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.

Game balance was definitely a big issue, and it seemed like there was a contingent of players who either refused to think it matters, or thought 'skill trumps all'. Both irritate the hell out of me.

Balance matters. That guy who goes and buys a bunch of expensive models, only to realize after a few games that they all suck, or need to be reglued with all new weapons. Yeah, there's a chance he's never coming back, and it looks like there were a lot of those people.

Or my personal favorite, where one of the guys held a tournament with terrible custom rules as an example of how Regiments of Note were not overpowered.

Mostly it was the rules black holes that were a pain. Part of it is just poorly written rules in the first place, like the "If two models are base to base, randomly determine which one you hit with directfire" My RAW friend went and stuck el cheapo units next to his expensive units, and suddenly directfire weapons became 50% less effective.

Other times, its just asking for a clarification, and having to wait for my hair to turn grey before getting an answer.

They also seemed to completely abandon a lot of the expansionanist forces. Anyone who bought Utopia, Eden, or Caprice have basically been left out in the cold. With updates to basic rules that just completely whomped Utopia, in back to back Gear Ups.


Though I had pretty decent after market support when it came to models, I recall asking for bits and getting them with my orders for free. (They later offered bits for sale, which is fine too)

ferrous wrote:
Game balance was definitely a big issue, and it seemed like there was a contingent of players who either refused to think it matters, or thought 'skill trumps all'. Both irritate the hell out of me.

That is part of why I decided to take a voluntary break from posting for a bit until the North and Nublitz comes out before they made me take an involuntary one. The guy who responded to the conversation about unbalanced game design with "I don't care... I'll just use my skill and tactics to compensate!" likely is missing a firm grasp on either judging from the lack of common sense in that statement. In game tactics is not a replacement for sound game design and a cohesive direction for the IP. Unfortunately, I feel like Paxton failed on that level. When the North PDF comes out, I'll be better able to elaborate on the details.

 warboss wrote:
The guy who responded to the conversation about unbalanced game design with "I don't care... I'll just use my skill and tactics to compensate!" likely is missing a firm grasp on either judging from the lack of common sense in that statement.

Which is infinitely more humorous because the current iteration of HG is very modifier based, and not very 'skill' based. You just need to stack modifiers and the dice become less relevant than in other games, so balance is even more paramount. +1 ATK from a model with +1 ACC goes a long way and makes your need for 'tactics' basically moot.

To quote a post mrondeau made many moons ago: "tactic" is not synonymous with "magic"

 warboss wrote:

Which is infinitely more humorous because the current iteration of HG is very modifier based, and not very 'skill' based. You just need to stack modifiers and the dice become less relevant than in other games, so balance is even more paramount. +1 ATK from a model with +1 ACC goes a long way and makes your need for 'tactics' basically moot.

Can you define what you mean by not very skill based? These modifiers do not come free. You have to plan ahead and relies on your opponent to make mistakes. To me, it is much more skill based with Battletech or 40K or any other games I can think of.

Yeah, actually, Ice, I'm with wildger, in that it does take skill to stack the modifiers.

Winning a lot with a bad list just means that the players you're facing aren't very good. The guy didn't seem to comprehend that, even though it's pretty simple to think about, "Hey, so what happens if you were to play yourself, but instead of that gakky subpar list, one list was full of elite gears with weapon upgrades and double / triple linked IF support?"

When it comes to playing someone of equal skill, thats when game balance really comes out. But it's really a trickle down effect that helps everyone, having models balanced and fun and not, "Don't ever take these if you want to have a good time"

And its not like every tabletop game is balanced, but even 40k has managed to get it down to just a handful of subpar choices. Blitz, there are huge swathes of stuff you just don't want to do, and upgrades that are pretty much mandatory if you want to not get murdered by someone who does take them.

They've tried a little bit, some of the default choices aren't absolutely awful, but a lot of them still are. The list that takes MACs as upgrades compared to the list that takes LBZKs or AGMs or any of the good weapons, is all things else being equal, going to slaughter the other list. Someone who tries to take lots of ECM to block FOs is going to be sorely disappointed by the fact that cheap spotters will easily overrun the ECMs and be more cost effective. Ie they can take those cheap spotters, and still take everything they want, while taking a recon unit full of ECM is mostly subpar. And recent clarifications make it nearly impossible to block CP usage, though at least they finally partially limited the "I fire again" CP usage. And that kind of slow half assed fix is what we can usually expect from DP9, even though we'll complain about it for years.

wildger wrote:
Can you define what you mean by not very skill based? These modifiers do not come free. You have to plan ahead and relies on your opponent to make mistakes. To me, it is much more skill based with Battletech or 40K or any other games I can think of.

In my experience, there level of skill required during play is fairly consistent with Warmachine or Malifaux, perhaps a bit less than Infinity and more than 40k, sure. But if you break it down, tactics in the game aren't really that complicated. For direct fire - get to optimal range, try to get your opponent out of cover. Make sure you're using coordinated attack, and try to get a rear attack or crossfire modifier if possible. Of that list, only crossfire is really the one that takes 'skill' to execute - the rest are just normal actions you'd take in any other wargame. Indirect Fire is quite frankly even easier - just repeat the above for the spotter, and make sure you parked your IF elements behind solid cover. And for the reasons that ferrous mentioned below, it's not that hard to swamp ECM to make sure at least one shot gets through.

The only things I consider that takes some skill in Blitz (besides crossfire, described above) is managing your activation order, your support elements and possibly your CP pool, depending on the army. Air strikes and airborne troops certainly take some finesse to pull off, and player skill is probably best evidenced by how efficiently you manage your activation sequence. It shares a similarity to WM in that respect; you want to try to get your opponent to activate his better models against your junk before you activate your good units, if possible. But that almost depends more on your opponent's objectives than it does your skill, in my experience. How quickly you burn through your CP pool can be a reflection of skill - but simply loading up on sat. uplinks can remove the skill from that equation.

Army selection takes some element of skill, most certainly. You want as many modifiers as possible, with some junk to throw away as well. That can be difficult - but no more difficult than WM / Infinity / 40k.

Blitz is better than Battletech, certainly. But there's almost no 'tactics' in that game, except for positioning. Well, at least the games I've played - without infantry, vehicles, mostly open maps, etc. Blitz is arguably less complex than Warmachine because the secondary player has so many options to remain 'active' (CPs, reaction fire, etc). And it's significantly less than Infinity, which has almost a punishing complexity. 40k... I've not played since 3e so I can't really comment.

ferrous wrote:
And its not like every tabletop game is balanced, but even 40k has managed to get it down to just a handful of subpar choices. Blitz, there are huge swathes of stuff you just don't want to do, and upgrades that are pretty much mandatory if you want to not get murdered by someone who does take them.

