Hi Peeps

I was trying to navigate my way through the maze that is Battletech, and while it's history and fluff is so encompassing, when-ever I get to the miniatures I just think....meh.

However, it got me thinking about the possibilities for a 28mm Mech game. Large scale detailed miniatures, with detailed crews that could be played on standard 28mm terrain or battle tables.

The theme I'm thinking about is based around 1 player = 1 mech. Depending on the points value of the game will determine not only the type of Mech you can pilot, but also the type of load out you can bring to play. The game would be Wysiwyg, so you'd probably invest in a magnetised type affair to keep miniature costs relatively low.

The actual game play would be strategic, with each Mech being able to take so much damage before the pilot either ejects or is destroyed with his Mech. 28mm scenery would play a big role, allowing cover saves and obstructed line of sight under certain conditions. Movement would be similar to what we all know and love, but I would opt for a more Infinity type response to enemy movement, rather than ugoigo type mechanics.

In terms of miniatures, I could imagine model kits ranging from simple 1 man crewed armoured suits, say around Sentinal size, right up to Warhound sizes for much larger games.....again, depending on the points value of the game. You wouldn't expect a simple armoured suit to go head to head with a giant Mech. Each Mech would have a specific load out, and certain strengths and weaknesses.....but in addition, players could "buy" (points wise) specific skills that they feel would give their pilots more of an edge in combat....maybe something like combat stimms, or enhance metabolism....for example.

Just thinking about it while I type....depending on what people think of the idea, like Beasts of War, have their Gunslingers game in development, this Mech -Warrior type game could be DakkDakkas sponsored game

So, what do you guys think?

1. Could this be an interesting game that people could get excited about, and would want to invest in, in terms of miniatures, rules, fluff, etc?

2. Is there already something very similar out there? Remember the key points though, 1 player = 1 Mech, and 28mm Scale Mech battles!

3. What ideas do you have that could enhance what I already have hovering in my head? Ideas for Mechs (what style)? Ideas for races / pilots? Fluff settings?

Over you guys....

Sounds good. Im not too sure about the 1 player = 1 mech thing. Thats fine for places where there are lots of players, but in places where there arent many most games will be 1 v 1, and that will get boring quick. Id make it geared more towards 2-3 Sentinel to Dreadknight sized mechs per player. Perhaps in larger games a couple players could field a single Warhound size mech instead of the 2-3 smaller ones.

Most important of all would be creation rules...so people could use whatever model they wanted. This would allow people to get into the game faster as they could use stuff they have on hand. Especially if you dont have the capitol to launch a large miniature and model line at once.

1 player=1 'Detachment' sounds better.

Something like:
1x Battlemech
2-5x 'Scout' Mechs
10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry

sounds far more doable.

This might be a good way to put all those cool but now defunct AT-43 mecha back into service. They are insanely cheap on places like ebay at present...

The main reason I liked the idea of 1 player = 1 Mech, was because I liked the idea of really personalising the character/pilot, and really making the player consider his/her loadout and abilities rather than making them think about writing an army list.

I'm interested in why you guys feel that 1 v 1 would get boring? bearing in mind the average size of a gaming table, a game could easily include up to, what, 3 players per side, each with their own Mech, Pilot and abilities.....I think such a game could be exciting and varied...especially if each player has to (repeating myself ) focus on making their Mech a real playable commodity in the game.

Don't you guys think that if we went for the multiple Mech route, it would be too similar in feel to say Warmachine?

just some thoughts.....

By the way guys, I appreciate your input and your ideas! Please keep them coming

All my opinion:

1 Player = 1 mech would be a good game for multiple players, but it would probably not be best represented by a tabletop game. For tabletop games, the interplay of lots of minis, terrain and the distances between them are key to strategy. With a few models, it gets easier to abstract these aspects of the game, and hence there is a better way to represent the fighting.

Thinking more, a card game like MTG, or a game in which each player has a concealed board and a revealed board, might work. You could use minis to represent "revealed" aspects of the game, of course, but it would probably be just as easy to make this work in an abstract way.

Damn it, I've got ideas running in my head now...

I really like the idea of 1 player = 1 mech. There are a lot of mech games where you play a team this could be something a bit different.

It wouldn't really restrict people with only 2 players as there is no reason you couldn't play as 2 mechs each if done correctly, just play as 2 people.

Something I think would make it interesting would be to make the game very detailed and from the perspective of the pilot rather than a team manager / commander. You could use a resourse management system where you have a certain number of energy points to allocate on different parts of the mech (weapons, movement, shields, ect..).

Delephont wrote:The main reason I liked the idea of 1 player = 1 Mech, was because I liked the idea of really personalising the character/pilot, and really making the player consider his/her loadout and abilities rather than making them think about writing an army list.

While I find the idea intriguing, there is a severe downside to the 1 player = 1 mech idea. I used to play alot of Star Trek space combat simulator minis games and back in high school we used the 1 capitol ship = 1 player idea to speed up weeknight games (weekends had fleets per player since we had 8+ hours to finish). The big problem is that 99% of minis games have a very important luck factor to them (in addition to talent/skill) and a single lucky shot to a ship (or mech in your case) at the outset could shut down a player for the entire game. We had it happen a couple times when a long range photon torpedo hit a ship at max range when they didn't have much energy in the shields at the beginning (most of the first turn or two was spent pumping power into engines for maneuvering) and the player was crippled in the first 10 minutes of a 4 hour game. If you've got multiple ships/mechs/whatever, losing one to an early lucky shot doesn't ruin the fun. Also, remember that not all minis players are good sportsman. We also had games like that where one side would spread out their shots to the ships that were closest while the other just tried to knock out a single player regardless of the odds. Having one mech makes those types of situations more devastating.

I like it, and really like the idea of titan sized mechs where you could have a pilot for the body / controls, + 1 per weapons system. You could limit the weapons available by 'plug' points per pilot. Ie, a rocket launcher needs 1 pilot or plug point, whereas a huge gatling cannon could need 2 or 3. Add extra armour for additional protection - give the player the choice of what part of the mech they're shooting at. Close combat attacks possible even if no weapons by allowing each mech to charge and try knocking the other down... I like it.

BUT. Practically, what size of board would you need to play this? What size would the miniatures be? Sentinel for a base mini up to... what? I'm only thinking about weapon range and scale, the key selling point would be to cost effectively field huge titan style machines, but if thats the case, then you'll always be in range to shoot anything you like.

Honestly though, I'd get behind this. I like the idea of being able to destroy the terrain too. Shoot all weapons off the enemy, blast a huge crater / trench in front of them that cant get past and just blast the living crap out of them from a far. Complete pwning. Get in!

Delephont wrote:The main reason I liked the idea of 1 player = 1 Mech, was because I liked the idea of really personalising the character/pilot, and really making the player consider his/her loadout and abilities rather than making them think about writing an army list.

I'm interested in why you guys feel that 1 v 1 would get boring? bearing in mind the average size of a gaming table, a game could easily include up to, what, 3 players per side, each with their own Mech, Pilot and abilities.....I think such a game could be exciting and varied...especially if each player has to (repeating myself ) focus on making their Mech a real playable commodity in the game.

Don't you guys think that if we went for the multiple Mech route, it would be too similar in feel to say Warmachine?

just some thoughts.....

By the way guys, I appreciate your input and your ideas! Please keep them coming

My concern is for areas with few available players. Theres likely not many places/ groups that can pull a 3 v 3 game...thats 6 people. Not many can pull 6 people together easily. The requirement for at least 6 people will turn off most people. You really need to base it on 2 players, with the possibility of adding other if wanted.

IMO a feel somewhat like the first edition Warmachine wouldnt be a bad thing. I really liked the game until they flooded it with infantry. Well, I never liked the requirement of a caster, I wanted just machines.

A 1 on 1 match would basically just be a boxing match, each player slugging away at the other with no strategy.

You have seen how detailed battletech is and thats meant for an ideal 4 (5 for clans) mechs per player. I really wouldnt get any more detailed than Battletech either, as the complexity already tends to turn off many potential players. I still think an ideal of 2-3 smaller or 1 larger mech per player would be best. That way even a 2 player game would have only 4 mechs on the table, keeping the size small, but avoiding the boxing match feel a 1 on 1 fight would have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

4M2A wrote:
Something I think would make it interesting would be to make the game very detailed and from the perspective of the pilot rather than a team manager / commander. You could use a resourse management system where you have a certain number of energy points to allocate on different parts of the mech (weapons, movement, shields, ect..).

Then its just a RPG, and there are already many mech RPGs on the market.

4M2A wrote:
Something I think would make it interesting would be to make the game very detailed and from the perspective of the pilot rather than a team manager / commander. You could use a resourse management system where you have a certain number of energy points to allocate on different parts of the mech (weapons, movement, shields, ect..).

I absolutely love this idea!! That's exactly the kind of game feel I think could work well. Per game a Mech could have limited ammo, and like you said limited enegry, with each decision made by the pilot costing him/her those valuable points....this would certainly make the 1 player = 1 Mech much more involving.

