Overall thoughts on SoG Box Set & Ships

[PilGrim]

They're finally here and we should all have a chance to have poked, prodded and fondled the models and components, so can we get a general and balanced view of the ships and other components? Please no BS or fanraves.

My first impressions of the game box are pretty positive. The game components (ships aside for the moment) are fairly solid, although not as good quality as the first generation Wings of War sets, being more lightweight, they're a lot better than some more recent releases such as the Wings of Glory WW2 set which has some very flimsy components (ok the control cards). The ship manoeuvre decks are similar to the current WGF\S in weight so again not as good as the original WOW sets but still OK. Rules seem fine, and you cant deny there's a pleasing heft to the box.

Now for the ships

Overall not bad at all, detail is good with the only glaring issue being the plastic fill between the sails and the mast which is ugly and just wrong (wrong wrong). Painting on the examples I have seen is mostly ok to good, with an odd furrowed brow as on some ships of one mast \ sail assembly being a slightly different colour plastic to the others. The ships themselves clearly have some fragility issues, and I foresee a series of forum threads on replacing or fixing broken masts and bowsprites but that is pretty much the nature of the beast. I should in honesty note that the decision to make the mast and sails one piece (see wrong wrong wrong above) is clearly going to reduce breakages in comparison to if they had been separate, so this may be some justification. Either way, I would not recommend dropping a SoG ship from your table, but then again they will fair no better or worse than any 1:1200 model treated the same way.

Bases. The ship bases are a bit of a dilemma. They're not as distracting as the original pre production pics suggested, but they are still an issue. They're very deep - I don't have a rule present but I would say 5-6mm, and 3mm of that is an unused recess on the underside. The problem is (IMHO) that Ares are trying to do too much here. They seem to have recognised that one of the issues with SoG is limited variations on ships, so they have included a reversible card to allow each of the models to be used as two different ships. To achieve this they have moved away from having the stats on the base themselves as they do in WoW \ WoG to having them on a card, and then having that card placed in a recess in the base, with a thin clear plastic cover, all topped off with the model. This allows some details to be displayed that a generic base with just firing arcs and the like would not allow, but overall the bases seem over-engineered and clunky. Another bi-product is the ships have a long spike to fix them to the base which is another area of probable breakage with use and could easily have been replaced with a slot \ tongue system if the bases were single piece. Given the "extra" data this allows is already printed on the ship control card I'm not sure this is worth the trouble and expense they've gone to and a simple single piece base similar to WoG would probably have been cheaper and less fuss, and less visibly distracting, particularly as, as far as I can tell, the actual stats on the cards do not change from model to model, only those on the ship cards.

Both the individual ship packages and the main box look to be good for storing the models between use, at least until the inevitable foam cases come along, although given the plethora of other components I'm not sure that foam can easily replace the current box set packaging

On the 1000 vs 1200 controversy I think the jury is probably out. I cant see from these models anything here that suggests the chosen "proprietary" scale offers any great advantages, indeed I think you would be pushed at anything other than close up to be able to tell the difference.

I am pretty pleased with the SoG set and ship packs. The base thing is a real annoyance, and the backfilled mast \ sail arrangement is something you either live with or don't. Other than that as I said, pretty happy, so maybe 8\10 overall.

[David Manley]

Either way, I would not recommend dropping a SoG ship from your table, but then again they will fair no better or worse than any 1:1200 model treated the same way.

I've found my 1/1200 lead and pewter models to be qute resilient to damage. Several survived being dropped by my cat from a table with no ill effects (she picked them out of the box very carefully with her teethand then dropped them a metre or so). The rigging seemed to help a lot. And two models survived having heavy steel tape measures dropped on them. OK, the masts were bent all shades of Wednesday, but with the application of a bit of warm air and some gentle persuasion they were as right as rain :)

I'm in two minds about the ship data on the cards. I can see why its there, its following the approach in Wings. But I'm also aware that no-one in our games really noticed it was there and read what the needed to read off the ship control cards (which I guess is also what happens in our Wings games, I can't help thinking it would make life so much simpler of the aircraft bases were just plain with firing arcs.

