Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/19 14:41:40


Post by: Easy E




I have had the Battletech 25th Anniversary box set sitting on my shelf for a long time. I remember getting it, reading the rules, and then deciding that Battletech just wasn't the game for me. I was a bit daunted by all the lore, the Mech builds, hex maps, the old-school mechanics and the very knowledgeable and passionate community itself. In truth, I was not "in love" with the mech designs or the mechanics. Therefore, I painted some mechs and used them in other games instead! The boxed set sat on the shelf and collected dust. I was not convinced I wanted to take the plunge into another "Life style" game like 40K had been.

Then, one day out of the blue, my daughter and I pulled it down off the shelf and decided to give it a go. She didn't know anything about it, and I didn't remember much about it either. I pulled out the Quick Start rules and gave it a read. The rules focused exclusively on the basics (so no Heat, Crits, Pilot Checks, etc), and even had some special "beginner" Mech record sheets. We set-up for the initial Green Training Scenario.



This pit an Enforcer vs. a Hunchback on a relatively flat map with some woods on each side. My daughter played aggressively with the Enforcer, as I hung back behind some woods. She did some damage closing, but I let her approach. Then, I burst around the edge of the woods and pummeled her at close range with all my weapons. I blew the arm straight off the Enforcer, and it was all down hill from there. We chased each other around the board a bit, before I finally destroyed her. Her hits ended up mostly scattered across my mech, while mine pretty consistently hit her in the right arm/torso until it transferred over into her Center Torso.

To be honest, it really wasn't that much fun. There were not enough decisions, too many dice rolls, and we spent more time calculating mods and filling in bubbles then actually playing the game. Plus, one-on-one meant there were no synergies and we were at the whims of the dice. It was a game of stacking or unstacking mods.

Despite this, we decided that I would go back and read the fuller intro rules and come back and try again with a few more mechs. I went off and read up and did my homework. I skipped the fluff and what not and just focused on the rules. Therefore, this battle will just be an extension of my previous Mech games that used other rules.




Polanksi's Lancers were contracted to harass operations on the Planet of Mundos. The primary export was timber and wood products. Therefore, the Lancers were focused on attacking executives, storage facilities, and other infrastructure. Their employer Lacstar Inc, was in negotiations to purchase the timber rights from the VolSaab Corporation, and any disruption to supply would cause the stock price to drop. This would make buying the rights much easier.

VolSaab was wise to such actions. Therefore, they had contracted out to two mercenary units to operate on Mundos to help protect their investment and get the best sale price of the rights. The Rose Guard and Thor's Hammers were providing security on Mundos.

Careful recon by Polanski's Lancers allowed them to map multiple patrol routes taken by Thor's Hammers. The Hammers adjusted their routes regularly, but eventually an algorithmic analysis allowed the Lancers to predict likely paths of travel. The Manager-Commander of the 14th Uhlans of the Lancers decided to try and set an ambush for the Hammers patrol using this intel.


Forces:

Polanski's Lancers- 14th "Uhlans"

Quickdraw
Enforcer
Hermes II
Trebuchet

Thor's Hammers- Elements of the 3rd "Hard Strikers"

Dragon
Hunchback
Zeus

All pilots will be assumed to have Pilot Ratings of 5. I could not find in the rules where it dictated starting or how to generate starting Pilot Ratings.

Both of us got our Mech record sheets ready, our quick play sheets, pencils, and our own sets of dice. The Introductory rulebook was handy and ready to play.

Mission:

Today's battle will be a straight forward fight to the death. Units that leave the board will be considered retreating and destroyed. Otherwise, the normal rules apply.

Set-up:

I will be using Hex Map #2, the same one we used for the Green Training Scenario. Pretty much flat with some light and heavy woods on both sides.

Dragon is placed in the center with the Hunchback and the Zeus within 3 hexes of it. The Lancers can be placed anywhere behind the tree lines, on either side of the board. We assume that the Mechs were prone, but have successfully stood up to begin the attack.



You can read all about my first real game of Battletech that I have ever played in my three decades of gaming on my blog....

https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2021/04/battle-report-classic-battletech-ambush.html


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 10:04:32


Post by: Macrossmartin


Hmm, I'd say your experience with BT is not dissimilar to accounts I've seen by other experienced gamers who encounter the game later in life.

It's true that nostalgia plays a lot in BT's popularity amongst we grognards. I certainly play it with a wry smile on my face.

But, I do sincerely believe there is something very satisfying in filling in the 'bubbles', and rolling on the hit location tables. The granularity is very suitable for a 4-a-side Lance fight, but it becomes a struggle when you get to the company level.

Some of my most memorable gaming moments have come through BT, and the universe is absorbing. That helps to keep me getting out the hexboards and ignoring that machine guns in the year 3055 have a range of 90 metres.



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 12:17:37


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Shame.

BattleTech is great.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 14:22:25


Post by: Easy E


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shame.

BattleTech is great.


I think it just isn't what I personally want in a game anymore. I have a feeling if I ran into it 25 years ago, I would be a BT fanatic. Then, I would not want any of it to change.

However, running into it after seeing how wargame design has evolved, and I can not help but want to streamline it because I am too stupid to recall all the minutia of the rules and the time investment is too much for me now.

Eventually, I want to give Alpha Strike a go to see if that is more what I want out of a "modern" Battletech wargame. I have watched some reports and such, read various reviews but I am really not sure what to think of it.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 14:33:19


Post by: H.B.M.C.


That is the difference. I love the minutia. The crunchiness of BTech is one of the reasons I like playing it.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 14:48:09


Post by: beast_gts


I love the lore, the video games and some of the minis - but I stopped playing 6-8 years ago (and even then I was playing the Quick Strike / Alpha Strike rules).

I've backed their Kickstarter, but I'm not sure which rules I'm going to be using (if I even start playing again).


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 15:24:02


Post by: Easy E


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That is the difference. I love the minutia. The crunchiness of BTech is one of the reasons I like playing it.


Which I totally get! I can see the appeal.

Plus, so much delicious and juicy lore! I do not know much about it, but that is what keeps me looking back over my shoulder at the game again and again. I really would like to try a Battletech themed RPG one day too.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 16:05:55


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I got into BattleTech long after I discovered the universe. My entry was, for a lot of people my age, Mechwarrior 2 on the PC, plus its expansions. The game I adored the most however was MechCommander, as there you could control many 'Mechs at once.

I didn't actually play the tabletop game until mid-2000, right around the time FASA was shutting up shop, so I rushed to get a few things off of eBay and whatnot. It's also when I started reading some of the novels and really getting into the lore and learning everything I could.

I had put away all my 40k stuff and Necromunda stuff years ago due to a lack of time to play it, and thus had never actually played (the far more simplified) 3rd Ed. So my experience was the more complex (and complicated) 2nd Ed 40k.

This game seemed even more detailed. And it was nice to have something new to play that didn't take up too much room.

During my university years (2002-2005) I got back into 40k, but this time 3rd Ed, but continued BTech alongside it. Basically one was the simple game that we could throw together quickly, and the other was the super-crunchy game that satisfied the itch for something with a little lot more depth than 3rd Ed 40k.

I can totally see why the granularity and crunch can turn people away. Interestingly, it's kinda the same reason why I dislike Alpha Strike. It's too simplified and, to me anyway, that's just not BattleTech. I don't like reducing the capacity of a BattleMech to a single firepower number. I like all the different sub-systems, and that they all have an effect. I like small 1-on-1 engagements (Solaris matches on the Solaris Maps with custom 'Mechs are a complete blast, especially in multi-player free for alls), and company sized engagements. And I adore the hex maps because of how it makes everything so digital (in range, or not, move X or Y, never slightly in between, in LOS, or not - none of the ambiguity or potential human error that comes from 3D games like Alpha Strike or 40k), so it scratches an itch that 40k never can.



