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.

So I went and purchased a bunch of Heavy Gear models and finally got to play my first game the other day. My first impression was one ofI was woeful disappointment. The game seems extremely convoluted, confusing, and entirely uninteresting. Watching mechs blast away at each other with no results just seems silly to me. At one point I marched one gear up to another gear of equal size and point value, fired full on, and nothing happened, even at point blank range.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'm wondering what I'm missing. I know people like the game and the company seems like it's doing well so the game is selling. So I want to know what I'm missing. What makes the game fun for people? What happens on the table that gets people excited? What makes the game interesting? What kinds of strategies keep the game challenging?

I haven't written the game off yet, so I want to go into my next game with a more positive perspective so I can really give the game a fair chance.

I played a demo of it.

I thought the models were OK, but Battle Tech Minis are better IMO. Be it those awesome designs, or those mechs that look like they were built ina dump.

I did not like the rules, Mechs felt a bit too agile and quick.


Kind of felt like Battletech meets anime.

I'm DP9's web guy and thus biased, but:

The main thing that doesn't gel at first for a lot of people is that you need to stack up modifiers. Taking long-range pot-shots from a moving platform at a moving platform is as pointless as it generally is in real life.

Squad Commanders can use an action to give everyone on their squad a +1 to hit a target... Some weapons can Stun a target, which makes them roll at a -1. Do both of these, and you're at effectively +2. which can make the difference between a miss and a seriously damaging shot.

I prefer the setting (but I admit, I'm biased) because there's at least a not to physics (humanoid mecha really don't make sense in a 'real world' setting... ever... but Heavy Gear at least deals with some of the issues.)

Balance wrote:The main thing that doesn't gel at first for a lot of people is that you need to stack up modifiers. Taking long-range pot-shots from a moving platform at a moving platform is as pointless as it generally is in real life.

Yeah that's not really true given an M1 Abrams has a serious chance of knocking out its target with one shot on the move. It's kind of the whole point of having a mobile gun platform like a tank.

That being said, the game would probably be a lot more playable if I focused on stacking modifiers. Had I known my squad leader could give his squad +1 to hit, I would have done that every turn. I'll keep that in mind when I play it in the future.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

Balance wrote:The main thing that doesn't gel at first for a lot of people is that you need to stack up modifiers. Taking long-range pot-shots from a moving platform at a moving platform is as pointless as it generally is in real life.

Yeah that's not really true given an M1 Abrams has a serious chance of knocking out its target with one shot on the move.

Of course, the Abrams has never had to go up against another tank of equal standing, And from what I've seen, most 'training videos' people see of the Abrams is a fast-moving tank shooting at stationary targets, not targets that are moving at the same speed (or faster) and firing back at the same time.

Piston Honda wrote: I played a demo of it.

I thought the models were OK, but Battle Tech Minis are better IMO. Be it those awesome designs, or those mechs that look like they were built ina dump.

Battletechs mechs actual designs are crap, ugly and boxy. I will get into their iconic mechas below

Piston Honda wrote: I did not like the rules, Mechs felt a bit too agile and quick.


Kind of felt like Battletech meets anime.

Their mechas are smaller in scale and copy the idea of movement from Armored Troopers VOTOMS were the feet had a build in wheel and track system to move over open ground.

You do realize that Battletech stole several designs for it's mecha from different anime sources. All the really neat designs like the Battle Master, Behemoth, Archer, Maurauder, Locust, Valkyrie, Wasp, Warhammer, Wolverine, Griffon, Crusader, Rifleman, and a ton more. You can usually tell which are in house designs by how boxy and ugly they are ALA the Atlas, Trebuchet, and Banshee.

infinite_array wrote:Of course, the Abrams has never had to go up against another tank of equal standing, And from what I've seen, most 'training videos' people see of the Abrams is a fast-moving tank shooting at stationary targets, not targets that are moving at the same speed (or faster) and firing back at the same time.