[Coog]

Several survived being dropped by my cat from a table with no ill effects.

8102

[David Manley]

8102

:happy:

[7eat51]

I'm in two minds about the ship data on the cards. I can see why its there, its following the approach in Wings. But I'm also aware that no-one in our games really noticed it was there and read what the needed to read off the ship control cards (which I guess is also what happens in our Wings games, I can't help thinking it would make life so much simpler of the aircraft bases were just plain with firing arcs.

I have a hard enough time reading such data when holding the minis in hand; put them on a table, and forget about it.

I'm curious as to the mean and median ages of WoG/SoG players. I wonder if the graphic designers consider such things when choosing font sizes. If only I had my eyes of 20 years ago. :wink:

[David Manley]

At least the damage chits are readable - unlike the new WGS ones and the WGF damage cards :wink:

[Andy Blozinski]

The only thing people paid attention to in the demo game was the firing arcs and wind attitude color bars.

[The Royal Hajj]

I know most will classify me as a fanboy, but I'll give my thoughts based on things I've learned "behind the scenes" if you will...



My first impressions of the game box are pretty positive. The game components (ships aside for the moment) are fairly solid, although not as good quality as the first generation Wings of War sets, being more lightweight, they're a lot better than some more recent releases such as the Wings of Glory WW2 set which has some very flimsy components (ok the control cards). The ship manoeuvre decks are similar to the current WGF\S in weight so again not as good as the original WOW sets but still OK. Rules seem fine, and you cant deny there's a pleasing heft to the box.

I agree 100% that the old Nexus card stock was much thicker and nicer. I wish we could still get that, but I understand it's a cost issue. When sourcing the new foam types for my storage trays, I was kind of shocked to learn that a two times denser piece of the same foam and of the same size was nearly three times the cost of the other.



Now for the ships

Overall not bad at all, detail is good with the only glaring issue being the plastic fill between the sails and the mast which is ugly and just wrong (wrong wrong). Painting on the examples I have seen is mostly ok to good, with an odd furrowed brow as on some ships of one mast \ sail assembly being a slightly different colour plastic to the others. The ships themselves clearly have some fragility issues, and I foresee a series of forum threads on replacing or fixing broken masts and bowsprites but that is pretty much the nature of the beast. I should in honesty note that the decision to make the mast and sails one piece (see wrong wrong wrong above) is clearly going to reduce breakages in comparison to if they had been separate, so this may be some justification. Either way, I would not recommend dropping a SoG ship from your table, but then again they will fair no better or worse than any 1:1200 model treated the same way.

The single piece mast and sails were done for both sturdiness and for assembly. I can only imagine all the misaligned sails had they been made in multiple parts! As for the chunk of plastic between the mast and the sails, I did not like it one bit when I first laid hands on the pre-production ships last summer. I set their with them in my hand think about the best way to remove it. Well, time did not allow me to try anything before they were needed on the table... and I'm glad it did not. After actually playing several games with them, I did not even notice that extra plastic at all.

http://sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5736&d=1372731833

http://sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5734&d=1372731831

http://sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5726&d=1372731823

http://sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=5737&d=1372731834





Bases. The ship bases are a bit of a dilemma. They're not as distracting as the original pre production pics suggested, but they are still an issue. They're very deep - I don't have a rule present but I would say 5-6mm, and 3mm of that is an unused recess on the underside. The problem is (IMHO) that Ares are trying to do too much here. They seem to have recognised that one of the issues with SoG is limited variations on ships, so they have included a reversible card to allow each of the models to be used as two different ships. To achieve this they have moved away from having the stats on the base themselves as they do in WoW \ WoG to having them on a card, and then having that card placed in a recess in the base, with a thin clear plastic cover, all topped off with the model. This allows some details to be displayed that a generic base with just firing arcs and the like would not allow, but overall the bases seem over-engineered and clunky. Another bi-product is the ships have a long spike to fix them to the base which is another area of probable breakage with use and could easily have been replaced with a slot \ tongue system if the bases were single piece. Given the "extra" data this allows is already printed on the ship control card I'm not sure this is worth the trouble and expense they've gone to and a simple single piece base similar to WoG would probably have been cheaper and less fuss, and less visibly distracting, particularly as, as far as I can tell, the actual stats on the cards do not change from model to model, only those on the ship cards.