For those who really would like to have more than just two models on the battle field, we could introduce rules for "drones"....different types with different abilities for various scenarios....and they to could have resource restrictions....what do you think?

warboss wrote:While I find the idea intriguing, there is a severe downside to the 1 player = 1 mech idea. I used to play alot of Star Trek space combat simulator minis games and back in high school we used the 1 capitol ship = 1 player idea to speed up weeknight games (weekends had fleets per player since we had 8+ hours to finish). The big problem is that 99% of minis games have a very important luck factor to them (in addition to talent/skill) and a single lucky shot to a ship (or mech in your case) at the outset could shut down a player for the entire game. We had it happen a couple times when a long range photon torpedo hit a ship at max range when they didn't have much energy in the shields at the beginning (most of the first turn or two was spent pumping power into engines for maneuvering) and the player was crippled in the first 10 minutes of a 4 hour game. If you've got multiple ships/mechs/whatever, losing one to an early lucky shot doesn't ruin the fun. Also, remember that not all minis players are good sportsman. We also had games like that where one side would spread out their shots to the ships that were closest while the other just tried to knock out a single player regardless of the odds. Having one mech makes those types of situations more devastating.

I think this is a very good point. It's somthing we would have to build into the game engine, that such an overpowered weapon or lucky hit scenario couldn't appear. We could build in regeneration aspects, again, at a cost to resource....so if a player did take a critical hit, he could chose to fight on and cross his fingers, or he could opt to spend resource on regenerating, but would be at a disadvantge further on in the game.

On the point of game cards....what about if after each game turn, players could pick from a random card deck....let's call it a resource deck, which would give them a random number or type of resource....again, even though the player who took a critical hit in the beginning of the game has to chose whether to spend resource points or not, after a turn he would have the opportunity to gather more, same as his opponent.....what do you think?

Are the mech models 28mm tall, or are the pilots 28mm figures in a model about 12 inches tall?

Id rather command a lance/star of mechs then a single one.

Kanluwen wrote:1 player=1 'Detachment' sounds better.

Something like:
1x Battlemech
2-5x 'Scout' Mechs
10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry

sounds far more doable.

That would just be scifi warmachine...and I think thats already in the works. OP seems to be going for something smaller, and more detailed. I would definitely lose the "10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry" part, as i think OP has no intention of infantry in the game...a huge part of its appeal IMO. If a person wants an infantry game, theres already a ton of them to choose from.

kitch102 wrote:I like it, and really like the idea of titan sized mechs where you could have a pilot for the body / controls, + 1 per weapons system. You could limit the weapons available by 'plug' points per pilot. Ie, a rocket launcher needs 1 pilot or plug point, whereas a huge gatling cannon could need 2 or 3. Add extra armour for additional protection - give the player the choice of what part of the mech they're shooting at. Close combat attacks possible even if no weapons by allowing each mech to charge and try knocking the other down... I like it.

BUT. Practically, what size of board would you need to play this? What size would the miniatures be? Sentinel for a base mini up to... what? I'm only thinking about weapon range and scale, the key selling point would be to cost effectively field huge titan style machines, but if thats the case, then you'll always be in range to shoot anything you like.

Honestly though, I'd get behind this. I like the idea of being able to destroy the terrain too. Shoot all weapons off the enemy, blast a huge crater / trench in front of them that cant get past and just blast the living crap out of them from a far. Complete pwning. Get in!

The idea would be to be able to play this game on a standard game table, so what? 6x4 or 4x4? the type of terrain and table size would anyway dictate the type of points game you'd play, and therefore the type of Mech you could field.

I love the idea of being able to target terrain, very realistic....especially very tactical...if you targetterrain it one less thing for your enemy to hide behind, but it's also one less thing for you to hide behind....nice!

I'm not sure how big the models should go, I was thinking up to Warhound size?....but as far as range, I'd suggest unlimited range...totally realistic....and why terrain would play such a huge role in the game....think urban combat with Mechs

Delephont wrote:

4M2A wrote:
Something I think would make it interesting would be to make the game very detailed and from the perspective of the pilot rather than a team manager / commander. You could use a resourse management system where you have a certain number of energy points to allocate on different parts of the mech (weapons, movement, shields, ect..).

I absolutely love this idea!! That's exactly the kind of game feel I think could work well.

That would make it Starfleet battles with mechs. Starfleet battles never got a big following outside of Trek fans because its crazy detailed, super slow to play, and overall incredibly boring. I once watched a couple people playing it, and after 30 minutes of them they moved the ships once and did a bunch of paperwork. I walked away not wanting anything to do with the game.

IMO part if the draw of miniatures gaming is seeing the minis move and the battlefield active. Even Battletech pushes the limits of that.

Theres nothing wrong with a resource management system, but something that requires 10 minutes of record keeping and fooling around between rounds is not attractive at all.

@KilKrazy

scale wise I'd look to have 28mm scale pilots, and the mechs modelled to suit....a challenge, but Mechs don't necessarily need to be Gundam giants, I'm thinking about the cockpit of a Valkyrie and imagining the size a Mech would have to be to suit that....

@Mad4minis

I take on board your point. Do you think that having Drones would suit your needs? I understand the point about it being a simply RPG otherwise, and maybe the game needs to ride the thin line between RPG and Tabletop wargame....I just like the idea of a player feeling they are in the cockpit making realtime choices, as opposed to being abstracted away from the action by thinking in three of four differnt places at once....the "god view" as it were


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad4Minis wrote:

That would make it Starfleet battles with mechs. Starfleet battles never got a big following outside of Trek fans because its crazy detailed, super slow to play, and overall incredibly boring. I once watched a couple people playing it, and after 30 minutes of them they moved the ships once and did a bunch of paperwork. I walked away not wanting anything to do with the game.

IMO part if the draw of miniatures gaming is seeing the minis move and the battlefield active. Even Battletech pushes the limits of that.

Theres nothing wrong with a resource management system, but something that requires 10 minutes of record keeping and fooling around between rounds is not attractive at all.

Ah, ok, I see what you mean....yes, this would be bad, and boring

I think any resource management system would need to be simple, easy to follow and fluid. Same as damage assessment. I can imagine a round playing like this:

Player 1 moves, and enters player 2s weapon arc.

Player 2 declares an attack, selects a target, in this case player 1s leg section, and resolves the phase.

Player 1 responds, and spends resource points to either repair the damage or return fire.

Somehting like that could play out well I think.....with loads of refinement

Delephont wrote:

@Mad4minis

I understand the point about it being a simply RPG otherwise, and maybe the game needs to ride the thin line between RPG and Tabletop wargame....I just like the idea of a player feeling they are in the cockpit making realtime choices, as opposed to being abstracted away from the action by thinking in three of four differnt places at once....the "god view" as it were

Im not too sure about the "in the cockpit" thing...people who really want that are likely to be more attracted to video games like Armored Core than tabletop miniatures games.

I would make it so a single player could manage 2, maybe 3 mechs. I think that would be a good number. That way 2 player games wouldnt be boring slugging matches, and would give the option for multiple players to take a single mech each.

if you want a bit more of a realtime feel, make it so each player only has a certain amount of time. Either for the resource allocation phase or the whole turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Delephont wrote:
Ah, ok, I see what you mean....yes, this would be bad, and boring

Player 2 declares an attack, selects a target, in this case player 1s leg section, and resolves the phase.

Im all for hit locations, but I would be careful with targeted shots. Hitting a specific part of a moving object is terribly hard, and that should be reflected.

Game cards could be a brilliant win. Random cards dealt out at the start of the game - you could have different ammo types, bonus shields, regeneration, OOOO!!! Hacking ability!!! Something that lets you bluetooth in to your enemies mech and disable something, or take control of a weapon to shoot another mech thats not in your range, or control movement and run it in to terrain!!! That would be incredible!!

What part of england are you in? We need to meet up, quaff ale, and master mind this sucker in to existence!

I'm with you on this being a 1 model per player game. I like the idea of carrying around a gw style carry case, pulling out 1 'miniature' and thats it - game on.

Drones are definitely the way forward for those that want more tactical options - pincer moves, smaller models but more on the table (smaller models maybe harder to track / hit with precision weapons due to speed?).

I can see some potential in the 1v1 idea, but you'd have to accept certain inevitable outcomes. I play MtG with my kids and sometimes a game is a real to-the-knuckle slug fest, but most of the time, one player pulls off a combo that sends the opponent reeling and the gamer is basically over. The first few turns are the tactical manoeuvre phase, and after that, the game's just playing out the inevitable.

For MtG, that's OK. A game takes 10-15 minutes and no one puts all that much effort into building a deck. But there is an expectation that a miniatures game should be more tactically fluctuating.

R.

Mad4Minis wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:1 player=1 'Detachment' sounds better.

Something like:
1x Battlemech
2-5x 'Scout' Mechs
10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry

sounds far more doable.

That would just be scifi warmachine...and I think thats already in the works. OP seems to be going for something smaller, and more detailed. I would definitely lose the "10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry" part, as i think OP has no intention of infantry in the game...a huge part of its appeal IMO. If a person wants an infantry game, theres already a ton of them to choose from.

