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.

Tac weapons were also smaller, basically to scale, while Blitz weapons were like W40k, scaled up to be more recognizable on the tabletop. Tac weapons tended to bend more often because of that. We had a lot of LACs that weren't pointing exactly straight if not packed well. That wasn't a problem with Blitz, though weapons would fall out of hands now and then, because one had to glue them on separately.

EDIT And they couldn't really reduce the points cost of GP squads, or they'd start bumping up against stuff that cost the same price but was much worse*, or run into issues because suddenly horde mode armies would be overly viable. They probably needed to up the cost on Elite gears drastically. They also needed better default loadouts for GP squads, 40k did this with their 5 man marine squads, one guy was a heavy weapons dude by default, while in Blitz...they are all the same model, with the same guns. Yet which rule system has a 5 man squad move as one blob with one action, and one that has them each move as separate units with their own actions? To be fair, I think they've fixed this in the beta alpha whatever they call it now rules.)


*They already ran into this with 'Stripped Down Hunters', which were dirt cheap versions that gave up almost nothing important to be 15TV cheaper)

I think the new plastics are going to see an improvement in the assembly of the models. There's a reason I only buy plastic from GW, and that's because finecast and the metal before it was a hassle. The difference plastic makes is incredible.

ferrous wrote:
And they couldn't really reduce the points cost of GP squads, or they'd start bumping up against stuff that cost the same price but was much worse*, or run into issues because suddenly horde mode armies would be overly viable. They probably needed to up the cost on Elite gears drastically. They also needed better default loadouts for GP squads,

Cheaper GP is the same as expensive Elites. Better GP is also essentially the same at trying to make GP useful and competitive.

They did actually drop the price of GP's with the "field guide" experiment that lasted a whole two physical products and about a year and a half before the decision was made to abandon the format. If you want to compare the price drop, reference the price of 5 jaegers in a GP (with a command variant CGL) in L&L versus in FIF. The problem is that it fixed only a single (but admittedly important) aspect of the multifaceted problem. Some upgrades and downgrades were adjusted in cost but it was still more worth it to just get use the variant models most of the time in more elite squads that had access to better stats, weapons, and synergy and granted your whole force better universal pregame and during game options.

Nomeny wrote:
I think the new plastics are going to see an improvement in the assembly of the models. There's a reason I only buy plastic from GW, and that's because finecast and the metal before it was a hassle. The difference plastic makes is incredible.

Well, yes, of course, being able to use plastic cement instead of super glue is going to be a big improvement, at least for me.

That said, anything else it will depend on the actual implementation. The ease of use of plastic cement can be swiftly undone by stupid decisions in other areas, as the Robotech minis readily show. Changes in details and proportions may make the end minis more or less appealing, and corners cut in production can end un badly (see all the complaints about the Mantic basileans sprues, compared with the resin masters).

So in the end, a lot of it depends on the actual implementation. Material is just one point of contention (a big one, yes, but still one single point).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ferrous wrote:
*They already ran into this with 'Stripped Down Hunters', which were dirt cheap versions that gave up almost nothing important to be 15TV cheaper)

Oh, in that case it was even funnier. For -15TV the Stripped Down Jäger lost:

- -1 Sturdy box
- The LRP (a Weapon that back then nobody used, ever)

But got/retained:

- +1 to most relevant defense mods (which made that Sturdy box lost basically a net gain)
- Grenades (which was the weapon everybody was using instead of the LRP, because it was so much better)
- The LAC
- The option to change payloads for any of the better options (paratrooper gun, LBZ, etc)
- I think it was 1'' faster? Might be misremembering
- IIRC, they still were able to get armored jackets (Sturdy box) for +10 TV if veterans...

So yeah, kind of problematic ^_^


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
They did actually drop the price of GP's with the "field guide" experiment that lasted a whole two physical products and about a year and a half before the decision was made to abandon the format. If you want to compare the price drop, reference the price of 5 jaegers in a GP (with a command variant CGL) in L&L versus in FIF. The problem is that it fixed only a single (but admittedly important) aspect of the multifaceted problem. Some upgrades and downgrades were adjusted in cost but it was still more worth it to just get use the variant models most of the time in more elite squads that had access to better stats, weapons, and synergy and granted your whole force better universal pregame and during game options.

