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.

For many of us it has to be Battetech but the question is unfair because nostalgia will skew our responses. I voted Battletech even though I don't know anything about CAV and Heavy Gear beyond that they exist.

IceRaptor wrote:Both games tend to be something you have to be willing to swallow some bile to enjoy. The concept art for Heavy Gear - and thus the miniature style - tends to be quite a bit nicer than Battletech, with better casting quality across many of the molds. There do tend to be mold problems across some of the model lines, but they are extremely good about replacing bad parts or helping you with bits. Battletech miniatures tend to be less customizable, but the Heavy Gear miniatures are not cakewalks to customize either, due to being metal. Overall I tend to prefer the Heavy Gear miniatures far and away in comparison to the Battletech miniatures, but everyone is different.

As a note,a lot of the 'problem child' minis have either been recently remolded or will be soon... THis includes the Jaguar, Black Mamba, and similar. The new designs are molded with two-piece legs that will hopefully prevent the 'fill-in' problems the older 1 piece versions had. The guys are also looking at he box set contents for utility, as one or two had a Gear that was only useful in a specific variant or similar.

Balance wrote:
As a note,a lot of the 'problem child' minis have either been recently remolded or will be soon... THis includes the Jaguar, Black Mamba, and similar. The new designs are molded with two-piece legs that will hopefully prevent the 'fill-in' problems the older 1 piece versions had. The guys are also looking at he box set contents for utility, as one or two had a Gear that was only useful in a specific variant or similar.

Like the SD Jaeger in the southern GP box, right ?
That's kind of weird about the molds though, I know the worst mold problems I had were with Hunter/Jaegers. My Jags, and the few Mambas I have, were pretty much perfect casts.

I like CAV. Models are slightly larger than B-Tech for around the same amount of money. Rules allow for large combats in very little time. What one would consider two heavy or assault B-Tech lances per side takes about an hour (maybe two) in CAV. Damage is accounted for over the entire CAV instead of system by system like B-Tech. As you take damage the CAV as a whole starts to suffer and movement, armor and weapons all get affected (differently for each vehicle though which is where the subtle differences in designs really shows).

The best part of CAV is the ability to defend yourself on your opponent's turn. When a side activates (the game uses alternating unit activations) all fire is declared simultaneously. Units can fire at any point along their movement and if they are not destroyed by return fire they may then finish their movement so it's possible to run from cover to cover firing all the way. The target of incoming fire may make a single attack against one of it's attackers before any damage is applied so it's possible for two CAVs to trash each other exchanging fire. The mechanic really makes nickel and dime tactics dangerous as going CAV to CAV means lots of return fire coming back your way.

The game also includes artillery strikes, cruise missilest, mine fields, orbital strikes and nukes (mmmm...nukes...).

My biggest problem w/CAV is the current lack of support. Models are still available but there is no hard copy 2nd edition rulebook (only a PDF copy that is reasonably priced). The first edition played slightly different as it does not use the R.A.G.E system but is still very cool. |If you can find a cheap first edition rulebook and CAV tech manual they are worth picking up. First edition also includes a build your own CAV set of rules (math intensive but does allow you to have an almost unlimited amount of different models).

Well, the thread has been inactive for a bit, and we haven't heard from the OP in a while, but I'd like to speak again about the "balance issues" that plague Heavy Gear, especially the range one. Or rather, I'll simply link to a recent thread on the official DP9 forums, where a newcomer asks about ranges and their apparent shortness. Things snowball quickly from there.
http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=7555
Of particular note are the posts by "Jbuckmaster", the lead game designer, especially that one quote :
"Actually, the problem is less of the ranges and more the mods/tie result factor combined with the die rolling methodology and the defense matrices.(...)"
This is the lead designer of the game that publicly declares the game has issues, and that those issues cannot be solved, because their roots are within the heart of the game mechanics. (Something I disagree with, but then I'm not the game designer)

I never said the game mechanics themselves were not sound, nor did I imply that they could not be solved. Just that the implementation would take time and require approval from above.

Taking the time right now will take me away from writing new books, managing the forum, dealing with rants on forums, etc. So, I can either kill our revenue stream to deal with something a small percentage of customers in a subforum of our official forum (3 levels of dedication to even be there), or I can make new books that keep our revenue coming in so that when the time comes for a second edition, I can actually implement these changes. I'm going to go with option 2, like everyone else in the game industry. Every other publisher also deals with this, I'm just a bit more up front about things.

I would appreciate it if you would stop with the hyperbole and the redefinition of what I said.
-John

I don't think a 'perfect game' exists. Heavy Gear Blitz is Pretty Good, though.

in response to no perfect games:
STAR FLEET BATTLES. let me say it one time. it has perfect rules, there are no grey areas. weather or not you'd want to play it.... well thas another matter. but the fact remains. the system has no loopoles, no contesting rules, no grey areas, no what ifs. the system for lack of a better word.... is perfect. (ok i said it twice, some here are hard of reading)

back to topic.

