"HISTORICAL" Wish List for 2010-2011

Doug B · Post by **Doug B** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:18 am

Panzerleader71

I was just a little concerned with the wording in your original post, about "ditching" the "fantasy", or limited run vehicles that (ie WM47) in the GHQ line. Just trying to point out that there are people who like the WM47 line, as you would like a WWI line. As you say we all have our opinions about what we want, and we should back each other up on them.

My bad for using an incomplete sentence at the start. My original post should have read:

Why not then ditch also the kit that had less than say 50-100 examples actually produced and get to the REAL gaping holes in the GHQ line - the lack of a Great War line!

Please note that any reference to fantasy was not mine and certainly more derogatory terms been used by others on this and other threads to refer to WM47. I agree that we should back each other up on our opinions.

BTW AI 67/73 would be VERY COOL

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:19 pm

I like the option of some ww1 stuff. The Tank in its later marks were produced in large numbers. If total production runs are a factor, maybe tiger II, Tiger I and definitely the Sturmtiger and Jadgtiger need to be withdrawn

Basically if GHQ think it'll sell, it has a chance of making it to the production line. I personally think the german marder was a very cool vehicle, but I'd never buy them; I have no use for a west german force, no interest in a Fulda Gap hypothetical. We buy the bits that interest us, henxe the diversity of opinion. Aint it grand?

The He111 I'll second in a flash. Large oversight. More aircraft in general. And bits for a/c. Bombs, rockets and bling. I liked the fule drums and crates idea as well.

If I add one thing to the list, it's for a genuine British 2" mortar, not that ridiculous copy of the US 60mm which was hardly ever used by the UK, and again, infantry packs that actually represent the formations (within reason and practicality). Basic kits should have the platoon weapons, including LMG's, light mortars, AT gear like bazookas and Panzerfausts and PIATs. The heavy weapons packs should be company and battalion weapons; medium and heavy mortars, MMG/GPMG's, etc.

Like those who have come before me, just an opinion.

P

Panzerleader71 · Post by **Panzerleader71** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:40 pm

"If total production runs are a factor, maybe tiger II, Tiger I and definitely the Sturmtiger and Jadgtiger need to be withdrawn."

However, these vehicles were used in certain pivotal battles whcih would make them important to the historically minded gamer. Myself I probably would not buy them either (except the Tiger I).

Also, I just finished the West German CC, and am currently working on putting togther a mid-'80s Soviet Battle Group. I find Cold War hyotheticals to be very interesting (almost as much as WWII), so I would be greatly put off if GHQ stopped that line. Personally I feel they should expand the CCs currently available to reflect more realistic Soviet Cold War forces of the era.

They have to balance the bottom line with the old saying "you can't make everyone happy, all the time." All they can do is try and all we can do is to continue supporting the company. At least GHQ has not stopped production on line in favour of another newer one. They are one of the few compnaies that I have no problem with their practices.

Back to the point of the thread. Just to reitrate in case I missed something. My suggestions would be be:
-dedicated Command/HQ packs (WWII, Modern)
-company packs for support weapons/vehicles (ie Anti-air and AT.) based on Micro Armour TO&Es
-add more Cold War CCs (early, mid, late)
-A/I CCs
-also revamping the late war German KG Combat Command might not be a bad idea either.

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:29 am

Ben,
I typed incorrectly, Sweden is purchasing the AMV from Patria.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patria/

http://www.asd-network.com/press_detail ... Sweden.htm

Hope that helps. GHQ should produce the Patria AMV and provide 3-4 different turret options in each package, so 5 of each type of turret. Then your South African AMV can fight the USMC AMV (when they order them) while Sweden AMVs fight Polands, etc. Great gaming senarios.

av8rmongo · Post by **av8rmongo** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:05 pm

Panzerleader71 wrote: At least GHQ has not stopped production on line in favour of another newer one.

Ahem... I guess we're only considering micro armor then. The modern 1/2400 line hasn't produced a new model in a decade or maybe more - since then we have 10mm Civil War (I think), 1/2400 Great War (I'm pretty sure) and WM'47 (for sure).

For everyone else - I swear the horse twitched. Its not dead yet, it twitched I tell you.

Paul

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:47 pm

chrisswim wrote:Ben,
I typed incorrectly, Sweden is purchasing the AMV from Patria.

Hope that helps.

Ah I see, read about that deal on the Swedish MoD webpage.
But come on, if we get the AMV we also need the CV90 (I know you want it too

) and of course the XA180/200 series as well

!

Cheers Ben

PS: Hey chrisswim - we both have 444 now...

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:41 pm

Ben,
Yes, produce the AMV, then the CV90 series, I can skip the XA180/200 for now.
Produce the Italian C1 and B1. I have made the Dardo for Italy.

