...'cept the Austrians did; 800 x 800 mm^2 for ordinarstadten and 800 x 600 mm^2 for leibstandarte.

I won't chime in again, I have had my say and only replied above as the question was asked by Mr Schmitt.

James

You're right about the Austrian standards being bigger than those of most other nations, so this one may for once actually be about right. Doesn't solve the painting problem though - at least for me - and cutting a folded flag of its staff is a tiresome procedure. But that's entirely my personal point of view.

Roger, I share many of your views. The flagbearer is ridiiclous, but easy to transform.

Drum and Flag has just published which new sets will been in the next Strelets batch:
- only 3 WSS-sets: the 2 artillery and the dismounted french dragoons
- 4 sets for the friends of sand and dust
- 4 sets of Napoleonics
- 1 x WW1 french, 1 x WW2 Japanese

And there will been 7 sets re-issued:
3 ACW
2 GNW
Saxon Garde du corps
Carolingians


So, it seems that there won´t be 24 or 25 new sets and some of us can save their money for the last third of the year.

.

Thanks, good to know. I just wonder whatever happened to those WoSS Maison du Roi sets (Musketeers and Garde du Corps) announced last year. They looked ready to be launched anytime and nothing has been heard of them since ... ?
Well, guess I'll be painting some dismounted dragoons this summer.

I prefer bare flag poles too if i'm honest. At least with paper flags, you can manipulate them in ways which show how a breeze is effecting it, or make it look battle worn. Or in terms of cavalry, moreso lancers, someone can just convert it to another lance armed trooper.
Thing is though, I dont think many cavalry units would of wanted to take their standards onto the battlefield. 1-when engaged in such close combat, you run the risk of losing it, & 2- again when in close combat, the thing would get in the way. They may of carried it when on the march, but even then I suspect a large flag would be rolled up for travel. Small pennants would be different though.

James I agree it is nice to have some novel poses now and then, but when many cavalry sets start having more novel poses than "normal" ones, it doesnt help to build up a regiments numbers on a battlefield....whether that be for a battle diorama maker or a wargamer.
What if you wanted a regiment of Russian Hussars, to average say 20-25 figures, and you need 4 Hussar regiments for your army?
Multiple numbers of figures drinking, smoking and carbine fiddling isnt going to help. Figures with their sabres and lances ready, will. An odd "special" pose can always be added to that formation.
(Strelets Uhlan sets provide a nice balance, with the troopers mainly looking similar & "ready", with the command type poses looking unique, so are my favourite of their cavalry sets).

And what needs to be remembered from a business point of view, is those sets that offer a customer a box of figures with similar poses, such as the marching infantry sets, or sets in action of some sort, will sell far more than a "novel" set. Why? Because someone is more likely to buy multiple boxes of a set that allows them to quickly build up the numbers.

Personally I think the cavalry sets should of followed the way the infantry sets are being made. Sets of a specific activity such as on the march, in reserve, in advance & then charging etc.
So far the cavalry are sets of men more at ease rather than anything else....yet if they were able to be at such ease, they probably would want to be dismounted for a while. To give their bums a rest from uncomfortable saddles & give the horse a rest from carrying their weight!!

I agree with you, James. I think some people forget that we are all talking about what are in effect one inch plastic dolls. :slightly_smiling_face:

Oh well if thats all they are Norgri, sod it then.

Gentlemen, we may as well just all get a grip, call it a day, throw these silly lumps of plastic in the bin, & find a more sensible hobby. I mean, why would grown adult male's want to waste their money on such worthless objects??

Hope your mood will been soon better. We all love our hobby and we have obviously different views, standards and passions, And our lifes are not free of disappointments especially in this time of pandemic.

For some the miniatures are indeed only toys, for others more keystones for a historical accurate revitalisation of certain moments of the past. We all know how much well done miniatures can enjoy us. Nobody can force us to buy less well done sets. And fortunatly some manufactors including Strelets are producing still enough miniatures to choose....

Hi Sansovino.
Thank you kindly for asking, yes my mood is much better this morning!!

I just got triggered reading that from Norgri. It was just a ridiculous statement to make, which in hindsight was probably meant to just wind people up.....well alas it did. Yesterday was a bad day for me privately, but thats no excuse for me to take the bait!

Indeed for me, I look at miniature figures the same as I do model kits....they are miniature representations of the real thing. Its a hobby that offers a chance of learning more about history & a great way of combining a creative side with a passion for history.

Dear Roger,

We have corresponded outside this forum, so you know, I hope, that I am reasonable and well-meaning.

You are passionate, which is clear for all to see, but I think that you misrepresent Norgri's comment, focussing on his use of the term 'dolls', when I think he was meaning toys.

Todels or moys—toys or models?

The bit I have added to the title of this thread is c/- a chapter title in Luigi Toiati's excellent book "The History of Toy Soldiers" which I read and reviewed recently. In the book he uses the terms 'toy' and 'model' interchangeably.