The whole point is the ability to take them.

Not making them 'mandatory'. Detachments could be anything from a single large mech to a single unit of Scout mechs stumbling across a battlemech, etc.

Also, "scifi warmachine" isn't a bad concept. Integrated force detachments need to be done more imo.

The way around the quantity of models debate is to make this a standard RPG then. I never played it but imagine dungeons and dragons. Your character is the pilot - you have 1 pilot and thats it. This pilot can control 1 large mech, or a number of smaller units from a single sentinel style control mech.

You could also bring in traits or abilities for your pilot as they gain experience or win / lose games.

here's how i see this playing out:

All players start with no traits or special abilities, and play out a randomly generated number of individual games, though a minmimum of 3 to ensure a clear victor.

The winner of game 1 gets x number of traits, all others get y number. If destroyed you dont get any traits, or a much lower number. Think of it as victory points. These allow you to upgrade your mech or similar for further games.

Help me out with this, I have the idea in my head and can really see it working but I'm struggling to put it across

I like the idea. I'd lean it more towards a league based game. so including finances and character/ mech development. that makes it a bit more exciting for the 1 player= 1 mech idea

kitch102 wrote:
What part of england are you in? We need to meet up, quaff ale, and master mind this sucker in to existence!

the more help the merrier if you ask me!

Regarding the slug-fest.....that really depends on the mission. I think, in reality, no one would expend resources and materiel just to engage an enemy with the sole aim of wiping them out.....I mean, there is the real risk that instead they wipe you out So games need to be strictly mission based....

I think an all out RPG would put alot of wargamers off, but an RPG element, in terms of immersion is a must, so that would need to be worked out.

I think drones are definately the way to go, in terms of model count......maybe with an AI type function.

Hacking is just absolutely a brilliant idea, that is a must for this game, not to mention scramble fields.

I'll get to work on some basic rules during the week, and I'll post them here so you guys can critique them and improve on them.

All we need now is a working name for the game....what do you guys think? I'm thinking "Event Horizon: The brink of war"

I am seeing several people mention more than one mech per player. I disagree. The whole point, he said, was to build a mech, not an army list. Rather than 2 or 3 mechs, or mechs with support infantry/vehicles, one mech would make for a breath of fresh air in wargaming.

Think about it... EVERY popular game out now has players with multiple models in their army. Whether it's large armies, a few squads, or a gang, you are still building an army list and playing a meta-game where you link combos between models, tailor armies to fight others, move every squad across the table in a manner that suggests that every single model can see what every other model can see. That is the meta-game. It's also a sort of Achilles heel for most wargames that you can't break out of unless you do blind deployment (like Battleground WWI).

If you have ONE mech with a 3 man crew, it makes perfect sense that all 3 see the same thing. No meta-game. None. That would be BRILLIANT! What else would be fantastic would be building your mech, inside and out. You start with a hull. Is it a light, fast mech with excellent maneuverability? A heavy, slow mech with great firepower? An all-purpose, medium mech? Now build the crew: 2 -man for light mechs, 3 for medium, 4 for heavies. Purchase some crew skills. Want a gunner with good aim? Driver with great reflexes? What about saving points by picking less powerful weapons to purchase a commander with better leadership? How many hardpoints do the mechs have? 2 weapons for a light mech vs. 4 for a heavy?

I would buy into a game like this in no time flat. Building the equivalent of an army in just one model is exactly the type of game that this hobby could use. As I said before, a breathe of fresh air.




Ghidorah

Event Horizon I like, but would that cross in to the film of the same name too much?

I like Brink of War too, but wdyt to something that more points to all out warfare? Brink suggests that somethings about to happen, and if you're blowing 7 bells out of something then you'd kind of cross over in to total destruction. Ooo, there yar.... (something like) Mech Knights: Total Destruction.

I like the *2 words* : *2 words* thing.

I admit Mech Knights is a bit cheesy, but just as a thought.

If you want one mech games, you're best off with a RPG.

I can't really think of there being a large market out in the general public that is there for simply "You have a mech, your opponent has a mech. Now go to it!" styled 'Gladiator' games.

I can say that anything which would involve a high level of strategy, where 'points' are essentially campaign driven styled contributions and various elements come into play(power armored infantry with targeting relays allowing for your heavy mech to open up on the enemy's heavy, scout mechs providing ECM spoofing, etc) would get me in a heartbeat though.

The game "chromehounds" might give you some inspiration.

Just convert money into points... so everything has a points value instead of a monatary cost.

Chassis determines speed + weight allowance,
Generator determines the amount of power you can draw upon to work all your weapons and do-hickeys.
Options for scramblers, mines, sniper cannons, rockets, machine guns, etc gave alot of variety so alot of mechs were very individual.
Not saying copy+paste the game, but theres alot in it that could be useful.

I'd definetly have a look at it if you can get hold of it, last time i checked it was £5 second hand for xbox 360 and that was a long time ago.

I loved that game, pure brilliance.

Anyone know how much it costs to scratch build a mech?

By the sounds of things, you want a tabletop FPS with a hint of RPG and run around in battlemechs?

I agree with Kanluwen, if I only had one model, I would want the biggest cannon i could get my greasy hands on.

Possibly a points system to allow a player to control a handful of powerful mechs, a large quantity of light mechs or a combination of the two. Points would also allow players to customise their mech, choosing from hulls, drive mechanisms, weapons, wargear, perks like driver skills etc etc.

I am confused... why is this not a discussion of Battletech?

I mean, if the one thing you dont like about battletech is the minis, AND you were planning your own minis, then couldnt you just use your custom minis in battletech?

Battletech has a sliding scale from single infantry RPG actions to entire space navies duking it out. 1v1 mech action has several permutations within this scale--from RPG to traditional to quickstrike, on hexes or terrain, on the hull of a spaceship or in an erupting volcano.

The only problem with 1 mech per player is if theres only 2 players. Then this happens:

1) Both mechs favor ranged attacks, they sit across the board exchanging fire until one gets destroyed. BORING.

2) Both mechs are CC based...they charge into each other and box it out until one is destroyed. BORING.

3) One mech favors ranged, the other CC. The CC mech charges the ranged mech. The ranged mech stands still and pours fire into the CC mech. 2 possible outcomes, the CC mech succumbs to the ranged fire and is destroyed, or it reaches the ranged mech and tears it up in CC. This is the only 1 v 1 scenario that might be a bit of fun.

It could be a brilliant game if you had a whole bunch of people who could play, but for folks who can only muster 2 players, it would quickly lose its appeal.

As a matter of fact, there was a miniatures game called Ronin that was essentially what OP is trying to do. It was a 1 v 1 mech dual game. The mechs were magnetized and had weapons packs with all kinds of weapons you could add to your mech. it was pretty neat, but disappeared from the market quickly.

There should definitely, without question, be the option to buy different body parts individually. Ie - instead of buying a complete mech with parts that you dont want, you have a choice of buying different style limbs, such as legs, tracks or hover board. Arms with guns in hand, or shoulder mounted cannon.

The possibilities are endless, and would certainly tempt more people over than if you had one standard out of the box kit that looked the same until different parts were released.

Maybe not as cost effective from a manufacturing POV but I think it'd be made up for by the extra gamers thatd jump on board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One of the abilities could be to call in air drops of supplies (be it cards, ammo, drones etc) or to drop traps / bombing run. I like the idea of dropping tank traps or something to makean area impassable terrain - adds to the tactical aspect, esp if your in a small mech with a few drones and want to force your opponent down a certain route

It wouldn't be too hard to do both. Have complete kit mechs but also have a catalogue of bits which can be bough independantly.

Edit:

The only problem with 1 mech per player is if theres only 2 players. Then this happens:

1) Both mechs favor ranged attacks, they sit across the board exchanging fire until one gets destroyed. BORING.

2) Both mechs are CC based...they charge into each other and box it out until one is destroyed. BORING.

3) One mech favors ranged, the other CC. The CC mech charges the ranged mech. The ranged mech stands still and pours fire into the CC mech. 2 possible outcomes, the CC mech succumbs to the ranged fire and is destroyed, or it reaches the ranged mech and tears it up in CC. This is the only 1 v 1 scenario that might be a bit of fun.

It could be a brilliant game if you had a whole bunch of people who could play, but for folks who can only muster 2 players, it would quickly lose its appeal.

As a matter of fact, there was a miniatures game called Ronin that was essentially what OP is trying to do. It was a 1 v 1 mech dual game. The mechs were magnetized and had weapons packs with all kinds of weapons you could add to your mech. it was pretty neat, but disappeared from the market quickly.

This doesn't neccesarily have to be the case. Using 40k /warmachine style rules it would be as they aren't designed to be played like this. Mechs are complicated machines- include enough detail about using the mech and it won't be boring. This is why I suggested running from the pilots PoV. Whereas a commander would just say move to point X. A pilot would have to make considerations for many factors before just moving.

