Tuesday, 26 June 2012

Hind Commander: 1:600 Helo Minis (Oddzial Osmy)

Another wet day confined me to the shed (no mowing, yay!) and I got some of the Hind Commander minis finished.  

US forces (Kiowas, Apaches and Blackhawks) fly over a hill, supported by two F16s.

The rotors supplied were a tad sticky and attracted fingerprints which made them more 'reflective' than I would like. However they attached easily and were a worthwhile addition.

 Tail rotors were also supplied but I didn't bother with them as they were so tiny; I felt they added nothing to the model from tabletop distance. 




Russian forces move through a near-future town (Brigade buildings, reviewed here); Mi2s, Mi8s and Mi24 Hinds. I found a toothpick handy for painting the portholes on the Mi8/Mi17s. 

1:600 - To Small?
My plans for using the sand table were ruined when I realised how easily the tiny 1cm-long tanks would vanish into the sands.  I should be safe with 1:300 but the helos have turned out OK and I am now not sure: to go 1:300 or stay with the 1:600?  I've made a start in 1:600 and terrain is very cheap; but the tiny 1:600 "rice grain" infantry turn me off and the scout helos don't do much for me as I mentioned here.


TL:DR
The 1:600 helos paint up OK, rotors are good; but still not sure if should switch to 1:300...

Check back soon for a AAR/retrospective review of Hind Commander

4 comments:

  1. Well my take is that we play miniatures games (as opposed to board wargames) because of the aesthetics of laying out the goodies on the tabletop and the impact/fun that has. If 1/600 isn't giving you that, then the switch may be in order. 1/300 is still darn cheap and your investment in 1/600 as it currently stands is pretty minimal in relative terms. My 2c worth anyway!

    BTW I think you did a bang up job with those models!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks - I certainly didn't labour over them - some people put more work into 1:600 than 28mm - IMO small = cheap n easy

      Problem is, 1:600 terrain is a LOT cheaper than 1:300; I did a big study on 1:300 terrain a month or so back and I concluded all of them are ripoffs, considering (a) resin used and (b) outrageous postage (sometimes up to 50% of purchase price)

      Also, 1:300 is large enough that you need to worry about details and decals - something you can "gloss over" with 1:600 - a undercoat, quick drybrush and a few highlights - Bob's your uncle...

      Delete
  2. sorry for the late reply but I just stumbled on this post,
    my recommendation is to base your 3mm stuff, its what I do.
    depending on what rules you plan to use, platoon bases would work. I am working on forces for Modern Spearhead so i have Platoon bases for US/NATO and half company bases for WARPAC. this also works for Cold War Commander. the other thing to keep in mind is that 3mm miniatures introduce a fog of war aspect to your games that is rules free (is that a BMP or T72 over there? are those ATGM or HMG teams?) so long as you play it that way, which I like. between me and a friend we have a full 1 to 1 Russian Motorised Rifle division, a West German Panzer Brigade, a US Armored Cavalry Squadron, and a few other budding forces. as a way of price comparison, I bought a T72 battalion online in 6mm GHQ at a discount, and it was still more expensive than my 3mm Tank REGIMENT... that is with all the supports...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I suppose making a "diaorama" makes sense. The 1:300 vehicles and infantry would benefit from being "dressed up".

    The individual basing is awfully fiddly but seems to be needed for HC.

    I'm starting a 6mm mechwarrior/heavy gear project so I'll run a comparison between 6mm and 3mm when the project is up and running...

    ReplyDelete