Heavy gear has great mechs (insert awesome), but BT has a great system that is simple, easy, and known to alot of people, and, as has been mentioned before: IS the gold standard for Mech combat games. CaV i dont feel compitant to comment on.

Hawkins wrote:in response to no perfect games:
STAR FLEET BATTLES. let me say it one time. it has perfect rules, there are no grey areas. weather or not you'd want to play it.... well thas another matter. but the fact remains. the system has no loopoles, no contesting rules, no grey areas, no what ifs. the system for lack of a better word.... is perfect. (ok i said it twice, some here are hard of reading)

I'd disqualify SFB from 'perfection' based on it being, for me, painful to play. I will agree that the rules are amazingly comprehensive and thorough, but the game is not fast playing or (at least to me) particularly fun.

Hawkins wrote:
back to topic.

Heavy gear has great mechs (insert awesome), but BT has a great system that is simple, easy, and known to alot of people, and, as has been mentioned before: IS the gold standard for Mech combat games. CaV i dont feel compitant to comment on.

I may have said this earlier, but the main difference int he games comes from the type of action they're trying to emulate. Battletech is sort of 'land battleships.' While singly piloted, the Mechs are massive and somewhat ponderous, and fihg kind of like battleships slugging it out.

Heavy Gear is more influenced by infantry (and a subset of anime giant robot stuff) in that the Gears act in squads, use cover and move much like human troopers, but they can mix it up with tanks and such.

Jbuckmaster wrote:Snip

Well, you need to ask yourself, if the DP9 forum discussions do regularly degenerate, usually on the same topics, perhaps is it the symptom of a genuine insatisfaction of the fanbase (aka customers) with the current game ? A simple search on the boards on topic such as "northern striders" or "range/melee" is already telling enough...

"insatisfaction"? Is that like 'inflammable'?

Er, my bad, I meant "dissatisfaction". Although "inflammable" is actually a good fit in the above context

There's complaints, sure.

Some of these are, to be honest, the result of the designers trying to be open. The DP9 forums are pretty inclusive as long as people don't make a habit of being annoying. I think if John Buckmaster and other contributors wer emore tight-lipped about things the fans would be less interested, but there might be less complaining.

Also, you're never going to satisfy everyone. As stated above, SFB is Hawkin's perfect game, but it's far too fiddly and slow for my tastes.

Something else I find interesting that is a phenomenon mostly localized to tabletop games is that subtle rules interpretation differences can cause the 'same game' to play very differently for different groups. For example, when my group was into Necromunda years ago, we used some very loose interpretations of rules that made melee very brutal but very rewarding, and that caused our games to play a bit differently from others.

(I don't remember all the details, but we interpreted a rule such that a model could conceivably get XP for each wound inflicted in combat, no matter if the wound was saved or 'overkill.' It meant models could sometimes get an advance or two from melee, and I think one player started throwing barely-armed juves at opponents figuring that the few lucky ones would get advanced to bad-asses in short order. I don't think it was the official stance, but it was fun )

So, anyway, if effort is being made to fix a game's problems and it's a fun game... Why keep harping about it?

Honestly, they "degenerate" because it's an internet forum. Why do discussions on Dakka go the same way? You get a small percentage of the game buying public who is vocal, feels like posting, and likes complaining. You'll find it everywhere. As to whether or not it indicates a problem, that depends on who your customer base is and how large it is.

Honestly, if you're unhappy, stop buying or bring it up to The Boss, because honestly, like any front line employee, I am bound by timelines and policies.

-John

Balance wrote:There's complaints, sure.
Some of these are, to be honest, the result of the designers trying to be open.

Many people can speak to each others at length, that doesn't mean there is any actual communication happening. (see example below)
Furthermore, I find your statement rather unfair, dissatisfaction should not be blamed sorely on the customers themselves
Now, I'll give you that, when paying customers think they are being listened, they will speak up. If they use that opportunity mostly to complain, maybe they're spoiled. Maybe they're concerned. If anything, silence would be far more ominous.

Balance wrote:So, anyway, if effort is being made to fix a game's problems and it's a fun game... Why keep harping about it?

I'm not sure everyone in the HG community shares that optimist assessment...

Jbuckmaster wrote:Honestly, they "degenerate" because it's an internet forum. Why do discussions on Dakka go the same way? You get a small percentage of the game buying public who is vocal, feels like posting, and likes complaining. You'll find it everywhere. As to whether or not it indicates a problem, that depends on who your customer base is and how large it is.

