Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The white text is very hard to read on many those pictures, partially due to the color, partially do to how close each line of text is to the ones above and below it.

This is a good product for the customers that understands how real tanks and warfare works, even if sci-fi-ish.

It is an interesting design and would be fun on the table top, but as smeone who does know how real tanks and warfare work, I have to disagree with the quoted statement above. There are a few things in the design that wouldn't cut it on a real tank.

Having said that, make a 15mm version and I would probably take one to go along with this:



which also has some design issues from a realism perspective but is a lot of fun.

SickSix wrote:Honestly I don't really get the demand for super ultra detail on every surface of a model. Where is the room for conversion or free-hand painting?

Sean_OBrien wrote:
BTW - one of the complaints that I often hear from the other old guy gamers is that they are generally annoyed with GW's take on tanks (and others who follow suit). They would like to see a tank with large expanses of empty space...since you often find that on real armor. It is a lot easier to add stowage after the fact than to file it off to begin with.

I think that the modern internet has created a phenomenon where people feel compelled to give opinions. And since nobody wants to be the third guy to say "it's not bad, but too expensive for something I have no use for" they have to give a reason for not liking it.

We're all guilty of it too. I know I've explained my "reasons" for not pledging to the Wyrd RPG Kickstarter, and none of the posited reasons are the real one: I don't play RPGs and don't find Malifaux interesting enough to buy the books for back ground.

But nobody wants to be outside of the conversation. So we come up with rationales and critiques and criticisms. I mean, anybody that sculpts a model that could conceivable be used in 40k can face one of the following criticisms:
1) That model is too bland and generic. Not enough detail or style.
2) That model's style is too different from GWs to fit into my army.
3) That model's style is just a rip off of GW.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Vintersorg wrote:

If you don't like the tank and you don't want to buy it, fine, you are not forced to, but please don't spit over months of sacrifices of money and time over a project that has seen a lot of love and dedication from wargamers like you.

Why do people post on an open forum if they don't want feedback?

Feedback yes, but not non-constructive harsh comments, please.

 Praxiss wrote:
if it's between the Baneblade and Leman Rus sizes then wouldn't it be good for one of the Malcador variants?

Nobody in their right minds would take a Malcador to begin with, so your point is moot.

Gentlemen!
Many thanks for the comments
I’ll try to clarify some aspects of the story.

This tank has been designed and printed in 3d, it’s not a shoebox with some plasticard, referring to Mr. Lord_blackfang ☺. The simple design of the tank’s surface has been obviously chosen because it is easier to cast, but most of all because the less complex is the armor, the better its protection due to the deflection offered.
Take examples from all modern tanks, from Abram to T-90, or from older tanks, from Tiger to T-34. If you remove ERA armor and stuff that the crew puts on the vehicle, they tend to be the cleanest possible. The model is far from having the detail of Tamyia models as someone says here, but in the range of garage-casters i think (due to direct experience) that it has all details needed for a good tank. In fact for a caster it’s very easy to add details like the fantastic ork-vehicles of Puppetwar, but it hasn’t sense on a tank like this, that aims to be “realistic”. I agree that if someone likes models full of strange stuff on them, this isn’t the right kit . A perfect example are the rivets, that today every sci-fi vehicle must have; rivets have not been in use since WW2 (our italian tanks were maybe the last to have them), and today are used only to apply extra plates of armor over the tank, because rivets do not grant NBC and water isolation, and after impact tend to explode inside the hull like bullets killing the crew; anyway due to the habit of putting rivets everywhere of some houses, today a tank without rivets is considered “poor”.

About Wh40k; this tank is compatible with this wargame, but has not been created for it. The truth is that today the wargaming in near monopolized by few houses, and if someone wants to create a new kit must make it compatible with those games to pay back the huge expenses. It's not a crime, it's all about to make completely original models for all the expanding universe of 28mm wargaming, models that can be used in the widest range of games possible. Have you noticed for example that near all houses (even big ones) are offering zombies today? It seems as the black death is striking again ☺ Well, we are not offering zombies here, we are not acting in that "low" way, we are just offering a brand new tank with a good mechanical structure. In fact the tank has been designed because in the 28mm I could not find a good sci-fi one; the only one was the Mordian tank, very nice kit, but again too similar to existing tanks and with too much rivets and archaism ☺. Others, like the fantastic Antenocitis ones, are too small or without tracks, others have never been finished, others are wheeled. Today they are casting nice 28mm WW2 tanks, but again they would be improbable in a sci-fi battlefield.
It is at that point of the story that the ZULU 1 was designed; I thought it had all what a future tank may need, clear lines, simplicity, good structure, good proportions, good design. Probably it has not, but today I’m keeping my attention high to understand what could be done in the future for better results.
About this, I would be honored if mr. Cpt. Jake would tell me what is wrong on the vehicle, via forum or better via PM. Thanks Captain! ☺

About the price: Mr. Ouze and Mr. Kenshin620, we are thinking about lowing the price to 38,72 EU (42,92 USD) to the basic kit, 50.82 EU (66,54 USD) for kit with weapon sets. Really we will hardly pay the material with those prices, but considering that this is our 3rd job – an hobby in effects, than it could be ok. May I have you opinion about new prices, please? ☺

About size: someone requested me more photos with comparison with a Baneblade and a Leman russ. Today after work I made some photos, excuse me for the bad light but it was already dark; it's a hard life down here in this little poor crippled Italy.




