Just because nobody has done it yet doesn't make it a good idea. With only one model, there's no maneuver, no meta, and no strategy besides "shoot the other guy." There's no profit in it either as you'll sell exactly one model to each person.

Honestly, you can already play this with BattleTech. Just limit yourself to a single mech, and you're good to go.

Profits would come from the different body / weapon components that you release. Though it could mean constant need to redevelop the rules to keep things fresh and competitive with the new weapons that you release

Who says there's only shooty or cc mechs? Each player has a lit available. You could take a ROCKETFISTRAWR for cc protection and a ROCKETLAUNCHERRAWR for ranged combat.

With a well-thought out, well-written set of rules, this game could be huge. Plus, if you make different factions, you can make faction-specific weapons, upgrades, and crew skills. Maybe xx faction is a little better and engineering, so they get discounted powerplant/shield skills. Maybe yy faction is an arboreal race so they have discounted mobility skills.

If you toss in race-specific skills and specializations on top of race-specific weaponry (with a generic pool of weapons, skill, specs, too), you can sell WAY more models to people. You play xx faction for awhile, but you want to try yy faction now. Then, as mentioned above, you sell weapons and upgrades individually.



Ghidorah

Laughing Man wrote:Just because nobody has done it yet doesn't make it a good idea. With only one model, there's no maneuver, no meta, and no strategy besides "shoot the other guy." There's no profit in it either as you'll sell exactly one model to each person.

Somebody has done it, game was called Ronin. It was a 1 mech per player game. It bombed.

Heres a link to its description on Baordgamegeek.com http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4024/ronin-duels

OP, your best bet it to use the Battletech rules and modify them to 28mm scale. Basically just up the movement a bit and make all weapons infinite range. Then you gather up whatever models you want to use and use the construction rules to make stats for them.

You could also give CAV a try. Its essentially an alternate to Battletech.

Did this back in the late 80s.

1/72 scale battletech (largest models we had access to) with models from Macross, Dougram and Crusher Joe. 2 mechs per player (with pilot models).

We were just playing upscaled battletech miniatures rules though (the ones that used actual terrain, not mapboards).

Sorry, I'm too transfixed by Ghidoras signature to offer any comment of value from here on in

Well, a couple of points.

Firstly, people seem to want to play a game that incorporates more than one miniature/model....I can't fault that wish, my only problem is that any game developed along those lines (IMHO) will eventually devolve into army building....which isn't a bad thing, it's just nothing new.....but maybe that's the answer to the question.

Secondly, those that are suggesting the use of Battletech...well, I don't want to re-invent the wheel. I got bogged down in the maze that is navigation through Battletech, so never got to the point where I could make a judgement about adpating the rules....if it's possible, and the game gives me something close to what I've been imagining, I will spend some more effort on exploring the Battle-tech universe.

I think a lot of the concerns come from the fact that 1 model wargames are quite unusual. It wouldn't be easy to write the rules but it'scertainly possible. There would still be a tactical side to creating the mech combinations and focusing on just one mech would allow you to have a huge amount of detail without getting bogged down. If it's an areana game (it would make most sense for mech duels) you could easily include all kinds of interactive scenery.

So the tactical side for the game is (dun dun duuuun) list building?

I didn't mean that that is the only tactical part but that it would exist. You could give preset mechs but I think it would detract a lot from the game.

A game without any list building is going to be very boring unless there are a lot of premade options.

You don't need to give "preset mechs"...but "preset formations" might not be too bad of an idea.

Something like "Scout Force", "Assault Force", "Fire Support Force", etc with each force having a different 'battle' mech, different 'light' mechs, and some unique factor for the last part.

One possibility, playing on the hack rule, could be instead of having a number of on-board weapons, you have to take control of gun turrets etc on the game board.

You could have close combat only weapons on-board so you still have some combat ability, and 'dial in' to the turrets / buildings to increase range (control a radar centre), or add further carnage.

How about some form of base building capability? You could spin it in to the RTS game world ala Red Alert / Dawn of War on the PC...?

Maybe far off from what you were planning though, but i think it would be unique - the only other game that I know of (and im the first to confess to very limited knowledge in the war games arena) that would make any major use of creating defensive structures as part of the main game play style.

I know GW has some models in 40k for this but I'm seeing it on a much grander scale, so much so that it would really differentiate the 2 games.

On the Ronin game, I've been doing some digging and it looks as though the company folded in the early 2000's - from what I can see none of their games carried on after '03. A lot of what I've been reading says that their games were "snapped up like hot cakes" but then the company floundered. So its not that there was a lack of a customer base, so much as the company just failed to make anything of what they had.

Laughing Man wrote:So the tactical side for the game is (dun dun duuuun) list building?

So far some really great ideas have been put forward:

1. Resource management
2. The use of Cards for resource building, ammo collecting
3. Interactive / destroyable terrain
4. Drones for larger engagements
5. Multiple pilot crews
6. Purchasing pilot specific skills or upgrades

To name but a few. Tactics and strategy would eventually come by mastering the use / management of all of these factors....not just simply looking through a codex and spending x points on y unit.

Simply calling it "list building" relly only serves to define every game out there....because every game calls for the player to select a number of "things" from a catalogue. The game was never intended to be different in that respect.

Kanluwen wrote:You don't need to give "preset mechs"...but "preset formations" might not be too bad of an idea.

Something like "Scout Force", "Assault Force", "Fire Support Force", etc with each force having a different 'battle' mech, different 'light' mechs, and some unique factor for the last part.

By this do you mean the same way as a codex is split in to tactical, fast attack, hq, heavy support etc? Or would you be looking at an army made entirely of scout troops, or fire support etc? Sorry if that seems like a stupid question - just trying to understand what you mean.

I think we need to look at the different mini games out there and discuss likes / dislikes, then try to build this game around that - that's the way to fill a niche and find your target audience / guage popularity etc

To delephont: with the exception of cards every item on the list is already implemented in battletech.

Btechs big flaw is that the core rules do not scale up at all due to all the individual detail in each mech. I have often said btech would be best played like dnd where every player gets one mech that they maintain and upgrade with a GM who throws various enemies and conflict at them. Starting in 3025 with a Clint a Hermes an assassian and a Vulcan would be a great time. The "boss" fight would be something like a dragon.

Isn't there a Mechwarrior RPG that pretty much works exactly like this?

I'm not really a fan of the idea, except maybe in a game with more than 2 players. And even then that would only be fun if we could somehow set up the game so that all weapons can deal meaningful damage, but that there are really no one-hit kills.

I would rather play a game with 28mm scale mechs, and a small squadron available to each player. Perhaps the idea of skills and variable loadouts could be incorporated into such a game, but I just think having effectively one playing piece per side would get dull. At the very least, I think each side should have some kinds of support vehicles available. Maybe the mech is the "star player", but there is still maybe a tank and a C&C truck or a spy-plane and a few squads of infantry just to give some variety.

Infantry to capture terrain pieces to power up the mech and unlock more shooty abilities? That way you avoid one hit kill on turn 1, have more units on the table, have to think tactically about the best way to win the game (power up your mech or ensure that your opponent can't by destroying his infantry)...?

The problem with the DnD / gamesmaster thing would be that you're then reliant on having a minimum of 3 players. It's good though, and could easily be incorporated in to games even if its not a core part of the overall experience

kitch102 wrote:Infantry to capture terrain pieces to power up the mech and unlock more shooty abilities? That way you avoid one hit kill on turn 1, have more units on the table, have to think tactically about the best way to win the game (power up your mech or ensure that your opponent can't by destroying his infantry)...?

OPs original idea was mechs and only mechs. Like I said before, adding infantry just makes it another 40k type game.

Really, OP seems pretty adamant on the mechs, and only 1 per player at that. Id say its time to get back to helping him with that.

Mad4Minis wrote:

kitch102 wrote:Infantry to capture terrain pieces to power up the mech and unlock more shooty abilities? That way you avoid one hit kill on turn 1, have more units on the table, have to think tactically about the best way to win the game (power up your mech or ensure that your opponent can't by destroying his infantry)...?

OPs original idea was mechs and only mechs. Like I said before, adding infantry just makes it another 40k type game.

Really, OP seems pretty adamant on the mechs, and only 1 per player at that. Id say its time to get back to helping him with that.

I'm not talking about adding infantry as shooty units, I'm talking about a foot slogging style of unit (not even that, just something small that can zip about) that would go about the board capturing points of interest that power up the mechs abilities. I wouldn't want another 40k, hence long list of suggestions that I've put forward. If you re-rad the thread you'll see it just addresses points that other posters have put forward.

What are your thoughts? What would you like to see - ignoring other game types that may or may not still be in existence?

Sorry if any of this sounds crabby, not intended that way.

Here are my ideas. I’ve tried to combine various ideas in this thread with my own to create a workable idea that somewhat fulfils the OP’s original specifications.

