Too bad HB isn't making vehicles anymore. (1 Viewer)

[MajorTom]

I have a Sherman, Panther and a Jadgpanther they are THE benchmark for vehicles. I own many vehicles from many makers, those three are my favorites bar none. They are worth every dolloar I paid for them. If HB made more vehicles (not the JPA jeep sorry) I would gladly purchase them.


Horrido!

 

[Go for Broke]

I have a Panther that I bought for $125. So when the price quickly rose to $180, I thought they were too expensive. In retrospect, I should have bought all 3 panthers, not to mention the jadgpanther.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

The "Gold Series" was Honour Bound's attempt to keep vehicle production viable. The original non customizable series was a money loser.

Ana has explained many times the economics of producing vehicles in Argentina and it just doesn't work. If they are priced high enough for HB to actually make some profit then they won't sell.

I guess the cost of researching and producing a vehicle, which takes a lot of time and raw material, and then sells for $200, requires a large number of sales to make a profit. A set of 4 figures for which much of the uniform and weapons research has already been done and the figure's dimensions are fairly standardized, sells for $125. And uses less raw materials. And possibly appeals to a larger customer base (soldiers vs armour appeal and cost).

Off the top of my head, it seems that the ratio of AFCs to sets of soldiers is lower now than it was even a few years ago. Obviously that is the case for HB who are no longer making AFVs. But I think it is true even for K&C. I would guess that CS is currently producing the highest ratio of AFVs to soldier sets followed by Figarti. But CS is a new entry so we will have to see what their new products tend towards over the next year or so.

I have not researched this - it is only an observation. I am talking about only WW2 ranges and I am including any large, costly pieces (i.e. LCA, Horns of Red Bull artillery) as AFVs.

Any thoughts?

Terry

 

[fmethorst]

I guess the cost of researching and producing a vehicle, which takes a lot of time and raw material, and then sells for $200, requires a large number of sales to make a profit. A set of 4 figures for which much of the uniform and weapons research has already been done and the figure's dimensions are fairly standardized, sells for $125. And uses less raw materials. And possibly appeals to a larger customer base (soldiers vs armour appeal and cost).

Off the top of my head, it seems that the ratio of AFCs to sets of soldiers is lower now than it was even a few years ago. Obviously that is the case for HB who are no longer making AFVs. But I think it is true even for K&C. I would guess that CS is currently producing the highest ratio of AFVs to soldier sets followed by Figarti. But CS is a new entry so we will have to see what their new products tend towards over the next year or so.

I have not researched this - it is only an observation. I am talking about only WW2 ranges and I am including any large, costly pieces (i.e. LCA, Horns of Red Bull artillery) as AFVs.

Any thoughts?

Terry

You may be on to something. I suspect the ROI on the AFVs is less than the figures especially these days with the constant demand for higher accuracy and detail. I think the dramatic rise in prices of these pieces bears testimony to the costs involved.

I don't think vehicles would be more time consuming to research than figures so I think the additional costs would include raw materials, manufacturing and shipping.

People get pretty excited about AFVs when they are announced so it's hard to gauge whether demand is a problem. I do believe demand becomes a problem when the price increases to a certain point. So there is a very fine balance the manufacturer must attain between cost of production, quality of production, cost of shipping and final retail price...and somewhere in all that there has to be some profit for the manufacturer.