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

At 07:09 AM 11/29/01 +0100, Oerjan wrote:
>'Course, without the rules it still won't tell me very much about why
it 
>is inaccurate, but half an answer is better than none <g>

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.)