Here they are...the 2008/09 new release schedule!!!!

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

Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1

Mk 1
E5
Posts: 2383
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
Location: Silicon Valley, CA

Post by Mk 1 »

I like the list.

Not a lot for me to rush out and buy on it, but that's OK with me -- it's gonna take me a year or two to digest all that I've bought over the past two years... though I will certainly need to get the Italian 75's the week they come out. Still, I am impressed by the list. May not drive my purchases, but will make the gaming world more interesting.

The new US infantry heavy weapons (and 37mm ATGs) are a much-needed gap filler. The US Para's will be a great addition. I also like the rounding-out of the Hungarians with infantry and heavy weapons. I foresee lots of interesting scenarios at the Cons from these items. At some point I may need to go after building a Hungarian force ... just too interesting to pass up.

The modern micro armor line seems to be growing nicely. In particular I like seeing the additions to the modern USMC and Chinese forces. Already have bunches of both waiting in the to-be-painted box. Likely to add more, but not until I get through some of what's already there. Maybe in a couple years ...

The WW2+ line sounds ... interesting. I like wargaming 1947. Just never thought to include the Germans in it before. Very little new Allied kit is needed to get started. The Easy-8s, Pershings and Chaffees you want for the Americans are there and waiting. No need to worry about any M-46s, it was just an engine/drive-line change. Won't change your gaming one bit (unless your rules require a dice-throw every time the M-26 accelerates, to see if it shreds its fan belt). Just need to kit-bash up a few M-36b2s.

Also a perfect opportunity to actually play with those JS-3s and SU-100s we all have. Yeah, a few T-44s would be nice. Smaller than a T-34, with frontal slope impervious to a Pak 43 ... yum. But it was put into trials during the war, and the Sov's themselves were not impressed enough to roll out the mass production that they so excelled at. More interesting would be putting an early-version T-54 back into the line for 1947/48 introduction (assuming accelerated interest due to the continuing war).

It is true that the Brits will need some Centurions to really get into it. But you can always run a squadron or two of Comets in the meantime. Just stay away from the E-100s.

Add a few P-80s to zip around between a flock of IL-10s and you're good to go! 8) At least, until somebody shows up with a B-29 model and ends the game. :shock:
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD

DrBig
E5
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:32 am
Location: North Carolina

Post by DrBig »

Mk 1 wrote:No need to worry about any M-46s, it was just an engine/drive-line change. Won't change your gaming one bit (unless your rules require a dice-throw every time the M-26 accelerates, to see if it shreds its fan belt).
Cosmetically it's quite different. But I would be just as happy buying M26 turrets & M47 chassis' if need be.

ADM.Nimitz
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:16 am
Location: Arlington wa.

NEW LIST

Post by ADM.Nimitz »

OK first let me say that GHQ has the best product, I have always loved the detail you guys have put into your mini's. I would like to ask that you guys reconsider putting out a new graf spee for the german navy. I dont know the interworkings but like many i would really like to see the lutzow or admiral scheer It seems a easy job to re-work the bridge area but I dont know all the inns and out of making models. So a humble plea from a loyal customer that you guys at least consider a reworked graf spee for 08-09 i cant stand the idea of getting a resin model to fill in the gaps.

Mk 1
E5
Posts: 2383
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
Location: Silicon Valley, CA

Post by Mk 1 »

DrBig wrote: Cosmetically it's quite different. But I would be just as happy buying M26 turrets & M47 chassis' if need be.
Image
Quite different?

Hmm. Have I missed something? Other than the engine grill, I've never noticed a visual difference between the M26 and the M46. M47 had the new turret, but also had the new flat-slope hull front that eliminated the "hump" between the driver and co-driver which so characterized the M26/45/46.

As far as I know M26 production castings were used for M46 production, and in fact many M46s were just re-worked M26s, brought up to M46 standard by the installation of the new powertrain and modifications to the engine compartement to match it.

Or so I believe. Could be wrong, been known to happen. Would like to know where/what I missed... Image
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD

DrBig
E5
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:32 am
Location: North Carolina

Post by DrBig »

What can I say, I have a soft spot for the M46. :lol:

It's really the only 'good' tank we had until the M48A1 near 1960ish. The M26 had trouble on inclines, the M47 program was buggy, as were the M48's.

