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.
Following the previous discussion, and the somewhat less than apropos features of several models from both the revised KS renders and HG: Assault arena combat game in development for PC, I got to wondering:
- What makes a Gear a Gear, as opposed to say a Mount, Frame, or Armiger: is it something as simple as pilot head in vehicle sensor "head" assembly (which is not universal amongst even the Terra Novan factions) or something else entirely separate?
- What distinctive thematic elements set walker vehicles in Heavy Gear apart from the endless cycle of pseudo-copied Appleseed, Gundam, Patlabor, Robotech, etc etc etc [insert other manga/anime setting here] mechanical designs?
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
CEF frames are slimmer, more like large powered armor. They also (probably) are only piloted by brains in jars.
The mounts are less worn, and more driven or piloted. Like a car, or an Apache helicopter, except with legs. I imagine they have multiple operators.
Gears have several universal design features, primarily arms, v-engine, and ONN. This is because all gears are descendant from the same design. Basically REASLLY large power armor, and more worn than piloted, due to the interface.
What sets them apart from MOST anime robots is that they are not super, just general troopers.
In the end though, stompy bots are stompy bots.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/13 05:48:39
I won't comment on the frames, armigers, and mounts as I didn't ever get the RPG books that explained the history behind them (and I only like the aesthetics of one of those, namely the mounts).
In regards to gears, I'd say as someone who initially got hooked on HG prior to its release due to a Gencon prereg book promo picture, I'd say the following are what defines a HG:
1) The Size. Bigger than a "power armor" but smaller than a big stompy robot. That sweet spot of about 10ft to 20ft roughly is what works for me with the scout gears being on the low end and the kodiak/king cobra on the high end. The gear striders are the straw that breaks that particular camel's back for me in that regard.
2) The role. They're not the super gundam be all and end all they do everything better than other vehicles style machines. They're elite in that they're better than infantry (whether in armor or power armor) but they're still the boots on the ground jack of all trades. They tough but other things are tougher (tanks). They're fast but other things are faster (aircraft). They're the legos of the HG universe that you can build almost anything with them but you don't necessarily want them to do everything. To put it in the terms of the shows I watched as growing up as a kid in the 1980's, they're not the Super Friends or the 6 Million Dollar Man but rather the Black Sheep Squadron of scifi robot combat and I wouldn't have them any other way.
3) The look. I simply like the original asthetics. As stated above, the look of an assault hunter in some jungle foliage is what caught my eye initially and kept it on Heavy Gear for over 20 years despite all the unfriendly moves by the company during that time. I'd say a gear is defined for me as a robot of 10-20ft with a bit of a ultiliarian look that has a general human shape (head, torso, 2 arms, 2 legs) with a v-engine and a variety of weapons in most cases (again jack of all trades).
YMMV but that is what defines a gear for me at least relatively off the top of my head. I frankly don't really like the infantry, tanks, striders, aircraft and gear striders in HG as much but I appreciate that they're present there both in the fluff and as models. I own most of the categories above (except gear striders as I think they suck up to the lowest common denominator) to some degree but the gears in HG will always be my favorite.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/13 17:29:02
For me, from an outsider's perspective, what separates a Gear from other media's mecha is less the appearance, and more the role in story/game. A gear is a specialist, where as something like a Gundam/Mech/Titan is more of a generalist. In universe a gear's primary roles are fighting in built up terrain, close support for infantry, and maneuverable firepower. Anything else is specifically done better by other units. Tanks are tougher, with more firepower. Aircraft are faster with more firepower. Infantry are better at holding and seizing ground, ect. Gears are really just flexible support, whether as a cheap auto-cannon platform, or with an electronic support system, at least in terms of manpower (one pilot vs a multi-crew vehicle, or "throwaway gear" instead of an expensive tank).
While not unique, most other mecha tend to be used to slug it out with every possible opponent. A mech with an AC/20 is expected to fight mechs, tanks, infantry, anything but aircraft, and it may have weapons to deal with them. A gear however, though it might have AT weapons, it's still in a position where in most cases there are better tools for the job, such as other tanks, dedicated artillery, or (theoretically) infantry.
To me thats what separates a gear from other mecha. Out of universe I don't find much difference between a Gear, a Frame, or an Armiger (sp). They're all on man machines, designed to bring heavier-than-infantry-less-than-tank fire/support to bear, particularly in rough terrain.