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 17:57:20


Post by: Charistoph


I was introduced to the concept of Battletech in high school when a friend brought an Atlas miniature. I didn't see much more of it for a while, but it was in the back of my mind the entire time.

When I was in college in 93-94, I was perusing the sci-fi stacks in the library when I came across the Jade Phoenix trilogy. I read it and was hooked even more.

Later, after getting my first full-time job, I started buying my own books, and I started finding the TROs and boxes at the local book store. I was buying everything I could get my hands on. Then a friend said he had played it earlier and we started getting together to build mechs and pound each other with them.

Then in late '97, I left for a mission and what I didn't leave to a friend, I sold off to a second-hand bookstore. Hadn't had a lot of time to develop it since, but I managed to get a few pieces here and there, and a new store opened up really close and a few people are playing Battletech there. Got in a few games last Friday, but they both ended on time, but still fun.

I have to agree with HBMC that the detail of the systems is great and Alpha Strike seems too little. The hex system is a little clunky, but it is very easy to make determinations with.

On the other hand, Easy E has a point that there is too much detail at times, and that's not even considering how many advanced rules and very advanced rules are available in the game. A lot of that detail actually slows the game down, even without considering all the chart lookup. The health pools of a Medium Trooper Mech can actually be quite large, and the degradation of accuracy means more shots will miss than hit. When you add all the chart lookup on to that, a 4 model game can take hours. Then if you consider looking up odd rules that no one has used (or used recently), it can slow down even further.

I've been tempted to try and develop a middle-ground ruleset to work between them, but I haven't worked up the will to dedicate the time to it.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 18:58:51


Post by: Easy E


I would be interested in learning more about the Solaris setting of Mech "Gladiator" combat. 1-on-1 seems like it could be pretty fulfilling in that setting.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 21:35:18


Post by: Charistoph


 Easy E wrote:
I would be interested in learning more about the Solaris setting of Mech "Gladiator" combat. 1-on-1 seems like it could be pretty fulfilling in that setting.

It's actually more refined in time than regular Battletech where weapons will have cooldowns, with the heavier ones taking several turns to fire again. If I understand that right, at least. I never really studied the rules for it, so I could be wrong.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 23:20:57


Post by: H.B.M.C.


The original Solaris rules were very detailed about the one-on-one stuff, and as mentioned above, included weapon cycle rates.

So, IIRC, you could end up firing the same weapon multiple times in a single turn if it's cycle rate was very high, but of course then comes the heat!

The latter Solaris rules nixed a lot of that stuff in favour of just the standard rules, but the maps themselves were unique parts. Fighting in The Factory was very different than fighting in The Jungle, or in the Kuritan underground caverns. The terrain is far more 'extreme' than regular BTech maps.

Playing lots of Solaris bouts taught me not to fear overheating so much.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/20 23:37:44


Post by: totalfailure


While it no doubt has its fans, I find Alpha Strike so bland that it is an utter bore. It strips away so much of Battletech that it loses almost all of the 'feel' of the parent game. In Alpha Strike, it feels like they could be literally anything blazing away at each other, instead of giant Mechs.

At the same time, I can see why some people would be turned off by the original game, especially people that came later. I started playing just after BattleDroids became Battletech in 1985. Games of that era were very different, and haven't aged all that well. Car Wars, Star Fleet Battles, Advanced Squad Leader, etc. were all rules-heavy, lots of record-keeping and dice rolling affairs. If you grew up with them, you probably have a certain tolerance for that. But it seems to mostly leave those kinds of titles to 'grognards' these days. The younger, the less patience or interest in those kind of mechanics there seems to be.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/21 00:12:25


Post by: Charistoph


 totalfailure wrote:
At the same time, I can see why some people would be turned off by the original game, especially people that came later. I started playing just after BattleDroids became Battletech in 1985. Games of that era were very different, and haven't aged all that well. Car Wars, Star Fleet Battles, Advanced Squad Leader, etc. were all rules-heavy, lots of record-keeping and dice rolling affairs. If you grew up with them, you probably have a certain tolerance for that. But it seems to mostly leave those kinds of titles to 'grognards' these days. The younger, the less patience or interest in those kind of mechanics there seems to be.

Yeah, a time when detail was more important than speed, so greater levels of abstractedness are avoided where possible. Oddly enough, Warhammer grew out of it, but then, Warhammer hasn't changed hands several times since its inception nor ever tried to be a simulation.

As much as I love Battletech and what CGL has done to try to keep the game alive, it does put it in a position of stagnation and being rules heavy.

One of the things that is incredibly different would be removing the range modification. I just don't see that happening without a huge amount of anger.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/21 03:40:01


Post by: Ancestral Hamster


Speaking as BT grognard, having started when it was BattleDROIDS (then George Lucas hit them with a C & D as he has copyrighted "droid"), I am okay with the crunchiness. But I admit that is due to nostalgia and many years experience. Now that I'm well into middle age, I've little patience with detail-obsessive rules sets. Which is one reason that I play more Euros than anything else.

Similarly, Car Wars was big with my high school group, but I took it out again about twenty years ago, and played a few games, I was wondering what my younger self saw in it. It struck me as a slow and tedious design with the phased movement. So it is back in storage, unlikely to come out again.

Easy E, I'm sorry that you did not have a better experience, but at least you won't waste your time further. Maybe the Solaris rules might work better (I've never played them or read a copy), or you may find (or currently own) a better set of mecha rules.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/21 10:18:02


Post by: Albertorius


I mean, not every game will be for everyone. That's OK, and it's actually healthy IMHO.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/21 14:48:59


Post by: Easy E


One place where I think B-Tech really stands out is in providing a lot of "Strategic" choice. You can spend a lot of time analyzing Mech load outs, stat sheets, and discussing this vs. that mech.

The same is true of the "lore" in that you can spend a lot of time talking about and discussing the lore of which House is better, who should ally with who, how Merc units operate, etc.

To me, that is a big appeal to BattleTech, and that makes me loath to never look at it again. You can essentially "engage" with the B-Tech Universe and never even play a game in a way that most games simply can not do.

I guess you could call this "Meta Value" or "Strategic Value" as a game?


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/21 15:24:31


Post by: Tamwulf


To be honest, it really wasn't that much fun. There were not enough decisions, too many dice rolls, and we spent more time calculating mods and filling in bubbles then actually playing the game. Plus, one-on-one meant there were no synergies and we were at the whims of the dice. It was a game of stacking or unstacking mods.


This more than anything else. Calculating the mods becomes faster with more game time. The game can be extremely swingy due to those dice. I hate filling in those bubbles- it just totally breaks the immersion of the game. If the damage silhouette at least resembled the mech I was using, it would be a little more palatable. Movement on a flat hex sheet just feels clunky. But there are no arguments about range or LoS (just remembering how LoS works). Another downside- you can be in a 100 ton Atlas, but if there was a lucky hit that crit'ed, you could be crippled for the rest of the game. There is nothing worse then starting a game, and in the first real exchange of fire, you lose a leg, or a gyro hit, or a lucky hit cooked off the ammo in your left torso, and all you have left is a small laser in your right arm.

