Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re: [GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@g...>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:33:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re: [GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
On 4/22/07, Ground Zero Games <email@example.com> 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....
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
> 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.
That would be pretty monotonous. IMHO.
> 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....
TO&Es for15mm forces? Did I miss that discussion?
> 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..... ;-)
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.
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again. We're looking for thousands of Persians."
Gzg-l mailing list