I agree, I really like the gears-as-IFV thing. Reminds me of 8th M.S. team and Gasaraki (before the magic stuff started kicking in), or going way back R. A. Heinleins Starship Troopers.
To me a Gear is Gear because of the versatility and universality of it. A Frame is a high-end specialised machine with a lot of down time. A Mount is likewise specialised. A Gear can be deployed for five days, go through a dust storm, and come home to pick up a new gun and some fuel and get back at it. (A Hunter, obviously, not an elite strike machine.) Gears aren't magic mounts for teenagers. They are military machines that fill a role, not completely alter combat as we know it.
Visually: the V-engine (I remember the first time I saw a Frame's X-engine in HG2 - madness!), the human shape, the relatively small size, the agility; big feet, big ankles and shins; torso and head that look like a human is inside of them; blocky North/round South; roller skates and swords.
It would be negligent of me not to mention Ghislain.
Spoiler:
He drew that last year. It still looks as much like a Gear as what he was drawing 20 years ago.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/13 23:38:10
Nice! If I had to pick two artists that defined the visuals that got me into RPG and tabletop gaming they would be Palladium's Kevin Long and Dp9's Ghislain.
Firebreak wrote: Visually: [..] the agility; big feet, big ankles and shins; torso and head that look like a human is inside of them; [..]
Along with other points raised, on reflection this could definitely be one of the biggest differences from how the vast majority of drawings portray combat walkers.
Because yeah: - The bulky lower legs of Gears do look like part of a machine carrying a heavy load that also has to balance out a tall structure while maneuvering. - The feet are wide, big, like they are intended to try and lower the impact pressure of a vehicle whose movement system makes a lot of compromises when compared to other types. - Both features look reasonable for protecting the moving parts from damage caused by landmines or area effect shells landing nearby, common impediments on any battlefield.
I can buy, even while disagreeing, concept artists not understanding or wanting to be bothered learning about things military, but mud (and other similar examples of soft terrain) is something everyone should be able to easily grasp. Personally, I haven't come across much any art that seems to acknowledge what effect this basic fact of life would have on their designs.
warboss wrote: [..] I frankly don't really like the infantry, tanks, striders, aircraft and gear striders in HG as much but I appreciate that they're present there both in the fluff and as models. I own most of the categories above (except gear striders as I think they suck up to the lowest common denominator) to some degree but the gears in HG will always be my favorite.
I like vehicles along with the Gears, but won't be surprising anyone when I say I've also always found them rather uninspired, even in the original setting sources.
Compared to the walkers most vehicles in HG have been pretty bland over the years, with only a few getting some kind of facelift of late, if not almost outright copies of things from Gundam (eyes the Voltigeur MBT and Sampson HAPC) or another setting.
_ _
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/14 02:38:03
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
Because yeah:
- The bulky lower legs of Gears do look like part of a machine carrying a heavy load that also has to balance out a tall structure while maneuvering.
- The feet are wide, big, like they are intended to try and lower the impact pressure of a vehicle whose movement system makes a lot of compromises when compared to other types.
You mean to tell me that shapely gundam legs and mecha high heels aren't practical??!!?!
I remember the owner of my FLGS once discussing how some of his physics buddies had calculated just how rediculously fethed the Battletech Battlemechs would be if they ever actually tried to put so much weight on such little feet in natural terrain, let alone actually be able to walk around in it. The conversation basically ended with "but, even so, they're still just too cool to care"
I did enjoy the early Gasaraki episodes where the mechs were basically Gears without wheels. Each unit of 4 mechs was directed by a commander and team in a dedicated mobile command vehicle using radio and satelite in real-time. Gasaraki tried very hard to make you not need to suspend your disbelief too much...until they just threw it all aside and said "just kidding, magic and demons, b!#@es!" :( VOTOMS was the big, direct inspiration for HG Gears, but Gasaraki initially felt like they were really trying to ground the mechs in realism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/14 05:45:29
I remember that scene. Spent the whole time wondering why no one had deployed infantry, you know, like a sane person in urban combat. Than I realized that this must have been heavy gear, where the infantry isn't worth the TV (at least not yet).
Going back to the original topic, while gears do have features that make them more http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealRobotGenre?from=Main.RealRobot/Real Robot[url] than alot of others, some of the wheels on assault gears are rather tiny. Even with the tank treads in the back half, I've always wondered why they didn't get stuck.
