> On Sunday 22 April 2007 16:02, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> I'd actually be quite interested to hear other peoples' opinions on
Given the choice between as it is now, and going down the FullThrust route of
official models for each nation, I'd vote for the latter.
I don't mind making it up myself, but it was very difficult to put together an
army for Dirtside simply because there doesn't seem to be any easy way to
classify the models beyond the
tracked/grav/hover/wheeled technology.
It would be nice to at least have a number of distinct ranges with
their own styles - maybe a Sleek range, a Bulky range, Big Guns range
etc, with a mixture of Grav/Wheeled/Tracked in each. Possibly
different ranges would have different proportions of each type of technology.
An entirely Grav bulky range would of course be needed, so that I could keep
my NSL design doctrine (medium to high tech, small
numbers (compared to the other main nations), but ALL Grav) :-)
I'll be the first to admit to knowing nothing about modern militaries,
so don't know how similar/disimilar modern tank designs are between
nations. Do the practicalities of modern warfare force all tank designs
towards some ideal shape?
The *big* problem I can see is that you'd have to do each range 3 times (6mm,
15mm, 25mm).
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 16:02, Ground Zero Games wrote:
The problem is the sheer quantity of designs needed; there are at least 12 SG
"nations" we'd need to do the vehicles for (otherwise we'd be forever getting
the "why don't you do them for MY favourite
nation" stuff, as I mentioned in another post) - if you just say that
each would need an MBT, a light tank, and APC/MICV and a fire support
vehicle, that's already 48 distinct designs, before you even start to go down
the route of support and specialist vehicle variants.... sure, we could do
this eventually, but it would take us a long time to get these all done....
Maybe, with the benefit of hindsight, if we could go right back to the start
of everything and begin again from scratch we'd be better
just having two or three major powers making up the GZG-verse, which
would make it relatively easy to do specific but comprehensive vehicle ranges
for each of them.... but we've got a long legacy now and we're not about to
p*ss a lot of people off by changing it all.
;-)
Eventually my plan is to have as wide a range of vehicles as possible so that
everyone can pick and choose whatever fits their own
preferences best; I'm going to resist the "nation-specific" route as
long as I can, though at some point we may make some SUGGESTIONS as to who
might use what when we do some TO&Es for 15mm forces....
> I don't mind making it up myself, but it was very difficult to
Well, if you look from any distance with a bit of a squint, there isn't REALLY
that much difference between the overall shape of an
Abrams, a Challenger, a Leclerc or one of the newer Leopards..... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> The *big* problem I can see is that you'd have to do each range 3 times
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 16:58, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I agree with you on this. Though it's nice to have a range of ships to choose
from, from a background sense it would have been better to have the 4 major
nations, with the rest buying stuff from the Big Four (with maybe a small
number of unique designs or custom modifications).
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'd like to see it
as is. If I want to use a wombat with my NAC based mercenary unit it isn't a
problem. I think making every nation with its'
vehicles is a bit too much spoon-feeding, kind of like a point system
for SGII.
Roger (anxiously awaiting his first 15mm stuff.)
> ---- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Isn't this the current situation though? Would not a lot of the smaller
nations get most of their gear from the nations that can make it? You only
really have to make vehicles for the fleet book races, and maybe one unique
vehicle for each of the smaller races.
Especially for the high tech gear chances are that everyone buys it from
either the NAC, ESU, FSE or NSL.
Recently the NZ defence force spent money buying LAVs from Canada, I don't
think they even have a defence industry in NZ or Aussie apart from some
electronics capabilty.
To cut down on the manufacturing logistics you could make basic hulls with
"conversion packs" to represent local adaptations. Different nations might use
different style of armour and if there were armour packs and different stowage
packs to put into the hulls these could change the shape of the vehicle quite
easily, As you pointed out, the operall shape of a tank isn't that different
from each other and some of the latest Chinese designs look like they hired
European styling engineers (or photocopied the plans).
