I organize all my regiments as 1 mounted Colonel, 3 dismounted officers, ensign with flag, drummer, and 48 men in single or complimentary pose; marching, advancing, charging, standing.kneeling shooting, following the practice of Charles Grant's 'The War Game'. This allows breaking into two battalions of 2 officers/24 men, Colonel and drummer with First Battalion. If I'm organizing single battalion-size units, then 4 officers(including mounted Colonel), musician, 24 men.

When organizing larger formations, two regiments equals a brigade; four regiments a division; four divisions a corps. This is as big an army as is likely fits on an average table. The scales can be adjusted: a regiment becomes a brigade, four brigades/regiments a corps, four corps an Army. Cavalry is similarly organized, but basic mounted regiments have four officers and 28 men. Artillery is attached at a ratio of one gun and limber per regiment.

Bill

Dear HAT

May I express my thoughts regarding the proposed Landwehr sets.

ACTION SET

In reference to the 4 advancing figures, referring to the recent line drawings provided for the figure configuration per sprue.
Could it be possible for you to provide the following composition:

Advancing figures:

1st figure (porte high)...X4
2nd figure (porte high)..X2
3rd figure (porte low)....X1
4th figure (porte low)....X1

OR

1st figure (porte high)...X3
2nd figure (porte high)..X3
3rd figure (porte low)....X1
4th figure (porte low)....X1

The reason for having more 'porte high' figures is to enable to fit figures appropriately behind the first line of porte low figures. Hence building an advancing unit more effectively.
This will still provide 8 advancing figures per sprue, together with 6 other figures recommended by HAT - 2xFiring, 2xReloading, 2xCommand (14 figures/sprue total).
I feel the proportion of porte high figures should be greater than that compared to porte low - this in turn may minimise figure wastage.
My above recommendation would enable to provide a good sized advancing unit to be created within just a single figure box (of 4 sprues).
Ideally I would prefer the above requested configuration rather than the originally proposed 'Noahs configuration' for the Landwehr Action set :-)

COMMAND SET

Although the Landwehr command figures have been integrated within the Marching and Action sets, the flexibility of choice of the MAC format met the requirements of individuals as they desired.
I appreciate that you say there are only 4 figures/to few to make a command set, it may possibly not be cost effective? Though the French Chasseurs Action set has 4 individual poses (8 figures/sprue).
Perhaps the lack of figures is the knock on effect of removing the mounted officer from this set. It is a shame that there could be no separate Landwehr Command set.

MARCH SET

The march set is represented well by marching figures.

SCALE/SIZE

Please make the figures compatible in size with the Late Prussian Infantry Action set.

FUTURE

I would like to see the MAC format utilised in its purity. Dividing figure sets into individual component parts for example Marching set, Action set, Command set is very helpful as it enables customers to have the option to build there armies with the type of figure required.
However what I observe is a derivative of the MAC format. No doubt this pattern will follow the Russian and Austrian sets whereby command figures are integrated within two sets.
Ultimately its your decision and choice HAT on how best it suits your production needs for the development of miniature figure sets. I wish you success in your future projects/endeavours.

Best Regards
Libero

Good point. However, what for the ones who have already pledged, what are their thoughts about changing the make up of the sets?

I like the proposed sets as depicted on the crowdfunder page.

Hi HAT

Thankyou for your quick response to my request.
Although I have previously discussed and proposed a similar sprue structure for the Landwehr sets on various posts over the past several years.
(& via email to HAT on Sept 2016 - I'm not sure though whether part 2 of my email was received - technical glitches in the binary world... :-)
I thought I would take this one last opportunity to convey my opinions regarding the sprue composition in particular the 4 advancing figures in the Landwehr Action set. If my recommendation comes to fruition that would be wonderful, if it does not - c'est la vie, unfortunately its just not mean't to be.

Best Regards
Libero

Well this thread has dropped off the front page now so I assume most of them are unaware the question has been raised.

I'm in two minds on this. With 16 figure battalions the equal numbers work fine for a battalion advancing in line. 8 low porte in front and 8 high porte behind. In column I might have to offset some figures to avoid them bayoneting each other.

With extra high porte figures they might fit together better in column but in line I would be losing some low porte figures at the front and I do like that look.

The Prussians advanced with two battalions in line in front and 4 attack columns behind so it's a bit of a toss up.

I'll live with the set either way but if the number of low Porte figures was to be reduced I'd rather keep the two advancing at low porte (Fig 3) figs and lose the 2 standing at ready (Fig 4). Also, I like the idea of having some figures with stiffeners in their caps but I'm not sure I want to double their number.

Libero where have you been? Hat have been Crowdfunding since the 1st of Jan 2017 and the masters were done in 2009, it's a very good idea for a pose but I think a little late in the day, the best idea at this stage might be to go for a Bonus figure or 2, I did suggest this pose which I think is similar to the 'porte high' pose your referring to.

Attacking with blanket roll over shoulder and axe (2nd Fig from right)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6Ce9ktngwdQ/TIds-lVcmTI/AAAAAAAAArY/Az3rL4RketA/s1600/knoe02_18.jpg

Sorry Libero,

I just looked at the drawings of Prussian Landwehr and it is obviously that the first two existing figures you're referring to, I thought Porte High was when a soldier advanced with Musket held almost vertically, so your proposal makes sense to me now.

My landwehr will be in units of 32 "figures" each, 4 command, 26 infantrymen, and a mounted officer taking the space of the final "two"

I will be making my units in a 2:1 ratio - marching to attacking - as a nod to the line infantry musketeers:fusiliers ratio

I would hope to make the 4 command figures a foot officer, a musician, a standard bearer (for my non-historical fantasy flags) and an NCO type

I am hoping that the bonus figures will be a higher command group - maybe a general, an aide, and hangers-on. It is the higher command that is always missing from our plastic armies, and the bonus figures might be a realistic way to achieve that

I would hope that the bonus figures are special and useful, not just extra landwehr infantry types. I can get extras already in metal. So here's hoping

Hi Brian

That's okay not to worry.

In regards to Landwehr sets I have discussed sprue structure/composition on various posts over the past several years. This is in reference to what HAT has represented in terms of their Landwehr master sculpts.

Yes, in the above post I was referring to HAT's recent Landwehr line drawings as expressed under the heading ACTION SET. Please note HAT's Advancing Landwehr master sculpts images are arranged differently to their recent line drawings for the 4 advancing Landwehr infantry.

I see there have been lots of interesting posts on the forum.
Unfortunately at this moment in time my visits/contributions/posts to forums have been very limited and for now may remain so for the foreseeable future.
However I will be back..... (& in good form so he says)


Best Regards
Libero

ps Good luck to all with their bonus figure requests.