaken, two Zero, or Hayate fighters, on it's stern catapults. Do you think will this give it some sort of advantage when repelling air attacks?


Ah, good call. Should these instead be float planes with pontoons? What did the Japanese use as scout planes? Anything without pontoons could not be recovered by the ship.

Have we identified the first goof in historical accuracy?

[MarcusAurelius]

The Yamato has, if I'm not mistaken, two Zero, or Hayate fighters, on it's stern catapults. Do you think will this give it some sort of advantage when repelling air attacks?

I think their role was more for spotting than defense, but this could be reflected in the Yamato's Anti-Air Gun rating.

[TheCygnysGuardian]

Ah, good call. Should these instead be float planes with pontoons? What did the Japanese use as scout planes? Anything without pontoons could not be recovered by the ship.

Have we identified the first goof in historical accuracy?

The Japanese used the Aichi E13A, Kawanishi E7K & Kawanishi N1K1 for recon & seaplanes. I'm not sure what the Yamato used for its planes. I do know that the Yamato had a squadron of seven planes on board.

Here's a list of Japanese seaplanes.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/IJARG/jpseaplane.html

[Joisey]

SEVEN PLANES!?! Mon Dieu, where did they find the room to store them all?

[Lynx7725]

The planes were typically used to scout and shadow, and perhaps also to direct fire. Seven planes isn't too unreasonable; the Yamato was a big ship and the stern area appeared to have a covered hanger for some -- maybe not seven, but a BB like this, probably has a decent scout detachment.

And if you think that's bad, how would you take a Tone CA?

[Cruizin2000]

The Yamato has, if I'm not mistaken, two Zero, or Hayate fighters, on it's stern catapults. Do you think will this give it some sort of advantage when repelling air attacks?

The Yamato carried Daves, Petes, and Jakes. It varied from year to year. No Hayates or Zero. The Zero floatplane was the Rufe.

C2000

[TheCygnysGuardian]

Ah, so I am mistaken. I must work on my Japanese plane identification.

[Texas_Archer]

Also, it was documented that later in the war, the Japanese navy used normal planes on catapults as a way of better defending themselves. Of course, once you launched the plane, it could not land, so the plane, if it survived combat, would ditch next to a friendly ship and the crew would be recovered. Whether or not this was the same with the Yamato or not, i do not know. Most of the examples given were used with Heavy Cruisers. The really wierd one was the conversion of two Japanese battleships (Ise and Hyuga i believe, though I could be wrong) that were modified after Midway to carry 22 fighter and bomber aircraft. They could take off from these ships, but could not land.

[Autarch]

The Yamato has, if I'm not mistaken, two Zero, or Hayate fighters, on it's stern catapults. Do you think will this give it some sort of advantage when repelling air attacks?

I always liked the way that seaplane handling was integrated into the design of the Yamato class, rather than treated as an after thought with other warships. I don't know what WotC plans are for the Yamato, but I don't recall dedicated fighters being flown from the Yamato. Interestingly enough, the allies had a program using fighters launched from catapults on merchant ships in the Atlantic.

One small complaint, the aft deck of the model looks oddly foreshortened. Compare with:

http://www.vspg.net/museum/10_1yamato/yamato-2.jpg

Perhaps this is only due to the camera angle, but there is almost enough room for another turret between the C turret and the catapults.

[dracos42]

The planes were typically used to scout and shadow, and perhaps also to direct fire. Seven planes isn't too unreasonable; the Yamato was a big ship and the stern area appeared to have a covered hanger for some -- maybe not seven, but a BB like this, probably has a decent scout detachment.

And if you think that's bad, how would you take a Tone CA?

Some, I don't know how many, US heavy and light cruisers, as well as the Alaskas, had hangers for their seaplanes. The battleships didn't though. Even the Iowas, in any of their incarnations.

I have never read of the Yamato or the Musashi launching fighters in battle.
And I don't think any battlewagon used its floatplanes for air defense. Force Z (Prince of Wales and Repulse) could have used their floatplanes, but would have made any difference?

Rambling on about naval topics is one of my pleasures in life. :)

Mike L.
Unrepentant naval gamer since the early 80's.

[Cruizin2000]

Some, I don't know how many, US heavy and light cruisers, as well as the Alaskas, had hangers for their seaplanes. The battleships didn't though. Even the Iowas, in any of their incarnations.