The bases are going to be a point of concern for many players. I personally like the thickness of them because it makes it much easier to move the ships around the table without having to grab the ship. A big plus for me and at con games. Unfortunately, they also need to be that deep to allow enough surface area for the peg on the bottom of the ship to stay attached to the base. That unused recess on the underside is a by product of that physics requirement.

The double side card did not come until the KS was underway, so I don't think that is the cause of the complex base. It goes back to the ship peg issue. With the peg having to be on the bottom of the ship, it had to protrude down into the base. Thus, having a clear base like in Wings of Glory would not really work for aesthetic reasons (the ship pegs are larger). So that requires them to have a colored base. Blue works well, but a large block of blue base would not look very nice. So they decided to dress it up some with artwork of water that would surround the ship minis. That looked much better and since they were putting the artwork there, they might as well put the stats there too (a carry over form the Wings world). Putting the clear cover on it protected the new card and allowed for a slightly longer peg on the ship to help hold it in. And that is pretty much how they arrived at the bases we have.

I personally think they could have left the stats off the ship card. As others say, you really cant read it once on the table. Although, ships are much harder to tell apart then planes are, so some type of identification was need on the bases to help tell which ship was which once action began (and I still have a hard time with this when running con games).




On the 1000 vs 1200 controversy I think the jury is probably out. I cant see from these models anything here that suggests the chosen "proprietary" scale offers any great advantages, indeed I think you would be pushed at anything other than close up to be able to tell the difference.

Think not of the casting quality between 1:1000 and 1:1200 ships, but of the pre-assembled and pre-painted part of these. Had they stuck with the standard 1:1200 size, I truly think we would have an inferior finished product. The paint work on these are pretty darn detailed and to reproduce that on a smaller scale for a similar price point would be next to impossible.

But there is my fanboy thoughts as they are!

[PilGrim]

Thanks for the info Keith. I still think the bases are a bit of an issue - if the pin is the problem a slot on the base and an L shaped hook would have dealt with it easy enough. We are were we are I suppose

[The Royal Hajj]

I think the slot and hook method has potential as well. But maybe a T would work better? Either way you would need a larger opening on part of the slot and the different parts of the T or the L would still have to be thick enough not to snap easily... so I think we would be right back to thicker base that still needs some unused room underneath. Too bad RE magnets are too expensive and illegal in some countries for production runs like this!

[7eat51]

In the games I ran at two cons, no one mentioned anything about the bases, if my memory serves me correctly. Though, aesthetically, they might not be as pleasing as smaller ones, from a playability standpoint, they are kind of nice. I often wish the WoG bases were designed slightly different as they are hard to pick up and move at times.

I think ship identification will be a bit of an issue on larger tables; it is hard to see the card info when the ships are toward the center of the playing surface. The base thickness might come in handy if an attractive identification solution can utilize them.

[Cool Breeze]

In the games I ran at two cons, no one mentioned anything about the bases, if my memory serves me correctly. Though, aesthetically, they might not be as pleasing as smaller ones, from a playability standpoint, they are kind of nice. I often wish the WoG bases were designed slightly different as they are hard to pick up and move at times.

I think ship identification will be a bit of an issue on larger tables; it is hard to see the card info when the ships are toward the center of the playing surface. The base thickness might come in handy if an attractive identification solution can utilize them.

Having demo'd this at a Con as well, I agree on both points here, except I actually got a couple from out of state who came to the con specifically to see SoG said they loved the bases, "because they were easy to pick up the ships by the bases for moving."

