[URL] Latest GZG Advert

FYI

The latest GZG advert, the one with the cool new GZG logo and Hammer Slammers
stuff and Phalons is here:

http://www.angelfire.com/on/fullthrust/images/gzgadvert.jpg

NOTE: 214Kb - its BIG so you can read it and compressed
as much as possible before the quality degrades.

All copyrights acknowledged, no infringements intended.

> Tim Jones wrote:

Very nice!

BTW, Jon, is there a plan to get those Slammer's minis down to 6mm for us DSII
guys?

> Tim Jones wrote:

Thank you!

Tom

> Tim Jones wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> >Tim Jones wrote:

Now Jon, uyou only bring it upon yourself.

Later,

> On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:40:41 -0600 (CST), "<Mark Andrew Siefert>" writes:

At least tehy weren't asking for drop ships and skiff infantry also. Wait a
sec....

The Siefert sed:
***
> On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> >Tim Jones wrote:

Now Jon, uyou only bring it upon yourself.
***

On purpose, methinks.

I was going back through old GZG posts, trying to answer the MTvsSMB/PDS
question (never did find an answer; did Jon make one?), and found a tonne of
'stuff' brought up, but nothing came of 'em as I recall.

Remember FT dice? GZG decals? Bugs Don't Surf? (ok, maybe the advert answered
that one...)

The_Beast

> Ground Zero Games wrote:

> >BTW, Jon, is there a plan to get those Slammer's minis down to 6mm

We also need open hover jeeps with tribarrels (also useful for Traveller Air
Raft usage), Caliopes for UDB units, and infantrymen with skimmers. Hover
jeeps with mortars would also be good. BTW, you know what would
be cool?  Doing a mortar-carrier version of your APC line--the generic
Future Wars APCs that come in grav and tracked versions. In all your copious
spare time, of course.

did anybody ever scan the pics from this new advert for us in the US to see

> "John M. Atkinson" wrote:

> The Siefert sed:

The ratio of what we'd LIKE to do, against what we're ABLE to do seems to
be around 10:1....usually due to time, money or both - lack thereof,
that
is.  ;)

BDS will happen one day (probably about the time my third clone is grown
enough to use a computer... <grin>). Things like dice and decals are
gambles that we haven't been in a position to take yet - they both
require a fair outlay to get started, and there is no way to really predict
whether
they would sell enough to be worthwhile - you have to make A LOT of
something like this to get a sensible unit price. Of course, if everyone on
the list pre-ordered a dozen sheets of decals each, THEN we could be
sure enough to print them....;) We have a number of regular visitors to our
stand at the shows (I won't call them "customers", because that would imply
that they buy something....) who are very fond of saying "Hey, why don't you
make XXXXX (insert odd or obscure item of choice here), that'd be really
good!". What they actually mean is, "If you spent a lot of money and time
getting XXXXX sculpted and into production, I MIGHT buy ONE, if I haven't
started collecting something else entirely by then....."

> On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> [quoted text omitted]
<snip>
> BDS will happen one day (probably about the time my third clone is
<snip>
> Jon (GZG) - feeling just a little bit cynical tonight... <grin!>

Ok Jon, just tell me where to send the money order!!!;)

> Christopher wrote:

> did anybody ever scan the pics from this new advert for us

<slightly_suprised>
whats this then?

http://www.angelfire.com/on/fullthrust/images/gzgadvert.jpg
</slightly_suprised>

> Jon wrote:

> the list pre-ordered a dozen sheets of decals each, THEN we

Depending on content of the sheets I would buy at least a couple so would most
of the die hards. But after than yeah, its pretty open as to whether it would
fly. People with already painted ships may already have insignia, but most
would probably want to add the proper ones.

Speaking of risks though, Snails in space, not something I would have thought
would have been *that* popular. However I think there is a GZG *effect*. If
you produce it people will buy it.

6mm Slammers though, no worries.

> BTW, Jon, is there a plan to get those Slammer's minis down to 6mm for

Probably because that's the instant response from us micro fan tpes.

> On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> We have a number of regular visitors to our stand at the shows (I
What
> they actually mean is, "If you spent a lot of money and time getting

yeah! what you should start doing is 1/1000 nanoarmour, or, even better,
microships - where a BB is a couple of inches long and costs 1 pound;
then i could afford a proper fleet rather than "oops, forgot the escorts; oh,

there goes the battlecruiser".

Tom

In a message dated 99-02-04 08:17:33 EST, you write:

<< yeah! what you should start doing is 1/1000 nanoarmour, or, even
better,
 microships - where a BB is a couple of inches long and costs 1 pound;
then i could afford a proper fleet rather than "oops, forgot the escorts; oh,
there goes the battlecruiser".

 Tom
> [quoted text omitted]
What might be interesting is a set of minis based on the NTDS.
-Stephen

> yeah! what you should start doing is 1/1000 nanoarmour, or, even
oh,
> there goes the battlecruiser".

> Tom

Tom, think laterally. Just because its identified as (say) a destroyer in the
catalogue doesn't mean you can't use it as (say) a Battleship in your games.
You might have a problem with what to use for fighters (pinheads maybe?)

Mike

________________________________________________________________________
___

> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 Mike.Elliott@bull.co.uk wrote:

> >yeah! what you should start doing is 1/1000 nanoarmour, or, even

i know, i know, and i've done this quite a few times. there is a line in one
of the appendices to ft which says exactly what you've just said, more or less
word for word. i rember pointing this out to a friend who wasn't happy about
me using a GZG BC as an FT BB, and who was subsequently very perplexed that a
company could advise people to disregard its own
classification of models - at this stage, we weren't far out of our
pudding workshop days, so such a thing was unthinkable :-).

anyway, the problems with that are:

- doesn't sit well with munchkins; not really a big problem - a thump in
the head usually sits even less well. not that i'm advocating violence against
such people, you understand. well, maybe just a little.

- the battleship models generally look a lot cooler than the destroyers
-
the NAC BC is really sweet, but the destroyer is a bit... uch.

- you are then stuck for smaller ships (potentially)

- there are no carriers small enough

- most people have assembled fleets based on the standard size patterns,
so if you suggest playing a game using only their smallest models, they get
upset. microships would introduce a way you can do this with some sort
of formal legitimacy. i can't express this terribly well (p-nitrophenol
phosphate seeping into brain...), but it's like the difference between 25
mm and 1/300. a bit.

all in all, though, you're right. i just really like that BC.

actually, come to think of it, the NAC BC/BB looks a lot like the
eponymous ST Voyager. surely not...

> You might have a problem with what to use for fighters

little bits of card saying "FIGHTER GROUP A"!

Tom

In a message dated 99-02-05 10:50:46 EST, you write:

<< little bits of card saying "FIGHTER GROUP A"!

Tom >> How about a box with a infinity loop in the center with a line showing
were it is going and what speed? On a battle field with just those showing
units it looks very cool.
-Stephen

Tom, When I stated, I purchased only ships under Cruiser mass (as they provide
more than one ship per blister). Since I was providing all the ships for the
games, I could name the Destroyers as Capitals, Firgates as Cruisers, and
Corvettes as Escorts. This worked great. Also, when I gamed against other
players with larger ships, it still worked, because my range was still in
proportion to itself. The only problem came when I needed to play in a game
with more than one player on my side.

> Thomas Anderson wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Ground Zero Games wrote:
then
> i could afford a proper fleet rather than "oops, forgot the escorts;
oh,
> there goes the battlecruiser".