DAK wrote:GHQ has been around a long time and I really don't think the 1947 line will make them go under. I'm certain plenty of thought has gone into the matter and there are enough people that have expressed an interest in it to make it worth their while. Like someone had mentioned earlier NATO vs the Warsaw pact never happened either, but it made great what if gaming. I think once it gets up and going there will be more interest in it than you think. Just my 2 cents.
DAK wrote:...Like someone had mentioned earlier NATO vs the Warsaw pact never happened either...
but it DID HAPPEN in the fact that the vehicles and weapons systems were more than mere draft table ideas, and the actual units WERE poised and in position...
The market for such things as 1947, or WWII zombies, or Zeppelin Borne infantry is marginal at best. I have seen hundreds of these lines appear and then evaporate. It represents only a small portion of the already tiny military miniatures gaming community. I am concerned that an investment in such a thing could be a financial burden and make the historical production suffer by proxy. No company is immune to market pressures. While GHQ has been around for a long time, so were alot of other gaming companies which no longer exist. I am in league with Troy,Frank and others that posted thier puzzlement on this site. We want to see GHQ around when were are wee old men that can no longer paint, or perhaps even see our glorious legions on the gaming table. That being said, WWII and the American Civil War are the closest thing to a sure bet in our hobby. They will always be popular. No matter how boring US infanry in greatcoats may be for both aforementioned eras, there is an almost guaranteed buying public in our hobby.
Bill
"I was worse scared than I was at Shiloh" - Sam Watkins
Perryville, KY - October 8, 1862
The market for such things as 1947, or WWII zombies, or Zeppelin Borne infantry is marginal at best. I have seen hundreds of these lines appear and then evaporate. It represents only a small portion of the already tiny military miniatures gaming community. I am concerned that an investment in such a thing could be a financial burden and make the historical production suffer by proxy. No company is immune to market pressures. While GHQ has been around for a long time, so were alot of other gaming companies which no longer exist. I am in league with Troy,Frank and others that posted thier puzzlement on this site. We want to see GHQ around when were are wee old men that can no longer paint, or perhaps even see our glorious legions on the gaming table. That being said, WWII and the American Civil War are the closest thing to a sure bet in our hobby. They will always be popular. No matter how boring US infanry in greatcoats may be for both aforementioned eras, there is an almost guaranteed buying public in our hobby.
Bill
"I was worse scared than I was at Shiloh" - Sam Watkins
Perryville, KY - October 8, 1862
The market for such things as 1947, or WWII zombies, or Zeppelin Borne infantry is marginal at best. I have seen hundreds of these lines appear and then evaporate. It represents only a small portion of the already tiny military miniatures gaming community. I am concerned that an investment in such a thing could be a financial burden and make the historical production suffer by proxy. No company is immune to market pressures. While GHQ has been around for a long time, so were alot of other gaming companies which no longer exist. I am in league with Troy,Frank and others that posted thier puzzlement on this site. We want to see GHQ around when were are wee old men that can no longer paint, or perhaps even see our glorious legions on the gaming table. That being said, WWII and the American Civil War are the closest thing to a sure bet in our hobby. They will always be popular. No matter how boring US infanry in greatcoats may be for both aforementioned eras, there is an almost guaranteed buying public in our hobby.
Bill
"I was worse scared than I was at Shiloh" - Sam Watkins
Perryville, KY - October 8, 1862
The market for such things as 1947, or WWII zombies, or Zeppelin Borne infantry is marginal at best. I have seen hundreds of these lines appear and then evaporate. It represents only a small portion of the already tiny military miniatures gaming community. I am concerned that an investment in such a thing could be a financial burden and make the historical production suffer by proxy. No company is immune to market pressures. While GHQ has been around for a long time, so were alot of other gaming companies which no longer exist. I am in league with Troy,Frank and others that posted thier puzzlement on this site. We want to see GHQ around when were are wee old men that can no longer paint, or perhaps even see our glorious legions on the gaming table. That being said, WWII and the American Civil War are the closest thing to a sure bet in our hobby. They will always be popular. No matter how boring US infanry in greatcoats may be for both aforementioned eras, there is an almost guaranteed buying public in our hobby.
Bill
"I was worse scared than I was at Shiloh" - Sam Watkins
Perryville, KY - October 8, 1862
The market for such things as 1947, or WWII zombies, or Zeppelin Borne infantry is marginal at best. I have seen hundreds of these lines appear and then evaporate. It represents only a small portion of the already tiny military miniatures gaming community. I am concerned that an investment in such a thing could be a financial burden and make the historical production suffer by proxy. No company is immune to market pressures. While GHQ has been around for a long time, so were alot of other gaming companies which no longer exist. I am in league with Troy,Frank and others that posted thier puzzlement on this site. We want to see GHQ around when were are wee old men that can no longer paint, or perhaps even see our glorious legions on the gaming table. That being said, WWII and the American Civil War are the closest thing to a sure bet in our hobby. They will always be popular. No matter how boring US infanry in greatcoats may be for both aforementioned eras, there is an almost guaranteed buying public in our hobby.
