"Dixon ACW - Big Heads?" Topic

I see that Dixon miniatures sometimes being refered to as "Pumkin heads". Does this mean their quality is not very good? Do you recommend them? Commments please. They look good to me,but I am no expert.

Most (not all) Dixons sculpts are very much of their time – the 80s. They do have large heads

link

I still like their samurai range though. I may even get around to painting all of my collection. Some day…

I like the way they paint up and I really don't mind the large heads. Once painted they look fine in mass and have correct uniforms and equipment. I can not explain it, but to me, they have lots of character and I never get tired of painting them.

I don't mind the large heads on the fantasy sculpts. The large heads on humanoids just looks funny to me. Have you considered Perry Miniatures?

They were the state of the art figures back in the days before the Perry's came along. They may have an oversized bead, but as stated the detail is excellent and they variety of figures is huge.
They will be fine as long as you don't mix them with other manufacturers, they are also smaller than many 28's today.

Ok, here is my unaffiliated (no relation) assessment of Dixon's:

Dixon's are most underrated manufacturer out there. I don't have the ACW range, but I have lots of the Grand Alliance range and some of the SYW range, and I have concluded the following: 1) their scupts are very crisp, they must re-make their mold often as they look far better than most figures out there (far better than Foundry, no comparison to OG), 2) the are always clean (little to no flash) with never a broken piece, and sold as individuals (the best Quality control in the business, hands down, not damaged in blister packs), and 3) they have personality and variation. I am starting to experiment with their other ranges (ECW, Flodden) and I just keep getting surprised on how good the figures look for being "old."

Mike

Mike

I have ACW armies for both side that are just Dixon figures. They work very well when you have just Dixon. I have never been bothered by the heads. The variety and detail is the best.

Jeff

I recommend them as I do not think there is another line out there with the number if different figures. That said I prefer Sash and Saber but Dixon is second in 25mm for me.
VR
James Mattes

Completely agree with the above comments – they are great figures with minimal flash.

They are certainly fun to paint and I have a few in my collection. But I never have been able to get past the ginormous niggins. I can see why people might really like the line, though-- everybody pretty much covered all their positive points above.

I have bought Dixon ACW since they came out. SOME of them have 'big heads'. They're not, in my opinion, too big. They don't bother me.

In defense of Dixon, they have without question the widest variety in figures (who else has a band tuba musician?) and I can say as a ACW reenactor, who is a stickler for accuracy, the have the best detail.

I also like Sash and Saber and Redoubt, but in separate units.

What about the oversized oven mitt hands?

The pumpkin heads were in more of their earlier sculpts like the Samurai, etc. I agree with some of the others in that they still looked poretty nice.

I never really noticed it in the ACW range. I'd also agree that they are nicely sculpted and very crsip with little flash.

Jonnathon:

I have a few spares I can send you. E-mail me at mark@ scalecreep dot com

Mark

It's not just the heads or mitt hands that are big on a lot of those sculpts. And some complain of Foundry being too stocky.

They have very nice detail & are wonderful to paint but some heads & hands are big.The Napoleonics are by a different sculptor & don't have the pumpkin head syndrome.

This might not be a very popular opinion, but yes, I think that the Dixon ACW figures have big heads. I'd take Extra Crispy up on his offer to get some samples.

The other day, I was reading a recently-released rules set, which contains many color photos of painted 28mm figures. My wife took a look at it, and commented that many of the figures looked cartoonish (she really wasn't trying to be snide.) The painting on the figures was actually very good, with perhaps a little too much contrast. But the sculpting of many of the figures could have been better.

I really don't want to go to town criticizing the sculpting styles of different manufacturers, or insult anyone else's taste. Sculpting is hard. But it seems strange to me that a range of hundreds of figures would have a really consistent defect.

I remember the Dixon ads for its ACW figures. The line drawings of the figures actually looked really good. Regretfully, the line drawings didn't match the appearance of the figures.

They do have big heads.

