WaS Opening Salvo Pt 2: USS Atlanta and Tone

[WotC Bob]

Discussion thread for Opening Salvo Pt 2: USS Atlanta and Tone (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/ah20070206c). Which should have gone up yesterday.

[TheFoeHammer]

I like the special ability for the CLAA Atlanta. Very fitting.

The method for handling Long Lance torpedoes strength on the Tone also looks good. That's going to be a pretty deadly ship. 3 sectors away can take out most Cruisers 16-17% of the time. I don't think many folks will let the Tone get close to them. 3 shots at 0 range could do some serious damage to any ship.

UPDATE: And from the way it looks, destroyers and other cruisers if released in the future, may be even more powerful. The other cruisers in this release appear to have had less tubes than Tone.

I can't wait to see the stats on the other Japanese cruisers and destroyers. I think they will be the prime gunnery targets to prevent them from launching torpedoes in that phase.

[Sean-Khan]

I sure have some expectations about this game, it looks really promising :)

I don't know why but I thought we would get advanced rules now... Still a month to wait for them :| Cool to see ships & abilities anyway!

[TheFoeHammer]

I sure have some expectations about this game, it looks really promising :)

I don't know why but I thought we would get advanced rules now... Still a month to wait for them :| Cool to see ships & abilities anyway!

I especially want to get a better understanding of movement and sectors. Looking at the pictures in the quick start rules I am not quite sure what a "sector" is and how two ships, one sub and four planes could occupy it.

[Stealth]

The Atlnata looks ok, but whats up with the Tone? The forecastle is awefully forshortened, and the 'A' turret is leaning pretty badly.

I hope the rules can save this game, because the miniature quality is questionable at best.

[shadowhooch]

Historical cruiser question:

How do those scout planes land back on the cruisers? Is it one and done? That seems unreasonable. Surely there is a method to land right?

If anyone knows how this works, please fill me in.

[Stealth]

Historical cruiser question:

How do those scout planes land back on the cruisers? Is it one and done? That seems unreasonable. Surely there is a method to land right?

If anyone knows how this works, please fill me in.

The ships (cruisers and BBs) carried float planes, which would land on the water adjacent to the ship and were then hauled back on board via crane. They would also land on remote land bases and be picked up later when the shipped docked.

[Joisey]

Historical cruiser question:

How do those scout planes land back on the cruisers? Is it one and done? That seems unreasonable. Surely there is a method to land right?

If anyone knows how this works, please fill me in.

I believe it launches sea planes (fighters with pontoons), that then land in the water next to the cruiser and are brought back on board with a crane.

[horacus]

Interesting preview. It semms, well, interesting. I still have to see a little more to be convinced.

[Arontje]

I dont have read enough of all of this but I think that Japanese ship is a very cost effective ship. Not only can it do damage to almost all targets but with good numbers too.

Am I wrong here, or is this the specialty of the Japanese Navy.

[Joisey]

Unfortunately, the preview is all about the cards, and not about the minis. Both ships are photographed "small and far away", which only confirms that the Wizzies know they have a problem with minature quality.

[MarcusAurelius]

Comparing the statistics of the Atlanta, Sydney, Canberra and Tone, you can start to draw some conclusions about cruisers in War at Sea.

For starters, the first three cruisers are all costed within 3 points of each other at 12, 14 and 15 points, respectively. Which one you choose will depend on whether you're looking for more firepower (Canberra), more anti-air ability (Atlanta) or a balance of the two (Sydney).

Three of the four units share the exact same defensive stats: Armor 4, Vital Armor 9, Hull Points 3. Canberra suffers by comparison with Armor 3 — making it much more vulnerable to opposing gunnery attacks. I have a feeling this will turn out to be a significant weakness.

Anti-aircraft values are all over the board, ranging from 5 for the Canberra to 8 for the Atlanta. Of the units we've seen so far, only the Iowa has a higher AA rating.

SAs seem appropriate to each unit — and in some cases quite powerful. I like the way Scout Cruiser gives an attack bonus to all Bomb or Gunnery attacks against one enemy ship. Long-Lance Torpedoes basically cancel out the Torpedo Defense SA of ships like the Iowa and mean even bigger trouble for units without this ability.