Perhaps print reusable stickers with the ship names that can be applied and removed from the back of the bases?

[The Royal Hajj]

The base thickness might come in handy if an attractive identification solution can utilize them.

I've been pondering putting a full color printed label across the rear side of the base for this every reason.

[7eat51]

Perhaps print reusable stickers with the ship names that can be applied and removed from the back of the bases?

I am thinking about something along these lines, but I don't want it to look sloppy or jimmy rigged. I have seen some of the name tags folks have put on their Langtons that look quite nice.

[7eat51]

I've been pondering putting a full color printed label across the rear side of the base for this every reason.

Now you're typing when I am. The shame of it all. :wink:

One of the comments I received at Rock-Con was that the Pirates of the … ships were nice because they were so easy to identify as the enemy. I think with newbies, ship identification should definitely be considered by the GM.

[The Royal Hajj]

Maybe painting/printing nation flags on the front and rear facing of the bases might not be a bad idea.

[Cool Breeze]

Maybe painting/printing nation flags on the front and rear facing of the bases might not be a bad idea.
I like this!

[David Manley]

Having demo'd this at a Con as well, I agree on both points here, except I actually got a couple from out of state who came to the con specifically to see SoG said they loved the bases, "because they were easy to pick up the ships by the bases for moving."

The bases are like Marmite - you either love them or hate them (except for me, I'm not all that fussed either way). In one of our parti games at Reveille someone made the same comment about how easy they were to pick up (which was handy as the pins didn't seem to be doing a good job of holding the ship to the base, whilst another wag asked if it was customary for ships to sail around on bloody great house bricks.

So no one approach is going to keep everybody happy :)

[David Manley]

I've been pondering putting a full color printed label across the rear side of the base for this every reason.

something I've done in the past with 1/1200 and 1/2400 ships is to have a card slip under the base and extending out to the rear with a national flag and a three letter code for the name of the ship. With slightly bigger bases you could do the same but with the full name I guess.

[fast.git]

Maybe painting/printing nation flags on the front and rear facing of the bases might not be a bad idea.

I like this idea as well.

[GreenLaborMike]

If the bases are removable, then for those who really want to go all out, how about custom bases with brass plaques with ship names etched/engraved on them? I'm sure there are variations on this idea that would make them stand out even more from a distance - lacquer painted flags, etc.

As if some of us haven't already thrown enough money at this game. But if done right, it could look really outstanding, and serve a very useful function.

P.S. This would also settle the question of whether to get one ship per "side" of a ship card. :-)

[The Royal Hajj]

If the bases are removable, then for those who really want to go all out, how about custom bases with brass plaques with ship names etched/engraved on them? I'm sure there are variations on this idea that would make them stand out even more from a distance - lacquer painted flags, etc.

As if some of us haven't already thrown enough money at this game. But if done right, it could look really outstanding, and serve a very useful function.

P.S. This would also settle the question of whether to get one ship per "side" of a ship card. :-)

Humm, wonder if I could find some anodized aluminum adhesive backed "blanks" that I could laser engrave this info onto. The anodization could be a different for the different nations. Here is a pic of a photo that was laser engrave on anodized aluminum:

8103

8104

[PilGrim]

Lets hope this basing method doesnt catch on - 6mm in 1:1000 is the equivalent of 20 feet, so using that on a 25mm figure would require a base 80mm or so high

[GreenLaborMike]

Humm, wonder if I could find some anodized aluminum adhesive backed "blanks" that I could laser engrave this info onto. The anodization could be a different for the different nations. Here is a pic of a photo that was laser engrave on anodized aluminum:

8103

8104

Those colors are a bit pastel for SoG, but the concept is spot on. I have no idea if Aluminum will hold colors that appear more "aged" or at least more representative of national flag colors.

To also carry on this line of thought, how about "antique" wooden bases? That would make the ships display-worthy in a heartbeat!

