Which scale do you prefer?

[Photoner Hawkwind]

I'm trying my first poll to compare whether you prefer the 1/1800 scale of A&AM or would you have prefered them to have made it at the smaller and more conventional scale of 1/2400.

I'm also adding some photos of the detail difference between A&AM and some 1/2400 scale panzerschiffe models for your comparison.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7346/1001262jw7.jpg

The enterprise in the two different scales.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5876/1001263up9.jpg

The Akagi in 2 different scales.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/791/1001264fp8.jpg

Cruisers in both scales

[Photoner Hawkwind]

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4782/1001265ay3.jpg

Japanese cruisers in different scales

[Photoner Hawkwind]

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/9725/1001266cw4.jpg

different scales for cargo ships

[Photoner Hawkwind]

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3038/1001267tj0.jpg

Destroyers at different scales

[TK421]

Be careful, putting your ships on hexes might make you think about facing.;)

[Photoner Hawkwind]

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/1659/1001268zo1.jpg

Japanese Destroyers at different scales

[Photoner Hawkwind]

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/5764/1001269yt3.jpg

Submarines at different scales. Note that they are different. They are for A&ANM the Barb and the gato class is for the Panzerschiffe.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

Be careful, putting your ships on hexes might make you think about facing.;)

Then I guess I'll probably wind up using some house rules with facing.:D

[TK421]

I'm enjoying the game nonetheless, I just played too much Bismark as a kid.

The larger scale looks better in the larger models, but it may be due to the paint jobs. I collected 1/2400 for a "Seikreig" game many moons ago and the detail was better on the smaller ships in metal. Comparing metal to plastic at that scale isn't fair.

I've been happy with all my WAS models so far with the exception of the PT boats.

[horacus]

I prefer the A&ANM scale.

[afilter]

I voted for the 1/1800, but I have seen some better 1/2400 models then what are represented in the pics. What models were those, they did not look like GHQ?

Of course with my schedule these days the pre=painted is very appealing. If I ever get some time I may do some customizing especially on sister units.

[Joisey]

That Panzerschiffe stuff looks like crap by comparison. :P

[Rokossovsky]

The A&ANM 1:1800s do look very nice in these beautiful photos -- far better than from the side in their mugshots which make the portholes look even worse than they are. (Could some of the worst A&ANM models so far be redone -- better -- in the future, if the market will carry that?) The A&ANMs' prepainting is usually very well researched and done, and with my own models I've made, I've noticed that a good paint job -- camoflage or not -- can make all the difference in a model's attractiveness and popularity.

However, this "poll" is unfair, if you are trying to represent 1:2400s with Panzerschiffe models. They are relatively crude resin plastic and 1-piece molds. There are far more detailed 1:2400 -- 200' per inch -- metal models put out by CinC and GHQ -- the latter exceeding in accuracy and detail the A&ANM 1:1800 models I have seen so far. However, the metal models are a bit more expensive, and are easily damaged because of their weight and the delicacy of their details.

Randy Hoffa's CinC 1:4800 -- 400' per inch -- German and British task force sets are my favorite for tabletop gaming -- he did the masters with a magnifying glass and the details ... and ships ... are so small you can barely see some of them -- but it looks like he will never expand the line.

I dug up my old "Hong Kong specials" ... :) ... and found to my disappointment that only Bismarck approaches 1:1800 scale. Yamato and British carrier Indomitable are a bit larger, and Missouri is noticeably smaller.

However, there is a line of plastic model ship kits out I had forgotten about which are close in scale -- 1:2000s -- and superior in detail. They were manufactured by Bandai and then EKA. They include all the Japanese battleships, most of their fleet carriers and cruisers, and some of their destroyers. They also had many U.S. and British capital ships: Hood, King George V, Illustrious, Iowa, New Jersey, Washington, South Dakota, Enterprise, (the old) Lexington, and Essex -- but NO Allied cruisers or destroyers. I think they did Bismarck and Tirpitz too. They are very scarce now, but maybe A&ANM will generate renewed demand for them.

Heller actually did Bismarck at 1:2000 too, but that is full-hull,unfortunately.

