Reviving Modern Naval Line

[voltigeur]

There have been one thread and the last posting on the Micronaught wish list there seems to be a lot of interest in this time period but as GHQ reported sales on this line have been dismal at best. This got me to thinking; what would it take to make this line and this period a vibrant and active part of our hobby.

I have a Nimitz collecting dust and it so wants to pull anchor head out to sea with her escorts head for harm’s way. I absolutely love modern sub battles talk about a head game of wits, mental courage and working out a puzzle all rolled into one.

So what do we think will make this line viable?

While new models would be part of it, what would it take to make this period a good game. If you suggest a model explain what you think the product would do for the line.

[voltigeur]

Starting off I would first invest in a modern aircraft line. I would have the aircraft that fought in the Falklands for both British and Argentine. One of the distractions that really took a lot of aesthetics away from gaming this period was only having half the aircraft types that I needed. A mix of cardboard and models was a real buzz kill.

While the Soviet and American aircraft are the best represented in the line so far, there is still the need for a couple of more packs. Mainly Soviet land based fighters, concentrating on the MIG 21’s, SU-7, and other aircraft operated by Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran. This would allow players to game out the tanker wars and other conflicts that actually took place. Maybe from that base there would be support for the US vs. Soviet equipment as players seek bigger scenarios.

[ROGER_HOUSTON2EMC-ENG.COM]

I think backdating some models would be a good thing. There were no Nimitz class carriers back in 73 when we almost got into a naval scrap with the Soviet Med squadron off the coast of Cyprus. Maybe have something like the Forrestal class CV, CF Adams class DD, or even the Gearing FRAMs as a possible addition to the line. Ceratainly, there would be a need for the earlier classes of Soviet ships such as the Kotlins,Kyndas,Karas, Sverdlovs,etc to cover this. The line really only covers a late 80s scenario(like RED STORM RISING) and not the earlier close calls we had like the 73 Yom Kippur war, Korea 68,Vietnam 72, Arabian Sea/Afghanistan/Iran Hostage Crisis 80 etc.
I have some of the above classes made by the "other guys", but they tend to look a little rough and grotesque alongside the GHQ models. If you dont believe me, put a @#$#$%^& Moskva CVH model next to a GHQ Slava or Kirov CG and you definitely see the difference.

[av8rmongo]

This got me to thinking; what would it take to make this line and this period a vibrant and active part of our hobby.

Not to start out on a negative note but I'm going to pick a nit here. Just because GHQ doesn't have much of a market share doesn't mean there isn't an "active and vibrant" hobby community for this genre. In the dozen or so years since GHQ made their last entry there has been at least two noteworthy events expanding this little corner of the hobby world.

1. The Viking Forge expands its lineup to include licensed copies of SeaBattle miniatures and some new PRC ships which I'm not sure if they are home grown or licensed copies.

2. The launch of Seawulf line of miniatures by QRF LTD. With a focus on the Falklands conflict this line fills the void left by the more established lines.

To be fair, the Seawulf line is no where near GHQ quality and Viking Forge, while not as detailed as GHQ, are scale appropriate, not overblown or exaggerated. I've talked to the guys at Viking Forge and Seawulf and they have every intention of continued expansion.

Okay back to the question asked...

What can GHQ do? If they don't have a focus of their own - like Seawulf focusing on the Falklands conflict - then they could look to see what's already out there and figure out how they can fit in. I'm not talking about competitors minitures, although thats a factor, I'm talking about the rules and scenarios the players use. I'll cite Harpoon because that is what I'm most familiar with but the other major product lines are probably similar. Harpoon has been around for something like 30 years and will soon release version 5. There have been four or five supplement books published, each 80-100 pages usually focused on some area of naval conflict. Each usually contains 8 or more scenarios of varying size and difficulty. Additionally, every three years or so they publish a Naval Review supplement, again 8 or more scenarios... you get the idea.

So where am I going with this? Open the books, a few hours work will give you a cross referenced list of ships that appear in these scenarios and appear on the grass roots market research provided in the various micronaut wish list threads here. They could satisfy their existing customers while catering to an existing market that might not shop at GHQ because they don't offer the ships they need to play the scenario provided by their favorite rules system.

It appears to this outsider that GHQ has been bitten by the Flames of War crowd. One complete system top to bottom. Make your own rules, miniatures, paints etc. Focus on what you're best at. Leverage other people's or other companies' expertise. Maybe they were bitten by the ASL thing I don't know.

