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.

I'm not presuming malice. I'm wondering why you'd think nobody would be interested. Production was held up for a while there, but development of the game has probably benefited from the extra time.

If I understand it correctly it was your baby at some point, the project fell apart, and you're probably understandably sore about that. I have some stuff I check up on occasionally myself, for the sake of schadenfreude, but I don't try to participate in the conversation anymore.

Nomeny wrote:
I'm not presuming malice. I'm wondering why you'd think nobody would be interested.

I assumed nobody would be interested because historically (during the Blitz / L&L) time Dakka (and other forums) generally went dark about HG until something new was released, then someone migrated from the DP9 forums over to spread the gospel, and then it went back to being quiet again. I assumed that most of the interested parties would have migrated back to the mothership, since most of the time it's a 'slow news day'.

Nomeny wrote:
If I understand it correctly it was your baby at some point, the project fell apart, and you're probably understandably sore about that.

I walked away on amenable terms, actually. I may disagree with many of the choices Dave has made in steering it - but I knew when walked away that was the cost. I wasn't willing to tie so much time into the game anymore - so I didn't get to make decisions. That's just a natural consequence. So no - I don't habor any ill will, just a general engineer's bemusement at what I consider poor choices.

There's definitely more interest due to the KS - if not for that, I wouldn't have bought the CEF Frames that I did.

Although seeing the huge scale/proportion change from Tac era to nuBlitz/Arena kinda makes me wish I hadn't bought the Arena set. It's like the difference between RTB-01 and 7E SMs. I wonder if I could get some HG-scale infantry for them.

And it's spurred me to get KOG light to a playable state, which potentially makes other stuff like my RRT minis simply playable as well.

 IceRaptor wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
Why wouldn't we be here discussing it? I mean, I get why you or warboss or Albertorius might not be here, but some of us are kind of excited about this.

It wasn't a criticism - just an observation. I figured interest would have fizzled out here, since that tends to be the cycle. My surprise was to find Warboss and Albertorius still engaged, as I would have figured them to have moved on by now. You might presume malice where none exists?

It still cycles, at least for me. I'd unsubscribe from the thread for a week or two to a month or two but then the curiosity always made me click that "unread" link eventually and I'd stick around shooting the breeze for a while. I wasn't tempted though to log into the official forums though for those two years. In my best Jake Gyllenhaal voice, "I wish I knew how to quit you, Heavy Gear!". My record so far was about 6+ years (whatever the time frame was between the Rafm and 1st edition switchovers to Blitz' release) and in 2nd place is the span between the L&L announcement and the FM release. Heavy Gear is the game that got me to buy into the tabletop hobby (although it's not the first game I played) and holds alot of nostalgia for me just like Robotech and Rifts (the first RPG that I played.. a robotech character in a Rifts campaign). Just like a parent with a good child who grew up into a bad adult, I see alot of the good that used to be and could have been overlaid over what actually is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Although seeing the huge scale/proportion change from Tac era to nuBlitz/Arena kinda makes me wish I hadn't bought the Arena set. It's like the difference between RTB-01 and 7E SMs. I wonder if I could get some HG-scale infantry for them.

Out of curiosity, do you prefer the scale/proportions of the tact era minis more or the blitz era metals? I realize that you'd prefer to have a cohesive looking collection and that you have much more of the former than the latter but I'm asking, in a perfect world where you had the choice to restart at no cost, which you'd prefer. Feel free to add in the plastics if that is the correct choice for you.

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

Absolutely! Bad Dog the novel of my hero in her mecha traveling through microgates to see strange new planets and get into more trouble than she imagined.

 warboss wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Although seeing the huge scale/proportion change from Tac era to nuBlitz/Arena kinda makes me wish I hadn't bought the Arena set. It's like the difference between RTB-01 and 7E SMs. I wonder if I could get some HG-scale infantry for them.

Out of curiosity, do you prefer the scale/proportions of the tact era minis more or the blitz era metals?

I realize that you'd prefer to have a cohesive looking collection and that you have much more of the former than the latter but I'm asking, in a perfect world where you had the choice to restart at no cost, which you'd prefer. Feel free to add in the plastics if that is the correct choice for you.

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I rank things like this:
1. Tactical-era minis,
2. Blitz/Arena-era minis,
3. plastics.

I like the Tactical-era minis best, as I find them more realistic / less cartoony. Even though we're talking about giant robots. Er, rather, big, stompy robots. In particular, the Tac-era weapons are far better proportioned for 1/144 scale. If we look at a modern heavy tank gun with a 120mm barrel, the true 1/144 scale diameter is less than 1 millimeter. If I look at the 380mm gun of a Sturmtiger, it scales to only 2.6mm diameter, well under 1/8 inch even with the counterweight collar. The details are finer and so forth. I believe the sculptor was deliberately trying for a true scale model, within the constraints of the materials available.

