Jump to content
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
On 1/18/2018 at 8:16 PM, Col. said:

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?

Hello all,

 

I'm late to this discussion, but thought I'd offer my 2 cent's worth:


I understand the desire to cover topics that get less coverage in other GBs, and I like that. I appreciated the concept is still evolving, and my experience with GBs is limited, but I think there's a risk of too little focus (and you'll still end up with lots of F-16s and Mig-21s, just with less-common markings!).

 

FWIW, I came across this thread as I was looking at GB chat to see if there was a Spanish Civil War GB coming up (but it seems as though there wasn't enough support at the vote for a SCW GB to get up). I'm not sure why, but I have the urge to build two subjects from the SCW and would have preferred that to be part of a GB.

 

Anyway, if the SCW were to be allowed, you can put my name down (I also like the idea of a Duel GB, modelling something from both sides). Without having lent much thought to other possibilities, I can't really commit to the proposed GB yet.

 

Regards,

David

Share this post


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

FWIW, I came across this thread as I was looking at GB chat to see if there was a Spanish Civil War GB coming up (but it seems as though there wasn't enough support at the vote for a SCW GB to get up). I'm not sure why, but I have the urge to build two subjects from the SCW and would have preferred that to be part of a GB.

 

Anyway, if the SCW were to be allowed, you can put my name down (I also like the idea of a Duel GB, modelling something from both sides). Without having lent much thought to other possibilities, I can't really commit to the proposed GB yet.

 

There was a proposed SCW GB which gained quite a bit of support but didn't get re-submitted for the 2018 poll last year (just in case you didn't know, Group Builds need to get 30 supporters before it can be considered for the poll which happens during November, the winners of the poll then get allocated a slot for the following year.  GB's which miss out in the poll can be resubmitted the following year if the host requests it).

 

The original proposer for the SCW GB @TonyTiger66 didn't ask for the GB to be re-submitted for the poll last year having just missed out on it the year before.  Unfortunately Tony has been quite ill and hasn't been of the forum since the end of last November, I do hope he's alright.

 

FWIW @Antoine was canvassing to see if there was sufficient support for a SCW GB, given that 2019 will commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of the SCW it's surely a worthy inclusion in next year's GB's in its own right!

 

I'm sure that if you feel strongly about it, there's nothing to stop you re-invigorating the SCW GB, it's certainly one I'd support and I'm sure TonyTiger66 would not mind you picking up the baton.

Edited by Wez

Share this post


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

Hello all,

I'm late to this discussion, but thought I'd offer my 2 cent's worth:
I understand the desire to cover topics that get less coverage in other GBs, and I like that. I appreciated the concept is still evolving, and my experience with GBs is limited, but I think there's a risk of too little focus (and you'll still end up with lots of F-16s and Mig-21s, just with less-common markings!).

FWIW, I came across this thread as I was looking at GB chat to see if there was a Spanish Civil War GB coming up (but it seems as though there wasn't enough support at the vote for a SCW GB to get up). I'm not sure why, but I have the urge to build two subjects from the SCW and would have preferred that to be part of a GB.

Anyway, if the SCW were to be allowed, you can put my name down (I also like the idea of a Duel GB, modelling something from both sides). Without having lent much thought to other possibilities, I can't really commit to the proposed GB yet.

Regards,

David

I'm glad to have your thoughts on the matter David as I've been giving it plenty consideration myself.

Understand what you're saying about the potential for there being a few of the more common subjects appearing in the GB but if that's the pay-off from getting many more of the less commonly seen subjects out of the stash and into a working GB it's one I'm willing to accept. All the more so if otherwise ubiquitous subjects appear in less comon markings at least.

The 'Spanish Question' is one that's taking up a good portion of my thoughts on this GB at the moment and as @Wez says there has been an existant bid for it to gain a GB in its own right so perhaps I can propose a compromise for the moment; if the SCW GB gains sufficient support to get a place in the end of year poll we exclude it from this GB. If, however, it fails to survive as a stand-alone GB proposal then I include in within the bounds of this GB. Does everyone feel this is fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Col. said:

if the SCW GB gains sufficient support to get a place in the end of year poll we exclude it from this GB. If, however, it fails to survive as a stand-alone GB proposal then I include in within the bounds of this GB. Does everyone feel this is fair?

 

Good compromise Col, seems fair to me.

Share this post


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

I'm glad to have your thoughts on the matter David as I've been giving it plenty consideration myself.

Understand what you're saying about the potential for there being a few of the more common subjects appearing in the GB but if that's the pay-off from getting many more of the less commonly seen subjects out of the stash and into a working GB it's one I'm willing to accept. All the more so if otherwise ubiquitous subjects appear in less comon markings at least.

The 'Spanish Question' is one that's taking up a good portion of my thoughts on this GB at the moment and as @Wez says there has been an existant bid for it to gain a GB in its own right so perhaps I can propose a compromise for the moment; if the SCW GB gains sufficient support to get a place in the end of year poll we exclude it from this GB. If, however, it fails to survive as a stand-alone GB proposal then I include in within the bounds of this GB. Does everyone feel this is fair?

Hi Col,

 

Thanks for the reply. I think the compromise you suggest is very fair.

 

TBH, I didn't know all the details of the failed SCW GB bid, and I also hope @TonyTiger66 is OK. I certainly wasn't trying to hijack the thread (or entire GB...), I could just imagine that an SCW GB might never get up due to lack off support, yet be excluded from the lesser-known/built conflicts because it was too popular a subject.

 

35 minutes ago, Wez said:

FWIW @Antoine was canvassing to see if there was sufficient support for a SCW GB, given that 2019 will commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of the SCW it's surely a worthy inclusion in next year's GB's in its own right!

Hi Wez,

 

Thanks for the information. I agree with you that the SCW is worthy of its own GB, and I'll look for the discussion involving @Antoine and lend support if needed. 

 

Let's see where the discussion takes us!

 

Kind regards,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a good compromise on the Spanish Civil War to me. Hope Tony's alright, too.

 

If you don't mind my two cents' worth: I'd personally rather not make it a hard and fast rule to exclude major power participation because there's potential for some very off the beaten track subjects that just happen to be British, American, Soviet/Russian, French, etc.: Which is the more unusual subject, a Turkish F-16 or a Union ironclad? An Iraqi MiG-21 or an RAF Hawker Hart?

Edited by Sabre_days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sabre_days said:

Which is the more unusual subject, a Turkish F-16 or a Union ironclad? An Iraqi MiG-21 or an RAF Hawker Hart?

Edited 27 minutes ago by Sabre_days

 

Which is the nub of the problem, to me an F-16, no matter who is using it, is not an unusual subject...   ... likewise, anything Iraqi is not that unusual to me, but from that list, an RAF Hawker Hart is a wonderfully obscure subject and what I'd go for but of course, the really obscure one is the Union Ironclad, but then, I'm not American...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought the idea was of a small wars GB, not obscure objects GB. If you want one, put one up. It's that simple. V-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the SCW GB gets through it would actually be SCW GB II.....I was in the first one and I actually finished something:

 

407145742.jpg407145743.jpg

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

×