War at Sea Photos and Set List

[djensen47]

http://www.axisandallies.org/node/240

I scour the web looking for this stuff and I put it up on axisandallies.org, so why aren't you visiting more often? We miss you. ;)

[polish_horsy]

sweet jesus Italy gets almost as much as Germany...

thanks for the unit list.

[polish_horsy]

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/?p=5750

I'll cut right to the pictures...

I can see why the planes are commons.

[Sean-Khan]

Sweet! Thanks for posting! :D

Undecided about quality - of course as these are so early, we don't know if those are final paintjobs. They don't look as good as I hoped, but seeing them on table may be different thing... Certainly they look like that a thin black wash would make them look a lot better!

Still wondering about uniqueness -thing; Do you think there will there be some kind of rule that shows how many ships of a kind you can put to your fleet? I know few ships that had only one sister ship (Yamato, Bismark, Scharnhorst) - any other models anyone knows to having existed only 1-2 ships?

Good to see there's some freighters too :) And Stukas hint about possibility of land bases - but how are the germans defending against enemy airplanes?

We'll get advanced rules soon, wheeeee! :D

[AngryBeaver]

I'm not too fond of how the planes look, but the ships seem ok. I'm definately in for buying the starter and some boosters, but i'll see after that if I'm in it for the long haul.

Thanks for posting the link!

[Sean-Khan]

I'm not too fond of how the planes look, but the ships seem ok.

I think that planes will be great - those pics are REALLY magnified!

[Autarch]

I wonder which version we will get, the ones previewed in the articles or the ones from TTN. I really dislike the bluegreen deck paint of the US ships.

I just read from the ship list that this is a "review copy", so this may or may not be from the final production run.

[pixelgeek]

I just read from the ship list that this is a "review copy", so this may or may not be from the final production run.

The review kit they sent was a starter and two blisters so these are the actual shipping miniatures that you will get.

[pixelgeek]

I think that planes will be great - those pics are REALLY magnified!

They are indeed. They look quite good on the table and the stands they are one are really quite neat.

[Sean-Khan]

Btw, colours may not be what they look like here - electric light may often make colours look strange.

[grillcookr2]

I like to say Gneisenau instead of Sharnhorst.

I am ****** that they made the U.S.S. St. Lo as America's Escort Carrier. Come on AH give the Battle of the Atlantic it's due. You should have made the Bogue or the Card, the top Submarine hunters of the Atlantic.

[Autarch]

The review kit they sent was a starter and two blisters so these are the actual shipping miniatures that you will get.

I was afraid of that. :(

[Vikingwarrior]

I think the planes look awful. I'm not to kean on the ships either.

[fifleche]

Hmmm... A real focus on the pacific here, Japan-USA to be precise.

2 for Australia
3 for France
9 for the UK
19 for the US of A
9 for Germany
6 for Italy
16 for Japan

64 units

Quite surprised (happily) that France gets 3 units, it's way more than I tought.

Quite surprised (dissapointed) that Canada didn't get a single unit, considering we had the 3rd largest fleet at the end of the war...

[Lotus]

Thanks for posting those. And I do pop over at your site periodically and say howdie. Good as ever. :)

What I really want to see is how the subs look, and what the rules will be for subs and PT boats.

[pixelgeek]

I think the planes look awful. I'm not to kean on the ships either.

Reserve your judgement until I get some better photos up. :-) Those were taken with a flash later in the evening.

[Flyboy]

Im very much in love but im worried about the SS Jerimia O Brian. I know that its just one certain ship so shouldnt it be a Rare? I mean shouldnt there just be a unit called Liberty Ship?

[RBloom0566]

They are indeed. They look quite good on the table and the stands they are one are really quite neat.

Quite good?!? Good?!? Are we looking at the same miniatures? It looks like the only thing they did with quality was the scale. If these are the actual pieces and not just some half-done, concept sculpts I won't be touching this game with a 10'-pole!

What a humongous disappointment for a hard-core naval gamer. Consider me through with A&AM altogether. :mad:

[RBloom0566]

I think the planes look awful. I'm not to kean on the ships either.

They look horrible--all of them. There HAS to be a better looking set of minis out there somewhere. I'll just keep looking. No more of my money on A&AM.

[Flyboy]

"What a humongous disappointment for a hard-core naval gamer. Consider me through with A&AM altogether."
Umm dude? you ok? Sure it aint the best model ever but come on the people that make these things are only getting paid minimum wadge for their country

[skeevo666]

sweet jesus Italy gets almost as much as Germany...



Well, of the two who had the bigger navy . . ?





.

[pixelgeek]

Quite good?!? Good?!? Are we looking at the same miniatures?

Yes and no. You're looking, as I mentioned, some medium quality photos of the figs. I'm basing my comments on seeing the actual minis on the table.

As it notes in the article, the actual figs do have more contrast in them than the photos show.

I'd be hesitant to base a full opinion of them from the photos there.

[Diamondback]

Quite surprised (dissapointed) that Canada didn't get a single unit, considering we had the 3rd largest fleet at the end of the war...

Yeah, but it wasn't real hard to come in at #3 after the US/UK either sunk, damaged-beyond-repair or scrapped all competition. ;)

My bet is, they're saving a Canadian force for W@S: Set 2. Or, they should be...

[horacus]

Great info. A lot of thanks sir. I think, I will buy a little, only a few singles....I know I'm liying to myself....sad.......

Well, the planes are not, well....I see why they will be commons.

[dictator_wanna_be]

Reserve your judgement until I get some better photos up. :-) Those were taken with a flash later in the evening.

Hopfully b/c they (planes) do look rather terrible in the pics provided...

[fifleche]

Anyone can dig up a photo of planes next to a "scaled" ship?

By "scaled", I mean one which we know the approximative size. Thanks.

[pixelgeek]

Hopfully b/c they (planes) do look rather terrible in the pics provided...

Most small scale planes don't look all that great IMO

By "scaled", I mean one which we know the approximative size. Thanks.