I have never read of the Yamato or the Musashi launching fighters in battle.
And I don't think any battlewagon used its floatplanes for air defense. Force Z (Prince of Wales and Repulse) could have used their floatplanes, but would have made any difference?

Rambling on about naval topics is one of my pleasures in life. :)

Mike L.
Unrepentant naval gamer since the early 80's.


The PoW carried Walrus seaplanes - dead meat.

C2000

[RBloom0566]

One small complaint, the aft deck of the model looks oddly foreshortened. Compare with:

http://www.vspg.net/museum/10_1yamato/yamato-2.jpg

Perhaps this is only due to the camera angle, but there is almost enough room for another turret between the C turret and the catapults.

Yes, it does look truncated, doesn't it? I don't think it's camera angle. Turret 3 to catapult proximity is pretty easy to see. They whacked off approximately 2" (scaled) of deck.

[Richter von Manthofen]

If you look closely you will notice that the catapults are more closely to the turret in the mini. Maybe the catapults were moveably (for operating position more at the aft of the ship as planes tended to loose some height when lifting in the air.

[Bobsalt]

If you look closely you will notice that the catapults are more closely to the turret in the mini. Maybe the catapults were moveably (for operating position more at the aft of the ship as planes tended to loose some height when lifting in the air.
The catapults were on swivels so as to allow a search plane to be launched in any direction, so the placement of the catapults looks correct. On the WotC mini the catapults are facing forward while on the photo of the museum model they're facing aft. However, this does mean that the planes on the WotC mini are on the catapults backwards...

[Joisey]

The catapults were on swivels so as to allow a search plane to be launched in any direction, so the placement of the catapults looks correct. On the WotC mini the catapults are facing forward while on the photo of the museum model they're facing aft. However, this does mean that the planes on the WotC mini are on the catapults backwards...
Time to blaming this on "the factory in China": 5....4....3.....

[Richter von Manthofen]

The catapults were on swivels so as to allow a search plane to be launched in any direction, so the placement of the catapults looks correct. On the WotC mini the catapults are facing forward while on the photo of the museum model they're facing aft. However, this does mean that the planes on the WotC mini are on the catapults backwards...

No the planes just landed :eek:

[MarcusAurelius]

I don't think the planes are on backwards. It's simply a challenge to represent the catapult area in minute detail at 1/1800 scale.

Take a look at this pic of a 1/350 Yamato model (over 5 times larger than WaS scale) from Tamiya. It looks like two planes are positioned on the catapult ready for launch. A third with wings folded has just come up from the hangar. The fourth is waiting its turn further back on deck.

[MarcusAurelius]

Here's another shot for comparison, this one a 1/350 Tamiya model of Yamato's sister ship Musashi.

[shadowhooch]

Okay, all these pics and names of Japanese Ships has me reminiscing.

Doe anyone else think the videogame "1943" was the absolute best shooter ever?

And the soundtrack was AWESOME. Boy, I'd love to have that soundtrack.

Does anyone have the list of carriers, destroyers, and battleships from the game and are we getting all of the in WAS?

(Sorry for the offtopicness)

[TheCygnysGuardian]

1943 is pretty good, but my favorite has to be Pearl Harbor - Zero Hour.
Now, back on topic...

[Joisey]

Here's another shot for comparison, this one a 1/350 Tamiya model of Yamato's sister ship Musashi.
Both photos show float planes being carried, so it appears we have identified WAS' first major goof on historical accuracy. I suppose a dedicated modeler could try to squeeze off a bit of epoxy under each wing and paint same to look like pontoons.

[Autarch]

If you look closely you will notice that the catapults are more closely to the turret in the mini. Maybe the catapults were moveably (for operating position more at the aft of the ship as planes tended to loose some height when lifting in the air.

It looks to me like the modeler overemphasized the service runs (rails on which wheeled pedestals ran that the planes sat upon while waiting their turn to launch) turning them into catapults.


The catapults were on swivels so as to allow a search plane to be launched in any direction, so the placement of the catapults looks correct. On the WotC mini the catapults are facing forward while on the photo of the museum model they're facing aft. However, this does mean that the planes on the WotC mini are on the catapults backwards...