If you do make the vehicles the same for all nations, you risk the armies
suffering from the same look and feel problems as GW did back in the early
90s. There were only 2 types of human vehicle so all human armies were
essentially the same in look and feel.
> Samuel Penn wrote:
> I'll be the first to admit to knowing nothing about modern militaries,
Pretty much. All of today's tanks are tracked and have one single, dorsally
mounted turret with one single heavy gun + assorted secondary weapons
(mostly machine guns, but with the occasional ATGM and/or light mortar
thrown in as well). This general shape is very much enforced by the
practicalities of today's tank warfare and the technologies available today.
Sure, there are minor variations in hull and turret shape, but
they're just that - minor; you don't see multiple or side-mounted gun
sponsons on today's tanks.
If other technologies would become available - other propulsion
technologies in particular - then other types of combat vehicle designs
will appear. Immediately after the appearance of the new technology there
would quite likely be a variety of weird vehicles at first, just like the wide
variety of different tank designs during and immediately after WW1 before the
current "one dorsal turret, one big gun" proved to be most effective, or the
wide variety of ironclad designs in the late 19th century before ship
designers figured out that the dreadnought concept was the way to go; but
eventually the design evolution will almost certainly converge on one
"optimal" basic shape.
Later,
> John Tailby wrote:
> >Maybe, with the benefit of hindsight, if we could go right back to
;-)
> Isn't this the current situation though?
For the modeller, the problem with having a basic hull + add-on kits is
that you'd get a LOT of very fiddly little details that would have to be
glued on to the model. Add-on armour in particular tends to cover very
large parts of a vehicle. While it'd be easy for the SCULPTOR to create the
master models in this fashion, the MANUFACTURER (and retailer, and certainly
the customer) would probably find it easier if each variant was produced with
all its specific details already fitted.
Regards,
> On 4/22/07, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> The problem is the sheer quantity of designs needed; there are at
Not everyone needs a light tank, I personally find that to be a questionable
requirement. But then again, the argument as to the ideal cavalry vehicle has
been going on for about 90 years now and isn't going to end any time soon.
Although, given a DSII GZGverse
where a Size 2 light tank can mount an MDC/3 in a turret, it's not a
BAD idea either. (For the record, I mix and match
motorcycles/hoverbikes, armed jeeps, GMS-armed CFVs carrying scouts,
light tanks, and medium tanks depending on the type of cavalry unit)
Seriously, There probably aren't a dozen different main battle tanks
in full-scale production today. US, UK, FRG, FRA, Russia, Israel and
a dozen folks producing knock-offs of obsolete Russian designs. Who
else has a no-kidding tank industry that produces tanks in quantities
sufficient to arm their own nation, much less someone else's?
> Maybe, with the benefit of hindsight, if we could go right back to
That would be pretty monotonous. IMHO.
> Eventually my plan is to have as wide a range of vehicles as possible
TO&Es for15mm forces? Did I miss that discussion?
> Well, if you look from any distance with a bit of a squint, there
Armor design does tend to force a handful of shapes which don't
provide too many shot traps--although the Israelis do something wierd
with their newest Merkavas. But all Western tanks are limited by the phsyical
characteristics of the composite armor used.
You don't really need to go buck-wild in order to have a good variety.
Changing turrets produces some totally different vehicles. I've got four 25mm
Roman IFVs which were Hovertanks (the wierd one that has a wider back and a
narrower nose I want to say Rommel?) with a remote RFAC turret from another
APC mini. Those were purchased when KR from Geohex had the license and I
talked to him about it at one of the early ECCs. Perhaps an option to mix and
match turrets or order them seperately? There might be an entire line of
vehicles which uses a common chassis with different turrets and internal
components to produce any of the necessary varients. The FCS is *supposed* to
work more or less like that.
Fair enough, though my suggestion was intended towards larger, already
detailed parts.
Now, that's a tougher job for the scupltor and manufacturer to get right, as
both the addons and the original model have to have tight tolerances.
