GHQ Models Forums

The BMP-1. I understand its a dated model, but I really don't like it and think it needs to be updated.

I generally like the GHQ decals, except the Canadian/West Germany pack -- two part decals. Ugh!

Pat Callahan
www.microarmormayhem.com

My personal beef is the amount of flash and bending that comes with the Warsaw Pact infantry's AK barrels. Its a pain to work with them and bend them carefully back into place so my INF look halfway decent. Some I can't even salvage, and end up only with AK-74U length barrels.

I dislike the new infantry that are almost as tall as the vehicles. I understand why they make them that way, but I still don't like it. However, what really drives me up the wall is that GHQ puts all that detail on their models, and I'm not a skilled enough painter to do the models justice.
Groundlber

Obviously we know that we aren't perfect. With the thousands of customers that we have, it would be impossible to satisfy all of them in every way. There have been a number of threads/posts over the years that we have not taken down that most definitely express disapproval of how we run things/choose models/respond to customer requests/etc. However, starting a topic "What do you hate from GHQ?" seems to be pushing it. We have created this forum as a place that modelers/gamers/military historians can exchange information and ideas. Many of the users,admittedly, aren't even GHQ customers. A topic like this seems akin to stopping in at an open house, then telling the hosts the things that you don't like, and trying to get the other guests to chime in about the things that they don't like. Obviously we invite debate (sometimes at our own expense), but we do what we can to create a harmonious atmosphere for all. That includes the hosts. This topic seems to start off with an extremely strong word that most people, and companies, don't like to be associated with. Many companies would strike this thread down immediately, and most people wouldn't ever know that it came up. As you can see, we have not.

Thank you for your support,
GHQ

Boy, for me "hate" would be a pretty strong word.

The closest I can come to "hate" would be that I "hate" not having ALL of the stuff I've bought from GHQ painted up and ready to go out on the wargaming table!

Seriously, my "in process" and "to be done" boxes are a major source of stress to me. Yet I can not give up my hope that I will get to them all, and so I can not bear the thought of selling any of it off, or giving any of it away, or even engaging someone else to paint up any of the stil-in-boxes stuff.

Oh, and I also can not stop buying the new and exciting stuff when it comes out. Though I am getting a bit better at that waiting until I have some gaming need (did I say "need"? Ha HA HA ha ha... ).

This is an odd thing about me (OK, not the only odd thing I admit!). I don't have any problem buying nicely painted micros. But I just can not give up my unpainted micros to someone else to paint. I can't do it. I have tried arranging some trades with another guy I know who does a very nice job painting, but doesn't have enough money to buy much. I have talked to him about giving him some numbers of kit, having him paint them all up, and keep a few for himself. But when push comes to shove, I just can't DO it.

OK, maybe I do "hate" it when I scratch-build some key piece of kit, or when I go to a brand-X vendor for some key piece(s) of kit, only to see those items show up in the GHQ catalog , at which point I wind up buying duplicates from GHQ. But I can hardly blame that on GHQ, and with the look-ahead they give each year on these forums I find that happening less and less over time.

More seriously I can easily come up with some things I'd like to see GHQ doing differently. For example I have been an active voice in the forums about the selection of poses in the individual infantry packs. But hey, I have never seen any company that was perfect.

I have seen that GHQ pays attention to what their customers say. We have all seen their new offerings along several paths that have been discussed here in the forums over the recent years.

Examples that come to mind:

- The famous (infamous?) Mathilda Mk 1
- The new (2nd sets) of German, US, and Soviet individual infantry and heavy weapons
- The listing of the poses on several of the new infantry packs
- The US 37mm AT gun
- The whole range of Romanian and Hungarian forces
- The Modern Chinese individual infantry, and all of the new Modern Chinese vehicles

I'm sure there are more that you guys can name.

We have come to "demand" so much from GHQ, in part I think because they stand out so far from all the other vendors in terms of the quality of their product. There really is no other company in this market that is in the same league as GHQ. And so we want everything that our gaming armies need to be available from GHQ. And we want it right now!

Boy, have a little mercy there, fellas! No one company can do everything for everyone.

And they even give us the soapbox on which we stand and offer our comments and critiques on how they do business. That's not an easy thing to do. That takes a pretty progressive (and resilient) frame of mind.

Nope, not much to hate in my book -- rather more to admire.

Now if we could just get them to fund a "Micro-armor Addicts Annonymous" program or some such ...

To be honest, I cannot really think of anything I hate. The infantry thing kind of irks me as well, but I can learn to live with it. And I do scratch my head a bit with GHQ, and other companies putting out the so-called "monster" hypothetical vehicles, before they have covered the full "real" eras of the war.

As a rule GHQ listens to the customer base much better then other companies.