Again, not quite true. They were up against T72's in both Iraq conflicts and reported a high percentage of first shot kills. Though the T72 isn't as advanced as the Abrams, it certainly isn't anything to sneeze at and could run rings around the M60E3. The M1 was developed solely to compete with the T72.

Dice Monkey wrote:

Battletechs mechs actual designs are crap, ugly and boxy. I will get into their iconic mechas below

Yup, I know they are boxy, as I just said, I like their design, especially the ones that look like they were made in a city dump.

Can't convince me otherwise that they look like carp.

Their mechas are smaller in scale and copy the idea of movement from Armored Troopers VOTOMS were the feet had a build in wheel and track system to move over open ground.

You do realize that Battletech stole several designs for it's mecha from different anime sources. All the really neat designs like the Battle Master, Behemoth, Archer, Maurauder, Locust, Valkyrie, Wasp, Warhammer, Wolverine, Griffon, Crusader, Rifleman, and a ton more. You can usually tell which are in house designs by how boxy and ugly they are ALA the Atlas, Trebuchet, and Banshee.

Battletech is 6mm and heavy gear is 12, so half. So... Yeah I know this too Sherlock.

I just don't like the idea of big robots basically being acrobats. I like the heavy bulk feel battletech gives me, so I play it and spend money on it. It is also why there is a huge group of battletech players (more than 20) and heavy gear blitz lasted less than a month here. The damage system is also one of the biggest reasons I love battletech over heavy gear. The combat just makes each mech more personal.

I have no doubt that other games and movies have inspired mech designs, every company has taken some element from another IP to use in their game or novel or whatever.

By anime feel I was not just referring to aesthetics. I was referring to and mostly the game play feel.

To use the Abrahms as an example, it'd be pretty vicious in HG... Like the Aller or Visigoth MBTs. Here's a pic of the Aller:



The Aller has a big gun (Heavy Rail Gun) and several back up weapons. The HRG is pretty much always going to be in range: It's "Combat" range is 60 inches (no modifier), Sub-Optimal out to 240 (-1 to hit), and can shoot anything it can see, albeit at a modifier (-2).

60" is pretty good for a game intended for 'normal' games ton be played on a 6x4 table. If it's moving at combat speed (A relatively pokey 5 inches/turn) kit has no penalties to attack, and a rather unfortunate -2 to defend.

Realistically, if it's attacking as the Adrahms described above, it would probably use one or two of it's 3 actions on a special "We're In Trouble" action to get rid of the negative to defense (evasive maneuvering), but it's still got an action to attack, so it can attack and possibly kill one opponent/turn.

The Aller is pretty scary, which is as-intended. One-on-one, it can take out pretty much any Heavy Gear... But Heavy Gears go after tanks in packs, where they can absorb a hit and hopefully hit back with their anti-tank weapons.

Realistically, an Abrahms could be modeled in Heavy Gear with a +1 to all attacks to represent improved fire control, but that would of course drive the cost up.

The kind of 'philosophy' for Heavy Gear is that tanks are extremely powerful in an open field, but very vulnerable in built-up areas where the tank's advantages are removed: Range is less valuable if there's few clear fire lanes,

Piston Honda wrote: I just don't like the idea of big robots basically being acrobats. I like the heavy bulk feel battletech gives me, so I play it and spend money on it. It is also why there is a huge group of battletech players (more than 20) and heavy gear blitz lasted less than a month here. The damage system is also one of the biggest reasons I love battletech over heavy gear. The combat just makes each mech more personal.

I played Battletech, (Aerotech, and Battlespace too) years ago from around 1990 till FASA shut it's doors. What stopped me playing was the discovery of less clunky systems hex and arc free that did not involve me filling out a test form. (one of my biggest complaints against Warmahordes)

Piston Honda wrote: I have no doubt that other games and movies have inspired mech designs, every company has taken some element from another IP to use in their game or novel or whatever.

