Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re: [GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:26:11 +0000
Subject: Re: Nailing Dirtside/Stargrunt Chamber Pots (was Re: [GZG] More re: [OFFICIAL] Salute releases....!)
Gzg-l mailing list
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.
> 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?
> 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.