Such as? I have The Ark Royal, Rodney, Atlanta, Koln and Enterprise that I can use in a photo

[fifleche]

Pixelgeek, that's exactly what I meant. I assume you're the one that took the photos of the Enterprise next to a measuring tape, no? Then put some planes on/next and shoot!

:)

[FreeFrench]

OK. Well. All-lefty then. I must say that I am deeply disappointed. Gun barrels? Who needs 'em I say. Just plonk down a slab of plastic, that'll keep 'em happy. Masts? Radar? That blobby thing'll do just fine. I mean, they're all blind gamers anyway, aren't they? They're not? Well, maybe these are models of the ships AFTER they were sunk and dragged back up off the ocean floor then. Either that or some exploited sweat shop worker shat them out on his lunch break.

I think these figures are revolting. I do hope this is some cruel joke and that WotC does not expect me to actually pay for them. I will buy some of these units only after reading the community's posts here. The pictures from WotC looked so promising...I hope they weren't trying to dupe us. That would be shameful.

[Sean-Khan]

Hey PixelGeek - right now what I'd like to hear the most would be your personal opinion of the pieces, as you apparently have seen the pieces live.

So, what's your unbiased opinion of those? :) What's good, what's bad, any special comments?

Edit: Er, did we get you wrong, is it you who took the pics? Or djensen? Personal opinions would be most appreciated anyway :)

[GreekPartisan]

I am not impressed, to say the least...

[pixelgeek]

So, what's your unbiased opinion of those? :) What's good, what's bad, any special comments?

This is based on seeing just four boosters worth of minis...

The larger models such as the Enterprise are quite nice.

I think the models do suffer when you pick them up and look at them close-up but they look quite nice on the table and while you are playing a game. The minis do have more contrast than the pictures that I have posted (and I did mention that) and I was rather pleasantly surprised.

They are plastic and at this scale they won't have the same level of detail that a metal or resin mini will so expecting them to have crisp towers and detailed turrets is creating false expectations.

The larger the fig the better the details.

The planes all look generic but I can't recall ever seeing a plane that scale that didn't look generic.

I think that they'll make good minis for playing the game

I'm **far** more concerned with the distribution in the game and the fact that there are even more than four factions in this set.

I would have much preferred having UK, German, US and Japanese in the core set and then adding fleets like the Ilatians and French in later expansions.

[pixelgeek]

Pixelgeek, that's exactly what I meant. I assume you're the one that took the photos of the Enterprise next to a measuring tape, no? Then put some planes on/next and shoot!

I'll see if I have some time to do that before I head out this afternoon.

They might not get posted till later this evening but I want to take photos with more ambient light this time

[FSSF]

You guys are really going to buy this?
The minis are really ugly and very crude looking. Even worse, is this the extent of what WOTC calls 'Pre-painted' miniatures?!? A beige deck on a otherwise grey boat? Random-looking strokes of paint on another grey boat's side? Yuck! You got to be kidding me! And of course, USA gets almost 1/3 the set's slots to themselves, more than half of all allies units...

[Vikingwarrior]

I looked at the pieces again to see if my second impression would be any different and it is not. I would say that as "game pieces" they are fine, but as "collectibles" they are atrocious. The propellers on the planes look like they should be in a Popeye Cartoon. The guns on the ships look like they were carved out of a bar of soap. I wasn't going to buy these before and these pictures definately made that descision look like a very good one. WoTc has got to be kidding me. They should do themselves a favor and squash this project NOW before anymore damage is done. This game won't appeal to the collector, the naval buff or the wargamer, stick to AAM. :mad:

[horacus]

Also, the price of the booster is higer(14.99 if I'm not wrong) for only 4 or 5 figure per booster, and now, the stadart Axis booster cost 9.99, so, I don't see any logic here. I thik that, maybie, i it's worth it, I ma buy a Graft Spee and a Bismarck,but, no more.

[Autarch]

This is based on seeing just four boosters worth of minis...

I'm **far** more concerned with the distribution in the game and the fact that there are even more than four factions in this set.


Could you give us a breakdown of your pulls by booster/starter?
The larger models such as the Enterprise are quite nice.

I think the models do suffer when you pick them up and look at them close-up but they look quite nice on the table and while you are playing a game. The minis do have more contrast than the pictures that I have posted (and I did mention that) and I was rather pleasantly surprised.

They are plastic and at this scale they won't have the same level of detail that a metal or resin mini will so expecting them to have crisp towers and detailed turrets is creating false expectations.

The larger the fig the better the details.

I think that they'll make good minis for playing the game

I think the Ark Royal looks great! It is more in line with the pics from the opening salvo. They look better in comparison to the other ships since they are either the original proofs or publicity mock ups. Still, the other's are passable as long as you understand they are not supposed to be museum quality. But what has really taken me aback are the puke green-blue decks on the US ships. That doesn't look anywhere close to Deck Blue (20-B). If that's the early war Enterprise, then it needs to be the correct teak color.

The planes all look generic but I can't recall ever seeing a plane that scale that didn't look generic.

Are they the same scale as A&A boardgame planes or about half the size?

[pixelgeek]

Could you give us a breakdown of your pulls by booster/starter?

I only kept track of the starter pulls. I had two boosters so the data would be far from useful I think.

I'll comment on the starter pulls in the review

Are they the same scale as A&A boardgame planes or about half the size?

Haven't played it in years and years so I couldn't tell you.

[pixelgeek]

This game won't appeal to the collector, the naval buff or the wargamer, stick to AAM. :mad:

I'm curious about this reaction since they don't appear to be any worse in terms of sculpts than the AAM minis so why are you so down on these?

[elbowsanchez]

will pass on this one...thanks for posting some pics, certainly assisted with my choice...

ES

[Count_Ciano]

Okay, I am hoping this is just a misprint at the gallery site, because if not, I may have found a "loopy" mini already!:rolleyes:

WAS's Koln class German light cruiser :
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/TheCount/koln-tm.jpg

Souithampton class British light cruiser:
http://uboat.net/allies/warships/photos/br/cl_hms_glasgow.jpg

A few too many similarities for my tastes (I thought the WAS Koln had one too many bow turrets).

