Series 7 preliminary lineup.

[Teaticket]

ARES is definitely in a no win situation. I for one am happy they still are making any new planes for us at all. ARES definitely has many pokers in the fire and if Wings isn't a profitable enough project for them it could easily wither and die. Seeing they are still planning on new planes give me hope. T&T is not what historical gamers want but it will infuse new blood into the game helping it live longer. How many game systems have fallen by the wayside after a handful of years? We have had quite a good run and it looks like even if we don't get as much as we'd like or as often, ARES is keeping Wings alive. As long as we keep seeing planes in the pipeline, even if not the planes on my wish list, I am happy.

[Teaticket]

While I agree with the "ya just can't please everyone" philosophy, I certainly haven't seen a fan base proclaiming their need for a twin-engined medium bomber night fighter conversion with the same weapon damage as a single engine fighter (Do-17Z-10 if you didn't get what I was talking about). Ares can't please everyone but if you are patiently waiting for the PTO or the Russian front, how would you feel about remaining loyal when at the current rate of releases you are looking at 2027 before we see a N1K2-J OR La-5fn or Corsair?

No one has to wait on ARES. We have stats for just about any plane and the unofficial committee will come up with something for whatever we ask for if they have not already done such plane. AIM, Shapeways and others, there are places to get whatever plane you want. I hear those that don't paint but there are painters out there to supply the drugs you need. At Fall In last November I ran a game with 13+ planes in the air, not one of them from ARES.

[Ken at Sunrise]

My biggest concern is that the bomber expansion does not sell well (especially in the USA) and Ares mothballs WGS as a result.

For me I play the WWI. But that was one of the reasons I spent so much on some of the out of print planes and balloons. Of course it now seems I could have waited and saved a lot. Oh well..

[OldGuy59]

While I agree with the "ya just can't please everyone" philosophy, I certainly haven't seen a fan base proclaiming their need for a twin-engined medium bomber night fighter conversion with the same weapon damage as a single engine fighter (Do-17Z-10 if you didn't get what I was talking about). Ares can't please everyone but if you are patiently waiting for the PTO or the Russian front, how would you feel about remaining loyal when at the current rate of releases you are looking at 2027 before we see a N1K2-J OR La-5fn or Corsair?

I've been looking at the possibility of doing a Do.17 Z-10 NF version, but I'm seeing that it was produced in exceedingly small numbers, only slightly more than prototype production. Is it worth any effort to do up this card? And what version? Kauz I (3 prototypes produced), Kauz II (the three Kauz I's upgraded? But no more than 10 total produced), with or without detection gear ( which according to my limited research, the Infrared gear was useless in the field, and only one radar installation was produced, with limited success, and not put into production).

Is this another example of Ares producing a rare plane variant rather than the main one?

[fast.git]

I've been looking at the possibility of doing a Do.17 Z-10 NF version, but I'm seeing that it was produced in exceedingly small numbers, only slightly more than prototype production. Is it worth any effort to do up this card? And what version? Kauz I (3 prototypes produced), Kauz II (the three Kauz I's upgraded? But no more than 10 total produced), with or without detection gear ( which according to my limited research, the Infrared gear was useless in the field, and only one radar installation was produced, with limited success, and not put into production).

Is this another example of Ares producing a rare plane variant rather than the main one?

Probably. German aircrew found it to be inferior to the Ju 88, and it was never used in great numbers. But I remember seeing that a version with a "greenhouse" nose is also being released, and that version saw widespread use.

[Ken at Sunrise]

Good point, Chris.

This really has become a case of "you can't please everyone." Those who have been playing this game from the start don't particularly want the same model they already own reprinted, whereas those newer to the hobby absolutely want access to those early releases. For every WoG player who paints, we have one who does not. Some WGF players love two-seaters, while others have little/no time for them. For every WGS player who wants PTO, we have another who wants aircraft for the ETO, Eastern Front, Med...

I'm not going to defend the way Nexus/Ares has done business, and I will always question some of the pilot/aircraft decisions they've made, but they're really in a "no-win" situation, here.

Good points, but I might say that for every WGF player who paints there are 10 or 20 potential players that do not. When I introduce either WGS or X-Wing people love the pre-painted figures. And, oddly enough, that's what attracted me.