Honestly with battletech, it's a mixed bag. They have so many designs now, with such a huge variety, that there are just as many with practical feet/legs, as there are without. My biggest battletech hang up though has always been with: 1. In general, where do they store ammo? based on the size of the opening in an LRM rack, where is there room for ONE ton of ammo (120 missiles), let alone the 2-6 tons that regularly get equipped? These are missiles the size of a person.
Than we have this...
[img]http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/d/df/TaiSho.jpg/191px-TaiSho.jpg.png
[/img]
That hole in it's chest is an auto cannon. Not even the biggest in the game, just an AC 10. This mech carries 30 rounds of ammo in it's torso. For the gun in it's torso that is also the size of it's torso. The size of it's torso. The size of it's torso. This isn't even cool. It's just "Hey let's go F&^# a bear!" stupid. At least with the missiles, I can pretend that they're multi-cell launchers, and just let it go. But an AC 10, six times bigger than most AC 20's (the biggest AC).
maceria wrote: [..] Gears have several universal design features, primarily arms, v-engine, and ONN. [..]
warboss wrote: [..] I'd say a gear is defined for me as a robot of 10-20ft with a bit of a utilitarian look that has a general human shape (head, torso, 2 arms, 2 legs) with a v-engine and a variety of weapons in most cases (again jack of all trades). [..]
Firebreak wrote: [..] Visually: the V-engine (I remember the first time I saw a Frame's X-engine in HG2 - madness!), the human shape, the relatively small size, the agility; big feet, big ankles and shins; torso and head that look like a human is inside of them; [..]
"Homiform" would seem to be the primary visual characteristic in-setting then? With Mounts being of similar utility but not sharing the design approach so as to more efficiently carry heavier weapons or have greater protection just due to shape (I guess they could be considered smaller Striders by that definition)?
warboss wrote: You mean to tell me that shapely Gundam legs and mecha high heels aren't practical??!!?!
lol, when I watch/see the old-style Veritech jets I tend to wonder why the battloid mode feet (thruster shrouds) aren't just chock full of debris & dirt every time they go to try and fly away in guardian or jet mode.
Kalamadea wrote: [..] I did enjoy the early Gasaraki episodes where the mechs were basically Gears without wheels. Each unit of 4 mechs was directed by a commander and team in a dedicated mobile command vehicle using radio and satellite in real-time. Gasaraki tried very hard to make you not need to suspend your disbelief too much...until they just threw it all aside and said "just kidding, magic and demons, b!#@es!" :( VOTOMS was the big, direct inspiration for HG Gears, but Gasaraki initially felt like they were really trying to ground the mechs in realism.
Interesting - definitely shows where many ideas for Northern Gear features originated.
Additionally interesting is how these older anime/manga series implicitly acknowledge the potential for airburst-capable weapons getting better and better thanks to miniaturized seekers, fuzing, and on-weapon processors. More than a few mechanical designs on the web are going to lose some if not all of their ranged delivery systems just from the very first proximity blast(s) shredding ammo belts and the like, which doesn't sound very fun if used for a game. It shouldn't really be necessary for most everything in a setting to get plot armor to compensate for such obvious flaws that make little sense on a war machine in the first place.
After all, combat walkers are still armored vehicles, the whole point of which is to allow your own force to maneuver under AoE attacks initiated to fix you into place (or break up your mutually supporting formation) while being flanked or whatnot by a hostile force. Likewise, armored protection to maybe survive a direct fire ambush long enough to maneuver away from the engagement and/or return fire from a more advantageous position.
Kalamadea wrote: I remember the owner of my FLGS once discussing how some of his physics buddies had calculated just how ridiculously fethed the Battletech Battlemechs would be if they ever actually tried to put so much weight on such little feet in natural terrain, let alone actually be able to walk around in it. [..]
Mmmpi wrote: [..] Going back to the original topic, while gears do have features that make them more Real Robot than alot of others, some of the wheels on assault gears are rather tiny. Even with the tank treads in the back half, I've always wondered why they didn't get stuck. [..]
I noticed on the dA page that trope links to someone mentioned dinosaurs, because to my understanding some animals tend to have high ground pressure and do bog down on occasion or else get slowed enough to become lunch for something else. It's all about the terrain trying to be crossed, and floating the vehicle across it - or say the foundation for a structure versus what is underneath it.
Why dinosaurs can somehow justify 10+ meters tall machines that may have less overall horsepower is a bit of a mystery to me though.