I think I might just stick with AAM and pass this WAS up; I'll just stick with the devil ( and loopy minis) that I know, thank you very much. :rolleyes:

[pixelgeek]

Okay, I am hoping this is just a misprint at the gallery site, because if not, I may have found a "loopy" mini already!

Its safer to assume I mislabelled the fig :-) I'll double check the mini I shot

[Count_Ciano]

Its safer to assume I mislabelled the fig :-) I'll double check the mini I shot
Probably a good idea. ;) The Koln class cruisers had only 3 turrets in a rather unusual configuration ( 1 bow and 2 aft), definitely didn't have 4 turrets. Thought I'd throw out the "heads up", either way. :D

[Vikingwarrior]

I'm curious about this reaction since they don't appear to be any worse in terms of sculpts than the AAM minis so why are you so down on these?

Where do I start? You are kidding right? While there are AAM mini's that are a complete joke ie. 3"gun, Messershpit ect. The Base set is pretty good. This is WoTc first run of this mess. What will future runs look like if this is the best they can do to kick the game off? Some other points:

1) you are paying roughly $3 per mini for WAS for something that costs them probably 25 cents to make (and I'm being generous here it's probably more like 15 cents)

2) The planes look cartoonish. AAM 's are not great but they are far superior to the props on the WAS planes. Those planes would nose dive right into the sea with that weight on their nose.

3) The turret guns could have been carved by a twelve year old out of soap and it would have looked just as good.

4) What's with the color on the carriers deck?

5) My guess is you will need at least a case of these minis to have a decent fleet for the representative countries. I'm sorry an investment of $180 for 60 ships/planes of this quality s just rediculous. I wouldn't give you 20 cents for those planes.

Anybody who invests in this game should have their head examined. Maybe steal the rules, if of course, they are any good and purchase model ships from someone else. I could go on but you get the point.

[dracos42]

You guys are really going to buy this?
The minis are really ugly and very crude looking. Even worse, is this the extent of what WOTC calls 'Pre-painted' miniatures?!? A beige deck on a otherwise grey boat? Random-looking strokes of paint on another grey boat's side? Yuck! You got to be kidding me! And of course, USA gets almost 1/3 the set's slots to themselves, more than half of all allies units...

The USA's set slots may have something to do with the historical size of the US Navy in relation to the other Allied and Axis navies.

[RBloom0566]

OK, I'm dedicated to naval gaming enough that I can give these minis a 2nd chance after some sleep with awake eyes. Looking at the pics now...

The Enterprise - Looks good, but there's only so much damage you can do to an aircraft carrier mini.

The Atlanta - Still bad. Look at the turrets. There are no "guns" per se', only blobs that represent turrets. The "guns" are shafts of plastic that reach from "gun" to ship deck. All edges/lines are very soft.

The Ark Royal - Again, only so much you can do to ruin a carrier.

The Rodney - I don't see how they can make guns that elevate with these bulk uni-body turrets. All surfaces very round and soft. Looks like a model that was exposed to extreme heat and all the sharpness melted away.

The Koln - Actually looks better than the Rodney and Atlanta, if it's the Koln [see earlier post concern.]

Dauntless' - The only way you'll be able to distinguish between different makes of planes is by the names on the cards at this rate. Previous poster was right--these are going to be too small to be at all representative of the actual planes--more like painted blobs.

Vals - See Dauntless'.

Scale Shot - I LIKE the fact that they seem to have gotten the scale of these four accurate. Good that they fixed their scaling issues. Too bad they had to un-fix everything else to get there.


If I seem harsh it's because I listened to the sales pitch and was expecting a high quality line of minis for War at Sea. At least I found out it was just a pipe-dream before investing money.

Diorama quality? I had no expectations of that, but at least something along the lines of Matchbox Sea Kings for crying out loud! These are more like Galoob bathtub toys.

[RBloom0566]

Where do I start? You are kidding right? While there are AAM mini's that are a complete joke ie. 3"gun, Messershpit ect. The Base set is pretty good. This is WoTc first run of this mess. What will future runs look like if this is the best they can do to kick the game off? Some other points:

1) you are paying roughly $3 per mini for WAS for something that costs them probably 25 cents to make (and I'm being generous here it's probably more like 15 cents)

2) The planes look cartoonish. AAM 's are not great but they are far superior to the props on the WAS planes. Those planes would nose dive right into the sea with that weight on their nose.

3) The turret guns could have been carved by a twelve year old out of soap and it would have looked just as good.

4) What's with the color on the carriers deck?

5) My guess is you will need at least a case of these minis to have a decent fleet for the representative countries. I'm sorry an investment of $180 for 60 ships/planes of this quality s just rediculous. I wouldn't give you 20 cents for those planes.

Anybody who invests in this game should have their head examined. Maybe steal the rules, if of course, they are any good and purchase model ships from someone else. I could go on but you get the point.

I'm with you on this one Viking.

[pixelgeek]

You are kidding right?

You'll find that as you go through life people often have opinions that are different than yours and its simply a matter of them having a different viewpoint and not that they are making a joke.

If you want to discuss the issue I'm happy to do so but please don't insult me with these sorts of cheap rhetorical remarks.

[pixelgeek]

Okay, I am hoping this is just a misprint at the gallery site, because if not, I may have found a "loopy" mini already!

I did indeed mislabel it. Its supposed to be the HMS Ajax.

[pixelgeek]

Two new images I just took. These aren't posted on TGN I just took them so people here can get a slightly better idea of the ship scales and the colours

http://i18.tinypic.com/2v9epz8.jpg

http://i5.tinypic.com/2ut3rmc.jpg

The mini with the clear plastic base is a sub. All the subs appear to have this base

I think that there are two issues getting conflated here. The issue of the quality of the minis and the price that they are going to be offered at.

I don't think these are bad minis.

I wouldn't pay $3 a piece for them though.