The M46 was the only solid performer we had.

Cosmetically speaking, the engine deck is very noticable to me. I'm more likely to see the engine deck than count return rollers, so I would use a M47 chassis.

The whole M46 package though, is quite impressive & novel in my opinion. The engine deck, muzzle break, bore evacuator...I think it's a real snazzy tank

pmskaar
E5
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:45 am

New Items for 2008-2009

Post by pmskaar »

I just want to thank the guys at GHQ for the new items for 2008-2009. There are many items there that I will buy eventually and some will fill critical gaps for my WWII forces. I didn't mean to sound negative about my "disappointments" but I have explained my reasons for wanting those things that are not on the list and hope that maybe next year or the year after they will show up. I do have plenty to keep myself busy in the meantime with all the unpainted micro armor I already own.
To Ritter and Cama I want to say thanks for the reply on the Matilda I. I tend to agree with other posters that this has a pretty small niche to fill - specifically the BEF in 1940 but understand the frustration of needing only one thing to complete your forces. I asked this question to see what the fuss was really about. :wink:
I do like Donald Scheef's ship list with his ratings and explanations for why or why not a particular ship should be added to GHQ's growing line. I have attempted to do something similar with my list of "disappointments" with my reasons for wanting what I want. Thanks!

Pete - Binpicker, Out!

Orion320
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:02 am

Post by Orion320 »

I too, would like to thank the GHQ staff for doing an outstanding job. There are so many subjects to model that their choices are bound to leave all of us wanting more. I would say that they have a loyal customer base that will support their business for a long time.

Two things set GHQ apart. First is the quality. Need I say more? Next is the service. I have had only good experiences with GHQ over the last thirty plus years. These guys are a class act and deserve some recognition. Our most sincere form of recognition is to continue to buy their products and discuss them on this forum.

Well done, GHQ! Thanks for all your efforts.

pibber
E5
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: France (Luzarches, near Chantilly)

GHQ News release

Post by pibber »

Hi all ! :D
Pibber is back !

Nearly one year of silence for me on the forum. I'm sorry not to participate more, I really want, but the reason is I have a lot work inside my home :cry: , so, I only can go sometime on the forum very quickly by night just to see beautiful works of some of you have done this year : It's really a very good forum ! I always enjoy read posts.

Like past years, I'm always very excited to wait GHQ's news products :P :
Now, news are here !
Ok, here we go : New items I like :
- barrack :D : I've received two models last week : wonderful model ! Now, my specials forces would have a home in their base camp !
- Span Truss bridge :D : very good !
- Log Home and Log Home w/dormer :) Beautiful !
- Fiesler Storch :D :D :D Wonderful for observation plane and light medevac and.. for Indochine (Frenchs have some of them)
- Pak 43 :) why not, if it's the cruciform pad version with large shield.
- US Paratroopers et US Hv Wp Paratrooper :D :D :D We already have Waco glider, when have we got DC3 Dakota ? :wink:
- 15cm sFH13/1 Lorraine : :D Very good !
- Mosquito :) why not ?
- Diamond T 4ton truck : :) good !

In WWII, this year, news I was waiting for :
German :
- PzIII w/side skirts :)
- Another Opel Blitz truck, without tarpaulin.
- Heavy engineer trailer and new prime movert with it.
- Fiesler Storch (Yes !!!! we got it now !!!!)

USA
- M32 recovery tank
- Heavy truck Broakway (engineer)
- US Para (yes !! we got them !!!)
- Rebuild of 155 howitzer.

UK
- LVT Buffalo w/polsten gun (good for netherland campain)
- Diamond T and trailer.
- british commando with ruck sac, dingy, ladders, explo...

Items I'll would have see in product instead of few modern materials in the 2008-09 list (like chineses for example) :
USA
- M35 truck without tarpaulin
- M102 light 105mm Howitzer
- Cobra helico for Vietnam (the model for this period)
- A6 Intruder
- LVTP 5 engineer
and, at last (be fool), a C130 Hercules ! :D

France
- GBC 8KT, medium common truck
- Peugeot P4, light liaison vehicule
- infantry

Next year, maybe for some of these items..... 8)

However, GHQ, your list is good for me and... original and inventive (47' new line).
Maybe a WWII 1/285 trains line for next year :o

Good continuation GHQ ! :D
Thank you for your beautiful products and the quality !