The_Beast
OA wrote on 04/23/2007 12:29:28 AM:
***snippage
> For the modeller, the problem with having a basic hull +
> Doug wrote:
> Fair enough, though my suggestion was intended towards larger, already
I was replying to John Tailby though :-/
However, there's very little point in having a basic "turret" or "hull"
piece if the "add-on" pieces are going to cover most of it anyway so the
"larger parts" in question are effectively the turret and the 1-3 hull
sections. From the manufacturing-logistics point of view, that makes
variants of the same basic vehicle effectively the same as entirely separate
models.
Later,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> The problem is the sheer quantity of designs needed; there are at
Just everyone who can't afford enough heavy tanks ;-)
> Seriously, There probably aren't a dozen different main battle tanks
Some further examples:
Italy, Japan and South Korea all build their own unique tank designs and
have equipped their armies with them, though AFAIK none of them have exported
any.
Ukraine is still mostly working from the T-80 and T-90 baseline, but
have
produced some rather interesting-looking updated variants.
South Africa and Jordan (!) don't build entirely new vehicles AFAIK, but
both of them produce some *very* radical rebuilds of older tanks - in
some cases so radical that only the number and positioning of the roadwheels
hint at what vehicle they started out with. (So does Israel, but you already
listed them above.)
That's a dozen different countries with their own distinct-looking tanks
-
and that's is just for *MBTs*. There are several other countries today that
build their own light tanks/heavy IFVs and SPGs (eg. Sweden and
Singapore) but don't build their own MBTs, and more still that build their own
APCs.
And as for wheeled vehicles - well, just about everyone and their
grandmother builds those...
> Well, if you look from any distance with a bit of a squint, there
I strongly suspect that the Merk4 has the same kind of armour arrangement
as the front turret armour of the Leo2 A5 and later - looks like a shot
trap, but isn't.
Later,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI think the key
here is going to be variety - within reason. Having just one
contribution to each category of vehicle will lead the GZG hobby to a bit of
stagnation. As the supply of good 15mm vehicles is still pretty limited, I do
hope that GZG will add a few more designs to each of their categories.
Of course they have done wonderful things for adding variety by including the
bits (grav emitters, guns, etc). I would like to see them make the walker legs
available seperately as well. These all allow us to take vehicles from other
companies and tweak them, widening the
variety. I know that some T-55s will be getting some grav emitters soon
to make them into low-tech grav vehicles. I would love to be able to
give some WW2 German Scout Cars legs too.
-Eli
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 4/23/07,
> emu2020@comcast.net <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
Gear Kreig figs can still be found. I don't play 15mm Sci-fi but I
understand why the 15mm line is getting all the love right now. I can buy 25mm
Hover tanks from several companys and I can kit bash a good one pretty
simply. Yet the only company's I can think of make good 15mm sci-fi is
GZG and PP...Since GZG stuff is darn nice and PP is hit and miss I think GZG
should be slamming the 15 sci-fi's hot and heavy...A stronger company
means that I might get to finish buying all the 25's I want. As far as army
specific tanks and what not, I don't think it needs to be done....a small note
in the item description saying where Eq is made would be cool and could fit
the flavor..
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_18953_1177379758_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_18953_1177379758_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI have plenty of GK
stuff and love it. I would like to make some of my own stuff though.
I believe the middle ground of providing a bit of variety but staying away
from specific designs for specific nations is a good way to go. I know plenty
of folks who use NAC troops for Aussies or NSL for Americans, etc. Heck, I saw
one person who used Israelis as alien troopers.
The thing that has made GZGs line strong is variety. In all their infantry
lines you are bound to find a trooper style that fits your vision (unless your
me, but that's my problem) of your force. Same goes for Full Thrust. There is
a ship style for everyone. Now, if they can achieve this with the 15mm
vehicles, they will have done a great thing and the hobby will be all the
better for it.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Chris Slavensky" <sepplainer@gmail.com>
> On 4/23/07, emu2020@comcast.net <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
I think the key here is going to be variety - within reason. Having
just one contribution to each category of vehicle will lead the GZG hobby to a
bit of stagnation. As the supply of good 15mm vehicles is still pretty
limited, I do hope that GZG will add a few more designs to each of their
categories.
