|
Post by lunch on Aug 26, 2021 15:28:40 GMT
Too many good and bad sets. I’m just going to think about the good sets here because I don’t think about the bad sets. But how do you define good? Sculpting, design, utility?
For detail I’m thinking about the Prussian musketeer set right now. Beautiful detail even if the anatomical proportions are odd, reminds me of the best ESCI and Italeri sets.
For utility it has to be the British colonial sets like the Gatling gun sets, things I’ve wanted for a long time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2021 15:29:19 GMT
Best sets is hard to choose as I really like a good few sets. With most of my interest in Napoleonics, I guess if pushed to choose, my top 5 would be.....
1-Peninsular British Infantry, 2-MAC Prussian infantry, 3-MAC French light Chasseurs, 4-Nassau Infantry, 5-Brunswick Cavalry
Honorable mentions go to the 1805 French in grestcoats &, while not a showstopper of a set, I also like the 1815 French line fusiliers marching too. There are also plenty of others which are good sets that I have bought & will continue to buy.
At the other end of the scale, my worst ones would be...
1-Peninsular British cavalry 2-Napoleonic British light infantry 3-Set 8234 French in greatcoats (on the list due to only 3 poses in a box) 4-MAC Austrian Infantry in action 5-All those sets that had the chunky style & marching figures doing the splits!! So 1808-1812 French Line, 1806 Prussians etc.
The Peninsular Spanish Line infantry set didn't impress me much either. Not enough proper action type figures.
|
|
|
Post by lunch on Aug 26, 2021 15:41:00 GMT
For design I’ve always liked the 100 figure sets like the Napoleons British or French sets. Which were superseded by the MAC sets. I’ve always had a thing for marching figures which is why I always used to like the old Airfix American civil war sets, because they had a lot of marching figures, which leads me to the new Hat ACW marching sets. I don’t care for and need any Hat ACW action sets because there are already a million other ACW action sets out there.
Also for design I like the itty bitty hard plastic WWI and WW2 cannons. Simple and easy to build and mix and match with artillery crew.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2021 15:49:29 GMT
I like the ACW marching sets too.
I however would be happy to see HaT do their version of ACW in action sets, simply as I always believe there is room for improvment, with some exisiting ACW sets wasting space on the sprue with silly poses or having poor sculpting. Some good sets like the Accurate Miniatures sets/Revell reissues are out of production too.
|
|
|
Post by lunch on Aug 26, 2021 15:50:59 GMT
Also for design the heavy weapons sets like the WWI German set with a lot of little vignettes in it.
And the cavalry sets with 4 horses and 5 riders that you threw away the one you didn’t need. Not a lot of people seem to like those.
And the Imperial Roman command sets that was featured on this forum. A very specialized set with a lot of command figures.
Reading Roger’s post above, their Peninsula British sculptor is probably one of the best, with very good proportions.
And I also do like the separate backpacks which is something Zvezda came up with.
|
|
|
Post by lunch on Aug 26, 2021 15:56:12 GMT
I like the ACW marching sets too. I however would be happy to see HaT do their version of ACW in action sets, simply as I always believe there is room for improvment, with some exisiting ACW sets wasting space on the sprue with silly poses or having poor sculpting. Some good sets like the Accurate Miniatures sets/Revell reissues are out of production too. I like marching and standing figures because they’re just so neat. Many dioramas just have rows and rows of them. And that’s what they did on the battlefield most of the time. Here’s a radical idea, I wouldn’t be mad if that’s all Hat produced from the beginning: just marching figures and command sets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2021 19:39:41 GMT
Somebody had to be firing, slashing & stabbing etc!! Otherwise where did all the dead & wounded come from?!!
Nah, I do understand your point of view though. Large amounts of figures standing or marching always looks really impressive & eye catching. But I am someone who also likes to model the reality of battle, which means I will always need figures who are in action, as well as those in the rear standing in reserve or marching towards the fighting.
So if HaT want to make the big box 100 fig sets with a mixture of poses or continue the MAC format, thats perfect for me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2021 19:45:00 GMT
Reading Roger’s post above, their Peninsula British sculptor is probably one of the best, with very good proportions. The infantry.....yes. The cavalry....no. Just wish more spare heads had been included in the infantry set so all the figures could of had belgic shakos or light infantry shakos. 24 of each wasn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by paintdog on Aug 27, 2021 8:59:03 GMT
Best set? The next new release from HaT.
Worst set? Sets promised but for various reasons, cancelled.
donald
|
|
|
Post by gbvarese on Aug 28, 2021 7:46:21 GMT
Dear All
In my opinion one of the disappointing set is 8027 - Austrian Infantry. This is a fundamental set, being the only one existing on the market, with infantry wearing shako. Unfortunately only 4 poses out of 8 are fine, while the other 4 are rather unnatural. Moreover many details are not well sculpted and not enough evident: i.e. shako too small, with cockades and ponpoms just perceivable.
I hope not I was not too strict .
Gio.
|
|
|
Post by waynew on Aug 28, 2021 18:18:08 GMT
I don't know that I can pick just ONE set for my favorite or best as there were a series of sets that came out in the large box format that stand out in my mind. Many of which have already been mentioned. But if I had to pick just ONE it has to be the Peninsular British Infantry set for content and sculpting style. Others I like are the Russian Militia - as I said recently, I'm not normally fond of the style but these guys have such a personality that in my mind speaks to the lot of the Russian militiamen in the era. I am also fond of the 1812 French Infantry (including the elites sets) - again, I usually like a more realistically proportioned figure but these guys paint up well and look pretty good once painted. I also like the Nassauers, too.
