GHQ Models Forums

It seems like the idea of new CC's based on existing GHQ models has been kicked around for years but never sees the light of day. what about creating a way for customers to build their own CC's? Surely GHQ has some kind of generic formula they use when they are deciding what will go into a CC and how many of each thing. Couldn't there be a way to design an element to the shopping cart that would allow customers to create their own? I would use something like that often to begin new armies (dutch, danish, canadian, east german, czech, poland, soviets in the 60's, etc etc.) Thoughts?

Looking at the Combat Commands GHQ has put out so far, I don't think they have a generic formula. It seems to me that they use their own informed judgment about what would be a reasonable representation of a unit that will fit into the restrictions of their sales pricing.

I don't see why anyone couldn't come up with good lists of Combat Command contents using models GHQ has put out. Does anyone want to work up such lists? (Sorry, but I'm preoccupied with real world work and, in my spare time, Micronauts.)

Don S.

I'd go for that idea.

I bought most of my new micro armor utilizing the regular packaging. If one looks at the modern Russian of 10 T-80s and 10 BMP-2s for $39.95 or buy two packages of each at 9.95 I am .15 better off. For the US, instead of 14 Abrams for $39.95 along with hummv's, trucks, For 3 packs at $9/95 I get 15 Abrams, so I am better off. Or buy 4 packs of Abrams for $39.80. I have plenty of Hummvs, trucks and M577 TOCs.

I third the idea. It would be useful for being able to tailor a purchase towards a specific battle group without having extras.

Also a note regarding their US tank and mechanized infantry CCs: what you get is almost exactly what a tank and mechanized infantry company is authorized to have equipment wise. The M577 command track is not present at the company level, at least in line companies. The CO is either in a tank or a bradley depending on the company.

This would be great for me... possibly no so great for GHQ, however. :-}

From a business point of view, i'm not sure how viable that is. To have a customizable one would require someone personally puts it together then sends it out. That takes extra time as a pose to mass producing products and keeping them in storage then sending them out for orders.

If they enlarge their range to cover too many, perhaps obscure, countries then they've got a large initial investment there that people might not buy. Who knows though, maybe their warehouse has some extra space begging to be filled

"From a business point of view, i'm not sure how viable that is. To have a customizable one would require someone personally puts it together then sends it out. That takes extra time as a pose to mass producing products and keeping them in storage then sending them out for orders. "

They must have someone who puts the current CCs together. This would be, essentially, just placing a special order.

Panzerleader71 wrote: They must have someone who puts the current CCs together. This would be, essentially, just placing a special order.

I expect they have someone who puts any packages of finished pieces together. But putting together standard packages, whether 5 piece packs, or 30 piece CCs, is a very different activity when you are building inventory than when you are filling an order.

Let us consider and compare some hypothetical purchases:

1 ) Larry Treadhead orders a U.S. Medium Tank Company combat command. Bob C. Ghq (pronounced "Ghhhhk") goes to the packaged parts inventory, takes one off the shelf and heads for shipping. Or something like that...

2 ) Larry Treadhead orders 3 packs of M4A3 (75mm), 1 pack of M4A3 (105mm), a Sherman accessories pack (for his dozer blades), and then goes rummaging through his own extras to see if he has a couple of jeeps, a halftrack, a trailer, and a couple of GMC 2 1/2 ton trucks. If he doesn't have extras of some of these items, he orders a pack of them, too, and winds up with extras. Still out one M31 ARV, though. Hmmm. Maybe he'll manage. Or he'll order a pack of those, too. Bob C. Ghq goes to the packaged parts inventory with a pick-list from the order, and pulls 6 or 8 packs of stuff, and heads for shipping.

3 ) Larry Treadhead orders two packs of M4A3 (75mm), adds three Sherman Hulls and Turrets, adds three Sherman (105mm) hulls and turrets, adds 3 jeeps, 2 GMC trucks, three dozer blades, one ARV, and one light trailer. Bob C. Ghq takes the pick-list from the order and goes to packaged parts inventory for the two packs of Sherman 75s, and to the un-packaged pieces inventory for the rest of the morning, before heading to shipping.

If Larry goes with option 2, he will have spent something like 50% more money, and he'll get extra Sherman 75s, extra jeeps, extra trucks, an extra ARV, and the other Sherman accessories (Calliopes and mine-roller) that he may, or may not, have wanted. Not too bad of a deal, in that he pays more but gets more. Only problems are he may not want the extras, and he doesn't get the Bunker Box.

If Larry goes with option 3 he'll get the same number of micro's, but no Bunker Box, for about 3 or 4x the price of the combat command. Which is probably "fair" because Bob C. Ghq will have spent a LOT of time putting the order together -- which is why the single-piece prices are higher per unit than the boxed sets price.

Comparing these examples demonstrates, to me, that the value of the Combat Commands is two fold.

First, CCs offer some minor discount in volume purchasing. But that's easy for GHQ to duplicate just by offering volume discounts ("save X% on oders over $Y"). No "custom CC" approach is needed to achieve that. GHQ could even have a "free Bunker Box with every order of 4 packages or more" kind of promotion, if they wanted. If you've been around here long enough, you know that GHQ does in fact offer promotional volume discount programs from time to time. No real news there.

