Help support TMP


"Warlord's Epic Scale flags are worse than I thought!" Topic


17 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 do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Flags and Banners Message Board

Back to the ACW Product Reviews Message Board


Action Log

01 Aug 2021 2:48 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from ACW Discussion boardCrossposted to Flags and Banners board

Areas of Interest

General
American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset

Ætherverse: Upheaval


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

1:72nd IMEX Union Artillery Limber

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian completes his initial Union force in 1:72nd scale.


Featured Workbench Article

Guilford Courthouse

The modeler himself shows how he paints Guilford Courthouse in 40mm scale.


Featured Profile Article

Report from Bayou Wars 2006

The Editor heads for Vicksburg...


Current Poll


2,252 hits since 1 Aug 2021
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Baranovich01 Aug 2021 11:48 a.m. PST

I got done putting Warlord's flags on a number of command stands for my Epic Scale infantry strips.

I have to say, after actually seeing them on the flag poles, they're even worse than I thought they would be.

They are waaaaaay too small. I mean it looks terrible.

I did some researching, and it turns out that that flag sheet that Warlord provides in their ACW starter sets is indeed (as I suspected) a 6mmish/8mmish flag sheet that was printed from a generic master that as far as I could learn was sold as a 6mm flag sheet in some other time and place.

I have to say it is profoundly upsetting and troubling that when a company like Warlord is trying to promote a whole new product and the way they hyped it up, they cut corners like this. It's garbage.

I got the mega-starter set back in January. It was $237.00 USD. I was very pleased with the infantry strips, the sheer volume of troops you got made it a great value. And all the high quality books that it came with only added to the value. As well as the fact that it came with a fair number of MDF buildings and fencing. It's a great bundle overall.

But for crying out loud, the flags sheets have to be the number one, the number one least expensive thing for them to produce in the entire box! I mean it's literally just printing out photo copies and putting them in the boxes!

The fact that they went cheap and skimped on the flags of all things, to me is just mind-blowing.

And you can see from the pictures what size the flags SHOULD BE. I included photos of both a sample from Flags of War brand next to the Warlord flags, as well as a correctly scaled set of flags that I made from scratch that I used on the initial promotion sprue that came with the Wargames Illustrated magazine back in January.

You can see them side by side. It's awful.

I suppose for the Confederates it doesn't look quite as bad since their battle flags were somewhat smaller squares than the Union infantry flag's dimensions were. But nevertheless it doesn't look good.

I mean maybe other gamers aren't bothered by the flag size. That's totally cool. But it really bothers me. A lot. It is simply too big a visual glitch to ignore on the tabletop. I will be replacing all of my crappy Warlord with properly scaled flags.

This first pic. is the most important one. Flags of War brand on the left, showing the size we SHOULD have gotten with the starter set. And on the right, what we actually get:

JimDuncanUK01 Aug 2021 1:06 p.m. PST

The Warlord flags are fine as they are. Too many wargamers are too used to using oversized flags because look more dramatic.

The Warlord 'mantra' here is 'never mind the flags look at how many figures there are'.

John the OFM01 Aug 2021 1:24 p.m. PST

I have a great idea, OP.
Why not start a long thread about something that you actually like?

coopman01 Aug 2021 1:47 p.m. PST

If they were any bigger, you'd be out of pole height.

Baranovich01 Aug 2021 2:10 p.m. PST

Wow guys, way to miss the point and also attack me at the same time.

@Jim Duncan. The replacement flags are not "over-sized" for the purposes of being "dramatic." They are the correct size for the size of the models. No drama here. Do you know what the dimension of Civil War Union infantry colors were? I happen to know. They were SIX FEET on one side and SIX AND A HALF FEET on the other. Each side was as tall or taller than the average man. My flags are proportioned correctly to size of the models on the base. Warlord's flags in scale by comparison work out to being about THREE feet per side, which is literally HALF the size they should be.

Flags that are half the size they should be? Yeah, I think that's a pretty bad glitch. Would you except models with muskets that were only half as long as they were supposed to be? Or legs that were only half as long?

Explain again how this is done for "dramatic purposes"? Yeah, thought not.

@John the OFM. Can you read more than the first sentence of something? Did I not say in the OP that the starter bundle was a great value overall in terms of the amount of stuff you got? So, to answer your sarcastic question Yes, I know how to post something I actually like. I just did it above. Try reading the entire post some time.

@coopman. That's not the point. The flag would cover most of the pole any way. All you'd see is the brass finial at the top with most of the rest of the pole covered by the flag and then the bare wood part down below where the bearer would actually be holding onto it. Which means that Warlord should have made the banner poles longer. That's the key. The fact that my flags go "off the pole" has no relevance whatsoever. They are correct.

*Final point. I am not complaining for the sake of complaining. I am merely pointing out what in my opinion is a fairly significant quality problem with an historical mini. set. Some gamers might find this important enough to know about.

Baranovich01 Aug 2021 2:14 p.m. PST

…and here's the set all of command stands with the correct size flags.

Say what you want, they're right. And just to emphasize the point, LOOK at the Warlord flags laying flat in front of the command stands.

