picking up the pieces from Heavy Gear

Miniatures, Boardgames, video games, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
To Peace
One-Armed Skeleton
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:59 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Contact:

picking up the pieces from Heavy Gear

Post by To Peace »

So I figure this forum is a good place as any to start my brain dump on how to improve the Heavy Gear Blitz game. Begin random thoughts...

While I applaud dream pod 9's efforts to put some consistency in the point cost of the vehicle construction system, I think they really missed the mark by making be "easy to modify" perk an additional structure hit.
The spirit of the rule was never one of the tactical nature, rather something that worked in role-playing and campaigning. As such, victory points calculated at the end of a match. Since blitz is more of a one-shot style game, something I would consider a beer and pretzels game, the campaigning aspect must be compressed into a single session. Toward that end, when calculating victory points for pieces that include mostly vehicles with the "easy to modify" perk, any victory points lost by you or gained by the enemy for the reduction or destruction of the unit should be halved. The idea behind this is that those vehicles would be easier to repair and field for and further battle.

Another world that needs to be worked on is the automatic fire. Count zero and I spent a good deal of time developing a workable and more realistic saturation fire rule. It stands up much better than the current simplified and easy to bypass rule in place. Specifically involves a large three-inch template and a cone of fire to that template from the shooter.

Something else that could be developed more involves detection and the making of sensor rolls. If a unit is detected, only hardcover should be applied to its defensive roll. A row of trees is not going to stop a 25 mm shell. For the sensor rolls, a better application of movement should be applied, though I need to think about this and apply some play testing before I put something on paper.

Finally after a talk that I had with Wunju Lau, designer of Lightning Strike, I realized that I completely missed the boat by not having a close combat rule in Heavy Gear Blitz. Nowhere in the rules do you really see the advantage of a humanoid fighting machine versus a box style tank. One of the neat visual elements I have of Heavy Gear is that of a deer jumping onto a tank and prying off a hatch, or slashing with its vibroblade, or just dumping a hand grenade into a linkage. That has to be addressed.

That's all my ramblings for now. Off to scribble down some rules.
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum
"To Keep The Peace, Prepare For War"

http://www.rpghost.com/topeace
User avatar
Count Zero
Wild-Eyed Mad Scientist
Posts: 4602
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 11:00 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

Post by Count Zero »

For easy to modify I was simply thinking that halving the cost of the various weapon upgrades would be effective. From what the writers say, the Sturdy box basically adds 10 TV to the cost of the unit. Most weapon upgrades for a gear are going cost between 10 and 20 TV. Basically, that covers the cost of the Perk by making the upgrade cost cheaper.
Whenever I get confused about D&D alignment morality, I just imagine Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Ghandi arm wrestling shirtless on the back of a killer whale.

In other words, I remember that it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense and deal with it best I can.
User avatar
To Peace
One-Armed Skeleton
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:59 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Contact:

draft of submission

Post by To Peace »

I’d like to present some options in line with the thread’s topic. Before I make my suggestions I'd like to review the Blitz game design principles expressed in meetings with the project lead, Phil, and my thoughts on the same. When designing Blitz rules, the goals, in order of priority, as presented to were:

1. Speed up the game. The overall goal here was to cut down the amount of time it took to play a Blitz game in order to allow two things to happen. First people would be able sit down to play many more individual games of Heavy Gear. Second and I believe more importantly, within the same amount of time previously used to play a Heavy Gear Tactical game, players would be able to run much bigger battles with many more miniatures and thus produce better sales for Dream Pod 9. This is very reasonable and keeps one of our favorite hobby companies in business. - My thoughts “No problem here.”
2. Make the points count. As referenced above, Dream Pod 9 expected many more individual games to be played. These would not be campaign related games, rather what I like to call a “beer and pretzel” game played in one session. As a byproduct, when dealing with vehicle construction, all of the perks of flaws that are paid within the threat value of a vehicle for should be somehow implemented within the game. - Again my thoughts, “Okay… I understand this.”
3. Maintain history. This is a DISTANT third goal, more of a “nice to have”, and will be applied so long as the first two goals are met. - That brought out an audible “WHAT?” from me. As a “grognard” who loves and thinks the world of the standards set by previous the 1st and 2nd Ed Heavy Gear products in terms of production volume (a book a month), layout (easy to read and follow), content (commonly 96 pages or more of well written and well edited prose), and artwork (beautiful on the covers and everything in between), I didn't want to see any of it lost. While there were a lot of little things I used in rationale in a protracted “discussion” with Phil, as I look back this was mostly the root of my grief. But, as Phil correctly put it, it was his paycheck on the line and not mine.

