Heavy Gear Blitz - War for Terra Nova - Kickstarter, Finished and Funded @ $150,406

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.

**Grey Templar**

In case the DP9 guys are still watching this, I've got a few suggestions that might make things a little simpler.

Basic models have a TON of weapons. Too many actually. I realize a fixture of Mecha are suits brimming with guns, but you can strip down some of the numbers without taking away from that vibe. And nearly all basic models have the same weapons stock. This creates almost no tactical variation between factions. A Warrior and a Hunter are almost the same, only difference being the Warrior has ECM and a better EW stat. Not enough faction differentiation. And honestly the hunter having a LPZ over the Warrior would actually make it worth the same IMO. If I really need ECM I will take a dedicated ECM gear, so the value of that ability is minimal.

But back to weapon overload. Lets take the basic Hunter as an example.

Its got 5 weapons. The LAC, LRP, APGL, LPZ, and LVB.

The Panzerfaust in particular is a problem. Its presence on a 6 point platform makes the Destroyer Hunter almost pointless.

The trade is basically 3 stock Hunters for 2 Destroyer Hunters. The 3 Hunters are actually better. I'll take the reduced range, and very minor damage reduction, in exchange for 50% more bodies and keeping my autocannons.

A better weapon loadout would be to remove the LPZ and the LRP from the basic hunter and reduce its point cost by 1. Reduce the point cost of the Destroyer by 1 and change its MBZ into a LBZ, and give the option to upgrade to a MBZ for another point.

This type of change would give every variant a good focus. The stock model doesn't do anything particularly well, but its cheap. The Gunner would be the upgunned long range general purpose model. The Assault is the close combat model. And finally the Destroyer is the dedicated anti-armor.

Rinse and repeat for the other factions and gear models as needed.

**JohnHwangDD**

What further amuses is how the Field Gun, Tank Gun, and Artillery Gun are all different versions of the exact same thing, and they still need to split as Light / Medium / Heavy.

Or, despite a laundry list of abilities, PanzerFaust aren't 1-shot weapons?

Or why PanzerFaust are really powerful weapons that are just as powerful as Tank Guns, while Bazookas are marginally less powerful.

No internal balance.

And don't get me started on engagement ranges...

**Grey Templar**

Well I suppose having a max range of 12 and optimal range of 0-6 might be the rational. Although nothing stops you from spamming cheap 6 point Hunters and just bum rushing them with Panzerfausts. Someones going to get a hit in.

**Enigma Crisis**

Grey Templar wrote:
Well I suppose having a max range of 12 and optimal range of 0-6 might be the rational. Although nothing stops you from spamming cheap 6 point Hunters and just bum rushing them with Panzerfausts. Someones going to get a hit in.

Hunters meet my VHAC "Jungle Mower" Cobras

**DP9Dave**

Yeah the Panzerfaust is getting a range of 2-6/9" in the update. The 0" range was too excellent.

The Panzerfaust is also being reduced slightly in PEN.

Panzerfausts are not limited ammo because we assume that the model has enough to last for the engagement. There is no limited ammunition becasuse don't care enough about tracking ammunition to do it except in very special cases.

Sorry Grey Templar, but the Hunter will not be losing any weapons. It is the equivalent to telling Space Marine players that they don't need anything but Twin Lascannons on their Dreadnoughts so we're getting rid of the other weapons.

On the bright side most models in the game have no more than 4 weapons. Just don't look too closely at the Drake...

Cheers!
Dave

**Grey Templar**

Ok. That will solve the overlap problem a little and stop the base variant from stepping on the dedicated anti-armor variant's toes.

**JohnHwangDD**

Not "limited" ammo, one-shot. As in "one and done". Just like a 40k Hunter-Killer missile or combi-weapon. Use it and lose it.

It's a good balancing effect for models which should have never been given PanzerFaust in the first place.

**frozenwastes**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not "limited" ammo, one-shot. As in "one and done". Just like a 40k Hunter-Killer missile or combi-weapon. Use it and lose it.

It's pretty much the defining characteristic of the actual WW2 panzerfaust. It was a one shot disposable weapon.

