Figure I’d add my unit count and review for posterity as well:
NAVAL:
6 BB
6 CV
1 CA
17 DD
12 AP
12 SS
AIR:
12 Fighters
6 Tac
6 SB
6 Transports/Med Bomber
LAND:
5 Commander
11 Infantry 1
13 Infantry 2
12 Art
12 Mech
6 tank
6 tank destroyer
6 truck
the Bad:
Many units suffer from deformation. I suspect this is due to the plastic mix and cooling unevenly (bottom faster than top), causing differential stress in the figures. Worst offenders are subs (maybe one didn’t need to have the ends be gently bent up to stand easily) and the SM79. I’d recommend in the future that every plane mold incorporate a slight dihedral - the SM79 wing is molded flat, so the wings cooled with a pronounced droop and out of plane with the tail (which appeared to have cooled with a twist in many pieces). I suspect the droop is is also due to the unneccesary flap lines on the top surface but not underneath, exacerbating cooling stress. The BR20 doesn’t have as many flap lines, and a thicker wing mold and held its form much better.
The fighter is too small. I understand the wish to establish scale standards, but it’s far smaller than the OOB mold and feels harder to handle on a board (to me).
The truck is really too big and in the future other nation trucks should NOT be molded this large. It looks cartoonish and heavy next to the other land units, which are very delicate. There’s no reason to keep wheelbase the same, especially when the fighter is so reduced beyond the other air units.
One cruiser? That’s some seriously questionable QC. 4 would have been acceptable, 1 is just lame.
The Good:
Several of the molds are just outstanding. The Tac, Naval Transport and Air Transport (BR20) are very very nice with just the right amount of detail. I have no complaints about the tanks in size or detail, the infantry are well proportioned, and the artillery is delicate but stable. The Armoured car, while perhaps deceptively similar to the tanks, is a very nice mold itself, and distinct enough in my opinion.
yeah the fighter is to small, i too agree it makes it harder to handle when its that small. hopefully fmg will make them a little bigger
I don’t know that the fighter is necessarily too small. Look at the OOB MiG-3 piece for Russia. It’s pretty tiny too. My only complaint on the fighter is the wings are too straight. They should be more tapered so they get wider the closer they get to the fuselage.
reloader,
You mentioned HBG’s artillery pieces being too fragile. Well, so are FMG’s and so are the OOB German and Italian artillery. The Allied artillery piece (105mm howitzer) is just a little sturdier, but still fragile. The only exception is that little compact Japanese artillery. I think that is one piece that is always going to be very delicate and fragile for just about every nation’s arsenal, especially at the scale that we need for the game.
I do agree with you on the piece counts for specific units: eg. more tanks, less capital ships. I would have liked to see more tanks in the FMG sets as well. For myself, I have set a number of 5 sets of pieces for my inventory. I just like having a lot of pieces to play with. Unfortunately, that will give me 30 aircraft carriers and battleships for each nation. Italy will likely NEVER use 30 carriers or battleships. For that matter, neither will France, Germany, Russia, ANZAC or England. Japan and USA are the only ones that might possibly come close. However, this is the set count so to get the larger amount of men, tanks, artillery and planes, we have to take more capital ships as well. FMG has decided on a uniform piece count for each set and I think that is a good idea.
Granted, I suppose they could have different quantities for different nations – eg. 6 carriers for USA but only 2 for USSR, etc. – and for those nations with less capital ships, give them more men, tanks, etc. However, you have to remember the difficulty in getting these molds made. Changing the piece count from nation to nation would add an unacceptable level of complexity to creating the molds for these sets. Think about all the problems Jeremy has had with the Chinese factory already just in getting the Italians finished. He’s got to keep things as simple as possible for them so we have as few delays as possible and we get all the sets sooner.
Also, with the current sets and piece counts, each mold makes 1 of each piece that has 6 quantity and 2 of each piece that has 12 quantity. So each full set requires 6 stampings of the mold. With that in mind, each set HAS to have 6 carriers, 6 battleships, and so on because it is already set in the mold. To make a set that only has say 2 carriers and perhaps more tanks would require two different molds which would make things more complex for the factory. Who knows what we might end up getting – some sets with no carriers at all and others with 12 carriers. Maybe that’s extreme but you get my point.
Your best bet if you want more of certain units would be to go and buy them individually from HBG. They are reasonably priced. As for your “extra” capital ships and the like, see if you can sell them on ebay and maybe make back some of the money you spent for the pieces you buy.
Knp - it’s not that hard to reduce the number of ships.
Currently, the Italian mold has 1 slot for carriers, 1 for battleships, 2 for destroyers, 2 for transports, 2 for subs, etc.
In future molds, just cut down one or two of those extra destroyer/sub/transport etc mold spaces, and swap in a land piece. Obviously, for the Italians the mold is done, but for future sets I believe we still have time.
All china does is bag each mold run in a separate bag, it would add no complexity whatsoever if the mold swapped a couple of slots.