I love the fluff, I love the technology, and there is just something about big stompy mechs and saying "Suck LRM's Freebirth!" or "Why don't you eat this ER PPC", or "Did you like that Gauss shot?" But those moments seem few and far between, and the game is just S-L-O-W compared to a lot of modern games. I want to play multiple games with Lances/Stars in an afternoon, not one match. For that, you pretty much have to turn to Alphastrike, which is what I feel modern BTech should be. Reserve "Classic BTech" for arena style games (Solaris Games! Trials of Clan Whatever).


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/21 18:18:12


Post by: Cruentus


I've played Battletech in its "second edition" by FASA back in the 1985. I still have that boxed set, and use the card stand ins from that and from the reinforcement boxes that came after. The minis themselves were always a bit too pricey for me. Although I picked up the newest plastics. Those are rather nice.

As far as the game goes, I love the crunch, and even without having played the game for some 20 odd years, I know all the weapon charts, mods, heat generation, movement effects, and terrain effects by heart, oh, including the damage location charts. Also know what CASE, C3s and other newer stuff do from memory as well. Once you've played the game enough, it gets to be second nature, and we very rarely look at the rulebook anymore.

The game itself, though, drags. Even 4 on 4, can take a whole afternoon while you circle each other and plink armor bubbles off the enemy. That's the nature of the beast. I don't think BTech is really designed for a "line em up and last one standing wins" types of games. It plays better with time limits or turn limits, or with having some type of scenario built into it. In the lore, Battlemechs are rare and precious commodities, they're not going to throw them in a meatgrinder and let them get slagged. We use "hold the line" type scenarios (trying to prevent enemies from getting off the opposite board edge, recover the pilot, escort duty, etc.and use a combination of damage done and victory conditions to determine the winner. Otherwise, the games just take way too long.

The mechanics are actually rather involved in terms of strategy. You have to balance movement, heat, weapon range, and terrain, trying to build up mods for the enemy to be less likely to hit you, while maximizing your own hit bonuses (walk v run v jump if jump capable), and the turn itself keeps both players involved.

Since the turns are interwoven, and not IGOUGO, there is some strategy in terms of when and who to activate:
Side A wins Init. Side B moves one Mech first, then A moves one, then B, then A.
Then target declaration and then firing is all simultaneous.

We use the Compendium rules for turn order:
Initiative won by Side A
Side B moves one unit, Side A moves one Unit, etc
Side A declares torso twist for one unit, Side B does same, etc. through all units
Side A declares fire and target for one unit, Side B declares fire, etc.
Then all firing is done simultaneously and resolved in any order.

We use tracking sheets (1 page for each mech, or one page for each Lance, depending on scenario), where we mark turn #, weapons to be fired and target, heat generated, etc. Then we circle the weapons that hit, and we can quickly track who hit what, who used what and how much ammo, etc.

So movement, flanking, torso turns (which can affect or provide getting that rear armor hit), getting rear damage hits, etc. all play a huge role in how the combat actually resolves.

But yes, since the rules haven't changed in forever, except for providing new, deadlier weapons and mechs (Clans, Tier 3 tech, etc.), which do drastically speed up the game as well, it doesn't have the level of "abstraction" that many games do now in the interest of speed. But I myself and my group enjoy the level of detail and just know going in we're going to make an evening of it, or a long afternoon.




My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/21 18:50:06


Post by: Nurglitch


I started playing Battletech with CityTech 2nd edition back in 1992 or so.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/21 20:51:44


Post by: Albertorius


 Tamwulf wrote:
To be honest, it really wasn't that much fun. There were not enough decisions, too many dice rolls, and we spent more time calculating mods and filling in bubbles then actually playing the game. Plus, one-on-one meant there were no synergies and we were at the whims of the dice. It was a game of stacking or unstacking mods.


This more than anything else. Calculating the mods becomes faster with more game time. The game can be extremely swingy due to those dice. I hate filling in those bubbles- it just totally breaks the immersion of the game. If the damage silhouette at least resembled the mech I was using, it would be a little more palatable. Movement on a flat hex sheet just feels clunky. But there are no arguments about range or LoS (just remembering how LoS works). Another downside- you can be in a 100 ton Atlas, but if there was a lucky hit that crit'ed, you could be crippled for the rest of the game. There is nothing worse then starting a game, and in the first real exchange of fire, you lose a leg, or a gyro hit, or a lucky hit cooked off the ammo in your left torso, and all you have left is a small laser in your right arm.

I love the fluff, I love the technology, and there is just something about big stompy mechs and saying "Suck LRM's Freebirth!" or "Why don't you eat this ER PPC", or "Did you like that Gauss shot?" But those moments seem few and far between, and the game is just S-L-O-W compared to a lot of modern games. I want to play multiple games with Lances/Stars in an afternoon, not one match. For that, you pretty much have to turn to Alphastrike, which is what I feel modern BTech should be. Reserve "Classic BTech" for arena style games (Solaris Games! Trials of Clan Whatever).


I tried Alpha Strike and it left me very, very cold. Going that level I much prefer Battleforce 2, and that one also has planetary invasion rules baked in.

IMHO, the game that at least for me currently best capture the idea of "Battletech, but made with modern 'technology'" would be the Lancer RPG. It really does feel like a modernized version, in many aspects.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/22 03:13:32


Post by: totalfailure


If Alpha Strike is the future of Battletech, Battletech is dead. Alpha Strike is barely even a game. Hmm...I make one successful die roll, my mech does 6 bubbles of damage, your mech can only take five bubbles, you die. Next!


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/22 03:43:04


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Given the success of the Kickstarter, I'd say we're far from that day.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/22 10:19:01


Post by: Gitzbitah


I recently started playing Battletech again as well, and still vastly prefer classic over Alpha Strike- for mech vs mech action.

But the group I found was AS, so I've been playing it regularly. Mech on mech, it is cold, and it puts very little emphasis on individual units- indeed, most of the players I'm with move lances instead of units, so the individual mechs don't matter as much. This is a huge adjustment, as Classic every unit, and every shot counts.

However- once you get deeper than just the mechs, the system unfolds into a complex web of counters, combos and options. Drop smoke so you can advance past that enemy strongpoint? Pop your hover transports out behind a lance of mechs and down them with inferno infantry? All possible. The bolt on, optional rules are what makes the game good.

The appeal's not in the combat, which is basic compared to Battletech- it's in the system itself, which lets you do things that are wildly impractical in Classic.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/22 11:21:53


Post by: Albertorius


Yes, but all that and quite a bit more was already there on Battleforce 2, too, and it allowed to play a full planetary campaing from arrival in-system to the bitter end, while at the same time having a batallion/regiment level battle system abrely less detailed than AS (the units are quite similarly abstracted, but the default unit is a lance, althoug the actual units inside the lance are really similar to AS units).

To me, AS sits at an awkward no-man's land that I'm not very interested in.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/22 12:51:06


Post by: H.B.M.C.


"Welcome to Alpha Strike, where the rules are simplistic and the 'Mechs don't matter!"



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/22 13:37:37


Post by: MarkNorfolk


I'm another who loved filling in the damage bubbles - somehow it felt immersive as you watch your mech physically fall apart.

But I guess that was back when I was young (wipes wistful tear) when it was cardboard stand ups, and Robotech designs, pre-Return of the Clans. You know, when it was pure!

When FASA came up with Interceptor and the other TOG games I loved those too. More boxes to fill in - with flowcharts!

But I guess the past is a different country.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/22 20:39:59


Post by: totalfailure


I’d rather watch Robot Jox on endless loop than play Alpha Strike...