Of course they have done wonderful things for adding variety by including the
bits (grav emitters, guns, etc). I would like to see them make the walker legs
available seperately as well. These all allow us to take vehicles from other
companies and tweak them, widening the
variety. I know that some T-55s will be getting some grav emitters soon
to make them into low-tech grav vehicles. I would love to be able to
give some WW2 German Scout Cars legs too.
-Eli
Gear Kreig figs can still be found. I don't play 15mm Sci-fi but I
understand why the 15mm line is getting all the love right now. I can buy 25mm
Hover tanks from several companys and I can kit bash a good one pretty simply.
Yet the only company's I can think of make good 15mm
sci-fi is GZG and PP...Since GZG stuff is darn nice and PP is hit and
miss I think GZG should be slamming the 15 sci-fi's hot and heavy...A
stronger company means that I might get to finish buying all the 25's I want.
As far as army specific tanks and what not, I don't think it needs to be
done....a small note in the item description saying where Eq is made would be
cool and could fit the flavor..
> On 4/23/07, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se> wrote:
I wondered about that. The Leo2 A5 and A6 in particular look like the front of
the turret would act as a turret trap, funnelling a shot to that part of the
tank either down into the driving compartment or into the turret ring. Is it
not a shot trap because of the sharp angle?
> I think the key here is going to be variety - within reason. Having
OK, who else would want some of the Walker legs in accessory packs? I
mean REALLY want them, as in be prepared to actually buy some - the
reason I ask this is that when we released the grav repulsor pads as accessory
packs, lots of folks said "fantastic, I want some", but to date we've probably
sold no more than a handful of packs of them....
:-/
> On 4/23/07, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se> wrote:
> >Seriously, There probably aren't a dozen different main battle tanks
Near as I call tell, from a 6mm or 15mm gamer's perspective, the K1 is
visually indistinct from an M-1. :) But that's also with over a
hundred armies to equip. In a universe dominated by a tiny number of major
superpowers, with the thousands of AFVs that each of them would be building,
would it make economic sense for the smaller nations to maintain their own
tank industry rather than buying or
license-building minor variations on the big 4's stuff?
> That's a dozen different countries with their own distinct-looking
On the other hand, for the basic "troop carrier, wheeled" and 'troop carrier,
tracked' only a dedicated and passionate armor nut can tell the difference
between most of the basic, inexpensive, utilitarian designs. There doesn't
appear to be much flexibility in efficient design choices.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 4/23/07, Chris
> Slavensky <sepplainer@gmail.com> wrote:
Brigade also makes quite a nice line of 15mm vehicles. They don't, however, do
25.
But plenty of 15s.
DLD (if they are still around) makes both 15s and 25s of the same vehicle
types. Though I tend to think their 15s are a wee bit larger than your average
15 might be.
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTo be honest, I
know my needs are only within the special order category and as long as you
folk are willing to accomidate that then I see no reason for actual packs. I
tend not to ask for special orders after a few rather distasteful experiences
with other manufacturers.
-E
> To be honest, I know my needs are only within the special order
Well, we're generally happy to help with special-order bits where we
can, let me know what you need. I assume that you've had some manufacturers
unwilling to do this, or have they simply overcharged you for the bits? We try
to price them fairly, allowing for the fact that there is always extra labour
time (and thus cost) involved in producing odd bits from moulds that are set
up for complete kits.
The walker legs MIGHT still be worth us offering as a stock item, I was just
interested to see if anyone else really wanted any.