Pretty much. But that's part of my point - if tactics were that important, an army of LAC/MAC toting troops would be able roll over a smaller army of AGM equipped models. That doesn't tend to be the case though; the player that made the more 'optimal' choices during army construction - i.e. maximized their modifiers - has enough benefits that they tend to roll on through the game. This was especially true before the DEF modifier reset; try taking a DEF -1 army against a DEF +1 army to see what I mean. Tactics can help you, but they won't win you the match - just minimize your loss. To be fair, most wargames experience this to a greater or lesser degree - the PP forums are awash with 'theory-machine' to try to figure out optimal / suboptimal builds. And taking grunt, non-link team infantry in Infinity is just asking for pain. But unlike those games, in HGB the modifiers tend to be more important than the dice roll (intentionally) so the disparity stands out more.

ferrous wrote:
And that kind of slow half assed fix is what we can usually expect from DP9, even though we'll complain about it for years.

You might be surprised by the new rules... but the jury is still out on how they support them.

wildger wrote:

 warboss wrote:

Which is infinitely more humorous because the current iteration of HG is very modifier based, and not very 'skill' based. You just need to stack modifiers and the dice become less relevant than in other games, so balance is even more paramount. +1 ATK from a model with +1 ACC goes a long way and makes your need for 'tactics' basically moot.

Can you define what you mean by not very skill based? These modifiers do not come free. You have to plan ahead and relies on your opponent to make mistakes. To me, it is much more skill based with Battletech or 40K or any other games I can think of.

You misquoted me there.. I wasn't the one who said that.

ferrous wrote:They've tried a little bit, some of the default choices aren't absolutely awful, but a lot of them still are. The list that takes MACs as upgrades compared to the list that takes LBZKs or AGMs or any of the good weapons, is all things else being equal, going to slaughter the other list.

Things become even more complex when you consider that some field guides charge 5tv for an MAC and that upgrade might be a replacement for other weapons... whereas other more recent armies get it for free for almost any model.

IceRaptor wrote:You might be surprised by the new rules... but the jury is still out on how they support them.

Dave did mention publicly that they would be significantly different. DP9 seems to gave gone back into silent running mode since though.

iceraptor wrote:
You might be surprised by the new rules... but the jury is still out on how they support them.

Yeah, I'll definitely be taking a peek when they become public. From what I've gathered, they are actually making some pretty radical departures, enough that some people are unhappy already because of it. That said, a lot of the issues with Blitz are right down to the fundamentals, so those kind of changes are needed. Hopefully it will still feel like Heavy Gear.


EDIT: The quote function on this board is terrible.

My one sincere hope when they do fixes, is no more stupid TV patches. (+5 for the roaring upgrade, +10 for the Conqueror upgrade, +5 for the glass back removal, +10 to increase maneuver by 1 -- just change the damned stats permanently instead of forking the model and making army construction more confusing.)

Just an FYI.. I do have some house rules for making FS gears viable at -1 maneuver but.. fair warning... you may be surprised how much they need to change. I started with the end results that I wanted (FS gears like Grizzlies being more resistant to "small" arms fire like LAC/MAC but still vulnerable to the bigger stuff like MBzk and up) and then adjusted the stats until it worked.

 IceRaptor wrote:

In my experience, there level of skill required during play is fairly consistent with Warmachine or Malifaux, perhaps a bit less than Infinity and more than 40k, sure. But if you break it down, tactics in the game aren't really that complicated. For direct fire - get to optimal range, try to get your opponent out of cover. Make sure you're using coordinated attack, and try to get a rear attack or crossfire modifier if possible. Of that list, only crossfire is really the one that takes 'skill' to execute - the rest are just normal actions you'd take in any other wargame.

Unlike other games, especially comparing to WM, many do not prefer direct fire as the first choice of attack .Unlike 40K, getting into optimal range may be difficult depending on the terrain set up, because you will be hit by reactive fire. The worst is being detected as in an open field.

IceRaptor wrote:
Indirect Fire is quite frankly even easier - just repeat the above for the spotter, and make sure you parked your IF elements behind solid cover. And for the reasons that ferrous mentioned below, it's not that hard to swamp ECM to make sure at least one shot gets through.

It sounds very easy on paper. In reality, how many spotters can you have? Usually, the squad leader is the one to spot because he can coordinate attack as well. It can be blocked by ECM. Yes, you can swamp it with another trooper but then you won't have the coordinate attack modifier for not being the leader. Your target may still be in partial cover. You can use this strategy if you are numerical superior. Otherwise, you put your troops in open space and get slaughtered the next turn. A smart player will certain include a unit with high detect rating and this will force all you units in cover until you prepare a dash.

IceRaptor wrote:
How quickly you burn through your CP pool can be a reflection of skill - but simply loading up on sat. uplinks can remove the skill from that equation.

Sat uplink takes an action. Most units only have one action. A leader may have 2 or 3 actions. Often, he has so much to do that there is no action left for him to use the sat uplink. In the standard 4 turn game, if you can afford a turn to have a unit hiding behind the cover to use sat uplink, you likely have already controlled the board. In my gaming experience, I have rarely seen anyone taking this option - most players rather use the TV on something else. Sounds good on paper but rarely useful.

IceRaptor wrote:
Army selection takes some element of skill, most certainly. You want as many modifiers as possible, with some junk to throw away as well. That can be difficult - but no more difficult than WM / Infinity / 40k.

From what I understand, the modifiers do not come into army selection as all. The main option is the choice of weapons with different range modifiers. Which one is more useful depends on the terrain set up and scenario chosen. The more powerful ones comes with a higher TV costs. A lot of times, you have to make a decision on which troop will get the better weapons and which will not. You cannot have everything. Besides, for each fraction, the choice you have to make is the squad, not the individual jacks like WM. Each squad has limited choice of weapons it can field. Finally, there are no junk units for CEF or Black Talon, not even PRDF.

IceRaptor wrote:
Blitz is arguably less complex than Warmachine because the secondary player has so many options to remain 'active' (CPs, reaction fire, etc). And it's significantly less than Infinity, which has almost a punishing complexity. 40k... I've not played since 3e so I can't really comment.

