Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guys,

Found some very good info from the current owners of the series. Great article.  What it says is the original Soviet Vehicle Guide was released in 1984. Given production lead times, especially for custom artwork running many, many full color plates, this means it had to have been written well before then, particularly given that there was another for the US, never mind the other nearly 30 modules, all sporting full color covers. This is a most informative article, translated from Russian, covering the FST-1 and FST-2 stories. It includes a wealth of material, including numerous drawings. one from Newsweek, and illustrations. Further checking (in a Global Security article written by our own James Warford) shows the Newsweek drawing and article weren't published until 1988! Defense News, I believe, got it's even scarier piece out a bit before the civilian newspapers and magazines started sounding off. Given these realities, how did GDW steal a march, a very long one at that (4 years minimum), against both open source defense journals and civilian newspapers and magazines?

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Given these realities, how did GDW steal a march, a very long one at that (4 years minimum), against both open source defense journals and civilian newspapers and magazines?

They had a reputation of doing very serious and thorough research. Their Europa series for instance. If they didn't get something exactly right the first time, they would come back and try again. I think I had more respect for them than almost anybody else (except Yaquinto) back in my boardgaming days.

Michael

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Emrys,

Seems to me GDW would've needed to be reading Russian military journals from many years before where phrases such as "foreign military experts say" were a way to moot new ideas for discussion sans boom crashing down for all manner of reasons, but poring over tons of stuff. For example, long before we ever saw either, articles in the main Russian naval journal were talking about 60 knot (not sure they did that, but the Alfa could do a still blazing 43, as reported in open source) subs and 200 knot torpedoes (Shkval, anyone?)! It would've also needed to do DEEP research into many nation's tank tech and tech testbeds, anything on the Russian end along those lines, maybe consult specialists, too. Nor would I rule out  unseen well-informed "little birdies" singing in their ears. Lots of little birdies out there! Knowing what I know, I'd be surprised if GDW didn't have at least some search cueing (likely, a great deal more) from small avians. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Nor would I rule out  unseen well-informed "little birdies" singing in their ears. Lots of little birdies out there! Knowing what I know, I'd be surprised if GDW didn't have at least some search cueing (likely, a great deal more) from small avians.

That's plausible. They had their fans and it does not strain credulity to imagine that some of them might have had inside dope and were willing to drop hints where they thought they would do the most good.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

That's plausible. They had their fans and it does not strain credulity to imagine that some of them might have had inside dope and were willing to drop hints where they thought they would do the most good.

Michael

I used to play Frank Chadwick's Command Decision rules for many years right up to 3rd Ediion, I parted company with these rule with 4th Edition fir various reasons although I still play the occasional game with 3rd Edition 

http://www.waynesbooks.com/CommandDecision.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

I used to play Frank Chadwick's Command Decision rules for many years right up to 3rd Ediion, I parted company with these rule with 4th Edition fir various reasons although I still play the occasional game with 3rd Edition 

You have piqued my curiosity; what was it about the 4th. Edition that turned you off?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2017 at 8:30 AM, Michael Emrys said:

You have piqued my curiosity; what was it about the 4th. Edition that turned you off?

Michael

A couple of small things really. First I was not willing to pay the asking price. Second and more importantly I didn't like the change in the time scale from 15 minutes to half hour turns which I did not feel appropriate for armoured warfare. I was happy with the 15 minute turns in second and third editions, copies of which I already have.

Finally, by this point I had  largely switched to other rule sets, in particular Battlefront WW2 which do a similar job and have online support for moderns up to the end of the Cold War.

http://www.fireandfury.com/

This set Command Decision is a good set of rules for regimental/brigade evel gaming and I have enjoyed playing them a lot over the years. I have just moved on now for the most part, though I may still play the occasional CD game from time to time, probably with 3rd edition

Edited by LUCASWILLEN05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also tend to be more interested in gaming small unit actions these days (company to battalion level (strongly influenced here by CM games :-) ) so tend to be more attracted to rules like Battlefront WW2, Battlegroup Kursk, Sabre Squadron and 3rd Generation Warfare.

So I guess the real answer to your question Michael is that I have simply moved on and that my interests approach has changed :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...