"Why do so many manufacturers make Zulu War figures? " Topic
90 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Showcase Article The first aerial ship proper for my Turks.
Featured Profile Article Reader Michael Thompson sends in these Back of Beyond photos from the club where he games.
|
Pages: 1 2
| BullDog69 | 30 Sep 2008 11:03 p.m. PST |
Jeremy Sutcliffe Colour Sergeant Bourne, perhaps? |
| PC473RG | 01 Oct 2008 1:01 a.m. PST |
Probably a requirement for any Zulu army to have a large number of figures has something to do with it.
My first wargames figures were 15mm Mike Models Zulu war, 20 figures on each side using home made rules, my opponent and I soon realised we needed more Zulus and ended up with over 500 of them, not a bad army for a couple of 14 year olds! |
| Jeremy Sutcliffe | 01 Oct 2008 2:14 a.m. PST |
Thanks Bulldog, but I wasn't going to re-run the DVD to check. |
| BullDog69 | 01 Oct 2008 2:22 a.m. PST |
Jermy Sutcliffe Fair point, though when you do have time, it's always worth re-watching Nigel Green's magnificent portrayal of the archetypal Victorian-era NCO. In reality, however, apparently Colour Sergeant Bourne was only his mid 20's and stood about 5'6" – far from the image of him given in the film. |
| advocate | 01 Oct 2008 2:45 a.m. PST |
If I was put in charge of the British for a re-fight of Isandlwana I think that starting from the position of committing to a refight of the batle would indeed be a mistake. You would be better to
a) do the "Central column campaign" – preferably with multiple British commanders or
b) give the Zulu the option of attacking Chelmsford's column rather than the camp or
c) do not allow British to discover the main impi and trigger the attack on the 22nd. Fight the battle on the 23rd
d) make it a hidden scenario… Did Pulleine have any choice over deploying Durnford's troops – Durnford being the senior officer? In any case Durnford, Pulleine and Chelmsford were all operating on limited information and unaware (until troops had been committed) where or when the blow was going to fall. By the time things became clear, decisions had already been made and the sequence of events more or less un-stoppable. |
| BullDog69 | 01 Oct 2008 3:02 a.m. PST |
advocate All good points. I would say that Pulleine certainly had plenty of time to pull his men back, however, and that the major blunder he made was establishing his firing line way too far from the camp (and the ammo supply). The basic problem I have with wargaming the Zulu War is that, however much you tinker with things, come up with clever / hidden scenarios, limit a players options or play 'what ifs', the battle will ultimately come down to the British player rolling dice to see how many Zulus he kills in a turn, and the Zulu player moving his men forwards each turn.
This will happen in 99% of battles as the only way the British player can hope to win is to drive off the Zulus using rifle-fire, and the only way the Zulu player can win is to bring his hordes into hand-to-hand combat. Despite my love of the Colonial period, I soon realised this reality and stopped playing 'Brits against Natives' as a result – though apparently this makes me an unimaginative  . |
 20thmaine  | 01 Oct 2008 4:13 a.m. PST |
Der Alte Fritz said :
"Since the period hasn't received treatment from plastics as yet, it would seem to be a natural subject for a plastic range." If you mean 25mm hard plastics then I guess you are correct – but in HO/OO/ 1/72nd / 20mm/ whatever we're calling them this week then there are plenty of zulus, and a goodly number of victorian british. And, for that matter boers. And Qualiticast did a fantastivc range of pewter figures perfectly in scale with the plastics (sigh, wish I'd bought more) and I think Jacklex also had some suitable figures (and they are back in production, so who knows, maybe qualiticast won't be gone forever either !). Plastics rock, don't'cha know ! |
| Griefbringer | 01 Oct 2008 4:45 a.m. PST |
This will happen in 99% of battles as the only way the British player can hope to win is to drive off the Zulus using rifle-fire, and the only way the Zulu player can win is to bring his hordes into hand-to-hand combat. The first fix here is to write scenario victory conditions that require the Brits to move, instead of camping on their deployment zone. Eg. the Brits are moving in a column and must escort the wagon train to the next planned location (because the orders require them to reach that spot by nightfall, whether there be some silly natives in the way). Or the Brits need to advance and burn a kraal – even worse if there is a difficult ford in the way and they need to leave the wagons with a rear guard at it while the rest advance on foot. Griefbringer |
| BullDog69 | 01 Oct 2008 5:07 a.m. PST |
Griefbringer I know what you are driving at and I have seen these sort of scenarios several times. However, these sort of artificial 'rules' and constraints just strike me as ahistorical, I'm afraid. "The British have to get to point x by turn 12 or they lose" just seems nonsense to me and a desperate attempt to stop the British player doing the logical thing, and simply holding his position and blasting away at any Zulus which come into range. Would any one really chastise a commander who brought his troops / wagons / whatever in ten minutes late after fighting off several hundred Zulus? I think not.