Is that what you genuinely think ? That does very much sound like an easy dismissal of an annoyingly-high amount of threads. It's worth noting that even newcomers with no previous prejudices seem to wonder about the same issues.

HudsonD, you might also be a less-than-unbiased participant in this discussion.

Balance wrote:HudsonD, you might also be a less-than-unbiased participant in this discussion.

Perhaps, but by you're own admission, neither are you...

HudsonD wrote:

Balance wrote:HudsonD, you might also be a less-than-unbiased participant in this discussion.

Perhaps, but by you're own admission, neither are you...

True. I try to be up-front about that, and usually mention my limited business relationship with Dream Pod 9 in relevant threads as well as in my signature.

I'm pretty good at complaining myself, and do so a lot. I do think it works better when I'm constructive, but that's just me.

Hawkins wrote:in response to no perfect games:
STAR FLEET BATTLES. let me say it one time. it has perfect rules, there are no grey areas. weather or not you'd want to play it.... well thas another matter. but the fact remains. the system has no loopoles, no contesting rules, no grey areas, no what ifs. the system for lack of a better word.... is perfect. (ok i said it twice, some here are hard of reading)

back to topic.

Heavy gear has great mechs (insert awesome), but BT has a great system that is simple, easy, and known to alot of people, and, as has been mentioned before: IS the gold standard for Mech combat games. CaV i dont feel compitant to comment on.

I love SFB too, but it's flaw is that the rules read like legal text...

Well the rulebook is for inches thick, but the SFB example was ment as a example that there are perfect rules sets out there. SFB is as near to perfect as it will ever get. period.
As for being a somewhat dry rules set, well i agree it takes time to get use to.
But the fun isnt in the rules, its in laying a T-bomb and then a NSM right after and watching a fed CC hit both strait on, just before you alpha strike, het, and mizse as he tried to turn away, from range 9. (ok im done geeking out)

T-Bomb: Telaporter Bomb
NSM: [Romulan] Nucular Space Mine
CC: Command Cruiser
HET: High Energy Turn
mizse: ?

It's Mizra...It's hitting the same down shield repeatedly with small amount of shots to maximize weapon destruction.

The miniatures for Heavy Gear are terrific - does much more need to be said? The Ammon, the HT-68, the Cataphract, the Grizzly - all of extremely good models. Rules are something you use to push your guys around - the guys are the real stars of the show

IceRaptor wrote:The miniatures for Heavy Gear are terrific - does much more need to be said? The Ammon, the HT-68, the Cataphract, the Grizzly - all of extremely good models. Rules are something you use to push your guys around - the guys are the real stars of the show

Oh. Yeah.
HG Minis are way cool and they pretty much sell themselves regardless of the ruleset.

Of course, if you go too far with the mini>rules paradigm, you end up with Confrontation...

skyth wrote:It's Mizra...It's hitting the same down shield repeatedly with small amount of shots to maximize weapon destruction.

thanks for that i always cant remember how to spell it..

Actually, it's "Mizia."

Potatoe, patato.... its still a mean and all together plesent thing to do to a down sheild. especially if its a drone Miza. (we pronounce it MY-Zah)
*boom, 12.... boom, 12...... boom, 12........ (*chikka chikka* for effect) boom, 12..... booom, 12......

back on topic. Battle tech is still the best way to go.
on the other hand there isnt anything preventing you from picking up HG and BT and then making up your own mind. barring cost of course.

speeking of witch what would the intro box from BT cost, compared to the HG equvilant (including a like number of mechs?)

WoW that was a lot of catchup reading to do... sorry about the late reply.

Very interesting getting everyone opinion.

Well me and the guys decided to play it fair and try both out, first run is battletech... we didn't get very far... I ordered the new behemoth and madcat III models and when i got them in i was less then impressed. The behemoth new non copy write problem design seems clunky and seemed like there was room for more detail. The madcat was a whole different level of disappointing. the mold was bad and the arms didn't fully fill with pewter. Aside from the arms not fitting together, i remembered why i hated gluing clan mechs together 10 years ago... stupid reverse legs are heck to line up while the glue sets. They always come out looking like they need a wheel chair to move around the battlefield. After comparing my old Atlas, Axeman, Dashi to the new sculpts it seems like detail just isn't want it used to be.

Still havn't got to the first game yet, were all still learning the quick rules.

Both games have a good set of intro rules and its just a matter of catering to the play style of my group.


Now the real problem... Firestorm Armada just came out and were all distracted by the new shiney

Hi All,

Just wanted to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, hope you all have a great holidays. :-)

Hi! I have some HG minis and can tell you that HGB is smooth and fast game, minis theirselves are good- looking, but also good modelling skill needed to make tham.