The AMV looks like it will be an important vehicle in terms of variety of users in the world, being utilized around the world in bad areas and by the USMC.

GHQ could produce a package with 10 hulls in it and then 3 or 4 different packs with 10 turrets in each of a particular type. Then if you wanted the Polish version you buy two packs, one of hulls and one of Polish turrets. If you want the South African, but a pack of 10 hulls and the South African pack of 10 turrets to match with the hulls.

Or Swedish AMV....

Panzerleader71 · Post by **Panzerleader71** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:37 pm

"Then if you wanted the Polish version you buy two packs, one of hulls and one of Polish turrets. If you want the South African, but a pack of 10 hulls and the South African pack of 10 turrets to match with the hulls. "

If they were to produce this vehicle for different nations, then why not package them as such. That way the person looking for the "Polish" version just needs to order that pack instead of doubling his cost buying one hull pack and a turret pack?

"The modern 1/2400 line hasn't produced a new model in a decade or maybe more..."

Has GHQ actually come out and said they are discontinuing the line? I know this maybe viewed as splitting hairs, but I do see a difference between "cancelling" a line and not updating one regularly.

Firefight · Post by **Firefight** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:29 pm

For those that have not seen the early war Soviet SU-1-12, here are some pictures:

http://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu67 ... ic1cut.jpg

http://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu67 ... d_3cut.jpg

http://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu67 ... atecut.jpg[/img]

Firefight · Post by **Firefight** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:33 pm

Looks like the third link didn't work, try again:

http://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu67 ... atecut.jpg

kiasutha · Post by **kiasutha** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:06 am

Try this for some great drawings of the SU-12 and other Soviet equipment-

http://www.o5m6.de/su_12.html

Also for photos (about halfway down)-

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/ ... trucks.htm

i'd also like to see GHQ do this vehicle.
There were 99 built; unfortunately in a couple different versions.

JimR.

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:28 am

av8rmongo · Post by **av8rmongo** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:03 pm

Panzerleader71 wrote:Has GHQ actually come out and said they are discontinuing the line? I know this maybe viewed as splitting hairs, but I do see a difference between "cancelling" a line and not updating one regularly.

You have a point... GHQ has actually said they will not be updating the line "at this time."

But its splitting hairs... I never said I wouldn't pay my mortgage I'm just not doing it at this time. Still ends me up in the same place. The copyright date on my GHQ LHD is 2000 (actually it says 2K). Conservatively, at least 100 new models have appeared in that time. Also in that time we saw the 20th and 25th anniversaries of the Falklands conflict, 50th anniversary of Port Said, 35th anniversary of the sinking of Eilat heralding in the missile age, 30th anniversary of the sinking of the Khaiber in the '71 Indo Pakistani war, etc. etc. 40th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis/blockade. In fact there are many scenario choices from ship on ship up to fleet level - from engaements that actually happened. The sad fact (if you're me) is that the line is dead. There is rich history which could be exploited. There is ample room for gaming "what could have been" ala WM '47. But if there is no desire to turn out a product then it doesn't matter.

Paul

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:12 pm

One issue may be the return on investment and the assoicated risk involved. Would this company (or another/any company) have profitable return on investment with an acceptable NPV(net present value) for the project?

I do not know the demand for a new modern ship, how many are typically bought at $10 for one ship in the package. In micro armor, many of us have dozens of a particular model, some of us have hundred of a model. Leveraging the design and production cost of a model is easier decision when there may be 40,000 figures bought over 3-4 years. With a ship, selling 400 over 3-4 years isn't as profitable.

If the US Navy has had only two Blue Ridge type ships, how many should I buy for my fleet to game with? One or two? Consider the T-90, I have 30-40 of those, 40 of the Type 98 MBT, M1/M1A1/M1A2 (cannot count that high, although did buy many, many used from others). I recently sold off some Leopard 1s, 30 to one person and the other 60 to another person, that was not in my box as part of my gaming figures, did I need those, but I had them.

In my assessment, it is a more difficult decision to justify a ship as a project as compared to a tank/apc, etc.

sjolly75 H4 · Post by **sjolly75 H4** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:10 am

chrisswim wrote:In my assessment, it is a more difficult decision to justify a ship as a project as compared to a tank/apc, etc.

I absolutely agree that the amount of ships to tanks being released should not be equivalent, but not a new modern release in 10 years? There are people out here that would purchase multiple copies of ships (Burke DDG for example) if GHQ released them, so there is a market.

I'm not expecting or asking GHQ to come out with 20 new modern micronauts a year, but one a year would be wonderful!

Steve

"HISTORICAL" Wish List for 2010-2011

Greek Army Turkish Army (Strongest Army in Europe & Mid