• Mechs controlled from pilot point of view, heavy emphasis on resource/risk management (e.g. conserving/splurging energy, avoiding/using damaged weaponry).
• Wargear/abilities would be more complex than 40k (containing an array of positive/negative affects) to prevent a leafblower vs leafblower type scenario.
• Inclusion of support units such as power generators, human soldiers etc. These assets would not directly affect the enemy mech but rather provide a strategic benefit to an allied mech or negatively affect enemy support units. Small amount of support units per game.
• Victory conditions would need to vary and be more complex than “destruction of enemy mech”. Perhaps heavy use of a randomised victory conditions.
• Damage should be determined via either a massive damage table (d100?) or a deck of “system damage” cards. Stats/damage should be designed so that the game cannot end in 1-2 turns due to a lucky/cheesy attack.
• Each turn, players could draw x amount of card from a deck of strategy cards (each card could contain random positive abilities that players could use). Certain support units could allow players to draw more cards per turn.
• To emphasise different piloting styles, players could choose between different piloting styles that confer different positive/negative abilities to specific mech.
• Game size should be based on points rather than 1vs1 mech (i.e. players could either choose 1 mech or 2 weaker mechs at point cost). X amount of support units allowed depending on point size. Standard games should be balanced around 1vs1.
• RPG aspect could be achieved via optional RPG campaign rules/books, random encounter/reward cards.
• Inclusion of at least 1 Voltron style joke mecha for LULZ.

If you think of games that are 1 vs 1, they do tend to have a more abstract mechanic. I mentioned MTG earlier - you don't have a model for your wizard and move it around.

So, maybe the key to making an amazing game would be to come up with an original mechanic. A great example of original thought in this context would be Ace of Aces, a simple 1 vs 1 game.

If you relax the idea of representing the combat with two actual models on a representative battle surface, you might come up with something cool.

So, as a simple idea, you could just have a property of the game that is "Distance from enemy", which each player can modify by a certain amount depending on things such as flight, speed, energy, escape strategies etc. "Take cover" could simple be an action that uses up movement and limits other abilities.

Guys, just to be clear....I'm not fixed on any particular ideal with regards to this.

I love some of the ideas that have come out so far in this thread. I'm even thinking that a game with more units could be ok, as long as the game didn't compromise on detail and depth.

As far as the game bing Mechs only....I guess it would depend on the fluff, and the scale. If we were to go for a multiple unit type game, we would be faced with having to scale down the minis in order to fully represent all forces in the theatre of combat.....which puts us dangerously close to 6mm Epic type games....with having Mechs only on the field, we can afford to keep the scales in 28mm.

If the group decides the game can go that way, then I would suggest taking onboard Kanluwen's idea, and just have different classes of Mechs, with a limit of how many you can have per side (maybe the limit is based on points costs, rather than a physical limit)

I think minis are a must, just the visual pleasure of moving well painted units across a game surface makes them worth it I feel that if the game were to be played without that aspect, we'd quickly lose the backing and interest of tabletop gamers.

kitch102 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You don't need to give "preset mechs"...but "preset formations" might not be too bad of an idea.

Something like "Scout Force", "Assault Force", "Fire Support Force", etc with each force having a different 'battle' mech, different 'light' mechs, and some unique factor for the last part.

By this do you mean the same way as a codex is split in to tactical, fast attack, hq, heavy support etc? Or would you be looking at an army made entirely of scout troops, or fire support etc? Sorry if that seems like a stupid question - just trying to understand what you mean.

No, I'm meaning forces configured for specific roles.

Something like, to give an example, a "Fire Support Force" would consist of the following:
-A 'Heavy' Battlemech with an indirect fire howitzer, multiple 'smart' missile systems that require laser designators, and the ability to plant itself into the ground to stabilize itself for firing. This would be the "big" mech that would be around the size of a Warhound.
-A group of 2-5 individually operating 'Scout' mechs the size of a Sentinel or Dreadknight(somewhere in that range) which were lightly armed but equipped with Electronic Countermeasure equipment, sensor suites, laser designation systems, etc to let the 'heavy' fire on targets it can't directly see.
-A platoon of 6-18 individually operating 'Battlearmored' infantry, who will have deployable anti-mech weaponry(say some kind of heavy rifle or something like that) and some kind of a 'standard' weapon that they can use to counter other battlearmors, alongside of uplink equipment that lets the 'Scout' mechs relay back to the 'heavy' which can in turn use their line of sight as the controller wants.

The important thing to realize is when I say 'infantry', I'm not meaning some guy wearing a flak jacket and helmet with an automatic weapon. I'm meaning something akin to the 'Elementals' from Battletech. Something noticeably larger than a normal human, but still smaller than most mechs would be.

@ Kanluwen

Yep, I'm liking that idea alot. I'm starting to reconsider the practicalities of running someting as large as a Warhound Titan on a standard gaming table. So for 28mm, maybe have to take the "large" Mech down a stage or two in size.....but I like your idea of battle team composition.....I think it could work well.

Stompa sized sounds like it could work well for the 'large' mech.

It's still big, but it's not overpoweringly big.

way ahead of ya guys ! im going to do battletech use my at 43 una and red block for infantry and battle armor and get some more robotech models and 28mm scifi vechiles . but i don't wanna do more then 4 mechs a side . illl post more pics when i have more progress

HOLY gak DO WANT

...but yeah. So are you just using Battletech rules with giant mechs instead? And where did you get them anyway?

That game Ronin sounds kinda fun, I would love a game like that. Sadly it probably bombed because you can't make much money when you only require one model to play the game. :\

EDIT: Aww, they quit making them. http://www.timdp.members.sonic.net/battletech/

Wow, that looks exactly like what I'm thinking about, in model terms anyway

As I was driving home today, I was (obviously concentrating on the road) thinking about how I would get models for this project. Realistically, in the short term, if we made a game like this, I can't see anyone here being able to support production of plastic model kits (forget metal at this scale ). SO I was thinking, we should allow for people to create their own Mechs...build them from Gundam Kits, scratch build, even use GW / Forgeworld stuff.

As long as the kit adequately represents the weapons lead out and scale the game dictates, then where the model comes from is irrelevant....and plus it's probably more fun for hobbyists to get their own Mech models and pilots then be told, you have to buy such and such miniature to be able to play the game.

Which of course, lets us concentrate on rules and background fluff for the game.

I'm hearing (not literally, of course) alot of people stating that Battletech will do everything we've been discussing so far.....right, we need to understand if this is 100% true, or if people are really approximating with this statement.....

If it's already out there, then the project is dead from the get go, if not, then we have a valid opening to create something, and I think everyone who has inputed so far, and those who chose to input later on should continue to do so.

Providing this is a valid project these are the first steps I propose:

1. Chose a good working title
2. Collate all the ideas so far, and decide a cut off point for the first generation rules blueprint
3. Get together to work out key base mechanics, like movement, player turns, dice system, etc
4. Review first draft, and arrange some play testing...maybe we can do some online virtual play testing with simple 2D maps and counters, simulating combat engagements and LOS...for example.

What do you guys think?

But first up, we need some serious Battletech geeks to tell us truthfully if this is a worthwhile thing or not! Any takers?

Liking the idea of an online 2D map and counters game.
Not a battletech player, but I have seen that people are complaining that only one model will make the game a bit boring, without all the buildings/destructible scenery etc etc
So why not have a custom-armoured-kill-team-style, around 1-5 models with a set points for each mission.

You dont need a title til the very end really

Yeah, the whole 1 player = 1 Mech is kinda dead. I think people are mor interested in multiple unit games, so I'm happy to go with the flow.

Agree with the point that a title can wait till the end. It just helps for conversation basis, that if we had a title, when you mention it everyone knows what you're talking about.

So an example vehicle creation system
My hammerhead gunship would be:
medium hull, skimmer/grav tank, heavy cannon and a two light gatlers
using the most basic weapons and ideas

MattRendar wrote:way ahead of ya guys ! im going to do battletech use my at 43 una and red block for infantry and battle armor and get some more robotech models and 28mm scifi vechiles . but i don't wanna do more then 4 mechs a side . illl post more pics when i have more progress

Wow, never knew they made Madcats in that scale. Where'd you get it, and do they make a Mk. 2?

Delephont I am fairly Btech geeky, enough so that I can answer any questions you may have, so fire away.

As for the 2d computer sim you mentioned, check out megamek. All the btech rules, all from a 2d overhead PoV.

DevianID wrote:Delephont I am fairly Btech geeky, enough so that I can answer any questions you may have, so fire away.

As for the 2d computer sim you mentioned, check out megamek. All the btech rules, all from a 2d overhead PoV.

Well, first of all, thank you for stepping up to the plate and offering your knowlegde

It's hard to really phrase a specific question, as I have no real knowlegde of Battletech. I don't know if you've followed the thread, but essentially, the idea is to create a game that uses "Mechs" but in 28mm scale, so I'm talking about Mechs that could be as large as a FW Warhound Titan.

We've already established that 1 player = 1 squad of Mechs, but we'd like to see a game that caters for resource management, e.g. You have so much ammo, so much energy cells, etc to spend in the game, when your ammo is gone, you can't shoot!

We've talked about random resource cards dealt at the end of a game turn, for each player to have the chance to gain ammo, power cells, to keep going in the game.

