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.

warboss wrote:Just be glad he threaten to shame you (again!) for pledging $1.00 to the kickstarter... after you had already stated it publicly yourself.

Heh, yeah, that was a fun one ^_^. Still don't know how did he think that would "shame" me. Or anyone, for that matter. But hey, the test painted plastic models look half decent, so there's that.

HudsonD wrote:No such thing as "polite disagreement" with DP9. If you're not towing the party line, you're a troll.

I guess Robert is looking up to Kevin these days.

That was the first thing that came to mind, yes. That or NMI I guess.

warboss wrote:On an unrelated note, Stompy Bot is now in the final countdown (queue the song!) towards their possible delisting from the Canadian Stock Exchange. They've got less than a week before the two month deadline is up to publish their 2015 financials. I'm curious to see how many folks signed up during their premiere year.

Huh. I thought they have already folded, TBH.

Nah, they're still around scrounging for new money however they can (besides of course coming out with a game that fans actually want like a smaller turn based strategy title!). On their official forums, a company rep (owner?) said they'd just delist from the stock exchange and continue business as usual if they had to. The dozen or so fanboys of course applauded the situation. Eh, whatever. I didn't even throw in $1.00 to follow that so no risk for me at all no matter what happens.


Does anyone btw who reads this thread happen to own a pic of the Northern Gearstrider, the Scimitar? I'm trying to see if I can use my Rafm Kodiak as a stand in for it but am not sure of the size differences. The original preview said it's 68mm tall but I don't know if they're measuring that to the tippytop of the turret or the engines, whether that includes the base or not, etc.

 warboss wrote:

Does anyone btw who reads this thread happen to own a pic of the Northern Gearstrider, the Scimitar? I'm trying to see if I can use my Rafm Kodiak as a stand in for it but am not sure of the size differences. The original preview said it's 68mm tall but I don't know if they're measuring that to the tippytop of the turret or the engines, whether that includes the base or not, etc.

The Scimitar is way bigger than the Rafm Kodiak. I'll see if I can take a comparison pic as I've got like 2 huge boxes of beat up rafms just sitting in storage somewhere

I don't even know why I keep collecting Heavy Gear Minis since nobody I know plays the game anymore due to the general lack of interest in the game. I just picked up a few PRDF FS squads off Amazon because they were only 10 bucks O_o

Thanks! A comparison pic of the two side by side (or even next to a ruler) would be great. Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if they're not exactly the same with the profile LOS system they're using. You can use a walnut glued to the top of a milk gallon jug cap since the rules mandate the use of the profile the model whenever an opponent asks similar to infinity. I'm just hoping that visually the Rafm Kodiak conveys the greater sense of size of a gearstrider compared to gears.

As for that last part, I think almost everyone here is a collector by necessity as opposed to a player. I can't recall the last time I heard someone say in the thread they were actually playing the game outside of vassal. You're definitely not alone in that regard.

Duymon wrote:
I don't even know why I keep collecting Heavy Gear Minis since nobody I know plays the game anymore due to the general lack of interest in the game. I just picked up a few PRDF FS squads off Amazon because they were only 10 bucks O_o

That is an exceptionally fair price for those squads. If I were still in the market to buy more Gears, I'd have jumped on that, too!

 warboss wrote:
Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if they're not exactly the same with the profile LOS system they're using. You can use a walnut glued to the top of a milk gallon jug cap since the rules mandate the use of the profile the model whenever an opponent asks similar to infinity.

As for that last part, I think almost everyone here is a collector by necessity as opposed to a player. I can't recall the last time I heard someone say in the thread they were actually playing the game outside of vassal. You're definitely not alone in that regard.

Magic cylinder. Wooden dowels on bases. Or, even better, standees...

This year, I've been playtesting KOG light using HG minis, IRL, head-to-head. Does that count?

 Firebreak wrote:
A time jump would've been fine. Bring it up to say TN1980, ignore/rewrite completely everything about the WfTN and the 1940/50s (for the third time!) and say that thanks to the Prime Knights/microgate weaponry/NuCoal's mere presence Earth was beaten off again and now Terra Nova is taking the fight to them. Easy peasy. And then just throw in some historical scenarios at the back of the book for the skipped decades.