[The_SunDance_Kid]

The ships are ok. Not great. The Planes are suckalicious. Hope they are not worth $15.00 a booster. Not worth it.

[maciej12]

Personally, for playing the game I think they will be fine. I at first was apprehensive, but the lastest set of pics makes me want to buy some. I will probably get more starters though, it would be cheaper that way to get more minis. Of course then you would also get less rares that way, but overall more ships for the money than boosters.

[polish_horsy]

The quality is fair... it is almost exactly what I expected. I think for people who expected great looking planes at that scale may have been expecting too much from plastic. I think the single larger bomber is not too bad actually. I give what I see so far a C+, which is no worse then sets III and V of AA mini. Better than set IV (AA mini) and a little worse than set I and II if you ask me.

[Major Adler]

Yikes!...what a terrible selection of stuff for the Brits...

you cannot even re-create the Hood + Price of Wales vs. Bismark + Prinz Eugen battle...

no KGV class BB...what a joke...who wants the Rodney...blah...

the Italians have a better selection considering their navy...

after all the complaints and suggestions with regards to game design and minis that have been posted on this board...you give us this AH...I give you a big fat "F"...

[Lotus]

....I think that there are two issues getting conflated here. The issue of the quality of the minis and the price that they are going to be offered at.

I don't think these are bad minis.

I wouldn't pay $3 a piece for them though.

$3 a piece also covers rules, etc., but yeah, I've thought of that too. For me it's relative. $3 for a really nice ship is not the same as $3 for a squadron of planes at less quality. At this point it's the rules I want to see. Like Polish Horsey said, the quality is just about what I expected. One thing I think could have, and still could, improve the look of the planes is to ditch the clunky props. They're not needed and as they'd be spinning you'd never see them anyhow.

Again, though, it's the rules for me at this point that will make the dif.

The ships look great, IMO.

[Sean-Khan]

This is based on seeing just four boosters worth of minis...

...


Thanks! :)

I also agree your opinion about nations as I'm also planning to get only those, although it seems that many here want other countries too.

[Muenchausen]

You'll find that as you go through life people often have opinions that are different than yours and its simply a matter of them having a different viewpoint and not that they are making a joke.

If you want to discuss the issue I'm happy to do so but please don't insult me with these sorts of cheap rhetorical remarks.

Pixelgeek. No good deed goes unpunished. Thanks for the pics. If you have any more I would appreciate seeing them. As far as some of the remarks go, don;t take it personnal. You definately brought some of the posters out of hibernation.

What is the quality of the plastic, is it flexible or firm? Also are the hulls solid or hollow?

[pixelgeek]

What is the quality of the plastic, is it flexible or firm? Also are the hulls solid or hollow?

Hard plastic for the larger ships like the Ark Royal and the Enterprise and softer plastic for the other ships. Essentially the same plastic used for the AAM figures.

Most of the minis have a small indentation in the base of them. The Enterprise and Ark Royal are mostly hollow

[Autarch]

I only kept track of the starter pulls. I had two boosters so the data would be far from useful I think.

I'll comment on the starter pulls in the review



Haven't played it in years and years so I couldn't tell you.

PG, thanks for the pics and keep them coming. Looking forward to your article.

I'm not sure I could pay full retail for this game. If some online retailors sell each case for around $100 like A&AM, that makes each individual price average out to $1.65 which seems more reasonable to me.

[shousa]

It that second pic is showing the Koln mini in question it looks clear that they got the '1 fromt, 2 rear' thing right.

[dracos42]

What is the ship with the 5 gun turrets, 2 forward, 2 aft, and one amidships? My first guess is some kind of British AA cruiser or a large destroyer of some nationality.

Mike L.

[Muenchausen]

What is the ship with the 5 gun turrets, 2 forward, 2 aft, and one amidships? My first guess is some kind of British AA cruiser or a large destroyer of some nationality.

Mike L.

The only ships I could fined with the configuartion your talking about was the cruisers HMS Queen Mary and the HMS Princess Royal. Both were made prior to WWI. The Queen Mary was sunk in the battle of Jutland.

[Major Adler]

that the midship "turret" may be a torpedo launcher...hard to say since the quality of the mold is so bad...

[Stealth]

What is the ship with the 5 gun turrets, 2 forward, 2 aft, and one amidships? My first guess is some kind of British AA cruiser or a large destroyer of some nationality.

Mike L.

The Fletcher class DD's had 2 single 5" mounts forward, 2 aft, and 1 amidships, so that may be it.

[Major Adler]

yes that could be the AH mini conception of a Fletcher class DD...

[pixelgeek]

What is the ship with the 5 gun turrets, 2 forward, 2 aft, and one amidships? My first guess is some kind of British AA cruiser or a large destroyer of some nationality.

It is the Fletcher

[Lynx7725]

Thanks Pixelgeek, for the preview. Any stuff on the rules?

Here are my opinions:

In terms of ship sculpt, these aren't the best there possibly can be -- just check out the Tamiya 1/700 lines and you'll see what I mean.

In terms of playability, and value for effort/money, these aren't too bad. Considering the amount of effort I would need to put together a 1/700 and painting them, the WAS ships are worth considering.

Of course, I'm not too happy about certain things -- having built a 1/700 HMS Nelson before, the WAS HMS Rodney looks decidedly weird. The USS Atlanta too, looks odd (which is a big deal to me because for some odd reason I like the Atlanta class), but it could be the camera work; having done miniature photography before, it is very easy to accidentally make the mini look terrible. BTW, that's not implying PixelGeek is terrible or anything, that he made the effort to let us have these covers for a lot of things. :)

The paint scheme looks weird to me but I believe these are likely to be accurate war camouflage patterns. One of the things about our histories is that they tend to be written/ photographed after the fact; a lot of us were exposed to movies where naval ships were totally gleaming white (or grey), but a lot of those movies were done in the 50's or 60's when the ships had been repainted in more peaceful schemes. So having odd coloured decks -- the USS Enterprise had wooden decks, so a blue colour threw me off -- may actually be historically accurate, but aesthetically uninteresting. :D

So for the ships, I think they're quite.. acceptable. Not the best of course, but under the circumstances, they are fairly ok. (More on this later.)