However -- they look OK provided you don't mix them with anyone else's stuff.

It's a sculpting style -- like the way some ranges are chunkier than others. They paint up OK, and if you're the sort of person who paints the faces with lots of detail, they're pretty good for that.

If you go and buy some other ACW and stand them next to them, they'll look funny, but then that's true of other ranges as well for other reasons.

As others have said -- the range is ENORMOUS. Specially since many of the figures have head variants within the figure poses. There's got to be several thousand separate variations in the infantry alone..

As a long-time living historian and historian of the Civil War, I come to the defense of the Dixon range.

It is without question the most accurate range of 25mm Civil War figures in existence(with regard to issue equipment, gear, and uniforms). Their uniforms and equipment, and poses are second to none. It is ironic that a British company did a more thorough job in capturing the details of issue equipment from both the federal and confederate armies better than any American company ever did. It just seems like Dixon cared more about getting it right. Also ironic that Redoubt(another UK company), more faithfully researched its ACW range than its American counterparts. Old Glory, the great American stand-by for much of 25mm, is just an inferior range next to these two British ranges.

In terms of historical accuracy and capturing the true look of Civil War armies, I give Sash and Saber, and Redoubt both close seconds. They blend very well with the Dixon range(if of course you don't mind mixing the body proportions). Sash and Saber in PARTICULAR for artillery. If you have armies made up of Sash and Saber artillery and crews, with Dixon infantry and cavalry, you have a fine historical combination. With regard to Old Glory 25mm, it is the weakest range of all of these. Bad poses, too much generic equipment used wrong in many cases, details incorporated into the range that are widely known to be dead wrong(the handed-down cliches from Holywood), for me make Old Glory a range that yes is cheap price-wise, and you can build massive armies at less expense – but in the end they are just not good figures. I have no Old Glory in any of my 25mm forces.

Having said that – I do understand the objections some people have about the "cartoonish" nature of the heads and body styles of Dixon. But for me personally, I feel this way – we are dealing in a hobby in which things are made in scale, and made in scale by a multitude of individuals and companies and under the influence of an enormous quantity of random factors. By its very nature, shrinking things down to scale will always involve distortions and inconsistencies of size to some degree. Factoring in different sculpting styles, manufacturing techniques, and costs, you can find compromises and problems in any range of scale figures. How often on your battlefields are the size of doorways and windows on buildings completely mismatched with the heights of your figures? Or for that matter how often are your terrain buildings themselves completely off in terms of scaling along side your armies? This is the point. You cannot match everything perfectly between different elements of a table-top battle. Nor will all figure ranges be perfectly proportioned to real human beings.

In the fantasy realm(which I also game), some of the best Games Workshop figures ever have very cartoonish proportions. Indeed, some whole ranges they have put out can be stamped as cartoonish and have proportion issues. But they are still fantasic ranges and the sculpts and details are excellent.

But this for me is a question of how accurate are Dixon historically as opposed to are they accurately proportioned human beings. In a word – no. They are not correctly proportioned little people. HOWEVER, in my mind when it comes to scale, Dixon for me are actually better because of the head sizes, for the simple fact that the expressions and drama in their faces is more noticeable from a gaming height. And in turn you can feel the personalities of the figures when they are on the table much better than you can with other ranges. For lack of a better way to put it – table-top armies of Dixon figures seem somehow more alive than other ranges do, in my opinion.

I fell in love with the Dixon range for Civil War years ago, and I've never fallen out of love. Perhaps it is because I have studied for so long that war and have studied for so long uniforms and equipment from that conflict, that I have remained loyal to the range.

Anyone considering Dixon for ACW, I can tell you you will not find better poses or more accurate poses of troops in battle and on the march. Some of their officer's poses are so natural and so faithful to the historical record(particularly their officers on foot advancing with swords drawn, it is some of their best stuff!), they are irrestible. Their infantry poses are not only natural and flowing, but they are better in capturing the historical manual of arms positions of the period than many other ranges do. In particular, Dixon's figures marching at "right shoulder shift" to me are simply the best out there.