Or perhaps they could develop the ability to open microgates at planetary level a la Stargate or Peter Hamilton's Pandora's Star series would make the whole interplanetary landship idea plausible. It would be a huge game changer and would make big spaceships obsolete. It would also let Jovian Chronicles retain its niche as a space combat game while HG will focus on planetside fights.

Does it really matter? It's just there to facilitate robots fighting robots.

Nomeny wrote:
Does it really matter? It's just there to facilitate robots fighting robots.

Some people like their gaming worlds to be internally consistent.

If "it's just there to facilitate robots fighting robots", why stop there? Let's give landships to everyone and their uncle, but let's also make gearstriders the standard fighting unit, too! And let's toss aside that inane idea of tannhauser gates: we want robots fighting robots after all, so all ships should be able to warp and go places, by golly! Let's also make tanks arbitrarily slow and vulnerable, so they can't stand a chance against battlemec-er, gearstriders!

In other words: because there is already a game and a serting that does that, and it's name is Battletech, which is a very cool game, but making Heavy Gear more like Battletech will not help it, particularly when Alpha Strike is a game that actually exists right now unlike HG which is in eternal beta, and which does "Fast, easy robot battles" way better than HGB ever had.

Argumentum ad Fireballum brings us to weird places, doesn't it.

From what I can tell, BTAS is still over 100 pages with a pretty substantial table of modifiers! It's faster and easier than CBT, and faster and easier than any edition of HG, but I would hesitate to call it fast and easy compared to anything more modern like X-wing, to say nothing of something like Tanks!.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
From what I can tell, BTAS is still over 100 pages with a pretty substantial table of modifiers! It's faster and easier than CBT, and faster and easier than any edition of HG, but I would hesitate to call it fast and easy compared to anything more modern like X-wing, to say nothing of something like Tanks!.

You know, the old rules were clunky, modifier intensive, and just so esoteric that it made the game difficult or impossible to play as a new player. And once you got the rules down, it became pretty obvious how to make a list and how to play to win. :(

DP9 promised a whole new, sleeker, faster, more dynamic system. Well, they gave us a whole new system all right with a whole bunch of modifiers, and modifiers to the modifiers, and if you have studied calculus at all, you can understand some of the arcane wizardling formula's they have come up with just to shoot at a model standing behind cover. Maybe.

You know, some people really like that depth of game play, but those people are in a minority. I would go so far as to say the only people that are still interested in Heavy Gear are those players (and those players probably still play old school Batteltech, Full Thrust, and Star Fleet Battles just for that nitty-gritty rules systems). Too many other games out there have vastly more simple conflict resolution systems than the spaghetti-like flow chart that is used in HG. I really hate to say it, but how does DP9 expect to get a bunch of new players into a game system that is so complicated? There is already the significant hurdle of buying the models, assembling the models, and then painting the models. Add to that a horribly complicated and esoteric rules system and, well... yeah. As an example- look at X-wing. I buy a ship, I get all the rules for that ship, it doesn't require assembly or painting... basically, I could be playing with that ship in about 5 minutes (the packaging FFG uses leaves a lot to be desired. Takes 4 minutes just to get it open...). I have a set of red and green dice. When I attack, I roll the red dice, and count up the hits. When I defend, I roll green dice, count up the evades, subtract them from the hits, and Bob is your uncle. There is a bit more to it then that, but the game concentrates on PLAYING THE GAME, not on calculating modifier after modifier after modifier then rolling some d6's and hoping for something to happen. X-wing is simple, easy, and yet has a surprising depth of play.

But hey, at least army building has simplified dramatically, but there are still issues.
"WTH would I ever take that unit for anything when I can take this clearly superior unit?"
"Oh, well you can take an unlimited amount of the first unit, and only two of the second unit."
"Well, I guess it's a good thing that we are playing at an average point values that means I can really only take two or three units of Gears anyways, so... two units of superior gears for me, please!"

