Infantry Suggestion while shaking my head

This is a general forum for all types of posts related to Military models.

Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1

Rutgervanm
E5
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:08 pm
Location: Nederland

Post by Rutgervanm »

zaevor2000 wrote:I can't see the US Army and other large customers investing money in miniatures for 1947 for purely fictitious battles involving fictitious forces...
Then again, how much longer will the US Army keep using miniatures for training purposes instead of switching to ultimately cheaper and more versatile computer simulations? Perhaps launching the Wehrmacht '47 is part of GHQ's attempt to develop into other markets in order to survive.
Doug B wrote:If GHQ can't make $$ off of this we'll know because the line won't develop after 2009. There are too many geeks like us to let them go belly-up over one mistake in judgement.
Let's hope so, because I've become too addicted to 6mm in a year to be confronted with the loss of my favourite miniatures producer.


As so many of you, I also cannot see the logic in starting a whole new line, when so many gaps exist in the current WW2 and modern lines. While the opinions quickly diverge when it comes down to summing up exactly WHAT is missing, I think we can all agree on a few basics like more modern civilian vehicles and insurgents and Soviet rifle infantry. Perhaps it's time we started something like Donald M. Scheef's list of micronaut mentions to create a 'metawishlist' of moderns and WW2.

However, as I said before, allmost every wargamer is familiar with the principle of starting cool new projects before the old ones are finished. How many of us have not made impulsive buys or started impulsive projects, while rationally we knew we should finish the other stuff first (or have the wife or girlfriend tell us :roll: ). I suppose it works the same for GHQ. I'm sure they are all gamers and modellers too, who get really exited over new projects. Once they get in your head, it's hard not to act on them.

Now, one could question if it is sensible for a business to act on that kind of excitement, but then again, where would we be today without a little creativity and dynamism. While I certainly don't think it is a good decision (as Werhmacht '47 has absolutely no interest for me), perhaps I can understand why they did it.

Rutgervanm
E5
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:08 pm
Location: Nederland

Post by Rutgervanm »

Please delete this post!
Last edited by Rutgervanm on Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rutgervanm
E5
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:08 pm
Location: Nederland

Post by Rutgervanm »

Please delete this post!
Last edited by Rutgervanm on Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rutgervanm
E5
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:08 pm
Location: Nederland

Post by Rutgervanm »

Please delete this post!
Last edited by Rutgervanm on Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rutgervanm
E5
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:08 pm
Location: Nederland

Post by Rutgervanm »

Please delete this post!
Last edited by Rutgervanm on Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rutgervanm
E5
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:08 pm
Location: Nederland

Post by Rutgervanm »

Please delete this post!
Last edited by Rutgervanm on Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jb
E5
Posts: 2160
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Antananarivo

Post by jb »

DAK wrote: Like someone had mentioned earlier NATO vs the Warsaw pact never happened either...
WHOOOA...never happened? Maybe not shooting wise, but at least all the vehicles exsisted and were not just on the drawing board! And as far as I recall the cold war did happen...
John

jb
E5
Posts: 2160
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Antananarivo

Post by jb »

DAK wrote: Like someone had mentioned earlier NATO vs the Warsaw pact never happened either...
WHOOOA...never happened? Maybe not shooting wise, but at least all the vehicles exsisted and were not just on the drawing board! And as far as I recall the cold war did happen...
John

jb
E5
Posts: 2160
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Antananarivo

Post by jb »

DAK wrote: Like someone had mentioned earlier NATO vs the Warsaw pact never happened either...
WHOOOA...never happened? Maybe not shooting wise, but at least all the vehicles exsisted and were not just on the drawing board! And as far as I recall the cold war did happen...
John

zaevor2000
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by zaevor2000 »

The NATO vs. Warsaw Pact conflict did not occur in CE aka Central Europe, however, it should be recalled that NATO and WP equipped nations have clashed quite frequently post-WW2.
ArabIsraeli Wars
Iran/Iraq conflict
Pakistan/India
Both US/Iraq wars
and many others
In light of these conflicts the production of packs containing NATO/WP forces are relevent since they have been involved in numerous conflicts, not just the primary conflict they were designed for CE.
It is excellent that GHQ has produced the military equipment and personnel to recreate these conflicts. It is my hope that GHQ will produce civilian packs since civilians and civilian vehicles are almost always in the combat zones represented in our simulations. It should also be noted that civilian vehicles are often used to transport not only civilians, but military and militia as well.
In comparison the 1947 forces are entirely fictitious and have not been and will never be historically relevent. I hope this does not come across as too harsh.
There are packs I would love to see. Personally I would love to see GHQ produced Ferraris and Lamborghinis, but I do not believe the ROI would justify production of very limited appeal products such as these. I personally group the 1947 forces in this same category, a very narrowly defined niche whose place would be better filled by packs that are more representational of what would be realistically encountered in a combat environment.
There is no right or wrong, I just don't want to see GHQ stuck with a lot of lead they can't move. The economy is getting tighter and tighter which means consumers have to be increasingly more selective about what they purchase. This means that companies have to be more conservative in their product offerings, IMHO.
My shelves are filled with the bones of companies. I have many SPI, Avalon Hill, GDW games that I can't play with my son because they are out of business and cannot ever be replaced. I don't want that to be the case with my GHQ minis.
Frank

zaevor2000
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by zaevor2000 »