[surfimp]

Good points, but I might say that for every WGF player who paints there are 10 or 20 potential players that do not. When I introduce either WGS or X-Wing people love the pre-painted figures. And, oddly enough, that's what attracted me.

I'd say it's probably more like 1:100 or more. Wings of Glory is a great gateway to miniature gaming for people coming from unrelated backgrounds (i.e. a general aviation interest, etc). You've got to have the prepainted stuff to cast the net as widely as possible for those folks, or you'll never reel many of them in. Wings of Glory is one of the best and only options in this regard.

Once they're hooked, telling them they're going to need to go to three or four different websites to order miniatures, decals, paints, bases and cards so that they can fly "plane X" has a much higher probability of not scaring them off.

I actually have found that I enjoy painting and decaling miniature airplanes quite a lot - much more than soldiers or similar. But I'm still very much more a gamer than a hobbyist at heart. Maybe that will change someday, but in the meantime, I'll choose a prepaint over a project any day.

[fast.git]

Good points, but I might say that for every WGF player who paints there are 10 or 20 potential players that do not. When I introduce either WGS or X-Wing people love the pre-painted figures. And, oddly enough, that's what attracted me.

I'd say it's probably more like 1:100 or more. Wings of Glory is a great gateway to miniature gaming for people coming from unrelated backgrounds (i.e. a general aviation interest, etc). You've got to have the prepainted stuff to cast the net as widely as possible for those folks, or you'll never reel many of them in. Wings of Glory is one of the best and only options in this regard.

No argument from me on the numbers of painters vs. non-painters, but that wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make. Rather, it's that Ares will never make everyone happy... probably won't even make most of them happy. Even when they try to make people happy (generic "squadron" painted aircraft as with the most recent WGS releases), there are still unhappy people.

Ares is a small company, and one with a number of games competing for their attention/resources/etc. Assuming that they're not simply going to drop all of those in favor of WoG, we're going to have to accept a limited number of models/paint schemes in circulation at one time.

Which ones should they be?

[Lord_Ninja]

No one has to wait on ARES. We have stats for just about any plane and the unofficial committee will come up with something for whatever we ask for if they have not already done such plane. AIM, Shapeways and others, there are places to get whatever plane you want. I hear those that don't paint but there are painters out there to supply the drugs you need. At Fall In last November I ran a game with 13+ planes in the air, not one of them from ARES.

I mean, I have a large amount of unofficial aircraft, but they are limited in the sense that there are only so many decks at each speed. For instance, the Q deck represents the Ki-84 using Japanese fuel with the max speed of 624 km/h (387 mph). We have the Bf-109 G-6 with 640 km/h (398 mph), the F6F-5 with 629 km/h (391 mph), the Re.2005 with 628 km/h (390 mph), the Fiat G.55 623 km/h (387 mph), and even the Bf-109 F-4 with 635 km/h (394 mph). All very similar speeds but as we know all very different maneuverabilities. We can add and subtract cards from the Q deck with other existing decks all that we can but the novelty will wear off and we will need new decks for the idiosycracies of each fighter. Also, and don't misinterpret my feelings, I am grateful to all that the UAC have done, but I don't always agree with them. Several P-38s use the P deck, which partially is a compromise I believe because of the maneuverability, but the fastest variant, the P-38J, clocks in at 678 km/h (421 mph), nearly a full 32 km/h (20mph) slower than the P-51D's 708 km/h (440 mph). Also, I have great issues with the stats for the 109 K-4 which I believe might have directly lead to the official version with the alleged 15mm cannon armed version, which may have been debunked by even official wartime documents.

TL;DR, unofficial aircraft are great for some plays but in the long run lose their novelty due to the lack of material we have to work with.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

We seem to have been here before in a previous life chaps.
Many moons ago it was suggested that we short listed four aircraft which could be produced as the most likely ones to sell.
It all degenerated into as many aircraft as were ever produced and some variants of even these these. Knowing that they could not satisfy many gamers with any of the choices Ares chose to do their own thing. If we can't even agree amongst ourselves how on earth do you expect Ares to take us seriously.
Just try to think of what were the four most iconic aircraft produced and you will see the problem.
Rob.