I think the Bandai/EKA 1:2000s would have really taken off -- they were comparatively inexpensive -- if they had had Allied cruisers and destroyers. But like American hobby manufacturers, they couldn't see the longterm naval wargaming and collectibles market. Only Hasbro has responded and with a HUGE selection of ships ALREADY.

It is a pity the A&ANM models have had to be of outsourced manufacture, but the American companies had their chance and just ignored it.

So -- again -- THANK YOU, HASBRO/AVALON HILL!

I have had a Bandai 1:2000 Mogami and destroyer (which came in its box with it) half finished for about 20 years(!) now. I'll see if I can finish it and post the photo next to one of my 1:1800 A&ANM models, when I get them.

Again, those are BEAUTIFUL photos ... AND (A&ANM) MODELS!

Lou Coatney

[Photoner Hawkwind]

That Panzerschiffe stuff looks like crap by comparison. :P

That's what I think.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

The A&ANM 1:1800s do look very nice in these beautiful photos -- far better than from the side in their mugshots which make the portholes look even worse than they are. (Could some of the worst A&ANM models so far be redone -- better -- in the future, if the market will carry that?)

However, this "poll" is unfair, if you are trying to represent 1:2400s with Panzerschiffe models. They are relatively crude resin plastic and 1-piece molds. There are far more detailed 1:2400 -- 200' per inch -- metal models put out by CinC and GHQ -- the latter exceeding in accuracy and detail the A&ANM 1:1800 models I have seen so far. However, the metal models are a bit more expensive, and are easily damaged because of their weight and the delicacy of their details.

Randy Hoffa's 1:4800 German and British task force sets are my favorite for tabletop gaming -- he did the masters with a magnifying glass and the details ... and ships ... are so small you can barely see some of them -- but it looks like he will never expand the line.

I dug up my Hong Kong specials ... :) ... and found that only Bismarck approaches 1:1800 scale. Yamato (British carrier Indomitable) are a bit larger, and Missouri is noticeably smaller.

However, there is a line of ships out I had forgotten about which are close in scale -- 1:2000s -- and superior in detail. They were manufactured by Bandai and then EKA. They include all the Japanese battleships, most of their fleet carriers and cruisers, and some of their destroyers. They also had many U.S. and British capital ships: Hood, King George V, Illustrious, Iowa, New Jersey, Washington, South Dakota, Enterprise, (the old) Lexington, and Essex -- but NO Allied cruisers or destroyers. I think they did Bismarck and Tirpitz too.

Heller actually did Bismarck at 1:2000 too, but that is full-hull,unfortunately.

Like American hobby manufacturers, they wouldn't listen to us naval wargamers about the longterm gaming and collectibles market.

Only Hasbro has responded.

It is a pity the models had to be of outsourced manufacture, but the American companies had their chance and just ignored it.

So -- again -- THANK YOU, HASBRO/AVALON HILL!

I have had a Bandai 1:2000 Mogami and destroyer (which came in its box with it) half finished for about 20 years(!) now. I'll see if I can finish it and post the photo next to one of my 1:1800 A&ANM models, when I get them.

Unfortunately, I was only willing to invest in plastic minis and Panzerschiffe was all I could afford and maybe that's why they are so plain.

But if anyone with 1/2400 scale minis that have better detail wants to post some comparison shots I'd love to see them.

[Rokossovsky]

Well, again, there are disadvantages to the metal models. Besides their weight and fragility, there have been health concerns (about possible lead content) from time to time.

Again, BEAUTIFUL PHOTOS, PH! Please post MORE! :)

Incidentally, I re-edited my posting after the version you have re-posted. You might want to erase the version you've got there. (I've never caught on to "previewing" -- Sorry.)

[Photoner Hawkwind]

Well, again, there are disadvantages to the metal models. Besides their weight and fragility, there have been health concerns (about possible lead content) from time to time.

Again, BEAUTIFUL PHOTOS, PH! Please post MORE! :)

Incidentally, I re-edited my posting after the version you have re-posted. You might want to erase the version you've got there. (I've never caught on to "previewing" -- Sorry.)

Hey it's your turn.;)

[Rokossovsky]

Eica is the name of the post-Bandai 1:2000 company.

I've looked through mine, and I am deficient in cruisers and destroyers, although I've got a A&ANM Yukikaze coming.