The secondary player in HGB definitely has many options to remain "active" such as ECM and ECCM in addition to what you have mentioned. If you do not consider them as complex, I don't know what else to say. HGB does not have magic like WM. I do not like to play WM because so much focus is spent on the caster. Yes, it takes skills to pop open their special talents in the appropriate situation and that is about it. Once your castor goes down, game over. HGB, on the other hand, resembles the modern battlefield and more realistic IMO.

ferrous wrote:
Blitz, there are huge swathes of stuff you just don't want to do, and upgrades that are pretty much mandatory if you want to not get murdered by someone who does take them.

May I ask what upgrades are mandatory? I cannot consider upgrading the pilot's skills or having better weapons to be mandatory. Anyone would like to use the same options whether they are playing WM, 40K or other wargames. In HGB, you have the options to field an inferior forces on purpose. The standard is set at PL2 or 3, not PL1. With exception of two fractions, the rest are quite balance with each other.

IceRaptor wrote:
Pretty much. But that's part of my point - if tactics were that important, an army of LAC/MAC toting troops would be able roll over a smaller army of AGM equipped models. That doesn't tend to be the case though; the player that made the more 'optimal' choices during army construction - i.e. maximized their modifiers - has enough benefits that they tend to roll on through the game. This was especially true before the DEF modifier reset; try taking a DEF -1 army against a DEF +1 army to see what I mean.

In the real world, a whole unit of T54 tanks are not going to take down a handful of M1A1 Abrahm. In 40K, several hordes of goblins are not going to defeat an unit of elite space marines. On the other hand, for your information, the same LAC/MAC troops are able to swamp the few AGM models with Indirect Fire (if armed that way), given the appropriate supporting elements. Besides, the goal of the game is to meet the objectives, not to kill all your opponent's models. Yes, your force may be taking a beating but you can still win the game. If you want to play a game for the purpose of smashing your opponent's army, HGB may not be suitable for you. According to the current Field Manual, there is no such thing as a DEF +1 or -1 army.

wildger wrote:

It sounds very easy on paper. In reality, how many spotters can you have? Usually, the squad leader is the one to spot because he can coordinate attack as well. It can be blocked by ECM. Yes, you can swamp it with another trooper but then you won't have the coordinate attack modifier for not being the leader. Your target may still be in partial cover. You can use this strategy if you are numerical superior. Otherwise, you put your troops in open space and get slaughtered the next turn. A smart player will certain include a unit with high detect rating and this will force all you units in cover until you prepare a dash.

Coordinated is nice, but entirely unnecessary for IF and FOs, as FOs are often not even in the same squad, just from dedicated spotters. And spotters are cheap, ATV infantry without guns are dirt cheap, you get four of them, and they can zip around the board faster than most gears, and can move right into autodetect range to bork with stealth, or move around cover to get an open FO. Dedicated scouts could do this as well, the cheapo ferrets could get just about anywhere for 35TV. Also recon drones are eviiiiil on those same models are hard to stop.

wildger wrote:

Sat uplink takes an action. Most units only have one action. A leader may have 2 or 3 actions. Often, he has so much to do that there is no action left for him to use the sat uplink. In the standard 4 turn game, if you can afford a turn to have a unit hiding behind the cover to use sat uplink, you likely have already controlled the board. In my gaming experience, I have rarely seen anyone taking this option - most players rather use the TV on something else. Sounds good on paper but rarely useful.

If one wants to make a list to take advantage of Sat Uplinks, one had to get Sat Uplinks either on cheapo units, or units with Autopilot. The North could do this pretty easy, as they had cheap Sat Uplinks, and it became a game of trading actions. Trading a 40TV action on an un-upgraded model so that an elite Jag with AGMs can fire again on a target that already has been TD'd? No Brainer. I agree that there are models out there that can get Sat Uplinks, and they just aren't worth it. But this is a simple list optimization, and it was definitely worth it, and annoying as hell to fight against. Basically a well built list can use several CP a turn, every turn, and sacrifice very little.

wildger wrote:

From what I understand, the modifiers do not come into army selection as all. The main option is the choice of weapons with different range modifiers. Which one is more useful depends on the terrain set up and scenario chosen. The more powerful ones comes with a higher TV costs. A lot of times, you have to make a decision on which troop will get the better weapons and which will not. You cannot have everything. Besides, for each fraction, the choice you have to make is the squad, not the individual jacks like WM. Each squad has limited choice of weapons it can field. Finally, there are no junk units for CEF or Black Talon, not even PRDF.

HAHAHAHAH. No junk units? CEF is full of junk units. Every single Frame is a junk unit*, and FLAILs were junk until recently. Most of their allies are junk as well, like Golems, and Utopia is sadly overpriced, and melee changes have made them very weak. PRDF is full of junk units as well. (Not that I've even looked at the last revision) BT, there are units that are clearly better than others. Many of the two action units are just better, with access to much better guns.

wildger wrote:

May I ask what upgrades are mandatory? I cannot consider upgrading the pilot's skills or having better weapons to be mandatory. Anyone would like to use the same options whether they are playing WM, 40K or other wargames. In HGB, you have the options to field an inferior forces on purpose. The standard is set at PL2 or 3, not PL1. With exception of two fractions, the rest are quite balance with each other.

Glass back surgery on mambas is mandatory pretty much, taking one of the big models and not getting the conqueror upgrade, taking the Cobra and not getting the Brahmin upgrade is also a waste, etc. Back in the GUs, when they changed manuever, all the hover vehicles had absolute gak maneuver after that revision, but could spend 10TV as an option to have it go back up, which was pretty much mandatory. Like I said just about any of the stupid upgrades as patches on the rules, mandatory, and they should've made them that way in the first place.

Also, gun upgrades pretty much were mandatory. There is a massive difference between a force that takes Jaguars, and a force that takes Jaguars with weapon upgrades. An all vanilla force will get slaughtered against an optimized list. And the person who decides to take a ton of troopers gears will get slaughtered as well, unless they took them for cheap FO and splurged and got good IF, either by again getting good weapons or swapping to models with good default loadouts. (Like Sidewinders before FiF)

PL2 is a rarity, almost no one took it. Why? 2 Core. Most of the core units are bunk. GP squads are terrible for the most part. Certain factions that got other things as Core were okay, but most people just went PL3 so they could skip taking Core, AND get more CP, it was a no brainer.

wildger wrote:

In the real world, a whole unit of T54 tanks are not going to take down a handful of M1A1 Abrahm. In 40K, several hordes of goblins are not going to defeat an unit of elite space marines. On the other hand, for your information, the same LAC/MAC troops are able to swamp the few AGM models with Indirect Fire (if armed that way), given the appropriate supporting elements. Besides, the goal of the game is to meet the objectives, not to kill all your opponent's models. Yes, your force may be taking a beating but you can still win the game. If you want to play a game for the purpose of smashing your opponent's army, HGB may not be suitable for you. According to the current Field Manual, there is no such thing as a DEF +1 or -1 army.