From reading the posts, it does seem, however, that there is an acceptance that attempts to re-fight the historical battles are usually unsatisfactory and that the campaign can only really be enjoyed as a wargame with lots of tinkering and fairly contrived scenarios. Which is what I was driving at when, in my initial post, I dared to suggest that the campaign doesn't lend itself to great wargames. |
| Pictors Studio | 01 Oct 2008 5:24 a.m. PST |
Well that's the thing, you wouldn't just be standing there firing. Your troops would be facing in one direction, they would have the zulus appear to their front and race past them. So they have to move to shoot at them as they go. But, they aren't the only zulus around. There are more coming right at your guys. So then you have to move around to face them, or fall back shooting or something. Depending on how you design the scenario you might be able to wipe out enough flanking zulus to give your guys in the back a chance to get away before you are overwhelmed. |
| BullDog69 | 01 Oct 2008 5:28 a.m. PST |
Pictors Studio It still doesn't strike me as making for a terribly fascinating game, I must confess. But that is just my opinon, of course – each to their own. |
| Etranger | 01 Oct 2008 6:20 a.m. PST |
Bulldog69: here's a link to Colour Sergeant Bourne – who ended up as a Lieutenant Colonel, having served in WWI & not dying until 1945. link |
| Baccus 6mm | 01 Oct 2008 6:27 a.m. PST |
Hi Bulldog, We did a Zulu Wars range last year. Why? 1) Because there was a large and consistent demand for it from both new and existing customers. 2) I cannot deny the influence of 'that film'. However, 1) was certainly the driving force and in my judgement I thought the investment was warranted. I was going into the market against existing ranges in my scale covering the same subject but I felt that we could do it better and provide items not already covered. A third point is that as I had decided to cover the 'Colonial' period the Zulu Wars actually gave me a nice starting point and many of the figures made for these campaigns could see service elsewhere. For example the Brits in both the Sudan and early Boer Wars, while the Boer auxiliaries were there to provide the opposition. While I'm not prepared to give away total sales figures and profit I am happy to say that the results have more than justified the decision and sales continue to be very strong. Knowing whether a range will sell well enough to justify the effort and expense put in to it is a Black Art. Every release is a calculated risk and as a manufacturer I have to stand or fall by the decisions made. Sometimes it is hard logic, sometimes emotion but is more usually a subtle mix of both. As for Isandhlwana being boring to game – ask anyone who played or watched the Maidstone Zulu game at Colours a couple of weeks ago what they think. I doubt you'll get many siding with you. Cheers
Peter
|
| BullDog69 | 01 Oct 2008 6:32 a.m. PST |
Peter Many thanks for your input and I am glad that sales have been good – it seems there is plenty of the Zulu War pie to go round afterall! You will note that I never stated Isandlwana would be 'boring' to game, only that I do not think it lends itself to being wargamed for the reasons I detailed earlier. Perhaps you can explain what approach the Maidstone organisers took to over-come the points I raised? |
| Plynkes | 01 Oct 2008 2:51 p.m. PST |
The film with Jack Hawkins where he plays an ex-army officer who, together with his old comrades (including Dicky Attenborough)plans a heist with military precision (but still botches it) is called "The League of Gentlemen", not "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." It only shares the title with the comedy series set in Royston Vasey.
I read somewhere that Bourne's nickname was "The Kid" or some such, which doesn't really put you in mind of Nigel Green.
|
| Baccus 6mm | 02 Oct 2008 1:41 a.m. PST |
Bulldog, MAD gamers too the approach of having all the players on one side with the other being umpire/random controlled. This works very well in a lot of these uneven encounters. In this case, they took the unconventional approach of all the players taking the part of Zulus all trying to get their share of the glory in assaulting the redcoats. Judging by the number of games played over the weekend and the big smiles on the face of the players I'd say it was a very successful approach.