I do have the Mogami virtually finished, although I could have done a better job painting -- like the brown linoleum on the decks. Ironically, it is the post-Midway Mogami, having the stern turrets replaced by a floatplane flight deck. Well, I've got another copy of the kit, so ...

Interestingly, its companion destroyer is the famous 9-lived Shigure's class.

These reports of bent A&ANM models are disturbing.

[Rokossovsky]

At the top is my almost-completed post-Midway "hermaphrodite" carrier/cruiser Mogami ca. 1944 at Bandai 1:2000 scale.

Below it is A&ANM's Bolzano, which was actually just barely short of Mogami's length. You can see a difference, but it's nowhere near as significant as the difference between 1:700 vs. 1:600.

If you look closely, the Bolzano's bow turret is from/for a different ship! Someone at the Chinese factory goofed, but Wizards later sent me a replacement Bolzano.

But look at the beautiful, machine-precision paint job on the WAS Bolzano in comparison with my deck painting of Illustrious, which looks all the sloppier with the magnification -- and I'm NOT a poor painter!

Next down are unstarted Bandai 1:2000 Illustrious (British carrier), Hood, and Tirpitz/Bismarck.

Below that is my (1:1800?) Hong Kong special Bismarck. Even after I've taken off its bottom plate, it's going to be high in the water. And regarding wrong turrets, the Iowa class battleship this was packed with had 2 Yamato turrets and only 1 Iowa turrets -- the second and most visible one. You don't suppose ....

Next below is a Bandai 1:2000 Fubuki class Japanese destroyer.

At the bottom is a(n excellent) 1:1800 A&ANM Karl Galster, which actually was longer than Fubuki.

I think the Bandai 1:2000s are equal in accuracy and close in scale to the A&ANM 1:1800s. I now have motivation to finish a few.

[Bigblue2]

I prefer the smaller scale, but not in plastic. In plastic I would have to go with the larger scale, for the detail. I remember a smaller scale ship line that had a lot of detail from GHX, GCH or something like that. They were lead miniatures, though a little pricey. I guess if you are using plastic, you need to go with a larger scale to get any kind of detail. Thanks for the pics, I feel a lot better now with my WAS obsession. :D

[Andras]

I vote for the scale I don't have to paint.

[hornet69]

At the top is my almost-completed post-Midway "hermaphrodite" carrier/cruiser Mogami ca. 1944 at Bandai 1:2000 scale.

Below it is A&ANM's Bolzano, which was actually just barely short of Mogami's length. You can see a difference, but it's nowhere near as significant as the difference between 1:700 vs. 1:600. (If you look closely, my Bolzano's bow turret is from/for a different ship! Someone at the factory was CHEATING!! :mad: )

Next down are unstarted Bandai 1:2000 Illustrious (British carrier), Hood, and Tirpitz/Bismarck.

Below that is my (1:1800?) Hong Kong special Bismarck. Even after I've taken off its bottom plate, it's going to be high in the water. And regarding wrong turrets, the Iowa class battleship this was packed with had 2 Yamato turrets and only 1 Iowa turrets -- the second and most visible one. You don't suppose ....

Next below is a Bandai 1:2000 Fubuki class Japanese destroyer.

At the bottom is a(n excellent) 1:1800 A&ANM Karl Galster, which actually was longer than Fubuki.

I think the Bandai 1:2000s are equal in accuracy and close in scale to the A&ANM 1:1800s. I now have motivation to finish a few.
where can you get some of those ships

[zaarin7]

I voted 1/2400 as I already own 100 or so of them. I can go for the 1/1800 these are so long as they do everything and keep the details right. For example, one of the re-built USN BB's had a different camo scheme on different sides of the ship.

[Rokossovsky]

Hah! EXACTLY! The plastic model manufacturers could never figure this out ... or see beyond the model kit mentality. (There were two old Renwal 1:1200 task force sets of late-50s era US Navy ships, but ... )

Hornet69, the Bandai kits ... including the cruisers ... are long out of production and EXTREMELY rare. Eica reissued some of the battleships and carriers, but ...

