Hello,
Could someone tell me, is the figure scale in Stargrunt II equal to the ground
scale? Please say yes. I really don't like mini games where a figure is 20 to
100 scale feet tall and represents a squad of guys. It makes it imposible to
make cool terrain that the miniatures can interact with.
Also, are those SG2 minis in the #3 issue of Forge magazine in the article
about making that tank?
Thanks-
-Greg
Date sent: 9-JUL-1996 08:43:05
> Hello,
> Could someone tell me, is the figure scale in Stargrunt II equal to the
Although the figure and ground scale do differ, each figure represents one
soldier. The difference in terrain is not a problem as you ignore this during
play as terrain pieces (buildings, trees etc) are also 'figures'. (The only
time it has effect is if translating real maps where you would use a hill
rather than a mountain, a wood rather than a forest, a pond rather than a lake
or a village rather than a town.) In fact all the other games you have played
have probably also used different scales, only they haven't told you about it.
(Even 40K has (had) differing ground and figure scales as listed in the intro
to RT, along with an explanation as to why fire combat is not very effective
in the game).
I had always presumed that the FT ships were in 1/3000 scale (I don't
actually know why I thought this, but it's formed the basis of several
measurements since then) However, I just looked on the GeoHex page and
saw the scale listed as 1/2000.
Is 1/2000 the 'official' scale of the FT line?
Thanks
Tom (who's got a lot of recalculating to do now)
> Last I saw they were 1/2400th.
somewhere between 1/2000 1/3000 I agree with Tony
I assumed they used a naval wargaming scale such as
1/2400 but don't really care as long as they look
right.
> Thomas Pope wrote:
> I had always presumed that the FT ships were in 1/3000 scale (I don't
Last I saw they were 1/2400th. I'd already given up making spaceships to
a fixed scale. If it looks OK then it's the right size.
> Tony Francis wrote:
While I'm a firm supporter of that idea in most cases, I've got this
crazy idea in my head to scratchbuild a Waldburg-class destroyer in 25mm
scale so I can run FMA boarding actions.
If I ever actually attempt that project, I'd like to have to good idea of how
big it's 'supposed' to be before I start...
Tom
Tom,
Has anyone ever mentioned you may have too much time one your hands?
:-)
Sounds like a cool idea, but the time commitment would be enormous. Good luck
Bill
Thomas Pope <tpope@cs.cmu.edu> on 10/20/1999 09:36:41 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject Re: A question of scale
:
> Tony Francis wrote:
While I'm a firm supporter of that idea in most cases, I've got this
crazy idea in my head to scratchbuild a Waldburg-class destroyer in 25mm
scale so I can run FMA boarding actions.
If I ever actually attempt that project, I'd like to have to good idea of how
big it's 'supposed' to be before I start...
Tom
I think the official posted scale is 1/2000, but about all the GZG ships
seem to fit well with whatever scale you want. Whatever minis I field on the
table in my games I tell players they are all at the same scale. This helps
visually identify relative sizes during game play.
Mike
Michael Miserendino Senior Software Engineer Lincoln Re mtmiserendino@lnc.com
> owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU at internet 10/20 9:07 AM >>>
I had always presumed that the FT ships were in 1/3000 scale (I don't
actually know why I thought this, but it's formed the basis of several
measurements since then) However, I just looked on the GeoHex page and
saw the scale listed as 1/2000.
Is 1/2000 the 'official' scale of the FT line?
Thanks
Tom (who's got a lot of recalculating to do now)
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us wrote:
:-)
Wait until I actually _start_ the project before accusing me of that
sin. Idle thoughts are cheap, actually doign something about them is
the real problem. :-)
> Sounds like a cool idea, but the time commitment would be enormous.
Good
> luck
Thanks. Actually, if I do take on such a project, I migth start with a
scoutship first. It would be good practice, and maybe I coudl start making
some reusable parts to cast in resin... Hmmm, ideas filling my brain as we
speak...
Tom
> Thomas Pope wrote:
> Tony Francis wrote:
Wel, first you need to decide what scale 25mm is (no, that's NOT an invite to
open that discussion again, thank you).
How big is the destroyer? Around 40mm long? If we assume that 25mm is
1/65th
(no flames please, this is only an example) and our destroyer is
1/3000th scale
that scales up to (um, calculator ...) 1.8m-ish. If you were to build
your 25mm
destroyer at 1/72nd and assume it's 1/2000th scale that works out at
only 1.1m.