Cheers
Peter
|
| anvil1 | 02 Oct 2008 8:39 a.m. PST |
bulldog for a short quick answer,,, gamers game the Zulu era because they enjoy it manufactures create new Zulu figs because they make money at it.. "Not really – my post certainly confirms that I think the period is interesting, but doesn't really explain why so many manufacturers produce ranges for it. And though I am hugely interested in the conflict, I wouldn't consider it one which I would find suitable to wargame." you obviously have done your homework,and found the era lacking for your wargaming tastes.. So why your questions? anvil |
| BullDog69 | 02 Oct 2008 9:12 a.m. PST |
Peter That is certainly an interesting approach, and I am sure it was a good (perhaps fairly light-hearted?) game. That they decided to take this sort of approach does sort of support what I said about the battle not being ideal for a 'traditional' wargame, though, and I wonder how historically accurate a game it was? I think a game that 'works' at a convention is a bit of a unique animal to begin with – but as long as people enjoyed playing it, then who cares. anvil1 Mainly because this is a discussion forum and I thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. If you do not feel it is, then please remember you are under no obligation to post.
My interest in why so many manufacturers choose the Zulu War to produce a range for was sparked by seeing two 'brand new' companies both picking this conflict – from all the thousands of years of human conflict from around the globe – to start off with. Given that so many other ranges – in every imaginable scale – already existed for this conflict, this interested me, as, rightly or wrongly, I had always considered the most popular periods to be Napoleonics, WW2 and ACW.
Despite what you say, we still don't know if they will indeed make money by this endeavour, but let's hope they do. All business sense suggests that any market must reach saturation point at some stage, so I still wonder how much more room there is in the Zulu War market. |
| anvil1 | 02 Oct 2008 6:07 p.m. PST |
well,, good business practice also indicates that if there is no money to be made, don't go there,,and it would appear that is not the case… pretty straight forward business logic,,Or of course, the reverse could be the case,,but I truly don't think that most of the producers of miniatures would make that kind of mistake… you forget the other most popular period,, ancients.. now that brings up another memory,, a question such as yours back "in the day" early '70's to be exact.. here in the US,, one was pretty lucky to find other miniatures gamers,,and like you mentioned,, they most likely gamed one of the three you mentioned,,plus ancients… alas,, my interests have always been less than main stream,, SYW, British Colonials(including Zulus) and at that time Western Gunfighting…to name a few when we got into conversations concerning eras,, their responses.. including about SYW,, were more or less exactly the same as your questions,,and responses to those who do indeed enjoy this era… rather condescending to say the least…..lol,, including to a major producer of miniatures!! Of course back then ., about the only source for such off the wall eras was from England… Hinchcliff,Tradition,Mini Figs,and other OSW type figure producers… And just look at the choices of eras now,,in this day and age,,, it is rather amazing,,, and I look upon the wealth of figs with much joy… even if i don't game them. And truly enjoy the new releases that i see!! I would give you my reasons for gaming Zulus,, or any of the colonial eras,,but I truly don't think it would do much good. If i misunderstand your condescending tone,,then please forgive me in advance.. anvil |
| BullDog69 | 02 Oct 2008 11:37 p.m. PST |
anvil1 Perhaps you didn't read the post from the chap who owns Wargame's Factory, who said the reason he decided to launch a range for the Zulu War was that he liked the period – no mention of money, and no conventional business practice there. Who is to say that other manufacturers were not inspired by similar motivations? You are correct – I forgot ancients. You have certainly misunderstood my 'condescending tone' (please give evidence of this?) and, I think, the whole thrust of what I am trying to establish by asking my question. This was not in anyway intended to be a 'Zulu War bashing' thread, but rather an attempt to understand what motivates a manufacturer to launch a line of miniatures, what thought process is behind it, and what research is done on it. Your claim that manufacturers follow the money would be a logical answer in most main-stream businesses, but would not seem to be the whole answer in the wargames industry.