Gamers need to understand as well, that the Dixon range incorporates distinct federal issue equipment and distinct confederate issue equipment, and even differences in the cuts of federal issue coats from confederate ones. The scultps are so crisp and so clean, you can spot federal issue canteens vs. confederate made canteens from two feet away. You can spot federal double-bag knapsacks vs. confederate single-bag knapsacks in a split second. And you can see without hesitation on Dixon figures the difference between a federal issue fatigue or "forage cap" and a confederate issue french style "kepi"(and NO, they are NOT the same thing!!! The term "kepi" is thrown around 25mm ACW gaming forums with much abuse. A forage cap and a kepi are two different shapes, and two different types of headgear. And Dixon knows the differences in its range.)

Dixon researched this range so well, that they avoided all of the awful cliches that other American and British ACW ranges fell victim to. Just a few that come to mind are "generic" infantry that wear four button federal sack coats, which can be used "for both sides"(Perry Plastic boxed set). Or the perpetually dreaded and horrendous "US" stamped on Union canteens(of the Old Glory range fame!)

People have praised the Perry ACW range for its correct human proportions, and yes they deserve praise for that. But Dixon has Perry beat in every other category hands down(so far any way, I know the Perry range is new and growing), they don't come close to the detail and just correct and flavored subtlies Dixon has built into its massive range. Perry has potential, but they made a mistake trying to take the generic boxed set concept and apply it to Civil War infantry. It is not appropriate to try to blend the common elements of Union and Confederate soldiers in one boxed set, while compromising equipment and uniforms. The only thing "common" between both that you could freely or semi-freely interchance would be muskets, caps(to a degree), hats(to a degree), and trousers(in some cases). However there are serious problems with using "common" canteens, coats, and whole officers.

I would hope that those who have considered the Dixon range will appreciate what I have outlined above, and consider the importance of historical detail. I would hope that that would overcome the objections to the issue of the range's head size and body proportions.

Just one gamer's opinion!
Mike

Wow, Mike, that's a pretty good response. I never realized that Dixon had researched its ACW figures as thoroughly as you have pointed out.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff. It's only because of my passion for the Civil War and my appreciation for the effort Dixon put into its range, that I wrote such a lengthy editorial about it!

Mike

One other quick detail that just came to my mind to reinforce what I was referring to.

Some confederates carried single-compartment rigid or "box" knapsacks during the war. Some Union soldiers carried them early in the war as well. The box knapsack was issued to early war volunteers as well on both sides.

The rigid box knapsack differed from the later issue soft bag knapsacks in that they were stiff and had a wooden frame-work inside them, making the body of the pack a rigid box rectangle shape.

Some models of this box knapsack(made by both sides) had small triangles of leather reinforcement pieces at the corners of the body of the knapsack.

Now, to many this may seem like a very, very small thing, but to me it's huge for the simple fact that Dixon KNEW ABOUT THIS, AND INCLUDED THIS detail in their confederate range, and it's sculpted as clear as the light of day.

If you have any Dixon confederates with these knapsacks, take a look. Whomever sculpted this range, precisely sculpted these triangle reinforcments on the knapsack corners as crisply as you could imagine. You can see it even from gaming height.

A small, trivial detail for gaming purposes? Perhaps. A useless detail for many more gamers? Perhaps. Completely useless to some gamers? To be sure.

But you gotta give Dixon the fact that they KNEW the Civil War soldier before they set out to sculpt this range! You don't deliberately include details like that unless you took some serious time to get to know intimately the equipment those men carried.

Mike

One other quickie –

Dixon knew very well some of the things the confederate government left out of its equipment when taking shortcuts to save money and material.

Confederate cartridge boxes were often issued without any brass plates on them. They were just plain leather cartridge boxes, no plate on the box or on the breast belt.