For me...there is no hatred towards a company such as GHQ. I may dislike certain items, but that more of a personal choice. One thing that I would like to see GHQ improve on are some WW2 items...such as British PIAT figures so that are much more like the German Schreks & Fausts as well as US Bazooka figures...individual.
I like the updated version of the T-72 and wish to see the T-62, BMP-1 to be updated as well as a few more items...otherwise, I think GHQ has done a good job so far.

Yeah this thread might seem like trolling or sniping in a way, but really, the fact that I personally can only find one thing that I dislike after all the purchases I made is no small feat.

"I like the updated version of the T-72 ..."

This is one point I may have a problem with. Granted I don't know much about the differing varients of the T-72, but isn't the new model the version used by Iraq in the Gulf War(ie "the Lion of Babylon?) If so doesn't that make it the wrong model for those who want to replicate a 70's-'80s Cold War/WWIII Soviet unit accurately?

I'm all for offering udated equipment models, but keep the old variants as well.

There isn't much to dislike about GHQ...

variable infantry scales when they advertise as being accurate to scale is a 'moral' issue of sorts for me, but I know many don't care.

The biggest gripe I have is the package groupings and one or two missing items. One I cannot understand is the 6pdr pack for the UK. Since when did UK forces tow 6 pdrs with CMP 15cwt's? Maybe occasionally in Italy, but that's a Canadian rig. GHQ have already established a willingness to only sell certain tractors as part of a gun kit (UK 17pdr for example) but the most common tow for a 6 pdr was the loyd carrier. Not uncommon either... 26,000 produced and also used as wire layers and mechanics vehicles. I like the GHQ 6pdr but why buy it when the tows are surplus to requirements? Make the right thing! I could say something similar regarding the 17pdr as the Crusader tractor was only used by army level AT regiments (which still has the surplus to requirements issue) but at least they were a genuine pairing. My last example is the UK trucks pack with the QL and QLR; a division will have hundreds of QL's, and maybe 2 or 3 QLR's. The QLR should be in a UK command or communications pack and the QL sold just as a GP transport.

As previously mentioned on other threads, infantry packs that do not provide a balanced group of figures (equipment wise)... a pack should be a half company, the heavy weapons pack a half support company.

Having a thread that is predominantly 'negative' (but not anti) is one way to let GHQ know some of the reasons we source some things from other suppliers. If handled sensibly (and they seem to be) this can only be useful intel.

P

I have to dig a little to come up with any kind of complaint about GHQ. The models are outstanding, I've had excellent customer service on all orders (unlike the snarky guy at a competitor firm who, when I complained about an order not arriving, told me never to order from him again...). The models are a bit fragile, but it's my choice to allow my ham-fisted fellow gamers to paw them.

Really, my only gripe is the recent selection of WW1 ships GHQ has introduced. The fixation on the Russian navy has, for me, gone beyond the point where the ships have any interest. The choice of a very temporary configuration of HMS Furious was a bit of a waste - you would want to use either the all-gun or all-carrier version in scenarios.

I agree that GHQ's selection of the version of HMS Furious to model is the least desirable. Although never built, the two-turret version as designed is interesting to fans of hypothetical ships (compare, for example, to USS Montana and German "H" class battleships). I am interested in hypothetical ships, so I would have liked to have GHQ model this version. As is, I intend to cut off the bow of GWB26 just forward of the bridge and graft on the forward section of a GWB27. Fortunately, GHQ provides two gun mounts in GWB27.

As built (and as modelled by GHQ) Furious had a single 18" mount aft and a flying-off deck forward. The only significant event in this appearance was the historically-significant first landing of an aircraft on a moving ship. This was a very hazardous undertaking, requiring the pilot to fly past the superstructure, sideslip over the deck, plant the aircraft on the deck, and hope that the deck crew could grab onto the wings and prevent bouncing off the side. An attempt to duplicate the first landing led to destruction of the aircraft and death of the pilot.

Furious was then modified by replacing the after turret with a landing-on deck. The large superstructure remained, separating the two section of level deck. This was the appearance of the ship during the more significant raid on the Tondern Zeppelin hangers. For fans of historical combats, this would be a much more apealing model than that done by GHQ. Converting GWB27 to this appearance is actually a bit easier than converting it to the two-gun version. This involves building up a box structure from thick metal foil, thin plastic sheet, card stock, or your choice of putty and then attaching this over the after gun mount.

After the end of the First World War, Furious was redesigned to provide a continuous upper deck with a smaller flying-off deck below and forward of the upper deck. This is generally similar to the appearance of GHQ's UKN4 (a small superstructure on the starboard side of the upper deck and anti-aircraft guns were added before WWII.). Again, as a fan of hypothetical combats, I would like to have this appearance for wars in the 1920s and 1930s. For a reasonable approximation, use UKN4 less the superstructure and remove the guns and other obstructions from the lower open deck.

Don S.