The NATO vs. Warsaw Pact conflict did not occur in CE aka Central Europe, however, it should be recalled that NATO and WP equipped nations have clashed quite frequently postWW2.
ArabIsraeli Wars
Iran/Iraq conflict
Pakistan/India
Both US/Iraq wars
and many others
In light of these conflicts the production of packs containing NATO/WP forces are relevent since they have been involved in numerous conflicts, not just the primary conflict they were designed for CE.
It is excellent that GHQ has produced the military equipment and personnel to recreate these conflicts. It is my hope that GHQ will produce civilian packs since civilians and civilian vehicles are almost always in the combat zones represented in our simulations. It should also be noted that civilian vehicles are often used to transport not only civilians, but military and militia as well.
In comparison the 1947 forces are entirely fictitious and have not been and will never be historically relevent. I hope this does not come across as too harsh.
There are packs I would love to see. Personally I would love to see GHQ produced Ferraris and Lamborghinis, but I do not believe the ROI would justify production of very limited appeal products such as these. I personally group the 1947 forces in this same category, a very narrowly defined niche whose place would be better filled by packs that are more representational of what would be realistically encountered in a combat environment.
There is no right or wrong, I just don't want to see GHQ stuck with a lot of lead they can't move. The economy is getting tighter and tighter which means consumers have to be increasingly more selective about what they purchase. This means that companies have to be more conservative in their product offerings, IMHO.
My shelves are filled with the bones of companies. I have many SPI, Avalon Hill, GDW games that I can't play with my son because they are out of business and cannot ever be replaced. I don't want that to be the case with my GHQ minis.
Frank

zaevor2000
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by zaevor2000 »

It should be noted that Nato and Warsaw Pact equipment has been used in many postWW2 conflicts such as the ArabIsraeli wars,IranIraq, and USIraq conflicts as well as many others.

Frank

Doug B
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Doug B »

AK wrote:
Like someone had mentioned earlier NATO vs the Warsaw pact never happened either...

WHOOOA...never happened? Maybe not shooting wise, but at least all the vehicles exsisted and were not just on the drawing board! And as far as I recall the cold war did happen...
Stirring the pot, on one hand we have a real war extending two years and using "sci-fi" equipment (which we don't have a list of yet). On the other we have real kit for a "sci-fi" war.

I buy into the argument of Arab v Israel, Indo-Pak, Indo-Sino, etc wars. But if we want to stay "historical" then no T80s, no BMP2s, no Leo1s/2s, no Chieftans etc, right?
I don't think the US military would call their National Training Center sessions agasint WARPAC-like OPFOR "sci-fi alternate history".
NTC? Dude, that was all TRAINING. They used M551s dressed up as commie tanks. C'mon. :wink:

And can we find a way to fix the multiple posts????

Panzerleader71
E5
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by Panzerleader71 »

I am really not sure what the issue is here. GHQ puts out a quality product, and has been around since '67. I think they know what they are doing. As example they are not raising their prices 11% like another miniature company I could name. Their customer service has been top notch when I have dealt with them, and they are very quick to make good on any mucked up orders. If they have come out with a '47 line then there must be a market for it., and if there isn't and dies they will be th firt to say "whoops, looks like we made a mistake here."

I really don't think we have much to worry about.

zaevor2000
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by zaevor2000 »

Panzerleader, that is exactly our point.

A lot of us have literally THOUSANDS of GHQ minis, absolutely love the unparalleled quality, are totally blown away by the warmth and friendliness of the GHQ family when we call in or need something taken care of...

...as someone else said we want to still be able to buy from GHQ when we are too old to paint them and pass the torch on to the next generation...We all want our children to be able to experience and enjoy the wonderful experience of seeing tons of beautiful minis that YOU have painted and created (not just knocked out and sloppily painted out of some foreign sweatshop).

With the economy being in dangerous shape a lot of us are very concerned...We don't want to see any false misteps that could jeopardize the company's future and know that economy of scale requires a substantial production run on items that may just sit...

I am looking right now as I speak at SPI's War in the Pacific, War in Europe, The Next War, Mech War 2, Art of Siege(mint), Eric Goldberg's Kursk(mint), Atlantic Wall (mint), Wellington's Victory(mint), Campaign for North Africa (mint), etc. The fact that SPI went out of business almost 30 years ago (SPI really died when TSR bought them out), means that the games just listed are worth HUNDREDS each... I would trade them all for SPI still being around and being able to buy SPI games to this day...

I don't want to have GHQ minis that are worth tons of money because the company is no longer with us...

I have invested in over 2,000 GHQ minis. I have invested tons of time to paint them ALL to a good standard (I have posted my pics on this site and others on this forum have seen them in person). I care very much about this company, their people and their products and want them to continue for another 40 years and more...

Frank

Post Reply