Now that you know the context in which the rule should be developed, let's look at the target. The Easy to Modify perk is both the least common and most common perk in Gear design. It is the least common because according to the text from the old HG Technical Manuals engineers don't usually add this perk for the cost and difficulty in design. I saw an earlier post in this thread equating the easy to modify with the Super Cobra flown by the US Marines as compared to the Apache flown by the U.S. Army. I think this is a great illustration and will use it later. My personal one, is to equate the perk with the old VW Beetle which were produced in the 60s and still driving around now. Though these ideas only really applies to guideline 3 and don’t hold a lot of weight.
Let's step away from the abstract and look at the absolute. From a mathematical standpoint “Easy to Modify” increases the cost of the basic Hunter chassis by 80 points using the old Vehicle Construction System (VCS) and by 10 points using Blitz Threat Values (TV). That is quite a jump for perk it was entirely meant for tactical campaigns and role-playing adventures. One can quickly see it doesn't mesh with the Blitz design guideline 2.
Here's the rub, and probably a reason so many care about this rule, this perk affects almost everything. In the HG game, “Easy to Modify” is one of the most common perks because it exists on the most common platform on Terra Nova, the Hunter and its ilk. This prevalence of the perk gives any ruling a huge impact in the game. Probably the only rules that would be used more are the basic initiative, movement, detection, shooting, and damage.

So what are our options? And how do they fit within the guidelines?

- Treat as a Sturdy Perk. Let's look at the actual ruling first so we can better examine mine in other suggestions.
1. Since this is the rule, it sets the speed standard to which suggestions must be compared. But, by having the most common gears last longer in a fight you certainly aren’t making the game any shorter.
2. While this certainly makes the points spent toward TV count I don't see it as being the most efficient. Let me use numbers to define this. And being a grognard, I'll use the VCS. Easy to modify normally is a 10 point perk while most of the others that provide a sturdy box cost half that at four or five points. You really aren't getting the most out of the points you spent for your vehicle, though you are getting some.
3. Going back to the Cobra versus the Apache analogy I agree that being easy to modify allows more Cobras to get in the air than the Apaches. What it does not do is allow that same Cobra to withstand any more 20 mm shells in the Apache does. That is what a sturdy perk is effectively doing. This will be a hard comparison as it is highly subjective, in comparing a single session rule to a long term effect. Most of the suggestions made could be rationalized, so it is greatly a matter of the smallest I believe button.
As a personal aside, I think this was a last-minute addition to the rule set to give easy to modify a value. In all the work including writing and play testing up to the third draft of Heavy Gear Blitz I'd never seen or heard about this ruling. The first time I truly remember seeing it is when running demos at GENCON from the actual book. I can’t begrudge too much because DP9 made the GENCON deadline and many game companies can produce whole books, much less make a deadline.

Suggestions instead of granting a sturdy box.
- allow 10 TV of extra equipment be mounted. From a points stand point, this assumes that most vehicles using this perk will be Hunters, etc and
1.
2.
3.
- reduce the cost as if the perk were not present
1.
2.
3.
- make a lemon roll for each vehicle entering the field. For most vehicles this is 3 dice. If the vehicle is Easy to Modify, subtract 2 from the roll. If the vehicle is hard to modify, add 2. If the result is 6 or greater, that vehicle immediately fills one damage box.
1.
2.
3.
- fix in the field. An action may be spent to repair a box of damage.
1.
2.
3.
- provide bonus threat value in the beginning of the game
1.
2.
3.
- when calculating victory points at the end of the game, vehicles with easy to modify count as half threat value when determining units lost or enemies destroyed.
1.
2.
3.
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum
"To Keep The Peace, Prepare For War"

http://www.rpghost.com/topeace
User avatar
Count Zero
Wild-Eyed Mad Scientist
Posts: 4602
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 11:00 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

Post by Count Zero »

All of them are good options, I think the 10 TV of equipment is the most simple to implement though.
Whenever I get confused about D&D alignment morality, I just imagine Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Ghandi arm wrestling shirtless on the back of a killer whale.

In other words, I remember that it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense and deal with it best I can.
Post Reply