I see your problem now - a 65% difference depending upon choice of
scale.
I've come across this problem when trying to build an assault craft in both
DS2
and FT sizes. DS2 is easy to pin down, it's 1/300th - no problems there.
I wanted to make the FT version about 10mm long (ie large enough to have at
least some detail on it) but that scales up to 100mm for DS2 (assuming FT =
1/3000th).
Much bigger than I wanted to be. However, shrink the DS2 one and the FT model
becomes too small to see... and so on. In the end I've decided that the scales
can go jump off a cliff and I'll make my FT one 10mm long, my DS2 one about
60mm long and ignore the scale inconsistencies.
Actually if you're going with resin, you could cast the walls and floors in
open face moulds and then sandwich them together for the finished wall. The
floors could also be done that way. Doing it this way you could also make it
somewhat modular so that you could use your scoutship modules as part of your
destroyer, and avoid a repetition of effort.
Now doing a multi-level ship could be loads of fun. :-)
Just trying to "help". :-)
Bill
Thomas Pope <tpope@cs.cmu.edu> on 10/20/1999 10:03:57 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject Re: A question of scale
:
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us wrote:
:-)
Wait until I actually _start_ the project before accusing me of that
sin. Idle thoughts are cheap, actually doign something about them is
the real problem. :-)
> Sounds like a cool idea, but the time commitment would be enormous.
Good
> luck
Thanks. Actually, if I do take on such a project, I migth start with a
scoutship first. It would be good practice, and maybe I coudl start making
some reusable parts to cast in resin... Hmmm, ideas filling my brain as we
speak...
Tom
> Tony Francis wrote:
I've got some leeway here, since I'd basically go with whatever fits with the
current GZG range.
> How big is the destroyer ? Around 40mm long ? If we assume that 25mm
Yep. Even between 1/2500 and 1/3000 there's probably enough variation
to cause a problem. Not a serious issue, but I do liek to know how much space
I've got to work with...
> I've come across this problem when trying to build an assault craft in
It's probably too much to hope that this would be _the_ dropship isn't
it? By the way I never got back to you about the Tech manual
illustrations. It seems to have some nice 3-views of both the APC and
dropship, as well as measurements. So, in your infinite free time...
:-)
All 'nudging' aside I'm happy to hear you're working on any kind of
dual-scale vehicle. I'm really looking forward to seeing the end
result.
> DS2 is easy to pin down, it's 1/300th - no problems there. I wanted to
I think this sounds like the best idea overall. Whiel I'd still like to knwo
the 'offical' scale for curiosity sake, I'll probably jsut make the ship
however big it needs to be to fit all the stuff into it. Another good reason
to start with a scoutship, less stuff.
Tom
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us wrote:
I hadn't though of that. I was thinking posterboard with bits added on like
piping and such to look suitably cluttered. The resin idea has much more
merit...
> The floors could also be done that way.
Yep... Oh boy, time to place that order to Micro-Mark...
> Doing it this way you could also make it somewhat modular so that you
Certainly. Now I just need to start working on some floor-plans.
Before that, I guess I've got to figure out what has to actually fit into the
hull.
> Now doing a multi-level ship could be loads of fun. :-)
Agreed, though it would probably be easier to make a single level ship. If I
even do build something big like a destroyer, I'll have to find some way of
staking them and then unstacking them as peopel climb up and down between
levels.
> Just trying to "help". :-)
Thanks, I think. :-)
Tom
> It's probably too much to hope that this would be _the_ dropship isn't
This one is a sort of 'not-Space 1999-Eagle' ship. The same
configuration with seperate cargo module etc, but not identical in detail. I
decided that it would be almost impossible to duplicate the girder work on an
Eagle in a
white-metal
casting without ending up with a model that would be fiddly to cast and
assemble and delicate on the table.
> By the way I never got back to you about the Tech manual
I found my copy of the Tech Manual while clearing out the spare bedroom, so no
problem.
> Tony Francis wrote:
I know more people than just me are jumping with joy about now! In two scales
as well!
> I decided that it would be almost impossible to duplicate the girder
I don't remember the actual model that well, but if nothing else you could
make the interior of the gridwork solid and lay the bars over it. Or is that
what you did?
Tom
> I had always presumed that the FT ships were in 1/3000 scale (I don't
Well, yes and no.... :-)
We always reckoned that 1/2000 was about right considering the size of
the fighters, but then again the fighter minis are really too big in relation
to the other ships anyway.