Bill
"I was worse scared than I was at Shiloh" - Sam Watkins
Perryville, KY - October 8, 1862
I dont know where the 1947 thing came from either, but i highly doubt that GHQ will go under as a result. The list of new releases for this year is HUGE, and they are listening to input from the forums as far as what they will make next, etc. They have weathered the PC gaming influx that destroyed a lot of tabletop gaming companies, and they seem to be only getting better. I kinda doubt the "Wermacht 47" thing is going to really go anywhere, but maybe we will get some minis to bash into other things out of the deal? As a naval WWII gamer (i have some WWII ground stuff, but mostly cause its what everyone else seems to play, and better to play with tanks around others than ships alone!) i always wondered why ships like the Montana-class or any other such fantasy ships were in the product line, but im sure some people out there buy them. For my moderns, i prefer 1980ish to present day US, european, Russian, and mid-east scenarios and units. I kinda doubt Russia is going to invade Turkey tomorrow, or that Germany will attack Poland and France yet again, thus these are "fantasy scenarios", but they are fun nonetheless!
The market for such things as 1947, or WWII zombies, or Zeppelin Borne infantry is marginal at best. I have seen hundreds of these lines appear and then evaporate. It represents only a small portion of the already tiny military miniatures gaming community. I am concerned that an investment in such a thing could be a financial burden and make the historical production suffer by proxy. No company is immune to market pressures. While GHQ has been around for a long time, so were alot of other gaming companies which no longer exist. I am in league with Troy,Frank and others that posted thier puzzlement on this site. We want to see GHQ around when were are wee old men that can no longer paint, or perhaps even see our glorious legions on the gaming table. That being said, WWII and the American Civil War are the closest thing to a sure bet in our hobby. They will always be popular. No matter how boring US infanry in greatcoats may be for both aforementioned eras, there is an almost guaranteed buying public in our hobby.
Bill
"I was worse scared than I was at Shiloh" - Sam Watkins
Perryville, KY - October 8, 1862
The NATO vs. Warsaw Pact conflict did not occur in CE (Central Europe), however, it should be recalled that NATO and WP equipped nations have clashed quite frequently post-WW2.
-Arab-Israeli 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...
The NATO vs. Warsaw Pact conflict did not occur in CE (Central Europe), however, it should be recalled that NATO and WP equipped nations have clashed quite frequently post-WW2.
-Arab-Israeli 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...
The NATO vs. Warsaw Pact conflict did not occur in CE (Central Europe), however, it should be recalled that NATO and WP equipped nations have clashed quite frequently post-WW2.
-Arab-Israeli 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
The NATO vs. Warsaw Pact conflict did not occur in CE (Central Europe), however, it should be recalled that NATO and WP equipped nations have clashed quite frequently post-WW2.
-Arab-Israeli 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
Authors such as Harry Turtledove (alternate history WWII) are stacked in the sci-fi/fantasy section of BN and Borders while Clancy, Bonds, Coyle, and Hackett are in literature/fiction. Both categories are fictional acounts of 20th century warfare but one is clearly sci-fi/fantasy and the other looks at more plausible if still hypothetical scenarios with real potential for actually happening.
So it is with the new '47 line. Definitely on the sci-fi weird war II alternate history side of the things, along the lines of Turtledove, rather than hypothetical modern fiction like Clancy, Bonds, or Coyle.
I'm not against sci-fi in microarmor. In fact, we've included near future tech in some of our games, such as NLOS ATGMs. The scenario was that Japan supports an insurgency on an island critical to securing their oil routes to the middle east. It included all manner of near future hardware (eg Future Warrior-style combat armor) as well as low tech insurgents and "obselete" conventional forces
I guess it's just that this transition for GHQ to sci-fi alternate history is a little surprising for some of us. Maybe prospective scifi-like technologies would have been easier to swallow? It may work out just fine, only time will tell.
Authors such as Harry Turtledove (alternate history WWII) are stacked in the sci-fi/fantasy section of BN and Borders while Clancy, Bonds, Coyle, and Hackett are in literature/fiction. Both categories are fictional acounts of 20th century warfare but one is clearly sci-fi/fantasy and the other looks at more plausible if still hypothetical scenarios with real potential for actually happening.
So it is with the new '47 line. Definitely on the sci-fi weird war II alternate history side of the things, along the lines of Turtledove, rather than hypothetical modern fiction like Clancy, Bonds, or Coyle.
I'm not against sci-fi in microarmor. In fact, we've included near future tech in some of our games, such as NLOS ATGMs. The scenario was that Japan supports an insurgency on an island critical to securing their oil routes to the middle east. It included all manner of near future hardware (eg Future Warrior-style combat armor) as well as low tech insurgents and "obselete" conventional forces
I guess it's just that this transition for GHQ to sci-fi alternate history is a little surprising for some of us. Maybe prospective scifi-like technologies would have been easier to swallow? It may work out just fine, only time will tell.
Authors such as Harry Turtledove (alternate history WWII) are stacked in the sci-fi/fantasy section of BN and Borders while Clancy, Bonds, Coyle, and Hackett are in literature/fiction. Both categories are fictional acounts of 20th century warfare but one is clearly sci-fi/fantasy and the other looks at more plausible if still hypothetical scenarios with real potential for actually happening.
So it is with the new '47 line. Definitely on the sci-fi weird war II alternate history side of the things, along the lines of Turtledove, rather than hypothetical modern fiction like Clancy, Bonds, or Coyle.
I'm not against sci-fi in microarmor. In fact, we've included near future tech in some of our games, such as NLOS ATGMs. The scenario was that Japan supports an insurgency on an island critical to securing their oil routes to the middle east. It included all manner of near future hardware (eg Future Warrior-style combat armor) as well as low tech insurgents and "obselete" conventional forces
I guess it's just that this transition for GHQ to sci-fi alternate history is a little surprising for some of us. Maybe prospective scifi-like technologies would have been easier to swallow? It may work out just fine, only time will tell.