In contrast, Union cartridge boxes came standard with two brass plates. One was a "US" oval plate on the cartridge box itself. The other plate was on the breast belt, right over the soldier's heart, a round brass plate with an eagle motif on it.

And sure enough, again good ol' Dixon! You can clearly see sculpted on Union cartridge boxes, both the oval box plate and the round eagle plate on the breast belt as clear as day. And sure enough on their confederate sculpts, many of the cartridge boxes are left blank with no plates at all, as they were issued! Just as they were issued during the war :)

Go Dixon!

Mike

…what's more, Dixon still had presence of mind to yes, put plates on SOME of its confederate cartridge boxes. Some boxes did have lead or even wooden plates as an equivalent to the brass Union ones. In addition, some confederates captured Union cartridge boxes and turned the "us" box plate upside down so it read "sn", and instantly made the box "Southern Nation"…..so SOME confederate boxes did have plates, captured or issued substitutes.

And Dixon like magic put plates on some confederate sculpts and left it off others!

Can you tell I love Civil War history? lol

Mike

Can you begin to see how flimsy the proposition of making "generic" Civil War infantry becomes? Whether it's the Perry boxed sets, or the metal ranges that sell the "bags of soldiers for either side"?

Yeah, to a certain point you can do that…carefully. Dixon itself sells value-priced regimental packs. But bags of Old Glory 25mm soldiers that are "good for Union or Confederate", nope it ain't gonna cut it for me.

I apologize for drifting so badly from the original purpose of this thread, which was the issue of the Dixon "pumpkin heads". But I had to interject about this range of figures, because it has so very much more to offer to those gamers who are willing to look!

Mike

I also might add for those who would criticise the Dixon head and body proportions – Namely it is the issue of "GMB Designs Flags" made for 25mm figures.

GMB flags are universally praised across the gaming world as superb in detail and quality for all the time periods they cover. And indeed, GMB is what I use almost exclusively for my Civil War and AWI armies. They are simply fantastic. Almost all would agree with me.

However, it is very rarely pointed out that GMB actually makes OVERSIZED flags for 25mm! They are actually closer to 28mm in proportions. And they're made this way on purpose. They are oversized for most 25mm AWI, ACW, and Napoleonic ranges, and therefore, OUT OF proportion to most 25mm ranges. Not by much, but they are.

And why? Why are GMB flags made oversized for 25mm? Precisely because it makes them show up better on your tabletop! Because you can see the detail of the flags from a gaming height, yes? It makes for a better gaming experience and more visually pleasing battle formations!

And yet they are technically artifically too big for the flagbearers that are carrying them! So in that sense, you have an instance of "pumpkin-headed" flags so to speak, i.e. flags that are out of proportion and slightly out of scale to the figures that are carrying them. And yet, this proportion problem is ignored and indeed universally accepted by gamers every where!

I venture to wonder why gamers are willing to accept oversized flags in their infantry formations across various time periods, and yet would have an issue about a Civil War range that has body and head proportions that are exaggerated. What's the difference? Maybe it's that oversized flags look cooler than oversized heads? Only problem is, both are out of proportion, and therefore both are "wrong" so to speak. Both should be accepted or neither should be.

It seems to me, that both are done for dramatic effect and for a more visually pleasing table-top. And both simply allow you to see more detail from a gaming height.

Just a thought!
Mike

Mike: Hear! Hear! Nice review.

Mike,

Yeah okay but… they have pumpkin heads. ;)

Avid LOL LOL! Good one! I actually wrote all this for you ya know, I'm trying like the devil to convert you man….. ;)

Mike

Avid, you are way cool man. I couldn't stop laughing for a half an hour! Here I am the Civil war nut writing ten pages like a madman, the Dixon Bible, and then you come on and with perfect comic timing and say "Uhhh, yeah but they still have pumpkin heads." Too funny man, you're awesome! :)

Mike

Interesting write-ups on the accuracy of the uniforms. Thanks. But, I still must agree with Avid. They still have pumpkinheads.