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/24 20:14:51


Post by: Nurglitch


Yeah, but Robot Jox is awesome.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/25 00:17:47


Post by: totalfailure


I wanted to see it so bad when it came out in 1990...all the local Battletech players had heard about the film. Unsuccessful movies like that did not play in the nowhere zone I lived then, though. And this was well before internet/streaming...It was quite a while later before I saw it for the first time.

I like the film, but can admit it's not good at all. Crash & Burn!


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/25 00:27:41


Post by: Da Dez-Urt Groxx


What a great game with exceptional lore.

Like many, it was really the first game the I played exclusively with my mates which set my preferences for hobbies for decades.

Really a shame the way it cratered.

Sincerely hope for a resurrection as I believe it still has much to offer.



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/25 04:53:42


Post by: Charistoph


I first saw it on VHS. None of my family wanted to see it in the theater, and I didn't have a job or a driver's license at the time.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/25 06:07:42


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Da Dez-Urt Groxx wrote:
Sincerely hope for a resurrection as I believe it still has much to offer.
*cough*


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/26 18:54:23


Post by: Easy E


I think I could walk out to the FLGS and get a game of Battletech just as easily as I could War Machine, Infinity, or other similar games.

Not to say it would be easy, but I could still probably land a pick-up game if I was so inclined.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/26 19:36:13


Post by: Albertorius


I would say it's easier now than it's been in a lot of years.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/26 22:57:27


Post by: Theophony


Got to play my second game EVER this weekend. Had fun, it was bloody, much Death. 8000point 4 mech lances, he ripped me up with AC20 shots and pilots who were 2/3s, I was playing all greenies at 4/5 but we both lost two mechs and the remaining two were in sad shape on both sides, but both my remaining ones were on the ground prone, one was missing a leg. I might have still pulled it out, but the game had gone 3 hours at that point.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/27 02:30:33


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Why were your pilots so bad compared to his?


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/27 04:10:13


Post by: Theophony


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why were your pilots so bad compared to his?


I had great mechs with trash pilots, his mechs were not so great I guess. He had a banshee, hunchback, grasshopper and a crusader (one of his three lists he had, which I pointed at with no idea of the game) versus my ryokan, hellbringer, archer and shadowhawk (model I had painted, and chose in 5 minutes to make 8000points)


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/27 07:04:30


Post by: Albertorius


 Theophony wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why were your pilots so bad compared to his?


I had great mechs with trash pilots, his mechs were not so great I guess. He had a banshee, hunchback, grasshopper and a crusader (one of his three lists he had, which I pointed at with no idea of the game) versus my ryokan, hellbringer, archer and shadowhawk (model I had painted, and chose in 5 minutes to make 8000points)


Hm, none of those are bad per se, it would come down to actual variants and the like, but he had a big assault mech (which can range from hot garbage to pretty good, depending on configuration), two good heavies and an AC/20 delivery system. Your archer is similar to the crusader, the regular shadowhawk is a decent medium with trash weapons (you'd be plinking theirs like forever with that), and two clanners, a relatively fast one with heat problems and average armor and paper-thin armored heavy with a whole lot of weapons all over the place...

I'd say you were sort of hosed if the Banshee was one of the good ones.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/27 15:49:01


Post by: Easy E


 Theophony wrote:
Got to play my second game EVER this weekend. Had fun, it was bloody, much Death.


Glad to hear you had fun!

I have no idea how to even "point out" mechs....


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/27 16:43:38


Post by: Nurglitch


I think there's a system for calculating 'threat values' and a book somewhere listing all the various published variant TVs.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/27 16:55:05


Post by: Charistoph


 Albertorius wrote:
 Theophony wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why were your pilots so bad compared to his?


I had great mechs with trash pilots, his mechs were not so great I guess. He had a banshee, hunchback, grasshopper and a crusader (one of his three lists he had, which I pointed at with no idea of the game) versus my ryokan, hellbringer, archer and shadowhawk (model I had painted, and chose in 5 minutes to make 8000points)


Hm, none of those are bad per se, it would come down to actual variants and the like, but he had a big assault mech (which can range from hot garbage to pretty good, depending on configuration), two good heavies and an AC/20 delivery system. Your archer is similar to the crusader, the regular shadowhawk is a decent medium with trash weapons (you'd be plinking theirs like forever with that), and two clanners, a relatively fast one with heat problems and average armor and paper-thin armored heavy with a whole lot of weapons all over the place...

I'd say you were sort of hosed if the Banshee was one of the good ones.

Even a mech with trash weapons can do a lot if the gunnery is good. The closer you can get to statistical normality, the more likely to generate a hit. While the good gear is hitting on a 10+ and the other is hitting on an 8+, even a Shadowhawk's weapons will start to tell against someone who an only hit with 3 die results of a 2D6. That is of course why weapons like Pulse Lasers and LB-X are considered so good, along with the inclusion of such things as Targeting Computers and C3, and even worse when you start adding "cheating" Clan pilots to the mix.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/27 19:18:50


Post by: Ghaz


Nurglitch wrote:
I think there's a system for calculating 'threat values' and a book somewhere listing all the various published variant TVs.

Those would be 'Battle Values' and can be found on most record sheets or at http://www.masterunitlist.info/


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/28 01:27:04


Post by: Charistoph


 Ghaz wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I think there's a system for calculating 'threat values' and a book somewhere listing all the various published variant TVs.

Those would be 'Battle Values' and can be found on most record sheets or at http://www.masterunitlist.info/

And a lot of the Mech building programs like Solaris Skunk Werks or MegaMekLab will do that for you as well for any of your new construction.

Trust me, it is something you WANT to let the computer handle. I remember when BV first came out and I spent about twice as much time figuring out the BV math of a Mech than deciding what to put on it. What makes it even worse is that the PILOT can alter the numbers. *shudder*


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/28 01:48:26


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Solaris Skunk Werks has a force creation sub-program that I've used quite a few times. It works well.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/28 06:47:58


Post by: Albertorius


 Charistoph wrote:
Even a mech with trash weapons can do a lot if the gunnery is good. The closer you can get to statistical normality, the more likely to generate a hit. While the good gear is hitting on a 10+ and the other is hitting on an 8+, even a Shadowhawk's weapons will start to tell against someone who an only hit with 3 die results of a 2D6. That is of course why weapons like Pulse Lasers and LB-X are considered so good, along with the inclusion of such things as Targeting Computers and C3, and even worse when you start adding "cheating" Clan pilots to the mix.

Oh I'm well aware, but a Shadowhawk with a green pilot is not gonna do much.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/28 18:45:36


Post by: Ghaz


 Charistoph wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I think there's a system for calculating 'threat values' and a book somewhere listing all the various published variant TVs.

Those would be 'Battle Values' and can be found on most record sheets or at http://www.masterunitlist.info/

And a lot of the Mech building programs like Solaris Skunk Werks or MegaMekLab will do that for you as well for any of your new construction.

Trust me, it is something you WANT to let the computer handle. I remember when BV first came out and I spent about twice as much time figuring out the BV math of a Mech than deciding what to put on it. What makes it even worse is that the PILOT can alter the numbers. *shudder*

The Master Unit List has a chart modifying the base BV base on Piloting and Gunnery Skill (e.g., as can be seen on the page for the Sojourner A).


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/28 19:41:32


Post by: Charistoph


 Ghaz wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I think there's a system for calculating 'threat values' and a book somewhere listing all the various published variant TVs.

Those would be 'Battle Values' and can be found on most record sheets or at http://www.masterunitlist.info/

And a lot of the Mech building programs like Solaris Skunk Werks or MegaMekLab will do that for you as well for any of your new construction.