I have no axe to grind whatsoever with any one who wants to play the Zulu War, but I do wonder how many more manufacturers can enter this already crowded market. As it seems no one really does / can do any in-depth market research, perhaps there will continue to be a temptation for new miniatures companies to see it as a good launch-pad for their business – which might not be such a good idea. |
| Griefbringer | 03 Oct 2008 3:08 a.m. PST |
As regards market research, I recall Wargames Factory having at least done some attempts by running some polls around a year ago or so. These were promoted at least here in TMP. Not sure how many answers they got, and how representative those were of the audience at large. Griefbringer |
| Grelber | 03 Oct 2008 5:06 a.m. PST |
BullDog69 As to why anyone would want to game the period, I have several additional suggestions. What you have is a confrontation between two basic tactical methods: firepower versus shock. The opposing armies represent pretty much the extremes of firepower and shock. The Zulu War takes place in a period when firepower ascendency isn't overwhelming. The British are very good at firepower, but they don't have the advantages of magazine rifles and Maxim guns they had nineteen years later when they defeated the dervishes at Omdurman. The Zulus are a first class shock tactics army: confident and well trained, they won't fold at the first casualty. The trick for both sides (as always), is to work things out to optimize your advantages and minimize your disadvantages. Terrain plays a very important role here. Another point is that in the past 50 years or so have seen the Zulu War has gone from an almost forggotten colonial campaign to a period with a lot of (yes, English language) information available. The reading material includes both in depth research and popular books, so there is something to keep you inspired besides the movie (which is nice, but how many times can you watch it?). Grelber |
| BullDog69 | 03 Oct 2008 7:02 a.m. PST |
Grebler All good points. Again, let me repeat that I am not in any way 'against' the period (despite what some posters have chosen to assume) but simply remain surprised that so many manufacturers choose to offer figures for it. |
| anvil1 | 03 Oct 2008 8:03 a.m. PST |
some other strengths and weakness that make this a very challenging era.. brits have limited knowledge of the terrain,,ie max fog of war,, long fragile supply lines, upper level command is not totally united. Zulus have literally no fog of war, no supply lines problems, max manpower,,strong united upper level of command, and like Grelber said,, a colonial adversary that was totally professional,highly disciplined,and fearless. their primary weakness is attrition. I would suggest that if you played a campaign,,and did truly understand the strengths and weaknesses of both sides,, your tactics of forming square and waiting for a Zulu charge would not be too successful,,in the campaign sense. For instance,, they could very easily leave a small holding\blocking force to keep you in square,,whilst cutting your supply lines,, then the brits must move out or die of thirst,,,
I did read all posts,,but didn't jump to the conclusion that because Wargames Factory chose not to speak of his economics concerning this line, that it bombed…
And it is never a bad business practice to be able to work in a medium you truly enjoy,, and create lines that you are just plane fascinated with… I call that being blessed!! Your questions could be asked about any era including the "big 4",, i mean just look at how many maufactures do Nappy!! I would guess that there is hardly a unit that has not been created between the '70's and now.. To me what this indicates is a very healthy hobby with a plethora of eras,,fantasy to historic,,inner city to obscure,,and all seem to be doing rather well… and i have no clue as to where you got yer info that miniatures companies don't do market research… I think another jump to conclusion here… I recommend amonst the older books on the era,, Desmond Morris, The Washing of the Spears. great read. |
| BullDog69 | 03 Oct 2008 10:42 a.m. PST |
anvil1 As I have now repeatedly said, the point of this thread was not to debate the pros and cons of wargaming the Zulu War, but to discuss the thought process behind so many companies picking to produce miniatures for this conflict. I am at a loss as to how to make this any clearer for you. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the market research done by miniatures manufacturers, as no one else seems to be aware of any significant amount being done. Perhaps Games Workshop / Wargames Foundry might do some, but I seriously doubt that any of the smaller miniature manufacturers do. The fellow from Wargames Factory told us that he produced the figures because he liked the period, and Peter from Baccus said he responded to requests from customers / wargamers – neither of these came really be termed market research, though obviously Peter could be fairly sure that there were some potential customers out there.
Perhaps you know something I don't, and can tell us the number of gamers who play each period, what they spend on miniatures each month, what they like / don't like about the existing ranges and what would motivate them to change their miniature supplier / current period / current scale? However, I doubt that you – or any one else – are in a position to do this, and I am getting the feeling you are just trying to be argumentative. Quite why, I don't know. You also forgot to point out examples of the 'condescending tone' you claim I have adopted. |
| The War Event | 03 Oct 2008 10:55 a.m. PST |
In answer to the original post, try reading "The Washing of the Spears" by Donald R. Morris. After you read the book, watch the Stanley Baker movie, "Zulu". I think you will then see why people like to game the period. - Greg |
| anvil1 | 03 Oct 2008 12:37 p.m. PST |