Actually thats another flaw of the game, if someone wanted to, they could go all recon and take only recon related objectives and just try to dance around for four turns but easily outdo any ECM attempts to stop them by a standard force. Its quite effective, but not much fun to play.



*The F6-16 ain't bad, but you can't just get it, so you're saddled with gak. Better off just going tanks and GREL.

ferrous wrote:

Coordinated is nice, but entirely unnecessary for IF and FOs, as FOs are often not even in the same squad, just from dedicated spotters. And spotters are cheap, ATV infantry without guns are dirt cheap, you get four of them, and they can zip around the board faster than most gears, and can move right into autodetect range to bork with stealth, or move around cover to get an open FO. Dedicated scouts could do this as well, the cheapo ferrets could get just about anywhere for 35TV. Also recon drones are eviiiiil on those same models are hard to stop.

This is one reason why IF dominates the game. If your enemy waste a shot on the infantry, he cannot turn on your gear. I consider than as cheap meat shields or objective grabbers more than spotter. Ferret is so nice that it is often number one on the to-hit list. Unfortunately, not every faction can have it.

ferrous wrote:

If one wants to make a list to take advantage of Sat Uplinks, one had to get Sat Uplinks either on cheapo units, or units with Autopilot. The North could do this pretty easy, as they had cheap Sat Uplinks, and it became a game of trading actions. Trading a 40TV action on an un-upgraded model so that an elite Jag with AGMs can fire again on a target that already has been TD'd? No Brainer. I agree that there are models out there that can get Sat Uplinks, and they just aren't worth it. But this is a simple list optimization, and it was definitely worth it, and annoying as hell to fight against. Basically a well built list can use several CP a turn, every turn, and sacrifice very little.

You got me on this one. I don’t bother to look at L&L because the North will get a major change in a month. I don’t think you can get a Sat Uplink unless you upgrade to a thunder Jaguar which does not have the option for an AGM or autopilot. Besides, spending 40TV for the combination is quite different from simply a Sat Uplink.

ferrous wrote:

HAHAHAHAH. No junk units? CEF is full of junk units. Every single Frame is a junk unit*, and FLAILs were junk until recently. Most of their allies are junk as well, like Golems, and Utopia is sadly overpriced, and melee changes have made them very weak. PRDF is full of junk units as well. (Not that I've even looked at the last revision) BT, there are units that are clearly better than others. Many of the two action units are just better, with access to much better guns.

I played many miniature games before. There are actually rarely any junk units but they can be over or under-priced. Utopia cost will be changed in the future. Yes, within a faction, there are units that are more useful. Can you think of any other game that is different?

ferrous wrote:

Glass back surgery on mambas is mandatory pretty much, taking one of the big models and not getting the conqueror upgrade, taking the Cobra and not getting the Brahmin upgrade is also a waste, etc. Back in the GUs, when they changed manuever, all the hover vehicles had absolute gak maneuver after that revision, but could spend 10TV as an option to have it go back up, which was pretty much mandatory. Like I said just about any of the stupid upgrades as patches on the rules, mandatory, and they should've made them that way in the first place

Also, gun upgrades pretty much were mandatory. There is a massive difference between a force that takes Jaguars, and a force that takes Jaguars with weapon upgrades. An all vanilla force will get slaughtered against an optimized list. And the person who decides to take a ton of troopers gears will get slaughtered as well, unless they took them for cheap FO and splurged and got good IF, either by again getting good weapons or swapping to models with good default loadouts. (Like Sidewinders before FiF)

So, what you are actually saying is that those players who spent the effort to build up a proper army are going to win. I cannot agree more. I feel that those who fill up their armies with simply vanilla troop without a second thought really deserve to lose big time.
When I build a PRDF, I tried to add in field armor (+10TV) for every gear. It is like putting on extra armor on tanks in the real world. I do not consider as mandatory or stupid even though it is regarded as a standard for all PRDF players. Glass back surgery is only 5TV per gear. It is a very cheap option to eliminate the rear back facing and you complain about it? Why would you not want such an upgrade? Why wouldn’t you give your biggies the best?
This is like playing WHFB without spending any points in magic or items. If you deliberately want to create an inferior army to be defeated, that is your choice. Don’t say that the game is bad. All gears are listed with the minimal equipment, how you want to upgrade them is entirely up to you. Army building is part of the fun.

ferrous wrote:

PL2 is a rarity, almost no one took it. Why? 2 Core. Most of the core units are bunk. GP squads are terrible for the most part. Certain factions that got other things as Core were okay, but most people just went PL3 so they could skip taking Core, AND get more CP, it was a no brainer.

You mean using more than one infantry unit with ATV is useless. People who play CEF and NuCoal may not agree with you and there are quite a few who play these factions. I haven't looked into FiF yet and therefore I cannot make a comment for the South.

ferrous wrote:

Actually thats another flaw of the game, if someone wanted to, they could go all recon and take only recon related objectives and just try to dance around for four turns but easily outdo any ECM attempts to stop them by a standard force. Its quite effective, but not much fun to play.

You really have to educate me on this one. The only real recon objective is RECON. I don’t see how a recon unit has an advantage on ESCAPE, BLOCKADE, PROTECT, SURVIVE, HOLD, ASSASSINATION, BREAKTHROUGH, SEIZE, and WIPE THEM OUT. Even with SCOUT, you must be within your detect distance for two turn to do a FO to work. I don’t think you can dance around long for that.

wildger wrote:

Unlike other games, especially comparing to WM, many do not prefer direct fire as the first choice of attack .Unlike 40K, getting into optimal range may be difficult depending on the terrain set up, because you will be hit by reactive fire. The worst is being detected as in an open field.