You'll just have to look for them out on the Net and in rare-kit hobby stores. Sorry. (The advantages of being older. :) )

But I think A&ANM models' quality will improve with demand, in any case. Some may have to be redone in the future. Whoever the model maker was who did Jeremiah O'Brien and the Italian light cruiser and destroyer should be given a bonus, for sure.

[Rokossovsky]

Just raising this to the top of the list, because I refer to it under the Ise/Hyuga thread.

[Bigblue2]

I vote for the scale I don't have to paint.

Truer words have seldom been spoken. :D

[MarcusAurelius]

I vote for the scale I don't have to paint.

You said it.

I like the GHQ models a lot. But the prospect of assembling and painting entire fleets of ships is what's kept me out of naval wargaming.

[kaz]

il stik 2 the skael we use ie the painted ones

[trout11]

I think your not doing a valued justice to the 1/2400 scale models. First of all the castings appear to be the old Superior or possibly C-C manufacturer. Obviously not GHQ.

So if you want to compare Quality to quality I think you should have at least compared it to GHQ modeling and painted!!!!.

You comparison is like showing a Pig and a Sow both the same but one is muddied..

So your comparison is really unfair and misleading. I have beautifully painted GHQ models and your pics are showing crap.. Common unpainted versus painted.... GEEZZ:rolleyes:

[trout11]

4135

4136

4137


Sample GHQ 1/2400 painted!! :cool:

[TheJudge]

It's very simple, the models I don't have to spend hours gluing and painting are the ones I buy.

I think those smaller ones are awful looking. The models in the post above this by Trout11 look nice enough but if they gotta be painted, count me out!

[trout11]

It's very simple, the models I don't have to spend hours gluing and painting are the ones I buy.

I think those smaller ones are awful looking. The models in the post above this by Trout11 look nice enough but if they gotta be painted, count me out!


Thats the whole point Yeah! the lazy ones won't paint or dont know how or want too.. But my SOLE agrument is that the comparison is not apples to apples.

Hes showing unpainted low quality ships versus a Chinese painted production line mini... SO of course you'll buy the pre-painted plastic mini-

Buy the way there is very little gluing and painting involved.. I can do 6 ships in less than a half a day.. with very to little effort..:D ..

[Rokossovsky]

Longtime naval wargamers are selling off their 1/2400 models right and left. I wonder if A&A WAS Naval Miniatures has anything to do with that.

[Grandviceroy]

played 5 hours of war at sea, operation pedastal yesterday....then played in a 1:2400 naval game..computer assisted action stations. moved at the speed of a baseball game...felt like i wanted to get out and push....nice, detailed simulation, and not a bad game...nice guys, easy to play....and not glacial, just, slow....i'd play again (we saved the game after almost four hours, moderator figures we were half done (!)) but not excited about it, as i have been and am with Was, especially WaS heavily modified

but nice toys. lovely, pretty, well built....good detail on 1:2400 big ships and even CLs....but all destroyers pretty much look alike, except for the old 4-stackers (because they have four stacks) or some of the larger ones....

no reason you could not play WaS with 1:2400....actually, we played on the 5x8 foot map i use for WaS (3.5 inch grid as per the paper map) and the 1:2400 LOOK more in scale.....the scale in WaS is way off....i mean, so is 1:2400 unless you are playing in a big meeting hall and on the floor, but it is more in scale than 1:1800s....

the 1:1800 are lovely toys, pretty models and i can tell even the small ships apart....

i bought six 1:2400 models 15 years ago. played with them maybe twice.
Since May i have bought over 350 1:1800 models of was, and a goodly number of 1:2000 futura/bandai/eka, including model kits to build.

think that answers the question for me, putting my money where my mouth is

[Grandviceroy]

oh, and 1:2400 ships are good to play was with.

they are relatively cheap -- and you can get almost any damn ship you want, when you want it, without having to worry about sets released or random boosters.

you do of course have to paint them.....which means time and good eyes or a magnifying lamp (like i use for miniatures)....

they also take up less room to store/transport, and they actually LOOK better on the map than the 1:1800 -- the map is MUCH LESS CROWDED with 1:2400s.

...not that i am going to switch over, mind you, not with my investment....but if people are selling their 1:2400 fleets, especially prebuilt and prepainted, it could be a good way to go to get into THIS game fast, cheap and heavy......