Trust me, it is something you WANT to let the computer handle. I remember when BV first came out and I spent about twice as much time figuring out the BV math of a Mech than deciding what to put on it. What makes it even worse is that the PILOT can alter the numbers. *shudder*

The Master Unit List has a chart modifying the base BV base on Piloting and Gunnery Skill (e.g., as can be seen on the page for the Sojourner A).

The MUL doesn't have anything on something one designs for oneself, such as my Introtech Thanatos or Cauldron-Born.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/28 23:11:53


Post by: Ghaz


My bad as I missed the 'new construction' bit and we usually don't use custom 'mechs for the most part (outside of custom OmniMech configurations).


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/29 01:00:27


Post by: Charistoph


 Ghaz wrote:
My bad as I missed the 'new construction' bit and we usually don't use custom 'mechs for the most part (outside of custom OmniMech configurations).

Well, some people want to use their models for the Mech they are using (probably due to 40K WYSIWYG infection), but there are some people who are against Clan equipment (admittedly, it is very powerful) so if I want to use a Cauldron-Born model, I need to downgrade it. Some people like to stick to Introtech, which means in order to use some of my models (like a Thanatos and Starslayer) and keep its style, that needs to be downgraded, too. In these situations, utilizing such "new construction" systems are required.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/29 02:10:06


Post by: Veldrain


Considering how much of the game I have played, I actually dislike most of it. The aesthetic and lore just don't do much for me. It is the only game I can think of that I would say is to crunchy for me.

However, I always seem to get talked into a random game at conventions. Usually around 2am. Give me some pages, tell me what numbers I need to roll, and watch me do something dumb/epic.



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/29 06:28:17


Post by: Albertorius


Veldrain wrote:
Considering how much of the game I have played, I actually dislike most of it. The aesthetic and lore just don't do much for me. It is the only game I can think of that I would say is to crunchy for me.

However, I always seem to get talked into a random game at conventions. Usually around 2am. Give me some pages, tell me what numbers I need to roll, and watch me do something dumb/epic.


You should get out of abusive relationships, you know


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/29 23:33:58


Post by: Veldrain


 Albertorius wrote:
Veldrain wrote:
Considering how much of the game I have played, I actually dislike most of it. The aesthetic and lore just don't do much for me. It is the only game I can think of that I would say is to crunchy for me.

However, I always seem to get talked into a random game at conventions. Usually around 2am. Give me some pages, tell me what numbers I need to roll, and watch me do something dumb/epic.


You should get out of abusive relationships, you know


The worst part is it does not even involve alcohol.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/30 17:23:11


Post by: Tamwulf


The best way to up any BTech game is to allow players to build or modify their own mechs. Without some kind of limit imposed on mech construction (technology available, mech chassis, etc. etc), you get some seriously OP and meta breaking mechs.

There are two main play groups for Btech: Before the Clans, and After the Clans. Those are further divided up a bit more. Before the Clans is three subgroups: Star League era (up to about 2800 or so), then Pre-3025, and Post 3025-3049 when the Clans invade.

Post Clan invasion is usually 3050-3052, then 3052-3067 when the Inner Sphere finally catches up to the Clan's Technology and we start seeing new stuff (proto-mechs, new Elementals, Quad Mechs). After 3067 is when you start getting into this weird place of Battletech. This is about the time we see the rise and fall of the new Star League, fracturing of the Clans, the FedCom civil war starts, and then the COMSTAR Jihad that leads into the Mechwarrior: Dark Age of 3132 (see Wizkids "Clicky Tech"). For a lot of players, for all intents and purposes, Battletech ends with the Technical Readout 3067. Catalyst Game Labs did put out a Technical Readout 3075, 3080, Prototypes, and a 3145. I believe Catalyst is actually slowly going back and revising everything. They just got to the beginning of the Clan Invasion of 3049 (3050).

1.0 Before the Clans
1.1 Star League era: lots of high end Tech rivaling and surpassing Clan tech but using "old school" mechs
1.2 Pre-3025: "Classic Battletech"
1.3 3025-3049: Succession Wars

2.0 Clan Invasion
2.1 3050-3052 When the Clans basically kick , take names, and ends with the Battle of Tukayyid.
2.2 3052-3067 Is the 15 years of "non-Clan aggression" from the battle of Tukayyid where we see the rise of a new Star League, fracturing of the Clans, etc. etc.
2.3 Post 3067 and Dark Age when the Clan invasion heats up again, lots of bad stuff happens, and the result is Mechwarrior: Dark Age.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
From my experience, there are some very passionate players out there about what era they plan in. Mentioning anything outside of their era leads to some... intense discussions. Me personally, I'm a "Post Clans" player, and love the Clans. I favor the time period from 3050 to 3067. Prior to 3050, I just feel lame in a 55 Ton Shadowhawk that can either move, or shoot 1-2 weapons without overheating. The game feels like everything has too much armor and not enough firepower. Feels like a "slow" game. See what I mean about passionate players? LOL


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/30 19:55:41


Post by: Charistoph


 Tamwulf wrote:
The best way to up any BTech game is to allow players to build or modify their own mechs. Without some kind of limit imposed on mech construction (technology available, mech chassis, etc. etc), you get some seriously OP and meta breaking mechs.

Yeah, it is always an area to be careful with. Still downgrading is "easier" than upgrading.

Of course, there are campaign options, but those are usually based on what is available to salvage or whatever lucky cache the campaign master opens up.

 Tamwulf wrote:
There are two main play groups for Btech: Before the Clans, and After the Clans. Those are further divided up a bit more. Before the Clans is three subgroups: Star League era (up to about 2800 or so), then Pre-3025, and Post 3025-3049 when the Clans invade.

Post Clan invasion is usually 3050-3052, then 3052-3067 when the Inner Sphere finally catches up to the Clan's Technology and we start seeing new stuff (proto-mechs, new Elementals, Quad Mechs). After 3067 is when you start getting into this weird place of Battletech. This is about the time we see the rise and fall of the new Star League, fracturing of the Clans, the FedCom civil war starts, and then the COMSTAR Jihad that leads into the Mechwarrior: Dark Age of 3132 (see Wizkids "Clicky Tech"). For a lot of players, for all intents and purposes, Battletech ends with the Technical Readout 3067. Catalyst Game Labs did put out a Technical Readout 3075, 3080, Prototypes, and a 3145. I believe Catalyst is actually slowly going back and revising everything. They just got to the beginning of the Clan Invasion of 3049 (3050).

1.0 Before the Clans
1.1 Star League era: lots of high end Tech rivaling and surpassing Clan tech but using "old school" mechs
1.2 Pre-3025: "Classic Battletech"
1.3 3025-3049: Succession Wars

2.0 Clan Invasion
2.1 3050-3052 When the Clans basically kick , take names, and ends with the Battle of Tukayyid.
2.2 3052-3067 Is the 15 years of "non-Clan aggression" from the battle of Tukayyid where we see the rise of a new Star League, fracturing of the Clans, etc. etc.
2.3 Post 3067 and Dark Age when the Clan invasion heats up again, lots of bad stuff happens, and the result is Mechwarrior: Dark Age.

Some of your dates are off. The Succession Wars usually aludes to the 3rd and 4th Succession War, which were finished with the creation of the St Ives Compact and the loss of a lot of Confederation territory to the Compact and Suns in 3030. The 1st and 2nd were generally too destructive for most people to play ("I kills the regiment with a nuke") and still utilized a lot of Star League equipment that was brought back later. The 3rd Succession War was the interum period where most nations were just scrambling to survive and it was usually a lance conducting a raid to grab parts or resources to keep something running back home. These are the Succession Wars where Introductory Battletech equipment is used, aka the Classic Battletech or IntroTech.

