Jump to content

If you're one of the gradually reducing number of folks that aren't currently receiving notifications to topics you've subscribed to, or PMs you're receiving, first check you've got the correct address in your profile, then drop in and post your experience in this thread, remembering to tell us your email provider's details, which is the part after the @ in your email address.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Col.

Small Wars GB

Recommended Posts

Yep I can still work within those parameters. Im still liking the idea of a banana or soccer war from Central or South America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Antoine said:

Not for the moment, please.

Okay Antoine. Hopefully we can tempt you to join us later.

3 hours ago, Robert Stuart said:

But you can add mine in ;)

I have no idea what I'll go for - depending on the rules (I haven't read the chat above), I'm tempted to look further back in time than the 20th centuary ...

Will do Robert. If you're heading back beyond the 20th Century then any conflict is open to you.

2 hours ago, CliffB said:

This looks good to me Col.  Easy to understand and something that we can all work with :).

Cliff

Cool. I'll update the initial post soon to better reflect our current thinking.

49 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Yep I can still work within those parameters. Im still liking the idea of a banana or soccer war from Central or South America. 

I like the sound of either :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Col. said:

Will do Robert. If you're heading back beyond the 20th Century then any conflict is open to you.

Thanks Col, though I would suggest that something like the Napoleonic Wars should be vetoed.  They were, in my opinion, comparable with WWI and WWII in their scope if not their lethality, certainly not a "Small War", so not in the spirit of this build.

 

I'll think of a conflict more in keeping with Small Wars ;) 

 

{edit}. I've just read @CliffB's comments about Lesser Built Airforces.  If you move to Lesser Built Conflicts (or similar) then I'd say the Napoleonics would be eligible for this GB in this forum {/edit} 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Robert Stuart said:

Thanks Col, though I would suggest that something like the Napoleonic Wars should be vetoed.  They were, in my opinion, comparable with WWI and WWII in their scope if not their lethality, certainly not a "Small War", so not in the spirit of this build.

 

I'll think of a conflict more in keeping with Small Wars ;) 

I was thinking of keeping away from excluding any of the pre-20th Century wars due to the face we seldom see them modelled but if you do go with a smaller and lesser known conflict from that era I'll not argue with you ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting idea, please count me in. Since the Indo-Pakistani Wars are fair game, I'll probably take the opportunity to fit the Gnat vs. Sabre "dogfight double" I've been meaning to build for ages into a GB. Whatever I decide on, it will probably be a pair of aircraft on opposing sides of the conflict...I've always liked @vppelt68's suggestion of a "The Duel" GB and that format seems like a good way of covering a lesser-known conflict more evenly and in a bit more depth. Plenty of possibilities:


-Polish-Ukrainian War: Fokker D.VII vs. Fokker E.V
-Indo-Pakistani Wars: Gnat vs. Sabre
-Soccer War: F-51 vs. F4U (or F4U vs. F4U)
-South African Border War: MiG-21MF vs. Mirage F.1CT
-Iran-Iraq War: F-5E vs. MiG-21MF
-Yugoslav Wars: MiG-21bis vs. MiG-21bis
-Eritrean-Ethiopian War: MiG-29 vs. Su-27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sabre_days said:

Very interesting idea, please count me in. Since the Indo-Pakistani Wars are fair game, I'll probably take the opportunity to fit the Gnat vs. Sabre "dogfight double" I've been meaning to build for ages into a GB. Whatever I decide on, it will probably be a pair of aircraft on opposing sides of the conflict...I've always liked @vppelt68's suggestion of a "The Duel" GB and that format seems like a good way of covering a lesser-known conflict more evenly and in a bit more depth. Plenty of possibilities:


-Polish-Ukrainian War: Fokker D.VII vs. Fokker E.V
-Indo-Pakistani Wars: Gnat vs. Sabre
-Soccer War: F-51 vs. F4U (or F4U vs. F4U)
-South African Border War: MiG-21MF vs. Mirage F.1CT
-Iran-Iraq War: F-5E vs. MiG-21MF
-Yugoslav Wars: MiG-21bis vs. MiG-21bis
-Eritrean-Ethiopian War: MiG-29 vs. Su-27

Glad to have you aboard :) 

Another fine set of potential conflicts and the idea of a dual duel build sounds great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the list of excluded conflicts is the easiest way to define what is or not eligible, whatever is not in the list is eligible.