As for aircraft, well, there I got problems with WaS.

The aircraft looked terrible. The main problem is the propellers. There's no reason for those to be sculpted on; at 1/900, a 13' 4" long propeller -- one of the largest, mounted on the F-4U Corsair -- would be reduced to 0.17 inch. Which would be nearly impossible to see, not to mention the breath would be a hair's width. It's one of those things that are quite silly to put on a model, so IMO they should have left it out and just left the propeller hub there.

Other than that, 1/900 is a difficult scale to work with, since the fine details cannot be easily captured. I said it before, IMO WotC should have gone with 1/700, especially since there's a great many number of model aircraft at this scale for them -- and us -- to base off. Overall, I'll say the aircraft are the weak points here.

As for the distribution list..

Generally speaking, having a big USN and IJN presence is no surprise and fully justifiable. I got no issues with that. It appears in general that aircraft, PT/ MTB/ Z-Boats, Subs, DDs, DDEs are commons; Merchantmen, CLs, CAs and CVEs are uncommons, and BCs, BBs, CVs are rares. Looks to be reasonable, though I wish some CLs are commons. Or at least, more DD classes.

What I really didn't like is that for most nations with naval aviation, we got about 50% of the commons as aircraft. Coupled with the merchantmen, subs, and PT boats, we got maybe 1 DD/ DDE in 5 commons, and this is bothersome. In fleet actions and tasks forces, DDs are the ones which filled the gaps, and right now it looks like I won't get enough DDs in a single case -- we are already getting comparatively fewer commons than other CMGs, so this distribution lists just hurts more.

Personally, I think WotC might have been better off giving 2 DD classes (for USN and IJN), and dropping the PT boats/ subchasers. That would give a better overall probability to the consumers.

Lastly, I'm amused that in AAM we don't have a Ju-87B, but in WaS we would get one.. especially considering that Germany never had naval aviation.

[Lynx7725]

I think I want to say something about some of the responses this thread has gotten.

IMO, some of us gotten burnt on some of WotC's early advertising blurbs on AAM. Heck I was one. Understandably, we are a bit cautious about WaS; the packaging and distribution makes WaS actually more expensive than AAM, on a set-on-set basis.

Given the pics we've seen so far, WaS definitely isn't in the non-collectible, paint-yourself quality band, but to be honest, WotC never marketed them as such. Given budgetary considerations, material considerations, WaS stuff isn't too bad. For me, I've established that the quality isn't too terrible for me, and the sole remaining point is what price my LGS is going to see it to me.

It's fine to criticize the products based on your opinions, but please keep personal attacks out of the rants, hmm? Some of us have very different opinions from each other.

Building on that though, what options do we have on the market for a naval miniature combat game? Sure, there bound to be a few, but do me a favour and total up the purchase, assembly and painting costs; are the alternatives really that much better than the WaS minis we have seen? As a working adult with not much free time, I'm extremely sensitive to how much of my free time has to be devoted to bringing miniatures online in order to play and have fun.

If there are alternatives that are as time-efficient as WaS appears to be, I'll like to know of them! I just bought Mongoose's Victory at Sea, so I've got vested interest in finding these alternatives.

[Legbiter]

<snip>

Thank-you for your excellent work!

"I don't think these are bad minis."

I agree.

"I wouldn't pay $3 a piece for them though."

I would. I've played with many worse minis in a long and basically unsuccessful series of attempts to find a quick, fun but absorbing War at Sea game. The best was Harpoon but the book-keeping on that game is a bore, and so is assembling/painting the minis.

Any slight discontent I might feel relates to there not being any Soviet coastal craft/aircraft, no SM79, no E-boats and no British submarine. This I feel sure will be alleviated in forthcoming expansions.

[Major Adler]

I beleave the Tuculent is a Brit T-class sub...

[Joisey]

The guns on the ships look like they were carved out of a bar of soap.

Dang it all! You stole the line I was going to use. ;)

I have to agree with Viking Warrior and FSSF: The cruiser sized minis look horrible. Very crude sculpts I'd expect to see in a bag at the Five and Dime store. But as collectible minatures? NO WAY. If you can't bother to make the turrets and gun barrels and more distinct than a "blocky looking suggestion of a gun barrel", then I'm not going to bother buying.

Sorry, Hasbro, that sound you just heard was my wallet snapping shut!

[Zuxius]

These look like game pieces, not quality collectibles. I must protest that I rather just buy a large game box for 100 dollars and play a War at Sea game. That is where these belong in. WotC should hand this off to the Franklin Mint for creating trade quality miniatures. These ships should have been the flagship of their collectable game efforts, not the lowball end. Flagship for God's sake. I was expecting swivel turrets at least. You only get 5 in a box, it better be good.

The mini with the clear plastic base is a sub. All the subs appear to have this base
-pixelgeek

Man, it looks like a sub embedded in an ice cube. Really knocks me into playing a War at Sea.

Hmm, this set is the follow up to Star Wars space battles, yes indeed.

Cheers,
Zux

[Legbiter]

I beleave the Tuculent is a Brit T-class sub...

I think and hope you're right! In World War 1 that name was born by a destroyer, which is why I was confused. Who needs expansions to have one's discontents alleviated, eh?

[maciej12]

Seems to me there are a lot of people unhappy here. Here's my thought--If you are not going to but WaS then fine. You've said your peice-- now let this be about discussing the game and not how you spend your money. I really could care less about you, I want to know what ships ther are, what ones people are looking for in future sets and other things about the GAME. Post your complaints on the complaint board.

[Engineer]

How long until the prices of boosters drop 33%?

[Muenchausen]

Probably after they released four or five sets.

[Vikingwarrior]

"Man, it looks like a sub embedded in an ice cube"


That is EXACTLY how I would describe the subs. I guess it was supposed to be water but you would have thought they would at least put ripples on it and make it a clear aqua plastic.