I'll have to playtest a few of these to get a better feel for the new units. Perhaps an Axis force of the Bismarck and 2 Tone cruisers (99 points) against the Iowa, Sydney and Canberra (97 points).

[TheFoeHammer]

Anti-aircraft values are all over the board, ranging from 5 for the Canberra to 8 for the Atlanta and Sydney. Of the units we've seen so far, only the Iowa has a higher AA rating.

Sydney has a 6 AA rating.

[MarcusAurelius]

By the way, I like the new Opening Salvo preview format.

It covers the most important historical engagements of the unit in question without going into too much detail — since there are numerous resources available for more information on World War II warships and naval battles.

The second part of the new preview format is what I'm really looking for — discussing strengths and weaknesses of each unit, explaining the rationale behind special abilities and offering recommendations on force selection and tactics. Nicely done.

About the only thing I'd still like to see are additional photos showing each unit from different angles (bird's eye view, three-quarters, et cetera).

[TheFoeHammer]

Unfortunately, the preview is all about the cards, and not about the minis. Both ships are photographed "small and far away", which only confirms that the Wizzies know they have a problem with minature quality.

I disagree with that conclusion. The miniature I have in my hand right now shows no problem with the quality, but all the pictures I took of it look "far and away" and make it look like it has a lack of detail.

I have seen the same thing since I first started in collectible plastic minis with LOTR. Pre-release pics of the Legolas figure in Scrye had eyes that looked like fried eggs in the close-up, but in hand the sculpt and the figure looked great. I almost did not get into AAM and some later D&D releases because of bad pics, but when I saw them in person most of them were great.

The quality of the pre-painted figs will always be below a skilled painter's standards and above a casual players. I am somewhere in between those two standards and I think my Sydney looks fine and expect I will like the rest of them as well.

The only thing I can confirm is that no matter what, it's guaranteed that someone will decide a collectible game is doomed before they have played it or held one of the figures in their hand.

[MarcusAurelius]

Sydney has a 6 AA rating.

Thanks for the correction.

[Der Leiter]

The method for handling Long Lance torpedoes strength on the Tone also looks good. That's going to be a pretty deadly ship. 3 sectors away can take out most Cruisers 16-17% of the time. I don't think many folks will let the Tone get close to them. 3 shots at 0 range could do some serious damage to any ship.

On the contrary, often they will attempt to close in with the Tone to eliminate it and the carriers with it (if any). The Torpedoes are nice and powerful.. but only if they manage to get a shot off, which is not always the case.

Unfortunately, the preview is all about the cards, and not about the minis. Both ships are photographed "small and far away", which only confirms that the Wizzies know they have a problem with minature quality.

As TheFoeHammer says, in person the Tone looks much better. The decks are dirty, the planes may be small, but stand out nicely (from a top-down view anyway).

[shadowhooch]

By the way, I like the new Opening Salvo preview format.

It covers the most important historical engagements of the unit in question without going into too much detail — since there are numerous resources available for more information on World War II warships and naval battles.

The second part of the new preview format is what I'm really looking for — discussing strengths and weaknesses of each unit, explaining the rationale behind special abilities and offering recommendations on force selection and tactics. Nicely done.

About the only thing I'd still like to see are additional photos showing each unit from different angles (bird's eye view, three-quarters, et cetera).

Agreed. Big props to whoever did that Opening Salvo. Well done indeed.

[TheFoeHammer]

On the contrary, often they will attempt to close in with the Tone to eliminate it and the carriers with it (if any). The Torpedoes are nice and powerful.. but only if they manage to get a shot off, which is not always the case.

I think I agree with you. I wrote that comment before I had read the full article and understood the implications of the scout SA. Someone's going to be looking to take it out early. Kind of like the ammo dump in AAM.

[unc_samurai]

The Atlanta needs the SA Ignore Orders.
If you receive movement orders from the San Francisco, immediately disregard them. Ignore the next damage counter received from running into your own ship.

