Steve points out:
NAC - Phalanx (DSM-104), Paladin (DSM-103),
Hoplite/Hunter/Defender/Striker series (DSM-105/106/107/115)
NSL - Gauntlet (DSM-101)
FSE and OU - Wombat (DSM-112)
I knew there were images in SG2 of FSE and NSL troops. I forgot who got which
AC APC. I find it moderately funny the FSE were awarded something called the
Wombat.
I'm not sure where Steve has a cannon reference (other than name, which is
probably a good guess) as to relationship between OU and the Wombat.
So, taking what Steve had:
NAC - Phalanx, Paladin, Hoplite/Hunter/Defender/Striker series
NSL - Gauntlet, Rommel, Slammer M-82
FSE - Wombat
OUDF - Wombat, Cockroach (both forms) (Eureka)
Dutch - Slammer's Blower Tank and Combat Car
Generic - Most trucks, jeeps, artillery units, command posts, and
civilian vehicles,
possibly also the dropship/interface lander
ESU - BMP-60 (Eureka)
That's probably about the sum total of the 'official-ish' list.
> On 11 Oct 2005 at 17:43, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I'm not sure where Steve has a cannon reference (other than name,
The FSE TOE background fluff mentions that the OU uses the FSE AGCI-
5B hover APC and call it "Wombat". SG2 p.69
And canon vs cannon makes the pedant in me very cross...
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Cockroach (both forms) (Eureka)
The APC would be the WETA Grav APC (what's a weta? -
http://weta.boarsnest.net/ )
Also you can play mix and match with the turrets and bodies and the vehicles,
I did this in 6mm and there's no reason this can't be done in 25mm. I ended up
with a whole family of vehicles using the 'NSL'
Gauntlet APC as the base. SPAA, MRL, Anti-tank vehicles by using turrets
from the hoplite, hunter, etc and also a variant Gaunlet using the turret of
the 'Wombat'.
Cheers
> On 10/11/05, Derek Fulton <djfulton@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Also you can play mix and match with the turrets and bodies and the
For that matter, I've never understood why a minuature manufacturer doesn't
SELL Sci Fi minis that way. Well, ok, a few do to a certain extent, but what I
mean is, why not make all the turrets compatible with all the vehicle hulls,
and sell them that way?
Thomas Barclay schrieb:
> I knew there were images in SG2 of FSE and NSL troops. I forgot who
International cooperation? Licence built? Stolen plans? Privately developed
and sold to both?
> I'm not sure where Steve has a cannon reference (other than name,
A good guess, but not neccessarily more than that. For example, the
real-life German Bundeswehr has a vehicle called the "Dingo".
Greetings Karl Heinz
***
For that matter, I've never understood why a minuature manufacturer doesn't
SELL Sci Fi minis that way. Well, ok, a few do to a certain extent, but what I
mean is, why not make all the turrets compatible with all the vehicle hulls,
and sell them that way?
***
Can be a bit limiting for the sculptor; all bits have to match, so the largest
turret matches up with the smallest hull. Even if you consider this reduce ab
absurdum, it does mean a certain restriction of contact points, flat spaces
where turrets meet hulls, etc.
Even 'all turrets matching all hulls of the same size' means some fiddling
with curves and 'junk' features on each.
Not saying it can't be done, just that the result may lead to uninteresting
and un-diverse designs.
The_Beast
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> >Also you can play mix and match with the turrets and bodies and the
Probably because you get twice as many catalogue entries to keep track of, and
have to have twice as many storage boxes for the little ¤%!"#s...
> On 10/13/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
Not a good answer, but probabvly an accurate one.
> Brian B wrote:
> On 10/13/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
actually it's a crap answer.
Cheers
I don't think that it's a crap answer. At least not from what I know about
people doing casting. So, on each mold you need to put in hulls and turrets.
Thus, when you cast, you get X hulls and X turrets. If you don't know what mix
people want, you have tons of excess hulls or turrets sitting around. You
could recast the metal, but then you have to spend
even more casting time if you just recast the unwanted {hull/turret} and
then get an order for them.
Seems to me that from a manufacrturing standpoint, making complete vehicles
makes some sense.
*I* would certainly be happier if I could do more of what you can do with some
models now (like ordering a Wolf MBT or a Wolf AA tank!) because it's more
flexible. But I won't join y'all in bitching about not being able to.
GZG and Brigade have both allowed me to special order individual turrets,
or non-standard mixes of things. I *greatly* appreciate their
willingness to do so, but I don't think that they are obligated.
Just a counter opinion to keep the fires hot...;)
John
John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information Security
Office Carnegie Mellon University
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Derek Fulton wrote:
> Brian B wrote:
> On 10/13/05, Derek Fulton <djfulton@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> actually it's a crap answer.
My sentiments too, though I don't fault Oerjan -- he's probably right
that that's one reason manufacturers don't try it.
As for Doug Evans' objections, of course, you'd have to have certain
limits on matches between hulls and turrets of sizes -- though there
are ways to mitigate that, especially when equipping a larger vehicle with a
smaller turret. As for the lack of details in the area around
the hull/turret interface, these can be glued on after the turret fit
has been made, and included as parts, sold as separate kits, or scratch built.
In fact, I would expect to see GREATER diversity of
designs, since any hull/turret combination would be possible, not just
the stock combinations.
