Heavy Gear design system, was Re: Points, was Re: grav

> At 07:09 AM 11/29/01 +0100, Oerjan wrote:

Not knowing enough about some of the things John A. was complaining about, I
can't really comment on possible inaccuracies in the HG design system,

but it seemed to do pretty well IMO. Yes, there were cheesy things you
could do with perks & flaws -- one of the most common was to take the
"poor towing capability" flaw, since who towed anything in combat, but the
premise behind that was your vehicle had low torque... which didn't make

sense if it was actually fairly maneuverable, etc. So the system relies on
the designer for self-policing to a large extent that way.

As for specific, Dream Pod 9-designed issues, to some extent I think
they're a bit like Jon in designing his Human fleets -- there are some
quirks, some things that are not done optimally, because the "people" in

the game don't have the points system in front of them for
number-crunching.  As for tank design, and tanks vs. Gears, I can say
with
authority that, barring getting lucky (or un-), tanks would cream Gears
in an open engagement (i.e., not a lot to hide behind) while it was a bit more
of an even fight it the gears could get some cover on approach. A very
simplified tactical comment, but the system does *not* favor Gears over tanks,
though it probaly does favor Gears somewhat over what infantry should be
capable of doing to them. (Though a squad of guys with
anti-Gear
rifles can do plenty of damage, too -- I've done that, as well.)