About TMP; yes, thank you very much for the suggestion, I'm already planning to do it, but since I'm a good guy I'm waiting to finish the bloody site and contact the admin for an insertion as supporter of the site. Tanks again for you help.

Thanks to all Dakka Dakka for your attention.
Best regards, zcharles.

Looks like it might make a good 'True Scale' Predator!

Good explanation and rationale - especially the lack of rivets. The current pricing is much more reasonable and in line with the market offerings of this type (IMO).

I also imagine the weapons, which appear to be chambered more realistically then 40K (which starts at "canned ham" and goes up from there) will hold some appeal as well.

.
I have a question for you. You indicate that this price point would make the resin itself eat most of the profits. Is it possible to use fillers, like microspheres, to reduce this? I haven't really worked with this so it's an actual question rather then a suggestion. It would seem that the less-detailed, big boxy shapes you work with are ideal for a thicker fluid whereas finer work would make this impossible.

The kit looks like it could have some uses, though I'm not fond of the simple surfaces. I know riveting is outdated, but there are other possibilities - spaced armor, using more rounding and angling (I like the way frontal armor of the turret has been executed - shame that wasn't used more on other parts of the tank), putting on more plates, vents and vision slits. That all would make the tank look more complex. Adding realism to wargaming is great, but the "rule of cool" should always be in the first place.

What I really don't like about the tank is its frontal machine gun. A turret or hull-mounted gun would look much better there.

Still, I think the designer showed some talent and the tank could actually have many uses in 40k wargaming, including conversions to Macharius. For 40 euro that's not bad at all

I like to see others besides GW make 28mm vehicles. More choice is good for the gaming community as a whole.

As to the tank itself its not bad, I hate the sponsons but hate sponsons in general anyway. I like the low profile turret but wish the superstructure above the tracks had better angles for its armor. Overall it gets across what the designer intended, a 40kish MBT.

After the April fools joke Russ a couple years back I scratch built a couple mini-Baneblades to use as Demolishers. They came out about this size and no one has said a single negative word about me using them as Demolishers. Bigger targets are just easier to hit.

Also.... Is that 15mm Ogre scratch built or a kit? Its fantastic either way.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
42,35 euros for basic version; 54,45 euros for versions with weapon sets, plus shipping

I like the tank, Im a fan of simpler armor styles like this (my favorite is WWII and post war periods)...but that price puts the basic one at or over $55 USD. Given the size and simplicity Id seriously consider one at around $35 USD, but not almost double that. Thats the price range of far larger and more complex 1/35 scale model kits.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

ALCE MINIATURES wrote:
we are thinking about lowing the price to 38,72 EU (42,92 USD) to the basic kit

I may go for it at that price...

Thanks ergotoxin!
About the frontal gun, it's not the best, but I created it very simple (something like a .50 gun protected into an armored box with ammo box, the 2 electrical engines needed for 2 rotations, a 180 degrees field camera) because of the numbers of silicon needed do replicate the tool; whit this configuration is has all what a HMG needs for the minimum number of 4 parts. Let's say is some kind of compromise.
In fact laser cannon and flamer are much better, with some more volume.
The turret idea is not bad at all, maybe you have in mind something like the "Aliens 2" vehicle frontal turret?
http://fireballtim.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/APC2.jpg
Or the british crusader hull turret?
http://hobbyzdirect.com/new_rc_store/images/products/32541_01.jpg
The only reason I excluded a turret was because the 4th crewman of the tank is located inside the hull and command all 3 weapons via remote controls.
Anyway I'll keep the suggestion for a possible turret upgrade.

Ouze: The hull is cave inside, so I'm not using all THAT resin; I know that microspheres are used to keep the reaction temperature down and to spare resin, but this in largest works like small ships hulls.
I'll ask about those to my seller, but I think we cannot use them without incurring in the risk of loosing some detail. I'll make you know, thanks
About cost: the main cost on those models is given by the mold; very very very expensive.
For the final price consider that the tank needs about 15 molds (without weapon sets), for to build a tank I need about a week (I prepare the molds in the morning before to go at work, and in the evening I open them, and in a week a get a tank). It's something like the german rate of production of tigers... I hope isn't too slow as for germans was
Consider that one tank needs about 500 kg of resin, that means about 6,00 EU. So with 30,00 EU we are at 24,00 (i'm reasoning without VAT); let's say that 50% is used to pay back (slowly, very slowly) the mold cost, I get 12,00 EU. Since I'm an artisan I sell the tank respecting the law or I risk to have the visit of cops at home for tax evasion, so I get about 5,00 EU for tank.
Not talking about machines, that are very simple but need space and basic manutention.
Remember that I need about one week to cast a tank... It's about 1 EU per day.
Let's say I'm not going to cause the collapse of big miniatures houses