Being in the open is generally penalized in any game system; Blitz isn't special in that regard. It's a bad ideal in Infinity, and it's not a great ideal in 40k or Mercs. In WM & Malifaux it tends to be mitigated by the shorter range of weapons, and the need to orchestrate charge lanes. And yes, reaction fire can make you think twice about simply walking forward and gunning down your opponent; you generally want to stick to cover to do so. Again - that's not uncommon in games that are based around shooting. Depending on the version of 40k, my understanding was that it was still generally advisable to have cover rather than to not have cover; so even that 'simple' game has the same mechanisms.

The point that's different on Blitz is that the alternating activation allows you to potentially bleed your opponent's actions (via reaction fire) versus forcing them to wait for their turn to come around. That is a tactical element, sure - it's essentially pitting your skill in resource (actions) management against your opponent. But they have to 'take the bait' as it were, and it tends to fall down (IMO) against equally skilled opponents. I liken it to army building - if you put a veteran against a newbie, the vet will have a more optimized army and know how to use their activations better. But that's not what we're discussing - which is wether or not the game is more 'tactical'. IMO, having a tactical depth means that in a game with two equally skilled (or experienced) players, there are options that one player can exercise to magnify their strength against the second player. There's a thin veneer of that in Blitz, but we found that once you had 5-8 games under your belt you played all the same way. Use chaff for FO, use elites for direct fire and spam CPs on IF attacks.

But I'm willing to concede that can be a local meta. I don't know how everybody plays, just how I saw it evolve in the Dayton area.

wildger wrote:

It sounds very easy on paper. In reality, how many spotters can you have? Usually, the squad leader is the one to spot because he can coordinate attack as well. It can be blocked by ECM. Yes, you can swamp it with another trooper but then you won't have the coordinate attack modifier for not being the leader. Your target may still be in partial cover. You can use this strategy if you are numerical superior. Otherwise, you put your troops in open space and get slaughtered the next turn. A smart player will certain include a unit with high detect rating and this will force all you units in cover until you prepare a dash.

Every model you bring can be an effective spotter. You don't have to win an ECM contest, you simply have to have more spotters than your opponent has ECM + CP. Even if your opponent spends every action on ECM - plus a stack of CPs - you're bleeding him of any effective retaliation because it's very rare to have a cheap ECM model. Bringing elite spotters is a waste of time - they simply aren't action efficient. Can you do it? Sure, and in that case what you're talking about becomes more visible and a central resource management concern. But what we saw was that people pretty quickly figured out that Infantry on ATVs or cheap Gears were 'better' than a high-end recon model because your opponent just can't marshall a response to them.

As far as the coordinate attack modifier - that applies to every model in the squad, regardless of whether or not the CGL did the FO or not. IIRC you can coordinate with your CGL, set models in that CG on standby and then follow up with a FO from a completely separate squad in the future and have it apply, but that's going from an admittedly hazy memory at this point. I don't remember if standby or coordinated had language in it that excluded the modifier off-sequence, like crossfire is excluded for reaction fire.

In my experience, high detect ratings weren't worth that much. Great, you spotted me through 5 points of concealment? You're still -2 to ATK. Good luck with that; you better be stationary and firing a weapon with a high AE rating, and you're hoping that it doesn't scatter too much. You're probably better off spending that FO moving forward to get a partial cover FO or similar. And you can effectively dash around the backside of cover (if you're using smaller, 40kish clumps of area terrain) without exposing yourself in this fashion.

This in particular is a point that hinges very much on how you deploy terrain. Someone who plays with lots of small clumps of solid desert terrain will have a vastly different experience than someone who puts 12" round stands of trees down (which forces you to wade through said trees). Blitz is perhaps more finicky with respect to terrain that any other game I've played, including Infinity (which is saying quite a bit).

wildger wrote:

Sat uplink takes an action. Most units only have one action. A leader may have 2 or 3 actions. Often, he has so much to do that there is no action left for him to use the sat uplink. In the standard 4 turn game, if you can afford a turn to have a unit hiding behind the cover to use sat uplink, you likely have already controlled the board. In my gaming experience, I have rarely seen anyone taking this option - most players rather use the TV on something else. Sounds good on paper but rarely useful.

Wow. That's completely opposite my experience. Cheap Sat. Uplinks (wild ferrets, I'm looking at you) are an incredible force multiplier. Expensive ones (Chatterbox Iggies, HC3A) are wastes of time. I've even seen RZ Black Mambas with HGLs used in this fashion - autopilot behind solid cover, fire the HGL with action 1, generate a CP with action 2. It's all about action efficiency; if I can transfer the action from that 35 TV wild ferret to a 90 TV Grizzly so it can do it's death blossom of MRP attacks again, that's worth orchestrating my plan around. Throw NuCoal into the comparison - especially with the 3x Linked MRP Hussar - and it's simply obscene. Sat. Uplinks are very much something that you simply have to bring if your opponent brings one - if you're stuck with 6 CPs and they are looking at 6 CP + 2 Sat. Uplinks a turn, your ability to project force on the table is incredibly diminished compared to them. Local players who can't get cheap Sat. Uplinks were considered seriously under the ball when it came to competitiveness (unless they were playing Talons, but that's a whole other discussion).

wildger wrote:

From what I understand, the modifiers do not come into army selection as all. The main option is the choice of weapons with different range modifiers. Which one is more useful depends on the terrain set up and scenario chosen. The more powerful ones comes with a higher TV costs. A lot of times, you have to make a decision on which troop will get the better weapons and which will not. You cannot have everything. Besides, for each fraction, the choice you have to make is the squad, not the individual jacks like WM. Each squad has limited choice of weapons it can field. Finally, there are no junk units for CEF or Black Talon, not even PRDF.

I simply have to disagree here. When choosing models, you should be looking at ACC and DAM of the weapon upgrades, because those are going to determine how your army fights. I used to love taking Jaguars with HPZFs because you were basically giving them a short-ranged HBZK, and for a mere +5 TV! Just looking at the range and DAM modifiers
don't give you the full picture, because a high DAM weapon with long ranges but low ACC tends to be less useful than a high ACC weapon with range and damage. There's a reason that an ATM is so expensive, and it's because - all things considered - it's hitting like a x35 or x40 weapon with +0 ACC.

You do have to make decisions, and it can be very hard (we tended to make it harder by limiting the TV size to 800 or so before the recosts) - I'm not discounting that. But generally speaking, there are very obvious good choices (cheap FOs, cheap Sat. Uplinks, cheap +1 ACC weapons) and very poor ones (-2 DEF models for direct fire, high TV cost models generally).

