Infantry Only Thread

[Luca]

I think the need to make 1:1 platoon sized figure packs, would work only if GHQ will intend to offer an option for FOW game ruleres and 1:1 scale gameres. Other wise the current pack of 60 figures is good enought to be played on the board.
When I play I just want self-confident and combat ready platoons, I don't care very much if the Russian have only SMG.
What is really needed is Us Winter infantry, and other teather-type infantry. The infantry details can wait in My opinion.

[IRON FIST]

I agree that GHQ could make some changes with their infantry packs, but all in all the packs are very workable and no one really comes close to the detail. I just remember having to use Ros infantry prior to GHQ releasing their infantry packs, I always hated that. I don't need 40 plus infantry figures walking at port arms like some of the packs contained. I have been buying GHQ products for over 25 years and I know first hand that the staff at GHQ listens to feed back and always makes an effort to improve their ever growing line of miniatures. I'm just grateful that GHQ is finally putting out infantry and in time they well work out the bugs which has been stated here by many of you.

[8ball]

That's why I have been pushing for them to package for FoW because that crowd will want figures packaged like FoW infantry sets, etc... GET IT!

Well we agree then. You might have noticed that a lot of us were arguing for something along these lines in GHQ's FOW thread. You weren't the only one. Don't worry. We "GET IT." And as you can conclude from the other posts in this thread, packaging is one of the things we think is key.

I realize what your goal is, my point is this: ask for what you believe will sell! That is what GHQ needs to know/consider when they package figures. A mold only has so many slots available. Marketing figures in an Armor cultered line is not as popular as you may think.

The truth is, I don't think any of us know what will or won't sell. Certainly this has not always been a priority of GHQ's. Many of their models have very narrow appeal.

Look, the point of marketing infantry on the same footing as tanks is not so much about selling packs of infantry but to create a line that is more complete overall. The more complete and excellent the line, the more entertaining and diverse the playing experience. I've done the counters thing, and believe me, I've made some kick-butt counters, and I've done the Ross thing too. But they leave me flat. I want better. I know that if GHQ put their mind to it, they could produce killer infantry packs, with sculpting that will rival 15mms in quality and detail. Don't you want that too?

[1ComOpsCtr]

I would love to see GHQ expand their infantry sets to be more representative of the types of poses and weapons that fit the mix found in all periods. While you mention Ross you must acknowledge their coverage of the many nations required including the IDF and various Balkan militia groups from Arkan's Tigers to the White Eagles. GHQs new "Beret" infantry certainly fits into all of the 3rd World militaries as well as certain elite forces of earlier periods... so you can mix and match as necessary.

What I have wanted for decades in civilians... which is why I am so happy the GHQ individual figures are not 1/285th scale, ...being closer to 1/220 which allows me to use the Preiser civilians, who fit so well with the new GHQ.

I have been used to mixing and matching for more than 35 years of gaming and almost 15 years of simulations for the military, initially designed to simulate the Balkans. It would be nice if GHQ could make all my wants and needs regarding 1/285 scale infantry but I know that can't happen... would be nice, but it won't happen during my lifetime... I hope it does in yours.

Will
ComOpsCtr

[8ball]

Will-

Now we're talking. This thread was not intended as a comparison discussion of different brands, but as a podium from which we could voice our opinions on where we'd like GHQ to take the infantry portion of the Micro-Armour. I'm also glad to see you posted pics of your infantry so we can share ideas.

I kinda hoped this trhead would be a sort of infantry focused wish-list, and suport group if you will.

[8ball]

I was looking at the FOW rules the other day, and it struck me how neat their infantry teams looked. They look right. The look real. It struck me why. Each stand has four or five miniatures each uniquely posed. However, more importantly, they are posed similarly. In other words, they are all conducting a similar yet slightly different action. They look like a cohesive unit.

They also avoid the "cliche" poses like the sub-machinegunner firing from the hip. Or the grenadier with arm poised ready to toss. Also, none of the stands included any prone figures. I also didn't see any firing figures, though these would also make nice groupings if kept together. However, there were advancing team leaders, and other soldiers with different weapon types.

Coming up with reaslistic groupings such as this with GHQ figures is difficult due to the limited and types ofposes offered. We need more "activity" oriented poses.

[jb]

I was looking at the FOW rules the other day, and it struck me how neat their infantry teams looked. They look right. The look real. It struck me why. Each stand has four or five miniatures each uniquely posed. However, more importantly, they are posed similarly. In other words, they are all conducting a similar yet slightly different action. They look like a cohesive unit.

They also avoid the "cliche" poses like the sub-machinegunner firing from the hip. Or the grenadier with arm poised ready to toss. Also, none of the stands included any prone figures. I also didn't see any firing figures, though these would also make nice groupings if kept together. However, there were advancing team leaders, and other soldiers with different weapon types.

Coming up with reaslistic groupings such as this with GHQ figures is difficult due to the limited and types ofposes offered. We need more "activity" oriented poses.

