Well done Felix!

It was over so quickly. I thought that you'd do a picture a week to build anticipation, fuel more guesses and generally extend the fun!!

That's a wonderful looking figure too!

Regards, James

Andreas, you don't want to torture us waiting for news of exciting new sets of figures, so you give us this slow torture instead?!

Misterdd is *amazing*. I cannot see sandals and a sword sheath even *after* he has said that they are there #

Like Michael, I initially thought elephant. Then wondered if the second picture, rather than a trunk, is a cloak behind a human foot.

Clearly I am hopeless at this, so will continue to enjoy and be amazed by the insights of Misterdd (and others).

#All teasing aside, this is good fun. Thanks Andreas and co.

Regards, James

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

Dear Claus,

It's particularly a challenge with the 'springy' riders, but also those who are a little loose and can end up riding at 10–30º if one is not careful with the glueing! :)
Mixing and matching horses and riders to represent specific units can make for some interesting fits too.

For what it is worth, here's my approach.

For the tight fit, I am a bit more 'direct' than Hervé—combining manual stretching and glue.

- Firstly, I match riders to the horses that best suit (for look and fit).
- I then, widen the legs a bit manually; I find that there is enough 'give' in the figures to increased the rider's 'gait' quite a lot.
- Then, apply glue to saddle and rider and hold for up to a minute or so or until the bond is made (depending on the glue). Detaching and re-glueing is necessary if patience has been lacking!

My preferred glue is a PVA type (sold as 'Aquadhere' here, or the stronger version which is called 'Bondcrete' in our market). I use this as if it were a 'contact' cement, applying to both parts, allowing to nearly dry and then combining and holding.
For a more 'springy' rider and/or a tighter fit, I'll use a plastic glue (we have a version sold here with a primer pen and the glue, which is a 'Supa-glue' derivative), which bonds more instantly.

In more recent times I have taken to making pseudo one-piece-castings of horse and rider, glueing in place before painting or just with a bit of undercoat (dark in my case) on the contact points so as to avoid unpainted plastic showing. I find it works much better to paint in place like that rather than struggling with and handling a painted horse and rider trying to make the combination and risking rubbing off paint (since I varnish later). It also has the advantage of not putting effort into painting sections that will remain 'hidden' :).

I reckon that, if I cannot see it to paint it, it will not show on the finished figure, particularly when part of a unit on a tabletop. It helps that I'm not trying to win any painting awards!

Regards, James

That's fantastic Andreas!
Three in the hand and the prospect of that being five within a few weeks. Congratulations and thank you. Fine figures all.
Regards, James

My apologies for the confusion Andreas.
The four that I was referring to are the two mini sets and these two late Imperial Romans.
Plenty of interesting subjects and good looking figures there! The two mini sets will be finding their way into my hoard.
I am certainly *not* trying to apply pressure for more, more, more. I am pleased and interested to see them come when they do.
You are producing sets at a steady rate and it is always great to see little bits of progress with masters as and when they are produced.
Kind regards, James

More marvellous news Andreas!

Presumably that's another four sets for July? A fine effort from Linear A!

All power to you in producing little gems in 1/72 for collectors, modellers and wargamers. You are providing a wide range of subjects and types of sets to suit people's interests and uses.

Thank you and regards, James

That was beaut Hervé; witty and evocative.
It worked in English and French (naturellement), so hopefully in German too (my knowledge of which, I apologise to our hosts, is limited to a few words and phrases).
You brought a smile and several laughs at my end, thanks.
Regards, James
(Oh yeah, I concur with your statements and sentiments. I too check regularly to see what updates I can find. Surprises abound and come through d@mned regularly, given the time required to research, sculpt, produce test moulds, revise, produce final moulds, obtains a spot in the production line, produce en 'masse'... (I am sure that I have some steps wrong or missing too!)

Ditto with these, thank you!
Great sculpts that will be beaut as vignettes and/or markers on the wargames table.
Regards, James

Superb! A joy to look forward to in the depths of our Makuru (winter).
I can see one box to use as intended and one for conversions to other command figures.
Thank you Andreas and team,
James

Another of your good looking, 'imaginations' versions of the uniform.