[Der Leiter]

Glad you like the format, MarcusAurelius summed up everything I wanted to get across nicely. I hope the background information might serve to inspire a few historical scenarios as well.

[Stealth]

I dont have read enough of all of this but I think that Japanese ship is a very cost effective ship. Not only can it do damage to almost all targets but with good numbers too.

Am I wrong here, or is this the specialty of the Japanese Navy.

Historically at least, the Japanese cruisers were very battleworthy, with heavy firepower, torpedoes (most other nations had dropped them for their heavy cruisers), and able to withstand signifigant damage. Their crews were well trained, and initially in the war their sailors night vision was often superior to the early US radar sets.

Initially, they suffered from being topheavy (too much attempted on the hull), and most had to have their hulls strengthened (which also upped their tonnage to above most other nations). After their rebuilds, they were among the best in the world.

[Flyboy]

I like what I see but I have very high expectations for the
Fletcher class destroyer and cant wait to see the stats for it.:) Oh, and why would the Atlanta be an uncommon, its only one ship isnt it?

[Stealth]

I like what I see but I have very high expectations for the
Fletcher class destroyer and cant wait to see the stats for it.:) Oh, and why would the Atlanta be an uncommon, its only one ship isnt it?

The Atlanta, being a specialized AA cruiser, would not be nearly so common in fleets as say the Brooklyns or their equilivants.

[Joisey]

On the contrary, often they will attempt to close in with the Tone to eliminate it and the carriers with it (if any). The Torpedoes are nice and powerful.. but only if they manage to get a shot off, which is not always the case.


Unlikely tactic, as the Tone and the carriers it supports would attack any surface group trying to close with it, long before they actually could get into gunnery range. Unless the carriers lose their planes AND there is an enemy surface group within sight of the carrier group---even at Midway that didn't happen to the Japanese.

If a carrier group commander is playing competently, he will never have to engage in a surface combat at all. This assumes that the rule set allows for battles between carrier groups that never see each other, like at Midway.

[Der Leiter]

Unlikely tactic, as the Tone and the carriers it supports would attack any surface group trying to close with it, long before they actually could get into gunnery range.

If a carrier group commander is playing competently, he will never have to engage in a surface combat at all. This assumes that the rule set allows for battles between carrier groups that never see each other, like at Midway.[/QUOTE]

There's only so many places to go on the map; eventually a carrier group gets trapped. It's often a question of whether the carrier's aircraft can sink the attackers before they get to them; that's not always the case.

There's another aspect of the game that helps this, though you'll have to wait until the rulebook is shown before you'll know why.

[hornet69]

very nice .very good details

[Autarch]

I especially want to get a better understanding of movement and sectors. Looking at the pictures in the quick start rules I am not quite sure what a "sector" is and how two ships, one sub and four planes could occupy it.

I think Bob stated once the scale, something like 3000 yards per sector. If you look at the pics pixelgeek posted, the ships are setting on the game map. The larger ships are slightly bigger than the sectors.

I like the way Scout Cruiser gives an attack bonus to all Bomb or Gunnery attacks against one enemy ship. Long-Lance Torpedoes basically cancel out the Torpedo Defense SA of ships like the Iowa and mean even bigger trouble for units without this ability.



I believe this unit will be instrumental in helping fleets of smaller swarm ships to take down single, heavy ships. I wonder if the allies will have such a counterpart. Not sure what it would be since there is no Tone/Chikuma equivalent in any of the allied navies. Perhaps some ships will have gunnery radar or PBYs have a similar scout SA.


There's only so many places to go on the map; eventually a carrier group gets trapped. It's often a question of whether the carrier's aircraft can sink the attackers before they get to them; that's not always the case.

There's another aspect of the game that helps this, though you'll have to wait until the rulebook is shown before you'll know why.

Well, I suspect there is a turn limit to the game and lots of islands you can skirt behind until time runs out. I'm curious as to what the victory conditions are. Perhaps a sliding scale determining victory level based on the amount of enemy points destroyed.

[Lotus]

The ships (cruisers and BBs) carried float planes, which would land on the water adjacent to the ship and were then hauled back on board via crane. They would also land on remote land bases and be picked up later when the shipped docked.