Oops,,Thanks Greg,, got his first name wrong.. its been a while since reading it.. Bulldog,, no,, not meaning to be argumentative,, just presenting my viewpoints. Market research.. seems there are many ways to do market research,, as there are many periods to game.. much can be deduced here at TMP.. and many small manufactures have their own websites,, not to mention a plethora of sites at Yahoo.. as I am sure you know.. seems to work,,as there are so many off the wall periods being produced at this time… hope this gives you some insights into other ways market research can be done,,without putting out a lot of money and time… I just happen to disagree with you that it is a saturated market,not worth producing more figs, and not worth gaming,, as you have pointed out(Zulus). many others have attempted the same thing,, but instead of just reading their responses, you seem to comment in a rather negative way,, to reinforce your viewpoint that this is not a worthwhile era to game. your question here seems to cover all the above,, saturated market,not a good era for gaming,etc,, at least thats what I get out of your replys here.. Personally, I find it hard to believe that anybody would be negative twards any person who has the courage,and creativity to produce any line of figs,, in this day and age.. sorry, but I just remember the times when finding anything other than the Big 4 was a real chore!! And, I have no doubt that if they preserver, it will be a worthwhile project,, however they chose to define "worthwhile"… for what its worth,, if you post an opinion on a website, and someone takes an opposite view,, it is not necessarily for argumentative reasons.. "As I have now repeatedly said, the point of this thread was not to debate the pros and cons of wargaming the Zulu War, but to discuss the thought process behind so many companies picking to produce miniatures for this conflict. I am at a loss as to how to make this any clearer for you." and as I have said, obviously others do not hold to this belief,,do continue to produce figs,and feel it is worth their time. You have an opposite belief,,more power to you.. I respect your viewpoint,, as I do theirs.. and,, if you do reread the posts and reply's here,, you will see many people trying to give you pros,,and you continue to reply with cons.. what else can I say? anvil |
| BullDog69 | 03 Oct 2008 1:20 p.m. PST |
GRPitts Neither of those statements answer the original question. anvil1 OK – so are you agreeing that no one knows the size of the market or, indeed, answers to any of the other market-research questions I posed? 'others do not hold this belief' – what belief? At what point was I 'negative' towards any one who has set up a company producing miniatures? You have still to provide examples of my 'condescending tone'. OK – so you do not think the market is saturated, and perhaps you are right. How many more companies do you think can launch Zulu War ranges before it is? 3? 5? 20? 100? Or do you think that – because you find the Zulu Wars fun to wargame – an infinite number of companies can launch ranges and still all make money? You have not posted the 'opposite view' – you have ignored the question / thrust of the discussion and instead concentrated on telling me why you find the Zulu War fun to wargame. This – as I have now said countless times – is not the reason I started the thread, or the question I wanted to discuss. Despite whatever you might think, I am genuinely interested as to what decision-making process goes on before a company launches a new range of miniatures. Let me give you an example:
If I had the talent and the time to set up a miniatures company, I would consider the following alternatives when deciding on what ranges to produce: 1) a conflict that is highly popular (eg. Zulu War)
pros: lots of interest already
cons: plenty of competition from established companies 2) a conflict that is obscure (eg. Cod War)
pros: little / no competition
cons: no established market 3) obscure forces for a popular conflict (eg. Dutch WW2)
pros: little competition, some players will already have forcees of other nations which fought in that conflict
cons: perhaps they are obscure for a reason? From looking at adverts on TMP and other places, companies use all three of these avenues to get into the market, and I am interested which of these approaches is the most successful and what motivated them to make these decisions etc. None of this is about the pros and cons of fighting the Zulu War – despite what you seem to have decided. |
| Aurelian | 03 Oct 2008 3:07 p.m. PST |
I'm a long time colonial gamer, Bull Dog, and I have often wondered the same thing. I enjoy gaming the Zulu War,but with the exception of a few more "not Michael Caine" type figures (personality figures from the 'Zulu' movie would be welcome, but they're not always easy to get in the more commonly gamed colonial scales), the war has been covered again, and again, and again. Compare this to the other British Colonial Wars – the Ashanti War, for example, or even Egypt in 1883, and the number of figures supporting these campaigns drops down dramatically. Now, take a step back further and look at -other- Colonial powers. There are finally ranges for the Dutch, the Germans, a few packs of Portuguese here and there, some useable Spanish, and some French. But variety is currently lacking, as are their opponents. I've been trying to get manufacturers to make Wahehe for the Wahehe/HeHe Wars for years, to no avail (I use Zulus, but there are some differences in appearance). It's great that these non-British campaigns have some coverage (thank you to those that do), but it would be nice to see more. As for the Zulu War itself, I think the field is currently, and if I may say, massively, oversaturated. But then again, I feel the same way about other "popular" periods in wargaming. I sometimes wonder if we see so many miniatures companies fail or scale back because many are afraid to innovate with new and exciting ranges. How many WW2 Germans do we need? How many Zulu War British? How much Confederate Cavalry? Just how many companies are going to do M4 Shermans and Panzer IVs? Give me some WW2 Italian Cavalry, some Hungarians, heck, Danes; give me HeHe War Wahehe; give me 1848-49 Hungarian War of Independence figs. How about personality packs for the Anglo-Egyptian War, or some figs to fight the Riff Wars?