The green looks grand. The Duke would have done well to have you as the consultant designer of uniforms! :)

Regards, James

Two previews in a few days and once again marvellous looking figures and excellent detail.

Thank you and regards,

James

Not only la gravure but la gravité. Powerful and poignant representation. It is quite 'affecting' and certainly effective, even if only miniatures and pieces of plastic.

One always learns. 'Falling on your sword' comes to mind, or being assisted to do so. I had not considered the gladius through the top of the spinal column, but it makes sense to dispatch someone who is likely a friend, or at least superior officer and/or master, from behind so as not to have to face the person's eyes...

You specialise in presenting representations of the graphic and have done so again, brilliantly.

Regards, James

Picking up on Misteredd's comment, you could team up with Sarissa Precision as Italeri did for their Waterloo 200th special releases, using the former's excellent La Haie Sainte building in 1/72. Sarissa Precision already have a marvellous Streets of Rome series, but have not yet scaled them to 1/72. They are quite prolifically expanding their ranges all the time. Maybe they could be convinced to produce a series of Caesar's Battles?!
Regards, James

This seems a strange one Andreas.

Previously you have flagged reducing the number of figures per box in order to enable more rapid turn around in producing sets (and presumably from an economic perspective too), so it seems counter-productive to add buildings to them. I'd far, far rather boxes with more figures than figures and buildings.

As a wargamer, I am happy to either scratch-build buildings and other terrain or to purchase them from specialist terrain manufacturers. Let's face it, for most battles of the ancient period there was/is precious little terrain required!

Thanks, as always, for asking for feedback. All power to you in producing more wonderful sets of figures!

Kind regards, James

Another good looking game. I really like the terrain and the vehicles and troops look great.
Regards, James

Great looking armour, guns and artillerists. I'd love to see photos of them 'in action' in another of your games. I'm sure that other wargamers on this forum would enjoy that too! :)

Regards, James

Dear Andreas and team,

As others have already said, we appreciate you trying to accommodate your 'customers' and thank you for seeking feedback from us again.

To that end I can only echo the wise and reasoned comments above, surtout les de Hervé.

- The childlike me would prefer no change and as many figures as possible per box.
- The more adult me appreciates the reality of change (one only has to look to history), the economics of production and the important need/desire to keep linear-A producing goodies for we collectors/modellers/wargamers to enjoy.
- If fewer figures/poses per box means more rapid production of a larger range of offerings, it would seem to be a 'win-win' for both linear A and we customers. [Aside: While the ancient eras will remain your speciality and provides an incomprehensible breadth of potential subjects, I hope that you won't forget #24?!]
- I'd like to see 32 figs per 'large box' as a minimum?
- I hope that cavalry can remain at 12 riders/horse per box?

In the end, the decision has to be yours Andreas/linear A. You will only get a few comments here, so the true test will come from the market. While an increase in the cost per figure is a shame (fewer figs at the same/similar price), the economies of 1/72 figures in plastic is still better than anything else in the scale that I/we prefer.

An important caveat is that there is/will be a limit to the price that people are prepared to pay according to some customer x offering interaction. This may be constant for a customer, but is likely to vary with offering. Hervé has articulated an example for your mini sets. My consumer behaviour was the same as his and along similar lines of thought. I have read comments from others that they were not prepared to pay the price for these particular offerings. A similar example for me regards the recent releases from Ultima Ratio. I have decided that I will not be purchasing these. They are good looking figures, but not good enough to me, nor desired enough by me to pay the premium price that they are selling for.

To conclude, I echo those who replied above in admiring and enjoying the figures that you produce and look forward to even more to come in, hopefully, the not-too-distant future! :)

Kind regards, James

Thank you for this advice Andreas. Exciting news. We'll look forward to developments with these!
Regards, James

Dear Andreas,

Thank you again for seeking points of view from people on the forum. Here is another n = 1 for the dataset!

I like a range of types and poses of figures, but would rather see you able to produce earlier Republican Romans more rapidly than to generate multiple sets of these. Given limited time and resources, it is figures in action for mine.

I am happy with my Strelets Caesarian Romans and will be purchasing what you produce 'cause I know they will be lovely figures. Those for the Optimates will be more novel for me and likely to attract me to multiple boxes.

Kind regards, James