I believe the Tirpitz had 2 of these.

[CruorVult]

most battleships and cruisers of the day had provisions to launch one or two floatplanes. Tone and Chikuma quite a bit more-so.

[Lynx7725]

Historically at least, the Japanese cruisers were very battleworthy, with heavy firepower, torpedoes (most other nations had dropped them for their heavy cruisers), and able to withstand signifigant damage. Their crews were well trained, and initially in the war their sailors night vision was often superior to the early US radar sets.
Well, the IJN were held down by the London and Washington treaties, where (eventually) the ratio of 5:5:3 (UK:US:JP) on capital ships was agreed upon. This meant the IJN could only build so many cruisers, and they concentrated on making them individually better than ships from the other nations.

The IJN's doctrine was night combat with torpedoes; they equipped a lot of their ships with torpedoes, in order to fit into their doctrine. The initial superb speed and performance of the IJN is testimony of how well trained and well equipped they were, comparatively.


Initially, they suffered from being topheavy (too much attempted on the hull), and most had to have their hulls strengthened (which also upped their tonnage to above most other nations). After their rebuilds, they were among the best in the world.
No surprise; after the start of the war, the treaties are out the window, it makes sense that they would correct most of the top-heaviness that was prevalent in IJN designs.

[Stealth]

Well, the IJN were held down by the London and Washington treaties, where (eventually) the ratio of 5:5:3 (UK:US:JP) on capital ships was agreed upon. This meant the IJN could only build so many cruisers, and they concentrated on making them individually better than ships from the other nations.

All nations were held to the treaty. It also limited the displacement of CAs to 10,000 tons and 8" guns. The Japanese built right up to the limit, and this was shown before the war when one of their fleets ran into a Typhoon. So many ships had structural failure that the defects were identified.

The IJN's doctrine was night combat with torpedoes; they equipped a lot of their ships with torpedoes, in order to fit into their doctrine. The initial superb speed and performance of the IJN is testimony of how well trained and well equipped they were, comparatively.




No surprise; after the start of the war, the treaties are out the window, it makes sense that they would correct most of the top-heaviness that was prevalent in IJN designs.


Actually, in regards to the above typhoon, all their ships had been repaired/rebuilt BEFORE the war started.

[Lynx7725]

I thought the Fubukis were mostly rebuilt throughout the war?

[TheCygnysGuardian]

I thought the Fubukis were mostly rebuilt throughout the war?

My sources (http://www.answers.com/topic/fubuki-class-destroyer) tell me "the ships were rebuilt between 1935 and 1937 to improve hull strength and stability." They were upgraded throughout the war to increase their Antiair defences. And that reminds me. We're not getting any Fubuki or Ayanami class destroyers, are we? *Swears* Sorry, I haven't had breakfast yet. *Wanders off to the kitchen*

[Stealth]

My sources (http://www.answers.com/topic/fubuki-class-destroyer) tell me "the ships were rebuilt between 1935 and 1937 to improve hull strength and stability." They were upgraded throughout the war to increase their Antiair defences. And that reminds me. We're not getting any Fubuki or Ayanami class destroyers, are we? *Swears* Sorry, I haven't had breakfast yet. *Wanders off to the kitchen*


I believe the typhoon under discussion was 1936, so the ships would have had their structural problem fixed pre-war. As Cygnus indicated, most/all ships had additional moderdization thoughout the war, mostly to upgrade their AA defenses.

[Lynx7725]

You learn something new everyday. ;)

Typhoon? What typhoon?

[Stealth]

You learn something new everyday. ;)

Typhoon? What typhoon?

Its a lot of air swirling around and making a big mess, but thats not important now...
:D

The typhoon in question was in September 1935, and the Japanese 4th fleet was caught in it. The winds and high seas caused all the aforementioned structural damage to their destroyers and cruisers.

[WotC Bob]

I disagree with that conclusion. The miniature I have in my hand right now shows no problem with the quality, but all the pictures I took of it look "far and away" and make it look like it has a lack of detail.