The cat pivots are at the edges of the deck where it drops down to the hanger area. Look again at the WaS model, they aren't there at all. The cats couldn't swivel back toward the C turret to rest on the deck because of the AA guns between it and them (they could point forward but would hang off over the side). They couldn't swing inboard to do it either because of the crane, railing and winches. The apex of the W shaped service runs do extend all the way back to the gun and the outer arms past it. These arms are the part that is overemphasized making it look like a catapult.

I don't think the planes are on backwards. It's simply a challenge to represent the catapult area in minute detail at 1/1800 scale.

Take a look at this pic of a 1/350 Yamato model (over 5 times larger than WaS scale) from Tamiya. It looks like two planes are positioned on the catapult ready for launch. A third with wings folded has just come up from the hangar. The fourth is waiting its turn further back on deck.

Those are great models! I agree it is harder to capture detail the smaller the model gets (compare the 1/10 to the 1/350). But TWO errors were made with the WaS mini, the loss of the cats and turning the railed service runs into catapults.

[MarcusAurelius]

Is that really an error, or merely a design decision based on production realities?

Keep in mind that the aircraft we're referring to are something like 0.2 inches long. At that size, I'm not sure how anyone can definitively say they're not float planes. The WaS model also doesn't appear to have a crane, flag or any of the rigging that runs the length of the ship. (I'm sure someone else could easily come up with a dozen more "errors.") So what?

I don't think any of those things keep this from being a historically accurate and very cool miniature of the Yamato. You simply can't reproduce every aspect of an 800-foot ship in a 6-inch model.

[Cruizin2000]

Is that really an error, or merely a design decision based on production realities?

Keep in mind that the aircraft we're referring to are something like 0.2 inches long. At that size, I'm not sure how anyone can definitively say they're not float planes. The WaS model also doesn't appear to have a crane, flag or any of the support lines that run the length of the ship. (I'm sure someone else could easily come up with a dozen more "errors.") So what?

I don't think any of those things keep this from being a historically accurate and very cool miniature of the Yamato. You simply can't reproduce every aspect of an 800-foot ship in a 6-inch model.

Sure you can. A crane would be very simple. Same with a mast or two. They should be included as a piece that you glue on the model yourself.

C2000

[MarcusAurelius]

Sure you can. A crane would be very simple. Same with a mast or two. They should be included as a piece that you glue on the model yourself.

C2000

Doesn't that run counter to every design principle AAM is based on? You just take them out of the box and start playing, with nothing to paint or assemble.

That, of course, doesn't stop anyone from modifying their miniatures as they see fit.

[Bobsalt]

And of course, the more things that you have that are sticking up, the bigger the chance that they'll get broken off, either in packaging/shipping, or by careless handling. I have to say all in all this is not a bad mini at all. I still plan to wait until 2 or 3 sets are out though to see what direction the game goes before I buy any of it.

[Joisey]

Doesn't that run counter to every design principle AAM is based on? You just take them out of the box and start playing, with nothing to paint or assemble.

That, of course, doesn't stop anyone from modifying their miniatures as they see fit.
Yeah, I'm sure someone will get creative with toothpicks and thread to recreate a ship's flag signal lines, etc.

[Autarch]

Is that really an error, or merely a design decision based on production realities?

Keep in mind that the aircraft we're referring to are something like 0.2 inches long. At that size, I'm not sure how anyone can definitively say they're not float planes. The WaS model also doesn't appear to have a crane, flag or any of the support lines that run the length of the ship. (I'm sure someone else could easily come up with a dozen more "errors.") So what?

I don't think any of those things keep this from being a historically accurate and very cool miniature of the Yamato. You simply can't reproduce every aspect of an 800-foot ship in a 6-inch model.

I could see foregoing the masts and maybe even the crane: too soft a plastic and it would have twisted into a travisty. Too hard and it would just break off.

I guess your right, two additional identical pieces of plastic representing catapults to snap into holes would have broke the bank, as it were.

I think it is interesting that these details are retained in smaller models (1:2400):

http://www.panzerschiffe.com/images/B-015.jpg

[Muenchausen]

I could see foregoing the masts and maybe even the crane: too soft a plastic and it would have twisted into a travisty. Too hard and it would just break off.