We've talked about special abilities for pilots or crews that give the player advantages etc in game, again these would cost "resource" to be able to purchase.

Aspects like hacking, EMP attackes etc have been requested. And of course we have talked about Mech support units, like "Infantry", spy planes/satalites, weapon emplacements that are logged into by pilots to be used against enemy (each weapon emplacement would have it's own available resources), same as Drones.

The game would be primarily a tabletop wargame, heavily reliant on wyswyg miniatures, and would use a standard gaming table 4x4 or 6x4, and standard 28mm scale terrain or scenary. We also discussed interactive scenary, which can be destroyed or targeted so as to remove it as a possible means of cover for your enemy.

So that's a very broad summary. The question then, I guess, is can all of this be done (more or less) with current Battletech rules? What would be the compromise? and I guess, as a seasoned Battletech "geek" would a game like this appeal to you or make you go meh?

Years ago I ran a Battletech/Mechwarrior campaign that was pretty popular with the guys at our RPG club.

Battletech first edition was used for the rules. Each player had a main character and a backup who was their engineer. We used to play battles with four to twelve mechs per side, so people often operated two or three mechs, or sometimes just one, depending on how many players were there and the scenario I designed. As GM I operated the enemy forces, which often included tanks and gun emplacements.

The Mechwarrior RPG rules were used for experience and upgrades.

What made it work was that firstly, each battle was part of an ongoing campaign, so there was no incentive for players to get themselves and their mechs trashed. This made people play more tactically. Secondly, as GM, I wrote scenarios that offered a challenge without a serious danger of wiping everyone out.

Obviously there wasn't such a PvP aspect in that campaign, however Battletech became popular enough that we also ran plenty of different PvP scenarios outside the role-playing campaign.

I second what other people have said that Classic Battletech offers nearly everything you are looking for. If your quarrel is the models, the easiest thing is to decide on a range of models to use and use the design rules to work them up for the game.

Gundams come in a number of different scales. The Armoured Core models are also pretty tasty and there is a new range fromKotobukiya, called Border Break, which is in 1/35th scale and offers some nice choices.

Check Hobby Link Japan for more Mecha kit info.

If you are set on making your own rules, I would give two pieces of advice.

1. Decide exactly what it is about Battletech that you don't like, and work to remedy that.
2. Get hold of as many existing Mecha battle game rules as you can, to draw ideas from.

Mekton could be worth a look.

Delephont wrote:You have so much ammo, so much energy cells, etc to spend in the game, when your ammo is gone, you can't shoot!

In Btech, a mech tracks ammo for every ballistic or missile weapon. Ammo bins on the mech all have their own location, and if hit explode. There is also several advanced ammo types for the weapons, depending on what tech level you are at. For example, late era cannon weapons have semi-smart rounds and ultraheavy armor piercing rounds, that cut down on total ammo but can pack a new kind of punch. Energy weapons deal in 'heat' as the mech's stable fusion engine provides all the energy you would ever need. Heat is managed with heat sinks, and as you generate more heat that the mech can deal with you start to cook the mech. Movement becomes sluggish, weapons less accurate, and eventually ammo will cook off.

Delephont wrote:
We've talked about random resource cards dealt at the end of a game turn, for each player to have the chance to gain ammo, power cells, to keep going in the game.

Because btech is scaled for real time, replacing ammo or flushing heat sinks is an after action experience. Each turn in btech is 10 seconds, which at the small scale you want to operate kinda needs to stay that way. Other permutations of battletech use a longer timescale and involve stat boosting orders and events like you describe, but also require lots more forces.

Pilots come with lots of abilities, from raw score numbers in piloting and gunnery to lots of small perks. The RPG has lots more of these, of course. Mechs also can gain lots of perks, both good or bad, that fall outside of the normal construction rules. And then units get perks that represent drilling in certian tactics or the attitude of the unit.

Hacking and the like is more an RPG element, but in general the double blind rules are what makes the most use of satalites and drones. Scouting and the like is a very long process involving a lot of ground, however on the tabletop its assumed there is an enemy to fight. Considering the scale you want to use, and the small table by comparrison, scouting by necessity wont play much of a factor.

MattRendar wrote:

I see your Warhammer and Madcat, and offer up my Atlas and Madcat:






I should also have one of these in about 2-3 weeks. Its right between the Madcat & Atlas in size.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Delephont wrote: SO I was thinking, we should allow for people to create their own Mechs...build them from Gundam Kits, scratch build, even use GW / Forgeworld stuff.

IMO this would be absolutely critical. With all the models for this theme available from many, many sources you would be crazy not to do it.

Take my collection for example: Not only do I have the 2 28mm scale Battletech mechs, and the Dreamforge Games Leviathan Crusader, but Ive got a bunch of AT-43 Red Blok stuff...8 Kolossus suits, 2 Odin walkers, and a Dotch Yaga. Ive also got a bunch of UNA suits, but being only about the size of GW Terminators I think they are smaller than the game intends.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:

.. And where did you get them anyway?
EDIT: Aww, they quit making them. http://www.timdp.members.sonic.net/battletech/

Yup, the license expired at the end of 2007. I guess they couldnt work out a new one. The price went through the roof too. I got both of mine in early 2008...paid around $275 for the Madcat, and $350 for the Atlas.

Guys, I had a look through the Battletech website yesterday night based on the statements made by those in the know.....and I'm so frustrated.

Navigating through all the products etc....is an absolute nightmare....I'm gonna just come out and say it, it's crap! As a company looking to sell a product range, these guys really need to sort their lives out....to say the whole thing is a mess is an understatement.

Ok, it's probably not a porblem for those in the know, but to new players looking to join, it's almost mission impossible. The only starter kit (clearly identified as such) is the 25th Anniversary, which has sold out!!!!

While I really don't want to create rules where rules already exist, I can see no way for "new" players to get into a 28mm Mech game in a simple clear and concise way.

@ Mad4minis

Regarding Mech models....maybe if the game ever takes off, we (the team ) can consider designs for game specific Mechs....because, when we start to consider fluff, trying to explain all the different styles of Mech model that can be purchased will be a nightmare! However, in the short term, and expecially for playtesting, using current models will be practical and fun.

In fact, I'm looking forward to having a reason to purchase some of these models....an excuse for model shopping can't be bad

Hi Delphont.
If you go to Catalist Game Labs home page.
Click on downloads.
Then look for 'introductory boxed set'.

You can down load the starter rules , and other associated introduction material for free!

This may give you a good underatanding of how the basic game rules work.

If you only issue is with the scale of the models , thats fair enough.

But to be fair I found the rules to be well defined and intuitive.
(Thats the RPG and the table top battle game rules. )

Here's a link to start downloading the rules from the starter set (legitimately, legally, from their site etc)

http://www.classicbattletech.com/downloads/QSR_BattleTech_EN.pdf

I'm with you on the rest of their site though, everything that could suck about it, does suck!

Can anyone explain the fluff / backstory behind BTech to me? I don't know anything about it - cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ie - different factions, the different mechs etc

Check out bell of lost souls. The recently have done a several part series about btechs history which has some digestable info. The short of it is that btech has a history that spans a few hundred years that has tech ups and Downs and changing factions. Any timeframe is good for playing a game it just depends on what feel you want for the politics.

http://www.classicbattletech.com/downloads/BattleTech_Primer.pdf

Delephont wrote:
@ Mad4minis

Regarding Mech models....maybe if the game ever takes off, we (the team ) can consider designs for game specific Mechs....because, when we start to consider fluff, trying to explain all the different styles of Mech model that can be purchased will be a nightmare! However, in the short term, and expecially for playtesting, using current models will be practical and fun.

In fact, I'm looking forward to having a reason to purchase some of these models....an excuse for model shopping can't be bad

I agree completely. Like I said, a construction aka "design your own mech" system should be an integral part of the game. I wasnt requesting designs for the stuff I listed, I was demonstrating the variety of models from many different manufacturers a potential player is likely to already have on hand.

Theres a lot to work out, but since each player is likely to have only 1 mech a detailed construction process can be pretty cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as using the Battletech rules...well let me say this first, Battletech was the first minis game I ever played, and I have a soft spot for it.

However, overall its got some flaws. By far the worst is weapon ranges, especially for autocannons. The larger & more powerful the cannon the shorter the range...exactly the opposite of real life.

The theres the armor issue. Theres no penetration...you simply pound away until youve knocked all the armor off the surface of a location, then shoot at the exposed structure. Extremely unrealistic. Most armored vehicles that get destroyed have very little surface damage.

The first issue is easily solved with the weapons having unlimited range, or range measured in feet just in case someone wants to play on something huge like a ball court.

The second issue is more difficult, and has been handled in numerous was by game companies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Delephont wrote:Yeah, the whole 1 player = 1 Mech is kinda dead. I think people are mor interested in multiple unit games, so I'm happy to go with the flow.

Agree with the point that a title can wait till the end. It just helps for conversation basis, that if we had a title, when you mention it everyone knows what you're talking about.

I would scale it a bit...say an option of 3 light mechs, 2 medium, or 1 heavy.