...do you think somebody will get the hint. I think the reason that GHQ packages their infantry the way it is,is because it fits more to their game,or should I say the 1 to 5 scale group. Even so the poses could use a complete makeover(WWII infantry at least) for either 1 to 1 ,or 1 to 5. Some people say we don't need the detail for this scale. MULEMUFFINS!! I'm 53 and my eyesight needs to see those wonderful pieces on those weapons that distinquish them from one another. As a matter of fact my rules call for the stats of the different weapons. We got the best detail ,even compared to some other larger scales,and we don't even have 1 steenk'n Russian rifle!
BTW 8ball outstanding observation ,as usual...

[Der Kommandeur]

Dead interesting thread. Lots of passion as usual!

Many of the reasons stated ... variety, natural looking groupings, appropriate weapon mixes ... were in the mix when I made my choice to buy Adler (as you may know, their figures are packaged in specific weapons sets). Somehow the images of GHQ's infantry offerings in the online catalogue pages look rather 'wooden' (apologies GHQ ).

Would I have chosen GHQ figures if the online catalogue images had shown more variety? I'm not sure. Apart from any of the foregoing, I kinda wanted to support a UK manufacturer (quality permitting) for at least part of my collection (I live in London) ... and I often buy from the Adler guys at shows, which is always a nice opportunity to discuss the range and their plans for it, face-to-face.

Nevertheless, Adler are a bit too bulky to make vehicle and SP gun crews (but their sculpting gets better and better with each new release), so I thought I would try a pack of GHQ DAK artillery crew figures, inspired by mifster's work here:

http://www.ghqmodels.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=180

These figures are very nice, but very fine ... I guess a lot nearer to 'true scale'.

The relative bulk of the Adler figures did concern me (and does from time-to-time) ... it looked as if the vehicles were driven by children! But reading Ken Ford's "Mailed Fist" I noticed (for the first time) in the photos of tanks and infantry together how the infantry do 'look' bulkier ... their clothing looks looser and their webbing/equipment makes them 'look' larger ... while the bulk of the vehicle makes the crew 'look' smaller.

So I'm more comfortable with my mix now. And the overall visual impression is really satisfying ... after all we're not macro-focused during the game.

Adler's figure's heads are not as oversized looking as you may think. There's a measure of overscale everywhere I look ... detail on the GHQ castings and Adler figures, contributing to a slight feeling of caricature ... but very satisfying nevertheless.

BTW: I play Blitzkrieg Commander at 1:5.

DK

[jb]

...Adler's figure's heads are not as oversized looking as you may think. There's a measure of overscale everywhere I look ... detail on the GHQ castings and Adler figures, contributing to a slight feeling of caricature ... but very satisfying nevertheless...


DK

..DK ,you are right. Adler's heads are in proportion to their "bodies" But overall they are more massive. With this comes the
Darth Vader" look when compared to other battlefield panoply...

[Zeppelin]

I do have to congradulate GHQ for the effort they have made so far in the infantry arena. Take the Vietnam range for example. They have consistently worked to get the major types of infantry and infantry support available for the majority of the action. At this point, adding only a couple of variations will soon complete the line, for example, some US Infantry modelled with floppy hats, berets, and small arms variety could be portrayed as Australians and special forces as well. True, I think GHQ quality is capable of making easily seen differences in weapons, so it would be AWESOME if they made some earlier period Marines(M14s hint hint)... especially since they have the earlier chopper coming out soon!

Ah, but I digress. My main point I would like to make is that there are some noticeable ommissions! GHQ has most of what I need to do wars of the middle east... except for infantry! There is a big difference between using Soviets and Israelis of today versus what they should look like for the wars of '48, '56, '67. and '73. Lots of work to do here.

Also, adding some packs of Chinese and North Koreans would open up an entire new war to game... Korea of the 50's!

Well, I guess GHQ just needs to figure out which infantry lines will invite more sales of tanks as well... my guess is the Mid-East wars.

Best regards,
Zeppelin

[mastergunner77014]

This is an excellent topic my wishlist for infantry is the modern us mortar system , the new 105mm towed howitzer and paratroopers here's a picture of some paras I picked up at military clothing store . [

[jb]

Will-

Now we're talking. This thread was not intended as a comparison discussion of different brands, but as a podium from which we could voice our opinions on where we'd like GHQ to take the infantry portion of the Micro-Armour. I'm also glad to see you posted pics of your infantry so we can share ideas.

I kinda hoped this trhead would be a sort of infantry focused wish-list, and suport group if you will.

This was an excellent thread going. I thought it would be a good idea to bring it to the forefront.
JB

[Ritter]

Some Infantry used at the recent Salute 2007 in Vancouver:






Troy

[jb]

Nice job on the infantry. Is that also your terrain too? If so,excellent!
I just recently bought some of the German Panzerfausts,don't care much for the size of them...

[pushbike]

WOW
They are beautiful!
How do you go about swapping heads on your figures?
I thought about trying but cant see the new heads staying in place with super glue.
Have you got more pictures of the Salute game?
I look forward to them.

Many thanks

Chris.