As far as junk units - that's just not my experience at all. CEF is very difficult to make a cost-effective force out of, because of the stupidly complicated building plan that was put into place. Frames are horribly overpriced for what they do, and while the HTs (and the LHTs) are pretty awesome, the rest of the army tends to fall flat. The HPC-64 is fairly suboptimal, as are GRELs due to their high cost. You can make them work, it requires your opponent to be bringing a less competitive list. Black Talons were fairly nasty, but that's due to their massive CP pool and I suspect with recent rules changes we'd find them quite a bit more fragile. A local player was very effective with a BT 'chum' list so I'm inclined to agree that BT don't have many obvious weaknesses, except possibly recon. Paxton - before their new book - was a joke, and very difficult to play with. Lots of -1 DEF units, units with 6" range weapons, that sort of thing. Very difficult to win with, in general. You got major props for winning with Paxton around our shop.

wildger wrote:

The secondary player in HGB definitely has many options to remain "active" such as ECM and ECCM in addition to what you have mentioned. If you do not consider them as complex, I don't know what else to say.

There's very little skill required on the secondary player's part when making those decisions - it's just a resource management tree. Do I make the reaction fire now, or wait until later in the turn? What's the chance that I'm going to get killed on this shot, or land an effective shot in return? Same for ECM - do I block this FO, or let it through? There's no difference - except in cover modifiers - so I have to block every ECM until I'm out of actions or my opponent is. Again, the skill is in resource (action) management. It's functionally equivalent to figuring out if your model is close enough to charge, or be charged, in WM. Do I put my screen in front, assuming that my opponent will wipe them out? Or do I try to leave charge lanes open?

The reason I say that it's easier in Blitz is because in Blitz, you're making that decision on a model by model basis. In WM, you generally have to think of a subset of your army, because during your off-turn you're stuck. You have to plan more carefully in WM because you don't have anything that can mitigate your opponents reactions. In Blitz though your reaction fire might take down the guy firing back at you, weakening your opponent's tactical plan for that turn. So which is really more 'tactical'? The one where you have to make - and live by - a plan, or the one where bad planning on your part can be mitigated by game mechanics (reaction fire, CP fire)?

wildger wrote:
HGB, on the other hand, resembles the modern battlefield and more realistic IMO.

Sure, it's got guns and those guns (generally) hurt. So you tend to slink around cover, shoot guys before they get close, and call in fire missions that your opponent can't do anything about and that slaughter them. It's more realistic than WM, sure. But that's not a high bar for a game about Steam-powered robots powered by magic : I kid, I kid! But seriously, being realistic and being a fun game are two different things. If you prize realism (at least, verisimilitude) over gameplay then we simply aren't looking for the same thing in a game, and that's cool. I just prefer to have everything I could want to bring at least have some useful niche - rather than bullet catcher - and am willing to reduce the 'modern combat' angle a bit to get it.

IceRaptor wrote:
Pretty much. But that's part of my point - if tactics were that important, an army of LAC/MAC toting troops would be able roll over a smaller army of AGM equipped models. That doesn't tend to be the case though; the player that made the more 'optimal' choices during army construction - i.e. maximized their modifiers - has enough benefits that they tend to roll on through the game. This was especially true before the DEF modifier reset; try taking a DEF -1 army against a DEF +1 army to see what I mean.

wildger wrote:

In the real world, a whole unit of T54 tanks are not going to take down a handful of M1A1 Abrahm. In 40K, several hordes of goblins are not going to defeat an unit of elite space marines.

At some point, quantity does trump quality. There's a spectrum, of course - but that was demonstrated in WW2 very effectively and continues to be true today. Hordes of goblins *will* eventually overwhelm the space marines - that's the entire premise of the ork army, isn't it? And especially in a game where you want the player that enjoys the ideal of horde to have an equal chance of success as the player that enjoys the ideal of the elite space marines - shouldn't there be an equal chance of success? Or are you okay with the ideal that army X simply always wins over army Y no matter how different the points costs are? If they are equal, I would think you'd want X and Y to have roughly equivalent chances - maybe X wins more often in situation A, and Y in situation B, but over the larger course of time they end up being similar. That's why we give them points in the first place.

wildger wrote:

On the other hand, for your information, the same LAC/MAC troops are able to swamp the few AGM models with Indirect Fire (if armed that way), given the appropriate supporting elements.

Now wait a minute, you're changing the situation. You aren't talking about LAC/MAC troops, you're talking about MRP/HGM troops. You know that LAC/MACs don't hold up against AGM/HGLC troops - or you wouldn't have tried to caveat the situation. 300 TV of LAC/MAC troops will die to 300 TV of AGM/HGLC because the balance of the system is screwy. 800 TV of IF + spotters will generally butcher 800 TV of AGM/HGLC troops, until said troops airdrop behind them. The context is important. My point was that if tactics were a first-class citizen, then 300 TV of LAC/MAC troops should have an equal chance of success against 300 TV of AGM/HGLC troops, given players of equal skill. That's not the case - and you're trying to equal skill in army composition with tactics. They are - IMO - not the same thing.

wildger wrote:

Besides, the goal of the game is to meet the objectives, not to kill all your opponent's models. Yes, your force may be taking a beating but you can still win the game. If you want to play a game for the purpose of smashing your opponent's army, HGB may not be suitable for you. According to the current Field Manual, there is no such thing as a DEF +1 or -1 army.

Ugh, I hate every time this line is trotted out. Yes, the game is about objectives. So why even bother with TV or PL limits? Just throw models on the table and whoever gets the most OP wins, right? We play with TV specifically because we expect the outcome to be reasonably balanced. Objectives throw that out the window. If you want HGB on easy mode, play lots of fast, cheap scouts and take as many Recon & Scout objectives as you can. You'll win more games than you lose! Saying that the game is about objectives lets the designers be lazy, because you can't reliably quantify success or failure of armies in relation to each other, which is where the ideal of balance (that is, equivalent chances for success with the outcome determined by skill) comes from.

The proof of this was in a tournament we ran. Objective based, mostly assault / defend / recon with a small amount of WiT / Assassinate through in. 6 veteran players, 1 newbie. The new ran a BT list and tabled this opponents every turn - guess who got their objectives every table and guess who didn't? The vet BT player was #1 and the newbie was #2. Killing your opponent's models can very effectively prevent them from achieving their objectives, leaving you the winner after taking a single objective.

