Da bin ich sehr dafür. Alles was es realistischer macht ist richtig.

I have been thinking a bit about this, and I've come to a conclusion.

I think it is OK for figures to be bigger, if they had a reason to be it. Like better living (which usually results in more height). Thus officers and such might be candidates for special treatment, giving them more height.

However.

I thought about how I feel about rank-and-file figures that I have that are bigger than others. Like the Trojan from the Atlantic set, that has a medieval shield. He is too big, and that annoys me. The figures from the HäT spearthrower set (the non-crew) are also bigger, and I don't like that either. So I would say that for "general figures" I am against it.

Dear Andreas.

An interesting topic for discussion.

When possible, I like to mix figures from various manufacturers to get some variety in units. *Slight* differences in height, or more commonly, girth and general stockiness of the figures can look good. This does not always work and is not always possible. More often I simply use a mix of poses from the same set of figures to provide a bit of variety in a unit.

Across an army or armies I will happily use true 20 mm (e.g. Newline), various 1/72 and some true 25 mm (e.g Minifigs, early Hinchliffe). A boost to the base of a slightly smaller figure or removal of that of a larger one helps to align the height. Being units for wargaming, I can also vary the thickness of the material used to base groups of figures. So, from my perspective, a fraction of a mm here and there would not matter.

I wonder though is it worth it?

Linear-a's figures tend to be slightly larger than average (in all dimensions). A difference of 0.2 mm is so small as to be almost unnoticeable. It would need to be done carefully and accurately as greater differences in height would start to look silly; or worse, a mix of 'giants' and 'pygmies' like the British light dragoon set from Hat a few years ago.

Additionally, a uniform look (pose) and size is a feature that I know many look for, and it does look good. It's a bit like how good paintings and uniform books look compared to people in re-enactment gear. Particularly since the latter never seems to fit as well (and struggles to look the same on well-fed 21st C people)!

So, on balance, I'd say don't bother. There is already enough accidental variation between sets from the same manufacturer and between manufacturers.

Regards, James

Hi,

interessante Idee, durchaus. Bei nur 0,2 Unterschied sicher auch keine große Gefahr der Disharmonie.

Ich würde jedoch gerade nicht dafür plädieren, irgendwelche "Systematiken" aus dem menschlichen Leben lesen zu wollen, wie das die anglophone Wissenschaft gerne tut. In einer historischen Lebensgemeinschaft, also ohne Verfassung, Territorium etc. (wie wir das heute gar nicht mehr denken können), war die soziale Dynamik zu hoch als dass jeder "Hochstehende" auf die Gene von Generationen an hochstehend überversorgten Individuen "zurückgreifen" zwangsweise überdurchschnittlich gesund/gewachsen/geistreich war.

Und jeder von uns kennt doch wenigstens einen der "berühmten" Giftzwerge = kurzgewachsene "Hochhinaus", die ihre Körperhöhe mit sehr hohen Zielen kompensieren (ich selbst bin REIN ZUFÄLLIG knapp unter Durchschnitt)...

Was ich recht sympatisch fand, waren Figuren aus alten Strelets-Sets mit - absichtlich oder versehentlich - etwas menschlicheren Zügen (etwa Schmärbauch) doch wenn wir von Soldaten-Miniaturen reden, müssen wir wieder bedenken, dass das in antiken Zeiten ab Teenager aufwärts Männer waren, die das Akcern und Leiden durchaus gewohnt waren...