First let me say, I don't own any minatures, and have never enjoyed painting
them. I have had fun playing with them, but think it's a
waste of effort to spend so much time/money on them. I'm quite happy
with FT as a strategy/tactical game, using some type of
markers/counters, or maybe even PBEM with gif maps ala FTMAP.
Having said that. I have built a few model aircraft models in the past. Why
don't minature makers build slightly larger, precision plastic models, rather
than dull lead minitures that lack definition. I suspect some of this is that
historically using lead in molds was the only real option, but surely this is
not true now?
I think I've been pretty fair here. Please be rational in your responses, or
email me privately so as to avoid adding to the trafic on the list.
On Monday, December 22, 1997 11:04 AM, David Maslen
[SMTP:david@binary.net.au]
wrote:
> Having said that. I have built a few model aircraft models in the
This has come up before, its the cost of the moulds and tooling required for
injection plastic moulding, something like 1000% more expensive to produce the
moulds. Manufacturing equipment is also much more expensive.
Given the mini market is small compared to scale plastic kits - the
chances you will cover the cost is too high a risk to take.
FYI - there are some plastic kits available from japan, see:
http://www.iac.co.jp/~hlj/pages/scifi/scifiYamato(Starblazers).html
But a lot of these are now out of production.
IMO a well designed/detailed mini is just as good as a plastic kit.
> On 22 Dec 1997, David Maslen wrote:
It's a question of economics -- it's much cheaper to make a hard rubber
mold for casting metal miniatures than to make the steel molds needed for
plastic models. The cost of the mold (for metal figures) is in the $100's,
while the startup cost for a plastic model is in the $10,000's.
The large model manufacturers (Monogram/Revell, Tamiya, Italieri, etc.)
can recover the cost of a new mold for a new model because they sell huge
volumes of model kits -- after all, the plastic only adds a few pennies
to
the cost of the kit, and the cost of the mold is a one-time expense.
The market for metal miniatures, on the other hand, is much smaller, and the
volume of figures sold is also much smaller. Since miniature figure makers
would like to make a profit on all the different figures they make, they cut
the production cost per figure by making metal miniatures instead of plastic
models.
> David Maslen wrote:
...Snip...JTL)
> david..
David, Rational may be beyond my ability at the present time, but I will not
let that stand in the way of comments. To answer the question I will leave the
FT realm and move backwards in time to another game (Mustangs and
Messerschmitts).
I have seen the 1/72 models created by players that were
close to professional quality. My models for the game were simply very good
wargeme quality. I have a friend (vern Turner) who built moderate to low
quality models that were generally distained even by the
average player. This man was one of the finest players
of the game I have ever had the pleasure to know. In his
words "They can laugh at my models all they want, I'll still shoot them down".
Those of us who play games, do so for different reasons and at different
levels of intensity and interest. Some play for victory(by any means), some
for the win, some for good fight(outnumbered is fine, I just consider it a
targer rich enviroment), some to display the excellent paint jobs they
created(not necessarly a good player), some just live to stomp the PERFECT
fleet(as run by the perfect player), some just like to write long an
ultimately meaningless letters to people they have never had the pleasure of
meeting in person. If you sum some of the somes above you have some kind of
player!
Play at your own level and don't worry about what other people think. (or
don't think.)
Bye for now,
> On 22 Dec 1997, David Maslen wrote:
> Having said that. I have built a few model aircraft models in the
I will skip the financial and technical arguments, and concentrate on the most
important thing:
Gameplay.
I've done *lots* of gaming with plastic models, 1/144 jet fighters and
1/100 to 1/200 mecha and assorted others. Why did I use plastic models?
Because suitable metal miniatures were largely unavailable.
The thing is, most plastic kits are just too damn big to be gameable.
My 1/144 Gelgoog Jaeger is extremely neat looking and rugged enough
for gaming, but I just don't have a 20-foot gaming table.
Metal miniatures can be produced every bit as clean and detailed as plastic
ones. It's a question of scale and cost, not material.
> First let me say, I don't own any minatures, and have never enjoyed
David - several other list members have already answered you, I know,
and probably more are doing so as I type this, but I thought I'd give you the
manufacturer's point of view on this. As has already been said, it is mainly a
matter of cost. To produce the
moulds for just ONE plastic injection-moulded kit would cost several
times more than our entire range of miniatures has cost to date! Added to the
manufacturing machinery (tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of
pounds/dollars) required for injection moulding, it is simply not
something
that even a moderately-sized wargame company can contemplate. Sure,
Games Workshop make some plastic figures (albeit nearly as expensive as their
metal ones in some cases!), but their turnover is HUGE compared to all the
rest of the miniature manufacturers in the hobby put together - and even
they can only afford to do a few troop types in plastic, the ones they know
they're going to sell by the hundreds of thousands.
Do you think players would rather have a choice of 100+ different ship
models in metal from a given manufacturer, or just one single kit in
plastic...?