Mike,

I read what you wrote and it went on and on and on… and I'm thinkin', "Mike has lost it. He needs an intervention."

For the record I do agree they are nicely sculpted with very accurate stuff on. It's… it's those heads! They are staring at me. They won't stop looking at me. I have about a dozen painted… and they freak me out. I'm sure they mock me at night. They probably have my credit card number and are trying to figure out how to purchase online to get more of their friends. I'm on to them. Gotta go… they are listening to me.

I must say, this has been a thoroughly educational and entertaining thread. Mike … you da man!

I was thinking the other day about the many posts I have read regarding the ACW, and specifically about the level of detail people such Campaigner & Avidgamer have amassed over the years. Truely inspiring.

And then this topic was started and I thought "This is my chance to weigh in and challenge those two on the notion that some errors in figures seem to be acceptable, while others are not." And to ask why?

Why is it that Dixon garner kudos from many who consider them the alpha & omega of uniforms and equipment, as long as you overlook their pumpkin heads?

Why is it that the human being sculpted isn't the primary concern, with the kit secondary?

And then Mike presents the first chapter in what is obviously a well researched and thorough doctoral thesis on the multitude of minutiae that Dixon got right … and I'm left feeling cheated. I didn't even get a chance to ask the question before I was sumarily schooled.

Avid's scholarly retorts and in-depth counterpoints aside, I'm convinced that the uniforms and equipment "should" outweigh any concerns regarding the super-sized heads of the figures in question.

Does this help me? Not really. Lacking funds for figures, I cannot rush out and buy Dixon. I was mostly sold on the idea that the Perry Plastics would be usable and cheap, but now feel once again that I should put that plan back into the wait and see category.

Not knowing any better, I would have had no issues buying and using figures that had errors. My friends wouldn't have known, I wouldn't have known, and ignorance is bliss. The more I learn the more I want to "get it right" the first time.

Sigh.

SeattleGamer,

You bring up interesting points and very valid ones as well. It's the age old dilemma, go with one strngth or another? It's similar to WWII tanks… would you rather have slow, ponderous and powerful tanks but few of them or fast, nimble but lesser gunned and many more of them? I suppose every gamer/painter must make that call. It's whatever you are comfortable and can afford.

A good friend of mine is trying to figure out which line of ACW figures to buy right now. He's really not into how accurate the figs are as long as they cheap. He's leaning to the OG and I rail and rail about them to him and he shruggs his shoulders and say, "So? You care about that and I don't as much. I want a big army and I'm not spending a fortune on the lead.". I sigh and try to explain about Sack coats and shell jackets and he says, "So?".

Mike LOVES the Dixon figs and I don't them. It's the ying and yang. I'd rather give up a bit historical accuracy with Sash & Saber (but not much, mind you!!!!!! The line is smaller and that's sad) to get a better sculpted human. Now I feel the Perry's are the BEST sculpted humans out there but their accuracy is too far below what I'm looking for. I'll buy a bit of their stuff just for giggles but that's about it. S&S is good for me on several levels.

I sooooooooooo wish that 'other' miniature company had gone through with their plan to produce a brand new line of ACW figs. They would be nicely sculpted _AND_ all the bits that Mike and I would drool over. *sniff sniff* I am sad. :(

Good topic though.

Yes, I have never seen a recommendation for one line like the one Mike (Campaigner1) gave for Dixon. Mike, Dixon is such a large line, hard to tell what each figure looks like. If I was to do an Antietam scenario, say the "Texas Brigade" vs the "Iron Brigade" in the cornfield, which Dixon figures would you recommend for each? You don't have to give me an entire list but just a few that you might use. Again its hard to judge when you can only see a few from the website.

I also hope that Jonnathon appreciates the efforts from the board on this topic.

The one thing that really bugs me about Redoubt's ACW (which are the main ones I bought for skirmish gaming[1]) are that the union canteens appear to be uncovered.