Yep. Also, doggedly continue trying to shoehorn the 2nd edition Vehicle Construction System TV calculations into a system that doesn't work even slightly the same as the old one is, of course, a recipe for perfect TV values.

 Albertorius wrote:

- I think it was 1'' faster? Might be misremembering

That's what I remember. The old L&L defensive stats were based on BOTH how far you COULD theoretically move as well as your old RPG maneuver stat. The SD wasn't any more "maneuverable" in the rpg iirc but it did move that critical inch faster that bumped it up. I think though (correct me if I'm wrong) in the rpg/tactical, you only got that bonus if you actually moved that distance as opposed to just being ABLE to move that distance to simulate the difficulty in hitting a fast moving target. The problem is that it was simplified in typical WTF? fashion by giving the extra bonus for moving for example 7" to everyone who could move that at combat speed (regardless of whether they moved 7" or 2" as they're both in that speed band).

Yup, absolutely correct: the Speed mod depended on how many actual distance your mini moved each turn, which was then added/substracted to the Maneuver value of the unit. Much like it works in Battletech.

Honestly speaking, it would have been much easier to just get rid of it and maybe adding a "dodge" action or something... or not, really.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Cheaper GP is the same as expensive Elites. Better GP is also essentially the same at trying to make GP useful and competitive.

Only in a vacuum where you only have GP and Elites. Blitz had a whole host of cheap but crappy models/squads like Engineering Grizzlies, Asps, Anolis-R, Rattlesnakes, and other outdated militia type gears/ squads. So if the Hunter (which was really the problem with GP squads), who costs 30, suddenly costs 20, well, Engineering Grizzlies cost 20, and the Hunter is still way better than that model. And you can't then cheapen the EG down to 10 or 5, as then someone is going to field 4x as many as they used to be able to, and just flood the battlefield with activations and break the game*. (Numbers pulled out of my ass, but you get the idea)

*We used to have fun with this on the forum, because the game only uses 5's, and because there are some wonky TV discounts, one could theorize up some really crazy large armies for very low TV counts, that would be very hard to beat without a tailored force for it.

OK got it. Tho I do note that GW does just fine horde vs elite, but if the game can't manage that, that's odd...

Ok, so more comparison time:

Southern "core" Gears lineup (Iguana, Jäger, Black Mamba, Spitting Cobra):



Same lineup compared with our trusty Tomahawk:



Individual comparisons:














You can see that the Fire Support models are really big, here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Other southern designs:

Dartjäger


Blitz Jäger:


Jäger Commando:


Force Recon Jäger:


Sidewinder:


Python:


Boa:


Tac edition Long Fang Naga:




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Northern models!

"Core" Gears lineup:


With Tomahawk


Individual comparisons:












Non "core" designs:

Ferret!



Den Mother


Souped-up Mad Dogs

Wow, thanks for all of the pictures!

Glad to! Hopefully someone will find them useful

Which Variant is this? I rather like it's design!

It reminds me of a Peace River Mech...

To answer the poll, I stopped playing Blitz primarily because I only had one opponent, and it got a little stale. No-one in the UK was stocking the minis, so expanding my armies was pricey (without any HC3 hover cars, my CEF were getting drowned in ECM by sodding Cheetahs).

On the subject of comparisons with Dropzone Commander, I took the following photo a while back of the various "10mm" sci fi ranges I own; HG CEF, CAV, DZC Shaltari and GroPos Earth Alliance:





That's an old metal 2nd edition CEF hovertank, subsequently downgraded in Blitz to a light tank, and then replaced by a new model.

 Vanguard-13 wrote:


Which Variant is this? I rather like it's design!

It reminds me of a Peace River Mech...

Actually, it's a regular Grizzly (northern FS Gear) with the standard loaout. The main Gear is mostly the same for every variant, of course, but it can take a lot of different weaponry.

