Help support TMP


"Victory at Sea models" Topic


13 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Naval Product Reviews Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two at Sea

Featured Recent Link


Featured Showcase Article

Microscale LCT(5) from Image Studios

Thinking to invade German-held Europe? Then you'll need some of these...


Featured Workbench Article

Basing Small-Scale Aircraft for Wargames

Mal Wright Fezian experiments to find a better way to mount aircraft for wargaming.


Featured Profile Article

Mal Wright's Akagi at Midway

Mal Wright Fezian's commission from one of our own.


Featured Book Review


1,979 hits since 12 Sep 2020
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Mr Elmo12 Sep 2020 7:07 a.m. PST

So I am preparing my Fletcher Class destroyers and can't help but feel that Warlord missed the mark with these models.

I appreciate that the resin is a bit rubbery as it reduces mast breakage but when I compare this 1/1800 model to a GHQ 1/2400 I'm sorry but GHQ casting is superior especially with turret undercuts.

It seems the larger scale could have made for more detail, not less.

link

link

21eRegt12 Sep 2020 11:59 a.m. PST

I completely agree. While the game system has some merit, I'd convert to 1/2400 before I'd use those lumpy models. Even the Axis and Allies ships, which I believe are also 1/1800, are better IMHO.

AdmiralHawke12 Sep 2020 1:05 p.m. PST

Yes. I agree too. 1/1800 scale results in a fairly cramped table. I can't see past the bases myself. If you are going to invest all the time in painting, it seems a shame to have such a massive base spoiling the look. I suppose it protects them from damage.

On the flip side, if firms like Warlord attract more people to naval gaming, and perhaps encourage them to try the fine 1/2400 models from companies like GHQ, then so much the better.

Have you seen the WWII models that WTJ is starting to offer? If they would introduce a few more models so that there are enough to game some of the actions off Guadalcanal, I'd snap them up (customs and postage charges be damned).

Lee49412 Sep 2020 1:37 p.m. PST

Check Out XPForge on Esty. IMO nicer than Warlord and ONE PIECE with great undercuts because they are 3D printed. And best of all $6 USD a ship. Yup. $6 USD for my Bismarck versus I believe $20 USD from Warlord. I gave up on 1/2400. Too tiny for my tired eyes. Too many pieces. I've been gaming Axis & Allies with my XPForge ships and they look great on the Table. Warlords Rules. XPForge Ships. Best of both worlds.

Cheers!

PzGeneral12 Sep 2020 2:08 p.m. PST

The huge bases complete wrecked it for me….

gamershs Supporting Member of TMP12 Sep 2020 2:32 p.m. PST

I have 1/1200 and 1/2400 ships for all of the fleets in WW2. I suspect they chose this scale so that they can somewhat exclusively sell the ships along with the rules.

So far warlord has not sold the rules alone as I suspect they can be adapted to be used with the 1/2400 ships which have a large selection with better detail at better prices.

McWong7312 Sep 2020 4:05 p.m. PST

Are the rules any different to 1st edition?

Bede1900212 Sep 2020 4:33 p.m. PST

On the flip side, if firms like Warlord attract more people to naval gaming, and perhaps encourage them to try the fine 1/2400 models from companies like GHQ, then so much the better.

Yes, I'm sure Warlord will encourage it's customers to buy it's competitors' models.

I'm often amazed at how little commercial sense many grognard war gamers have.

It's as if they live in a universe where businesses don't need to make money and it's actually unseemly and unfair when they do.

McKinstry Fezian12 Sep 2020 5:51 p.m. PST

The rules are basically the same as the old Mongoose rules but they have been 'tweaked/changed'.There are supposed to be added rules well beyond the basic ones shipped with the starter set (which mentions as yet unseen Italian and French fleets are also coming).

The models are +/- pretty much on a par with the old Axis and Allies (some better/some worse) and I believe many are the old very briefly existing Mongoose 1/1800 models. The are markedly inferior to most 1/2400 offerings and pound for pound, not really better than much of the 1/3000, 1/4800 or 1/6000 ranges out there that leave a far less compacted table. The bases are very much a matter of taste and although I'm not a fan, YMMV.

As with Flames of War or perhaps a closer relative, Black Seas, while it may not be my ideal, I do believe it offers an intro to WW2 naval that by offering a fairly simple, all in the box game that has large fairly easy to paint models, might be a good intro for adding new naval gamers.

Wargamer Blue12 Sep 2020 6:38 p.m. PST

My only gripe with the ships is the price. They are not worth the money they are asking for them. The starter fleet sets are retailing for $200 USD here in Australia. And the single battle ships are retailing for $37.00 USD. To put that in prospective I can buy a Mini remote control helicopter for $30.00 USD and that actually flies around and does something. This is the first game where I have had to sit back and say, I really like it, but I can't justify paying that price.

witteridderludo14 Sep 2020 8:54 a.m. PST

Warlord seem to have a business plan releasing games with wrong/odd/too big scales to keep their customers captive to their range of figures…
Blood Red Skies: 1/200 while 6mm and 1/285 are the norm
Black Sails: 1/700 vs 1/1200
Cruel Seas: 1/300 vs 1/600
Victory at Sea:1/1800 vs 1/2400

Not to mention it makes the table look like a FoW/TY tank car park

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP14 Sep 2020 9:33 a.m. PST

For their "games in a box" stuff I don't know if the veteran historical gamer is their target audience.

AdmiralHawke23 Sep 2020 3:58 p.m. PST

Bede19002

I am always a little wary of posting on this forum in case I unintentionally provoke someone. In this case my grammar was poor, and for that I apologize.

What I meant was that if Warlord attracts new players to naval gaming, that is a good thing. That experience of naval gaming, not Warlord, may result in those new naval gamers trying products from other companies. A rising tide can lift all boats.

Of course wargaming companies need to make money, and there is nothing unseemly or unfair in that.

Indeed, though I have not looked up its accounts, I imagine Warlord has a highly successful business model of developing new games (or revamping existing ones), developing accompanying miniatures and then launching packages that give gamers everything they need to get started. Warlord has repeatedly launched a new game with miniatures like Bolt Action, Black Powder, Cruel Seas, Black Seas and now Victory at Sea.

What I wrote was not clear. But I live in the same universe as you. ;-)

As others have said, not everyone is enthusiastic about Warlord's more recent tendency to launch fairly expensive miniatures in new scales, but I don't imagine the firm would keep repeating that strategy if it wasn't profitable and, as 79thPA rightly says, it's not clear that established or veteran historical gamers are Warlord's target market.

If Warlord grows the market, great.
If the firm makes good money doing so, good for everyone who works there.
Personally, I'd love to try the game but I don't fancy the miniatures or 1/1800 scale given the limited table space that I have.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.