There's a different mentality between objective play and 'wipe them out' play, sure. But saying Blitz is only suited for 'objective player' essentially concedes that the game has some nasty warts. And playing a few 'objective' games will bring those warts out anyways - leaving you back at square one. Games should (IMO) be written to the competitive standard, with objectives on top of them, rather than thinking that asymmetric objective play somehow fixes all the flaws in the game.

IceRaptor, it is very apparent that you don't like the entire game system for HBG. Have fun with other games then.

wildger wrote:
IceRaptor, it is very apparent that you don't like the entire game system for HBG. Have fun with other games then.

That's what you took from those posts? That I dislike the entire game?

Wow.

Just speaking for myself, I appreciate IceRaptor's comments, even if I take them a bit personally.

Yeah, I'm sure Iceraptor hates the game so damn much, he took the time to write detailed explanations of its inner workings, what work, and what doesn't.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure, he made up all of that on a whim, and totally didn't build that knowledge over years of playing that system. Yup. Same reason he wrote articles on the game's base mechanisms, because he hates the game.

I won't even quote the books where he's listed in the credits and all...

 IceRaptor wrote:

wildger wrote:
IceRaptor, it is very apparent that you don't like the entire game system for HBG. Have fun with other games then.

That's what you took from those posts? That I dislike the entire game?

Wow.

To me, you sure sound that way even though this is not your intention. I guess the more appropriate words for me to use is dissatisfaction or you wish certain rules can be changed to a better way.

 HudsonD wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure Iceraptor hates the game so damn much, he took the time to write detailed explanations of its inner workings, what work, and what doesn't.

For your information, in my use of language, "do not like" does not equal "hate". "Bigger" does not necessary equal to "huge". I thought that this is very apparent in English language.

wildger, I think you misunderstood. When I mention that the +5TV glass back surgery is a dumb upgrade, I mention it because its not really a choice. If it's stupid not to get, why make it a choice at all? Same with all those upgrades I listed. (Brahmin, those maneuver upgrades from GU3 etc) Why make the game confusing for new players with stupid gotcha's like, "haha you didn't spend the 5TV to make your model good". Those kind of false choices are a detriment to the game.

(Though for glassback in particular, I would've much prefered they changed the rules and instead of a 5TV removal, they changed the damned rule and just made it less stupidly harsh, so that the model retains some of it's flavor instead.)

And Ice, hell, I think he's actually working on the new edition, which I'm glad about, as he recognizes the problems inherent to the earlier versions. And doesn't just gloss over problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also totally fine with having army elements that are nothing more than bullet catchers, but they should be priced accordingly in TV so that they aren't overpriced death traps.

This thread shows a serious problem with the HG community: White-knighting. Lots of 'there is no problem!' sort of chatter, which tends to downplay basic mathematics, modern game design principles, and at times, intellectual flexibility.

---

Iceraptor is absolutely correct on pretty much all counts. Game balance is a serious issue, most particularly in IF (which requires so few resources to accomplish devastating results) and army building / points balance.

- The classic example of weapon swaps is pretty damn clear. +10 TV to equip the Jaguar with an AGM instead of it's LRP? WILL TAKE EVERY TIME. It massively increases the unit's lethality for a pittance.

- On several occasions, a cost DOWNGRADE can improve a unit's lethality (Junglemower, ATM swap for Grizzlies) for example.
Before someone goes 'you don't have to swap weapons!', well... only technically correct. But also the wrong play. Imagine in 40k, if a Land Raider cost 200 points but was only armed with 1 bolter. For +10 points, you can sub out those bolters for 2 Lascannons. Who WOULDN'T take that?

- Likewise, the pretty-much-mandatory upgrades for -1 DEF to 0 DEF for Cobras and Grizzlies costs only 5TV, on platforms that generally cost 80 TV, but have the in-game effect of nearly DOUBLING their armor. Why on earth is that even an option and not just baked into the unit's stats? This violates a pretty basic principle of game design to limit the player's choices to meaningful ones.

- Another classic example is that yes, there are junk units.
CEF is honestly full of them. Frames are TERRIBLE for their price. They overpay hideously for their skill upgrades (ANN is highly overpriced), their survivability is poor, their weapons are poor and they're all required to take a paid-for mission pack that equips them with useless doo-dads. Look at the base CEF Battleframe, vs say, a base NuCoal Chasseur Mk2. The Mk2 is faster, better armed, better armored, more HP, better upgrade options, cheaper skill upgrades, and more flexibility in their squad, as well as not having downsides such as sensor dependence. All while being around 35 percent cheaper!

That's a clear example of 'this unit is junk', because your points aren't as good as an opponent's points at doing all of the same things required to play and win the game. Sure, the CEF tanks are fine (only some loadouts are clearly 'more fine' than others, since the Particle Cannons are garbage). so all that means is that you gimp yourself by taking CEF frames.

wildger wrote:
IceRaptor, it is very apparent that you don't like the entire game system for HBG. Have fun with other games then.

IceRaptor has done more to improve the current state of the game publicly via online guides, convention volunteering, and general cheerleading and private behind the scenes work to hopefully secure the future of the IP than any 10 well meaning but unfortunately ignorant white knights combined. He didn't do that over the years because he didn't like the entire game system.

Oh, dear...what have I stumbled across on the internets. I promised I wouldn't check into the DP9 forums. Swore off the rulebooks and sold all my figures.

But it appears the DP9 forums came looking and found me lurking.

Now my interest is piqued with the mention of new rules...but I won't hold my breath.

"Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in."

Snack

Killionaire, that reminds of how much I really hated the addition of NuCoal. Seemed like RetCon Fluff, combined with massive power creep, along with taking a lot of things that were unique to certain factions (Hovertanks, hover walkers, GRELs without flaws)

Also a bit jarring to have the smallest faction with the least amount of resources somehow popping out units that were better in every way to every other faction.

In a vacuum, it did do some things right, like designing models around the system, instead of taking an existing design and trying to have it work with the system. And trying to get more viable +1 firecontrol models, though I really think the Cuirasser should NOT exist. Nucoal would be more interesting if they didn't have the exact same Elite model as the South.

But the stupid variant naming, the weird Armored/Infantry/Gear regiment unnecessary complication for army building, KADA BS, triple linked MRPs, having a weapon that has the same designation but different stats, having the TV costs for all their stuff being wildly incompatible with existing factions, etc. So much bad with only a small amount of good.