From there it was normal raiding until Federated Commonwealth started aching for more space and started a fight with the Combine in 3039 for the very short War of 3039. It is around this time equipment from several Memory Cores started getting around and restoring Star League Tech (but it was slow until the Clans came).

There is a point were the Federated Commonwealth (created on the eve of the 4th Succession War) gets broken up and they have a civil war as a result. This covers the time from when the New Star League goes out tells the Clans to stop the invasion with a Trial of Refusal to just before the Word of Black starts its Jihad with nuclear fury not seen since the 2nd Succession War. Bad things happen and that starts the Dark Age till some other stuff happens with a guy named Stone who creates a Republic, but I haven't read too much on that part.

 Tamwulf wrote:

From my experience, there are some very passionate players out there about what era they plan in. Mentioning anything outside of their era leads to some... intense discussions. Me personally, I'm a "Post Clans" player, and love the Clans. I favor the time period from 3050 to 3067. Prior to 3050, I just feel lame in a 55 Ton Shadowhawk that can either move, or shoot 1-2 weapons without overheating. The game feels like everything has too much armor and not enough firepower. Feels like a "slow" game. See what I mean about passionate players? LOL

Yeah, Clan equipment totally "cheats", which is why BV and Zelbrigen exists to minimize the cheating. Of course, Star League tech is cheating by Introtech standards, so...

Which is why I like to keep Records Sheets of Introtech for every mech I have for those who like to keep things simple, or just be cheap and put out more units. I also keep Record Sheets of canon upgrades for those models. Currently the only custom machines I have Record Sheets for are IntroTech versions of models which only have upgraded versions, like the Thanatos, Starslayer, and Cauldron-born.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/04/30 20:46:29


Post by: AegisGrimm


I haven't played much, but I have been "in" the universe in some degree since the late 90's, when i was a kid and drawn to the mech figures.

I see elements of the post-Clan era that I like, but most of what draws me is the late Succession Wars era, or just during the Clan Invasion. To me Battletech has always been "Knights on Nuclear Steeds", and the more the tech advances (or rediscovered, etc) it turns more towards just more of a standard Future Tech setting, to me.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/05/01 14:27:18


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Tamwulf wrote:
The best way to up any BTech game is to allow players to build or modify their own mechs. Without some kind of limit imposed on mech construction (technology available, mech chassis, etc. etc), you get some seriously OP and meta breaking mechs.
Custom 'Mechs are fun.

Generally speaking most games we play will have one custom 'Mech per side. Importantly however, it's not just "do whatever you want", but it's based upon the 'Mech that's being customised. In a recent game I had my custom 'Mech be my Urbie, as I thought it'd be fun. So it was an upgrade that swapped out the AC/10 for an LB-10X, and then upgraded the lasers. Friend had a custom Phoenix Hawk with a Clan ER PPC and Streak 4. Neither of them messed up the game in any way.

With the exception of OmniMechs, I take a very 'like for like' approach to customisation. So if something had a weapon of X variety in that mount, a replacement should be as close to that as possible. Major refits where they trade out missiles for energy weapons and whatnot are things that are done with high level equipment, and would often involve changing out targeting systems and internal rearrangement of ammo links and so on. But swapping a PPC for a group of lasers, or replacing a pair of LRM20's with a pair of big MMLs. There's nothing wrong with that.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/05/03 03:13:55


Post by: Mmmpi


Generally, in the groups I've played with, customs were saved for in campaigns. For pick up battles, stock configurations and variants were the name of the game.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/05/30 19:19:06


Post by: cannonfodr


 Tamwulf wrote:

From my experience, there are some very passionate players out there about what era they plan in. Mentioning anything outside of their era leads to some... intense discussions. Me personally, I'm a "Post Clans" player, and love the Clans. I favor the time period from 3050 to 3067. Prior to 3050, I just feel lame in a 55 Ton Shadowhawk that can either move, or shoot 1-2 weapons without overheating. The game feels like everything has too much armor and not enough firepower. Feels like a "slow" game. See what I mean about passionate players? LOL


Are you sure you're describing a Shadow Hawk and not a Griffin? The stock Shadow Hawk and Wolverine were both pretty heat friendly barring an engine hit or 2.

The thing that got me about Clan tech was between targeting computers, clan pilots and pulse lasers, light mechs couldn't get high enough modifiers to be survivable.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/01 23:51:33


Post by: Charistoph


cannonfodr wrote:
 Tamwulf wrote:

From my experience, there are some very passionate players out there about what era they plan in. Mentioning anything outside of their era leads to some... intense discussions. Me personally, I'm a "Post Clans" player, and love the Clans. I favor the time period from 3050 to 3067. Prior to 3050, I just feel lame in a 55 Ton Shadowhawk that can either move, or shoot 1-2 weapons without overheating. The game feels like everything has too much armor and not enough firepower. Feels like a "slow" game. See what I mean about passionate players? LOL


Are you sure you're describing a Shadow Hawk and not a Griffin? The stock Shadow Hawk and Wolverine were both pretty heat friendly barring an engine hit or 2.

The thing that got me about Clan tech was between targeting computers, clan pilots and pulse lasers, light mechs couldn't get high enough modifiers to be survivable.

It depends on the variant, really. Some can actually light up quite hot if you're not careful. In most cases they swapped out the AC/5 for either a PPC or Large Laser and didn't do much in installing heat sinks to cover the 7-9 heat difference.

For reference, look up the WVR-6M and SHD-2K, especially if someone keeps the SRM and Med Laser on the 2K instead of the heat sinks.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/02 11:02:42


Post by: AduroT


I was running a Clan Puma in my first learning game here the other day. Pair of PPCs generating 30 heat a turn, but the sinks only dissipate 22. I rather liked the deciding when I needed to give em both barrels and when to conserve.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/02 11:08:18


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Yeah... the Puma is a weird little thing. Lots of fun other configs as well.

But good to learn about heat now rather than later. Don't be afraid of heat. Ending your turn with heat isn't the end of the world (as long as it's not "I may explode!" levels of heat, that is).


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/18 04:49:40


Post by: Manchu


Someone more knowledgable than I ought to write an article for miniatures gamers called “Battletech: What Am I Doing Wrong?”

I was really perplexed by CBT at first. Something seemed to be wrong with the game — or me? How could this game, with all of its cool aspects, feel so boring to play? I did some research and, although (as I just said) it would take someone more knowledgable than me to really address the issue, here is my impoverished attempt.

To begin with, we have to consider the Atlantic divide. On the US side of the pond, gamers tended to focus on wargaming in the tradition of Kriegspiel; that is to say, simulating military reality. By contrast, the British tended to focus on what we might nowadays call generating narrative. Materially, this divide manifested in designs built around the “hex and counter” format by Americans and in designs built around miniatures by the British.

Even D&D, in its American origins, was strongly flavored early on by simulationist/hex and counter assumptions. But that is a whole other topic and we’ll skip the decade between the “woodgrain box” days of D&D and Battledroids. Suffice it to say, by 1984, roleplaying had become just as impactful on the American design scene as “formal“ hex and counter wargames. Battledroids was the embodiment of these two elements re-colliding.

So, first, the superficial hex and counter elements of Battletech are still obvious on the commercial face of the game today. There are, of course, hex maps included with the game, just like with Battledroids thirty seven years ago. And the hexes have “stacking” limits, etc, etc. For some reason, miniatures gamers who come to CBT tend to overlook this. The (only somewhat) less obvious element is the heavy emphasis on simulationism. One of the most fundamental drivers of fun with CBT is “seeing what happens” when one aims such-and-such weapons systems at such-and-such chassis at such-and-such range.