What about figs for the Chitral Campaign, complete with a fort for the siege? I could go on ad infinitum, but.. I often feel the same way when attending large miniatures conventions. I find that, as I attend them, I buy less and less, because frankly variety is not a strong suit. I want to see new stuff – and when the same company has had the same packs for the last eight Historicons… well… I get excited by innovative companies. Askari, and Tiger Miniatures spring to mind for colonials, A&A covers my favorite period of Romans for Ancients (Middle Imperial), etc. There's even a guy doing the Czech Army of the 1930s. But for every company like this, there are four or five producing "the same old stuff" (as nice as some of it is!). Doubtless this will draw some flack, but it's not meant as an attack on anyone or any company in particular. That said, why is it done? I don't know. Guaranteed sales would seem to make sense, but as you (and others) have pointed out, I now have virtually all the Anglo-Zulu War miniatures I need, and I'm not about to completely invest in a new range just because I like the sculpts better. I can only figure that it's a prominent conflict, with prominent rulesets, that goes back to the beginnings of the re-birth of historical miniature gaming in the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe that alone makes it attractive, and it comes with a prestige factor?
-A.
|
| anvil1 | 03 Oct 2008 5:19 p.m. PST |
bulldog,, well, i will answer your questions,,even tho i believe they are redundant,,and answered within context of this post… "OK – so are you agreeing that no one knows the size of the market or, indeed, answers to any of the other market-research questions I posed?" sorry never said this,, what i said is there are many ways of researching your market for releasing figs… one way is by doing conventional market research,,which is what you suggest,, the other way is to do more inovative and intuitive research by searching out the many sources on line,, here and Yahoo are just two examples… two totally different approaches to "market research" "'others do not hold this belief' – what belief?" the market is saturated, there is no room for new figs, the period is not worth gaming,, now don't tell me you did not say the era was not suitable for gaming…is that not a condescending response?
"You have still to provide examples of my 'condescending tone'."
"You will note that I never stated Isandlwana would be 'boring' to game, only that I do not think it lends itself to being wargamed for the reasons I detailed earlier. Perhaps you can explain what approach the Maidstone organisers took to over-come the points I raised?" with all due respect, i do consider this just a bit condescending.. particularly from one who doesn't to one who does.. I believe i said i felt you were rather negative to those who answered your questions,,much less me,, lol "Peter That is certainly an interesting approach, and I am sure it was a good (perhaps fairly light-hearted?) game. That they decided to take this sort of approach does sort of support what I said about the battle not being ideal for a 'traditional' wargame, though, and I wonder how historically accurate a game it was? I think a game that 'works' at a convention is a bit of a unique animal to begin with – but as long as people enjoyed playing it, then who cares. " again with all due respect i consider this a bit negative to an asked question,and a bit condesending as well.. and apparently from one who never has to one who has… "OK – so you do not think the market is saturated, and perhaps you are right. How many more companies do you think can launch Zulu War ranges before it is? 3? 5? 20? 100? Or do you think that – because you find the Zulu Wars fun to wargame – an infinite number of companies can launch ranges and still all make money?" makes no difference as to whether I believe the market is saturated or not,, if my creativity is what I know it to be, then I would create any figs,,jump in with my artwork,,and absolutely know I would do ok,, Thats the courage,,and confidence of self needed first and formost to succeed at any indeavor..ya want to open a McDonalds..do a conventional market analysis.. want to market your own artwork? then you best be bold and absolutely confident in yourself…Them's that do, does,, them's that don't.. well,, dont. meaning there is always plenty of room at the top,, its only crowded at lower levels,, if you have the creativity,, go for it.. if you are just mediocre,,then ya got's lots of competition… "You have not posted the 'opposite view' – you have ignored the question / thrust of the discussion and instead concentrated on telling me why you find the Zulu War fun to wargame. This – as I have now said countless times – is not the reason I started the thread, or the question I wanted to discuss." with all due respect i have directly answered this question a number of times..
