Page 2 of 3

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:29 pm
by juggler69uk
BuShips wrote:
I might even be incorrect in them not being a consistant scale, but it has been the case in previous A&A minis. They are supposed to be 1/1800 in scale iirc.
Indeed the A&A WW2 15 mm ground forces did vary somewhat, and the Aircraft were not even close

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:38 pm
by Fanaticus
Lowly Uhlan wrote:
Fanaticus wrote:
Before commenting, did anyone saw any WaS miniatures for real, in the flesh?

In overall, the quality could be way, way worst.


GHQ is cream of the top, with a price to match, it should not even be used in a comparison to other related miniatures lines, it is not fair. 8)
A couple friends of mine bought some WaS booster packs and I was looking at them this weekend. The painted lines on the carriers and some other details were pretty nice. There was ship cammo too, which is nice because I hate painting cammo. But they're just too big IMO. I won't use or buy any (I might pick up some aircraft on the secondary market) but if someone doesn't want to paint or assemble minis they might be an option. As far as quality goes I've seen worse.

And yes, GHQ rules the naval minis world :)
I agree with your opinions, and also with DM's statements.

But people are demanding more pictures of WaS, so afraid they are, so here are some more:

Image

Image

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:16 pm
by BuShips
They look to me as if they would work just fine. The aircraft are double scale, like 1/800 or 1/900, correct? All in all, since measuring is to the model's center (or front funnel or to bridge etc.) on a decent size table (or floor) they should be very usable. Thanks for showing pics for those interested or even just curious. :D

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:19 pm
by Lord David the Denied
So what are we looking at here? Are those all War at Sea models, or a mix of ranges?

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:25 pm
by Swan
THose are all from War at Sea

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:15 pm
by Lord David the Denied
Scale looks a bit crazy. Are those destroyers alongside the battleship in the middle of the photo?

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:40 pm
by Jellicoe
Yes thanks for showing. I liked the WotC Starship Battles ships, but these just don't do it more me. Scales seem a bit odd, and the overall impact is not so good.

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:45 pm
by BuShips
Lord David the Denied wrote:Scale looks a bit crazy. Are those destroyers alongside the battleship in the middle of the photo?
Let me give this a go (for recognition practice).
Top photo, above and to the left of Iowa class BB: U.S. Fletcher DD. Behind it I'm thinking U.S. Buckley class DE. Near side of Iowa and to the left: Atlanta class CL(AA). It's the first type, with 16 5" guns. Later versions removed the two beam mounts to add AA and save topweight. Behind Atlanta, maybe a German Narvik class DD. So 3 of the four "escorting" Iowa are DDs. Someone grade me, please. :wink:

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:19 pm
by Chernobyl
I've heard from various sources that there isn't a consistant scale in the WAS ship. some are not to scale with others. That being said, I think they're in the neighborhood of 1/1600 scale. The're significantly bigger than GHQ's 1/2400

Chern

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:55 am
by DM
They also seem to be quite popular in the US. Reports cropping up on naval wargaming internet boards and email discussion suggets they are selling well.

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:17 am
by BuShips
DM wrote:They also seem to be quite popular in the US. Reports cropping up on naval wargaming internet boards and email discussion suggets they are selling well.
Well David, I won't be buying these most likely, but I am glad to see some pics of them. Hey, how do you think I did on my "ship recognitions"? :roll:

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:11 pm
by Fanaticus
Lord David the Denied wrote:So what are we looking at here? Are those all War at Sea models, or a mix of ranges?
All War at Sea... as I already told...

Planes are definitely - as stated as - off scale relating with the ships.

Scale in the ships is supposed to be consistent to 1:1800, but I'm not really sure of that.

Nevertheless, the relation between the different ships seem to be somewhat well represented, and also the visual representation of the ship itself.

For example, this issue relates me to the previous Panzerschiffe range image in this thread, supposedly a better range, when we can see a Fletcher DD which has NO resemblance with a true Fletcher DD... but in the WaS range thats ship is better represented.

I think that the color patterns used, not being uniform, can bring some level of visual confusion.