Second, CCs offer the ability to get small numbers of non-main kit without buying far more than you might want, at substantial discounts vs. the per-piece pricing. The problem with a "custom CC" approach is that it will not improve GHQ's costs of doing the per-piece picking. You still have Bob C. Ghq mulling about in pre-packaged inventory with a pick list looking for hulls and turrets.

Bob's time is lost in looking among the many hundreds of bins to find the turrets he needs. Once he has found each of the bins on the pick-list, it doesn't take 10x more time to pull out 30 turrets vs. 3 turrets. A little bit longer due to the counting -- maybe between half-again to twice as long? So maybe it would take something like 2x more time to build 10 CCs, as to build 1 CC. That is to say there is something like a 5x manpower efficiency achieved by having standard CCs that can be built-up for inventory, rather than custom CCs that are done in one-off fashion. Now, is it exactly 5x, or is it more like 3x, or is it 8x? I don't know, but GHQ probably has a reasonably good idea. That's why the per-piece pricing is higher than the packaged parts pricing.

So I expect any "Build Your Own CC" would have to be restricted to standard packages from the catalog to offer any sustantial discounting. That would defeat one of the main advantages of the CCs. And it would not be substantially different from GHQ's common promotional discounts, except maybe in name.

Pardon the stupid question all. What is the reason that GHQ puts (typically) 5 models to the pack? At least on most tanks/afv models, that is the case. Is it economics? Or does it correlate to the old standard of five tanks to a platoon? Ive been collecting this stuff for 15+ years and I have never had the nerve to ask.

"Pardon the stupid question all. What is the reason that GHQ puts (typically) 5 models to the pack? At least on most tanks/afv models, that is the case. Is it economics? Or does it correlate to the old standard of five tanks to a platoon? Ive been collecting this stuff for 15+ years and I have never had the nerve to ask."

Not a stupid question at all. As far as I can tell it is because they sell packs to their own TO&Es for the their games (ie 4 Shermans to a platoon with 1 extra for a command tank.) Though I am not sure why other ancillary vehicles (ie recovery vehicles) are sold 5 to a pack.

Panzerleader71 wrote:"
Not a stupid question at all. As far as I can tell it is because they sell packs to their own TO&Es for the their games (ie 4 Shermans to a platoon with 1 extra for a command tank.) Though I am not sure why other ancillary vehicles (ie recovery vehicles) are sold 5 to a pack.

'Fraid not.
Originally, (going back 40+ years here) all GHQ micro items were sold 5 per pack.
That was years before they published their first rule set; so no correlation.
As for recovery vehicles- I don't know about "moderns", but the WW2 ones are sold in packs of 2.
edit-the Bussing Nag- 4500 crane is 3 per pack
This includes ARV's, as well as wheeled and half-tracked variants...

Ok, not strictly for their own rules but it still is 4 vehicles to a platoon and 1 command vehicle (usually) at 1:1 rules. I would assume that is why the muptiples of 5 for most items. My mistake about the ARVs and support vehicles they are sold in 2s.

Panzerleader71 wrote:Ok, not strictly for their own rules but it still is 4 vehicles to a platoon and 1 command vehicle (usually) at 1:1 rules. I would assume that is why the muptiples of 5 for most items.

I expect that rules have little to do with the standard packs.

- GHQ's current rules are not 1:1 unit scale. AIUI under "Micro Armor: the Game" for Shermans I want 4 for a company, and 13 for a battalion. So packs of 5 don't correlate.

- Other rules that are 1:1 usually go by historical TOEs, not arbitrary unitization by 5s. The idea that they are selling them by 5s to correlate to historical TOEs falls apart pretty quickly. A US WW2 tank platoon may well be 5 tanks. But a Soviet tank platoon would be 3 tanks, and a late-war German StuG battery would be 4 StuGs. And a modern M1A1 Abrams platoon would be 4 tanks. But all are sold in packs of 5. So a relatively poor correlation there, too.

I think the reason is more likely related to practical business considerations. It is wickedly expensive to pack in units of 1. So GHQ has to put some number together in a package to keep their costs (and our prices) reasonable. What number to choose? Well, if they packed 'em in 25s it would be hard to buy them -- who needs multiples of 25 Shermans? Even 10s don't work very well. 3s may work about as well, but are probably more expensive in terms of packaging and handling.

Consider the 1:1 units I might want to buy. For US Shermans I need 5 (a platoon), or 17 (a company), or 54 (a battalion). For Soviet T-34s I need 3 (a platoon), or 10 (a company) or 21 (a battalion), or 64 (a brigade). There is no single quantity per pack that allows me to build these numbers perfectly. So there will always be compromises. With 5 to a pack you can occasionally hit it right on the head (a platoon of Shermans, a company of T-34s), and 5s are flexible enough that you suffer only a few extras if you build other formations. It is also problably reasonably economical in terms of package materials, shipping and handling.

That would be my guess.