I guess your right, two additional identical pieces of plastic to snap into holes would have broke the bank, as it were.

I think it is interesting that these details are retained in smaller models (1:2400):

http://www.panzerschiffe.com/images/B-015.jpg

Ya, but those are usually metal miniatures that you pay a small fortune for. One 1:2400 Iowa class BB $14.95. One booster of 1:1800 WAS minis, probably around $10.00.

[Autarch]

Actually the one I linked to was $5.

We'll probably be able to get WaS boosters online for $10, in bulk. I think retail is going to be $15 or so.

Those smaller sculpts do leave out a lot of details, I just thought it was funny that the things they retained were the two things the WotC mini lacks.

[MarcusAurelius]

Personally, I think this tops anything available in 1/2400 scale. As it should. I wouldn't buy Panzerschiffe for half the price. GHQ makes a pretty good version of the Yamato (below), but I'm simply not interested in spending up to $14.50 for a single ship that I still have to assemble and paint. I just don't have the time or money. My guess is that GHQ miniatures don't have cool rotating turrets, either.

It's also interesting to compare War at Sea to available larger scale models. I'd say the WaS Yamato holds up pretty well with the Neptun 1/1250 Yamato (the next step up in size and detail), especially when you consider that the latter carries a price tag of $93.00.

[MarcusAurelius]

WaS Yamato:

[MarcusAurelius]

Neptun 1/1250 Yamato (the file was too large to attach):

http://www.1250ships.com/models/neptun/images/ne1201_1_expand.jpg

[MarcusAurelius]

And finally, the Neptun 1/1250 Yamato in all her glory, fully rigged out and painted. The price: a cool $215.00. For the same amount, you could field several entire fleets of WaS miniatures.

http://www.1250ships.com/models/neptun/images/ne1201v_1_expand.jpg

[Richter von Manthofen]

actually I am a bit disappointed with the paintjob on "our" Yamato - mainly gray with wooden Deck and white planes, but what should we expect... its painted in china

[Cruizin2000]

actually I am a bit disappointed with the paintjob on "our" Yamato - mainly gray with wooden Deck and white planes, but what should we expect... its painted in china

Those floatplanes should be green. The Japanese did not use white airplanes. The "Betty" that was used during the surrender was white with green crosses.

C2000

[TheCygnysGuardian]

Those floatplanes should be green. The Japanese did not use white airplanes.

I disagree. The IJN used white aircraft.

[Cruizin2000]

I disagree. The IJN used white aircraft.

Most of the aircraft that were perceived as white was actualy gray with a green tinge. Which airplanes were white???

C2000

[TheCygnysGuardian]

Most of the aircraft that were perceived as white was actualy gray with a green tinge. Which airplanes were white???

I'm not saying that they were pure white. The whitish planes, off the top of my head, are the Val (though more of a cream,) the Zero & the Hayate.

[RichardBaker]

Marcus, you've got it about right. There is a real limit to what you can do with plastic and molds. One of our big challenges is "mold release"--basically, you can get great detail in two dimensions but not a third. We can cheat that a bit by creating multi-piece models that are assembled before you guys see them, with some pieces releasing horizontally and some releasing vertically. For example, our Yamato miniature has 7 pieces. But each additional piece costs us in assembly and painting steps.

Long and short of it: We figured out that we couldn't show relatively unimportant cranes, davits, boats, etc. unless they were really crucial to a ship's silhouette or could be sculpted as detail/relief on a neighboring piece.


Is that really an error, or merely a design decision based on production realities?

Keep in mind that the aircraft we're referring to are something like 0.2 inches long. At that size, I'm not sure how anyone can definitively say they're not float planes. The WaS model also doesn't appear to have a crane, flag or any of the rigging that runs the length of the ship. (I'm sure someone else could easily come up with a dozen more "errors.") So what?

I don't think any of those things keep this from being a historically accurate and very cool miniature of the Yamato. You simply can't reproduce every aspect of an 800-foot ship in a 6-inch model.

[TeToa]

I'm not saying that they were pure white. The whitish planes, off the top of my head, are the Val (though more of a cream,) the Zero & the Hayate.

the basic rule of thumb often with japanese air craft is that green/camo aircraft were army and white were navy based aircraft. it didnt matter which aircraft type it was but where it came from. the carrier aircraft would also have stripes around their fusalage to show which carrier they flew from. I.E. the Hiryu's aircraft had two blue stripes.