As you can see, this tank is FROM the wargamers, FOR the worgamers, not at all for the bloody money
It's hobby. Let's breach the siege of those few houses that are sieging our hobby with their marketing and obsolete products... This is my point of view mate
And this is why the opinion of some users here really hit me hard, like if this tank is some sort of trap or like if we are trying to steal the money of someone with some trick. But hey, it's life, and it's Internet

About earning money seriously, consider that houses like the fantastic Puppetwars, fantastic Kromlech and others you already know, they all make this at full-time, and have about 5 employees each, and usually produce in low-cost countries (except Chapterhouse that is USA).
Ah low-cost countries! Ergotoxin, I was in your country 2 times, 15 and 10 years ago, I'll never forget it how it was. Hope it's not changed too much.

Wow, those margins are rough. Thanks for the peek at the inner workings.

I would like to start off by saying I love how the turrent has 2 hatches. I know it sounds dorky, but being a Marine I've been waiting for ages for that.
One of the creative sugestions I have are main gun should have a secondary with it, like a .50

Another sugestion is that it needs a comander 360 view port, so your commander can view out while the tank is buttoned up. You can see in this picture, its just part of the commanders hatch

As for the hull, the size is decent, but I'm not too sure of the placement of the turret and the size of it. General turrets are almost 2/3 the size of the tank itself. You can google most MBTs and see for yourself. Here is a picture of the Israeli MBT


Infact alot of countries MBTs are now looking alike,
The Israeli Merkava mbt
The Russian Black Eagle mbt
The Chinese Overlord mbt
The American m1a3 Abrams prototype
When you look at these tanks you can clearly see they are going for a smaller signature. Maximum firepower, maximum armor, but the smallest target possible.

Any who, Thats my 2 cents. I'd pay $47 for it. Could you post a picture your turret on top of a chimeria? Can you buy the turret seperatly?

This model looks good. Real good. Looks a lot like the tanks and armor that I used to live in.

Of course Newabortion you can buy only the turret; i'll post you on a chimera ASAP.
About your suggestions, and Castellan, Justin and Mad4mins replies, tank you very much!
I appreciate a lot technical suggestions; in fact CptJake here on Dakkadakka sent me a mail full of details about real tanks and the problems of this one. Some suggestions were the same of yours.
Since now we're really out of money, probably we will let the turret as it is (ok we miss the 360 degree TD hatch, but he has a 360 degrees periscope...), but we are considering to make a new design of the central part of the hull.

Abou the turret size, you're right for sure, but I decided to design a turret in middle way between T-72 and NATO tanks; as you know T-72 and others have ammo in the hull, NATO tanks mostly in the turret, that is much better; as you see from initial photos, this tank has a compromise solutions of explosive ammo in turret with auto-loader (that allows a much smaller turret, at the price of some negative aspects as we know), non explosive rounds (SABOT et similia) in the hull. The reason was that the tank was already big, and was trying to keep it in reasonable dimensions... probably when (IF) we will create a new hull, all proportions will be adjusted. We will see!

About the coaxaxial .50 MG; true, the MG is missing due to make the tank the most compatible possible with existing game systems... since I cannot modify the turret mold, I will try to add something into the kit to apply a simple coaxial MG tube near the main gun.
Thanks again, as you see, you help is much needed.

Wow ALCE Miniatures, that reply was really refreshing.

Please Newabortion, PM me your mail.

Not sure why you would consider sabot rounds non-explosive. At least current ones still need a heck of a lot of propellent to launch them out of the gun tube.



I'm pretty sure there is more or at least a very similar amount of propellent in a modern sabot as in a modern HEAT round. That is how the sabot gets the velocity to get a kinetic kill and the super flat trajectory.

In the 80's a tank crew had a couple guys killed when the loader was lap carrying a round. They had a malfunction and the loader put the round down, unlike the older rounds these are in a carboard tube and just the cap (aft cap) on the end is metal. A hot aft cap from a sabot round pnetrated the carboard casing and the porpellent caught fire. The incident changed US tank gunnery for ever. Lap carrying became a thing of the past.

Jake

It happened the same thing here in Italy with a Leopard 1 crew; the tank halted in the middle of the field, crew was gone.

About sabot; I was thinking that ammo is divided in 2 with big calibres like the ultra-heavy 170mm rounds of this tank: projectile and propellant. An example is here on the T-72 autoloader.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NIaoOabF_0

Again, your opinions are always welcome Cptjake, you're becoming a sort of feared field-tester for my designers (me). I'll pay back your help one day.

I'm not a big fan of divided rounds for tank guns It works for Arty where you need to be able to use different charges but speed of firing isn't critical.

Two part round come close to doubling the loading time, and that can be a bad thing to a tanker.

Additionally, it adds complexity to a task already being performed under stress which increases the likelyhood of screw-ups when you can least afford them.

An auto-loader mitigates the second part, but the load times are still going to suffer.