This is sounding like a pretty cool idea so far. Just read through the bulk so far and had a few thoughts, some of them probably reiterating things already said.

Infantry as a support unit-slower than mechs, very lightly armored, but maybe stealthy, and able to do things like use single shot anti-mech weapons, spot for indirect-fire weapons from heavier mechs, etc.

Drone control systems as an option for hard-points-take lots of energy, maybe make them heavy, but able to control several small, fast, lightly armed & armored drones. Might overlap a bit with the infantry, or could be used in place of them.

Cards-I like the idea of using a deck of cards for damage effects, but not so much for resource management. The idea of stumbling upon a weapon, random ammo cache, etc on the battlefield every turn or two and being able to immediately use it strikes me as being a bit ludicrous. Stuff like that should be available, but you should be able to purchase them for points, i.e. getting a scheduled or called-in airdrop for ammo or hand-held mech weapons, or have built-in repair capabilities, etc. That could help with a more tactical element too, as air-drops could be inaccurate, and then the enemy might be able to get to a weapon or ammo before you can if it scatters wildly.

Fully destructible terrain is an awesome idea, and could add extra elements if terrain has other effects. Extra movement on roads, better targetting with radar facilities, fuel depots that could damage you when they blow up, etc.

I'd love to see transformable mecha, like in Macross. I know battletech has(had) rules for them, but I don't remember exactly how they worked. Maybe something like have 2-3 different forms, with the same chassis and powerplant but different locomotion, weapons, abilities, etc, and have a mandatory point cost/weight in each form tied up by the transformation equipment. The same idea could be used for heavy mechs that have to clamp to the ground to fire their big guns, etc.

I'm sure I'll vomit more ideas into the thread when they come to me.

I don't think a game about walking giant robot tanks needs any more criticism for lacking realism than that it exists at all.

The autocannon issue is true but only semi-relevant, since you don't have to use the variant autocannons in deign.

The armour fault is true but it makes for a fun game.

Zefig wrote:Cards-I like the idea of using a deck of cards for damage effects, but not so much for resource management. The idea of stumbling upon a weapon, random ammo cache, etc on the battlefield every turn or two and being able to immediately use it strikes me as being a bit ludicrous. Stuff like that should be available, but you should be able to purchase them for points, i.e. getting a scheduled or called-in airdrop for ammo or hand-held mech weapons, or have built-in repair capabilities, etc. That could help with a more tactical element too, as air-drops could be inaccurate, and then the enemy might be able to get to a weapon or ammo before you can if it scatters wildly.

Oh, that's awesome.....yes, you're right. That would be a great improvement of the resource management by cards aspect. Each player has a starting resource cache, in terms of ammo, fuel/power, materials for repair etc.....when it's gone he can use one of his card deck to call in resupply.....once called in, he selects a location on the table, and places a marker....then he roles for scatter, adding any modifiers (positive or negative) to the final result....so the resupply could land in an unreachable area, or even at your enemys feet.

That would be a really nice touch!

So, just going back to the whole, can this or can't this debate, about using Battletech rules. I'm thinking that the camp looks split. In my own mind, I think I'm just gonna give this a go and see where it leads.....I like the idea of a community developed game, especially if it means we get a set of rules that fits more less exactly what we want from this type of game.

Maybe, those who are interested, we could split into teams, some developing rules for terrain, some for Infantry, some for the Mechs, etc etc...what do you guys think?

Ultimately, I don't want to start a business, or sell a game......so these could be free online rules. Maybe they could be an offer for joining Dakka's DCM scheme (yeah, that'd be like selling ) but you get my point.....anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself.....I'm off Mecha shopping

I'd be well up for it, as long as I don't have to pay for anything immediately (wedding in the short term).

Initially I think we should get the mega basics in place though, ie - how are we gonna score skill points etc? I mean, do we have something like GW has where everything has a numerical value to tell you how good / bad it is, or battletech style where you're just firing pea shooters at something until its gone? Does that paragraph make sense?

I'm not big on the battletech rules personally. Admittedly I dont really know them well, or how they pan out in a game, but the thought of a bloke with a slingshot blowing up a half mile tall mech doesnt sit well with me

Delphont, you might want to check out Ring of Red for playstation. It was 1v1 mech combat game where each mech had a couple of small infantry squads supporting it that provided a whole range of tactical options.

Frankly, the internet being what it is, free on-line rules are the easiest thing to do.

I am quite happy to put ideas forward to making a new game, as long as someone else is willing to put them all together coherently

Yeah, I'll keep watching this thread and I'll probably start pulling the ideas together into a single review sheet for everyone to see.

If people want to discuss any aspect of this venture then feel free to PM me....the more ideas the merrier.

I still haven't found any big mech models mind you. I'm looking for something around 10" - 12" high, anyone know of anything decent?

Delephont wrote:Yeah, I'll keep watching this thread and I'll probably start pulling the ideas together into a single review sheet for everyone to see.

If people want to discuss any aspect of this venture then feel free to PM me....the more ideas the merrier.

I still haven't found any big mech models mind you. I'm looking for something around 10" - 12" high, anyone know of anything decent?

Only things that big are the FW titans. My Madcat is around 8 1/2 inches, the Altas 10 inches, and the Leviathan Crusader 9 inches. None of them are cheap.

Hmm, I'm thinking something like this might be good

MattRendar wrote:way ahead of ya guys ! im going to do battletech use my at 43 una and red block for infantry and battle armor and get some more robotech models and 28mm scifi vechiles . but i don't wanna do more then 4 mechs a side . illl post more pics when i have more progress

Is that the toy Robotech one? Looks great painted up, I had one when I was young, still do in the attic. I assume they aren't worth anything so can be picked up, it's one of the better of the toy range.

http://www.toyarchive.com/STAForSale/NEW2001+/Robotech/ExcaliburLrgLoose1a.jpg

I think we need to speak to that bloke that's making his own titan(s), see if he can bang together a DIY kit for us on the cheap.

its the exo squad release robotech excailaber painted and weathered up . the madcat is and mechwarrior dark age toy that they released and i repainted it . infantry pig iron . and buggy is from at 43 resin collection .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Mech-Warrior-Die-Cast-Metal-Mad-Cat-II-Joy-Ride-/280704530267?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item415b4b375b heres the same madcat i bought on ebay !

MattRendar wrote:. the madcat is and mechwarrior dark age toy that they released and i repainted it . i

I was wondering what it was. Its extremely similar to the Armorcast Madcat I have, but I could see a couple small differences.

It may be the 1/72 scale kit of the Macross mech (can't remember the name) which has recently been re-released.

Otherwise Mr Treesong may have hung on to his kit from the 80s. I used to have a load of 1/72 scale kits for Battletech and I sold them all off.

Part of the issue with the large model is scale of everything else. Even if you do find large models cheap enough, how much interaction is the large model going to have on the table? A few pieces of terrain dont take advantage of the model, as both sides will hole up.

If you also have an awesome set of terrain that can fill an entire 6x4 table, then yeah the large model is awesome. If you have scarce terrain then there is no point in having the mech that large, since big mechs need lots of big terrain to play with.

How integral to your vision is the huge model? A more abstract system could be done as a mech board game, which allows for cards, drones, infantry counters ect a lot easier than the large scale you have planned.

Then again, if you do have enough terrain to fill a 6x4 table sufficiently to allow 2 large mechs to interact with at least 50% of it, then I see why you like the big mech idea from an aesthetic point of view.

DevianID wrote:
Then again, if you do have enough terrain to fill a 6x4 table sufficiently to allow 2 large mechs to interact with at least 50% of it, then I see why you like the big mech idea from an aesthetic point of view.

If IIRC part of OPs vision was city fights. Would be pretty easy to spray paint things like cereal boxes, coffee cans, etc up as buildings if you needed to fill a table fast.

The way I look at futuristic combat, the various forces will almost always be fighting over a "valuable objective".....in my mind, that will rarely be an empty field. Ok, in key situations when that field contains a natural resoruce, maybe, you could imagine two forces fighting over it....but that's very specific.

So most battles would be fought around cities, research bases, military installations, etc.....

Regarding the scale. I'm kinda open on this. If people feel that 28mm scale is too big, we could do two things....1. Work the game in a smaller scale, 6mm maybe....the only problem with doing this, IMHO, you might as well play Battletech...

Option 2. We can downsize the expectation of how big a Mech should be in a 28mm scale setting. After all, theres no rule that says a Mech should be 12 stories high, etc...a "Large" Mech could be four times the size (in all dimensions) of a standard human, and big enough to contain a single pilot or two pilots at most....

At this stage, I would say the whole project is open.

I have someone working on the game engine! I'm working on the fluff, and collating the ideas we have generated as a group...so hopefully we should have something to show soon

Please keep the ideas coming.

Do you think you're angling for a "realistic" vision, where walking tanks have a reason for existing, or more like Battletech/Gundam where they're basically just walking fighter jets, existing because they're "cool"? The reason I ask is because James Cameron's _Avatar_ did a pretty good job with realistic "light" mechs. That setting was one of the only ones where the mechs presented made sense.

