What does the 1/32 community feel about the make-up...

For some purposes the 8 figure sprue x 2, which is more typical in the industry, would enable you to fit more poses in certain sets. Poses had to be left out of the French Light infantry sets and the Prussian Line Infantry sets. It might give you more flexibility in command sets where space has been a problem in the past because of equipment and options, resulting in five figure sets. A large mold would hold more items, or a horse.

I’m good with the 6 poses x 3 Spruance.

That said; in a perfect world I would like more variation in advancing poses and fewer Napoleonic sets with kneeling firing poses (as in he ears this was largely phased out of most armies standard drill) or marching poses.

Perhaps in the marching sets replace one marching pose with an “advancing at the ready” pose (musket held diagonally across the body).

Cheers

I think The Mac with 3 times 6 figures is wonderful! Great! Look forward to see some 1/32 made by HaT again! I still enjoy the Master figures of these 1/32 Austrians that I've painted with pleasure for you :-)

Stan

Keith, Good news as you might see on the Forum, the 1/32 Chasseurs 9302 and Voltigeurs 9304 are on the re-stock list for A1013. I personally hope the Carabiniers will be included in the next re-stock since I can use them for many different conversions. 

Best,
Stan

I think 6 x 3 boxes are OK but dreaming on badly needed mounted officers perhaps 2 mounted officers per sprue, that is 6 in a box will be great.
They may be of the same army, or allies or enemies.

Not to be argumentative here, but considering the constraints of the current manufacturing trends three mounted officers or none in a box of command figures is the most practical way to go in an MAC format - unless one expects a maker to produce a separate mold for horses. Then you are going to get into the swamp of having proper tack on each horse. TSSD produced a pretty decent set of Western horses and tried to use them for WW2 Germans - there were pedants who screamed bloody murder about having the wrong saddles - they were right, but Nick was trying to produce something not previously available in 1/32 plastic without incurring too enormous a cost.

So what would HaT be expected to do? Create a special sprue of horses and just cut off one or two for each command set? Then what about the extra spaces on each sprue where the one mounted figure was to go? Would HaT then cut off the extra riders (causing another outcry), or be expected to create yet another mold with extra foot guys thereby incurring the extra expense of three molds for each set. What would then happen to the cost of each box?

Other companies have "solved" the problem by creating sets with two or three molds of "regular" poses with an extra sprue of "Command" poses. This works well for them. HaT fairly much revolutionized the hobby with their MAC concept. Most of us agree it is an excellent solution to the "problem" of certain specialty figures - we don't need one out of every eight figures in our army being a flagbearer or officer waving his sword around uselessly -HaT allows us to be more flexible.

For me, I can always find a use for "excess" mounted officers - after all, I have literally thousands of figures from other companies with which HaT figures are pretty much compatible. I have bought extra MAC sets to supply command elements for my 1/32 Napoleonic Russians and & 7YW and Napoleonic Russians among others in both scales. I bought a slew of "extra" 1/72 scale HaT British Peninsular Command sets to supplement my 1/72 Brits from other companies. I'm still sorting through my collection figuring out where to fit them in. I've no doubt I will find a place for each of them.