Mmmpi wrote: [..] My biggest Battletech hang up though has always been with: 1. In general, where do they store ammo? based on the size of the opening in an LRM rack, where is there room for ONE ton of ammo (120 missiles), let alone the 2-6 tons that regularly get equipped? These are missiles the size of a person. [..] This mech carries 30 rounds of ammo in it's torso. For the gun in it's torso that is also the size of it's torso. The size of it's torso. The size of it's torso. This isn't even cool. It's just "Hey let's go F&^# a bear!" stupid. At least with the missiles, I can pretend that they're multi-cell launchers, and just let it go. But an AC 10, six times bigger than most AC 20's (the biggest AC).
Heavy Gear is starting to catch this syndrome too with the Gear-Striders (or at least worse than before); guns that need a special category because they share visual sculpts yet are big enough to shoot other guns (as Albertorius would say).
Gatling-crazy is also starting to be a thing when compared to the original HG materials; no matter how many mecha-oriented games are out there on the market artists/writers/fans of supposedly unique settings still seem absolutely determined to make everything of a sameness.
heh, You'd think it would be easy to understand why multiple guns with (1-2) barrels each is better than one much heavier & larger gun with an equivalent number of barrels to keep aligned, cleaned, maintained, fed with ammo, etc etc etc. And that (5-10) or so ever more destructive rounds a second is plenty enough firepower versus point targets in ground combat.
_ _
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/06/14 20:09:58
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
Smilodon_UP wrote: Heavy Gear is starting to catch this syndrome too with the Gear-Striders (or at least worse than before); guns that need a special category because they share visual sculpts yet are big enough to shoot other guns (as Albertorius would say).
Gatling-crazy is also starting to be a thing when compared to the original HG materials; no matter how many mecha-oriented games are out there on the market artists/writers/fans of supposedly unique settings still seem absolutely determined to make everything of a sameness.
heh, You'd think it would be easy to understand why multiple guns with (1-2) barrels each is better than one much heavier & larger gun with an equivalent number of barrels to keep aligned, cleaned, maintained, fed with ammo, etc etc etc.
And that (5-10) or so ever more destructive rounds a second is plenty enough firepower versus point targets in ground combat.
_
_
Not that I'm defending the Gear Strider Craze, but at least the weapons are in proportion to the hull, and have ammo boxes/mags that obviously hold enough rounds for "some" sustained fire.
As for the multi-barrel vs single barrel, some times the big shot is better. Plenty of historical example, such as Pre-dreadnaughts vs Dreadnaughts, or the Gatling gun vs the Napoleon. Even a heavy AT round has some advantages over 50+ 30mm rounds.
Not that I'm defending the Gear Strider Craze, but at least the weapons are in proportion to the hull, and have ammo boxes/mags that obviously hold enough rounds for "some" sustained fire.
Proportional it might be, but it was also supposed to be a Heavy Bazooka... and each of its ammo rounds was literally as big as a regular HBZ. You could fit a Gear's torso in the hole, ffs. And it was still a heavy bazooka.
As to the purpose of the thread, to me a heavy gear is, above all, meant to be utilitarian. They are, after all, weaponized power lifters. They are also rugged, and mostly (barring ONNets, obviously, and even then...) at a tech level that could be achieved today, had we found a need. Where other "mechas" have advanced myomers, unobtanium particles, gundamium armor and nuclear powered engines, Gears get by with hydraulics, computers and internal combustion engines. They are meant to be used, abused, broken, refitted and remade all over again. They are... well, tools.
As with all tools, they can be very generic (most work Gears) or quite a bit more specialized (every Heavy Gear combat vehicle is specialized, but there are degrees ^_^), but even the most specialized of them are very modular, in the same way the ASCOD Pizarro/Ulan/SV weapons system is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCOD#ASCOD_Pizarro). They are also as small as possible for the job and payload they are meant to have, and no bigger than needed.
Controls-wise, I've never thought of them as big power armors, and to me they don't feel at all as they're "worn" rather than "piloted". Every image, every technical drawing, every snippet of setting material paints them as combat vehicles being piloted, IMHO, not as worn armor, even with the head in head design.
In action, they are by no means the end-all-be-all of combat, contrary to what combat walkers usually are in most settings. They have a niche (one-man IFV, built up terrain armored combatant, highly mobile weapons plattform) where they fit, and don't overshadow any other branch of a modern army. They go unassisted, they die.