"I must protest that I rather just buy a large game box for 100 dollars and play a War at Sea game. That is where these belong in."

Again I agree 110%. These are not collectables. They are game pieces.

[Predator666]

The ships don't look to bad but I'm staying with A&AM. I like land combat more.

[Tom_Weasle]

I think I'll judge these once I have some in my hands. Some dude's dodgy phone camera is no way to highlight any feature of these models.

That aside, if the models are that bad, I would still play the game if the game play was decent.

I think judge WAS in is final form rather than crucify it before it’s out.

...and I agree with maciej12, complain on the complaints section and keep this area open for those who actually want to discuss the game.

[Count_Ciano]

Okay, I'm really feeling the last 2 posts here.:cool:

Although I might pick up say...a starter kit and a couple of boosters out of curiousity since the best time to judge mini quality is when they're in my hands.

Conversly, I don't think I"ll be getting right into WAS right off the bat because I'm not really done with AAM yet.

[Muenchausen]

I hope WAS gets its own board today. That might stop the majority of the "nay saying" posts. I don't know why some people have the mentality that WAS is competing against AAM.

[Kaufschtick]

Ah, that explains why we haven't seen any of the aircraft pics...not too terribly impressive. If the rules are good, though...

[Sean-Khan]

I copied the photo with Dauntlesses from the site and opened it in an image manipulation program. I shrunk it to 40% size of the original, and it's wingspan on screen was about 14mm - what it should be in 1:900 scale. Try it, it looks better. I'm using 17" monitor with 1280 pixel width, different monitors/resolutions you may have to adjust percentage of shrinking.

Of course, it doesn't change making previews of them any easier...

[Autarch]

I hope WAS gets its own board today.

Your wish has been granted!

[Malaky]

Yes indeed the quality isn't fantastic... But, how many of you really expected to take those plastic thing out of the box and say: "Wow!! The Enterprise is beau-ti-ful!!! I'm gonna put it on my shelf right there." Come on now... Just buy some model kits and do it yourself if you want to have this kind of enlighting experience. I mean, I never put an AAM figure on a shelf or exposed it saying how good it looked. Why? Because they don't look good at all, but, they are playing pieces and are pretty enough to fulfill this role well.

The quality of the plastic is an issue of course with something this small. The scale of the minis is way smaller than AAM and there are a lot more details on ships than there is on a tank of any kind. Anyway, no one was forcing you to buy it in the first place. I mean if you had your money ready for the launch day even before you had seen any preview, you might have some kind of problem as a consumer. I have seen the previews and now this thread and still have not made my mind about it.

Ok so now can we have a seperate forum for War at sea, Please!
(Edit: wow It went on as I typed this! yay for me the seer! )

ciao

Malaky

[Cruizin2000]

I just scoped out the list for WAS. I'm not going to buy this game as A&A minis already has cost me alot of money.

After looking at the ships for the first set I cannot come up with any historical engagements that you could do with the ships except for the Battle of the River Plate. You can TRY to do Coral Sea but there's no Lexington.

Good luck to all of you who invest in this game.

C2000

[J.L.Robert]

Still wondering about uniqueness -thing; Do you think there will there be some kind of rule that shows how many ships of a kind you can put to your fleet? I know few ships that had only one sister ship (Yamato, Bismark, Scharnhorst) - any other models anyone knows to having existed only 1-2 ships?

Since this query was buried on Page 1 of this thread, I figure I'll give you all as complete a listing as I can:

(the things I can do with 2 hours and a day home from work...)


HMAS Canberra (English Kent-class cruiser) - 9 ships commissioned
HMAS Sydney (English Leander-class light cruiser) - 8 commissioned (sister ship of HMS Ajax)
Gloire (La Galissonniere-class light cruiser) - 6 commissioned
Le Terrible (Le Fantasque [aka Le Malin]-class destroyer) - 6 commissioned
Richelieu (Richelieu-class battleship) - 2 commissioned
HMS Ajax (Leander-class light cruiser) - 8 commissioned (sister ship of HMAS Sydney)
HMS Ark Royal (aircraft carrier) - UNIQUE vessel
HMS Exeter (York-class heavy cruiser) - 2 commissioned
HMS Hood (Admiral-class battlecruiser) - 1 commissioned
HMS Javelin (J-class destroyer) - 8 commissioned
HMS Rodney (Nelson-class battleship) - 2 commissioned
HMS Tuculent [sic] (Triton [aka T]-class submarine) -53 commissioned
Sea Hurricane Mk 1B - 340 aircraft produced
Swordfish Mk II - approx. 1000 aircraft produced
F4F Wildcat - 7722 aircraft produced
PBY Catalina - approx. 4000 aircraft produced
PT Boat - 584 (2 designs) commissioned
SBD Dauntless - approx. 6000 aircraft produced
SS Jeremiah O’ Brien (Liberty ship) - 2751 commissioned
TBD Devastator - 129 aircraft produced
USS Atlanta (Atlanta-class light cruiser) - 11 commissioned
USS Baltimore (Baltimre-class heavy cruiser) - 17 commissioned
USS Barb (Gato-class submarine) - 73 commissioned
USS Boise (Brooklyn-class light cruiser) - 7 commissioned
USS Enterprise (Yorktown-class aircraft carrier) - 3 commissioned
USS Fletcher (Fletcher-class destroyer) - 175 commissioned
USS Iowa (Iowa-class battleship) - 4 commissioned
USS Princeton (Independence-class light carrier) - 9 commissioned (converted Cleveland-class light cruisers)
USS Salt Lake City (Pensacola-class heavy cruiser) - 2 commissioned
USS Samuel B. Roberts (John C. Butler-class destroyer escort) - 87 commissioned
USS St. Lo (Casablanca-class escort carrier) - 50 commissioned
USS Tennessee (Tennessee-class battleship) - 2 commissioned
USS Washington (North Carolina-class battleship) - 2 commissioned
Admiral Graf Spee (Deutschland-class heavy cruiser) - 3 commissioned
Bismark [sic] (Bismarck-class battleship) - 2 commissioned
Fw 200 Kondor - 276 aircraft produced
Ju 87B Stuka - approx. 950 aircraft produced
Köln (K [aka Königsberg]-class light cruiser) - 3 commissioned
Nordmark (Dithmarschen-class auxiliary ship [oiler]) - 5 commissioned
Scharnhorst (Gneisenau-class battlecruiser) - 2 commissioned
U 510 (Type IX-C submarine) - 87 built
Z 20 Karl Galster (Zerstörer 1936-class destroyer) - 6 commissioned
Ambra (Perla-class submarine) - 10 commissioned
Bolzano (Trento-class heavy cruiser) - 3 commissioned
Emanuele Filberto Duca d’Aosta (Duca d'Aosta-class light cruiser) - 2 commissioned
Luca Tarigo (Navigatori-class destroyer) - 12 commissioned
Motor Torpedo Boat - 99 (various designs) commissioned
Vittorio Veneto (Vittorio Veneto-class battleship) - 3 commissioned
A6M2 Zeke - approx. 1600 aircraft produced
Akagi (aircraft carrier, converted Amagi-class battlecruiser) - 1 commissioned
B5N2 Kate - approx. 1100 aircraft produced
D3A Val - approx. 1500 aircraft produced
G4M Betty - approx. 2500 aircraft produced
I-19 (B1 Type [aka I-15 Series] submarine) - 20 commissioned
Jintsu (Sendai-class light cruiser) - 3 commissioned
Kinai Maru (Kinai Maru-class transport) - unable to determine exact quantity
Kongo [sic] (Kongō-class battlecruiser) - 4 commissioned
Myoko [sic] (Myōkō-class heavy cruiser) - 4 commissioned
Shoho [sic] (Shōhō-class light carrier) - 2 commissioned
Shokaku [sic] (Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier) - 2 commissioned
Tone (Tone-class heavy cruiser) - 2 commissioned
Type 13 Subchaser (Type 13-class subchaser) - 48 commissioned
Yamato (Yamato-class battleship) - 2 commissioned
Yukikaze (Kagero-class destroyer) - 19 commissioned