Oh, no doubt. In going back into the HGBTTWGLRB, it always fascinates me that they've got so many flavors of things. 4 range bands per weapon: sub-optimal, optimal, super-optimal, and out of range. Target numbers that aren't always the target number. All for what basically amounts to a net +1.

Whereas X-Wing just has that little stick for range and their custom dice (which could have been d6s, and/or used the blanks for the opposite role). Plus, the X-wing models are gorgeous. And pre-painted.

The internal balance is, of course, an issue. In theory, DP9 has their best minds working on balancing things, right?

Tamwulf wrote:You know, some people really like that depth of game play, but those people are in a minority. I would go so far as to say the only people that are still interested in Heavy Gear are those players (and those players probably still play old school Batteltech, Full Thrust, and Star Fleet Battles just for that nitty-gritty rules systems). Too many other games out there have vastly more simple conflict resolution systems than the spaghetti-like flow chart that is used in HG. I really hate to say it, but how does DP9 expect to get a bunch of new players into a game system that is so complicated? There is already the significant hurdle of buying the models, assembling the models, and then painting the models. Add to that a horribly complicated and esoteric rules system and, well... yeah. As an example- look at X-wing. I buy a ship, I get all the rules for that ship, it doesn't require assembly or painting... basically, I could be playing with that ship in about 5 minutes (the packaging FFG uses leaves a lot to be desired. Takes 4 minutes just to get it open...). I have a set of red and green dice. When I attack, I roll the red dice, and count up the hits. When I defend, I roll green dice, count up the evades, subtract them from the hits, and Bob is your uncle. There is a bit more to it then that, but the game concentrates on PLAYING THE GAME, not on calculating modifier after modifier after modifier then rolling some d6's and hoping for something to happen. X-wing is simple, easy, and yet has a surprising depth of play.

Well, I am indeed one of those guys: I still play HG 2nd edition with much more gusto than the current editions, I do indeed play CBtech, never got into Full Thrust but I am an ASL player, I dabble into Hearts of Iron and Europa Universalis... you know, fun stuff. So there is certainly people that still likes that kind of stuff. But yeah, the new Beta is still waay too rulesy for regular players nowadays, and is getting more complicated.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, no doubt. In going back into the HGBTTWGLRB, it always fascinates me that they've got so many flavors of things. 4 range bands per weapon: sub-optimal, optimal, super-optimal, and out of range. Target numbers that aren't always the target number. All for what basically amounts to a net +1.

Whereas X-Wing just has that little stick for range and their custom dice (which could have been d6s, and/or used the blanks for the opposite role). Plus, the X-wing models are gorgeous. And pre-painted.

The internal balance is, of course, an issue. In theory, DP9 has their best minds working on balancing things, right?

Right. At least the ones they still have not alienated out of their little walled community, because saying that there's stuff wrong is bad and trolling.

OOT, a good Gundam or Macross game with the X-Wing system would kill my wallet.

OMG, a tiny Gundam Game like X-wing with pre-painted minis? I couldn't afford it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OMG, a tiny Gundam Game like X-wing with pre-painted minis? I couldn't afford it.

I would basically need to buy EVERYTHING EVER of that one, and EVERYTHING EVER TIMES 2 of a Macross X-Wing game... shame it doesn't seem to be happening :(

Same here.. at least for the initial macross stuff. I'm not too big of a fan of the later series both in terms of stories as well as visuals.

Does anyone here know much about the Antelope northern ORVs? A while ago I bought a painted northern lot and the guy built one with the camper and turret on the back and two with the flat bed truck showing. I don't know if he was trying to show which one was the heavy weapon base since in the old rules they were just infantry upgrades or if there is/was a difference in camper and flatbed ORVs in the old RPG fluff. I don't have the second vehicle compendiums.

Nomeny wrote:
Does it really matter? It's just there to facilitate robots fighting robots.

It matters because once upon a time, Heavy Gear went above and beyond to try and inject realism.

On one end of the spectrum, you have MFZ, which is "ALIENS! And we need ROBOTS to fight them!" and that is it and you play the game. And it is glorious.

The other end is Heavy Gear, with encyclopedic-depth of information, background, and development, all of which, while very clearly being sci-fi and never being constrained by a desperate need to show off the writer's physics degree, did its best to have engines that run on gas, plows pulled by cows, and space travel dangerous and expensive.