[Cruizin2000]

The airplanes were gray if they were naval although there were quite of bit of green planes or gray/green mottled color. Most of the army airplanes were a drab green and there were some silver and mottled green/silver. The silver was the raw color of the aircraft before it was painted.

As for the stripes, alot of the land based naval and army fighters had the stripes on the rudder and fuselage. Take Saburo Sakai's mount for instance, it had a blue stripe on the tail and fuselage. Carrier designations were also a letter/number combo. AI-XXX was the Akagi. I think that the Kaga had AII-XXX. I believe that the Hiryu had a B on the tail fin. I don't have my reference books or my aircraft collection with me so that's my best recollection.

C2000

[TeToa]

cool, i stand learnded (yes i know thats not a word).

[MarcusAurelius]

the basic rule of thumb often with japanese air craft is that green/camo aircraft were army and white were navy based aircraft. it didnt matter which aircraft type it was but where it came from. the carrier aircraft would also have stripes around their fusalage to show which carrier they flew from. I.E. the Hiryu's aircraft had two blue stripes.

What I've read largely confirms this. However, there doesn't seem to be any universal consensus. From most accounts, paint schemes for Japanese aircraft varied tremendously. This especially holds true for naval aircraft. Dark green, gray, pale gray, light blue gray, the list goes on and on.

Besides the fact that many of these aircraft were manufactured by different companies (and probably using different paint), there are a couple other factors to consider. One is that paint fades with exposure to the elements. I've also seen reference to Japanese carrier-based aircraft receiving a special finish as protection against corrosion, which gave them a silver metallic look.

[Cruizin2000]

What I've read largely confirms this. However, there doesn't seem to be any universal consensus. From most accounts, paint schemes for Japanese aircraft varied tremendously. This especially holds true for naval aircraft. Dark green, gray, pale gray, light blue gray, the list goes on and on.

Besides the fact that many of these aircraft were manufactured by different companies (and probably using different paint), there are a couple other factors to consider. One is that paint fades with exposure to the elements. I've also seen reference to Japanese carrier-based aircraft receiving a special finish as protection against corrosion, which gave them a silver metallic look.

Actually that "silver metallic" look was actually blue. It was used to prevent corrosion and rust. The Germans used it on ME-262s that were destined for aircraft carriers but as you know that never happend. My wife has a 1/48 Armour ME-262 that was meant for a carrier.

Also, some other cool info. The white line around the sun markings on Japanese airplanes were for "home defence". The George that was in the last set should've had those white outer markings on the sun insignia. For training purposes, there would be a big white number in the middle of the sun on the fuselage. I have a 1/48 diecast metal George that has those markings. Earlier training fighters had a flower like design on the rudder to denote the Akeno training center.

Since my family is German, and I heard alot of WWII stories about the war from that perspective, I really got into learning more about the Pacific war. My father was in the Pacific - go figure - German heritage.

C2000

[Imperious leader]

or you can buy skytrex 1/2400 for $1.95 each and buy exactly what you need and note that they are in axis and allies scale so the ships can be used for all of these games.

i dont think its a hard decision to make.

[Cruizin2000]

http://www.hlj.com/product/MRS73623

Here's a pic of one of my Georges.

C2000

[MarcusAurelius]

or you can buy skytrex 1/2400 for $1.95 each and buy exactly what you need and note that they are in axis and allies scale so the ships can be used for all of these games.

i dont think its a hard decision to make.

I believe that the Skytrex Davco and Navwar naval miniatures are actually 1/3000 scale. I see them as the next step up from counters. They give you a reasonably detailed, three-dimensional model at an affordable price. I'm guessing a lot of wargamers even leave them unpainted. If that's all you want, they're great.

That just doesn't really appeal to me. I've been thinking about getting into naval miniatures for a while. But I don't see what I'm looking for on the market right now. Skytrex and Navwar don't have the detail I want. GHQ and other larger scale miniatures (1/2400 or 1/1200) are too expensive for my budget, and I simply don't have the motivation, time or skill to paint entire fleets.

From what I've seen so far, War at Sea just might fit the bill.