After all, they're only glorified 3D counters anyway, so does it really matter
that much...?
<GRIN AND DUCK!>
> Thomas Pope wrote:
> > I decided that it would be almost impossible to duplicate the girder
You talk in the past tense as if I've already made it... At the moment it
exists on paper only!
However, the answer is yes, that's one way to build it. My plan was to abandon
the girders completely and go for a something more solid. The command module
would be squared off so that it looks like the command unit on some of our FT
models (eg the Reshef, Peled, Yoffe, Yafo, and Laskov to name but a few). That
way it fits nicely into the SemFed design style but is still just about
recognisable (with a squint in a dark room) as an Eagle.
> Tony Francis wrote:
Ahh, my mistake.
> However, the answer is yes, that's one way to build it. My plan was to
> abandon the girders completely and go for a something more solid. The
Personally, I'd rather have a 'close as possible' not-eagle, but it
sounds like an interesting ship design nonetheless. Especially if you
make a modular cargo compartment in the 1/300 version. Then you've got
a cargo lifter, a troop transport, a rescue ship, etc...
Still, I'd love an honest-to-goodness not-eagle in both scales. As if
you didn't have enough other projects to keep you busy. :-)
Tom
> After all, they're only glorified 3D counters anyway, so
kaTHWACK!
> AND DUCK!>
(Duck first next time)
In a message dated 10/20/99 9:34:47 AM Central Daylight Time,
> tpope@cs.cmu.edu writes:
<<
If I ever actually attempt that project, I'd like to have to good idea of how
big it's 'supposed' to be before I start...
> [quoted text omitted]
Roughly 97 times as large, so a 1.5" ship model becomes roughly 12 feet one
inch long. That'll fill your game room!
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
Where are getting those numbers?
Let's assume that we're converting to 1/69 scale. From 1/3000 I get 43
times as
large and at 1/2000 I get 29 times as large. Or am I doing the math
wrong?
Tom
In a message dated 10/21/99 6:46:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
> tpope@cs.cmu.edu writes:
<<
Let's assume that we're converting to 1/69 scale. From 1/3000 I get 43
times as
large and at 1/2000 I get 29 times as large. Or am I doing the math
wrong?
Tom
> [quoted text omitted]
No, you are not - it was my math at far too late at night to do math. I
came
up with about 33 times as large, when I re-did it but that post got lost
in
electronic nirvana. Forty-five inches or so seem more appropriate?
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
I came
> up with about 33 times as large, when I re-did it but that post got
Yep, that sounds like what I came up with.
Tom (heading home now to work on the sketches)
> It's probably too much to hope that this would be _the_ dropship
I've seen a nice plastic model (either 1/48 or 1/64, I think the former)
of the Space 1999 lander at the Toy Liquidators for about $10. (I've almost
bought it a couple of times. Then I thought about the accumulation downstairs
and decided not to. I'll probably break down soon.)
I don't recall the name, but it's the one with the wedge-like cockpit
and otherwise looks like a string of packing crates in a steel framework,
with outpod lift engines and a space-shuttle-like main engine. Is that
the Eagle? But the size and price are right.
- Sam
Yes from the description it is an 'Eagle', I have one to. The smaller more
streamlined, but similar looking model is the 'Hawk' this appeared as an
enemy fighter version attacking moonbase Alpha in one episode. Although the
attack did actually turn out to be an illusion caused by an aliens.
Buck.
Here is the URL for an Eagle Transporter.
http://cybrary1999.com/featured_art/images/geoff_saul_eagle_november_199
8_666.jpg
And for the Hawk.
http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~bat/GA/OT-MODEL/ds-hawk-1.jpg
In the groups I play with, our SG2 figures range from 25mm through 28mm up to
'heroic 28mm' which is arguably 32mm or 33mm. Handled right, it looks fine.
Handled poorly, it looks bad.
For example, Jon's not-Starship Trooper's bugs should look menacing next
to his standard SG2 infantry. His Rednecks look like children next to
Demonblade's Scarlet Bretheren, though.
15mm is the best supported scale for historicals. Lots of vehicles, buildings
and figs to use as is or convert. Also the tend to be cheaper. I only game in
15mm now, unless it is a vehicle intensive game or a HUGE
(Leipzig/Gettysburg)
historical battle then I use 6mm (micro scale).
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]