The circular "bulls-eye" pressing marks are sculpted in, and I can't convince myself that they would be visible through a felt cover.

And yet all the historical references I've read say that the bottles were covered for insulation to stop the water getting warm.

And I while I could see some of the troops not having the cover, I can't see all of them not doing so.

[1] We're doing "Legends of the Civil War" -- basically we've pulled out rules from various sections of the LoToW books to build small civil war skirmish units. Not had a chance to try it out yet, if I'm honest because I'm still painting the Confederates..

KatieL,

I have a smoothside and a bullseye canteen and both are covered. I keep them on a big shelf with the rest of my ACW stuff. Both are covered in the same color cloth. I am constantly picking up the wrong one. I can not tell them apart from a glance. I've had they both for over ten years and use them alternately. Nowadays I look for a bacon grease stain on the smooth one but you are right, it's nice that they sculpted them but…. kinda silly.

It's not just the heads; their legs are very short – many Dixon figures have arms longer than their legs.
I'm also not a fan of the very 'overcreased' look some of them have.

But some people seem to love them; there's no accounting for taste.

KatieL,

I have seen numerous original canteens in displays as well as reproduction ones by the hundreds.

It depends on the type of cloth covering the canteen and the thickness of the cloth.

Redoubt actually has it right, because many, many original bullseye canteens are covered in thin brown blanket wool or thin jean cloth, and you can see the rings under the fabric pretty clearly(something like a ribcage, seeing the ribs under the surface of the skin of a really thin person). Others that are covered in thicker kersey or wool, the rings were fainter, but you could still see faint outlines of them.

It may also be that with covers that are dark blue it might disguise the rings more. But as far as the numerous examples covered in tan or light brown, the rings can be seen.

Mike

Bob TYW,

You are right, the Dixon range is huge. However, you picked a year of the war, and two units that I can easily guide you through the Dixon range.

For the Iron Brigade 1862, go to any of the single figure Dixon codes for the Union Soldiers in Hardee Hat and Frock Coat, and make sure to ask for Hardee Hats that are looped up on one side. But also buy a few codes where the Hardee Hat is not looped up, to reflect the individual style choices the men made in the field. Further still, include a few codes of Union Soldiers with Slouch Hat and Frock Coat, to reflect the men who modified their Hardee Hats. You can request that when ordering Dixon codes. Dixon makes figures that have one code number, but within the same code will have different hats and caps, and hats looped or unlooped. Get a mix of codes that include both blanket rolls and knapsacks, as well as some codes that have no knapsack or blanket roll.

Texas Brigade, 1862. Any of the confederate Dixon codes of Frock Coat and Cap or Frock Coat and Hat, with knapsack or blanket roll. And really any of the codes that include Shell Jacket and Cap and Shell Jacket and Hat. Again, mix of blanket rolls and knapsacks.

Just a side note, you can order Dixon officers this way as well. Looped or unlooped hats, creased slouch hats, or dress hats.

The folks at the old WARGAMES, INC. website used to be wonderful when ordering Dixon. I would just send them a long email of all the codes I wanted, then next to them I would put a short description and notes of how I wanted the hats to be.

Mike

Thanks for the information,Campaigner1. I'm guessing that by Gettysburg the Texas brigade was probably wearing mostly shell jackets. I believe WARGAMES INC. was taken over by another company out of Tennessee, they seem to have a good selection of Dixon, will give them a try. Bob

These discussions are very informative. I have also been trying to decide on a line of ACW figures. I would rather have uniform and equipment authenticity even if the figures have a slight caricature look to them. It is difficult trying to decide on a line when for the most part I am looking at figures at on-line catalog sites. This is a major commitment in time, effort, and money that one does not want to make a bad choice. As someone earlier said, there are very few photos of the ACW Dixons at their website which is unfortunate. I would really like to see more than what is photographed at their home page. They certainly have the largest selection of any of the suppliers of the ACW. I am considering the S&S 40 mm but the number of options is not as expansive as Dixon so I continue to remain interested in the Dixons. Generic plastic figures are not for me. What rules do you use Mike- Campaigner 1?
Tony

Yes, thanks for all the comments. I've looked at a few more dixons and have to agree that they are unique.