Of course the list itself can be open to debate, as seen for example with the Arab-Israeli wars. Personally I have no strong feeling towards either including or excluding them, they are well known wars, subjects from these wars are modelled relativelu frequently but still they are much less represented than those from say the Korean War.
Of course I'm still supporting this GB and I have several ideas that would fit well without requiring discussions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more you rule out, the less votes you get.....Just saying.  ;)

 

On which subject, where do the hosts stand on the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan?  It involved a superpower (two really), but on the ground it was pretty much the archetypal 'Small War' and it doesn't get a lot of coverage elsewhere.  :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

IMHO the list of excluded conflicts is the easiest way to define what is or not eligible, whatever is not in the list is eligible.

Of course the list itself can be open to debate, as seen for example with the Arab-Israeli wars. Personally I have no strong feeling towards either including or excluding them, they are well known wars, subjects from these wars are modelled relativelu frequently but still they are much less represented than those from say the Korean War.
Of course I'm still supporting this GB and I have several ideas that would fit well without requiring discussions

One of the qualifications I use for the exclusion list is if the subject could reasonably support a GB of it's own. Now this is all personal opinion of course but I feel certain the Korean War, Spanish Civil War, Vietnam War etc. can. The Arab-Israeli Wars could arguably have their own GB as well but, as @Sgt.Squarehead says...

8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The more you rule out, the less votes you get.....Just saying.  ;)

 

On which subject, where do the hosts stand on the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan?  It involved a superpower (two really), but on the ground it was pretty much the archetypal 'Small War' and it doesn't get a lot of coverage elsewhere.  :shrug:

 

Afghanistan has a long history of conflict and usually this has come to wider attention when a major power involves itself. I'm happy to include it in our GB but would encourage anyone who wishes to model something from it's various wars to pick a less common subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/01/2018 at 11:58 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The more you rule out, the less votes you get.....Just saying.  ;)

The more you welcome in, the less focus you get... Just saying. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, but I wouldn't describe this as a particularly focussed GB theme.....It's broad scope should be part of the appeal (IMHO).  :coolio:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that the main "threat" to the spirit of this GB would be a large influx of the more "standard" subjects, say an F-16, identical to the many other F-16s seen on every modeling website but with the distinction of having served over Afghanistan. Of course if the rules allow it, it has to be eligible. Would it be in the spirit of the GB ? Hard to tell, the "war on terror" is in a sense a small war but it also receives a lot of coverage.

From what I read in the various comments it seems to me though that most are interested in the diversity that such a GB would bring, so maybe in the end we're worrying for no reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Antoine said:

The more you welcome in, the less focus you get... Just saying. ;)

 

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Indeed, but I wouldn't describe this as a particularly focussed GB theme.....It's broad scope should be part of the appeal (IMHO).  :coolio:

 

 

42 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

I guess that the main "threat" to the spirit of this GB would be a large influx of the more "standard" subjects, say an F-16, identical to the many other F-16s seen on every modeling website but with the distinction of having served over Afghanistan. Of course if the rules allow it, it has to be eligible. Would it be in the spirit of the GB ? Hard to tell, the "war on terror" is in a sense a small war but it also receives a lot of coverage.

From what I read in the various comments it seems to me though that most are interested in the diversity that such a GB would bring, so maybe in the end we're worrying for no reason

The reasons I wanted to propose this GB included promoting those small scale actions which would not otherwise gain coverage in a GB so that diversity and lack of focus is an essential factor.

Perhaps I need to emphasise the spirit of this GB more in the initial post to better explain what the purpose of this GB is trying to achive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could say superpower involvement in the conflict is OK, but participants shouldn't model the forces of that power, only those of their opponents/allies/proxies. 

 

I'd happily forgo modelling a Soviet T-62 (or whatever) and do one in DRA markings instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Giorgio N said:

I guess that the main "threat" to the spirit of this GB would be a large influx of the more "standard" subjects, say an F-16, identical to the many other F-16s seen on every modeling website...

I´m sorry Giorgio... I intend to do a Greek and Turkish F-16 double build :tease: V-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×