now all BS aside,,
"Despite whatever you might think, I am genuinely interested as to what decision-making process goes on before a company launches a new range of miniatures. Let me give you an example:
If I had the talent and the time to set up a miniatures company, I would consider the following alternatives when deciding on what ranges to produce:" I asked a number of times just why you are asking this question.. are you considering modeling a line of figs and setting up a miniatures company? If so,,then your query makes a lot of sense,,and if not.. well,, it is just a redundant query,,, So,, how about an answer to my question? if you are,,and you are straight forward,, you just might really get some advice and input that will be of real value to you Aurelian,, absolutely agree with your post,, Askari is truly upfront, bold,and doing an incredible job!! And your "want list" absolutely shows the true Renaissance we are in considering gaming figs..I am sure you do remember just how hard it was to get the simplest figs to complete a unit years ago!! even Zulus!! I am still looking for Royal Afgan Army figs to fill out my Frontier 25's from the 1880's!! anvil |
| anvil1 | 03 Oct 2008 5:40 p.m. PST |
bulldog,, If by chance you are toying with the idea to create a miniatures company,, then I would bet a conventional market analysis would absolutely let you know you should save your money,, not a hobby shop,, btw.. but if you truly are interested, I suggest you search out not only the companies mentioned above by Aurelian but that you search out posts by Shipka (Geoff) and find his sites on Yahoo. His approach to creating a new and exciting market for a very obscure era (Basically Russia 1880's) is absolutely bold,daring,detailed,totally passionate and will with out a doubt be a success!! There are undoubtedly others like him, but his example will answer all your questions,, abstractly,,if you remove Zulu,,and replace it with his era… Lol,, hope he doesn't mind being made an example of!! anvil |
| BullDog69 | 03 Oct 2008 10:42 p.m. PST |
Auerlian An excellent post. Many thanks for taking the time to put forward some interesting thoughts, rather than assuming my question was an attack on those who wargame the Zulu War. I also wonder if by producing a range for what they perceive as a 'big market', they are actually risking not achieving too many sales.
I agree that it is not only the Zulu War which is already saturated – I only picked it as an example – and also wonder at the thinking behind a company who produces a new range for any of the popular periods.
As in my earlier post, I think there are three main angles of attack when lauching a new range (there are probably many others I haven't thought of). The one I would be tempted to go for (if I were in the industry) would be to look at producing obscure enemies for existing figure ranges. I notice one company which advertises on TMP (can't remember the name) is offering troops for the 'minor' nations of WW2 – this strikes me as a very sensible approach, but again, other than the owner of that company, no one really knows if it is more or less succesful than opting to produce yet another Zulu War range.
As you suggest, by producing a range of 'Victorias Enemies' (eg) a manufacter could be pretty sure that those interested in the period will already have British / European colonial troops and might be interested in purchasing alternative enemies for them to fight. Again, this would seem a reasonable way forward – though if it would work or not is still anyone's guess. The current approach in wargaming strikes me a little bit like someone who walks down a street and sees it has lots of pubs – so they think 'I'll open a pub in this street and will make a fortune!'. An alternative approach might be: 'there are loads of pubs in this street, so I'll open a fast food shop here and do well off all the people who come to this street'. Anvil1 We are going round and round in circles. Do you or do you not accept that no one really knows the size of the existing or current market out there? If you think those quotes were condescending or in any way negative, then I think you must be a very sensitive soul, or else grasping at straws. If Peter took offense, then he certainly didn't say so. Peter – let me know and I will happily apologise. I have already told you why I asked this question – if you do not think it makes for an interesting debate, then why did you post? You did not give examples of when I was 'negative' towards those who produce new lines of miniatures – in fact, if you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have always said that I hope they sell well. I never said that the period was 'not worth gaming'. And – yet again – may I remind you that that is not the point of this thread. You never answered my direct, straight-forward, question about how many more manufacturers can enter the Zulu War market before it is saturated. Or do you genuinely beleive that – "if you have the creativity" – it is a market of infinite size? OK – let me take a different angle with you, Anvil1, as this is getting no where. Please answer the following questions: How many Zulu War figures do you have, in what scale(s) and by which manufacturer(s)?
What do you like / dislike about the the figures you own?
What figures does you want, but which are not produced by current manufacters?
How much do you plan spending on the new figures from Empress and Wargames Factory in the next six months, and why?