I have seen the same thing since I first started in collectible plastic minis with LOTR. Pre-release pics of the Legolas figure in Scrye had eyes that looked like fried eggs in the close-up, but in hand the sculpt and the figure looked great. I almost did not get into AAM and some later D&D releases because of bad pics, but when I saw them in person most of them were great.

The quality of the pre-painted figs will always be below a skilled painter's standards and above a casual players. I am somewhere in between those two standards and I think my Sydney looks fine and expect I will like the rest of them as well.

The only thing I can confirm is that no matter what, it's guaranteed that someone will decide a collectible game is doomed before they have played it or held one of the figures in their hand.

I have attempted to show the pictures at something approximating their actual size. Of course, because people's screen resolutions vary, so I can not guarantee that. If your screen resolution is set very high, the image will be all the smaller. I am also showing them all in correct scale to one another. I suppose you could read conspiracy into that if you really wanted to.

[Muenchausen]

I have attempted to show the pictures at something approximating their actual size. Of course, because people's screen resolutions vary, so I can not guarantee that. If your screen resolution is set very high, the image will be all the smaller. I am also showing them all in correct scale to one another. I suppose you could read conspiracy into that if you really wanted to.

WotC Bob, just because some of us are paranoid doesn't mean WOTC is not out to get our money. :D Is there any conspiracy at this point to go beyond set II? Like maybe set III.

[WotC Bob]

Honestly, I don't like the quality of the pictures we have taken of the minis, which, if you remember, was why I took my own picture of the Yamato (using an admittedly mediocre camera).

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

The picture above was a Yamato I got out of the first booster pack I opened (hah! lucky!). Now here is the stock picture we have of it:

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

You will notice how flat the color is because they use a bright flash and there is no shadow, which means details do not pop as much. Furthermore, you will notice that on the paint master they used, the float planes on the back weren't painted.

[TheFoeHammer]

I have attempted to show the pictures at something approximating their actual size. Of course, because people's screen resolutions vary, so I can not guarantee that. If your screen resolution is set very high, the image will be all the smaller. I am also showing them all in correct scale to one another. I suppose you could read conspiracy into that if you really wanted to.

I assume you meant to respond to the same post I was also responding too. I certainly am not reading any conspiracy theories into this and as mentioned can tell from personal experience that the stock pictures never do the minis justice. Lighting and flashes have such a huge effect on what you see.

[TheFoeHammer]

WotC Bob, just because some of us are paranoid doesn't mean WOTC is not out to get our money. :D Is there any conspiracy at this point to go beyond set II? Like maybe set III.
Yup that's the only conspiracy theory I care about too. Give me more ships!

[Muenchausen]

Admittedly I was taken back by the stock pictures. Now that you've shown the difference in photo's my faith is restored. Any chance the Salvo photo's could be of the quality in the first Yamato?

[Muenchausen]

Honestly, I don't like the quality of the pictures we have taken of the minis, which, if you remember, was why I took my own picture of the Yamato (using an admittedly mediocre camera).

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

The picture above was a Yamato I got out of the first booster pack I opened (hah! lucky!). Now here is the stock picture we have of it:

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

You will notice how flat the color is because they use a bright flash and there is no shadow, which means details do not pop as much. Furthermore, you will notice that on the paint master they used, the float planes on the back weren't painted.

Bob, you may want to post this post on the AAM board, I know some people will have a heart attack. The difference in the photo's may convinve some to take a second look at AANM.

[Quel]

My sources (http://www.answers.com/topic/fubuki-class-destroyer) tell me "the ships were rebuilt between 1935 and 1937 to improve hull strength and stability." They were upgraded throughout the war to increase their Antiair defences. And that reminds me. We're not getting any Fubuki or Ayanami class destroyers, are we? *Swears* Sorry, I haven't had breakfast yet. *Wanders off to the kitchen*


Well, one reason we're not getting any ships from the Ayanami class may have to do with the fact that the lead ship wasn't launched until 1957. ;)

But yeah, the overall low number of destroyers in the set is a little disappointing, considering how much of a workhorse any given destroyer was for a fleet. Hopefully they give Japan a couple more in the next set. With at least one of them being what I consider the most powerful destroyer of the war, the Shimakaze.