To me they are models; military miniatures. It's interesting that a lot of people are referring to 'getting the toys out' and such on wargaming blogs. It's a bit of a trend. Not an expression that is my preferred, but I understand that it's like any hobby thing that one might refer to as a 'toy'. It is a source of great enjoyment, but is related to a pass-time.

The dictionary illustrates the overlap.
Toy
1. An object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.
2. An object, especially a gadget or machine, regarded as providing amusement for an adult.

Model
A three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original.


Now, whether it is this


or this


or this


or this


or this


or this


or even my 2 mm version (centre)


they are all model representations, some more detailed, some less. Some more or less accurate perhaps, but all clearly representing the same thing and clearly only representations of the real thing. We will all have those in the above that we prefer over others. Perhaps none of them appeal.

I have produced and worked with many computer models of biological systems and know that none of them are completely right. The best of them probably 'captures' 80% of reality (and we can compare output with measurement). Nevertheless, they all have value and can all provide insights. The same with a physical model, it is a representation that will, of its very nature, have limitations relative to the real thing, but it does not prevent it from providing insights into the real thing, particularly when we fit it into a simulation-game format or larger model representation. It's not limited to these as the model itself can provide insights, as you noted in your comment.

Of course, we want that which most suits our own biases and preferences but, in the end, "It's only a model" (Monty Python's Holy Grail)! Keeping that in mind can help us to maintain perspective, I reckon.

Kind regards, James

Hi James.
Not to worry, I know you are well meaning and thanks for your concern.

In hindsight, I normally wouldn't of reacted to Norgri's post, but having had some bad news yesterday, my mood wasn't the best & his comment just got me. Yeah to some he is right, they are just plastic soldiers, but to others they are scale models that the more detailed & accurate they are....the better. It wasn't the "doll" word that got me, rather the tone and seeming lack of respect to those of us who dont "play" with our soldiers, & view the hobby differently.

I agree some could call them toys, some could call them models, I personally call them models and stick them in the same genre as model kit aircraft, tanks, ships etc. To me whether they are a box of soldiers at £8.99 to a wooden ship model kit costing over £200, its the same thing. Yeah some kids play with their models (as did I!), so yes, they are kind of toys. But I have also seen people, including yourself, put so much time & effort into figures, kits & dioramas, that not only make them so much more than toys, but works of art within themselves. They can tell a story, while also making someone go "wow" at the visual aspect.

As for being less worried about mistakes etc. Again, it depends on ones point of view. Now for me, and a good many others, quality sculpting & historical accuracy is very important.....its the whole reason for buying the figures in the 1st place to us.
Now if figures are made as best as possible, everyone benefits, whether you want a scale model or a toy. If however, you only cater for those who just want figures to use & are not worried about accuracy or quality, then that means the rest of us are left out.

Now here is the main issue of recent.....an occaisional mistake or one or two poorly designed sets is forgivable. But we are seeing more mistakes with increasing frequency, some of which have been quite silly & very easily avoidable. Plus some very odd design decisions. Now while Napoleonics seems to bear the brunt of it, there is the odd sign that it is spreading to other era's. The recent DAK set hints at some disquiet among that era's fans.
The frustration comes from, (regardless if you feel they are models or toys), that Strelets can & indeed has done better. Whether that be horses, firearms, making sure little details are correct like fixed bayonets, or even the general layout of a set. We know there has been better.
But of recent the standards have dropped....it is undeniable. For me the "Crimean Highlanders" really did take the p**s!! Many are hoping they are actually Napoleonic & theres been an admin mess up. But even if thats the case, why stick sporrans on suddenly when you havent done that for any of the previous highlanders??!!! It makes no sense. It was a set that in one go, displayed all the problems going on at the moment.

So that is why some of us are being more vocal about stuff. Add to that its something we have seen before with other manufacturers....& where are many of them now?? Toys, models or whatever.....it impacts it the same eventually.

All the best to everyone, & stay safe.
Roger

I don't collect Napoleonic War figures as such. But I do use some of them as the basis for conversions. I like the flag, it looks great. I suspect it is hard to paint. One of the reasons I don't do Napoleonics is I don't paint much. All those little bits and bobs and buttons and such are more than I care to do, so I don't see painting the flag being any harder than painting the rest of the figures. Also, I have cut flags and spears and swords and rifles off of similar figures, then drill out the hand and install a new flagpole, or sword, or whatever. That does not seem hard to do. It seems the flag problem is more of a non-problem if the size is about right.

The horses look okay to me, but I am not a horse guy. So don't take my opinion on what horses look like.

I doubt I will get this set. I don't see any conversion potential to make them into Americans for the 19th Century. I have been trying to make various US Army, State Militia and local militia troops for the 1866 to 1910 period. Sometimes I have found Napoleonic troops that make the basis for some of them. Maybe a head swap and a totally different paint job is in order. But these guys don't seem to have any potential for me.