**warboss**

frozenwastes wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not "limited" ammo, one-shot. As in "one and done". Just like a 40k Hunter-Killer missile or combi-weapon. Use it and lose it.

It's pretty much the defining characteristic of the actual WW2 panzerfaust. It was a one shot disposable weapon.

The HG Panzerfaust is not a WW2 panzerfaust. It is not a large prominent bazooka weapon when carried by a HG but rather a small bit usually modeled as multiple on a figure. I'm glad they're largely going away with limited ammo (and that included one shots). Making it one shot when a model carries multiple doesn't make sense IN HEAVY GEAR. It makes sense for a ww2 nazi trooper who is carrying something the size of his leg. The less you have to track in HG, the better.

**Eumerin**

Have to disagree. The defining characteristic of a Panzerfaust is that it's a one-shot weapon. This is important. Sure, you could carry multiple 'fausts, but it wasn't hard to track them individually.

But, given my bad experiences with DP9 in the past, I'm staying out of this. So I suppose it's not really my argument.

**JohnHwangDD**

In that case, it is shocking that the HG "PanzerFaust" does any substantial damage at all.

Certainly, it's poorly named for what it does. It should be renamed "Krak Grenade".

**Ahtman**

At first I thought this took place in a fictional future on another planet but now I am to believe they didn't follow WW2 terminology religiously?

**JohnHwangDD**

If you leverage WW2 nomenklature in an ostensibly non-ironic way, then the items must conform to the names.

Otherwise, don't leverage the name.

**Ahtman**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you leverage WW2 nomenclature in an ostensibly non-ironic way, then the items must conform to the names.

Otherwise, don't leverage the name.

This only seems to work if we assume everyone thinks of the same thing when they hear the word, which doesn't pan out. When hearing Panzerfaust outside a WW2 setting I would think of a 'anti-tank weapon' before thinking 'one shot weapon'. It was a one shot weapon, of course, but at that place and time.

**JohnHwangDD**

Perhaps the problem is that you don't know enough about the PanzerFaust. For many who grew up on WW2 stuff, this is a *very* specific reference. Just like Nebelwerfer and StuG.

For you, it's just another Bazooka-like Panzerschreck device, which would have been a fine name for it. It was, and is bad form for DP9 to use the name this way.

**Albertorius**

Ahtman wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you leverage WW2 nomenclature in an ostensibly non-ironic way, then the items must conform to the names.

Otherwise, don't leverage the name.

This only seems to work if we assume everyone thinks of the same thing when they hear the word, which doesn't pan out. When hearing Panzerfaust outside a WW2 setting I would think of a 'anti-tank weapon' before thinking 'one shot weapon'. It was a one shot weapon, of course, but at that place and time.

Even in the context of "WWII" it isn't exactly a given:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that you don't know enough about the PanzerFaust. For many who grew up on WW2 stuff, this is a *very* specific reference. Just like Nebelwerfer and StuG.

For you, it's just another Bazooka-like Panzerschreck device, which would have been a fine name for it. It was, and is bad form for DP9 to use the name this way.

Actually, model 150 and onwards were reloadable.

**JohnHwangDD**

I'm pretty sure that the Nazis weren't fielding wierd robot things in WW2.

**Eumerin**

A "panzerfaust" is a very specific weapon, used at a very specific time in Earth's history. If DP9 wants to muck around with it and make it something that it never was, then they should have called it an RPG, as that's a more general term for the weapon-type.

**warboss**

Eumerin wrote:
Have to disagree. The defining characteristic of a Panzerfaust is that it's a one-shot weapon. This is important. Sure, you could carry multiple 'fausts, but it wasn't hard to track them individually.

But, given my bad experiences with DP9 in the past, I'm staying out of this. So I suppose it's not really my argument.

They're still one shot.. it's just that gears carry MULTIPLE panzerfausts usually since they're basically no bigger than a baton relatively to your average gear. That generally isn't practical at the human scale you're using to form your opinion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eumerin wrote:
A "panzerfaust" is a very specific weapon, used at a very specific time in Earth's history. If DP9 wants to muck around with it and make it something that it never was, then they should have called it an RPG, as that's a more general term for the weapon-type.