("OK, I'm going to bring along my fleet of StarBlaster Battlecruisers for
Saturday's game, so why don't you bring your fleet of...err...StarBlaster
Battlecruisers.... oh, and Jim's just painted up a force of....StarBlaster
Battlecruisers...... hmmmm...)
[Sorry, a bit of light sarcasm there, but you get my drift...? ;)]
Another valid point is detail - look at any of the injection-moulded
figures available, and you will find that most have far LESS detail and
fineness of casting than a good metal miniature. Metal figures are cast in
rubber moulds, which allow a certain degree of undercuts and complex shapes in
the casting; injection moulding tools are in steel, so the castings must of
necessity be much simpler in shape to enable mould release (examine any
plastic kit part - lots of detail on the front face (if it is a good
kit),
but very little on the sides or anywhere else - if there was, it quite
simply would never come out of the mould!!). As to your comment of "dull lead
minitures [sic] that lack definition", have you actually taken a look at what
is available from the wargame figures industry these days? I think you might
be (pleasantly) surprised....
Finally, many (most?) miniatures gamers do, I think, prefer the "feel" of a
well-made metal miniature over a plastic one, the latter tending to have
toy-like connotations under some circumstances. Yes, there is a
traditional aspect there as well, but is there a problem in that?
> FYI - there are some plastic kits available from japan, see:
I know of a game store in my area that has a boxful of these sitting around.
Their selection is sparodic, but if anyone's interested, I can do
some asking. These are the small Yamato plastic kits that average 3"-4"
long. Definitely FT dreadnaught material.
Also, forget ordering by name...almost all the box titles are in Japanese.
Greetings
David the answer is simple. The set up costs for plastic models is HUGE. While
the lead models are not so expensive. And most of the time you can get more
detail out of a metal model.
D.
> Why don't minature makers build slightly larger, precision
> david..
On 22 Dec 1997 11:04:13 -0000, David Maslen <david@binary.net.au>
wrote:
> Why don't minature makers build slightly larger, precision
Hi, David. I'd like to say that this is a good question and one that many on
the list were probably thinking but hadn't asked.
Jon Tuffley has explained the reasons quite well (the primary being cost). As
a one time model maker, I have to agree with Jon's observation that only one
side of a plastic model has extreme detail. Most of the plastic, 3D models
(i.e. models you don't have to assemble) that I have seen are actually less
detailed than metal models. An example are the plastic Silent Death ships,
though even GW's plastic figures are less detailed than their lead.
One thing that no one else has mentioned. Metal figures have heft. They are
heavier than plastic. I have some plastic ships I've used for FT and they are
a lot easier to knock over or shift than metal figures. They are also easier
to break. Metal figures are often more top heavy, but lead tanks and sailing
ships (with a lower centre of gravity) tend to stay in place better than
plastic equivalents.
Oh, and Jon is right about some metal having a great deal of detail. I
have a fair number of C-in-C microscale tanks and they are very well
detailed.
Mikko -
> From what I've seen, material is usually part of the cost of the
Gil Murphy's Laws of Combat #5
> "A sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling you to slow down!"
> ----------
Just to add a little to what Jon has said, I'm a miniature collector, gamer,
and painter and I prefer the metal to the plastic. Granted, the metal is
heavier, and more cumbersome to transport, but there is a certain sense of
sureness and ruggedness to a metal mini in comparison to a plastic.
When I get a metal mini, I am amazed and fascinated at the amount of detail
the creator took to make it. Also, I don't worry about paint chipping off so
easily due to the primer applied before painting. To me, the metal minis are
more durable and sturdy for wear and tear. This
is from the gamer/collector viewpoint.
> From the painter's viewpoint (and my personal viewpoint), I do minis
Also, I prefer to play referree in my groups games. 1) I'm the most familiar
with rules, and 2) I have the largest collection. For those of you out there
gaming who paint minis and referree can attest to this: There is a sense of
pleasure (in a twisted sort of way) at watching the other gamers 'fight' over
which mini they want to use. Watching them move the minis you painted is a
great feeling and I've noticed that metal minis tend to stand up to the
punishment inflicted on minis a little better than plastics, aside from the
economics of production.
Gil Murphy's Laws of Combat #5
> "A sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling you to slow down!"
> ----------
> On Wed, 24 Dec 1997, Haun, Gilles - SSG wrote:
> From what I've seen, material is usually part of the cost of the
It's not quite that simple. If you produce plastics, your choices vary
from horribly low-grade cereal box stuff to extremely well detailed
injection kits. This is a cost issue.
Likewise, metal casting quality ranges from barely identifiable lumps from
manufacturers best left unnamed to extremely fine (and expensive) castings
from CinC or GHQ. This is ultimately also a cost issue.
To clarify: What I meant was that if you choose your material on a principle
or a whim, and chuck enough money in the process, you can achieve the exact
same quality you could have had with the other material. Whether it's cost
effective or not depends on your market.