What's Warlord up to?

[ripley]

The Sherman V ( M4A4 ) was a PSC kit and it has a few problems . The Sherman I ( M4 kit ) was an Italeri  model , and aside from needing a few little tweaks , its not bad at all . Don't forget it came out about 3 years ago , and boy have the 1/56 kits from everybody really improved .

[ultravanillasmurf]

Mantlet comparison here.
http://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2017/01/compare-sherman-gun-mantlet.html

I will revisit this once I have one of my collection of Rubicon M4s assembled.

[ripley]

While the M4 has a better cast effect on the turret and the bolts on the inner mantle , the M4A4 has better detail on the drivers periscopes and hatches .  Now if they would combine the best bits of those 2 kits it would be awesome ....
Latest Warlord news letter says Matilda has a choice of gun barrels , meh , that's not very exciting is it ?  They also showed a 25 Pdr and Quad for their new Western dessert series ,   but it turns out its just the old  metal 25 Pdr and  resin Quad in a fancy new box .....

[Tracks]

I remember a time (not so long ago) that the only 1:56 scale vehicles available were resin!
And even some of the worst plastic kits are better than most if not all of those old resin kits.

[Pinky]

This is just word of mouth, but I have heard that the Italeri kits are not really 1/56. They are some other scale that they feel is "close enough" to work. And that scares me totally way from their kits.

I think you must have heard that comment in the context of the Warlord plastic terrain kits, which are (apart from the ruined house) re-packaged 1:72 scale Italeri items.  Some of them are almost passable, but most are simply too small.  The vehicles are fine, even if the smaller details tend to be inconsisent.

[EarlyWarGamer]

I believe you are correct Pinky. I believe it was related to terrain kits. My take-away was "Italieri kits are 1/72" and didn't bother noting that was for terrain, not vehicles.

I have now learned that Italeri vehicle kits are okay for consideration! Which is nice.

I am TRYING to support Rubicon because I like how they do business (seek comments, make adjustments, etc). But nice to know that if I really needed a vehicle that was available from Italeri and not Rubicon, I could consider making the purchase.

[ripley]

Very true Tracks . What I find is that as a company moves forward  making improvements and better detailed kits , the public expects a certain standard of product , and is vocal when said company takes what they consider a step backward .  Rubicon seems  to be making changes for the better in each new release , and except for the resin / pewter / plastic debate . we've really nothing to complain about ( maybe where am I going to find the $ to buy all these cool toys and where will I put them when built  ) Warlord's kits seem hit and miss , I guess depending who designs / produces them . I thought the Pzr III was a great kit with lots of options in the box . The KV s on the other hand while a nice kit missed some definitive features IMO  .  I feel the real problem is there is no way to give feed back to the Warlord guys as they don't design the kits .

[Rubicon Models]

I feel the real problem is there is no way to give feed back to the Warlord guys as they don't design the kits.

The problem with WLG is not about giving feedback to the manufacturer but the lack of knowledge and resources to commit themselves to work on these development projects.  Maybe not with Italeri but even under their own brand, they are not able to follow up their projects properly... don't think those people in-charge knew anything about tanks.  WLG is a trader, not a manufacturer, tbh.

[Tracks]

The KV s on the other hand while a nice kit missed some definitive features IMO.

I agree with you ripley, the KV kit had some errors. That being said, 1) how many gamers know these things? 2) it is so much better than their old resin it. 3) the ones I have assembled went together very well. 4) I'm not a die-hard, rivet counter, modeller, so as long as the plastic KV kit (when assembled) looks the part for my gaming needs, its okay.

I feel the real problem is there is no way to give feed back to the Warlord guys as they don't design the kits.

The problem with WLG is not about giving feedback to the manufacturer but the lack of knowledge and resources to commit themselves to work on these development projects.  Maybe not with Italeri but even under their own brand, they are not able to follow up their projects properly... don't think those people in-charge knew anything about tanks.  WLG is a trader, not a manufacturer, tbh.

I would be surprised to hear if they check the work of those they make contracts with. They ask Italeri, PSC, or SG to produce a plastic model kit for their Bolt Action line, and (possibly) don't bother to check it later. Most likely because what you (RM) said. WLG is a trader and not a manufacture. Even if they did have someone on their staff that could check the details of contracted projects, would they? They are probably trusting in the expertise of the companies they are making the project contracts with.

[ripley]

I would like to think that anyone playing Historical game  ( Bolt Action , right  ? ) should at least have some basic knowledge of .... well maybe not . I've seen some very nicely painted fantasy WW2 armies 

[ultravanillasmurf]

Of course you can check all you like, but if you do not control the production process, you can always find that what you order and what you receive may not match up.

For an example where the company doing the ordering are modellers: https://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6723

[Tracks]

I've seen some very nicely painted fantasy WW2 armies 

I know what you mean, and I'm not talking about Konflikt '47.

For an example where the company doing the ordering are modellers: https://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6723

Tricky business.
Age old carpentry proverb, "Measure twice and cut once."
Obviously some knowledge and skill is still needed.

[Rubicon Models]

From the look of the Matilda II photos on the WLG website, it doesn't seem to have any options...
https://store.warlordgames.com/products/matilda-ii-troop

Major variants for the A12 Matilda II:

Infantry Tank Mark II (Matilda II)
First production model armed with a Vickers machine gun.

Infantry Tank Mark IIA (Matilda II Mk II)
Vickers machine gun replaced by Besa machine gun. The "A" denoted a change in armament.

Infantry Tank Mark IIA* (Matilda II Mk III)
New Leyland diesel engine used in place of AEC engines.

Infantry Tank Mark II (Matilda II Mk IV)
With improved engines, rigid mounting and no turret lamp.

Matilda II Mk IV Close Support (CS)
Variant with QF 3in (76mm) howitzer, firing high explosive or smoke shells. In British service, these were generally used by HQ units (usually a single command vehicle), whereas entire Australian squadrons often appear to have used them – frequently in a direct fire role, against Japanese strong points.

Infantry Tank Mark II (Matilda II Mk V)
Improved gearbox. Westinghouse air servo used.

[ultravanillasmurf]

From the look of the Matilda II photos on the WLG website, it doesn't seem to have any options...
https://store.warlordgames.com/products/matilda-ii-troop

That is a bit annoying.

[ripley]

From what I've heard there should be a gun option ( 2Pdr / 3 inch How ) . Not very exciting IMO