Diamondback has put together a near-complete list of sister ship names elsewhere on these message boards:

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?p=226215

Have fun!

[Autarch]

So if I want to recreate the navies of the world (not counting subs or merchants or little boats) it'll take about 600 ships for just this set...

[Sean-Khan]

Sweet! :D Thanks J.L and Diamondback!

[Joisey]

Two new images I just took. These aren't posted on TGN I just took them so people here can get a slightly better idea of the ship scales and the colours

http://i18.tinypic.com/2v9epz8.jpg

http://i5.tinypic.com/2ut3rmc.jpg

.

Looking again at these two photos, it appears that in the cruiser range, the amount of detail varies greatly from sculpt to sculpt. Looks like some will have distinct turrets and guns, and some won't, without there being any apparent reason for the disparity.

Hard to believe that the mini we saw of the Yamato previewed on this board belongs to the same set of minis as, say, the Rodney pix posted.

Perhaps, when the set comes out, some (maybe 1/4) of the minis will be detailed enough, and painted well enough, to warrant purchase of after market singles.

Ironically, due to the skewed distribution of commons and uncommons, the crappiest looking minis, the destroyers, will be the hardest to find after market as singles. It might not have been too bad, if I could pick up a handful of fletchers for .25 or .50 cents apiece, to go with the fairly good looking Enterprise, but I doubt they'll be that cheap on the aftermarket.

[Kaufschtick]

http://i18.tinypic.com/2v9epz8.jpg

http://i5.tinypic.com/2ut3rmc.jpg



Now these photos have me a bit more interested in WaS. The planes look good here! A little detail touch up painting and it's on! A little splinter camo for the Kondor...

[Quel]

Looking again at these two photos, it appears that in the cruiser range, the amount of detail varies greatly from sculpt to sculpt. Looks like some will have distinct turrets and guns, and some won't, without there being any apparent reason for the disparity.


My ship identification isn't the best in the world, but I could swear I only see one cruiser in those two pictures, and that would be the larger ship in the second(I could be wrong). So I'm not entirely sure what it is you mean here.

[TheFoeHammer]

Ironically, due to the skewed distribution of commons and uncommons, the crappiest looking minis, the destroyers, will be the hardest to find after market as singles. It might not have been too bad, if I could pick up a handful of fletchers for .25 or .50 cents apiece, to go with the fairly good looking Enterprise, but I doubt they'll be that cheap on the aftermarket.

Looking at the set list I see 24 Rares, 16 Uncommons, and 24 commons. Assuming 12 boosters per case and the booster content Rob showed us it looks like after 2 cases a collector would pull

24 of 24 rares (1 of each after trading)
24 of 16 uncommons (1.5 of each, so hopefully 1 of each and 2 of some)
72 of 24 commons (roughly 3 of each)

How is that skewed incorrectly? Typically I end up with something similar in most collectible games I play. I think you'll be able to pick up Fletchers pretty easy unless it ends up being an undercosted piece like the SS-Panzergrenadier was in AAM.

[MarcusAurelius]

What's up with the clear plastic surrounding the submarines?

Theory #1: War at Sea's lead designer Richard Baker simply wanted to distinguish submarines from all other ships on the battle map.

Theory #2: Some designer really thinks clear plastic is cool.

Theory #3: After finding that 1/1800 scale submarines were too small to handle easily, the miniature sculptors came up with this as a solution.

Theory #4: A crazy person did it.

Theory #5: The submarine shown in the photo is actually a miniature from an entirely different game: Ice Storm vs. the Nautilus.

Theory #6: It's removable. When surfaced, submarines sit on the battle map like any other ship. You only use the clear plastic base to indicate when the sub is submerged.

I'm really hoping that the last theory is correct. If not, I'll probably see if I can pry one of the submarines out of its plastic cocoon myself. I know it's hard to tell a whole lot from the photos we've seen so far, but this just doesn't look right to me.

[Kaufschtick]

I'm with you in your #6 thinking. I would hope it is removable and has something to do with surfaced/submerged status.