[Jager]

I mean, I have a large amount of unofficial aircraft, but they are limited in the sense that there are only so many decks at each speed. For instance, the Q deck represents the Ki-84 using Japanese fuel with the max speed of 624 km/h (387 mph). We have the Bf-109 G-6 with 640 km/h (398 mph), the F6F-5 with 629 km/h (391 mph), the Re.2005 with 628 km/h (390 mph), the Fiat G.55 623 km/h (387 mph), and even the Bf-109 F-4 with 635 km/h (394 mph). All very similar speeds but as we know all very different maneuverabilities. We can add and subtract cards from the Q deck with other existing decks all that we can but the novelty will wear off and we will need new decks for the idiosycracies of each fighter. Also, and don't misinterpret my feelings, I am grateful to all that the UAC have done, but I don't always agree with them. Several P-38s use the P deck, which partially is a compromise I believe because of the maneuverability, but the fastest variant, the P-38J, clocks in at 678 km/h (421 mph), nearly a full 32 km/h (20mph) slower than the P-51D's 708 km/h (440 mph). Also, I have great issues with the stats for the 109 K-4 which I believe might have directly lead to the official version with the alleged 15mm cannon armed version, which may have been debunked by even official wartime documents.

TL;DR, unofficial aircraft are great for some plays but in the long run lose their novelty due to the lack of material we have to work with.

I agree that more decks would produce closer matches with those planes not published. One reason I was awaiting the Series 7 release was to see Andrea's take on the Corsair and Lightning. The P-38 is a particularly difficult plane to
model, and I'm not really satisfied with my results, but I do feel they were the best I could come up with.
Of course, anything faster than the fastest deck is a problem
Karl

[Ken at Sunrise]

I'd say it's probably more like 1:100 or more. Wings of Glory is a great gateway to miniature gaming for people coming from unrelated backgrounds (i.e. a general aviation interest, etc). You've got to have the prepainted stuff to cast the net as widely as possible for those folks, or you'll never reel many of them in. Wings of Glory is one of the best and only options in this regard.

Once they're hooked, telling them they're going to need to go to three or four different websites to order miniatures, decals, paints, bases and cards so that they can fly "plane X" has a much higher probability of not scaring them off.

I actually have found that I enjoy painting and decaling miniature airplanes quite a lot - much more than soldiers or similar. But I'm still very much more a gamer than a hobbyist at heart. Maybe that will change someday, but in the meantime, I'll choose a prepaint over a project any day.

One, of the many, big difference between X-Wing and Wings of Glory is that Wings of Glory is a little easier to relate to, i.e. not everyone likes Sci-Fi or Star Wars (as hard as that is to believe).

[Tokhuah]

I think poling on this site for the top four airplanes may still fall into that insular category. I would rather take a broad survey from multiple experts discussing most famous, iconic, and/or "best" airplanes of the WWII era and coming up with a list of 10-20 and then look at what has not been produced. Not at all a comprehensive list but two examples of what I am talking about:

Top 10 Best Aircraft

The Most Iconic World War 2 Planes

Again, not comprehensive, but here are some top 10's common to both lists that have not been produced yet:

Messerschmitt Me 262
Vought F4U Corsair

I wonder what will come up when searching the Smithsonian?

https://www.airspacemag.com/military...nes-180954056/

Cross references all the above, but still limited, searches interestingly seems to include similar aircraft that Ares has done a great job providing, and notably one not produced by Ares, on each list... Again, too early to call trending, but at least shows that some of us are not merely black sheep bleating, "Baa, baa, baa..."

[OldGuy59]

One, of the many, big difference between X-Wing and Wings of Glory is that Wings of Glory is a little easier to relate to, i.e. not everyone likes Sci-Fi or Star Wars (as hard as that is to believe).

Ken, your experience must be different from mine.

If you put two models on a tabletop, how many of the people passing by will recognize the X-wing or Tie Fighter, and how many would recognize the Sopwith Camel or Fokker D.Va?

Most people I meet at conventions relate better to Sci-fi than history, unless I am at historical gaming cons. Even then, X-Wing is more likely to draw a crowd, unless I bring out the big guns, like the Zeppelin or the 1/200 scale HMS Glorious aircraft carrier.

Tragically, most people will also say, 'That seems to play like X-Wing.'