Those are the main concerns Heavy Gears revolve around, IMHO.
Now aesthetically, to me they must look as workmanlike as possible. These are "real" machines, and in those compromises are made. They need to "see", so they have a multitude of sensors all over their surface. They need to spread the pressure their vertical posture imposes, so they have big stompy feet. They need to be armored but still retain as much maneuverability and nimbleness as possible, so you get bulky extremities with boxy over armor backed up by ballistic cloth where you just can't put a plate. you get the idea. They are, at the same time, nimble machines and ponderous machines, and somewhat it fits. They are nimble, but with somewhat weird proportions. They feel ungainly due to that, but when you see them move, you do it with a sense of awe. Like looking at a giant gorilla (and a skating one, at that). I don't know if I'm making any sense at all.
So yeah, not contradictions at all from me
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/15 08:08:43
Not that I'm defending the Gear Strider Craze, but at least the weapons are in proportion to the hull, and have ammo boxes/mags that obviously hold enough rounds for "some" sustained fire.
Proportional it might be, but it was also supposed to be a Heavy Bazooka... and each of its ammo rounds was literally as big as a regular HBZ. You could fit a Gear's torso in the hole, ffs. And it was still a heavy bazooka
It's a naval bazooka! Named after all those ships both IRL and in the HG background that have giant handheld weapons and stuff. Totally fits with gear strider quality fluff!
@Al Of course it's that large a gun. So you can fire bazookas while you fire bazookas.
Personally, my biggest hang-up with gear striders is that 1: they can come in unlimited numbers. Wrote a Nucoal list that had 3 and a scimitar, two of them duelists. They feel like something that if they need to exist, should feel more experimental, even in the production models. 2: They should be multi-crewed. I get the idea that
they've got improved computers over other striders and gears, but for the universe, they really feel like they should have a crew to match their bulk. These two more than the idea of playing Gundam:Terra Nova.
As for the individual weapons, all I can say is, at least they're just scaled up gear weapons, and not Macro-mega-buster-dakka-death-kill-every-kitten-bear-nova-burst-mega(yes twice)-nazi-kill-blaster-cannons. With the rest of the weapons being gear weapons and obviously back ups, the only armaments that I don't like are the ridiculous melee weapons. Stupid super-death-mcchicken-blades.
As for the look, yeah I like the overall utilitarian look as well. Especially as each faction has different ways to represent it (north's flat panels for easy repair, south's rounded to resist damage, CEF's lanky to reduce the mass they have to lift to orbit, ect).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/15 12:01:01
maceria wrote: CEF frames are slimmer, more like large powered armor. They also (probably) are only piloted by brains in jars.
Not unless they've changed things.
OK, the new Frames are exclusively piloted by FLAILS (i.e. GREL "brains in jars"), and as such the torsos are slimmer (or have a significant space taken up by weaponry and other equipment), but the original Type 6-16 Frame, still used as the squad command vehicle, can still be piloted by humans or GRELs, and the Type 2-21 seems to be a derivative design of the 6-16.. The main difference between Gears and Battle Frames is simply the design - Frames are designed using state of the art materials, optimised for lightweight construction and high mobility (the legs are massively bulky because of the hover secondary movement system) and modularity of weapon systems.
Mind you, while the physical design and construction of the Frames may be in advance of Terranovan Gears, the latter have better control hardware/software. the neural net computers in Gears are more advanced than the systems used in CEF Battle Frames. Also, the extreme optimisation for mobility and light weight means that Frames aren't quite a srugged and resilient as Gears.
To me, the "Gear" is a humanoid war vehicle that is "driven" rather than worn, and is only mid-way up the "power level" of the setting. Unlike Gundams or Jovian Chronicles Exo-Suits, Gears are "troopers", still outclassed by the heavier ground vehicles. They're iconic, but not dominant, in the setting.
As a CEF player, I find it somewhat annoying that the high-tech styling of the CEF Frames means that they're not as interesting to paint as the Terranovan Gears with all their armour panel lines, overlapping plates, rivets, screw heads, access ports, etc, etc. I did liven things up a bit by basing my colour schemes on the artwork from the Art of Heavy Gear ebooks; the old Type 55 and Type 2-07 Frames with bright yellow and red details liven things up a bit, and the converted Type 81-12 Alpine Warfare Frame and Type 99 Space Frame in Magenta are quite eye-catching. Doesn't help with concealment much, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/15 14:40:33
AndrewGPaul wrote: OK, the new Frames are exclusively piloted by FLAILS (i.e. GREL "brains in jars"), and as such the torsos are slimmer (or have a significant space taken up by weaponry and other equipment)
Well, yes and no, as you say. The main models (BF2-21, BF2-19 and BF2-25) are designed to be piloted exclusively by FLAILs, but all the F6-16 line is piloted by human pilots (exclusively, in theory).