Had these two new manufacturers not recently entered the market, would you have spent that money on figures from your current prefered manufacturer? Any other Zulu War gamers are welcome to answer these questions too. |
| BullDog69 | 03 Oct 2008 10:53 p.m. PST |
Anvil1 Given that you 'absolutely agree' with Auerlian's post, I assume you agree with his points: "I'm a long time colonial gamer, Bull Dog, and I have often wondered the same thing" "the war has been covered again, and again, and again" "As for the Zulu War itself, I think the field is currently, and if I may say, massively, oversaturated" "as you (and others) have pointed out, I now have virtually all the Anglo-Zulu War miniatures I need, and I'm not about to completely invest in a new range just because I like the sculpts better" Is is difficult to understand how you can 'absolutely agree' with him, and yet disagree with me – as we are essentially saying the same thing. Which is why I think you are just being argumentative. |
| anvil1 | 04 Oct 2008 7:16 a.m. PST |
I do agree with his post,, but for some reason,,we seem to understand it differently.. and even tho he believes what he says,, he is open for new figs that he needs or wants when they come available..so read his whole post,, and be objective… thus,, like i said, conventional market analysis is not appropriate for miniatures..have you a problem with this? and like him,, i have no interest in investing in a complete line of zulus,,but will add figs that will bring more life to my already existing army… that should answer your query concerning my zulu army,, it is still growing,,if not played very often… again,, i will say,, there are many people producing zulus,,and other eras,, and it is very obvious to me that they do it because there is still a market,, if there was no market they would not produce the figs,,or do you believe that the business people in our hobby are just doing this for fun? not for profit? I have no desire to answer your questions concerning any of my figs, but if you are interested in producing figs,,or any other manufacture is interested,, off line by email is way more appropriate,,but I will tell you that i am very interested, atm in my Mex\An war figs,,and the new Russian 1880's figs being released by Askari miniatures..and soon by Geoff. And to simplify my point of view,,which is apparently the contrary to yours,, I believe gamers are more than interested in adding new figs to their already existing armies,,no matter how large they are,,just to add more "color and detail",,new life to an old army, no matter whether they game the big 4 or obscure eras…Our armies are our own personal works of art,, even if we do not sculpt our own figs,,so to add a new general,,or replace an older drummer with one with more character is the way we keep our armies alive and vital… come on,,can't you see this? I also believe that our hobby is healthy and growing,,new people coming in, and discovering the amazing variety of eras and manufactures available around the world…this is the market for any new producer,,no matter what lines he creates… and that means,, in my opinion that at this time,, there are very few,,if any saturated lines of figs and thus,, more and more Zulus being produced,,along with so many other eras.. and you have not answered my question,, are you contemplating going into business creating and producing figs? You should try it,, it is pretty fun,,no matter what your reasons,,economic business,,adding needed figs to your personal collection,,or just sharing your skills with others… perhaps the reason for your post is to "convince" the industry to not produce certain obscure figs because the market is "saturated" and the figs they need produce are the obscure figs you want,,, :) hey we all have been there,,done that,,but some of us have gone a step farther,,and actually sculpted those figs for personal use,,then dabbled in selling them to "make expenses" then had this grow into pretty fair business!! It really doesn't cost much to make figs as a hobby… and it is rather fun… and will give you just what you need.. anvil |
| BullDog69 | 04 Oct 2008 7:41 a.m. PST |
anvil1 Well, your definition of 'absolute agreement' is certainly an interesting one, given that Auerlian said he thinks the Zulu War is completely saturated, and you don't think it is. I have repeatedly answered your question about why I started this thread – I really have no idea how much more clear I can make it for you, but let me state it yet again – I am interested in the motivations behind why miniature manufacturers choose the lines of figures to produce – I am not starting a line of miniatures. I do think a lot of manufacturers produce figures as a side line / on a part time basis and therefore profit is not their only motivation. I am confused why you will not answer my questions. |
| The War Event | 05 Oct 2008 9:02 a.m. PST |
"GRPitts Neither of those statements answer the original question". Bulldog, I think it gives the question all the answer it deserves. If you are genuinely interested in finding a more complete answer to your question, contact the manufacturers directly and ask them. They are the only ones that can answer your question. Good day sir! - Greg |
| BullDog69 | 06 Oct 2008 8:13 a.m. PST |
GRPitts Thanks for your input – I am beginning to think that is the only way forward. |
| By John 54 | 06 Oct 2008 2:10 p.m. PST |
I game the Zulu war in 54mm, big shock!, using the fantastic 'Call to arms' range, plastic figures, really nice castings, the zulus in particular, are top cheese.
I use a lot of ACW figures, converting to various irregular units. And Nappy French Dragoons as the basis for British 17th Lancers. To see a unit of 200+ 54mm Zulus assaulting your fragile line gives one a plastic rush! and does focuss those ammo rules!
A skim over 'washing the Spears' would give you any number of scenarios, which have little of forming up the British and blazing away. I do agree, that scenarios for made-up encounters do take a little more thought than a WWII, 1500 points duff-up, however!
Also, using more of the irregular horse units, and/or units of the NNC, always get a little, er, unexpected!
In short, I love gaming this period, and have never even thought of the 'drying up' of ideas. John |
| By John 54 | 13 Oct 2008 2:32 p.m. PST |
So Bulldog, are you actually going to phone up a figure company, and ask why they are bothering to produce Zulu War figures, as there are too many of them already? |
| BullDog69 | 13 Oct 2008 11:19 p.m. PST |
Yes John – I don't think I'll be able to sleep until I do. |
Pages: 1 2
|