[Lord_Ninja]

Not on top ten lists anywhere

1. Me-410
2. Do-217 Z-10
3. Ki-44
4. Bleinhem

Just saying, we may not agree on what aircraft we want to see, but I didn't really see anyone clamoring for these....

[BwanaJoe]

Tragically, most people will also say, 'That seems to play like X-Wing.'

And your response is, “Sorry old boy, but actually X-Wing plays like Wings of Glory!”

[OldGuy59]

Not on top ten lists anywhere

1. Me-410
2. Do-217 Z-10
3. Ki-44
4. Bleinhem

Just saying, we may not agree on what aircraft we want to see, but I didn't really see anyone clamoring for these....

I have to agree that the Me.410 is an odd choice, based on the responses on this forum. Also, it is way too late in the war for me to have any interest in it.

The Do.17 Z-10 (Night Fighter) is a particularly strange plane to consider for production, now that I look at the actual numbers produced, let alone used. There was only one equipped with radar, and it wasn't very successful, and never produced beyond the prototype, according to my (admittedly brief) research. The Do.17P Bomber was used in significant numbers during the Battle of Britain, and it would be nice to put it on the table. I'd need, at least, three for a Kette.

The Blenheim, though, was also not on my radar, as I was focused on the defensive battles of RAF Fighter Command over England. If I would have done any research on the RAF Bomber Command side of things, I would have wanted a Blenheim or two to balance out some scenarios for any campaign I might have wanted to run. I actually now have a Zvezda 1/200 Mk IV Blenheim model that I was going to paint up and decal as a NF Squadron plane for Bomber Command defensive battles and night scenarios.

I'm actually kind of stoked that the Blenheim and Do.17 are coming out from Ares now, and for the Blenheim in both the Mk I and Mk IV, and the Do.17P Bomber. All played parts in the Battle of Britain, so exactly right for my theatre of operation.

[fast.git]

I think poling on this site for the top four airplanes may still fall into that insular category. I would rather take a broad survey from multiple experts discussing most famous, iconic, and/or "best" airplanes of the WWII era and coming up with a list of 10-20 and then look at what has not been produced. Not at all a comprehensive list but two examples of what I am talking about:

Top 10 Best Aircraft

The Most Iconic World War 2 Planes

Again, not comprehensive, but here are some top 10's common to both lists that have not been produced yet:

Messerschmitt Me 262
Vought F4U Corsair

I wonder what will come up when searching the Smithsonian?

https://www.airspacemag.com/military...nes-180954056/

Cross references all the above, but still limited, searches interestingly seems to include similar aircraft that Ares has done a great job providing, and notably one not produced by Ares, on each list... Again, too early to call trending, but at least shows that some of us are not merely black sheep bleating, "Baa, baa, baa..."

I'm reminded that most things boil down to a matter of interpretation.

I look at these lists and see a company that has done a pretty good job getting us iconic WWII (and WWI) aircraft. Eight of the "Top 10 Best" have been released, the two notable exceptions being the Corsair and Me262 (which they admit had little impact until post-war). The "Iconic" list is really too long to to be discriminating (50+, though Ares has hit on the majority of the top-20). And the Smithsonian link is an all-American list that includes aircraft that wouldn't be well-received by many in this group.

I get it. I want the Corsair, too. But I want the Hellcat, first. Why? Because it was the "Goldilocks" aircraft the US Navy needed to win the war. And I'd really like an A6M2, instead of the A6M5 we received, also before a Corsair. But that's the point that Rob probably made much more succinctly than I... no list will make everyone happy, because no short list will include everyone's "iconic" aircraft.

[surfimp]

And your response is, “Sorry old boy, but actually X-Wing plays like Wings of Glory!”

No, my response is "It's like X-Wing but more fun!"

..and then they try it, and (usually) agree!

And I'd really like an A6M2, instead of the A6M5 we received, also before a Corsair.

The WoW Zero is an A6M2 - do you mean that they (Nexus) misrepresented the A6M2 with stats more appropriate to the A6M5?

I am actually quite happy that this swath of medium bombers is getting released, despite my complaining about it earlier. I mean, I'd rather get the Corsair and P-38, but in a perfect world I'd see the medium bombers released alongside the Corsair and P-38. Either/or is not in any way ideal for me - I want them all!!