[shadowhooch]

What's up with the clear plastic surrounding the submarines?

Theory #1: War at Sea's lead designer Richard Baker simply wanted to distinguish submarines from all other ships on the battle map.

Theory #2: Some designer really thinks clear plastic is cool.

Theory #3: After finding that 1/1800 scale submarines were too small to handle easily, the miniature sculptors came up with this as a solution.

Theory #4: A crazy person did it.

Theory #5: The submarine shown in the photo is actually a miniature from an entirely different game: Ice Storm vs. the Nautilus.

Theory #6: It's removable. When surfaced, submarines sit on the battle map like any other ship. You only use the clear plastic base to indicate when the sub is submerged.

I'm really hoping that the last theory is correct. If not, I'll probably see if I can pry one of the submarines out of its plastic cocoon myself. I know it's hard to tell a whole lot from the photos we've seen so far, but this just doesn't look right to me.

I'm thinking it is because the Submarine bottoms aren't flat and they didn't want to give us the wrong impression with the bottom half sitting on top of the water. They probably wanted to create the submarine mold in its completeness (including the part that was underwater even when surfaced). So they did the clear plastic so you could see the bottom of the submarine.

Maybe the bottom half of a submarine is important as it varies greatly between classes and nations?

[J.L.Robert]

They look like they're more to hold the aircraft bases in place when the sub is being attacked from the bow or astern.

[Autarch]

Perhaps it is so little kids can't shove it down their gullet.

[Kaufschtick]

Perhaps it is so little kids can't shove it down their gullet.

Kinda like Fantastic Voyage, except I guess this vessel won't be exiting through the tear duct...:eek:

[Graycap]

With reference to earlier WAS fleet listings.HMAS Sydney and HMS Ajax were not sister ships.

[Quel]

With reference to earlier WAS fleet listings.HMAS Sydney and HMS Ajax were not sister ships.

They technically were, as both ships were Leander class light cruisers. The original name of the Sydney was the HMS Phaeton, before the ship was transferred to the RAN. You can read about the class here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander_class_cruiser_%281931%29#Amphion_.2F_Sydne y_group

[Diamondback]

They technically were, as both ships were Leander class light cruisers. The original name of the Sydney was the HMS Phaeton, before the ship was transferred to the RAN. You can read about the class here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander_class_cruiser_%281931%29#Amphion_.2F_Sydne y_group

Actually, Perth/Hobart/Sydney were in their own class. Google "Perth-class".

[J.L.Robert]

Actually, Perth/Hobart/Sydney were in their own class. Google "Perth-class".

The Perth-class was a subclass of the English Leander-class ships, with minor modifactions from the balance of the series.

[Quel]

Actually, Perth/Hobart/Sydney were in their own class. Google "Perth-class".

The majority of the results I've gotten with a Google search are of the modern day Australian destroyers. One site that I've never come across before did name the cruisers as being Perth class. Either way, those three cruisers were in fact Leander class light cruisers, two of which were owned and completed before being transferred over to the Australian Navy. This isn't to say that modifications weren't made, but for the most part, they were Leanders. To quote Wikipedia on the HMS Apollo, "Completed 1936 and transferred to the RAN in 1938 as Hobart. Took part in the Battle of the Coral Sea and provided fire support for the amphibious landings at Guadalcanal."

Again, for reference, is Wikipedia's page on the Leander class: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander_class_cruiser_(1931)

[Richter von Manthofen]

After seeeing a few plasic blobs of this line I am really no longer sure if I am in or out the game...

I am a bit disappointed that Germany gets the same number of units as UK. I know naval battles are more Pacific bound, but the Royal navy really gets the worst out of this set...

[Muenchausen]

Definately of the subject of the Leander/Perth/Hobart etc.... discussion but have you guys seen the number of Sydney mini's up for auction on e-bay. YOu can either buy one now for $7.95 or bid and hope you get one at a lower price. As for me I think I'll wait till AANM is released.

[Graycap]

HMAS Sydney, HMAS Perth and HMAS Hobart were "Arethusa" class light cruisers. Those serving in the RN were HMS Arethusa, HMAS Penelope, HMS Galatea and HMS Aurora. They were sometimes referred to as "Modified Leanders". The "Leanders" had one stack, the Arethusas "two". Having both the Ajax and Sydney in the WAS set increases the choice of ships for both the RN and RAN, specially for Mediterranean scenarios.

I don't think the miniatures look too bad - just have to wait a few more weeks till we can actually see them in the flesh!

[Quel]

HMAS Sydney, HMAS Perth and HMAS Hobart were "Arethusa" class light cruisers. Those serving in the RN were HMS Arethusa, HMAS Penelope, HMS Galatea and HMS Aurora. They were sometimes referred to as "Modified Leanders". The "Leanders" had one stack, the Arethusas "two". Having both the Ajax and Sydney in the WAS set increases the choice of ships for both the RN and RAN, specially for Mediterranean scenarios.

I don't think the miniatures look too bad - just have to wait a few more weeks till we can actually see them in the flesh!

Well, a quick search through Wikipedia on the Arethusa class says, "The Arethusas were a smaller version of the Amphion group of the earlier Leander class, having the unit machinery layout and two funnels of the former."

The Amphion group(Sydney/Perth/Hobart) of the Leander class may have differed in appearance, but were still considered Leanders. At least, this is what I've gathered from internet sources(mostly Wikipedia). I'm no expert at all on Royal Navy ships, but this is what the sources I've come across have said.

[well_it_sounded_nice]

I think that planes will be great - those pics are REALLY magnified!

Wow! Those terrains are awesome, its gotta be fun as hell to game on those.

[Sean-Khan]

Wow! Those terrains are awesome, its gotta be fun as hell to game on those.

Thanks! :) Luckily most of them are easily stored, or I would be in trouble!

[Photoner Hawkwind]

This list should come in Handy in providing me with how many of each ship class I'll need so that when my preorder arrives, I'll only have to count them up before deciding what singles to purchase online.