-It was an undeveloped area, so not many roads were blasted through some very rough terrain, making wheeled vehicles pretty impractical.

-There was very limited resupply, and the mechs could do double duty in non-combat functions (construction & logistics)

-They were lightly armored, so could be carried by transport helicopters.

Anyway, this could inform a more "realistic" setting, in a world on the outer edges of colonization, where mechs would be the preferred vehicle for work and warfare (often combined). This would serve to both limit the size (sentinel to dreadknight size) and the weapons. In a "realistic" setting, any military grade weapons are probably one-shot one-kill. If you're talking about militia-grade military surplus, using simple weapons maintained by non-experts, it serves to reduce ranges and damage to something less absurd on tabletop ranges.

I'm not certain what you're going for, but these are just a few thoughts.

I really like the idea of using the more unrealistic mechs, for a couple reasons. They're very unrealistic, sure, but there's a huge amount of inspiration to draw from, and I think more importantly, models to use for building.

As far as scale goes, I think 28mm or possibly 15mm would probably be best, but that's more for convenience than anything. Again I'm basing this off the idea of using things like gundam and macross models, but I think that a decent 40k cities of death board would provide a great amount of cover. Light mechs (sentinel, dreadnought, maybe AT-43 mechs) would be able to find a lot of hiding places and sneak around the city. Medium mechs (Most anime mech models, maybe even dreadknights, etc) could easily get cover behind the big buildings. Heavy mechs (small titans, etc) would be hard pressed to find too much cover except for the largest of buildings, and would be better off just blasting away and letting their armor take the hits. And that all sounds about right to me.

[quote=Delephont
We can downsize the expectation of how big a Mech should be in a 28mm scale setting. After all, theres no rule that says a Mech should be 12 stories high, etc...a "Large" Mech could be four times the size (in all dimensions) of a standard human, and big enough to contain a single pilot or two pilots at most....

Moment of madness here... would it be too cheesy to have a team of smaller robots that can fuse together to make one giant mech. I'm thinking (don't slam me down too hard) power rangers.

Just a thought, that'd have the potential of getting round the problem, and if we ever got to commissioning models to be made there'd be options for everyone.

I dont think I'm 100% behind it myself, just for how cheesy the PR reference is but just putting the old grey matter out there


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i could have probably explained the mental images better there, but i'm knackered to be honest. Wdyt - good or bad suggestion, no offence will be taken if you say what i think you'll say

I don't think any suggestion is a bad suggestion. I realise you've used Power Rangers to best explain a concept....not that you wish to have a wargame based on Power Rangers ....I hope.

To be really honest, if we talk about "commissioning" miniatures, we've just pushed the game project into the realms of ....never gonna happen. Nobody is (and rightfully so) willing to pony up the investment for sculptors and reproduction services to get models done....

I think we have more chance of getting something off the ground if we base the game around people being able to use their own sourced models, with "counts as" load out.

That said, it would be very restrictive to find models that lock together in the way you describe....that means that such a stipulation would present a barrier to entry for the game

We'll work something out.....we have the technology!

Delephont wrote:

I think we have more chance of getting something off the ground if we base the game around people being able to use their own sourced models, with "counts as" load out.

Not really much need for counts as wepaons. Part of the construction/creation system should be weapon design as well as mech design.

Take a look at the Shockforce/Warengine creation rules for some good inspiration. So far its my favorite 28mm 40k style game.

Heres is the troop and weapon builder rules for Warengine: http://warengine.darktortoise.com/index.php?title=Troop_Builder_v2.1

@ Mad4Minis

I had a look at your email suggestions. I think the idea is awesome, I'll get a more detailed repsonse out to you later!

Regarding the weapons, I guess if we all know going into this, that people will be using models from a variety of sources, it makes sense to build that into the rules in terms of weapons design (as you've mentioned above). I'll speak to "my" rules mechanic and see what he thinks, and how best he could bake that in......

I agree that rules for 'building' your weapons would work best in a game where you're using models from 8 kajillion different sources.

In rules sets like that, would it make sense to still break them into different basic categories? Could be as simple as projectile vs energy, and have them bypass armor/shields differently, draw from different random damage decks, or something of the sort. Or would that complicate things unnecessarily?

kitch102 wrote:Moment of madness here... would it be too cheesy to have a team of smaller robots that can fuse together to make one giant mech. I'm thinking (don't slam me down too hard) power rangers.

Or Voltron, or certain Transformers, or (i think) a few Gundam variants... Combiners are definitely a trope for the 'Super Robot' genre.

And, thus, completely in character if that's the kind of game you're making.

I'd say that it's a little bit too cheesy.

But in that vein, it wouldn't be too completely absurd to have battlesuited infantry able to 'attach' to the heavy mechs.

I like the idea of making your own weapons, and warengine has a very simple system of making them

Not a fan of the 'combiners' idea, just my personal opinion

For model size, I was thinking sentinels/landspeeders/piranhas/raiders would be light vehicles,
chimeras/hellhounds/basilisks/stormravens/valks would be medium
leman russes/hammerhead gunships/predators would be heavy
then Shadowswords/Scout titans would be super-heavy vehicles

battlesuited infantry drop ships anyone?
with Javelin Missile Systems...

Ok, so here are some thoughts regarding "army" composition:

Large Mechs: Normally heavy armoured / shielded units. 1 per army. Most likely to stand around 8 inches or more high. Up to two crew members.

Support Mechs: Acts as scout units, fire support, etc. Around 6 per army. Most likely to stand around up to 3 - 4 inches high. 1 Crew member.

Support Infantry: Power amoured / Mech suits. Based in squads of 10 troops. Human size, normally deployed by drop ship or APC.

Given the broad army unit types, if everyone thinks they can work, we can start to break them down into more detailed units, and we can start to consider their role in the game. For example, for the Support Infantry, we can look at rules for APC, drop ships, etc...we can look at different unit members, and also different grades of Support Infantry...maybe we have Special Forces Infantry units or Regular....for example.

We can do this for the Mech classes as well.

Delephont wrote:Ok, so here are some thoughts regarding "army" composition:

Large Mechs: Normally heavy armoured / shielded units. 1 per army. Most likely to stand around 8 inches or more high. Up to two crew members.

Support Mechs: Acts as scout units, fire support, etc. Around 6 per army. Most likely to stand around up to 3 - 4 inches high. 1 Crew member.

Support Infantry: Power amoured / Mech suits. Based in squads of 10 troops. Human size, normally deployed by drop ship or APC.

Given the broad army unit types, if everyone thinks they can work, we can start to break them down into more detailed units, and we can start to consider their role in the game. For example, for the Support Infantry, we can look at rules for APC, drop ships, etc...we can look at different unit members, and also different grades of Support Infantry...maybe we have Special Forces Infantry units or Regular....for example.

We can do this for the Mech classes as well.

I can go along with that. Maybe an option for a "blitzkreig" version that substitutes a large mech for the infantry. Basically a fast moving and hard hitting army, but with relatively poor objective holding ability.

Also, how about power army infantry in smaller squads, like SM terminators.

Delephont wrote:
I have someone working on the game engine!

That would be me then.

It's quite bizarre really, much of the content come wish lists in this thread are pretty much reflected in the game engine I had written a while ago for mech style combat.

I basically wanted a wargame that felt like the Mechwarrior PC games, I didn't want it getting bogged down in reams of paperwork and tables so the engine is fairly simple.

You can build your own mechs (at the moment I have 3 classes of mech, kinda light medium and heavy) and outfit them as you like the only restriction being the maximum tonnage of the mech, and the available location slots, so it's a balance between armour, firepower, systems and energy. The idea being that you can build some crazy mechs, but you wouldn't last too long if you did.

It includes a simple energy management system, and a damage repair system, ECM, blah blah blah. I had no ammo limits in mind, simply to stop the game bogging down recording such things

It was designed without a scale in mind (not strictly true, kinda 1/144 initially but not set in stone), but to be played on a 4' square table with typically 3 - 7 mechs a side (tonnage limits based).

The old fluff I had written was set in the Solar System in the mid future as mankind mines some kind of clean fusion energy source etc. etc. as it's so super valuable folks will fight over it etc.

The mechs were originally for mining / construction / paving the way for heavy machines that otherwise wouldn't be able to move around Mars etc. and as people decided to take rather than mine the energy source the mechs got tooled up to fight, this concept is reflected in the weapons types etc.

Factions were gonna be an Americas faction, European Union faction, Chinese / Asian faction, CIS faction and various Independance movements, you know the usual cliched stuff.

I think the fluff that the OP has in mind is VASTLY different to this, so I'll stop there.

HarryPotter.
Can you post a link to your rules outline?

So we can have a look see....please!

Not just yet I'm afraid, it's about 70% written down, 30% in my head so to speak, as in I can describe it all day long, but if I showed you what had been written thus far it'd make no sense whatsoever

In the immortal words of him.....

"Are you Ned Starks bastood son?"

What's the latest on this then dudes? I've taken a bit of a back seat in all things that aren't work related lately, have any more ideas come up that aren't listed on here?