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:01 pm
by Swan
BuShips wrote:
Lord David the Denied wrote:Scale looks a bit crazy. Are those destroyers alongside the battleship in the middle of the photo?
Let me give this a go (for recognition practice).
Top photo, above and to the left of Iowa class BB: U.S. Fletcher DD. Behind it I'm thinking U.S. Buckley class DE. Near side of Iowa and to the left: Atlanta class CL(AA). It's the first type, with 16 5" guns. Later versions removed the two beam mounts to add AA and save topweight. Behind Atlanta, maybe a German Narvik class DD. So 3 of the four "escorting" Iowa are DDs. Someone grade me, please. :wink:
Well I would have to say that your powers of recognition are amazing. The four ships you spotted (at least according to WOTC) are the
USS Fletcher
USS Samuel B. Roberts (John C. Butler class DE)
USS Atlanta
Z20 Karl Galster (Zerstorer class DD)

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:42 pm
by BuShips
Swan wrote:
BuShips wrote:
Lord David the Denied wrote:Scale looks a bit crazy. Are those destroyers alongside the battleship in the middle of the photo?
Let me give this a go (for recognition practice).
Top photo, above and to the left of Iowa class BB: U.S. Fletcher DD. Behind it I'm thinking U.S. Buckley class DE. Near side of Iowa and to the left: Atlanta class CL(AA). It's the first type, with 16 5" guns. Later versions removed the two beam mounts to add AA and save topweight. Behind Atlanta, maybe a German Narvik class DD. So 3 of the four "escorting" Iowa are DDs. Someone grade me, please. :wink:
Well I would have to say that your powers of recognition are amazing. The four ships you spotted (at least according to WOTC) are the
USS Fletcher
USS Samuel B. Roberts (John C. Butler class DE)
USS Atlanta
Z20 Karl Galster (Zerstorer class DD)
Thank God. I'm still sentient! :lol: Thanks, btw. :wink:

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:48 pm
by juggler69uk
You might well need a large table to game with the war at sea mini's

ships

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:15 am
by rcbecker1
Well needless to say I like the WAS ships and you can modify them or repaint if you want to.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:04 pm
by afilter
I realize this is an old thread.....just wondering how many are using WotC War at Sea models now?

It appears they meet some initial resistence when they were intially released for the old salts.. I was playing WaS before I came to VaS and I fully intend to use my WaS collection for VaS as I cannot justify building two collections.

There are now many more models available than when this thread was firts created and the quality is steadily improving. WoTC just released the 4th set of models yesterday June 8, 2010 bringing the total number of units to 204 which includes reprints or sister ships.

I just wish they made a line of WWI models that I could use with AoD so all my models would be consistent.

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:54 pm
by rcbecker1
Dude there are to many lurkers cant get more than a couple to be active for some reason. Hoping to improve the action over here.
Ray

Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:50 am
by Lincolnlog
I have a set of 1/2400 scale miniatures from multiple manufacturers. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Whe W@S first came out I bought the first set, decided they were too large. But, they are nice miniatures.

Face it, some of us are just not artistically inclined. If you enjoy glueing 5"/38 gun turrets to your fingers, then you might like GHQ, which will still have to be primed and painted. Back when Superior was in business, I preferred them over GHQ (true they were not as detailed) because there were not tons of little parts.

I like the W@S models, they look nice, you don't have to paint or assemble them! This leaves more time to roll dice and generate scenarios. Another nie feature, is sine the W@S miniature are plastic they are not a fragile. I have also come to realize that the size difference is no so great as to be a true disability in playing. With 1/1800 scale ships, an 8 foot table still proveds more than adequate playing space.

I look forward to additional W@S releases. With the 4 out there already, the fleets are really starting to fill out. By in large, no-one needs more than fleet. The W@S miniatures work well. If you want to shoot holes in something, sink the rules/W@S game system. :oops:

I know Ray has taken his miniature to a Convention, and I have taken mine to game groups. And the W@S miniatures always draw a crowd. So they are popular not only with the owners, but with the general populace (spectators) as well. I would be curious if anyone has ever bought a copy of Victory at Sea after playing W@S miniatures. I did! 8)

The only thing that slightly annoys me is they take a ship that there were only 4 of. Make it a common, and then issue under 2 sets, so you end up with 12 models of a ship there were only 4 of. In the current set, my6 example is Witt de With. If it is a common and there were fewer than 6 in the class, I think there should only be one issue of that model.

Bob

Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:16 pm
by rcbecker1
One option is to match with another class with detail so small that you cant tell its not that one and repaint it then your new class is ready.
Then if your a modder the possibilties ready open up.
Ray