*facepalms for not being able to identify a Grizzly*

Thanks for posting the comparison pics, Albertorius and Andrew. The infantry pic I think is the first ever on the web (I searched for one ALOT in google and bing over a year ago and found none). The grizzly and excaliber (can't recall the current name for the robotech destroid) look to be good analogs size wise at least. If I ever build up some destroids, I could see using them as dastardly earth invaders with FS gear stats.

In my photo of the infantry, the Heavy Gear GRELs and Shaltari battlesuits are both supposed to be larger than human-normal, which makes a comparison a bit difficult.

Also, I think N-scale (which is what a lot of "10mm" models are advertised as being compatible with) model railways are ~1:160, and Heavy Gear is 1:144, and the tanks are big, even in scale.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
[...] and the tanks are big, even in scale.

Probably the biggest consideration for sci-fi armored vehicle miniatures (apart from basic 'rule of cool' of course) is that they no longer have to fit our current IRL rail gauges as used for long distance mobility.

Even if the end user armed forces can remove external equipment such as skirts, defensive arrays, and whatnot the outside track edge to outside track edge measurement has a fixed limit, as does the vertical height over whatever design of flatbed railcar is used.
This is also a concern for double-stacked intermodal containers, which use a special 'low-rider' flatbed railcar provided the available track routes also possess or can be modified to have sufficient clearance for tunnels, signals, overpasses, etc etc etc.

Most MBT, or 'universal' tanks, taken into service since the end of WW2 have all been pretty close to 12 feet (3.6m) in width because of the rail consideration - which also equates to waterborne transport considerations.


Vehicle length, at least for tracked designs, will generally need to be at least 1.5 times, but less than 2.5 times, the width (but usually close to 2x in practice), to provide the best turning maneuverability.



Now, with everything being said, I would agree that quite a lot of sci-fi oriented vehicle design art doesn't seem to have taken overall size into consideration all that well.
Increasing the internal volume and subsequent equipment installations needing to be protected and powered should almost always have the consequence of making things heavier, not lighter, let alone close to the same as something else IRL nowadays.

Most authors of science-fiction have to think on all of this, even if it never makes it into their books, if they want to keep selling their titles to the target readers.
Oddly enough however, most artists & game designers are given a pass on any form of similar reality checks.

The CEF hovertanks I can forgive (in-univerrse); their overriding design constraint is weight, not size. Apart from needing to fit all the ducting for the vectored thrust engines, presumably it uses all sorts of high-tech composites. They might be stronger than steel but much bulkier.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The CEF hovertanks I can forgive (in-univerrse); their overriding design constraint is weight, not size. Apart from needing to fit all the ducting for the vectored thrust engines, presumably it uses all sorts of high-tech composites. They might be stronger than steel but much bulkier.

Yeah, in the particular case of the CEF tanks, there's the fact that they explicitly spell out the weight considerations vs. bulk, and also that a larger main hull would probably be better overall to get lift.

In the case of the rest of the tanks, well...

I can't remember which GREL lines are the tank commanders, drivers and gunners, and if they're any larger thanhumans; that would also account for a larger vehicle.

As for the Terranovan designs, I think that's because the harger Gears and Striders can carry the same sort of armament as an MBT. The actual tanks have ended up more like the Maus, Char 2C or T-35 than a modern MBT.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I can't remember which GREL lines are the tank commanders, drivers and gunners, and if they're any larger than humans; that would also account for a larger vehicle.

Maxwells (gunners) and Minervas (pilots) mainly, with Jans and maybe some Issacs and Kassandras for good measure.

As a general rule, GRELs are no bigger than big humans, but they always are on the highest of the top human average. And then there's the Mordreds, of course.

As for the Terranovan designs, I think that's because the harger Gears and Striders can carry the same sort of armament as an MBT. The actual tanks have ended up more like the Maus, Char 2C or T-35 than a modern MBT.

I wouldn't say that much, as a general rule. Gears, even big ones, have very definite limits regarding what kind of weapons they're able to wield, and most of the time land squarely in the IFV category (meaning, anything you wouldn't really feel very out of place mounted in a Bradley's chassis).