[Cruizin2000]

I believe that the Skytrex Davco and Navwar naval miniatures are actually 1/3000 scale. I see them as the next step up from counters. They give you a reasonably detailed, three-dimensional model at an affordable price. I'm guessing a lot of wargamers even leave them unpainted. If that's all you want, they're great.

That just doesn't really appeal to me. I've been thinking about getting into naval miniatures for a while. But I don't see what I'm looking for on the market right now. Skytrex and Navwar don't have the detail I want. GHQ and other larger scale miniatures (1/2400 or 1/1200) are too expensive for my budget, and I simply don't have the motivation, time or skill to paint entire fleets.

From what I've seen so far, War at Sea just might fit the bill.

Try CnC's 1/4800 ships. They're about $6 per pack and have about 5-8 ships in each one. They're detailed for being small. The only downside is that they are Atlantic theatre and there's no carriers. A&A carriers work fine for that.

C2000

[MarcusAurelius]

Try CnC's 1/4800 ships. They're about $6 per pack and have about 5-8 ships in each one. They're detailed for being small. The only downside is that they are Atlantic theatre and there's no carriers. A&A carriers work fine for that.

C2000

Saw some photos of C-in-C's 1/4800 naval miniatures online. Not bad. But I'm looking for greater detail than Skytrex or GHQ, not less.

I went through a similar process with my first foray into naval wargaming: the ironclad battles of the American Civil War. I looked at Navwar, Houston and other manufacturers before finally ordering some beautifully detailed 1/1200 ships from Langton Miniatures (check them out at www.rodlangton.com) in the UK. A little pricey, but I wasn't looking to build huge fleets.

Unfortunately, the Union and Confederate navies have yet to challenge each other for supremacy on the Mississippi because because my miniatures remain unassembled and unpainted almost a year later. I haven't found a ruleset that's to my liking, either (and that's after reviewing at least a dozen).

[Imperious leader]

You can mono paint them in axis and allies colors. Or you can just use 3 colors (top deck, bulkhead, guns) and add some stickers. Half the fun is buying a huge fleet and painting a few every day while watching TV or whatever. The detail is pretty good. GHQ has better detail but the ships are too large and the metals are too soft and hollow, plus you have to put them together. All Skytrex stuff is one piece.

then you buy vapor trails tumbling dice 1/700 planes and your set.

[Cruizin2000]

Saw some photos of C-in-C's 1/4800 naval miniatures online. Not bad. But I'm looking for greater detail than Skytrex or GHQ, not less.

I went through a similar process with my first foray into naval wargaming: the ironclad battles of the American Civil War. I looked at Navwar, Houston and other manufacturers before finally ordering some beautifully detailed 1/1200 ships from Langton Miniatures (check them out at www.rodlangton.com) in the UK. A little pricey, but I wasn't looking to build huge fleets.

Unfortunately, the Union and Confederate navies have yet to challenge each other for supremacy on the Mississippi because because my miniatures remain unassembled and unpainted almost a year later. I haven't found a ruleset that's to my liking, either (and that's after reviewing at least a dozen).



For some decent FREE rules go to:

http://freewargamesrules.tiddlyspot.com/

I really like the WWII Skirmish Rules and the ACW rules called Glory Days.

ACW Naval Rules
http://home.freeuk.com/gazkhan/naval.htm

http://www.juniorgeneral.org/naval/mobile%20bay/mobile%20bay.html

http://www.angelfire.com/games3/jacksongamer/ironclads.htm

There's a few for you.

C2000

[Autarch]

Marcus, you've got it about right. There is a real limit to what you can do with plastic and molds. One of our big challenges is "mold release"--basically, you can get great detail in two dimensions but not a third. We can cheat that a bit by creating multi-piece models that are assembled before you guys see them, with some pieces releasing horizontally and some releasing vertically. For example, our Yamato miniature has 7 pieces. But each additional piece costs us in assembly and painting steps.

Long and short of it: We figured out that we couldn't show relatively unimportant cranes, davits, boats, etc. unless they were really crucial to a ship's silhouette or could be sculpted as detail/relief on a neighboring piece.

I can understand the limitations of the process. Justin had a nice article awhile back explaining how rarity was determined for A&AM units based on the number of asssembly steps or deco ops used in the process. No doubt this also pertains to WaS.