I'm actually quite excited about the SM-79, as that will be plausible for Spanish Civil War use as well - another conflict and theater setting that is close to my heart (as my wife is Spanish). And likewise, the Ju-88 and Do.17 will be applicable beyond the BoB setting.

My biggest complaint is that I want MORE MORE MORE

[fast.git]

And your response is, “Sorry old boy, but actually X-Wing plays like Wings of Glory!”

Except for that bloody ridiculous "collision" mechanic that allows TIE-fighter "Zergling" rushes to "block" supposedly sophisticated space superiority fighters from acting, while not being so limited themselves.

[OldGuy59]

And your response is, “Sorry old boy, but actually X-Wing plays like Wings of Glory!”

Yeah, that was the reason for the word "Tragically" in my statement. Not too many X-Wing player know which came first. Most don't care.

I can still remember hearing the story of the stoner that thought Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland' (1865) was inspired by Jefferson Airplane's 'White Rabbit' (1967).

[fast.git]

The WoW Zero is an A6M2 - do you mean that they (Nexus) misrepresented the A6M2 with stats more appropriate to the A6M5?

Yes. And I believe it's been confirmed by Andrea that this is the case... well, I'm mostly sure of the confirmation piece, but certain of the mis-represented statistics.

[Lord_Ninja]

Yes. And I believe it's been confirmed by Andrea that this is the case... well, I'm mostly sure of the confirmation piece, but certain of the mis-represented statistics.

It's speed and armament representation is much in line with the A6M2, it does have subpar maneuverability compared to what it should have, some form of 60+ degree turning cards like the Spitfires.

[fast.git]

It's speed and armament representation is much in line with the A6M2, it does have subpar maneuverability compared to what it should have, some form of 60+ degree turning cards like the Spitfires.

I'm not sure that comparing armament is the best way to state that it's either an A6M2 or an A6M5 as the differences are negligible at this level of abstraction (both armed with 2x 7.7mm MGs and 2x 20mm cannon). And though I can't speak to the appropriateness of its speed, its ruggedness and maneuverability better match an A6M5: it's both less maneuverable than it should be (a number of our community have proposed adding additional turns to rectify this), and more rugged than it should be (a 16, whereas the Spitfire and Bf109 are 17 and the F4F an 18).

I'll admit that I could definitely be mis-remembering, but when I look at the stats and deck provided by Nexus, they don't scream "Model 21."

[surfimp]

Only the F4F-4 is 18 HP, as is the P-40; the F4F-3 is 17. Both were planes renowned for their durability, so I struggle to understand how they're put essentially on par with the Spitfire Mk I/II and Bf.109E-3/E-4 (the WoW E-4 was 18 HP as was the Spitfire Mk II, the Mk 1 and E-3 were 17 HP).

Just one of those details that has always felt a bit off about WGS, despite the fact I enjoy the system quite a lot overall.

[Stumptonian]

We seem to have been here before in a previous life chaps.
Many moons ago it was suggested that we short listed four aircraft which could be produced as the most likely ones to sell.

I think the logical thing is to decide which theatre and then select 2 from each opposing force - keeping in mind the actual number of particular aircraft produced.

Put those to a vote and then you have your next few releases - perhaps even as Dual Packs
Carl posted some fanciful sets last summer that I think would really draw attention.

I actually found the Ares WGS Starter Set (or whatever it was called) at the local FGS a while back but passed it up because the 4 aircraft it contained made no sense as a package.

[Naharaht]

What you said about the Ares 4 plane starter set is true, Pete, but it does contain four paint schemes, which are unavailable elsewhere.

[Lord_Ninja]

I'm not sure that comparing armament is the best way to state that it's either an A6M2 or an A6M5 as the differences are negligible at this level of abstraction (both armed with 2x 7.7mm MGs and 2x 20mm cannon). And though I can't speak to the appropriateness of its speed, its ruggedness and maneuverability better match an A6M5: it's both less maneuverable than it should be (a number of our community have proposed adding additional turns to rectify this), and more rugged than it should be (a 16, whereas the Spitfire and Bf109 are 17 and the F4F an 18).

I'll admit that I could definitely be mis-remembering, but when I look at the stats and deck provided by Nexus, they don't scream "Model 21."