So, when the company waves a great big "20 YEAR ANNIVERSARY WE'RE PROUD OF OUR HISTORY!" sign, and then makes what appear to be contradictory changes that make very little sense within the confines of that carefully crafted system, some of the very, very, very few people who have stuck around over those twenty years get confused.

But of course, those people are just anyway, and it doesn't matter what they think.

Exactly. It's as if Star Trek decided that ships flew based on Midicholrian production. Which itself was Star Wars wishing they had dilithium crystals powering their warp drives. Be hard, or be soft, but don't switch horses mid-stream.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. It's as if Star Trek decided that ships flew based on Midicholrian production. Which itself was Star Wars wishing they had dilithium crystals powering their warp drives. Be hard, or be soft, but don't switch horses mid-stream.

That's why I prefer 40K: Psykers open a portal into Hell that ships fly into, and they are guided to their destinations by a God-Like Emperor of Mankind that is all but dead and rotting on his Golden Throne on earth, but his psyke is kept alive by the sacrifice of thousands of psykers every day. They don't even pretend to make it sound reasonable.

 Tamwulf wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. It's as if Star Trek decided that ships flew based on Midicholrian production. Which itself was Star Wars wishing they had dilithium crystals powering their warp drives. Be hard, or be soft, but don't switch horses mid-stream.

That's why I prefer 40K: Psykers open a portal into Hell that ships fly into, and they are guided to their destinations by a God-Like Emperor of Mankind that is all but dead and rotting on his Golden Throne on earth, but his psyke is kept alive by the sacrifice of thousands of psykers every day. They don't even pretend to make it sound reasonable.

Actually, 40k space travel has been depicted very consistently over the years. Consistently with its own lore, which is the important thing, and which is what HG is doing wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
Same here.. at least for the initial macross stuff. I'm not too big of a fan of the later series both in terms of stories as well as visuals.

Does anyone here know much about the Antelope northern ORVs? A while ago I bought a painted northern lot and the guy built one with the camper and turret on the back and two with the flat bed truck showing. I don't know if he was trying to show which one was the heavy weapon base since in the old rules they were just infantry upgrades or if there is/was a difference in camper and flatbed ORVs in the old RPG fluff. I don't have the second vehicle compendiums.

Back in 2nd edition, the flat bed one was the regular Antelope, whereas the closed one was the Antelope Spotter, which was better armored, changed Exposed Crew Compartment for Reinforced Crew Compartment and HEP: Desert, and had a whole lot of electronics upgrades: better comms, sensors and a Target Designator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Firebreak wrote:
But of course, those people are just anyway, and it doesn't matter what they think.

We're trolls, don'tcha know. Unlike the ones who're crapping all over the setting.

 Albertorius wrote:

Back in 2nd edition, the flat bed one was the regular Antelope, whereas the closed one was the Antelope Spotter, which was better armored, changed Exposed Crew Compartment for Reinforced Crew Compartment and HEP: Desert, and had a whole lot of electronics upgrades: better comms, sensors and a Target Designator.

Cool, thanks. If they actually had a TD, I might actually use them but they don't. They're a hybrid with improved comms and an mmg which I can't really find a good use for.

I saw the landship announcement and immediately thought Helicarriers!

Rule of Cool.

But, breaks the laws of physics, both in game and out of game. I doubt if DP9 really understand that and what it means. Me, I don't care, because my models, my rules and my campaign.

I imagine that could sound quite good in German: Meine Modelle, meine Regeln, und meine Kampagne (cue tradition military music etc.).

Don't forget to add "Schlecht Hund Uber Alles!".