For all on the forum : I think with GHQ all is possible ! Just be little patient :D ........
"Matilda I" will come one day :lol: :lol: !

Bye.
Pibber.
(Long life to GHQ !)

av8rmongo
E5
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Newport, RI
Contact:

Post by av8rmongo »

Shouldn't discuss disappointments? I can understand that admonishment if you're a WWII gamer and you didn't get the Matilda 1, there's still plenty offered in your genre. But of the "50+" models offered in a given year there is not one for moder 1/2400 micronauts. In fact there hasn't been on since what, the LHD came out in something like 2003! Six years and not one bone to throw our way. I say our way but maybe I am the only one. Here's my economic break down of the opportunity cost of not doing something new. This is what I purchased in the last calendar year from other vendors because they are not and apparently will not be available here.
Suerior: (ebay purchases totalling probably $150)
1 USS J.F.Kennedy
1 USS Enterprise
1 Kuznetsov
1 Vittorio Veneto
2 Audace
2 Suffern
6 Mirka
9 Lebed
2 Ivan Rogov
3 Alligator

Viking Forge/SeaBattle: (Probably spent close to $300)
1 Osumi
2 Kongo
1 Hiei
1 Cape Lobos
1 ADM Callahan
1 Wilamette
4 C.F.Adams
2 Bremen
1 Newport LST
2 Coontz
6 PC-1 Cyclone
2 Whidbey Island
2 Hamburg
1 Freiburg
2 Brandemburg
1 AO Rohn
4 Type 143A
6 Type 148

SeaWulf: (New company out of the UK probably spent $250+)
1 Hermes
2 Fearless
1 Type 82
3 County class w/Exocet
2 Countyclass w/guns
22 Different versions of the Leander/Van Speijk

There are probably others I've forgotten and there are GHQ ships I haven't mentioned. This was a good year, a little above average. I probably spend an average $400-$500 a year on modern micronauts. Maybe 10% of that is on GHQ because if you have six carrier groups and five amphiious groups etc. etc. you don't need any more. There is only so much additional business I can do with GHQ when Poland buys an FFG for instance, okay I'll buy one more O.H.P. But if they would just make the Chinese ships or newest RN ships they would get 100% of my business instead of 10%.

My "disappointment" is not that you built the wrong modern ship its that you built none - for five years!


Paul
“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.â€￾
― George Orwell, 1984

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
- George Orwell

http://av8rmongo.wordpress.com

ACWBill
E5
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: Buford, GA
Contact:

5 years, how about 10

Post by ACWBill »

I can relate to your angst Paul, as it has been TEN years since I last saw a new ACW model. I had false hope since they released a rules system recently. Silly me! At one time I spent nearly 50% of my gaming bucks ( a gargantuan budget I might add ) on GHQ models buying nearly every WWII model and EVERY ACW model they made many times over. THOSE DAYS ARE LONG GONE! Last year it amounted only to about 5%. The remaining budget now goes to the Perry Brothers and Great War Miniatures. I spent over $ 5,000.00 on gaming last year as I am an old guy with no kids and only one wife. :roll: That percentage will slip to 2-3% this year as I am not into Red Chinese ........stuff nor have I an interest in what if.......stuff.

:(
"I was worse scared than I was at Shiloh" - Sam Watkins
Perryville, KY - October 8, 1862

DrBig
E5
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:32 am
Location: North Carolina

Post by DrBig »

The delay with the StuIG33b I just don't understand. This was the bigest tube AFV in the largest urban fight in history, the turning point of WW2, etc. :?:

& the two Emils? The one captured had at least 20 kill rings on it. You can't tell me it wouldn't be fun to game with a self propelled 128mm AT gun on the Russian steppe in 1942 :lol:

GHQ
Site Admin
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:50 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Post by GHQ »

Let's try to get this back on track, and try to clear up any misconceptions and interpretations of anything that we may have said. GHQ as a company has never said don't discuss your disappointments. All that we asked was that the topic does not turn into a thread that has everyone putting together an endless list of what they thought the list should have looked like. As we have already mentioned, everyone here can do that, inlcuding us. There are a lot of items that we would have really liked to have on the list but didn't make the cut. That is why winnowing the list down takes so much time every year. In geneal the most effective customer requests that we receive are those that have one or two items listed and have very well-thought reasons for why those one or two items would be good additions. We receive a lot of requests that basically list every item in WWII that we don't already make. We have a huge library, and trust us, we know what we don't make.