That said (and as you say, too), given the volumes of the FLAIL models compared with the human piloted ones, it shouldn't be all that difficult to modify them to be piloted by human pilots (as their torsos are bigger than the F6-16's, with the possible exception of the BF2-25).
Mind you, while the physical design and construction of the Frames may be in advance of Terranovan Gears, the latter have better control hardware/software. the neural net computers in Gears are more advanced than the systems used in CEF Battle Frames. Also, the extreme optimisation for mobility and light weight means that Frames aren't quite a srugged and resilient as Gears.
If I recall my setting info correctly, Frames were made from better alloys (hence tougher and lighter at the same volume) and had a much better power to weight ratio (due to much better energy-related tech). They were also armed with much more advanced weaponry as a matter of fact, keeping with the CEF's doctrine. That said, they were much behind in the fields of actuators (Gears were nimbler to much, much nimbler) and had worse controlling software (as the CEF's equivalents to ONNETs don't "think" the same way).
To me, the "Gear" is a humanoid war vehicle that is "driven" rather than worn, and is only mid-way up the "power level" of the setting. Unlike Gundams or Jovian Chronicles Exo-Suits, Gears are "troopers", still outclassed by the heavier ground vehicles. They're iconic, but not dominant, in the setting.
I would mainly agree on that, with the only caveat that I'd calle them iconic in TN and the powers influenced by them, and not all that iconic in the rest of the setting (but then again, we don't know much about the rest).
As a CEF player, I find it somewhat annoying that the high-tech styling of the CEF Frames means that they're not as interesting to paint as the Terranovan Gears with all their armour panel lines, overlapping plates, rivets, screw heads, access ports, etc, etc. I did liven things up a bit by basing my colour schemes on the artwork from the Art of Heavy Gear ebooks; the old Type 55 and Type 2-07 Frames with bright yellow and red details liven things up a bit, and the converted Type 81-12 Alpine Warfare Frame and Type 99 Space Frame in Magenta are quite eye-catching. Doesn't help with concealment much, though.
Concealment is for stuff that doesn't leave huge ass smoke trails when they move
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/15 14:55:28
For me, the two things I found iconic for gears/striders and helped me design were:
* Robustness/simplicity -- The gear should look like you can figure it out and repair it in the field, possibly with gun tape and some scavenged parts from a car.
* NNets -- These things are small brains, they're TRAINED by dedicated training crews. A Gear handles most of the piloting for you and means they move like something living. Non-TN NNets aren't that "evolved." Frames or Mounts just don't move like that, and no matter how good the pilot, it will move and behave like a machine. Hence FLAILs coming about. Wire them in and they start moving and acting more like gears...or so the nutjobs running the evil galactic conspiracy thought. They're really not all that bright and subscribe to anime villain rules.
As for GearStriders.... Sorry about that guys. The Cataphract was supposed to be the first, and be unique for the PRDF. It literally makes no sense for anyone outside of Peace River to do, and I had planned to do an "in setting" evaluation after a few years to determine if it was one of Paxton's dead-ends, or if it made sense to keep evolving it. Everyone else has enough population to just throw out a fully manned tank or patrol, and isn't run by an arms manufacturer with more money than population or sense. I unwittingly unleashed a monster.
As for GearStriders.... Sorry about that guys. The Cataphract was supposed to be the first, and be unique for the PRDF. It literally makes no sense for anyone outside of Peace River to do, and I had planned to do an "in setting" evaluation after a few years to determine if it was one of Paxton's dead-ends, or if it made sense to keep evolving it. Everyone else has enough population to just throw out a fully manned tank or patrol, and isn't run by an arms manufacturer with more money than population or sense. I unwittingly unleashed a monster.
