Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re: [GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:58:13 +0100
Subject: Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re: [GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
>On Sunday 22 April 2007 16:02, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>> I'd actually be quite interested to hear other peoples' opinions on
>> this - unlike the Starships, for the ground stuff (whether it be in
>> 15mm, 25mm or 6mm) I've tended to keep away from saying "this mini
>> a UNSC (or NAC, NSL, whatever) tank", because I think it tends to
>> railroad SOME people into the "I don't do that army, so I can't use
>> that mini" mindset. I'd rather that folks felt free to use just
>> whatever they like when they build their armies up. What do you
>> about it? Would you rather have everything tied down to "official"
>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.
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
>put together an army for Dirtside simply because there doesn't
>seem to be any easy way to classify the models beyond the
>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
>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?
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..... ;-)
>The *big* problem I can see is that you'd have to do each range 3 times
>(6mm, 15mm, 25mm).
>Be seeing you, http://www.glendale.org.uk
>Sam. Mail/IM (Jabber): email@example.com
>Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l mailing list