[Diamondback]

OT: Nice shot of a Pave Low... I'm building one in 1/48 scale, alongside a speculative CH-53E-based "next-gen version."

[The Royal Hajj]

Yes, those are toy colors. I'd use more muted and deeper colors. Here is just one color chart to show the range possible:

8105

Wooden bases would be a lot more complex and costly... at least the way I envision them.

[GreenLaborMike]

Yes, those are toy colors. I'd use more muted and deeper colors. Here is just one color chart to show the range possible:

8105

Wooden bases would be a lot more complex and costly... at least the way I envision them.

Much better!

As for wooden bases, I'd consider that purely a luxury item for those with money to burn. There would likely be very little mass-market appeal for quality wooden bases and the corresponding price to go with them. But then again, if SoG ships on really nice wooden bases were used in demo games at GenCon or Origins, the drool factor might just spur some sales. It's the kind of thing people need to see in person to get the full effect, I think.

[Andy Blozinski]

I've been pondering putting a full color printed label across the rear side of the base for this every reason.

Green bases for one side. Blue bases for the other. This solves the friend/foe issue instantly.
If you put name tags at the back, I would suggest each name tag has a different color for the side it's on. You put the same colored tag on the ship status mat. This connects by color to the ship and the name is actually unimportant. You can re-use colors because you have two sides. A red name tag could be used for both the green and blue sides, for instance.

[Capn Duff]

So far am quite happy with most of the SoG pack.
My big gripe is with my exclusive ship the Redoutable, this ships base peg is far too small and the ship keeps falling off its base.
The others seem to be ok and have a snug fit, just this one ship.
I have tried to use my AA glue but this is not enough, I am going to try and build it up with clear nail varnish

[The Royal Hajj]

Green bases for one side. Blue bases for the other. This solves the friend/foe issue instantly.
If you put name tags at the back, I would suggest each name tag has a different color for the side it's on. You put the same colored tag on the ship status mat. This connects by color to the ship and the name is actually unimportant. You can re-use colors because you have two sides. A red name tag could be used for both the green and blue sides, for instance.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[The Royal Hajj]

So far am quite happy with most of the SoG pack.
My big gripe is with my exclusive ship the Redoutable, this ships base peg is far too small and the ship keeps falling off its base.
The others seem to be ok and have a snug fit, just this one ship.
I have tried to use my AA glue but this is not enough, I am going to try and build it up with clear nail varnish

I would put some blue tack or the like down in that hole.

[Nightmoss]

I've started looking really closely at the ships, bases and other equipment from the starter box. My thoughts so far:

Quality of components for the most part are extremely good. The plastic on the ships is much stiffer than I recall or thought it would be, which might make rigging, painting or other modifications easier to do. They may also be more prone to snapping vs. bending, but no more or less than my Langton minis. They're not nerf toys and I don't plan on using them violently.

Some other quick thoughts:

1. Ships pivoting or coming off the base too easily is annoying and I'll definitely have to come up with a fix to stop that.
2. Both the plastic shield and the ship card can be somewhat difficult to remove from the base. I can see where bent cards and/or broken shield cards could occur as people try to fish them out of the base (does Ares have any plans to sell extra cards, bases and shields? This would allow having everything semi-permanently in place and just swapping ships as needed).
3. Some of the card stock really is flimsy feeling, but I know it was a cost issue so will learn to live with it. Warping of the card stock in humid climates might be an issue so lamination is something I might consider.
4. Graphics and art are really impressive compared to some products I've seen on the market. In fact I think I need to track down the art of Donald MacLeod to see if he sells prints as I really like the box art. Actually here's the gallery although it might be too expensive or problematic getting his art delivered here? http://www.stivesgallery.co.uk/
5. I had serious doubts on how well the detail film applications would look on the ship models, or how one would alter them if a repaint was considered. They actually look really good up close and while repainting them might still be a real challenge a very light mat coating is all I'm thinking of at the moment.
6. I don't think the scale difference bothers me at all, but I do want to compare with my Langtons in some better photo shoots.
7. I like the bases being thicker as it is much easier to pick them up and move them around, but the plastic is slippery and tends to scoot across the mats.

