No problem, glad you’re appreciated by it. Pretty sure those minor mistakes can at least give you in your shoes a good start to what you requested. Will work on a better picture and post when I can!
BH
Photos of the new sculps
-
Also the pedestal he is standing on is much bigger.
I wonder if it fits on chips…. -
I hope no one thinks a mistake has been made!
-
Here are three shots I took of some ANZAC and Japanese troop sculpts lying on a table, with a steel ruler placed across the rim of the bases as a reference point. The ANZAC base diameter is definitely larger than standard troop sculpt base diameter. I also checked to see how well each sculpt stacked on a poker chip from the box. The Japanese base fitted exactly into the chip’s central depression, but the ANZAC one was too big; the difference is only fractional, but it’s enough to prevent the ANZAC base from fitting properly into the chips.
-
It might be a sign of things to come, the infantry are the same since 1984.
Perhaps these ANZACS are a test run of larger bases to be introduced to all infantry units, and made taller.The infantry are the only pieces that have never changed, while everything else was upgraded.
-
Well, looks like I’ll have to order the yellow-green artillery and fighter neutrals from HBG…
They just couldn’t make China have its own color artillery and a fighter or two, yet the Europe game has French battleships and aircraft carriers…
ugh… -
Well done Marc.
Is not right that they do not fit properly. Think that is going to be infuriating. -
Are the new sculpts (except infantry), the A&A standard, very hard, glossy plastic?…
Yes, fortunately this hasn’t changed.
-
I can’t recall who mentioned this, but about a week ago someone noted that the ANZAC cruiser in VanGal’s photos looked different from the British one, even though the rulebook says that the ANZAC cruiser is the same as the UK’s. I’ve looked at the sculpts side by side and this is quite correct, as you can see from these two pictures I took this morning. Can Krieghund give us an official word on what the ANZAC cruiser sculpt represents?
-
HMAS Canberra ? Â County Class
-
Looks right Hoffmann. I have a Jane’s from 1924 and i saw it mentioned Australia wanted a ship based on the County Class, just could not find a picture!
Just received my copy, but was waiting for Maddy to go to bed before i opened it.
Well spotted again Marc. -
It’s the Australian version of the Kent subclass of the County class.
-
@wittmann:
Well spotted again Marc.
Thanks for the identification info, gentlemen.
The ANZAC cruiser difference was actually first spotted by someone else (I can’t recall who) in another thread about a week ago, so the credit should go to this eagle-eyed individual.
Glad to hear your copy has arrived, Wittmann!
-
Thanks Krieg.
Although I am not a great Naval fan, I have been promising myself a more up to date Jane’s.
Marc: My wife, is at this moment trying to get Maddy out of the house so
I can have a good look at it. Maybe she wants a game! -
I don’t know if this difference has already been pointed out elsewhere, but I noticed last evening that the Russian anti-aircraft gun from the 1940 game is a bit different from the sculpt in the 1942 game. The 1942 gun (on the left in the picture below) has a barrel that ends in a flared muzzle brake. The 1940 gun has a barrel of uniform diameter which simply has a few grooves at its tip.
-
Is the Anzac battleship a King George V?
-
Is the Anzac battleship a King George V?
The so-called ANZAC battleship is HMS Warspite, a Queen Elizabeth-class battleship of WWI vintage. The closest she got to Australia was her tour of duty with the Royal Navy’s Eastern Fleet in the Indian Ocean in 1942.
-
@CWO:
Is the Anzac battleship a King George V?
The so-called ANZAC battleship is HMS Warspite, a Queen Elizabeth-class battleship of WWI vintage. The closest she got to Australia was her tour of duty with the Royal Navy’s Eastern Fleet in the Indian Ocean in 1942.
Ah, yes. Thanks Marc.
-
@CWO:
@wittmann:
Well spotted again Marc.
Thanks for the identification info, gentlemen.
The ANZAC cruiser difference was actually first spotted by someone else (I can’t recall who) in another thread about a week ago, so the credit should go to this eagle-eyed individual.
Glad to hear your copy has arrived, Wittmann!
I think I was the one who first mentioned that the ANZAC cruiser looked different from the UK cruiser, even though the rulebook says they are the same.
The rulebook also calls the UK cruiser “Kent”, but I thought the HMS Kent was in the County class of cruisers.
So both the ANZAC and UK cruisers are Kent class or County class, but are still different? Now I’m really confused. -
By the way, what does everyone think about the new Italian Anti Aircraft Artillery? I think it looks really cool, but kind of big with that base. It’s going to be hard to put 2 of them on Southern Italy along with a Minor IC, air base, naval base, 2 fighters and 6 infantry, even with chips.
-
I think I was the one who first mentioned that the ANZAC cruiser looked different from the UK cruiser, even though the rulebook says they are the same.
The rulebook also calls the UK cruiser “Kent”, but I thought the HMS Kent was in the County class of cruisers.
So both the ANZAC and UK cruisers are Kent class or County class, but are still different? Now I’m really confused.I checked my reference books last weekend and here’s what I found. The County class cruisers were produced in two groups, the first group being (a bit confusingly) sometimes known as the Kent class. Two ships within the first group (Australian and Melbourne) were built for Australia, and were completed with slight modifications compared to their Royal Navy sisters. So in effect there were three variants of this class: the RN ships from the first group, the RAN ships from the first group, and the all-RN ships of the second group.
Suggested Topics
