I've got a small collection of miniatures I will use for Full Thrust,
but only 2 classes of GZG minis (the 2 smallest FSE I believe -
Mistral and Ibiza)
I would like to know about what size GZG ships mine relate to.
What I have is a handful of RAFM ships, most bought as traveller ships, though
they sell the same ships for Silent Death with different names.
Cuspid Class (AKA Silent Death FireBat) Fang Class (AKA Silent Death Rattler)
Darrian Patrol Cruiser (Don't know name, but also sold as a Silent Death
Figure) Aslan (?Border Cruiser?) (AKA Silent Death Hornet) Type A Free Trader
Fat Trader (Subsidized Merchant) System Defense Boat
> J Noble wrote:
> I would like to know about what size GZG ships mine relate to.
Comparing to the NSL, IF and UNSC ships I have (can't say if the other ranges
are in scale):
> Darrian Patrol Cruiser (Don't know name, but also sold as a Silent
Javelin-class gunboat in SD:TNM:Nightwatch... nice model. CL or small
CE.
> Aslan (?Border Cruiser?) (AKA Silent Death Hornet)
DD-sized
> Silent Death Remora
DH or small CL.
> Battlefleet gothic Sword class frigates
CL or small CE
> I also have a bunch of GameScience trek minis, as well as some TFG
Dunno about Starline 2200... I only have "Starfleet" models (which are
outright tiny) and "Starline 2300" which are simply scaled-up Starfleet
models, but they vary quite a lot in size. Which models are you thinking of?
> Oh, and of course the trek micromachines. If anyone knows how those
Well, they don't compare in size to one another - all MicroMachine
models are roughly the same size, from the Y-wing to the Death Star
(translate into Trek as necessary <g>)... most of them are in the BB-DN
range though, depending a bit on how spindly they are.
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Have a look at
http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/FT/INDEX.HTM
which has a selection of Gamescience, Starline 2200, Starline 2300, FASA and
even Galoob minis.
Fortunatly (or is that unfortunatly), there is no standard. Best method is to
put minis side by side and make an estimate. Remember to take Volume into
consideration.
Some people have posted size guidelines in the past, but these usually don't
take into account the girth of the mini.
Several months ago, somone indicated that he used a grams scale. He weighed
the mini, weighed the stand, subtracted the stand from the weight of the mini,
then did a numeric comparison from several of the GZG minis. With this as a
baseline, he
weighed the non-GZG minis and placed them in the appropriate
catogory. However this seemed like too much work for me.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
***
Remember to take Volume into consideration.
***
So right. Most of the GZG tend to be flatter than the SM/SD/Tv
designs. On the other hand, greater surface area may indicate more gun
'ports'. *shrug*
***
Several months ago, somone indicated that he used a grams scale. He weighed
the mini, weighed the stand, subtracted the stand from the weight of the mini,
then did a numeric comparison from several of the GZG minis. With this as a
baseline, he
weighed the non-GZG minis and placed them in the appropriate
catogory. However this seemed like too much work for me.
***
Agreed, especially as different manufactures use different formulas of white
metal, and many of the ships people are bringing
to the table are plastic. ;->=
As a side note, I recently picked up a rule set from 1977 called Stellar Wars
by Bruce Loren Miller (both designer attribution and copyright name) that used
volume in ship design, and concluded with an offer that:
'If there are any ships not listed here that you wish to know about please
send the ship and a sample of the material it is made of to the following
adress(sic) and the Hull Volume, DV(cube root symbol) DV and size factors will
be determined for you and sample will be returned.' Followed by request of $1
for shipping and handling as well as the address.
I must admit I was impressed. (Messer Granvold, are you listening?)
The_Beast
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
I think that milliliters would be a much better unit of measurement (1 mL is
one cm^3, or 1000mm^3). Cubic millimeters would be nearly
IMPOSSIBLE to measure (the lab-quality equipment at my university will
only give you 2 sig. figs. on milliliters, which translates as "to the nearest
hundred cubic millimeters." I'd think you'd want more accuracy than that....