Now for worst? There is one that just stands out as bad - The Sea Peoples set. I understand there's a long story behind that. But they'd be good if you're into creating LOTR in 1/72 scale. In my humble opinion, HaT has a pretty good batting average on quality.
|
|
|
Post by plasticpanzers on Sept 6, 2021 1:16:42 GMT
I don't have enough HaT Napoleonic's to fully weigh in but the Russian/Prussian Artillery sets are the worst for me.
|
|
|
Post by drugut on Sept 11, 2021 11:54:00 GMT
Worst of the worst is 1/32 Carthaginian elephant, Normally african elephants are 3.2 m long but this sets elephant is 2.2 m long in real size. All of the human figures are on right size so they look like they are riding a baby elephant. Best is Turks and Anzacs. Perfect models for a Gallipoli diaroma, other than that Almoravids and Andalusian are great too.
|
|
|
Post by deraltefritz on Sept 14, 2021 15:24:39 GMT
Worst of the worst is 1/32 Carthaginian elephant, Normally african elephants are 3.2 m long but this sets elephant is 2.2 m long in real size. All of the human figures are on right size so they look like they are riding a baby elephant. Best is Turks and Anzacs. Perfect models for a Gallipoli diaroma, other than that Almoravids and Andalusian are great too. Good point on the elephant size, something that I hadn’t observed. I think that the tower gives overall height to the look of the elephant and so the proportions seem ok to me. My one nitpick is that the tower isn’t big enough to fit the two figures in the set that are supposed to fit inside. Also, a floor on the tower would be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by malcolm on Sept 15, 2021 10:23:12 GMT
The Carthaginians used the African Forest elephant, maybe now extinct, that was much smaller than the African Bush elephant. So I believe that when the Selucids fought against the Ptolomies, the Selucid Indian elephants were much bigger than the Ptolomeic African variety. The advantage of elephants was their disturbing effects on enemy cavalry, horses not used to elephants would not approach and infantry that had never seen these beasts before. In 1/72nd scale the Carthaginian elphants are obviously smaller than the Indian elephants already produced by Hat but I think that is correct.
Best regards,
Malcolm
|
|
|
Post by Ironsides on Sept 15, 2021 11:55:51 GMT
What were dealing with here is a smaller extinct sub species (@2.5m at the shoulder) of the African forest elephant so its going to be difficult to come up with a realistic impression, though I would say I've seen images at least of similar looking modern day endangered related African Forest elephants...
Hannibal himself is also supposed to have rode an elephant called "The Syrian" (one interpretation) this could have been a sub species (@3.5m at the shoulder) of the Asian now extinct, but there's some speculation on whether or not it was an actual Syrian or an Asian Elephant import...
Remember as well that size varies with age, I've personally been confronted by a male teenage bush elephant that was not particularly big, but big enough and angry enough to scare the pants of me...
|
|
|
Post by waynew on Sept 15, 2021 15:20:06 GMT
What were dealing with here is a smaller extinct sub species (@2.5m at the shoulder) of the African forest elephant so its going to be difficult to come up with a realistic impression, though I would say I've seen images at least of similar looking modern day endangered related African Forest elephants...
Hannibal himself is also supposed to have rode an elephant called "The Syrian" (one interpretation) this could have been a sub species (@3.5m at the shoulder) of the Asian now extinct, but there's some speculation on whether or not it was an actual Syrian or an Asian Elephant import...
Remember as well that size varies with age, I've personally been confronted by a male teenage bush elephant that was not particularly big, but big enough and angry enough to scare the pants of me...
I believe we had this discussion when the set was first issued (my memory may be faulty). As I recall the conclusion was the elephants Hannibal used were neither the large Indian or African elephant we all are familiar with but a third, small breed of pachyderm that was more easily domesticated. After all, I believe the large African elephant is impossible (or nearly impossible (I say that in someone googles a circus elephant in lower Slobbovia someone was able to domesticate) to domesticate, unlike the Indian elephant. It would have been extremely difficult for Hannibal to obtain a number of Indian elephants for his use. My curiosity being piqued by the discussion I did some further research and read in a couple places that after the Carthaginians were finally defeated the Romans decided they didn't want anyone else using elephants against them so they set out on a program of extermination of this species. Many died in the arenas for the entertainment of the crowds. Others were merely hunted down and slaughtered. I believe the species is extinct. Of course there might be ONE or two out there somewhere... and there's always the chance the elephants used may be the same forest elephants still found in Africa - or relatives, but I'm not an expert. Suffice it to say the size of the elephants tried to reflect those facts. I thought I was well-versed in the history of the times but it never occurred to me to ask what kind of elephant Hannibal used until this set came out. I never thought about the fact it couldn't have been the African elephant we know today because of the problems domesticating them - I guess I figured Hannibal and the Carthaginians had a secret method. But the fact HaT went the extra mile to ensure accuracy in presenting these animals increased my knowledge if even in a small way. It wasn't the first - and won't be the last time a set of figures (not just limited to our hosts) has broadened my understanding of history. To me that's one of the neat things about the hobby.
|
|