Interesting points and reading.. i would just like to add a range if i may. If you want accurate scaled looking humans without big heads or hands, nice poses, the best horses on the market, correct scaled artillery. Try our Fenlon range which is available in American through Scale Creep miniatures. The down side is we don't have the massive range that dixon does but a good cover of poses accross the board. Also to add i have some Dixon Napoleonics and quite like them as well, good detail etc.. If anyone would like a catalogue of our range you can e-mail me on info@battlelinescenics.com.au cheers Kevin

Aggie,

I'm glad that you realize the importance of capturing the feel of the war through good uniforms and equipment. The more you read Civil War books and then game you'll appreciate it so much as you begin to notice details.

I wargame the Civil War in two scales: 6mm and 25mm. I have used Fire & Fury for both scales for quite some time. It's an interesting thing, because in 25mm scale I do not have the resources or space to do full battles in 25mm!! Not many gamers do! There are some scenarios that Fire & Fury has in its books that have table sizes that I think are about 12' x 12' or more, good lord. And just logistically, to do a full battle in 25mm, the number of infantry stands required to do a full Gettysburg is um…frightening to imagine. Even after collecting and painting 25mm for some time, I know only have maybe a corps of each side(50 stands or so), and about eight guns per side(representing eight batteries per side).

What I do in 25mm is scenarios that cover only sections of major battles. I'll do an infantry division vs. infantry division on a 4 x 6 of 4 x 8 table. You're talking maybe 25 or 30 stands of infantry per side at most. Again, covering sections of battles, not whole battles.

6mm in Fire & Fury is actually in some ways more fun, because I use 6mm figures with the Fire & Fury 15mm ground scale and basing scale. I got this idea from a Yahoo group who game the Napoleonic War using the "Age Of Eagles" rules. They took advantage of acheiving more "mass" on the tabletop by using the 15mm rules and scale, but then simply using 6mm soldiers on the stands, thereby allowing you to truly mass troops on stands. The visual effect with 6mm Civil War is stunning. You really have men crammed shoulder to shoulder on the stands, and it makes for really massed battlelines, I love it. And what's even more fun, is that in 6mm, a 4 x 6 board is absolutely gigantic, you can facilitate any major battle of the war in a grand way. It's a way to achieve real mass that you can never accomplish with 15mm figures.

I originally only intended to wargame Civil War in 25mm, but then one day I discovered the Baccus Range over in England, and I was hooked. I now have complete Union and Confederate forces in 25mm and 6mm, as well as terrain and buildings for both scales.

And of course a word about "Hovels"……I have invested more money in the 25mm range for Civil War than I care to recall, that range of buildings is like drugs – once you start buying them, you can't stop! God I love their buildings. For 6mm buildings it's been "Timecast", again like drugs but they're 6mm drugs.

Gaming the Civil War has kept me close to broke for quite a good part of my life. :)

Mike

Look, don't give me no stuff about it- They're Pumpkins Heads!

When you consider all the Redoubt variations possible with their shirts/shell jackets/frock coats/ four button fatigue jackets,4 style system, combined with the large variety of "non pumpkin heads". And when you factor in the very large number of basic poses they offer in all branches, is the Dixon line really larger and more varied than Redoubt? Are the Redoubts really less accurate as to weapons and equipment and clothing styles?

Dixons have charm, as well as the many previously listed positive aspects. Many people just "like them as they are" despite the valid anatomical difficulties with some or most of the line! I prefer Redoubt, but who cares really what I like or why, but me?

By the way Both Dixon and Redoubt Arty equipments really suck, the two worst of any of the ACW lines. How does that happen, when they get all the rest so right and so well done??