That's if for now. One last question that Keith, DB or David might have an answer to? All the ships are portrayed as being "at quarters", yet the sail settings for all ships is "easy sail". Why didn't Ares go with "courses furled" if the ships are "at quarters"? Was it aesthetics or something to do with the molding and extraction process?

Thanks!

[David Manley]

One last question that Keith, DB or David might have an answer to? All the ships are portrayed as being "at quarters", yet the sail settings for all ships is "easy sail". Why didn't Ares go with "courses furled" if the ships are "at quarters"? Was it aesthetics or something to do with the molding and extraction process?

Thanks!

I don't know, it was suggested but I suspect its to do with ensuring that the lower masts are rugged enough to survive game play.

[The Royal Hajj]

One last question that Keith, DB or David might have an answer to? All the ships are portrayed as being "at quarters", yet the sail settings for all ships is "easy sail". Why didn't Ares go with "courses furled" if the ships are "at quarters"? Was it aesthetics or something to do with the molding and extraction process?

Thanks!

A little bit of aesthetics and a little bit of structural integrity. They have said to me that they are looking at putting different sail settings on future ships.

[Cpt Kangaroo]

I for one definitely qualify in the fan category.

My first impression is one of a well presented game system and figs that I will be very proud to display.

Regarding the stands, appreciation is the word I most heard during the games I had run. The size and shape made it easy to use and see. The only negatives mentioned was during close maneuvering.

My own thoughts on this part is I like the idea for the ID on the back edge and that will help a lot. Although, I have to say, with 12 ships on the board, everyone was able to keep track of their own. Running multiple ships could be an issue.

The peg idea seems to work overall, but there are some limitations which have already been noted. My intent was to have a ship for each card, so I won't be removing and replacing the templates.

One thought I did have was a concern that came up during running multiple games. It would be easy for the ships and bases to get mixed up if they came loose, so I will be marking each ship underneath, with probably it's name. I just haven' t decided the best method yet. This might be an idea for Ares to 'brand' the ships underneath.

I like the accessories and until it was mentioned, I would not have considered the quality an issue.

With regards to the models themselves, more work could be done to pick out the masts and spars, which will assist the sail mounting concern greatly. Though I have yet to hear anyone really noticing during the games. If I do anything at all to 'enhance' my models, it will be to paint the masts and cross tree, maybe the spars too. At the moment I am very happy as they are so I will probably keep them original.

I do like the 'modular' approach to the ship stats mat, how they stand up to rigorous game play, only time will tell.


:thumbsup::cannonboom::cannon::takecover:

[Nightmoss]

I don't know, it was suggested but I suspect its to do with ensuring that the lower masts are rugged enough to survive game play.


A little bit of aesthetics and a little bit of structural integrity. They have said to me that they are looking at putting different sail settings on future ships.

Thanks for the answers. Full sail or easy sail always looks impressive and I'm very happy with how they look on table.

I was just examining the bases again and noticed that the hole in each one is hexagonal whereas the peg on each ship is circular. If the pegs could be made hexagonal or sleeved it might solve the rotation issues (the blue tack is probably the best fix for the tendency for the ships to come lose and maybe the rotation too)?

Well, I just had a "doh" moment. I was over on Ares' Facebook page and there it was, right in front of my face. Both the British and French 1st rate pre-productions ships for wave 2 have sails with courses furled, or so it seems to me.

[7eat51]

That's an exciting picture. Thanks for the tease, Jim.

[Andy Blozinski]

One thought I did have was a concern that came up during running multiple games. It would be easy for the ships and bases to get mixed up if they came loose, so I will be marking each ship underneath, with probably it's name. I just haven' t decided the best method yet. This might be an idea for Ares to 'brand' the ships underneath.