[rhnelson]

That's the whole point. Yeah! The lazy ones won't paint or don't know how or want to..

"Lazy" seems pretty harsh. Some of us don't choose to spend our spare time that way, and can't afford to pay someone to do the painting.

Rick

[weedsrock2]

GrandViceroy,

I am glad you had a chance to play VaS and post on it. Did you play it at the miniatures convention? I agree VaS is a much slower game although not as slow as some 'true' naval simulation games. I even played VaS with 1:600 models at Origins and that was really awkward for maneuvering even though we doubled the distance scale (tripling would have been better). I have to admit I really like the maneuvering part of the game. I will definitely try Richard's plus your facing rules.

[weedsrock2]

I played with the 1:1200 Superior metal miniatures many years ago so 1:1800 seems adequately 'small' to me. I have purchased a few GHQ pieces just to compare. GHQ are beautiful models, but very fragile to play with, and the devil to paint! I met the Panzerschiff guy at Origins. His miniatures are intentionally simple so they are easy to use for playing rather than being 'pretty on the shelf.' They are evidently popular with hard-core gamers for that reason. Easy to paint and rugged to play with. I even bought some 1:6000 Fletchers at Origins for comparison. They are so small they just look like little bumps on the tiny metal bases. But again, you get that scale of distance on a table that works well for large fleets and carrier task force battles.

I think AH was wise to pick a scale that was large enough to show decent detail in a rugged plastic. If they went with 1:2400 I think a LOT of people with no knowledge of naval gaming would have thought they were just being 'cheap' to save plastic or sculpting effort. I actually thought that when I opened my first box since I was used to 1:1200 scale. I also agree the minis I don't have to assemble and paint are the best. And I even like to repaint! But I can repaint these at my leisure and still play the game. I don't have to wait 3 months until I have built and painted enough pieces to even start playing. I just went through that last year with Starship Troopers, and it basically killed the game for us.

[defender390]

Does anyone know about these miniature metal ships? Ran across them in the HNSA guide from 2004.

http://www.alnavco.com/

[weedsrock2]

Alnavco sells many brands of metal miniature ships. The Superior 1:1200 scale are their own, but they also sell 1:1250, and 1:2400 scale brands.

[cwfgamecast]

I gave my vote to the WAS scale. The larger size is more convenient for all age groups. The pre-painted nature is a plus. The plastic = durability.

Some of those smaller ships, the Bandai ones, look real nice. I can't see myself painting them though.

I've found that metal figs usually look much nicer especially when people have taken the time to sculpt and paint them appropriately. Just look at the Warmachine figs. I know its a different type of game but you can see how nice that metal is (or even Confrontation).

I'm quite happy with the route WoTC took.

[Sean-Khan]

I like these ships just like this, I wouldn't want my destroyers to be any smaller! I know that larger ships may make board a bit crowded, but I think we got used to this already with AAM. Some ships, mainly battleships & carriers, are almost decorative items :)

Planes are also right size (how I still wish SWSB fighters would be same size too!) IMO.

[Bismarck]

I agree, I wouldn´t want the destroyers any smaller.
If anything I would like the scale even larger, but that would probably mean more costly boosters...

[jack pearl]

I just started playing and prefer the size they are. I definately wouldn't want them smaller...can't imagine a PT Boat being any smaller then it already is.

[Barry Kendall]

Infernal internet cut out before I could finish posting my comment, so here it goes again . . .

Metal miniatures were probably never a serious consideration for A & A:WAS because of the perceived "health hazards" associated with "lead miniatures."

As a longtime miniatures gamer I can affirm that metal offers a higher level of detail generally. However, the lower the lead content in the casting blend, the more brittle the miniature (higher in tin and/or pewter). Brittle miniatures would not do for a mass-market game.

The scale was probably significantly influenced by the marketing desire to put movable turrets on the larger surface ships (a good call, that one, imo). Smaller minis would not have permitted this appealing feature.

Larger minis would truly overwhelm the already-stretched map/board scale and "look" of the game (though I love 1/1200 scale ships in floor games).

1/1800 was a good compromise given the marketing goals, and plastic was inevitable.