Best,
Jon (GZG)
> -E
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI have both been
overpriced and everything short of scoffed at for even considering it. I am
not sure how many I need yet. But I will certainly get in touch with you when
I have the numbers. One thing you may want to consider, if you do them as a
pack is to include some "shoulder joints". This
would assist in the modification of other, non-legged models into legged
models.
This may be beyond the scope of what you want to do as it means designing a
new part and mold, but I think it would make the legs a lot more usable.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
> >To be honest, I know my needs are only within the special order
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> I strongly suspect that the Merk4 has the same kind of armour
No. It is not a shot trap because the sloping outer surface doesn't stop
the incoming KE penetrator at all, much less causes it to bounce or deflect
- instead that outer plate causes the penetrator to yaw, thus greatly
reducing its effect against the (vertical) main armour.
Later,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Some further examples:
K1 tank: <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/k1-pics.htm>
Different hull shape (the glacis in particular looks more like a Leo1 than an
Abrams), different number of road wheels, different turret shape (the K1
turret looks kinda like a cross between an Abrams and an early
Merkava)...
if you can't tell this tank from an Abrams at 15mm scale, your eyesight
must be WAY worse than mine :-)
(FWIW Korea has also recently revealed a K2 tank, which looks a bit like a
cross between a Leclerc and a CV90 but has very few visual similarities to the
Abrams.)
> But that's also with over a hundred armies to equip. In a universe
> minor variations on the big 4's stuff?
Right now we have a single planet dominated by *one single* superpower,
with *no* major wars going on between MBT-using armies, and we *still*
have at least a dozen different countries building their own MBTs.
In the GZGverse we have *multiple* superpowers plus a wide variety of
lesser powers, both on and off Earth, who for the past half-century or
more have almost continuously been fighting one another in shifting
coalitions. In a situation like that, I am utterly convinced that every nation
with the
industrial capability to do so would build their own combat vehicles -
while this might not make complete *economic* sense for a minor power, it
would most certainly make very good *strategic* sense not to make yourself
dependent of the superpowers for your supply of combat vehicles and spare
parts to same.
> On the other hand, for the basic "troop carrier, wheeled" and 'troop
Most of these are similar, yes... but even there you get a variety of
visually distinct vehicles like MT-LB, M113, YPR-765/AIFV (which is a
development of the M113, but with a distinctly different rear hull), BvS10 and
so on. I mostly agree about the *wheeled* troop carriers though <g>
Later,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe comments below
illustrate a good point. I think the key to variation may not even require new
chasis designs. In examinign the comments in this thread and my own personal
shopping habits when hunting for conversion fodder I realized that what I
really look for in most is turret shape and gun style. Other things are
secondary like tracks and body style. One can think of the turret as the
"face" of the vehicle.
So far GZG has been great in making the various components interchangible
between the different vehicles. The guns, even some of the turrets seem to be
swapable. The production of new turret styles might fill the bill just as
easily. We have lots of blocky, "western" style turrets. Perhaps the addition
of some alternate turret designs would be a quicker fix. Perhaps using the
same master models for the hulls to make new molds that include the turrets? I
dunno, I'm just an idea guy. I am sure this would be just like molding whole
new models but there wouldn't be as much investment in new model sculpts.
-Eli
> Near as I call tell, from a 6mm or 15mm gamer's perspective, the K1 is
> visually indistinct from an M-1. :) But that's also with over a
> On the other hand, for the basic "troop carrier, wheeled" and 'troop
> On 4/24/07, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se> wrote:
Oh! I get it. That makes sense. Thanks!
> On 4/24/07, emu2020@comcast.net <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
One can
> think of the turret as the "face" of the vehicle.
Perhaps
> using the same master models for the hulls to make new molds that
For what it's worth, I play primarily 6mm. But I store my turrets and hulls
seperately and match them to the specific model.
For instance, I have two models of grav medium tank that I use, one
MDC-armed and one DFFG-armed. Same hull, different turret. The same
turrets on tracked hulls produce the second-echelon forces with HKP
and DFFG.
YMMV.