Second, there’s the roleplaying element. Listen to CBT vets talk about their experiences over the decades and you will start to notice they are not talking about a player-versus-player concept, like in WHFB or 40k. Instead, they talk about running campaigns for their players as game masters. This is really puzzling to the uninitiated because, unlike reading through D&D starter set materials, this isn’t exactly spelled out by the CBT rules. In fact, if you didn’t know to look for it, you could be forgiven for never discovering it. One reason for this is, when we think about RPGs, we tend to look for characters. Again, here’s where you have to listen to CBT vets to figure things out. The mechs themselves, or rather the mech designs, end up being the CBT equivalent of RPG PCs.

And now you can understand why so much ink has been spilled on mech construction rules over the years! Not only is it the way CBT as a roleplaying game, rather than a miniatures game, handles “making characters” but it’s also the way that CBT, as wargame rather than a miniatures game, handles simulation. The overarching point that you, dear reader, should have noticed by now is that Battletech is NOT a miniatures game.What it actually is, is a hybrid wargame/RPG. It’s much more in line with early TSR (= Tactical Studies Rules) than GW.

I think this is the most important factor in many miniatures gamers finding themselves frustrated and disappointed with CBT. It’s not just that we are “doing it wrong” — more fundamentally, we’re looking at it the wrong way.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/18 14:20:04


Post by: Nurglitch


Maybe we're not looking at it the wrong way, and we're simply not into agonizingly slow Roll-and-Writes? I think Easy E's first impression is accurate.

I also think Sudokus, Crosswords, and Yahtzee are popular for a reason, and that Battletech is the giant robot game for people that like math and puzzles. That's not me. May not be Easy E. But certainly H.B.M.C and others.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/18 18:44:40


Post by: Manchu


No doubt some people just won’t enjoy CBT no matter how they approach it.

But people will have the best chance of enjoying CBT if they accurately understand what kind of game it is.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/18 20:40:43


Post by: Nurglitch



Not mine, but not bad...


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/18 23:13:40


Post by: Albertorius


I mean, I've played Starfleet Battles and ASL... Battletech is positively basic


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/19 01:29:28


Post by: AegisGrimm


I'm hoping to play my first games of BT this summer with a local gaming group, and maybe even get some people around me to play Mech Attack- it's an indie mech game favorite of mine that plays like a super-casual Battletech. More akin to the quick-feel of Alpha Strike, but it has some quick and basic mech construction that makes mechs "feel" different, and weapons all have different sorts of damage profiles that punch different shapes of damage into the grid of boxes that represent a mechs armor, kind of like an abstract Crimson Skies (or I've heard Renegade Legion) damage system.

Battletech has a sweet way of representing small-scale mech combat in a very in-depth way, but sometimes I just want to see two sides of 4-6 mechs each smash each other in a game lasting 45 minutes, maybe even with vehicles involved. Battletech seems more like a full afternoon commitment, especially at a Lance or more per side, which is hard if my only games are going to be on the way home from work, meeting up at a local store.



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/20 16:51:32


Post by: Tamwulf


 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm hoping to play my first games of BT this summer with a local gaming group, and maybe even get some people around me to play Mech Attack- it's an indie mech game favorite of mine that plays like a super-casual Battletech. More akin to the quick-feel of Alpha Strike, but it has some quick and basic mech construction that makes mechs "feel" different, and weapons all have different sorts of damage profiles that punch different shapes of damage into the grid of boxes that represent a mechs armor, kind of like an abstract Crimson Skies (or I've heard Renegade Legion) damage system.

Battletech has a sweet way of representing small-scale mech combat in a very in-depth way, but sometimes I just want to see two sides of 4-6 mechs each smash each other in a game lasting 45 minutes, maybe even with vehicles involved. Battletech seems more like a full afternoon commitment, especially at a Lance or more per side, which is hard if my only games are going to be on the way home from work, meeting up at a local store.



Look into Alphastrike- it's a more "simplified" combat system designed for multiple mechs on the table. It's not as granular as Battletech, but still gives you some of the flavor. You can easily do multiple lances in a couple hours. I really like it. Much more fluid and dynamic.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/20 21:23:18


Post by: AegisGrimm


I like the concept of Alpha Strike, but some of it seems overly bland to me. Like how an entire mech's ranged attacks on a target ends up just being translated into some marked off armor/structural dots.

In Mech Attack, every weapon does a different amount of damage, allowing holes to be blasted in the abstract representation of the target's overall armor that can be exploited by other later hits if they land in the "holes", getting nearer to being Critical Hits. and rather than just "pushing" for a level of heat like in Alpha Strike, each weapon adds a slightly different amount of heat.

And rather than just being able to "push" to gain heat for extra damage in Alpha Strike, Mech Attack has everything a mech does adding heat, from move/run, to weapons adding slightly differing levels of heat that a mech has to get rid of at the end of the turn or suffer various heat effects. So you have to keep track of firing too many individual weapons for your mech's ability to vent.

It kind of feels like a nice medium between Classic and Alpha Strike in granularity.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/20 21:45:03


Post by: Nurglitch


Do you happen to have a link to the Mech Attack rules?


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/21 02:48:04


Post by: AegisGrimm


It's on Wargame Vault. https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/3148/Armor-Grid-Games-and-Miniatures

It was originally meant for the included 2.5D papercraft mechs and vehicles, which are cool for what they are, but I prefer real minis instead. It's never going to beat the granularity of Battletech, or be "the most amazing game ever", but does the job really nicely of simulating Battletech in a very speedy beer and pretzels form. I know one of the Dakka forum members that runs the Chicago Skirmish Wargames blog plays it at conventions scaled up to use 28mm-scaled infantry and vehicle models and mech toys.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/21 13:04:40


Post by: Nurglitch


Thank you! It's always interesting to see what people are into.

Edit: Also, this looks very much like a set of rules someone made to port the Centurion armour blocks into Battletech, but simplified.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/22 20:43:31


Post by: Eilif


One more vote for Mech Attack. I positively love the rules and have used them for years in N Scale with Rebased Mechwarrior clix figs and in 25/28mm for massive convention mech battles.

Lots of Mech Attack battles chronicles here:
https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/?s=mech+attack

I think that Alpha Strike and Mech Attack are actually quite complimentary. When you want a larger scope battle Alpha strike works quite well. When you want a lance vs a lance in an hour or so that is fast-moving but just granular enough Mech Attack is the way to go.

It is similar to the Centurian damage grid. It's really quite ingenious the way it streamlines mech damage while still feeling "right" in the way it differentiates the damage between different types of mechs.

For those -like myself- who adore the Battletech setting and tech but can't stomach the actual CBT rules, Mech Attack really steps in nicely.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 00:41:07


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I do kinda wonder what would happen if I went into 40k threads and starting telling everyone to go and play alternate rules...


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 01:00:35


Post by: Eilif


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I do kinda wonder what would happen if I went into 40k threads and starting telling everyone to go and play alternate rules...

Sorry about that.

Just trying to give folks an option that can keep them planted firmly in the Battletech universe/art/lore/miniatures...

... if they've lost their taste for 1980's rules.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 01:56:45


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I also apologise. My post was dramatically passive aggressive.