Paul

[Theodore]

The reason companies go that route is so they can coordinate interest for models they are producing by releasing the books and army lists for them. So they get people that want the lead and hope they buy the book too, and get people who buy the book needing to buy the models to field the army or navy.
If someone came out with a wizbang set of navy rules for the 80s that everyone just had to play, it might drive some growth but I just don't see it happening. The cold war land stuff was easy to repaint from green to tan but it is hard to find justification for gaming with the navies that never fought.


But I doubt that would work with this period, there is not a lot of new activity in modern naval. The odds of conventional warfare at sea is pretty low. I think the only thing that would change the market for ships is an opponent to US naval supremacy to materialize. I doubt the Russians can afford to challenge if they can handle the technical side of building modern ships. The Chinese could probably build it and maybe even afford it but lack the experience to be a blue water navy. So while they would be the best candidates, it is not happening any time soon.

[battlewagon]

All of these are great ideas, but the cold war and post cold war period covers about 50 years and several navies, so somebody is going to be disappointed no matter what gets released from the modern era. I would love to see ships from the Falklands War, more US and Soviet cold warriors and some of the modern US and Chinese ships as well. It would also be fun to see some "what if?" scenarios with the new US littoral warships and some of the smaller navies of some of our favorite rogue states.
On a personal note...I'd like to see what GHQ's sculptors could do with my old ship, USS Enterprise CVN-65 circa 1984....Hmmmm

[voltigeur]

But I doubt that would work with this period, there is not a lot of new activity in modern naval. The odds of conventional warfare at sea is pretty low.

That is why I want to see more aircraft in this line. Modern naval actions seem to be more about projecting and or demonstrating power. Example is the gulf taker war. The United States used its navy to put its power in the gulf to challenge the Iranians and Iraqis who were trying to damage our economy by disrupting the oil supply. This wasn’t ship vs. ship as it was ships repelling air attacks and land based Exocet attacks.

Not to start out on a negative note but I'm going to pick a nit here. Just because GHQ doesn't have much of a market share doesn't mean there isn't an "active and vibrant" hobby community for this genre.

Please pick away! It is nice to know there are those out there that are playing this era.

I loved gaming this era every bit as much as Cold War land warfare. The 2 things that got me to drop this genre were the lack of historical models especially aircraft and unstudied gamers. I realize that this is a very technical period and you have to read and study outside any rule system to understand what you can and can’t do.

If I came across a group like av8rmongo’s I’d sign up for a game in a New York second.

I have also wondered if games like Harpoon wouldn’t benefit from a Geo Political companion game. Where you could generate a crisis and work through it, with naval and air power projection as one of the major games tools.

[voltigeur]

But I doubt that would work with this period, there is not a lot of new activity in modern naval. The odds of conventional warfare at sea is pretty low.

That is why I want to see more aircraft in this line. Modern naval actions seem to be more about projecting and or demonstrating power. Example is the Gulf Tanker war. The United States used its navy to put its power in the gulf to challenge the Iranians and Iraqis who were trying to damage our economy by disrupting the oil supply. This wasn’t ship vs. ship as it was ships repelling air attacks and land based Exocet attacks.

Not to start out on a negative note but I'm going to pick a nit here. Just because GHQ doesn't have much of a market share doesn't mean there isn't an "active and vibrant" hobby community for this genre.

Please pick away! It is nice to know there are those out there that are playing this era.

I loved gaming this era every bit as much as Cold War land warfare. The 2 things that got me to drop this genre were the lack of historical models especially aircraft and unstudied gamers. I realize that this is a very technical period and you have to read and study outside any rule system to understand what you can and can’t do.

If I came across a group like av8rmongo’s I’d sign up for a game in a New York second.

I have also wondered if games like Harpoon wouldn’t benefit from a Geo Political companion game. Where you could generate a crisis and work through it, with naval and air power projection as one of the major games tools.

[CG1]

I think that adding the 3 Seabase component ships would be interesting - the logistics and organisation of forces to be launched from a Seabase opens up potential games against almost any nation and limiting US forces so that a few FACs or swarms of MiG-21s might actually make a difference adds a challenge. Add a silkworm battery to the 1/285 line and some S-300s and a carrier group, an amphibious group and a seabase doesn't look quite as big!