That's not an insignificant difference!

walkabout Supporting Member of TMP01 Aug 2021 6:51 p.m. PST

With the pictures you took it looks like the flags you like are way more than six feet unless the men are dwarfs. That maybe the fault of the pictures. If you could take a picture of only one line of infantry and at eye level so we can judge how big the flag is to the bearer. Thanks

walkabout Supporting Member of TMP01 Aug 2021 6:52 p.m. PST

Plus take a closer picture so the flag and bearer are the main thing we see? Thanks

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP01 Aug 2021 7:07 p.m. PST

Based on the pics, the ones supplied look more pleasing to the eye. Your flags look too large to me. What is the actual dimensions of the supplied flags and your flags?

Ryan T01 Aug 2021 9:06 p.m. PST

The size of the flags is not the only evidence of questionable research – at least several of the flags are purely imaginary.

There is no evidence of the 115th Pennsylvania being provided with a regimental flag of the pattern shown in the Warlord flag sheet. The State of Pennsylvania was in the practice of issuing its regiments only a National flag with the state arms in the canton. While there are also several newspaper reports that friends of the unit purchased another flag for the regiment, it was reported to measure 5 x 8 feet with one side having a harp and shamrock with a depiction of General Sarsfield (?) on the other side.

The 18th Pennsylvania Infantry is even more problematic. The 18th was a 3-month regiment that entered service 24 April 1861 and was mustered out on 6 August 1861, having spent most of its time as part of the garrison of Fort McHenry outside of Baltimore. Warlord has shown this regiment's flags as a Pennsylvania issued National flag and an Evans & Hassall pattern Regimental flag. The problem here is that the State of Pennsylvania only issued its first contract for the purchase of National flags on the 9th of August. And Evans & Hassall only supplied regimental flags of the depicted pattern to the Federal government beginning in August of 1862.

Yes, I am being pedantic. But if Warlord can mess up an obvious detail like the size of the flags I don't see why I shouldn't start to nitpick them on other details as well.

McKinstry Fezian02 Aug 2021 9:52 a.m. PST

I've painted 6 regiments as a favor for a friend and have used the flags and neither he nor I are particularly bothered. They seem small and certainly some of the accuracy is dubious but I suspect the majority of users are in the not bothered/don't care category.

I can understand if that does bother some folks but it is a matter of personal taste and ultimately the market will decide whether it is a problem for Warlord. Personally I simply don't care for exclusive scales and 13.5mm is my Rubicon.

Baranovich02 Aug 2021 10:15 a.m. PST

Guys, nobody is saying there weren't variations in sizes between flag makers in the Northern states. As with any historical military equipment or uniform item, etc. of course there were variations. Not denying that.

But that kind of misses the point here. Despite discrepancies in sizes of original flags, I have never seen in either a period photo or in an actual museum a set of Union infantry flags as small as the ones that Warlord provides in the starter set.

And all I need to do is look at the photos below to tell me how wrong Warlord's flags are for the scale of their models. I am sure if you went back in a time machine and measured these flags you would find variations in their exact sizes.

But you cannot deny that all of them are at least as tall as the soldier holding them, in most cases even taller than the soldier. They are all scaled in exactly the way I have my flags on my infantry stands. They were big flags.

Warlord's flags, if they could be somehow scaled up and teleported into these photos, would be about half the size on the pole.

These photos speak for themselves guys.

picture

picture

picture

link

picture

picture

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP02 Aug 2021 10:42 a.m. PST

Sorry, I just can't get that worked up about it. I am more bothered by the fact that their infantry is neither Union nor Confederates, but are to be used as both.

altfritz02 Aug 2021 3:43 p.m. PST

I agree with the OP.

I think Warlord could have got it right if they had spent the time and effort. I just think they are too lazy to do that.

Just look at the potted history in their rulebooks and supplements. They're just doing the minimum.

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP02 Aug 2021 4:58 p.m. PST

Sure, but that's their business model and, I venture to guess, a lot of their target audience doesn't care.

The H Man03 Aug 2021 2:07 a.m. PST

Bulls eye.

They aren't making an historically accurate game here. Heck the rules weren't even specifically written for it.

They are going for the boardgame approach, I'm almost certain now. For those who just want to play civil war with little to no prior knowledge.

I just wish they had bothered to at least mix up a few of their strips. 9x the same 10 chaps in the same order? That's lazy. They could have had five, and mixed them up to make a different looking four, or even 3 of 3 different strips. Lazy. I can't see it would have made a difference for tooling and casting. But what do I know. Again, how many board games have two versions of the same thing? None (although they could have had a front and back rank, but then that may have enticed them to have one firing, and we can't have that!)

General Kirchner04 Aug 2021 10:00 a.m. PST

thanks for going to the trouble to figure that out. I admit, i had no idea the civil war flags were so big.

Given they didn't seem to care about the headgear or using the same figs for both sides, i would imagine this falls under John's generalizations he made in his video about his thoughts on the figs and the philosophy behind it.

"Good enough is good enough, or not good enough is still good enough" seems to be the order of the day.

if you are going to have 100 guys represent a 1000, I would guess the flag being the correct scale is not something that crossed their minds as important.

Figure scaling is fascinating, and I have learned so much about game design in the last few months since these came out. to me it presents more opportunity to suspend disbelief on the table. we focus so much on the individual pose and the accuracy behind it, we somehow think that offsets 20 figs representing a battalion or worse a regiment.

I really do love how many figs there are and how it seems to present a massing missing in most wargames. I also don't mind the same poses since it makes for some really cheap figs. which means more figs on the table for me.

thanks again for sharing

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.