The Blitz/Arena stuff has 40k-style cartoon guns. If we believe scale, they are carrying cannon comparable in caliber to the WW2-era "88" gun, and the larger stuff easily outclasses the 128mm gun on the Jagdtiger. The Gears themselves got bigger and bloated. This exaggerated aesthetic is fine for wargame pieces.

I abhor the plastics stripping off much of the fine detailing and complex shape, their clumsy posing and terrible hands. In this iteration, the models are equivalent to boardgame plastics, rather than scale models. Or maybe gashapon.


I definitely like my stuff to match in style and scale, and I definitely prefer my Tac-era Gears. The CEF Frames are there to be different, and they succeed at that.

@John: Some good reasons. I actually prefer the cartoony look on the tabletop from a distance but it does look a bit odd on occasion close up. You make some good points with the barrel diameter. I suppose the Rafm scale heavy bazookas look to you like they should be launching something the size of Flails then! Those are some big tubes.

Yeah, the cartoon thing is definitely for tabletop viewing at a distance, and I get that. It's also the bit about camouflage vs heraldry that 40k delves into.

TBH, the Drake is the worst offender, by far. And yes, you could put a person inside that tube! In a world of big, stompy robots, the push for realism is kinda silly.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Yeah, the cartoon thing is definitely for tabletop viewing at a distance, and I get that. It's also the bit about camouflage vs heraldry that 40k delves into.

TBH, the Drake is the worst offender, by far. And yes, you could put a person inside that tube! In a world of big, stompy robots, the push for realism is kinda silly.

I... might have commented about the Drake in that regard back in the day. Something about the bazooka firing smaller bazookas...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IceRaptor wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
Why wouldn't we be here discussing it? I mean, I get why you or warboss or Albertorius might not be here, but some of us are kind of excited about this.

It wasn't a criticism - just an observation. I figured interest would have fizzled out here, since that tends to be the cycle. My surprise was to find Warboss and Albertorius still engaged, as I would have figured them to have moved on by now. You might presume malice where none exists?

It kind of comes and goes. I can't say I'm happy with the direction stuff is going (I still hope the game gets decent) but I'm just too fond of the setting to be completely done with it, so I go there from time to time, and yell someone to get off my lawn

 Albertorius wrote:


I... might have commented about the Drake in that regard back in the day. Something about the bazooka firing smaller bazookas...

The Drake has a nice esthetic to it, but oh my lord that bazooka is preposterous.

At least they gave it special stats over and above the typical L/M/H designation...

 warboss wrote:
At least they gave it special stats over and above the typical L/M/H designation...

Have they, now? Originally it had the same HBZK that uses the Kodiak Destroyer, IIRC...

At least in the current and previous Aug 2015 version, all the gearstriders got their main weapons buffed. I don't know when that started though as I only looked at the Aug 2015 version relatively recently and didn't bother with the last one or two before. I noticed it when I was researching whether I could use my RAFM kodiak as one and if the bazooka's oversized looks matched the stats.

 IceRaptor wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
I'm not presuming malice. I'm wondering why you'd think nobody would be interested.

I assumed nobody would be interested because historically (during the Blitz / L&L) time Dakka (and other forums) generally went dark about HG until something new was released, then someone migrated from the DP9 forums over to spread the gospel, and then it went back to being quiet again. I assumed that most of the interested parties would have migrated back to the mothership, since most of the time it's a 'slow news day'.

Nomeny wrote:
If I understand it correctly it was your baby at some point, the project fell apart, and you're probably understandably sore about that.

I walked away on amenable terms, actually. I may disagree with many of the choices Dave has made in steering it - but I knew when walked away that was the cost. I wasn't willing to tie so much time into the game anymore - so I didn't get to make decisions. That's just a natural consequence. So no - I don't habor any ill will, just a general engineer's bemusement at what I consider poor choices.

Are you an engineer?

Nomeny wrote:

Are you an engineer?

... This is relevant how ?
You're talking to the main architect behind your beloved "Heavy Gear Blitz: War for Terra Nova™" new edition, and you seem oddly passive-agressive about it. What's getting you so uncomfy ?

 warboss wrote:
At least they gave it special stats over and above the typical L/M/H designation...

Don't get me started on the light, medium, heavy, special version of weapons combined with the point blank, short, optimum, long, and extreme or what ever all the range bands were. My Gawd, so many modifiers...

 HudsonD wrote:

Nomeny wrote:

Are you an engineer?

... This is relevant how ?
You're talking to the main architect behind your beloved "Heavy Gear Blitz: War for Terra Nova™" new edition, and you seem oddly passive-agressive about it. What's getting you so uncomfy ?

I'm just interested in his background, given his comments about what Robert and Dave are doing with HGB. Sometimes when people have a particular expertise it pays to listen carefully to them.

Nomeny wrote:
Are you an engineer?

Depends on what you consider an engineer. I'm a software developer with a decent math background, so that may or may not allow me into the exclusive 'engineers' club depending on what your personal views are.

 IceRaptor wrote:
Depends on what you consider an engineer.

If I were to hazard a guess I would say someone with a degree in Engineering or a PE license.