Oh, so you are talking about subbing out the smaller ships, the ones that we get 12 of per set, for more tanks? I thought you were JUST referring to the capital ships. You are right, that would not be as difficult for the factory to make a mold like that. So you would get a set with simply 6 of each naval unit in exchange for more land units. Well, I could see that being desireable for USSR and Germany since those countries generally build more tanks, mechs and infantry. Although, Germany also often builds lots of subs too for convoy raiding.
So when it comes to countries like Japan and USA, would you want more naval units and less land units in those sets?
Personally, I still think all sets should have a uniform count, but I do better understand your reasoning. As for getting more tanks, I am seriously thinking about going over to HBG and boosting up my tank force that way. I really would like more of them myself. Another idea would be to buy a few more complete sets from FMG and try selling off all the units I don’t want.
At a bare minimum we need at least one more tank slot in the mold for all countries, especially US/Germany etc. 6 tanks for $40 is not viable, and lots of us will have the same idea in buying them from HBG. I can see HBG charging $5-6 per tank, as someone who buys a $40 FMG set doesn’t really need more ships or planes, but definitely needs more tanks. Remember that HBG doesn’t want to lose money selling the tanks from the Italian sets and being stuck with 6,352 carriers and battleships…
I agree with reloaded on most of what he says. I really feel that FmG and HBG need to scale their units the same to keep uniformity! How can u supplement a set when similar pieces are 2 different sizes? It’s not that hard to get together on color and size, just a little more work! This is in relation to FMG’s truck and HBG’s truck. I think the OOB truck is just the right size and HBG has matched it really close.
Someone mentioned the HBG AC is too small, I disagree! It is perfect size for the game and maps we use. This I just my opinion.
Good job on both parties for the pieces!
I don’t have my FMG Italy units yet and I’ll be posting a complete inventory/unit count as well as a full review them as and when they do arrive. In the meantime, all I can see with regards to what I have seen from the photos posted by FMG, is that the Truck unit IS slightly too big. I appreciate that FMG want bigger Trucks but if the majority of the buying public wish them to be smaller, then smaller they must be. I am happy with the size of the OOB Truck units that came with A&A BotB, and wish FMG had kept their Truck unit to this scale. However, until an alternative is available I will be content with the FMG Truck unit.
With regards to land unit scaling issues: I think there should be a general wheel-base limit/specification for each nation, per unit type. As someone mentioned earlier today, Medium Tanks should be slightly bigger than Light Tanks, and Heavy Tanks should be slightly bigger than Medium Tanks. BUT! We are only talking a milimetre or two… In effect, I think it would be good if the scale could look something like this:
**Small scale: Trucks, Half-Tracks/Mechanised Inf, Armoured Cars, Light Tanks
Medium Scale: Medium Tanks, Self-Propelled Guns/Tank Destroyers
Large scale: Heavy Tanks, ?**
I also agree that the wings of the Italian Fighter unit should have been more tapered. And, I think that 8 Tanks per nation should be the standard, not 6.
I will post more feedback/review later. Thank you for reading.
Hey kcdzim, I got 18 cruisers and no destroyers! Wanna trade a few pieces?
Trevor
Hey kcdzim, I got 18 cruisers and no destroyers! Wanna trade a few pieces?
Trevor
Comical. You’re the second person to approach me with this.
First, I would recommend contacting FMG, as he indicated a willingness to fix errors with huge piece count discrepancies (not piddly one or 2 off, but getting one or none of something, well, that’s pretty crazy.
He has offered to send me some missing cruisers, so I’ll consider trades after receipt. Unfortunately, Bob Mickelson has dibs first. Although, Bob, you too should contact FMG regarding the count. You also suffer from cruiser wealth and destroyer poverty, pretty sure Jeremy will fix that.
At a bare minimum we need at least one more tank slot in the mold for all countries, especially US/Germany etc. 6 tanks for $40 is not viable, and lots of us will have the same idea in buying them from HBG. I can see HBG charging $5-6 per tank, as someone who buys a $40 FMG set doesn’t really need more ships or planes, but definitely needs more tanks. Remember that HBG doesn’t want to lose money selling the tanks from the Italian sets and being stuck with 6,352 carriers and battleships…
THANKS ALOT, RLOADER, FOR GIVING COACH THE IDEA TO RAISE THE PRICE ON THE CARRO ARMATO FROM 55 CENTS A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO TO $1.45 TODAY. I’D RATHER BUY COMPLETE SETS THAN PAY THAT MUCH FOR ONE TANK.
WHO KNOWS, MAYBE SOME BRIGHT CHINA MAN ON THE ASSEMBLY LINE POCKETED 6,000 TANKS AND IS GONNA MAKE A KILLING ON EBAY.
Militaryman077- I’m sure reloaded didn’t give coach that idea! Besides it is supply and demand! If he sells all the armor and mechs out of the sets for $.55 a piece and doesn’t move anything alse, how is he suppose to profit from that and use that profit to purchase other sets to sell? You have to understand he isn’t getting rich or making a “killing”. In the end he has to make enough money on each set to justify buying another and piecing it out. If the price of the pieces go up then you know those are the ones that are moving and are popular.