[WotC Bob]

I assume you meant to respond to the same post I was also responding too. I certainly am not reading any conspiracy theories into this and as mentioned can tell from personal experience that the stock pictures never do the minis justice. Lighting and flashes have such a huge effect on what you see.


You are correct, I meant to tie into your post, but instead edited it back.

[Stealth]

Bob, you may want to post this post on the AAM board, I know some people will have a heart attack. The difference in the photo's may convinve some to take a second look at AANM.

Something still looks odd here. The 'B' turret guns have an awefully high angle, even at rest. They should be able to fire straight ahead at 5 degrees elevation when facing completely forward.

Overall though, its good to see the two pics side by side, as each hides some errors but also highlights some photo flaws.

[Diamondback]

Well, one reason we're not getting any ships from the Ayanami class may have to do with the fact that the lead ship wasn't launched until 1957. ;)

Actually, I think there was an Ayanami active during the war. Perhaps the original poster confused it with a class-ship like Fubuki, Hibiki (improved Fubuki), or the like. I'll look up the historical data and post it in a while--I have a Conway's about 10 yards out on bearing 090, which lists EVERYTHING built or active from '22 to '46.

[Stealth]

Actually, I think there was an Ayanami active during the war. Perhaps the original poster confused it with a class-ship like Fubuki, Hibiki (improved Fubuki), or the like. I'll look up the historical data and post it in a while--I have a Conway's about 10 yards out on bearing 090, which lists EVERYTHING built or active from '22 to '46.

Ayanami was a Fubuki Type II destroyer launched in 1929. She was sunk in the 2nd Battle of Guadacanal in 1942 by the USS Washington.

[TheCygnysGuardian]

I was referring to this little lady (http://www.answers.com/topic/japanese-destroyer-ayanami) & her sister ships.

<Edit> dang! Stealth beat me too it. ;)

[Diamondback]

Thanks, Stealth. For some reason, my gut associated Ayanami with the Fubuki family, but the ol' mind wasn't sure.

BTW, I'll post my list of references I'm using later, so y'all know where I'm pullin' my data out of.

[Quel]

The WWII Ayanami isn't so much the namesake of the Ayanami class as she's the namesake of the Ayanami type thus, she was still a Fubuki. The actual Ayanami class were a series of JMSDF destroyers whose namesake was initially launched in 1957. You can see some info on them here: http://www.answers.com/topic/ayanami-class-destroyer
Just thought I'd clear up any confusion still left behind by my little jest.

Diamondback, you were a bit close on the Hibiki reference, though that ship was actually part of the Akatsuki class. The four ships of the class being quite similar to the Fubuki line.

Not sure if it's been linked to in another thread, but http://www.combinedfleet.com/ is a great resource for information on the Japanese Navy of WWII.

[Diamondback]

Quel, I was going by old ONI intel from the time also, which appears to be useful only in telling how USN regarded them and the poor state of American intel re classifications of enemy shipping.

My usual sources include:
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946
M.J. Whitley, Destroyers of World War Two: An International Encyclopedia
CombinedFleet.com
ONI id manuals
Assorted aircraft references collected over a lifetime

[Lynx7725]

http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/images/sanswavemotiongun.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/images/yamato.jpg
You will notice how flat the color is because they use a bright flash and there is no shadow, which means details do not pop as much. Furthermore, you will notice that on the paint master they used, the float planes on the back weren't painted.
Hmm, well, your pic is a little dark.. But it does sort of match some pics I've seen of Yamato models. That's a early '44 refit though, with all those AA guns.

I still say 3/4 pics are better for previews. Taking side shots makes it seems like WotC has things to hide..

Weird thing about the pagoda tower; looks a bit off from the side. Hmm, I thought the #3 turret was supposed to be joined to the bridge tower at the base but apparently I misremembered?

[Joisey]

Honestly, I don't like the quality of the pictures we have taken of the minis, which, if you remember, was why I took my own picture of the Yamato (using an admittedly mediocre camera).