 Ahtman wrote:

 IceRaptor wrote:
Depends on what you consider an engineer.

If I were to hazard a guess I would say someone with a degree in Engineering or a PE license.

As one such degreed individual, I'd also accept it if he were driving a choo-choo train...

 Ahtman wrote:
If I were to hazard a guess I would say someone with a degree in Engineering or a PE license.

Well, my degree says 'Computer Science & Engineering'... but there's no PE for CSE yet. So I am probably one of the filthy unwashed masses.

 Tamwulf wrote:

 warboss wrote:
At least they gave it special stats over and above the typical L/M/H designation...

Don't get me started on the light, medium, heavy, special version of weapons combined with the point blank, short, optimum, long, and extreme or what ever all the range bands were. My Gawd, so many modifiers...

Yeah, the HG weapons list it's kinda excessive. Especially as it seems many were simply placeholders for completeness that didn't even get used. It's unnecessary complexity for complexity's sake. Forcing acronyms for the sake of acronyms.

Range bands in skirmish games are something of a peeve of mine. In HG, they're total nonsense, given that they actually do apply a maximum range, when there are only a couple weapons that would see a real-world maximum (effective) range at this scale. Short of the flamethrower (which modern doctrine doesn't even use), only grenade launchers and infantry fragmentation weapons would come up short on a typical board.

If they're going for a simulation, which the robots and spaceships and whatnot kind of nix no matter how plausible your technobabble sounds. At some point in the design I feel like you need to put usability and players first. Probably better to continue such a discussion in the GD forum.

If it's HG-specfiic, it can probably stay here.

OTOH, if the Pod wants actual feedback on the HGBTTWGLRB, they are free to open a thread under Game Design. Of course, there is some expectation that the Pod would actually consider the suggestions, rather than dismiss them out of hand because reasons.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If it's HG-specfiic, it can probably stay here.

OTOH, if the Pod wants actual feedback on the HGBTTWGLRB, they are free to open a thread under Game Design. Of course, there is some expectation that the Pod would actually consider the suggestions, rather than dismiss them out of hand because reasons.

Pretty much. Everyone of my suggestions has fallen on deaf ears (or maybe blind eyes?). A game at this scale with those kinds of range bands? Not to mention all the different types of weapons was insane. It was so obvious just by looking at the weapons chart which weapons were far superior to anything else. And the preponderance of their occurrence was very much in evidence any time you looked at an army list. It always made me cringe to think that a Bazooka, basically a metal tube with a dumb rocket in it, was the best weapon in a game filled with space ships, laser cannons, high tech, and mecha. So stupid... but I guess that's my personal bias showing, eh?

So here's a question for you guys and gals. Given that the rules have a 3" cylinder the diameter of the base as the actual measurement of most gearstriders as part of the profile to use if there are any LOS issues, is this photoshopped comparison an ok substitute? I took a pic this weekend of my Rafm Kodiak next to a hunter and tried to match the angle of the shot as much as possible and then resized the pic until the hunter's base was the exact width as that of the hunter in the official pic. Is that an ok substitute size-wise for a gearstrider?

"Aren't you a little short for a Gearstrider?"

OTOH, given the realities of HG matchups (no players, no gaming), it won't matter a bit what you do. It's close enough for me, if we were to ever play.

Striders have gone through some growth spurts (and price raises!) since their initial introduction. It'd probably be spot on for the original gearstrider, the Cataphract, on the bottom right. Also, that drake sculpt is uuuuuuuugly.

The RAFM Kodiak is roughly the same size as a Cataphract, so I'd say there's no problem.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Range bands in skirmish games are something of a peeve of mine. In HG, they're total nonsense, given that they actually do apply a maximum range, when there are only a couple weapons that would see a real-world maximum (effective) range at this scale.

The ranges are present as a game mechanic; they are (supposed to be) an incentive to maneuver, and a way to differentiate weapon play-types. I wanted to have mechanical benefits for CQB weapons (flame-throwers, shotguns, etc) as well as to be able to reinforce the fluff background of the weapons on the tabletop. If a Snub Cannon has the same effective range as everything else (i.e. the board), it's harder to give places for the autocannons and missiles of the world to shine.

If you have more defense types, you can drop range and still have segmentation. But HG's legacy was just DEF to defend, then Armor to protect. Keeping the rules similar enough to appeal to the old guard, while moving them in a more modern approach was difficult and I did it largely in isolation. There was certainly plenty of room for improvement.

I would note that while range bands aren't realistic, a game whose primary design driver is realism won't be fun, either. If we're going for realism, cheap man-portable guided missiles means Gears have no chance on the battlefield. And that's before we deal with the fact that there are effective speed-of-light weapons - which would be the second nail in the coffin of Gears. There has to be some balance, and in this case I felt the game play was more important than the 'realism'. That's why the new HG feels more 'gamey' and less 'realistic' - it's a deliberate shift to give the wargame more room for abstractions that make for a fun game.