I'll add the terrible backstory to the above, but besides that, TPS was the worst thing that could happen to DP9.

The book was actually pretty bad, yet the minis were good, and a whole new line, so they sold well. It's not a bad thing in itself, but it convinced DP9 that TPS was the best thing ever, and that it was the way to go. This is how we ended up with FIF, that pretty much murdered the southern players, and DP9's main source of income.

 HudsonD wrote:
I'll add the terrible backstory to the above, but besides that, TPS was the worst thing that could happen to DP9.

The book was actually pretty bad, yet the minis were good, and a whole new line, so they sold well. It's not a bad thing in itself, but it convinced DP9 that TPS was the best thing ever, and that it was the way to go. This is how we ended up with FIF, that pretty much murdered the southern players, and DP9's main source of income.

Yeah, the models were generally good. Much better than the lackluster Utopia and Eden models. Though I really didn't like the "Tank with arms", tank strider model, it just looks silly. Okay, yes we're dealing with mechs so some level of disbelief has to be involved, but that one was just a bridge too far for me.

Again, disagreeing with HudsonD. The idea of the Humanist Alliance teaming up with the other disparate factions to gain easier access to creating its own units makes sense fluff-wise, and it also helped introduce the Chasseur as more than a one-trick pony out of the Badlands.

I know a lot of the older heads don't like it for its breaking up the whole power structure between the North and the South and all, but it made sense to me. The only really ridiculous, over-the-top retconning in my eyes was the inclusion of the Hussar Gearstrider.

As far as Objectives, Threat Values and whatnot, no I can't correlate as well as some of the others here. What I can say is that if you're going to play with TVs and expect a 'fair fight' because of equal TVs, it's as likely folks are going to go for the best stuff they can get for the buck. Whereas if you were to play with more restrictive lists and choices (which is what TPS started), there's more of an attempt to change the power structure.

Yes, TPS also had those units tailor-made for Blitz, and why not? Sleek new models introduced a whole new set of awesomeness.

Of course, I'm more jaded to like NuCoal, since I'm not as big on the whole North-South thing that a lot of earlier players seemed to be raging about. (Note: Rage in this case is major enjoyment.)

And most Southern players even remarked on the boards that they KNEW they were going to get murdered because their 4-Gear cadres were going the way of the dodo. Now, if you're saying that the Southern players are the main source of income for Heavy Gear, that makes me curious.

Edit: I see ferrous and I agree on the Hussar. Still, it was an awesome design, all respect given.

I don't like it because it breaks the established fluff in horrible ways, by introducing a mary-sue faction with a perfect leader that can do nothing wrong and are perfect good guys, in a setting that was renowned for "shade-of-grey" approach.

The southern mini line, last time I heard, was DP9's main money-maker, a bit like Space Marines for GW. I suspect FIF may have slightly devastated it, however.

 HudsonD wrote:
I don't like it because it breaks the established fluff in horrible ways, by introducing a mary-sue faction with a perfect leader that can do nothing wrong and are perfect good guys, in a setting that was renowned for "shade-of-grey" approach.

The southern mini line, last time I heard, was DP9's main money-maker, a bit like Space Marines for GW. I suspect FIF may have slightly devastated it, however.

I didn't know that. I wouldn't have guessed, considering that the North was the protagonist of the video game series. But as a southern player, I can understand it =)

I thought that too, with all the south gears being snakes, the video games/ even the old tv show the south being dang evil i'd thought they were always marketed as the bad guys?

BrandonKF wrote:
Again, disagreeing with HudsonD. The idea of the Humanist Alliance teaming up with the other disparate factions to gain easier access to creating its own units makes sense fluff-wise, and it also helped introduce the Chasseur as more than a one-trick pony out of the Badlands.

I know a lot of the older heads don't like it for its breaking up the whole power structure between the North and the South and all, but it made sense to me. The only really ridiculous, over-the-top retconning in my eyes was the inclusion of the Hussar Gearstrider.

As far as Objectives, Threat Values and whatnot, no I can't correlate as well as some of the others here. What I can say is that if you're going to play with TVs and expect a 'fair fight' because of equal TVs, it's as likely folks are going to go for the best stuff they can get for the buck. Whereas if you were to play with more restrictive lists and choices (which is what TPS started), there's more of an attempt to change the power structure.

Yes, TPS also had those units tailor-made for Blitz, and why not? Sleek new models introduced a whole new set of awesomeness.

The problem with making the models entirely tailored to the current system is two-fold. One is that it makes them better than all the other models that currently existed. Massive Power creep. And second, is that once the system gets revamped, which seems to happen a little too often for my liking, they could go from powerful to useless. (Sort of like Utopia with stun and melee rule changes) For example, they can get ECCM on their CGLs, but I don't think they can get it on non-CGLs. A single rule change, like say ECCM costs an action to use, would hurt them pretty bad.

Like I said, some of the TPS changes to army building were good, like having squads with default upgrades, and generally shrinking down the number of TV upgrades/swaps, and rounding TV costs at the squad level instead of at a per model level. Those were all decent ideas for the most part.

I think some changes were unnecessarily complicated, and detrimental to the game. Rather than fix the fact that the MBZK is stupidly better than taking a MAC, they limit it to two per squad*, which is really a band aid, and is also one of the other reasons the South was 'better' with four man squads, as they weren't stuck with as many vanilla models in a single squad. If they had just fixed the weapons, either by making the MBZK cost more, or do less well, or the MAC do more. Basically, weapons need to fulfill roles, by swapping to a different weapon, it should feel like I'm changing the role of the model, and losing the previous role should make a player pause a little, and ask themselves if it's worth losing that role. As the system stands now, a higher damage weapon is almost always better, and usually the difference in range isn't pronounced enough to make a difference. So if the question is do I upgrade this model to the MBZK/AGM/HGLC if I can, the answer is almost always yes in the current system.



* And at one point they tried to fix the imbalance with North and South and weapons by letting the North get an entire squad of MBZKs if they wanted... which again is a band-aid, and not surprising that they tried to undo it on later army builds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doc1234 wrote:
I thought that too, with all the south gears being snakes, the video games/ even the old tv show the south being dang evil i'd thought they were always marketed as the bad guys?

Yup, in the first Heavy Gear video game, they had a territorial war online game mode, and the number of Northern Players was like 2:1. Thinking about it further, maybe it's because they are the most Votoms like?