Overall we are extremely open, and responisive, to criticism. If we make a mistake, then we correct it. However, if we decide to make some models that do not interest some specific individuals, we do not consider that to be a mistake. As much as we wish that it weren't true, the fact is that some lines don't sell very well for us. After coming out with release after release in a line that sell a small fraction of what it costs to deisgn and get them into production, at some point we are going to rethink new releases in that line. The Modern Micronauts are a perfect example. The truth is that they have sold very poorly for us from the start. It is not as if the sales dried up after we stopped adding new items. The sales dried up from the beginning, long before we had our last several new releases. Many companies are too proud to admit that some things that they offer don't sell well. That doesn't mean that there are not some people who are very enthusiastic about them. What it means is that the number of people who have voted (a.k.a. actually bought items from this line) is not enough for us to justify new releases AT THIS TIME. In addition, this doesn't mean that we will never release another item in this line. It is not cheap to get all of the research, do the designes, and go through the several processes of molds that we do to maintain our quality. We don't want to make anyone mad with this, but we want to stress that there are real reasons why we do things. Please keep in mind that we are privy to ALL of the information that goes into running this business for over 40 years, not just a couple anecdotal examples. We know that by not making some items that we will lose sales to other companies, but we can't do everything and we make choices that we think will benefit us the most. Once again, we don't have a secret agenda that tries to pass up on models that we think would be huge sellers just so that we can alienate some of our customers- we really try to make the largest number of people happy that we possibly can.

Thank you for your support,
GHQ

Zeppelin
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Utah

Post by Zeppelin »

As a modern naval gamer myself, I understand both points of view. For the gamer, the choice of game scenarios and models needed depend greatly on the "What if?" line of reasoning. It's then very difficult for a manufacturer to make everyone happy right off the bat. Especially, as GHQ Admin points out, if the line is not selling well.

I had a good discussion with one of the authors of Micronauts: The Game about the poor showing for modern naval wargaming, and we both arrived at the same conclusion.

We need a new, great set of rules.

I've played several games from the complexity of Harpoon to the abstractness of Shipwreck (which I mostly use at present). While each has its fan base (and a very devoted group they are!), what is actually needed is a new set of rules which lies in the middle. It should be comprehensive, not complex. It should be a game that is as fun with a couple of ships per side all the way up to a campaign with several task forces.

Most of all, it needs to be a game which lasts from 1 hour to 4 hours at most for a large game WITHOUT spending hours and hours preparing ship charts and rosters before you play the game.

It needs a certain amount of abstract values so that new systems can be grafted into the game as time goes on.

And, as many of my fellow naval gamers have stated to me, scenarios need to be available in which the Americans don't automatically obliterate everyone else's fleet in the opening moves. Difficult task, eh?

While I hear that GHQ is looking forward to a WW1 era set of naval rules, I would like to know if a set for modern rules would be next? That would change everything for sales of that line.

Best regards,
Mark in Utah

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

Post by Rutgervanm »

Dear GHQ, thank you for explaining yourself to us. That in itself is more than most companies I have ever dealt with do and it really shows you care about your clients and their wishes.

I must admit that as a customer who just wants made what he needs most, it is not always easy to see what goes on behind the scenes and what interests are weighed against each other. You are totally right though. It is impossible to satisfy everyone and at the end of the day it is you who have to make your own decisions.

So please do so and remember that most people only complain because they like the product so much and just want more of it!

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

Post by jb »

Napolean used to speak of his "Old Guard", "If they didn't complain" then he knew morale was not good....
John

Post Reply