By anime feel I was not just referring to aesthetics. I was referring to and mostly the game play feel.

There is a difference between borrowed and stolen, FASA did the latter.

I played Battletech, (Aerotech, and Battlespace too) years ago from around 1990 till FASA shut it's doors. What stopped me playing was the discovery of less clunky systems hex and arc free that did not involve me filling out a test form. (one of my biggest complaints against Warmahordes)

This is really about personal tastes. I don't have an issue with this method if I am not controlling a couple dozen minis. Battletech is my perfect game. Great fun with just a few minis on the table. Each mech has character to it with it's game charts and not the over used generic hit points method which I can get with majority of games out there. Battletech provides a new flavor.

There is a difference between borrowed and stolen, FASA did the latter.

do you have solid Proof?

And Catalyst Game Labs is not FASA. Sorry but Guilty by association does not really work.

I can't imagine battletech being that bad, it has a large following and been around for a long time.

Can we stop the FASA/Harmony Gold discussion? It's not really relevant.
BattleTech and Heavy Gear really are different expressions of similar niches. BT is all about big walking battleships. while Heavy Gear is what I've often escrowed as "giant infantrymen.' They're very different sub genres at this point, as well as very different rulesets. You can like 'em both, I don't care.

Dice Monkey wrote:

There is a difference between borrowed and stolen, FASA did the latter.

They did not, they licensed the designs. Then the shows were picked up by a US company, and the lost the right.
It the same reason I import fighting games form Japan, licensing problems.

I like both. Battletech seems more "real". Mobile weapons platforms. They stalk around, can get to hard to reach areas that tanks can't get to, and carry lots of weaponry while taking lots of damage.

Heavy Gear and some video games like Virtua On! and Armored Core have smaller, more personal bodysuits and they move around more quickly. They're basically power armor, with a more elegant feel than that of GW's space marines. And they're larger.

For a more accurate comparison, a protomech would be the equivalent of a gear. Personally, I would love BattleTech's background with Heavy Gear's mecha.

I've never played the game so on that point I can't really comment. On gaming in general, it's difficult to get a real feel for a game in the first off play, you're getting to know the rules, making mistakes, and a whole other host of teething problems, which can make an otherwise fluid game feel cumbersome and basically, not much fun.

I think this is why demos are the most under-rated aspect of wargaming, a demo normally does what a game book could never do....in fact, most game books are so poorly written without a demo or two the game would never get off the ground....of course, most gaming companies never tell you this! Having gotten into Malifaux, MERCS and Infinity now, I can say 100% the rule books are craptastic....it's like the writers knew what they wanted to get across and spasmed whilst writing, rules are all over the place, theres jargon where there should be plain English, and every book fails to understand the need for a simple step by step play through of a game.

Ok, rant over, what I'm trying to say is, if you're playing this game straight from the book, expect some pain....someone has to go through it, otherwise you won't find people well versed enough to even give demos, however, if you just want to get into the game and enjoy what's there, try to hook up someone who knows and is willing to give you a walkthrough.

Well I played someone who knew how to play the game. I've had introductory playthroughs of every game from 40k through Battletech, Infinity, Flames of War, etc. None of them failed on the first playthrough as badly as Heavy Gear.

This is why I posed this question here on Dakka. I've never played a mini game that I've disliked this much the first time I played. It made me want to talk to people who liked the game to see what I missing or how I could maybe approach the game differently to appreciate it better.

A lot of what's been said here will help me appreciate the game more on my second playthrough.

Thank you for giving it a second try. I'll try to answer any questions.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:So I went and purchased a bunch of Heavy Gear models and finally got to play my first game the other day. My first impression was one ofI was woeful disappointment. The game seems extremely convoluted, confusing, and entirely uninteresting. Watching mechs blast away at each other with no results just seems silly to me. At one point I marched one gear up to another gear of equal size and point value, fired full on, and nothing happened, even at point blank range.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'm wondering what I'm missing. I know people like the game and the company seems like it's doing well so the game is selling. So I want to know what I'm missing. What makes the game fun for people? What happens on the table that gets people excited? What makes the game interesting? What kinds of strategies keep the game challenging?