The ruggedness is off. But the armament is different, the A6M2 did have 2x 7.7mm MGs and 2x 20mm cannons but the A6M5b had a 13.5mm MGs replace one of the 7.7mm MGs while the A6M5c had the 7.7mm taken out and two 13.5mms placed in the wings. We are also looking at a speed increase from 534 km/h (332 mph) to 565 km/h (351 mph) between the A6M2 and the A6M5. The C deck is sufficient in speed representation for the A6M2 but the A6M5 would need something along A deck for it's speed.

[Ken at Sunrise]

And your response is, “Sorry old boy, but actually X-Wing plays like Wings of Glory!”

I guess that's true. But I often deal with an older crowd to. Though I was into X-Wing long before I started playing Wings of Glory. But oddly enough my involvement started when I saw the Star Wars: X-Wing model Millennium Falcon. One look and I knew I was going to get some whether I played or not. I loved the models. Then as the complexity rose and X-Wing became more squad/deck building than playing, I tried Wings of Glory.

I play both, though admittedly, not as much X-Wing as I used to. I agree that X-Wing and Wings of Glory share several similarities in their mechanics. But I think the two games are very different. I've met several people playing at Cool Stuff tell me they are the same game, and every time it is someone who's never played Wings of Glory. Similar mechanics, two very different games.

[fast.git]

The ruggedness is off. But the armament is different, the A6M2 did have 2x 7.7mm MGs and 2x 20mm cannons but the A6M5b had a 13.5mm MGs replace one of the 7.7mm MGs while the A6M5c had the 7.7mm taken out and two 13.5mms placed in the wings. We are also looking at a speed increase from 534 km/h (332 mph) to 565 km/h (351 mph) between the A6M2 and the A6M5. The C deck is sufficient in speed representation for the A6M2 but the A6M5 would need something along A deck for it's speed.

Great info, Lucas. It seems as though we're actually in agreement... the Nexus A6M is neither clearly an A6M2, nor an A6M5.

• Speed (arrow length) represents the A6M2 appropriately.
• Armament represents the A6M2 and early A6M5s approriately.
• Maneuverability is less than most would expect from an A6M2, and may be more appropriate for an A6M5.
• Ruggedness (DP) is higher than most would expect from an A6M2, and likely more indicative of an A6M5.

[gully_raker]

The WoW Zero is an A6M2 - do you mean that they (Nexus) misrepresented the A6M2 with stats more appropriate to the A6M5?

In a word: YES!

[Gallo Rojo]

In a word: YES!

don't get me start with the so called "Zero"

[fast.git]

In a word: YES!

don't get me start with the so called "Zero"

Thanks for the support, gents!

Need to get around to adding those turns to my Model 21s' decks.

[Gallo Rojo]

Need to get around to adding those turns to my Model 21s' decks.

If your search around the home-rules forum you'll find some post about the Zero vs Wildcat.

I'll sum up what I think a proper maneuver deck for an early Zero should look like:

Zero should be able to make really tight turns at low speed (better than any other plane in the game, exept biblanes); and should also be able to turn and counter turn at low speed.
At fast speed turns for Zero should be wide instead. Zero thoudn't be able to counter-turn at fast speed.
Zero should have a short wide "S" maneuver (like the Spitfire's one, but shorter)
If catchess fire, Zero should get one or two more fire markers than other plane (actually, it should burn to dead)
Zero should get some kind of damage chip if over-dive

F4F Wildcat:
Wildcat should have only one left and right turn card at low speed, and it shoudnt be able to counter-turn at low speed
Wildcat thoud be able to counter turn at fast speed

[Teaticket]

The ruggedness is off. But the armament is different, the A6M2 did have 2x 7.7mm MGs and 2x 20mm cannons but the A6M5b had a 13.5mm MGs replace one of the 7.7mm MGs while the A6M5c had the 7.7mm taken out and two 13.5mms placed in the wings. We are also looking at a speed increase from 534 km/h (332 mph) to 565 km/h (351 mph) between the A6M2 and the A6M5. The C deck is sufficient in speed representation for the A6M2 but the A6M5 would need something along A deck for it's speed.

I've been using the F deck for the A6M5. As you say the C deck is much too slow.

[P-51D]

We are poor little lambs, who have lost our way, Baa, Baa, Baa!!!!!!