Militaryman,
Nearly ALL of us want more tanks, just as nearly all of us needed more tacs and mechs for the 1940 games. If coach only gets 6 tanks per Italian set from FMG, he needs to sell them at a price that makes sense. Let’s say FMG is selling him Italian sets wholesale at $30, that means that if he sells the tanks at $0.55, he recoups $3 of his cost and is stuck with a TON of pieces that a lot of people don’t need. It gets even worse if people order lots of tanks - say you order 30 tanks, or 5 sets worth, at $0.55 - coach gets roughly $15, but is left with $135 worth of inventory to sell that is not as desirable!
And that is without Coach MAKING A SINGLE DIME OF PROFIT (see I can use all caps too!). I still think the tanks are too cheap, btw. $9 for 6 tanks is not that bad…
Militaryman,
Nearly ALL of us want more tanks, just as nearly all of us needed more tacs and mechs for the 1940 games. If coach only gets 6 tanks per Italian set from FMG, he needs to sell them at a price that makes sense. Let’s say FMG is selling him Italian sets wholesale at $30, that means that if he sells the tanks at $0.55, he recoups $3 of his cost and is stuck with a TON of pieces that a lot of people don’t need. It gets even worse if people order lots of tanks - say you order 30 tanks, or 5 sets worth, at $0.55 - coach gets roughly $15, but is left with $135 worth of inventory to sell that is not as desirable!
And that is without Coach MAKING A SINGLE DIME OF PROFIT (see I can use all caps too!). I still think the tanks are too cheap, btw. $9 for 6 tanks is not that bad…
Yes, but your “sky is falling” attitude about the scarcity of the tanks is not true. All FMG has to do is put in a new order for tanks and presto, he has more tanks. They didn’t throw the mold away in China did they??? Ok, I stand corrected.
military man, you can’t just “order more tanks”… First off, the mold only has one slot for a tank, and you can’t just mold tanks without anything else in the mold. To order more tanks, or anything else, Jeremy at FMG would have to place a minimum order (normally 1000 mold runs) which would give him:
1000 tanks
AND
1000 carriers
1000 battleships
2000 transports
2000 subs
2000 destroyers
etc.
The mold has a fixed number of slots, many units only have one slot (including the tank). To make more of one piece, you have to run the entire mold. This all costs quite a lot of money, hence why his sets cost $40 in the first place!
No offense, but no one is making a killing here…
Reloader is absolutely right. You can go buy 30 tanks from HBG for $1.45 a piece, or go buy 5 FMG sets for $39.95 to get you 30 tanks! It’s a no brained if all you want is tanks!
Reloader is correct!
The whole mold has to be run.
I did check with my factory way back when if I could run a partial of the mold.
They stated that it could be done by blocking off some cavities and only feeding the plastic into one portion of the mold……but…
The mold would be forever changed, you could not revert back and would lose all the cavities you blocked off forever.
This process that both FMG and HBG is doing is hard, expensive and time consuming.
We are doing the best we can and I can assure you that I have NOT regained 10% of the $30,000.00 I have spent so far in sculpting, cost of mold, production, shipping, advertising, etc
I pray down the road that I at least make back my money if not actually make a profit.
I do understand like FMG, profits are down the road, but please, give us some slack.
We both have full time jobs aside from our online business.
I literally work every weekday evening after I come home until 11:30-12:30am. I get up at 6:30 am , go to my job, work through my lunch hour on my online business. Saturdays are always again working on my business, and after church on Sunday I do it again. I am sure Jeremy has similar schedules and he still has kids at home.
Sorry to go on, but we are not the bad guys, we are doing, learning and……doing our best!
Coach
(aka. Doug Friend)
Guys,
I hope that everyone now understands some of the concerns that HBG and FMG are faced with while “sticking their necks way out financially”. I applaud their efforts and think they both deserve a Distinguished Service Medal.
–---------------------------------------------
My only hope is that FMG might consider using the same “scale” parameters that HBG does. The trucks are simply too large. But if FMG doesn’t change,…No biggie, we’ll still have some really fine units in the future. It would just be MUCH BETTER if all of the
HBG and FMG units were more compatible in size.
-----------------------------------------------
This thread(and forum) is already serving as a valuable tool in sharing concerns of both the customers and the producers of these units. Hopefully we will ALL benefit from it with better units in the future. It also helps when the customers understand many of the producers concerns and/or problems.
------------------------------------------------
Again, a big THANK YOU to both HBG and FMG for all of their time, money, and efforts in producing the units thus far.
“Tall Paul”
Geesh! It’s starting to sound like everyone wants nothing but more tanks. Maybe FMG should have a new mold made and stamp out nothing but tanks. Then people could pay $39.95 for 150 tanks. Of course, then they would have no infantry, artillery or mechs to support them. No transports to carry them to distant shores or warships and carriers to protect the transports or any planes to put on the carriers.
By the way militaryman077, it may be my fault that Coach raised his price on the tanks. I recently put in a large order for some and may have depleted his stock.