The two bonus civilian figures are wonderful. A half a dozen of each would be terrific. The various new sets with bonus civilian figures have all been great but not good enough to get me to buy a set for two figures. My budget is too small for that I am sorry to say.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Mike
For those of us who like to do conversions, yes it may come easy, but that does not go for everyone & it really does need to be remembered that not every buyer of figures is capable or even wants to do all that kind of thing.
Its the same as painting. You have just said that certain amounts of painting is beyond what you can tolerate, yet there are many of us who can paint well & enjoy doing it....even the tiny little buttons, as illustrated by some of the fine contributions here & elsewhere.
Make a set suitable for everyone, not just a few....being accurate, well sculpted & avoiding odd poses for a set helps achieve that. If someone then wants to be "Dr Frankenstein" then fair enough!

As for the flag, the Austrian one does look about the right size.
But the thing about all these standards being put in cavalry sets is, they can sometimes be a waste of a pose depending on the nation & the type of cavalry.
I could be wrong but i'm sure I read somewhere that in the Napoleonic Austrian cavalry, the "heavies" were permitted to carry theirs if they wished to, but the lighter units, including Uhlans, were not, due to their use as scouts & skirmishers thus often being detached from the main army & thus vunerable. So in this set, the standard bearer is a redundant pose.
Alternatively,I believe that in the Russian army, regardless of what sort of cavalry the regiment was, it was quite common for cavalry to charge into the thick of the action with their standards....even the cossacks took their own versions.

Some cavalry regiments of certain nations carried more than one standard among the squadrons, so the threat of losing one, & thus bringing dishonour to the regiment, was diminished.

So it depends on what sort of cavalry the set is, & for what Nation they belong to, as to whether a standard is a good pose to include.

I think that most engaged nations in the Napoleonic Wars learnt early that cavalry standards, particularly those of light regiments were at risk & were not usually hazarded.
Strict accuracy would say they are not needed in 1/72 sets.....you can of course leave that particular figure out.

My opinion: I'm often glad to get a set - any set - that covers a unit not otherwise available. I will, therefore turn a blind eye to some egregious mistakes.

However, Roger is correct that manufacturers should strive for 100% accuracy. This often takes quite a bit of research but possibly Strelets should remember there are several knowledgeable people on the forum who can direct them in the right direction?

The issue of "toy" versus "military model" is more than semantics. I wargame but I don't think of it as a childish pursuit. It reflects my genuine love of history. And I believe unless you count chess as a footling pastime, you can't dismiss the intellectual challenges of wargaming.

However, if someone talks of my "toy soldiers" in a belittling way, I don't care. BTW I think Nogri was making a point & not belittling the hobby.

It is healthy to have such robust discussion as this, but I hope we no longer stoop to the levels of abuse we saw recently? Now that would be childish.

donald

Good points there Donald.

I dare say that was indeed the case for cavalry standards.
I guess it goes to the idea that to lose the colours, was seen as a major dishonour, basically a symbol of utter defeat for that regiment. Alternatively, capturing one was a huge prize & honour to whoever captured it & to the regiment as a whole.

Yeah on reflection I probably shouldn't of reacted to Norgri's comment the way I did. As I mentioned before, I had some bad news that day & it just caught me off-guard. It was the "some people forget" bit I think, that got me. Of course nobody forgets they are simply little plastic men!!! But that isn't an excuse to produce a poor product, that money is being charged for. Toy or not.
If its dirt cheap then thats different. But the majority of figure sets are not dirt cheap anymore, including those from Strelets. Of course nobody is forced to buy, but if its a set you were looking forward to, or really needed, its annoying when it isnt good enough. It can really disrupt your plans. For example I was looking forward to HaTs Peninsular Dragoons, especially the Heavies. Then what appeared, (after so many years of waiting & the 1st release being the wrong scale), was a disaster!! Only half the heavy set was the right scale and some of the moulding was dreadful...swords looking more like daggers in some cases. Then the Lights were bigger than the heavies...just a mess for such long awaited sets, one that was even crowdfunded!! This in one move, made me drop plans for working on a Peninsular battle.

As for stooping to abuse like we have indeed seen not long ago, you yourself Donald being on the receiving end of it, I agree we dont want to see that. I try to remain civil & if I do engage, its within sensible debate. I hope my response to Norgri was not seen as abuse, it certainly wasn't posted as such, it was rather just exasperation felt at that post, at that particular time.

However, either way I shouldn't of reacted the way I did so I apologise, especially to Norgri.

I think the little soldiers should be accurate as possible. Still it is often difficult to determine what is accurate and what is not. Many wargamers might want a standard in their set, to help identify a unit, and just becauuse it was not usually carried into combat does not make it wrong to include it. Also there is the difference between parade ground perfect and three months of campaign scruffy.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog