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.
2016/01/13 04:58:10
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread
warboss wrote: That's why I limited my commentary to the visual aesthetics of so many tokens on the table (which I'm not a fan of and which was an issue in blitz for over a decade).
OTOH, trying to play Blitz 1 correctly without tokens? Ugh. Very painful. Almost impossible.
In my actual play experiences it definitely proved better in almost every instance to use/place each token possible simply to avoid confusion about what happened earlier due to the alternating activation turn structure, especially during the second hour of a game, let alone a third or fourth hour.
Regardless of intent, after all this time the Pod folks still seem to have a pretty laissez-faire approach towards the token question, because the reality is rather different than the stated goal for pretty much every version of the game.
Ideals of how to play out a game, as in the belief of how a game should/might be each turn, do not I think automatically equate to what is required for a game to be played when designing a ruleset.
Spoiler:
Dave on January 12th at 7:16AM wrote:Tokens for tracking the game state is fine. This is something we rationalized very well early on. What we were not Okay with was default requirements of tokens (A dice and ammo tracking). 90% of the time there is one token, the damage token. The others are added as required with the ECM defense token being the most popular. We were making a conscious choice to remove the 'comet tail' of tokens that was the default in the previous edition.
The key word to use is reference.Rob Daviau wrote a great article about board game design for Open Design's Kobold guide to board game design where he speaks about how game pieces are there to reference "key rule moments". That's just another way to say memory aid but really that's what tokens are for. If you are playing a fun game and between players you can track everything mentally then sure, do that if you have an agreement between players.
-Dave
On another note, it doesn't seem that the folks in Pod-land have manged to figure out any more than the folks at Palladium Books that empty hype, ... is just nothing more than that, empty hype, and helps to sell nothing at all.
If a company has something to show for the $$$ they took in by whatever means, show that, don't just say ''if only we could show you'' a month past the last substantial update, that was itself about two months from a last substantial update.
/sheesh, How can they, or anyone really, not understand that concept.
Spoiler:
Dave on January 5th wrote:Happy New Year everyone! I would love to tell you all everything I know, but I won't. All the anticipation will soon be in the past... 2016 will be a Gear Year for sure...
Spoiler:
Dave on January 12th at 11:34AM wrote:As I write this we are two weeks into 2016 and already we are starting to see how the year is going to unwind for Dream Pod 9 and it's going to be good.
If you are a kickstarter backer or on our facebook page then you already have seen some of the sprues for the Caprice factions and know how close we are to being able to give the actual date for the start of kickstarter rewards fulfillment.
_
_
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/13 05:26:22
2016/01/13 20:38:21
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread
Smilodon_UP wrote: Anolis ; pg. 106 - ''The Iguana and its variants may be represented by an Anolis model, shown above.'' But no stats, nor any way to include them in a force. Basilisk ; an ESE army only option for any model with a GP, FS, or RC combat group UA, gaining a small move and sensor bonus for +1 TV.
I'm ok with the anolis counts as iguana substition as the issue for me has always been using the model. If they decide they want the variety at some point in the future, they can always reintroduce it if/when they pump out a plastic. I have a bit of an issue with the "basilisk" upgrage as it is seemingly for any model and not just jagers so anything from black mambas to Drake gear striders can go "basilisk". I'm not sure if that is the intent, an oversight, or typo.
Even with the reviled FIF book, I was expecting some of the more distinct and rarely used variants to go away (despite me using them.. like my Commander Sat Up Link Cobra) and I expect the same now. I am surprised that common variants like a Gunner Mamba (MAC to HAC upgrade) is gone but I suppose mechanically that type of easy upgrade no longer works. Whereas before in the rules it was just a few words on the squad entry and model stat card, squads and models no longer work like that. Changing one single item (outside of a subfaction wide special rule) requires a new entry if they stay in the table format without switching to stat cards.
Interesting; I worked up that post very early this morning and hadn't fully appreciated just which models could benefit from the ''Basilisk upgrade'', let alone that the Drake was one of those models due to having a [Fire Support] UA. I guess HG as a whole did end up with more ''Rally'' models in the end; Rally Mamba, Rally Cobra, etc etc etc.
Something else strange I noticed this afternoon was that (apparently to fit on a single page, because page count matters in an ebook...) the South no longer has any kind of model restrictions in any sub-faction, while for the North both WFPA and UMFA still do. To be honest, the more I look at the sub-factions in NuBlitz I wonder why TPTB bothered to keep them, or at least in the form they chose to implement.
My guess on the Southern models that went away is whichever Pod person made those decisions apparently couldn't tell the low/basic tech from the high/specialized tech variants. Basically, they dropped most of the ones that turned out to be fun to play instead of being just more of the same vanilla.
But by the Prophet, all of the usual ''shiny'' suspects were as per usual instant Southern inclusions that even picked up a few new variants between the lot of them.
_ _
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 20:42:42
warboss wrote: Other than the occasional "state" effect, the only thing that should be trailing like little cow pies behind the models is the damage track which I'm ok with (and would in my case just track it on off-board stat cards instead).
There is at least one game I've seen in online previews that uses mini-D6s on the model base to track damage, somewhat similar to the fuel tracking die used for tiny flyer tokens in Dystopian Wars, but i can't recall the title offhand.
Damage-wise, I've never really been happy with the feel of either direction.
Models going until they take a hit large enough to immobilize or destroy them, and never affected by any lesser damage, has the benefit of not needing to track hull/structure/etc etc reductions but is very zombie-like gameplay.
Models taking granular damage needs a lot of tracking, and can likewise end up leading to it's damage state being used for additional modifiers versus various types of target number tests.
As regards range, yeah, that involves a tough decision about what kind of abstraction is acceptable.
Something I thought about after looking through other rulesets and the like was having a ''step'' for the system lines of a model stat card; it does get harder to shoot with different projectiles or whatnot the farther away a target is but you really shouldn't ever need more than a couple of range increases before your models end up shooting across the board as John noted earlier.
Step [6"], step [16"], step [24"] or something like that with most weapons of the same class/type having similar range steps, and there aren't (or shouldn't be anyways) but a few cases where a maximum range restriction would be necessary.
I think being able to vary how big a step is might give a reasonable abstraction of weapon or system ranges during a vehicle-based game without trending into needing a lot of unnecessary range modifiers.
Folks unable to multiply whole number steps (16 -> 32 -> 48 -> 64 -> 80) in their head due to whatever reason can easily resort to referencing a cheat sheet, calculator, or younger brain.
To denote a maximum range maybe something like Step [12"-] to cap at 12 inches, or Step [12" x3] to cap at 36 inches. Not sure, still a bit wonky most ways I envision it.
One attractive point to me similar to what Ice proposed also came up in the Turn Sequence thread, using chits for orders like ''Slow Advance'', ''Strategic Move'', or whatnot.
Admittedly this is more often a concept found in higher echelon oriented games like Weltkrieg or Striker 2 (Command Decision-based), but it might make command models with their associated abilities more useful while adding a bit more depth to a ruleset.
Likewise, going to a card deck/drawn chit based concept for both movement and firing by combat group would seem to pretty much remove the need for a lot of state counters and initiative rolling/counter-rolling.
_
_
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/01/13 22:49:18
That thread, and the whole section it was in, are not public anymore, as of a few minutes ago...
warboss wrote: It does appear that stompy/mek locked down out of sight the thread I previously linked though there is a friendlier thread with a response from the company in the general discussion forum with a free round of koolaid on the house to shore up doubts expressed in the missing thread.
http://forums.heavygear.com/index.php?p=/discussion/1144/official-response-to-current-rumours Fortunately for us, the commentary under the article Hudson linked has gotten quite interesting since this morning to make up for the curious case of the missing thread .
Oh judas priest - those kind of folks never manage to understand immediately restricting/pruning/locking a thread conversation generates a perception that only adds fuel to the fire they're trying to put out.
Dumb, incredibly dumb, and the information always gets out anyways.
Likewise, if the Stompy folks truly wanted to get ahead of this thing and do useful damage control, showing that the $$$ they have collected from folks for the game or stock matters to their organization, they should already have posted to both Facebook and G+.
But guess what, they haven't as yet, and seem intent on trying to keep everything localized to the initial news articles and their own forum.
The bit in the rumor article about having to cut back spending yet being unable to have a meeting as a board member was in South America is pretty good.
''During regression testing the production has been restructured.'' is a rather questionable mouthful of management-speak though, even more so when you think on the fact that something as simple as a set of PC requirements for the game has never been officially released.
_
_
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/16 06:17:34
Seriously pissed Dev wrote:@tekadept you certainly have been making plenty of noise in the past 24 hours on the interwebz about this. I am glad you are such a passionate fan and looking for truth and answers. Thanks for your support!
Here are some answers for you(...)
forums.heavygear.com/index.php?p=/discussion/1144/official-response-to-current-rumours
Man, talk about sounding really, really annoyed at someone
ferrous wrote: Brutal. Anytime my paycheck bounces, I'd be looking for another job immediately, no matter what the company said.
If the company looks like it's not going to pay me, I'm looking to get out before my paycheck fails to appear.
And who the feth can afford to work for 6 months, no pay? That's insane.
I'd start encrypting the files and demand back wages with interest, or no decryption key...
Yeah - there isn't a whole lot of practical difference between being laid off for six months or not being paid for six months of work, other than the level of effort required.
It seems pretty questionable for the dev(s) on the HG:Assault site to claim a lay off in all but name serves to better answer the initial rumor news of nobody being paid on time over the course of months.
*As calling folks bastards when referring to a group is a bit impolite.
_
_
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/16 06:15:37
AndrewGPaul wrote: I was actually meaning that Blitz (the first variant thereof) was the fourth edition of the wargame rules*, not that there have been four editions of Blitz itself. So, seven editions since 1994, compared with 40k's six editions since 1993 (when 2nd edition was released).
* 1st edition, 2nd edition, the "Miniatures Rules", then Blitz.
HG released since 1995: 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3rd/Tactical (is that when they split off?), Blitz, L&L, Field Manual, Alpha test rules = 7 HG editions
40k: released since 1995: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th: 5 editions
Now, that said, 40k has adopted a release schedule just as stupid as the one DP9 has traditionally had (replacing books/products after 1-3 years) while DP9 has with this living ruleset changed their own (hopefully permanently) to a more sensible one in the same timeframe. If GW hadn't cranked the stupid up to 11, they should have been at 4 editions compared with DP9's 7 during roughly the same timeframe of 23 years. I also may have missed an edition in there for HG as I didn't really pay attention from 2nd to Blitz's release.
Yeah, something like that, but definitely far too many of them, with multiple-year-long stretches between products/looks at a number of factions.
Gee, I'm a new player, I wonder which one I should pick up?
As opposed to:
Heavy Gear Tactical [1998]
[Heavy Gear Tactical Miniature Rules (2001)]
[Heavy Gear Silhouette Core Miniature Rules (2005)]
Heavy Gear Blitz [2006]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [2008]
Heavy Gear Blitz Field Manual [2011]
[Heavy Gear Blitz Beta (2014)]
Shouldn't that list also include the 1st and second editions of the RPG since they had the fully functional and independent minis rules as a section in the back of the books? We tried the RPG for a bit but usually ended up playing the minis game only in our group. If so, the edition cycle DP9 has had for the miniatures portion of Heavy Gear is:
Spoiler:
Heavy Gear RPG 1st Ed [1995]
Heavy Gear RPG 2nd Ed [1997]
Heavy Gear Tactical [1998]
[Heavy Gear Tactical Miniature Rules (2001)]
[Heavy Gear Silhouette Core Miniature Rules (2005)]
Heavy Gear Blitz [2006]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [2008]
Heavy Gear Blitz Field Manual [2011]
Heavy Gear Blitz Alpha/Beta/KS edition (2013/2014/2015)
So... 9 editions in 20 years...and that is considering the "alpha" and "beta" and "Kickstarter" rules releases as a single evolving conglomerate edition. I knew it was a lot but I don't think I've ever seen it listed year by year. I guess it is a good thing I missed the period between 1997 and 2006 specifically because of the 2nd edition RPG flip flop.
True enough, you could likewise add in the products & Gear Up emags that introduced or consolidated new rules and/or factions for stretches when the main books were delayed:
Old Company: Partial list, with miniature oriented products noted in red. (For the pre-Blitz! mini rules the Tactical & RPG sourcebooks still provided varying amounts of model data used in game.):
Spoiler:
Heavy Gear RPG (1st Ed) [July 1995] Field Guide(s): Northern Vehicles 1 & Southern Vehicles 1 [Dec 1995]
Field Guide(s): Northern Vehicles 2 & Southern Vehicles 2 [April 1996]
Tactical Air Support [May 1996]
Duelist's Handbook (1st edition) [Aug 1996]
Tactical Field Support: Artillery & Ground Warfare [Oct 1996]
Southern Army List One: Southern Republic (No other books were published in this format.) [Nov 1996]
Northern Vehicle Compendium One: Gears & Striders [Dec 1996]
Southern Vehicle Compendium One: Gears & Striders [Jan 1997]
Northern Record Sheets One & Southern Record Sheets One: Gears & Striders [Feb 1997]
The New Breed: Battle Before The Storm (Activision PC game tie-in #1.) [Sep 1997]
Heavy Gear RPG (2nd Ed) [Dec 1997] Northern Vehicles Compendium Two & Southern Vehicles Compendium Two: Tanks & Artillery [Feb 1998]
Heavy Gear Tactical [1998] Terranovan Military Powers Book One: Northern Guard [Aug 1998]
Tactical Pack One: Battle of Two Towers [Dec 1998]
Tactical Pack Two: Shadow War [March 1999]
Armor Pack Volume One: Tanks and Striders [May 1999]
Terranovan Military Powers Book Two: Southern MILICIA [Aug 1999]
Tactical Pack Three: Operation Sudden Fire [October 1999]
Black Talon - Mission to Caprice (Activision PC game tie-in #2.) [Jan 2000]
Tactical Space Support - Space Warfare [March 2000]
Duelist's Handbook (2nd edition) [Dec 2000]
Heavy Gear Tactical Miniature Rules [Feb 2001]
Earth Book One: Colonial Expeditionary Force [April 2001]
Raids & Raiders - Interstellar Strikes (Miniatures Supplement) [June 2001]
Tactical Dueling - Arena Champions (Miniatures Supplement) [Oct 2001]
Heavy Gear Player's Handbook (3rd Edition) [Sep 2003] Heavy Gear Vehicle Companion (3rd Edition) [Jany 2004]
New Company:
Spoiler:
Heavy Gear Silhouette Core Miniature Rules [2005]
(DP9 ceased producing RPGs between 2006 - 2008 for their entire game catalog, including Heavy Gear.)
Heavy Gear Blitz [Aug 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Hammers of Faith (North) [Dec 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Swords of Pride (South) [Mar 2007]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Shields of Freedom (Peace River) [Dec 2007]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [May 2008]
- Black Talon: Return to Cat's Eye (Caprice, CEF, Black Talons) [May 2009]
- Shattered Peace: The War for Terra Nova Book 1 (Eden) [2010]
- Terra Nova Gambit: The War for Terra Nova Book 2 (Utopia) [2010]
- Gear Up (Utopian rules primer & template, Field Testing: Defense Modifiers, Errata) [Issue 1 - Spring 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Medical Support Section rules, The Drop Bears Diggers rules, Field Testing: Revised Range Bands, Errata, Quick Reference Flowcharts) [Issue 2 - Summer 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Field Testing: HHT-90 Combat Group & Multi-Component Vehicle Rules, Field Testing: New Overkill Rules, Revisions & Errata, Southern Medical Support Section, PRDF Medical Section, PAK/CEF Medical Section) [Issue 3 - Winter 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Combat Engineering Companies, Official Rules: New Heavy Hover Tank combat group) [Issue 4 - Summer 2011] pdf
- Gear Up (Captain Alston Ash-Dreyes: NuCoal Special Character) [Issue 5 - Winter 2012] pdf
- Gear Up (Lieutenant Colonel Mikhaela Moore: NuCoal Special Character, Constable Keiko Hijikawa: Drake Pilot & Ace Special Character) [Issue 6 - Spring 2013] pdf
Heavy Gear Arena (Unsupported after release save for a Gear Up article or two.) [2010]
Heavy Gear Blitz Field Manual (Consolidation of Gear Up field testing rules with a partial reprint of Locked & Loaded) [Nov 2011]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Perfect Storm; NuCoal Field Guide [Nov 2011]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Forged in Fire; Southern Field Guide [~late Dec 2012]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Blood Debt; Peace River Army List [Dec 2013] pdf
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Lion's Wrath; Northern Army List [June 2014] pdf
Heavy Gear Badlands Rally (Unsupported stand-alone tabletop game introducing rule concepts similar to the Alpha/Beta ruleset) [2013]
Heavy Gear Blitz! Field Support Guide (Consolidation of Gear Up material & unsupported factions to Field Manual rules) [2014] pdf
Heavy Gear Blitz Alpha/Beta/KS edition [~late 2012/2013/2014/2015]
Shouldn't that list also include the 1st and second editions of the RPG since they had the fully functional and independent minis rules as a section in the back of the books? We tried the RPG for a bit but usually ended up playing the minis game only in our group. If so, the edition cycle DP9 has had for the miniatures portion of Heavy Gear is:
Heavy Gear RPG 1st Ed [1995]
Heavy Gear RPG 2nd Ed [1997]
Heavy Gear Tactical [1998]
[Heavy Gear Tactical Miniature Rules (2001)]
[Heavy Gear Silhouette Core Miniature Rules (2005)]
Heavy Gear Blitz [2006]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [2008]
Heavy Gear Blitz Field Manual [2011]
Heavy Gear Blitz Alpha/Beta/KS edition (2013/2014/2015)
Hm... yes and no. Up until Blitz!, the actual rules changes were quite a bit minimum. Only real change on those was the default damage system on the Tactical rules (similar to Blitz!'s, but even less complicated), where the "full" damage tracking rules from the RPG were optional.
The SilCORE miniature rules had a couple of small changes, but it still was 95% compatible with the previous stuff. Most of the changes between those editions I'd sau were on the "look and feel" category.
_
_
2016/01/27 20:06:50
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread
Samuli Aura, Today at 06:52 AM, wrote:I'm tinkering with the layout for datacards. The idea being that although DP9 are skipping datacards for this edition of the game, some people are used to having them for in-game reference, and also a an analog army building method: Simply print datacards for all models in your collection and choose your force by picking cards from the pack. Although the optional updates mix this stuff up a little, I think the basis is solid.
(Note that I'm still planning to support complete "army building", including options, etc. hopefully by the time the KS delivers.) [..]
Leaving aside the continuation of a non-official program as the ''official'' army builder program for NuBlitz, I must have completely missed that there will be no Pod-generated datacards for the LRB.
I had seen mentions before on the forums during the past year or so of folks coming up with their own until the rules were more or less hashed out in the version to only be updated every six months, but not that there won't be datacards period?
Guess another quick dive through the rules PDF is needed here this weekend; if true, rather a strange decision after so many years of specifically making a point to use this kind of game aid.
warboss wrote: @Smilodon: Thanks for the recap/reminder. It took me a little over a year but I ended up circling back to where I started.
lol, yeah, another milestone reached in the great holding pattern that is liking Heavy Gear.
Firebreak wrote: Ah, Heavy Gear Assault's deleting threads they don't like, in the grand Heavy Gear tradition. The one asking for an official response to the rumours got a rather nasty comment the other night, and now the whole thing's gone.
Anybody get a screencap for posterity?
Tamwulf wrote: [..] And even though Robert, John, and the head of the Pod Squad at the time all sent me separate e-mails about it, the title still remains Heavy Gear Blitz. I pretty much stopped talking to them after that. It was pretty obvious they were not listening to anything I said.
warboss wrote: [..] I agree about the nomenclature for HG as well and have stated so multiple times here as well as initially with the public release of the rules when it was announced that it would still be called "blitz" (which wasn't the case during the concept phase testing).
All I can figure on this one is that TPTB at the Pod are of the point of view they can achieve some kind of brand recognition by reusing the name as well as not having to simply throw away all of their legacy advertising materials, templates, and the like.
_
_
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/29 19:19:21
warboss wrote: You can put me in as an absentee vote for 30-40... but just barely!
yoiks - where do the years go? I mean, c'mon, just yesterday, er, only a few years back back, I was, ...so not 40-odd with a niece & nephew already in high school who're soon to be begging for actual vehicles ....
Gawd.
Is it too late to try and hide out by building a fort with the sofa cushions?
_
_
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/05 21:45:28
warboss wrote: [..] I took a peek at the poll. Admittedly the number of respondents is low but it seems that the average HG player is about as close to the start of retirement and he/she is to the start of puberty. While I was there, I found this interesting nugget from Dave in the kickstarter thread:
There have been quite the flurry of last minute observations and comments. Good stuff but It's caused some things liek UAs to get a bit of an overhaul (simplification - same system but way less variety in UAs). I taking this whole week getting in the changes. Lots of small things. Checking it thrice and more. That takes time.
-Dave
I'm glad they're making that change.
Of course, I wouldn't be posting over here (instead of over there) if I didn't also point out that I warned them about UA spam multiple times both privately (in closed playtesting) and later publicly on the official forums years ago only to be ignored. Better late then never I guess. I'll have to download the next version to see just how much was trimmed off.
TPTB in Pod-land keep saying the words (as in the latest interview quoted below), but yeah, two years now into the latest attempt and everything is still just business as per usual.
I'd be curious as to if the MP cadre finally gets dropped, because ever since FiF it does truly seem those models are not wanted by the company given how the combat group keeps getting a worse and worse implementation.
Maybe all that still has to do with a pre-FiF meta / state of thinking? ... /shrug The ease of conversion, and the $$$ DP9 can or does make on the bits due to the ''mecha'' aspect of Gear-police, is totally at odds with how they keep nerf-hammering the MP models and associated squads.
The average age poll did turn out noticeably, markedly, skewed even given how few responded.
brettness37 wrote: [..] What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version?
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm currently working my way through Starships Troopers, which was kind of discussed over here along with a few not on my list.
What I've read so far of Dirtside 2, which is a vehicles rather than an infantry oriented ruleset, seems very similar to a lot of concepts used throughout HG:Blitz! - no opinion yet on if the ''flow'' is better or not.
Tomorrow's War, despite the layout which is so-so but not terribly bad, approaches being all but unreadable though given how the color pages were printed.
So this is really one to read in a PDF format where folks can possibly turn off the background or use select to highlight the text.
Hopefully either of these previous posts might also be of use to you;
JohnHwangDD wrote: Flames isn't the magical be-all/end-all of wargaming, but it is very playable and produces generally reasonable results at a scale that looks good on a 4'x6' board.
HudsonD wrote: If FoW has taught us one thing though, it's that highly-polished, well-written rules will sell, even if the actual mechanism themselves are neither new nor original.
... So says the guy who now plays FoW.
I don't think it's all that bad of a ruleset in the respects of writing and completeness, primarily I'm just not a fan of saves and buckets of dice, but along with Infinity it just doesn't seem a good base idea for a game intended to allow mass sci-fi vehicular combat at any scale.
A number of folks here on dakka have mentioned that either Grunts or Stargrunt might be a viable choice. I have downloaded SG 2 off Wargames Vault but haven't had the time or much inclination of late to do more than browse through the rules.
I was also going to take a look at Strike Legion and Dirtside 2, while Fistful of TOWs has a number of interesting concepts and I think is fairly streamlined without being too dumbed down.
jedi76 wrote: I think I'm gonna start looking for an alternate rule set. Anyone recommend a generic sci fi war game that will handle heavy gear style battles.
The general consensus seems to be that there really isn't one at the moment, as most focus on either complex gameplay, skirmish-oriented figures, or complete mecha bash without much in between.
Another problem is that many games take a WW2-style or Cold War approach that either doesn't factor in high technology or else makes some very poor interpretations of how the tactics should evolve.
The whole point of tanks, APCs, improved infantry armor, and then finally power armor or practical [Walker] vehicles is to allow maneuver under fire. Yet almost always a ruleset still incorporates some kind of suppression or pinning element.
There is a big difference between suppression and overwatch; most games get it wrong. Revealing your position on a computerized battlefield by blazing away without a target should be a very bad thing.
So far, as research into the question, I've been looking at elements of;
Hammer's Slammers
- (The Crucible; $200-400USD for the book is just a mite steep to bother with though.)
Infinity (No Table of Contents, really?) There is an ongoing attempt to port HG into this ruleset, but there is a considerable divide on it working all that well.
Robert Dubois, in an interview released on Monday, February 15th 2016, wrote:[..] But with Jovian Chronicles we tried to have the physics working, which is also true of course, for Heavy Gear. We wanted to have the hard science as that was the background of the guys in our company.
[..] I think we’ll try and remove as many counters and tokens from the tabletop as possible in a new ruleset as they tend to slow down the game. ... New rules will have to go through alpha and beta versions, where we get feedback from the players before they are locked down.
[..] We can't really have them to exact scale as even with 15mm exos the ships would become very big and too expensive for the regular player. Having players shill out $50 for one ship just to have it in scale isn't worth it, sometimes you have to abstract it.
[..] Our main focus has been Heavy Gear as that is our main product line. There's a new computer game in the works for Heavy Gear as well...
[..] As game designers you can have this idea in your head and you think it'll work perfectly and then someone out there goes and says "but what if you do this?" and you realize it completely breaks the game.
[..] Compared to the moulds for the plastic models in the Heavy Gear kickstarter where each one is about $15,000!
[..] With the plastics we're having a company just north of Indianapolis who are going to run the plastics for us. That way we can control the chain of command much better.
[..] Now we're focused on fulfilling our kickstarter for Heavy Gear. We're getting the moulds back from China some time in April and they'll get run late April or early May and when we get all the plastics we'll be packing up orders for the next month and a half. We want to have all the stuff out for backers by the end of June and then we'll have one month to prepare all the stuff we want to take to Gencon. The plan is to have the retail version of Heavy Gear ready until then.
[..] If we go and say that you have to represent your miniature 100% WYSIWYG like we do with Heavy Gear we limit ourselves, because we force people to buy an insane amount of different models.
So, it would seem about $15K (plus whatever $$$ was no longer necessary for those ''pops'') was saved by cutting (2) models.
_
_
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/18 07:50:51
Albertorius wrote: It is good that they finally could be arsed to do that.
Like, 10 years too late, maybe, but... good.
Albertorius wrote: [..] Eight squadrons for 20 bucks, not even taking into account cards, dials and stuff. Also, I could just go down to the FLGS and, you know, actually buy them, right now.
They definitely seem to be doing any little thing they can with the other Pod titles (JC & GK) the past year or two, I guess even if it's only to help keep the lights on.
Although having a steady release schedule and products to sell would probably do wonders for that situation too.
Pricing that is actually, competitive on some level I guess with what folks can buy most any time they choose, would indeed probably help a lot more.
On a related note I'm wondering, especially given how fast Robert steps in for anything he feels is negative over in the KS comments or etc etc, if we're supposed to consider Wunji Lau as a company mouthpiece nowadays instead of some kind of old guard member.
This though.... DP9 already has (and has spent the ''majority'' of) the KS money, everything is (supposed to be, anyways) payed for and any future sales are complete profit - yet nobody over in Pod-land seems to get that.
Wunji Lau, on Thursday, February 18thth 2016 at 12:55 PM, wrote:More importantly, consider the amounts and returns in question. In the Heavy Gear bin, the deleted molds would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to complete; that's money that's not made back until many, many boxed sets are sold, months or years down the line.
I just found that whole (official?) response to be a completely nonsensical reply to Firebreak questioning why the sudden focus on JC and where did the $$$ come from - because as recently as the Fall of '14 the Pod couldn't afford to self-publish their NuBlitz! rulebook, nor pay for any staff additions.
Not to mention that as I pointed out in the start of this post product(s) haven't exactly been forthcoming with any regularity nor in any great quantity since then, so either it costs almost nothing to keep the lights on and/or it costs almost nothing to start up a new scale focus for a neglected title.
Likewise, Dave and Robert are certainly getting paid some portion of a living wage as I don't honestly see them trying to live solely on product offered in place of cash.
After all, RD is the ''Presdient'' of DP9, especially with working ''so hard'' during his 120+ hour weeks (gee, where have most folks heard that line before).... And yes, as a relative pointed out to me, his title really is misspelled on his very own FB page.
So I definitely feel it was a fair question to ask of the Pod, as in just where is this money suddenly coming from, and in addition maybe how long will the company interest last this time.
Spoiler:
Firebreak, on Thursday, February 18thth 2016 at 10:47 AM, wrote:Sorry if this sounds indelicate, but, well, where is the money for this coming from? You've made it very clear, in a respectable show of honesty, that you don't have enough money to do Heavy Gear the way you said you were going to. So... now you're starting a whole new project for a totally separate game?
Wunji Lau, on Thursday, February 18thth 2016 at 12:55 PM, wrote:To add to Doug's observations, project funding is often separated within a company. X money goes here, Y money goes there, and Peter does not get robbed to pay Paul. This is important in any business, because you need to be able to relate costs to eventual income for specific projects. Just because one big product line is the moneymaker doesn't mean that you can use that to justify shifting assigned funding from other, smaller projects (especially R&D projects like JC, since those are your potential future big products).
More importantly, consider the amounts and returns in question. In the Heavy Gear bin, the deleted molds would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to complete; that's money that's not made back until many, many boxed sets are sold, months or years down the line.
Over in the other projects, which aren't Kickstarter backed, and thus run at DP9's usual budget level, there was the time and funding to make a few new pewter sculpts, which run a few hundred dollars for the lot, and which can be put into immediate production (because the spin caster is on site) for a faster return on a much smaller investment; even if the minis don't sell well, the initial investment is quickly paid back, and if no one is buying, then they just don't run those molds on the caster. The potential return is much, much smaller than that for HG, but that's the nature of the pewter minis business as opposed to the injection molded minis business.
TLDR: The money likely comes from existing funds assigned to Jovian Chronicles, and is a pittance compared to the costs involved with the Heavy Gear project.
_
_
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/19 21:40:32
brettness37 wrote: [..] What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version?
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm currently working my way through Starships Troopers, which was kind of discussed over here along with a few not on my list.
What I've read so far of Dirtside 2, which is a vehicles rather than an infantry oriented ruleset, seems very similar to a lot of concepts used throughout HG:Blitz! - no opinion yet on if the ''flow'' is better or not.
I'm starting to think I might have to recommend against porting Heavy Gear over into Dirtside 2, as playing under that system without a number of tweaks means folks might as well be playing using the HGB! rules anyways.
DS2 is a threshold-based, opposed to-hit roll system, and very much a product of 90's era simulation gaming (albeit with a lot more streamlining) alongside a construction system to accommodate any 6mm (1/285) model players may want to use.
It's not bad idea-wise, but without having played I can see a few areas that in all likelihood replicate a lot of what folks dislike in either Blitz! or similar rulesets.
Threshold-based means that whether a roll is opposed or not you'll need to exceed the generated target number for whatever test roll(s) rather than equal or exceed a target number.
This makes Mos 0, where nothing happens (basically being swung in favor of the defender), a definite thing in DS2.
The damage system is also a bit strange.
Provided they hit something, a player then draws from (100+) chits out of a container equal to the size class of the weapon that got used (1-5), which are variously numbered ([11x] 0, [40x] 1, [29x] 2, [20x] 3) and those numbers variously colored (50 red, 25 yellow, 25 green).
Players check a chart to see if certain colors for certain types of weapons are ''valid'' for the range, target type, and target special protection (if any).
If the numbers on the chits after any are eliminated equal the targets armor rating (typically up to ~7) it is ''damaged''; if the armor rating is exceeded it is ''knocked-out'' for the remainder of a game.
There are also some specialty damage chits that take affect even if the target is not destroyed:
[7x] mobility (permanently immobilized),
[5x] systems down - target model (may not take combat actions until repaired),
[2x] systems down - firing model (shot did not not occur, may not take combat actions until repaired),
[5x] BOOM (catastrophic destruction of target).
Just seems like an awful lot of ''you did nothing on your turn'' potential, which is never a good thing in a set of rules, not to mention a number of terms not fully explained in case a player did not already know or understand it.
The cover rules are a bit sparse and open to some interpretation as well.
All that being said however, the morale and area defense/point defense rules don't seem too bad, and there are a few other concepts of interest.
_
_
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 20:37:27
JohnHwangDD wrote: [..] 2) How big are the metal F2 and F6 compared to the old 1/44 Jaeger & Black Mamba models?
3) Are Flails and/or Grel infantry "iconic" in the sense that I should grab a platoon to complement the Frames?
AndrewGPaul's CEF model thread here on dakka is the most current that I know of in any relatively active HG venue, although he doesn't have size comparison pictures up (as yet?).
Not sure about the FLAIL infantry minis - like Pilum armor they seem to bring something to the HG setting that dilutes what Gears and their non-Terra Nova derivatives are supposed to offer, and replicates/outright replaces APES out of the already bare-bones offerings from the two allied factions.
ferrous wrote: [..] Depending on ruleset, they're mostly terrible. Blitz they were overpriced, fragile and not very effective. NuBlitz, I haven't played, so I have no idea, but I'd pretty much expect the same since no one really cheerleads for them. (Instead we tend to get moar PRDF overpowered stupidity)
Heavy Gear Blitz [Aug 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Hammers of Faith (North) [Dec 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Swords of Pride (South) [Mar 2007]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Shields of Freedom (Peace River) [Dec 2007]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [May 2008]
- Black Talon: Return to Cat's Eye (Caprice, CEF, Black Talons) [May 2009]
- Shattered Peace: The War for Terra Nova Book 1 (Eden) [2010]
- Terra Nova Gambit: The War for Terra Nova Book 2 (Utopia) [2010]
- Gear Up (Utopian rules primer & template, Field Testing: Defense Modifiers, Errata) [Issue 1 - Spring 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Field Testing: HHT-90 Combat Group & Multi-Component Vehicle Rules, Field Testing: New Overkill Rules, Revisions & Errata, Southern Medical Support Section, PRDF Medical Section, PAK/CEF Medical Section) [Issue 3 - Winter 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Combat Engineering Companies, Official Rules: New Heavy Hover Tank combat group) [Issue 4 - Summer 2011] pdf
Heavy Gear Blitz! Field Support Guide (Consolidation of Gear Up material & unsupported factions to Field Manual rules) [2014] pdf
_
_
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/07 17:04:41
brettness37 wrote: I have a sizeable collection of Northern figures,
I've taken a few runs at getting involved with Heavy Gear, but have yet to play at all.
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I am currently in process of writing "KOG light," an ultralight set of rules for my collection of Southern Gear minis. When it's finally "ready", I'll announce to the group.
ferrous wrote: GRELS were fun, because unlike human infantry which sort of disappear if a gear looks at them funny, the GRELs took concentrated effort to remove, which always annoyed my opponent.
Weren't they over the (xDM) break-point for pretty much all of the anti-infantry weapons, or something like that, and you could still buy armor upgrades for some of the platoons/teams.....
To the point where a Gear grenade was the only reliable way to deal with a group of GRELs.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The basic Type 6-16 and Type 2-21 (same machine, really, except for the head) are about the same height as a Jaeger or Hunter. They're much bulkier, though - wider, deeper front-to-back and chunkier overall. The Type 2-21 towers over both of those. I've added a couple of quick side-by-side comparisons of the Type 6-16, 2-21 and 2-19, as well as the metal light hovertank and resin tank. The hover APC uses the same chassis as the metal light tank.
ferrous wrote: Yeah, the hovertanks are expensive, but definitely the most iconic of CEF forces. And they're kind of why the Frames exist as they are, as they are supposed to be fast enough to keep up with the hovertanks. That said, they are visually different, not like some of the polar forces, where you can hardly tell the difference. (I'm looking at you Chassuer)
I guess I need to try to find a way to get some hovertanks down the road. And you hit the nail on the head as to why I was looking at OpFor Frames over Gears - to the novice, the Gears start to all look the same, but the Frames are clearly different.
And a short thread about what could be done differently for the Kodiak & King Cobra as in-game/background (fluff) Gears.
Sounds like you're getting a lot of work done with your ruleset, any interest happening in your locale for the change?
Albertorius wrote: Hm, this reminds me that I should probably unload a lot of my HG minis to someone who actually plays...
I had one person ask, and thought about it a few other times, but I think so many Tactical-era and now HGB!-era minis are available on ebay or the like for next to nothing it's probably better to not go through the hassle of attempting a private sale.
Or entrusting to the mail; here of late even the tougher white outside/grey inside unpadded plastic envelopes are arriving with tears, if not all but torn open, from handling somewhere along the way.
_
_
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/09 18:31:35
2016/03/29 23:11:02
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread
Tamwulf wrote: My distaste over the small bases used for HG is pretty large.
I really don't understand why they continue to use those horrible, hex slotted bases.
Consider who is putting the models together for the blurb.
And, as John pointed out, you also have to factor in a primary Pod characteristic; it's the cheapest option, and any dislike of it isn't ''significant'' enough to be worth noticing by the company.
On another note, I've read through most of the Starship Troopers Miniatures Game (2005) rulebook, which appears to be the inspiration/progenitor for the original (pre-NuBlitz) HGB! scenario and upgrade option (force construction) concepts.
Otherwise, it's pretty much a retread of some 40K edition.
Henshini wrote: I really hope people share these images as an example of why you shouldn't back a kickstarter based on renders.
To be fair, it's not that the renders were that good in the first place...
Tamwulf wrote: Yeah, the lack of detail on these models is very disheartening. I hope that's not the actual plastic they are using- that stuff like more like industrial style PVC used in... well, industrial applications.
All that work of going with new lowest-bid artists, pushing things back by nearly a year (7-8 months timeframe), and now in the flesh so to speak the minis may actually look worse than I imagined they would.
Given how Robert responded about the plastic, and how Dave responded to a nearly two months old KS comment (in which a mold seems to cost $24K instead of $15K....), they both seem perfectly fine with how everything turned out.
Likewise, commenters asking about dynamic poses or finer details clearly do not understand that what they are seeing is it for the KS, finis, all done as far as the Pod is concerned; the molds may be ''corrected'' but there is no way they will ever be changed from what was ''approved''.
Rdubois wrote:Taking photos of these is not easy as you need a lot of lighting to get the depth of field for all the models to be in focus and when you put a lot of light on the grey plastic it washes out the details.
Well, then this is impossible I guess: [images]
Just taken with my phone's crappy camera, 10cm directly below an halogen lamp.
Well yeah, because: Robert.
Nomeny wrote: Sucks that you aren't happy with it. I'm pleased with them.
Dave, on 13 July 2015 at 07:48 PM wrote:[..] Two to three years down the road once all the factions have their core plastics is when we get to start looking at advancing the story line again [..]
Quality & detail like this ought to really bring folks running to spend their $$$ on still in development four years later NuBlitz instead of on Infinity, DZC, or Gates.
Not to mention how well all of the ''absolutely badass'' concept art and faction ideas have fit the HG setting starting back around 2011 with NuCoal in the Perfect Storm field guide.
_
_
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/31 22:01:28
On a non-KS note, did Arkrite go radio silent again after the 10 March update?
RJVF wrote: Now, its been awhile since I would in the plastics industry, and we were doing parts mainly for the auto industry and Xerox, but the way we did test runs and samples was to use the material you actually want the parts in, and to set the tool up the same way you would in production.
That is how you get accurate tests and samples.
Test pops in a 'test material' without the molds 'being heated up' gives you worthless samples, in my opinion. You STILL don't know how it will run because your 'test pops' aren't being run at the parameters that your production will be.
Don't know what their manufacturer is thinking, really, except to soak some more money from the newbs.
Not sure either way to be honest, although this could just as easily be a Pod misunderstanding and typically poorly done passing on of what information was given to them thing (not to mention as professional as always editing).
But yes, there are definitely some huh?, why? moments in the updates.
Update #115 on Mar 18, 2016 wrote:Post Kickstarter Update #49: First Plastic Test Pops of the Caprice Sprues [..]The company making our plastic injection molds finished up the mold for the Caprice Mounts last Friday and was able to run a few test pops in grey styrene hard plastic and get them expressed to us at the show on Monday.
[..] These are test pops made to see what needs to be tweaked in the molds, some of the parts broke off the sprues because the gates connecting them to the sprue were to small, and a few of the parts had shrinkage, as the molds could not get up to normal running temperature with just few tests pops they ran to send us for the show. They turned out pretty good for test pops and the mold manufacturer will get gate size to the parts increased and do more tests until everything is working perfectly.
[..] lets us know if you like this update by clinking the "Like" button above.
Dream Pod 9 on March 18 wrote:We are using the hard styrene plastic that most high grade model kits are made of, which you can glue together with model cement or super glue. This is what our players asked for and what we promised during the Kickerstarter.
Update #116 on Mar 25, 2016 wrote:Post Kickstarter Update #50: First Plastic Test Pops of the C.E.F. Sprues [..] The test plastic sprue pops show them where additional spruing, ejector pins, and/or increased gate sizes to the parts are needed.
[..] As you will see there is some shrinkage and dimpling on some of the larger parts, the molds will need to be tweaked so that more molten plastic makes it into those parts cavities.
Update #117 on Mar 30, 2016 wrote:Post Kickstarter Update #51: New Northern and Southern Test Pop Plastic Models [..] These were all assembled from the test plastic pop sprues we received from the mold manufacturer last week to test where problems are in the molds, they still have some holes and shrinkage on the parts.
[..] The mold manufacturer has informed us that they should have all the molds fixed up by April 10th and then send us final test pops to approve the molds.
Dream Pod 9 on March 28 wrote:These are models made with the test pop sprues, they have holes and shrinkage on them, the final production plastic sprues will look better.
This is still promising a lot by a company that has never done plastic molding who themselves contracted out that manufacture to a pair of companies who both have no presented experience in the molding of plastic miniatures.
Nomeny wrote: Personally I would have washed off the release agent, primed and inked the models to make the details pop, but then that's for highlighting a final product rather than tests.
Tamwulf wrote: Yeah, the lack of detail on these models is very disheartening.
There doesn't seem to be any surface detail in the first place that could even be highlighted.
Nomeny wrote: Given how you and others have been going on I'm inclined to regard such praise indicative of an incredible success.
That has kind of been one of the points of the controversy since the start of this thread, what standards TPTB in Pod-land consider to be successful.
The last post(s) from the Pod on dakka (in the KS thread) was to take focus away from Robert going off about the company being trolled because folks questioned the company's decision to cut two models from the promised rewards with no equivalent compensation beyond a token offering.
There has been no mention of any of the new models or other KS news on G+ for quite a while now, let alone other trafficked sites, which to me is not indicative of something popular enough that folks are talking about it independently of existing players/fans.
Currently vocal people are not universal in their liking of the end product, or the sculpts in the first place, and that is not going to change no matter how much you might wish it otherwise.
It is what it is; talking it up as being something more exposed than the reality has been a large part of the problem in the past.
Nomeny wrote: and buying the stuff they'll be able to put on shelves as a result of this kickstarter.
That would be just a bit of an assumption considering how few retailers existent right now are willing to stock DP9 products.
Doubly so since the stuff they'll primarily be trying to put on store shelves is the KS ''funded'' retail boxes, which unless something changes will contain less miniatures than was promised.
Spoiler:
_
_
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/13 18:48:42
2017/06/26 21:05:47
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread
What is the original backstory fluff (& what books is it found in) for NuCoal and it's associated city-states/locales?
- Was there ever a reason given for the Humanist Alliance to have chosen to collaborate with NuCoal over Peace River other than ''because we said so dammit, so get over it or STFU''?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/26 21:06:05
semifraki wrote: Just curious: has anyone actually ever *played* a game of Heavy Gear Arena?
I wanted to try running a campaign, but the rules are kinda incomprehensible. So I looked up to see if anyone had made a video or an easy tutorial to explain the basic flow of the game, and 100% of the content I've found are either reviews of the starter set (that only address the quality of the minis) and unboxing videos of the starter set. I'm starting to think that Robert DuBois and I are the only two people who have ever tried to play a game (and lord knows, he doesn't respond to email...).
I really like the idea of super tight-quarters Gear skirmishes, and a WWE-style campaign, but it feels like I'm going to be the only person on Earth playing this game, and it'd be nice to have an "expert" to bounce ideas/questions off of.
Friendly tip: Any non-sycophant I've ever talked to with direct knowledge have all said Robert has never been able to play any of the DP9 games they tried with him according to the rules. But if he's already taking a while to respond to you, something you did or said somehow insulted him and you're probably never going to be able to get on his good side.
It seems like a few owners on BGG did manage to somewhat play Arena, and supposedly it was playtested, but well; also note that Arena was given a 4/5 complexity rating by users!
semifraki wrote: Yea, DP9's website is... ... ... suspect at best. Man, it's so frustrating seeing such a cool brand like Heavy Gear languish like this.
You just want to shake them and say "DO THE BARE MINIMUM YOU NEED TO DO TO SUCCEED!"
Get a copywriter to look over the books. Play test...like...at all. If this were any other industry, a competitor would have staged a hostile takeover by now.
Having participated in three (or so?) DP9 "play tests processes", which apparently aren't designed to uncover flaws, as others here can relate;
Telling most of the folks "running" those playtests that you found a way to break something, how maybe the rules for [X] were unclear/faulty, or why a poorly thought-out pet idea/easter egg inclusion didn't work, was akin to prejudged heretics & apostates telling a holy inquisition about why they felt there is no God as the wood is being piled. ... then things got really nasty.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/01/27 21:44:23
Mmmpi wrote: They did release the lion and leopard for the north. Unless there are other mountaineering gears that don't have models yet.
For the Northern models, as best I can recall after 4/5 years, the only "existing" statted variants were found in the Army List softcover for 1e/2e/3e but never officially made it into Blitz-era Heavy Gear.
I believe folks could somewhat create the Mountain Grizzly though with various Locked & Loaded swap/option lines in one of the combat groups, as it's pretty much just a Rabid without the reinforced armor and SMS carrying a heavier "grenade" launcher.
Not a clue on what made it into the various incarnations of NuBlitz or subsequent because revamp is fun rulesets thereafter.
After the NuCoal mountain variants it seemed like this was something that every force list afterward had to include (regardless of rules utility), so basically myself & others were left to create "appropriate" variants for multiple models with little previous canon to work off.
Directives from on high were superficial to say the least, other than the rather less than useful "No, that's still not quite what or how I think that model should be." alongside 'Yes, the claws on the Gear-Strider I didn't tell anyone about are climbing gear. Kick ass, right?"
Basically, just like all the fun of changing the Rally Mammoth stats every other day over something like a week or two times however many models ended up with mountain variants in the Lion's Wrath PDF.
Or loadouts for the unnecessary Grizzly variants that AL13N absolutely hated as if the rest of us had a choice but to keep trying to come up with something TPTB liked well enough to let us move on to something that actually needed attention.
Nurglitch wrote: Replicating those curves would have increased the time spent on the model by a couple of orders of magnitude, I would suspect.
I do agree, mind, but... well, it's not exactly like they're producing stuff at a breackneck pace anyways, so...
I'd be seriously surprised if the original 3D artist for the very first KS, who made the "We can't actually produce in plastic those okay looking models we touted as being what backers will receive." wasn't merely the first in a succession of one-off per project treated as if they were freelancer contractors.
Which actually might explain a good bit of why the models looked so rushed, not just because of time=$$$$ constraints, but also due to a fresh artist having to start from scratch over & over while simultaneously working with/modding files they didn't create.
Prophet wept, such a heresy as that which spouts out of your rathole has never before been heard!
May you be taken away to swelter & burn upon the cleansing sands I say.
.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/05/16 07:12:33
Paint it Pink wrote: the lack of poses, otherwise I think they're great. Certainly, they can be customized into something special.
Nice.
Tac-era (and Battletech 'mechs of that age) miniatures just after RAFM were definitely not easily modified, the alloy they were cast from being so hard that by the time you got done with your Dremel and a hobby hack et al more often than not the end result frankly sucked worse than having just left all of them with the same pose.
Of course, once any did manage to hit the table there inevitably ensued a cycle of endless repairs as fellow gamers just couldn't resist having to paw the shininess, knocking modified bits off willy-nilly.
Albertorius wrote: problem I have with hover everything is that the CEF used them to be able to handle any possible terrain... but it was all built with zero-g alloys and incredibly expensive.
Everyone and their dogs having everything hover, feels like cheapening it.
While I like the concept of WIGE combat vehicles as both direct fire combat support & close air support vehicles roiled into one platform, something akin to the original HT-72 but with a larger (when viewed from above) pentagonal, hexagonal, or octagonal shape would seem to make the most sense if you're trying to capture a ground cushion to float the thing.
Needing multiple, dedicated, vertical lift and horizontal maneuver engines would seem to make more sense as well, not just one set of directional thrusters trying to serve as both.
Conventional guns on the thing though, nah, and brings to mind the grounding rules from the old Centurion box gameset. I had no issues with the particle cannon/laser + varied missile type or rocket armaments of the HT-68 & -72 back in the day; that made a lot of sense.
As for cheapening it, I've never been able to understand the mindset (beyond pure greed, rule of cool sales of course) of why the Pod folks always feel the need to copy + paste so much from one faction onto another (across all of their titles really) yet all the while still try saying their factions are distinct.
Like seriously, duh? - they literally cannot have it both ways, but never hesitate to fail at trying to do both.
However, that being said, honestly there aren't a lot of distinctive "levitating" tank designs in various titles across the years from any publisher, rather an awful lot of retread concepts.
-
-
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/02/26 06:22:39