It is a cool sounding name so why shouldn't they use it for something that is functionally similar but NOT exactly the same thing? You do realize that gears like Jaegers and Hunters don't look like mechanical cogs despite using the same word "gear", right??? It is a sciFI (emphasis on fiction) universe so things can evolve a bit in the multiple millennia between WW2 and the timeline of HG.

**Albertorius**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the Nazis weren't fielding wierd robot things in WW2.

Pretty sure they weren't fielding Gears either

. Also, according to DP9, they were xD. They have a whole game around the premise (Gear Krieg).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eumerin wrote:
A "panzerfaust" is a very specific weapon, used at a very specific time in Earth's history. If DP9 wants to muck around with it and make it something that it never was, then they should have called it an RPG, as that's a more general term for the weapon-type.

That is true... they also have bazookas, though, and those aren't "one-shot and reload" guns either (also, as said above, HG's panzerfausts are actually one-shot.... only the Gears can carry multiples).

All that said, I personally would be all about trooper Gears only being able to carry around one PZF (read "one" here as "enough to do only one significant attack during an engagement". I'd personally do the same with grenades. That, or I'd change them to be melee weapons, probably). Multiples could be cool for dedicated AT variants and the like.

**Mmmpi**

@ Warboss, the multiple one-shot launcher idea is what I was thinking of actually. All it would have to be is a bazooka round in a tube, thinking about the size of a normal bazooka magazine. I got the idea that it was like the later model pazerfaust, which could be reload if you got the thing back to base.

Another possible departure is that the whole game takes place in what? 6100 AD? Who says there are still Germans left, or at least a cultural group that is both descended from, and similar to Germans? It could very well be that whoever designed the weapon in universe took a name for an anti-tank rocket not knowing of the historical version's one shot nature. Can we even assume anything more than a few general details of WWII would be known? It's 4000 years later. How much can you tell us about the 30 years war? That war was only a few hundred years ago, was REALLY important, but most people haven't even heard of it.

**JohnHwangDD**

Albertorius wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the Nazis weren't fielding wierd robot things in WW2.

Pretty sure they weren't fielding Gears either . Also, according to DP9, they were xD. They have a whole game around the premise (Gear Krieg).

Hahaha. That's too goofy.

Albertorius wrote:
All that said, I personally would be all about trooper Gears only being able to carry around one PZF (read "one" here as "enough to do only one significant attack during an engagement". I'd personally do the same with grenades. That, or I'd change them to be melee weapons, probably). Multiples could be cool for dedicated AT variants and the like.

I'm totally good with this.

**DP9Dave**

If the WW2 had gone on for 1-2 more years the Nazis might have tried landships and ICBMs so who could really have predicted the crazy that might have been.

Gears have no problem carrying around a supply of *PZs.

Why is this an issue?

Cheers!
Dave

**frozenwastes**

It's the same issue as if you called a weapon a bolt action rifle and then had it be automatic. It makes no sense. If you're going to do a call back to history, it should make sense.

I like the solution of a model being assumed to be equipped with enough to last them the engagement.

**Ahtman**

frozenwastes wrote:
It's the same issue as if you called a weapon a bolt action rifle and then had it be automatic. It makes no sense.

That analogy isn't even close to being accurate to the situation involved. What makes no sense is being upset that a portable anti-armor weapon is named after a portable anti-armor weapon. As someone else pointed out earlier as well they eventually became capable of more than one shot, so complaining that they should always be one shot doesn't make sense either.

**JohnHwangDD**

The issue is that names of things in real world actually mean something. If you don't understand that, then don't use it.

Would you call something in Heavy Gear "Katyusha", but have it refer to a mortar, simply because it's capable of indirect fire?

Actually, I'm sorry I mentioned it. DP9 apparently knows so little about WW2, they probably would.

**Albertorius**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Actually, I'm sorry I mentioned it. DP9 apparently knows so little about WW2, they probably would.