Of the seven pieces comprising the Yamato, I'd guess the hull and superstructure are two seperate pieces, and the remaining five are the moveable turrets. I'm curious though, would three extra snap on pieces (catapults, crane) be that cost prohibative? If labor is the problem, including them in the bag seems acceptable with a disclaimer on the box "some minor assembly may be required". Heck, having to do some minor assembly of some of the ships could be marketed as a fun factor...

[MarcusAurelius]

If labor is the problem, including them in the bag seems acceptable with a disclaimer on the box "some minor assembly may be required". Heck, having to do some minor assembly of some of the ships could be marketed as a fun factor...

From the beginning, AAM has always been about miniatures that are ready to play out of the box. Absolutely no painting or assembly necessary. I think that's one of the primary appeals of the game.

[whitewind]

From the beginning, AAM has always been about miniatures that are ready to play out of the box. Absolutely no painting or assembly necessary. I think that's one of the primary appeals of the game.Sure that has been their marketing position but they are just talking something like " snapping the turrets into their sockets and maybe a largish superstructure right? That's not very hard at all and almost would not even be considered as assembly. If it took a great amount off the price and even improved quality what the heck. All just speculation of coarse.

[RichardBaker]

In fact, those are the seven pieces of the Yamato.

Additional pieces cost us more to paint, too. If you've seen Justin's article you know we're limited in the number of "deco ops" we can do. Each separate piece needs painting, that's 7 deco ops right there. More pieces would mean more deco ops, even if assembly was not included. Plus, we do feel that "play out of the box" is an important goal.


I can understand the limitations of the process. Justin had a nice article awhile back explaining how rarity was determined for A&AM units based on the number of asssembly steps or deco ops used in the process. No doubt this also pertains to WaS.

Of the seven pieces comprising the Yamato, I'd guess the hull and superstructure are two seperate pieces, and the remaining five are the moveable turrets. I'm curious though, would three extra snap on pieces (catapults, crane) be that cost prohibative? If labor is the problem, including them in the bag seems acceptable with a disclaimer on the box "some minor assembly may be required". Heck, having to do some minor assembly of some of the ships could be marketed as a fun factor...

[Lynx7725]

In fact, those are the seven pieces of the Yamato.

Additional pieces cost us more to paint, too. If you've seen Justin's article you know we're limited in the number of "deco ops" we can do. Each separate piece needs painting, that's 7 deco ops right there. More pieces would mean more deco ops, even if assembly was not included. Plus, we do feel that "play out of the box" is an important goal.
And yes, "Play out of the Box" is rather important to me too. A few months ago I picked up a Takara Yahagi (?) collectable ship -- yes, they have that -- and it annoyed me to no end that the finer parts need to be separately assembled. I can understand the need, but it's annoying.

WaS isn't a modelling game. If I want a modelling game I go play 40K. Having came from a background where you pay for stuff to assemble and paint yourself, and hence the enormous time lag between purchase and game, I can tolerate a slight bit of inaccuracy in the miniature if it helps me to get into the game faster -- provided the game holds up on its own. :)

[aquarius]

I thought it would be cool for some of you guys to read what you posted a LOOOOOOONNNGGGG time ago. ;)

[Muenchausen]

It's too bad the Japanese only had two fo these cause I want four or five.

I hate quoting myself but here goes. The fourth and fifth Yamato's have been very elusive. I guess I'm too cheap to pay $10.00 to $12.00 a piece before shipping. Any ways, problem solved. I'll just pick up two Musashi's. :D

[Jesse_James]

I hate quoting myself but here goes. The fourth and fifth Yamato's have been very elusive. I guess I'm too cheap to pay $10.00 to $12.00 a piece before shipping. Any ways, problem solved. I'll just pick up two Musashi's. :D

Hey, I can even get a second one. I almost had one, but lost it to some old guy on ebay at the last second. It sold for $22.50 :mad:


P.s. I assume he is old from his screen name: Grandpa_Gamer

[Muenchausen]

Hey, I can even get a second one. I almost had one, but lost it to some old guy on ebay at the last second. It sold for $22.50 :mad:


P.s. I assume he is old from his screen name: Grandpa_Gamer

That wasn't me JJ. I didn't rain on your parade.