But I'm no miniature maker, so what do I know?
> On 10/13/05, John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
And the same risk is involved in only casting stock designs with both the
turret and hull specific to each other. So if you make X Vehicle and Y
vehicle, and people only buy Y vehicle, you're stuck the same way.
To take it a step further, what if you had people who said to themselves, "Ya
know, I like turret X, but Hull X just doesn't do it for me. Turret Y, on the
other hand, is pants, but HULL Y, now that just rocks my world (even if that
world isn't Earth in this case). They may buy both and toss the extras, if
they're rich (yeah, right! They're gamers!), or they may just pass. Or they
could email you and ask, and if you created both vehicles with the same size
hole and post for both turrets and hulls, you're good to go. If not, you lose
a sale.
> But I won't join y'all in bitching about not being able
I thought I was commenting, not bitching. Sorry, from now on, I'll only post
smiley happy comments.
> GZG and Brigade have both allowed me to special order individual
So I've noticed, and I think that's great. My point was, I think you'd make a
killing if you made sure that as many turrets as possible could be switched on
as many hulls as possible.
> I *greatly* appreciate their willingness
Where did I say they were obligated? I just said I thought it would make more
sense if they did.
Um... chill? Ok, I can be offensive at times...
> But I won't join y'all in bitching about not being able
> Where did I say they were obligated? I just said I thought it would
1) Ok. I so my natural sarcasm doesn't translate for shit in email. My
apoligies for classing this as "bitching". My bad.
2) I never said anyone was obligated, nor that YOU said that anyone was
obligated. I was pointing out that they go out of their way to be extra
super spiffy nice to the gamer, and was reinforcing it with a statement
that they are not obligated to sell me things separately - especially
when they don't advertise that they'll do so. Never mentioned YOU saying
anything about it.
I'll shut up and crawl back into my little hole now.:)
> On 10/13/05, John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> 1) Ok. I so my natural sarcasm doesn't translate for shit in email.
Accepted. Tone doesn't convey well sometimes.
> 2) I never said anyone was obligated, nor that YOU said that anyone
Oh, you're absolutely right, I guess my point was, maybe if they DID advetise
that they do so, and in fact design all their parts to make it easy to do so,
it might be a good business model. Just sayin'. In fact, I've been tempted to
try it myself, the only thing stopping me is a lack of modeling skills, time,
or startup capital.
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> For that matter, I've never understood why a minuature manufacturer
Not if you've seen the GZG workshop and know just how much space those storage
boxes eat up already... John L.'s description about having to cast
and re-cast stuff is right on target :-/
Maintaining only small stocks doesn't work for companies that do a major
part of their business over the counter at game shows - as just about
all
of the UK-based miniature companies except GW do.
But Derek, if you're willing to pay Jon enough that he can get himself a
bigger workshop, I don't think he would mind at all :-)
Regards,
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> But Derek, if you're willing to pay Jon enough that he can get himself
> a bigger workshop, I don't think he would mind at all :-)
I don't need to, I already get that service from Eureka Miniatures. All
it took was a question to Nic - Can you gave me 6 of those hulls and 6
of these turrets, thank you very much.
Just because you can't imagine it being done doesn't mean that other's can and
actually will do it.
Cheers
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> But Derek, if you're willing to pay Jon enough that he can get himself
Deary me... I can imagine it just fine; I've bought stuff from Jon in
exactly that way. All you need to do is ask him :-)
However, it's just that I can *also* imagine several quite practical reasons
why Jon and other manufacturers don't want to sell hulls and turrets
separately as their normal business practise or even advertise the option on
their respective web sites, even though they do so on special requests.
Kind regards,
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> Derek Fulton wrote:
Another wonderful Oerjan post. Great your dick is bigger than mine.
If you want to respond do so off list because Beth is back from Vladivostok so
I have no real need to remain subcribed. Basically because after your racially
loaded ship name suggestion to the test list
and lack of comprehension as to why it might be a bad idea I doubt that Beth
will paying that much interest in the test list either so there no need for me
to remain subscribed here for when her email gets spotty.
Get a brain pratt
On 10/14/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com>
> However, it's just that I can *also* imagine several quite practical
Yet there it is, as Fritz has shown, on the Old Crow site.
I have sat and thought for a long while on how to respond to this and the
previous posts. I enjoy your posts Derek and I hate to see you leave over what
I see as a misunderstanding of tone.
Of course you are free to take any interpretation of what OA has been saying
but from the outside it does not look to me like he is baiting you. I see him
explaining his view on the subject just I saw you explaining yours. If you
notice his last post he added "with kind regards". I saw that as a
demonstration of respect to your views.
Oerjan I also do not mean to speak for you and know that you can do it quite
well. Please excuse me for stepping into the middle.
Derek and Oerjan I for one would hate to lose your contributions over a
disagreement.
v/r,
> Bob Makowsky wrote:
> Of course you are free to take any interpretation of
Truth be told, I *was* baiting Derek a bit there by being light-hearted
in face of his claim that I "can't imagine" parts being sold separately. My
"Deary me" was unnecessary, and I hereby apologize for adding it.
Best wishes,
G'day guys,
Derek has exited stage left for a while (he periodically cycles lists and so
may well be back eventually), but I'll pass on your posts.
Cheers