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