I haven't written the game off yet, so I want to go into my next game with a more positive perspective so I can really give the game a fair chance.

While the rules do take some getting used to, I personally like them overall (although they need some more simplification IMHO to reduce the shear number of mods). The biggest thing to get used to when coming in from most other games is that you have a single opposed roll instead of multiple sequential ones, but with tons of possible modifiers. In 40k (an easy comparison as its the big boy on the market), your odds with a bolter of hitting and damaging a target head on that moved 12" towards you and is yet just barely in range at 24 inches are the same as hitting a stationary point blank target in the back that is unaware of your presence. In heavy gear, those variables all affect the accuracy of the shot and therefore damage dealt since the two are linked into a single roll. Most players will easily catch onto the negative modifier that make a shot WORSE like range, target speed, firer speed, cover, etc but won't necessarily know about the ones that are a net positive for the shooter (stun effects, coordinated fire, indirect fire, crossfire, hitting rear angles, etc) as they tend to be more advanced rules glossed over in demo games.

The key is to activate a squad and focus their actions on a single target if possible to maximize your actions (at least until the target blows up). A good rule of thumb is to try and maximize your modifiers for a net +2 compared to the target's roll if possible. Personally, I'll still take a shot at a +1 if the weapon is sufficiently strong enough to cause at least a box of damage if I beat the opponent's roll by one (an MoS 1 in game terms). In the demo games I did, I didn't catch onto that fact and had the same problem in that no damage was dealt in most rounds because the shooters were taking single pot shots at long range against targets in cover (which, if you think about it, should be difficult to succeed with). If you've got a modifier of net -1 to your roll compared with the defender, you really should pick another target or simply maneuver to find a better shot the next round.

I'm definitely interested in HG, and a lot of people bought army boxes for the game. But NO ONE plays it! Crazy.

Honestly, from reading the rules I think they need to simplify them. And I'd rather see them print a decent rulebook with all the rules in it rather than printing optional rules and tweaked rules in that magazine of theirs. Seems like DP9 can't make up their minds about how they want the game to play.

Noisy_Marine wrote:I'm definitely interested in HG, and a lot of people bought army boxes for the game. But NO ONE plays it! Crazy.

That was the problem I ran into. My friends from the 40k group were somewhat split but even the guys who liked the actual game just didn't want to branch out into another minis game with its inherently different rules and minis needed since they were so heavily invested in 40k. The strangers I demoed for and met up with on FLGS forums didn't pan out either (despite driving 60 miles to try a different store... can't say I didn't try!)

My main problem with HG was, save for a few outliers, how bland the mini range was. The basic gears were just way too similar in design and function. This might have been appropriate due to the basic north and south gears being copies, but it's death for miniature games.

Over the years I definitely noticed them bulking up the line to the point where now with the many different factions with more differing designs I would get into the game. But I still hate the crappy faux anime art that they try to pass off as good for all theor illustrations, and FoW fills my need for this scale of game.

Anytime you go from one game system to another can be difficult because all systems want to be different. And the Heavy Gear rules are improving and hope to see a redone system so. One thing, I really like about Heavy Gear is the ever expanding fluff which other game systems have forgotten about.

I am totally fascinated by this game. To me, the worst part is to assemble the minis.

I play them both , and frankly enjoy them both too. They are way two different games . Battle tech is more of a tactical board game sim . Where heavy gear blitz is more of a tabletop war game with more tactical flexability then most other table top war games. Once you get the hang of heavy gear it's a lot of fun with some cinema tic moments . I usually play several demos or games with friends before I invest in the game to prevent bad gaming investments. Also I have to say I'm a pretty diehard battle tech fan but the heavy gear miniatures look better to me . Heavy gear worth trying out . Check my post for some of my hg battle reports

I'm kind of flabbergasted by the guy who said that Battletech is more realistic than Heavy Gear.