Holy crap. I never thought of that. Ships are not identified by their name. If you mix the cards up, there's no way to be sure you got the correct card with its ship.

[Nightmoss]

That's an exciting picture. Thanks for the tease, Jim.

That photo was on one of the KS updates and on their Facebook page. I'm guessing that the left back is Ocean class and right back is possibly the test version of the Victory? If Ares decided the Victory sculpt wasn't special enough they may have gone with the sister ships, Britiannia, Royal Sovereign, etc. All of those ships are exciting!

[Nightmoss]

Holy crap. I never thought of that. Ships are not identified by their name. If you mix the cards up, there's no way to be sure you got the correct card with its ship.

Yes, indeed. I've got to label the actual ships somehow. If they're eventually going into large cases for storage/transportation it would be very easy to mix them up.

[Andy Blozinski]

Etching entire names on the underside of a ship probably won't go too well for me and my lack of skill. I think I'll etch a number on them and then write that number on the card.

[The Royal Hajj]

One thought I did have was a concern that came up during running multiple games. It would be easy for the ships and bases to get mixed up if they came loose, so I will be marking each ship underneath, with probably it's name. I just haven' t decided the best method yet. This might be an idea for Ares to 'brand' the ships underneath.

The ship cards are printed with the product code on them already (exp. 102B for the Commerce De Bordeaux). It would be very simple to write that same code on the bottom of the ship.




I like the accessories and until it was mentioned, I would not have considered the quality an issue.

Can you please elaborate on this statement?




I was just examining the bases again and noticed that the hole in each one is hexagonal whereas the peg on each ship is circular. If the pegs could be made hexagonal or sleeved it might solve the rotation issues (the blue tack is probably the best fix for the tendency for the ships to come lose and maybe the rotation too)?

The round peg going into the hex hole allows the hole to grip the peg better. If the peg was hex as well, it would not rotate, but it also would not fit snugly. The straight edges of the hole "bite" the peg a little. Blue tack or that kneed-able artist erasure I talk about for the gimbal mounts would solve both a lose fit and rotating very nicely.

[Cpt Kangaroo]

The ship cards are printed with the product code on them already (exp. 102B for the Commerce De Bordeaux). It would be very simple to write that same code on the bottom of the ship.




Can you please elaborate on this statement?





Keith, thanks for the idea, branding with the product code will work nicely.

With regards to the accessories comment, I need to correct my word. I had meant 'components', not 'accessories'.

This was in reference to the initial post and the concern being with 'flimsy components', of which I don't agree.

To be clear, I am very happy with the quality!

Sorry for the mix up, and for the record, the 'Accessories' you have created are top notch. The smoke markers are a must have as a real enhancement to the game play. During the Con, I had many compliments about them, and I had a couple of enquiries about the smoke markers for volley fire markers for ACW infantry. I know there was a hiccup on the rulers with one marking, which you are correcting, but quality wise, you have nailed it! I am really looking forward to seeing your foam tray system too.

[Cool Breeze]

I was actually surprised the ships weren't pre-labeled on the bottom, until I realized the same molds were used on sister ships, with only painting differentiating them. So yeah, hunting for my Sharpie to put the Product Code on the bottom time it is!

[fredmiracle]

Both the British and French 1st rate pre-productions ships for wave 2 have sails with courses furled, or so it seems to me.

I noticed that some of the ships seemed to have a different sail configuration deployed when that picture was posted. I was a bit surprised--it struck me as better if they kept them all consistent. But possibly it's just a prototype artifact...?

[The Royal Hajj]

Ares has stated (at least to me) that they plan to do different ships in different sail settings. This will have the added benefit of making it easier to identify between ships.

[Nightmoss]

Sails of Glory has been awarded "Best Miniatures Game" at the UK Games Expo.

Good news for Ares and Sails of Glory. Didn't wish to start a new thread so I'll post the link here. https://www.facebook.com/SailsOfGlory?ref=stream&hc_location=timeline