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

The picture above was a Yamato I got out of the first booster pack I opened (hah! lucky!). Now here is the stock picture we have of it:

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

You will notice how flat the color is because they use a bright flash and there is no shadow, which means details do not pop as much. Furthermore, you will notice that on the paint master they used, the float planes on the back weren't painted.

Wow! Hard to believe that is the same mini in both pix. This is like the difference between what a chick looks like with beer goggles and what she looks like the next morning. :D

Respectfully suggest you scrap the stock photos, as they absolutely are making your product look like crap.

[SunningTurtle]

After seeing the new photo of the 'Yamato' & actually having the 'Sidney' to look at, I'm taking a second look at AANM. With all of talk of how poor the minis are, the quality of the 'Sidney' was much better than what I had expected. Keep in mind that these are Game pieces (a 10 year old is going to see if these things float in the bath tub). As Game pieces, the quality of the detail & casting is fine, IMHO. If one is looking for a Diorama piece go with metal in 1/1200 or even 1/2400 scale.

What really got my attention is the new photo of the 'Yamato' & how well the deck had been done. The second thing that caught my eye was the 'Jake' on the two catapules. I am amazed that a plane could be cast on a model like this. For the metal 1/1200 ships, the planes are cast seperately & You have to Super Glue them on. :rolleyes:

Speaking of aircraft. I think they are very good. A flight of torpedo bombers or fighters are well represented. For it's scale, the FW 200 'Condor' looks Great! I hope that the 'Betty' & the rest of the land based A/C look just as well.

Now after taking a 'Second Look', especially at the new picture of the Yamato, I need to talk w/ Grey Fox & have him set me back a case.

'Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!' Admiral Farragut at the battle of Mobile Bay. August 5, 1864.

[Fallschirmjager]

Hmm, well, your pic is a little dark.. But it does sort of match some pics I've seen of Yamato models. That's a early '44 refit though, with all those AA guns.

I still say 3/4 pics are better for previews. Taking side shots makes it seems like WotC has things to hide..

Weird thing about the pagoda tower; looks a bit off from the side. Hmm, I thought the #3 turret was supposed to be joined to the bridge tower at the base but apparently I misremembered?

Its not that late of a model. The later model of the Yamoto took its bigger deck guns and refitted the sides with smaller ones. Mainly the two guns up front were swaped

[Lynx7725]

Its not that late of a model. The later model of the Yamoto took its bigger deck guns and refitted the sides with smaller ones. Mainly the two guns up front were swaped
Uhm, the refit was in Feb 1944, about as late as things can get. The refit comprised of removing the 2 beam triple 6" turrets for additional AA, not guns up front.

We can see the initial port beam triple 6" turret here, though it's a bit unclear (this is in 1941):

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f257/Lynx7725/AAM/AANM/Yamato1941.jpg

In Oct 1944, the Yamato was again photographed, this time an excellent, overhead view, showing the beam turrets had been removed:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f257/Lynx7725/AAM/AANM/Yamato1944.jpg

Both photos are public domain from the US Naval Historical Center.

The Yamato did undergo another refit in Nov 1944 (shortly after this photo), in which MORE AA guns were installed. But practically, both refits were fairly late-war.

Unfortunately, I can't quite seem to get an overhead shot of the Musashi -- I recall seeing one before but it seemed not to be in public domain -- but apparently its beam turrets were also removed in April 1944. It never had the opportunity for a second refit because it was sunk shortly after, in Oct 1944.

[XAos]

Wow! Hard to believe that is the same mini in both pix. This is like the difference between what a chick looks like with beer goggles and what she looks like the next morning. :D

Respectfully suggest you scrap the stock photos, as they absolutely are making your product look like crap.

Gotta agree with that post.

I'd be happy to have a Yamato looking like Bobs photo in my collection.
One looking like the "stock" photo would go streight into landfill.

[Lynx7725]

I'd be happy to have a Yamato looking like Bobs photo in my collection.
One looking like the "stock" photo would go streight into landfill.
Sigh. It's amazing how many companies take crappy photos of their product to put onto the Internet in order for their consumers to not buying their products.. photography is key, you can't skimp on it.