As rapid super fans, we invest heavily into the fiction of our chosen cause. The longer we stay with it, the more we invest in it, and we gain a sense of ownership. Unfortunitly, we don't own this fiction. It belongs to DP9. If they want to retcon the entire universe, well, we don't really have a say in it except to stop buying their products and stop playing the game. Then we can all take to social media and lament the end of our favorite game system!*

What I have noticed after having played in so many game universes, for a long time, is that retcon happens, and it's a fact of life. Some companies pull it off, while others, fail pretty hard at it. For example, it amazes me how well Games Workshop manages to retcon 40K ALL THE TIME, and it's just accepted. Like "Oh, it's the Grim Dark, no one really knows whats going on, and everything is written from a particular point of view that changes often". Contrast that with Warhammer Fantasy- a system that has been around for longer then 40K, and what happened last year- the End Times. GW kicks off this massive world wide campaign, calling it "THE END TIMES" and people throw a huge fit when, guess what? They nuked the whole game! The misshapen, twisted, thing that took it's place is not even a shadow compared to the old system, but it's all we have left. Some people left the game entirely, some picked up the new game, and some just continued playing 8th like the End Times never happened.

My point here is that we really can't control how/what a company does with it's intellectual property (fluff) beyond voting with our dollars. In rare circumstances, the fan base can rise up and take to social media and pressure a company to change, but let's be real- do ya'll think the 10 or so fans of HG that are left will really be able to change Robert's mind on anything?











*FYI, Heavy Gear Blitz is NOT my favorite game system, but I do enjoy it on occasion.

The AOS rules are generally clearer and easier to teach than WFB. If only the units were streamlined like the core rules...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The AOS rules are generally clearer and easier to teach than WFB. If only the units were streamlined like the core rules...

And if only they weren't named Blood Bloodson, Bloodvatar of the Bloodgod.

My point is more on the line that, if you want to do a retcon... say so, and do it. Don't do stealth retcons that only muddle the waters.

Man up and do it, FFS.

 Albertorius wrote:
My point is more on the line that, if you want to do a retcon... say so, and do it. Don't do stealth retcons that only muddle the waters.

Man up and do it, FFS.

The did, it's called NuCoal

 fellowhoodlum wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
My point is more on the line that, if you want to do a retcon... say so, and do it. Don't do stealth retcons that only muddle the waters.

Man up and do it, FFS.

The did, it's called NuCoal

Aw maaaaan, why did you need to go there

Hey I have an idea. Let's do our own retcon, only, instead of Paxton, Nicosa-er, I mean, Earth... Earth blows up Port Arthur, breaking the spine of the nascent NuCoal.

The Heavy Gear Assault video game company's financials were posting on the last day before risking delisting from the Canadian Stock Exchange. I'm reading this in common English with no formal financial training to see the likelihood of getting a final finished release HG game I'd actually buy myself as a consumer as well as the progress of the franchise in general so feel free to correct any misconceptions/mistakes with references as needed.

http://thecse.com/en/listings/technology/stompy-bot-corporation

http://thecse.com/sites/default/files/Stompy-FS-Annuals.pdf



Does anyone with more financial accumen than me know where the info on actual sales of games like HGA are? Is it the $34k "testing revenue" on page 17? Or the zero/dash empty field on revenue on page 3 with a note referencing the 34k? Or the numbers in a table below from the second file linked below? In any case, it looks like their license is up for renewal in 2017 so that'll likely be the first chance we'll get as customers for a possible real time indy/mobile/smaller strategy game if they don't renew.

From the management's discussion of the above independent accountant's report:
http://thecse.com/sites/default/files/Stompy-MDA-Annuals.pdf pg. 7

Revenue before adjustment
1,811
6,062
21,991
19,363

Divided up by quarters for the 2015 inaugural release year of HGA (admittedly in an alpha unfinished state) and I think from the whole company (and not just HGA revenue). With a minimum buy in of $40 CAD for just a hunter/jaeger, does that mean that at most (assuming no higher cost pack sales or dlc sales if they have any) roughly 45 people max bought into the game during the last quarter (aka Xmas season) of 2015? edit: If the "testing revenue" is the same thing on their q1 2016 file, it dropped down to $1,566. Again, if that is sales then does it mean approx 39 new players max in the first 3 months of 2016?

Then there are these bits about the big new game they announced last year... First what looks to be the management's view on the matter... then the accountant's numbers...



The above is from the end of year 2015 pair of documents posted by them and linked above. It looks like there are some other documents from the first quarter of this year as well.