And the tanks properly aren't really all that big, if you don't take into account the mini. I don't have right now the stats of the Aller, but the Visigoth, for all it's size, has an operational weight of a bit more of 58 tons, a height of 3.45m (to the top of the AA laser dome) and a lenghth of 8.94m).

If we compare that with a modern M1A2 tank (69,5 tons, 2,43m height, 9,78m lenghth) we can see that they are actually not really big (except height, just because). More like regular-tank sized.

One thing that also should be mentioned is that in the old rpg vehicle design rules (at least in 1st edition where I stopped) is that the size of the vehicle determined not only what weapons could be mounted as well as how much ammo it could carry. Whereas a hovertank and fire support gear might carry the same weapon, the gear would have only a couple of rounds and might need the stabilizer trait (meaning only firing when stationary) whereas the tank could fire it on the move and have dozens of rounds. It doesn't make as much of a difference in the tabletop game where you don't count every bullet fired generally but it was a cool detail in the RPG for long running campaigns.

Yeah, the ammo carried added to the Min. Size of the weapon (that being the minimum size that a vehicle needed to be in order to carry it).

For example, the main gun of the Visigoth southern MBT is a Heavy Field Gun, which by itself has a Minimum Size of 10. It also carries 25 shots for it, which ups this value to a grrand total of Minimum Size 13 (which, incidentally, is the Size of the Visigoth).

The biggest FS and assault Gears are Size 7 (Cobras, Grizzlies and the like, but also the Kodiaks and King Cobras), which means that usually a HFG, even a Stabilized one (-2 Min. Size, but cannot move the turn it shoots) would be out of their range.

The HG VCS allowed building specific weapons with modified specs (+/- 1 to base range, Size, damage, etc.) for a premium cost, so you could theoretically get a Stabilized, smaller HFG purpose made to be used by a FS Gear, but even then, it would only be able to carry 2 rounds before being too big to be wielded by it.

Posting in Smilodon's "what makes a gear a gear" thread got me thinking about HG for the first time in a while and I peeked over at the DP9 forums. We have a low post count user advocating for sliding TV for models because he wants a discount on the stuff he likes using Paxton (surprise!!!) as an example. We've officially come full circle if that comes to pass. Keep fighting the good fight, John Prins. I may not agree with everything you say but your toy soldiers are pretty and you're right in this case.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=17019&page=3#entry297075

The generic army should be a template. The sub-factions a tweak to that template. If you're going to change each sub-factions UA list from the original army, then you don't have a sub-faction, you have a different army that uses the same models. That's bad game design.

Getting hung up on TV as a hard in-game representation of how threatening a model is seeing the forest for the trees.

I was under the impression that TV was created to do exactly what you just described. "Bad game design" is taking a metric that you've supposedly balanced all units with and chucking it to the wind so people can pay less FOR WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE ANYWAYS. It's already an accepted fact of game design that plenty of folks will choose their subfaction based on what is best for what they already own but throwing in a discount in points to do so would be horrible. Dave, don't give in to the temptation. You tried that with Paxton when the alpha was publicly released and the almost unaminous response was very negative. Don't step into the same pile of Barnaby poop that still has a crusted but visible shoe sole pattern on it.

Heh, and people say that GW does a bad job of balance...

Well looks like *Discount My Army Guy* has dropped his desire to amp up the game by making his army cheaper.

Now he wants to have the "Old style" swap system in place. For an army building system that lets you have almost complete control over what you put into each unit...

That or to just toss everything out 5 months from when the book is due and let him make the whole thing from scratch.



Whelp, that's my contribution.

Have a nice evening guys.

 Albertorius wrote:


A couple of Rattlesnakes and a VF-1. The Rattlesnake is basically a Jäger with a variant head and different payload (also some defects, but who's counting). As you can see, changing the pose of the mini can give the illusion of it being bigger.

That head on the right looks so so much like a tau head I wonder which came first.

The macross/robotech one did by almost 20 years.