On August 20, I asked readers to provide feedback on the Plastic Pelisse. Between comments on the blog, and posts on a thread at TMP, I heard from about a dozen of you. Some simply passed on their encouragement, which was very nice in itself. Others did provide thoughtful suggestions for improvements. I want to walk through those suggestions now, and let you know how I intend to respond.
Suggestions about topics covered:
Alex K and jmodule both asked for more World War Two comparisons. An anonymous poster was also interested in more 1870-1945 postings.
On TMP, Chortle said: “I would like to see Cavalry & artillery developed at the same pace as the infantry. Throwing in the odd artillery caisson or ambulance is also good for people looking for bits to complete their armies.”
I am sympathetic to these requests, and will do the best to address them. However, while I have a fairly extensive collection of plastic samples, my comparisons are limited by the number of metal samples on hand. I have had a couple of manufacturers send me samples, but most of the ones found on the site were purchased. Since getting this feedback, I have written to some of the best-known 20mm WW2 manufacturers, but have not received any reply.
So unless I can find someone willing to trade me some metal figures to expand the samples, I can only move forward at the rate that I am willing to spend to support this blog.
The same thing applies to artillery, but I do have a number of mounted metal samples that I have not used in comparisons. I will try to increase the mounted component in the near future. That will also allow me to follow up on a suggestion by Marc the plastic fan, to use horse swaps as another way of illustrating comparisons.
Suggestions about the information in the comparisons:
An anonymous reader suggested that I include an URL for the manufacturers or main distributors of the figures reviewed. In a similar vein, Marc the plastics fan said: “It would be really helpful if it was clearly indicated what ranges are still available and from whom.” EY suggested that I list the number of poses which come in sets of metal figures (those that are not sold individually.)
Actually, I used to have a practice of introducing a metal range with an initial post which included all this information; then I would start posting the actual comparisons. I have lately skipped the initial post, which means this information is being overlooked. Starting in the last couple of posts though, I have included information on availability, and referred to websites (which are actually listed in the sidebar section of the blog). I will also take up EY’s suggestion in future comparisons.
Suggestions on other content:
Katzbalger suggested: “it might be nice to have one shot of figs from several plastic and metal ranges placed next to each other.” He notes that I have done this for some of the colonial ranges. Again, this is an older practice that I had discarded. The main reason that I did abandon it, was that the pictures never remained comprehensive (as soon as I posted a picture with 5 ranges illustrated, I obtained samples from a 6th). However I will resurrect this kind of post.
EY pointed out: “a comparison shot of the five different types of body build that you use in your reviews would be useful.” I agree with him, and will put one together shortly.
Again, thanks to all who commented. Please feel free to carry on the conversation, and provide more feedback, at any time.
2017 X Wing Christchurch Regionals - Game 5
5 hours ago