Because they did an alternate reality WWII game? I'd say that's more than a bit uncharitable...

As to the actual "fluff" of the weapon in-setting, here it is:

PANZERFAUSTS
Panzerfausts (Eurogermanic for "armored fist") are used for hard-hitting firepower and one-shot-one-kill capacity in combat situations. They are composed of a heavy anti-armor warhead mounted on a quick-burning propellant charge. The projectile is held within a simple launch tube equipped with an electric trigger. The Gear only has to point the panzerfaust toward the target and thumb the ignition; recoil is counteracted by a stream of gases ejecting out of the launch tube.

Panzerfausts require the presence of a functional Manipulator Arm in order to be used. They are HEAT weapons and are affected by both anti-missile fire and HEAT-resistant armor.

LIGHT PANZERFAUST
Light Panzerfausts were originally manufactured by the early settlers during the chaotic years of the Age of Isolation. By modifying standard shaped-charge digging explosives and mounting them on simple rockets, the settlers produced a cheap but effective weapon that could breach almost any kind of armor. In those troubled times, it was not uncommon to see modified Work Gears carrying several of these weapons on top of their makeshift armor.

MEDIUM PANZERFAUST
As the city-states emerged on Terra Nova and started assembling armies, it was found that the classic makeshift weapon called Panzerfaust was an excellent and inexpensive way to deal with enemy armored forces. Although their simplicity made them poor conventional vehicular weapons, panzerfausts proved very popular with the new soldiers known as Gear pilots, who finally found a weapon that took full advantage of the humanoid nature of their combat vehicle. Panzerfausts allow even a simple Gear to hold its own against much larger opponents, though its operating range is too short for comfort.

The PKSF-65 is a standard Medium Panzerfaust manufactured by Republic Weapon Technology Its technical simplicity allows Republic to manufacture it with unskilled labor and simple robot machine tools. Many MILICIA units have been issued this inexpensive weapon.

HEAVY PANZERFAUST
Although the Panzerfaust proved useful when dealing with lightly armored units, the extremely heavy composite armor of the large Main Battle Tank simply soaked up the light warhead used by most panzerfaust designs. To resolve the problem and still keep the low cost advantage of the panzerfaust weapon system, engineers modified a field mortar shell to serve as warhead on a heavier and deadlier version of the panzerfaust. The resulting weapon can now take on even large tanks, although its short range and inaccuracy make it dangerous to use.

The UBP-100 is a typical Heavy Panzerfaust derived from the well-known UBM-100-6 mortar shell used by several Northern forces. Although the warhead lost much of its area effect, the projectile is still feared by tankers for its ability to penetrate even the heaviest armor.

In-setting they are one-shot weapons just like most of the ones seen during WWII, but Gears are able to carry multiples (one thing that got lost in translation is that when a Gear did that (as in, carrying multiples), it also got the "Hazardous Ammo/Fuel Storage" defect unless it was designed with a built-in ammo compartment for them, of course, which made it a somewhat involved decision).

**Ahtman**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The issue is that names of things in real world actually mean something.

And if we were talking about the real world item that would make sense, but we aren't, just an item inspired by it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you don't understand that, then don't use it.

If you don't understand how language works, fiction works, references work, allusions work, and any other myriad of things at play maybe you should stop contributing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Would you call something in Heavy Gear "Katyusha", but have it refer to a mortar, simply because it's capable of indirect fire?

It would be closer to the situation if one were silly enough to complain that an fictional unit had an indirect fire system using that used rockets but didn't have a railing, because the historical one did, and thus shouldn't be allowed to reference the older system.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
DP9 apparently knows so little about WW2, they probably would.

Again with the asinine assumptions.

**Alpharius**

Ahtman wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
The issue is that names of things in real world actually mean something.

And if we were talking about the real world item that would make sense, but we aren't, just an item inspired by it.

I think that pretty much sums it up?

Also, DP9 has kinda sorta already given their reasoning behind it too.

Probably best to move on from this minor 'issue'.

**JohnHwangDD**

OK, Alphy, I'll stop.