-John
Contrary to what some may think, I didn't have a problem with paxton nor with the catapharact gear strider but rather they've both become poster boys for almost everything mechanically that I don't like about Heavy Gear. When the latter came out, I thought it was a cool one of thing that would differentiate Paxton from the polar and off world forces. Unfortunately, Paxton became an unchecked overpowered mary sue nation due to the wolf running rampant through the chicken coop ( (cough... saleem.. cough) and the one-off experimental gear strider idea was picked up by everyone because $. It's not your fault (at least in that specific case). Both happened long after you left and both have crept into the alpha/beta at least initially. The gear striders were some of the first things statted out (even if they didn't have a model yet) while other much more numerous and long produced models weren't... and the initial paxton rules (since toned down somewhat) were ridiculous as well turning a molehill advantage in the RPG into a mountain for free.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/15 16:39:32
I have a problem with Paxton. They're an arms dealer that doesn't sell to anyone. Can't see the badlands buying enough stuff from them to support such a large army, or robust R&D branch, and the fluff says the Polars prefer their own equipment. Now with Nucoal building their own stuff (Including a brand new state of the art gunda...gear strider) taking away at least a third of their badlands market.
AKA: HOW DOES PAXTON STAY IN BUSINESS?!??!?!?!!!1/?
Thanks for the reassurance, but I still feel like I laid the egg that grew into a monster. Both with Paxton getting revised so I could move the story to where I needed it and with the unique designs.
Would anyone actually be interested in hearing what we were wanting to do with the storyline and such, or would that be opening a can of worms?
Mmmpi wrote: I have a problem with Paxton. They're an arms dealer that doesn't sell to anyone. Can't see the badlands buying enough stuff from them to support such a large army, or robust R&D branch, and the fluff says the Polars prefer their own equipment. Now with Nucoal building their own stuff (Including a brand new state of the art gunda...gear strider) taking away at least a third of their badlands market.
AKA: HOW DOES PAXTON STAY IN BUSINESS?!??!?!?!!!1/?
They sell plenty to the both polar alliances. If you read the RPG fluff, they make the common low tech proven weapons like autocannons, rockets, and bazookas by the buttload (at least they did in1st edition when I was buying rpg books). Even in blitz, they were still catching up to some of the stuff that the poles had (like +1 att/+1 def elite gears like the warrior IV). I know they were involved in the talon project work so maybe that became the launching pad into their current role of "we have everything you do and more!".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jbuckmaster wrote: Thanks for the reassurance, but I still feel like I laid the egg that grew into a monster. Both with Paxton getting revised so I could move the story to where I needed it and with the unique designs.
Would anyone actually be interested in hearing what we were wanting to do with the storyline and such, or would that be opening a can of worms?
-John
Absolutely! It would also be nice to hear some story advancement that didn't involve characters named after employees doing awesome things that no one else can do. Fair warning... I'll still blame you for L&L though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/15 17:20:55
L&L was .... NOT what I wanted to release. I was halfway through dev on a brand new system to actually bring us up to squad-based gaming so we could have 5-6 squads plus extras per army without it taking forever and a day. Then I goit told we're revising and to put that on hold for a few years, and then my timeline on the revision got cut in half.
This is still no excuse, I really should have stood up to Bobo.
Anyway, as for the storyline, maybe we should start another thread for that?
Sure! Since we're talking about story progression in a hybrid rpg/minis game, it would fine either the misc games or RPG subforum IMO. I agree that Smilodon has an interesting topic that shouldn't be derailed.
I'm interested in hearing what Jbuckmaster has to say, wherever he ends up posting it.
I liked the concept of the Coyote tankstrider, it looked like it was trying to marry the maneuverability and ... oh what's a good word, I wouldn't use nimble, but it can lower its height, increase its height, it could shoot from a hill and not be at a wonky angle, it could duck behind cover. All kinds of things standard tanks can't do, albeit at the cost of armor, and it's probably more expensive than straight up treads.
(Though I hated the gear head on the coyote, it just looks so out of place, almost as bad as the gear arms on that nucoal tankstrider that just looked fantastically stupid) Ghost In The Shell has some fun tankstrider like designs (not the tachikomas, which are adorable, but I think they're ugly =)
And I agree with the sentiment that many of the standard vehicles just look sub par. Most of them look like solid blocks of pewter, with very little detail. It was easy to see that most of the love went towards the gear designs. The CEF is an exception, their hovertanks look great, but the rest look like they used very low detail 80s cold war vehicles, the Hun, for example, wouldn't look as bad if it had as much detail as a real T-54 / T-59 what have you.
Named after all those ships both 