[Tokhuah]

Everytime I receive an update regarding a post in this thread I get excited, thinking there is an announcement...

Las Vegas oddmakers betting line is 5:1 that Ares will produce an official Corsair before Warlord at this point.

[Sashdash]

Here are some pictures of the upcoming realeases for WGS.
I have seen these on the Spiel 2018 game fair in Essen, Germany (25.-.28. October 2018).
The seem to be prototypes of the Dornier 17, Bristol Blenheim, Junkers 88 and SM-79
from the paned release in the 3rd/4th quarter 2019.





You will find more pictures on my album.

Have fun!
Sascha

[Dan-Sam]

Wunderbar! You are a true spy!

[Tokhuah]

So the last expansion for WGS will not be for another year?

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Let’s say the ‘next’ expansion rather than last - but 12 months!?! C’mon Ares you can do better than that surely?

[Marechallannes]

It's ok.

I need money for BSG - SB now.

[Tokhuah]

Let’s say the ‘next’ expansion rather than last - but 12 months!?! C’mon Ares you can do better than that surely?

I typed that hastily while getting ready for work this morning... Here is to hoping my text was a Freudian slip or some other subconscious thought based on how things have been going rather than anything prophetic. I certainly do not want the next expansion to be the last.

Because various Glory lines have received lackluster support over time I am staying away from Ares two new expandable SciFi miniatures games. Ares is creating a broader impact on at least this customer based on past performance. The upside, I have been going back to my board game roots lately, just in time for the arrival of the Corsair Leader and Pulp Detective Kickstarters.

[Jager]

Here are some pictures of the upcoming realeases for WGS.
I have seen these on the Spiel 2018 game fair in Essen, Germany (25.-.28. October 2018).
The seem to be prototypes of the Dornier 17, Bristol Blenheim, Junkers 88 and SM-79
from the paned release in the 3rd/4th quarter 2019.
Sascha

So who knows when WGS series 7 happens
Karl

[Black Sheep One]

[Marechallannes]

Yes - incredible that the initial post is from 2014.

...and before we'll see a single Corsair ther should be a Pacific Starter Set, too.

[Nightbomber]

Yes - incredible that the initial post is from 2014.

...and before we'll see a single Corsair ther should be a Pacific Starter Set, too.

We all are aware, that WGS is slowly becoming a niche game just for devoted players, who have - in general - already outsourced many of the iconic planes.
Personally I lost my hope ARES would ever (for unknown reason) release planes like Fw 190A, Spit V, Mc 202, Bf 109G, Yak 3...publishing Lancasters instead.
Blood Red Skies would probably play a "Turncoat" card on those dissapointed...I am very sorry.

[clipper1801]

Sadly true on each item. I have scratch built through all but 8 WGS in multiples of 6, and lack only 4 WW1 oddballs to complete the full scale catalogs of both war's aircraft plus a gaggle of what ifs for both. Haven't played a game with a real person in 4 years, seriously asking myself why i still do this, its just the people are so great. BRS was a disappointment, again no one plays it here either and i love the SOG but now my hands are too hard to use. What to do . . . the elves are looking for a new obsession for our efforts : (

[Dan-Sam]

We all are aware, that WGS is slowly becoming a niche game just for devoted players, who have - in general - already outsourced many of the iconic planes.
Personally I lost my hope ARES would ever (for unknown reason) release planes like Fw 190A, Spit V, Mc 202, Bf 109G, Yak 3...publishing Lancasters instead.
Blood Red Skies would probably play a "Turncoat" card on those dissapointed...I am very sorry.

On the other hand, BRS did not give you wings that helps you fly over Atlantic and I do not remember you needed these planes for your Russion Mission.

As far as we play with each other and have source from Shapeways and Vancouver, we are safe. And now we are playing more than before here in Prague - usually around 10 players (knock, knock on the wood).

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I am sorry in the extreme to hear of you problem with your hands getting no better Dave.
I know how I felt when my eyes became to bad for furniture making anymore.
Then I discovered that I could see very close up and started doing small model aircraft.
If my hands went as well i would be in the same boat as you.
Please do keep in touch with us all here Dave. If we stopped hearing from you and your Elves a light would go out in all our lives.

Rob.