Battletech has WAY bigger mechs that jump around, the ranges for the weapons are bizarrely short, it has those goofy heat mechanics, and in B-tech armor peels off point for point no matter what it is shot with. Rockets are generally one or two point spit-balls. The weapons and rules are old fashioned and whenever they needed something new it was just grafted on. The rules and equipment have just been piled up one on top of the other since...oh...1987 or so giving you original tech, clan tech, post star league core advanced tech, non standard civilian mech tech, crazy new prototype tech (like the Prometheus adventure) etc ? Stuff like LAM's just disappeared one day. And now rumor is that they will be coming back. Vehicle and infantry rules got massively overhauled TWICE. There was Battleforce that tried to have whole Battlemech companies do battle. Then they released a new version of Aerotech that was essentially. a clone of the Renegade Legions space fighter game. There was an awful cartoon that FASA tried to tie in with the game. Then there are the video games, and the clicky game that made things even more confusing.

I like Battletech. I like it a lot. Yes, even without the Dougram, Crusher Joe and Macross mechs. I love the Dropship and Jumpship idea, and the hundreds of years of civil war destroying technology and creating a feudal system, the way the phone company became an evil manipulative cult. I like the Japanese, Chinese, German, British, and whatever Marik is (originally an America stand in but they seemed to abandon that idea quickly ) supposed to be cultures. I like the militaristic space -animal tribes that invaded. It;s good stuff.

But realistic? Nuh-uh. Nope. it's a sweet relic of a simpler time in gaming but it is about as old fashioned and clunky as you can be without bringing up the likes of Starguard or Striker 2 (the Traveler Miniatures Game).

As for Heavy Gear Blitz it's a pretty 'combined arms' sort of game. You need to play it with some AFV's some infantry, a strider, a tank, some guys on barnabies, and a VTOL to really appreciate how it all fits together. And if you played in the OLD days before blitz you could even have land ships and crap in there too.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:This is why I posed this question here on Dakka. I've never played a mini game that I've disliked this much the first time I played. It made me want to talk to people who liked the game to see what I missing or how I could maybe approach the game differently to appreciate it better.

I'm something of a whore for the game, so take the following with an asteroid sized grain of salt; but basically, the 'default' setup you probably experienced doesn't convey the rules very well. As one of the resident math geeks on the DP9 forums, I can tell you that what you say was pretty consistent with the rules; you had > 25% chance of doing damage with that LAC against the Hunter. It's hard for players to wrap their heads around initially, but the dice in Heavy Gear are far more consistent than most other games - you're going to rarely seem them give you enough points on their own to let you get a success in the opposed roll (i.e. a MoS). You really have to stack modifiers to make the system work, and if you don't, you're going to see very lackluster results.

As Balance said, calling for 'Coordinated Attack' with a Combat Group Leader (CGL) is an easy way to setup a -1 DEF on your opponent. Crossfire - when more than 1 attack comes from 90 degrees offset than the first - is another -1 DEF. The combination of the two, along with being in the open like that, would have given you what most of us would consider fair odds with even the measly LAC, which is the lasgun of Heavy Gear. Lots of pew, little punch.

Additionally, playing with higher damage weapons - like a LBZK or MBZK - would have made a different. Different models can give you a flat +1 ATK to represent their 'elite' status, and so on. Then you start throwing Indirect Fire from opponents you can't see into the mix, some electronic warfare to spice things up, infantry and tanks to scratch that combined arms itch, and poof - addiction.

It does have it's flaws (of which I'm also an inveterate critic), and needs some measure of polish - but it can be a real blast once you throw all the ingredients into the stew. Good luck and hopefully you'll give it another shot!