It is weird to have a BTech thread that talks about playing other games though.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 03:05:51


Post by: AegisGrimm


And I as well. It meandered a bit off topic, but don't know if it's all that different than when people mention Alpha Strike in a Battletech thread. Both AS and Mech Attack are about equally removed from Classic, when comparing the hyper-detailing of Classic to something more streamlined for the sake of speed/amount of models. I was just mentioning that not only was I also enthusiastic to get in a few games of Classic with a new group this summer, but also making a side note of a quicker, beer-and-pretzels way of getting my mechs on the table in the same universe, and then it kind of snowballed.

No different than someone mentioning in a 40K thread that they also REALLY like playing the same fluffy forces people are talking about, but in Epic. But sometimes better held in Private Messages, rather than clogging up a thread.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 03:30:28


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I guess the divide between BattleTech and Alpha Strike is a bit like the divide between grognard #3025foreva types and the rest of people just playing BattleTech (only less silly).

I get that it's a (far) simpler game, and it therefore allows for faster play with large units. I don't like talking about Alpha Strike because I feel it takes the 'BattleTech' out of BattleTech, abstracting things to such a degree that it no longer feels like my Kodiak is beating your Atlas' head in, and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to stop anyone from talking about it. It's just not my thing.

I don't want to become the #3025foreva grognard who screams about anything other than Introtech BTech isn't proper and should be erased from the timeline, only for Alpha Strike.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 12:17:49


Post by: Eilif


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I also apologise. My post was dramatically passive aggressive.

It is weird to have a BTech thread that talks about playing other games though.

No worries. I was snarky too. All among friends.

I'm not concerned generally about thread drift unless the OP raises objections. I'm biased though as I tend to see the lines between miniature wargames rules, minis and settings as quite fluid. I'm all about mixing to taste. For example, something I've done a few times is a scenario pulled from a CBT supplement (I have an unreasonably large CBT Library) played with rebased Mechwarrior clix, using Mech Attack rules.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 12:37:25


Post by: Nurglitch


It's kind of cool to have different options to play with your miniatures though, and to have a community that's generally more open to that.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 16:25:00


Post by: Manchu


This is a site about miniatures gaming so there are bound to be some suggestions about how to use BT minis to play, ya know, an actual miniatures game (rather than CBT). I think the main thing to avoid is sweeping statements about how CBT is “clunky” or “outdated” etc, etc when it seems that way, to the people saying so, because they aren’t getting what they are looking for from the game. This is a problem with their expectations; not a problem with CBT.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 17:32:59


Post by: Nurglitch


CBT cannot fail, it can only be failed.

I'm kidding: there's a game for everyone.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 18:32:52


Post by: Manchu


Sure, and let’s not confuse limitations or, to use a better concept, perspective with failure.

What I mean by “perspective” is the aesthetic sensibility that a rule set is built around. For CBT, it’s detail-driven simulation. This perspective has some pretty clear limitations. For example, I think we can all agree that CBT is probably not the best rule set if what you really want is a game with dozens of units fighting.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/25 22:40:55


Post by: Eilif


I think historical context is a much better measure for understanding CBT's origin while it's setting explains it's longevity.

It came out in 1984. Detailed hex-based wargames were the norm. People were playing Star Fleet Battles, Advanced Squad Leader was about to drop and board wargames were more popular than miniature wargames.

Its no surprise that the boxed versions were the same size as the "bookcase" wargames released by Avalon Hill and others.

In view of its contemporaries everything about Battletech makes sense and it's not an overly complicated game by comparison. What makes it extraordinary is that with minor tweaks nearly the exact same game is being played today, 37 years later and nearly every game supplement is still usable.

One can assume that there will always be a small cohort interested in this type of granular simulation game. Some people still play ASQL after all. My opinion is that it is the strength and depth of the setting (as transmitted in rulebooks, novels, models and other media) that has kept it CBT at the forefront of that category and retained many folks involved at least tangentially who might otherwise have drifted off towards more modern rulesets.

I'm certainly one. I've known for a couple decades that the CBT rules are not me but somehow I keep acquiring the books.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/26 08:33:41


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Going back a few posts to pick this line out...
 Manchu wrote:
One of the most fundamental drivers of fun with CBT is “seeing what happens” when one aims such-and-such weapons systems at such-and-such chassis at such-and-such range.
This is one of the things I love the most about BTech. The moment where you and everyone else involved in the game have worked out all their shots, and we get to the "Well, here goes nothing!" part of the game.

It's tons of fun.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/26 10:04:00


Post by: Charistoph


AegisGrimm wrote:And I as well. It meandered a bit off topic, but don't know if it's all that different than when people mention Alpha Strike in a Battletech thread. Both AS and Mech Attack are about equally removed from Classic, when comparing the hyper-detailing of Classic to something more streamlined for the sake of speed/amount of models...

I'm going to disagree slightly here. Alpha Strike is designed by the owners of the Battletech license and part of the Battletech brand, while Mech Attack is not. It would be like comparing Epic 40K and Dropzone Commander. Sure they are removed from a certain level of detail from the original game, but Epic is still Warhammer, while Dropzone is not. Mech Attack is not Battletech, while Alpha Strike is part of the Battletech brand. It may be subtle, but it can be significant.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Going back a few posts to pick this line out...
 Manchu wrote:
One of the most fundamental drivers of fun with CBT is “seeing what happens” when one aims such-and-such weapons systems at such-and-such chassis at such-and-such range.
This is one of the things I love the most about BTech. The moment where you and everyone else involved in the game have worked out all their shots, and we get to the "Well, here goes nothing!" part of the game.

It's tons of fun.

Like it's closing time and you have that one turn left, so you go for the Death From Above (haven't succeeded in one yet), or to see if you can just squeeze out that one last burst of speed to make it to the objective.

Tonight (or last night considering the hour I'm posting this), we were running a scenario in which one was to run in, scan a building for data, and then get the data out, while the other prevented it. We ended on the turn limit provided, and none of my mechs were dead, but I had managed to slowly pound the head of one of his in after 3 different hits. I managed to secure data from two buildings, but I had held my fastest mech back too much, and required more than one turn allowed to get off the board. The other mech that had data was my heaviest mech, so it was only a third of the way out when time ran out. This is one of the reasons I like playing Battletech (another is unit design, to see what would be built to handle the scenario).


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/26 14:28:18


Post by: AegisGrimm


Yeah, but Alpha Strike has abstracted BT to death. Nothing about say, a Warhammer's card makes me, a beginning player, instantly think of a Warhammer and it's loadout compared to the miniature/fiction. It's just a bunch of stat lines and bubbles. I need a ruleset where it at least matters that the PPC's are in the arms, and the missile launcher is in the right torso, with appropriate criticals taking out the appropriate weapons systems, rather than just dice amounts degrading.

And I need to feel the gamble represented by firing that second PPC after the first, and whether I am willing to risk the heat effects. I actually think that Mech Attack better represents Classic BT than Alpha Strike, in the above ways, other than heat is not tracked between turns, and weapons are still somewhat generalized (two med lasers, or a med pulse laser, in an arm in MA would just better be represented with a "Twin Linked Med Laser, which grants an accuracy bonus").

But if anything is to be said, BT is still a great way to have hyper-focused skirmish level combat between just a couple models per side (something that is not very widespread in minis gaming), and to me Mech Attack is a third great way to wipe out a bunch of damn Dracs, so there's that!



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/26 16:21:46


Post by: Eilif


 Charistoph wrote:

I'm going to disagree slightly here. Alpha Strike is designed by the owners of the Battletech license and part of the Battletech brand, while Mech Attack is not....

...Mech Attack is not Battletech, while Alpha Strike is part of the Battletech brand. It may be subtle, but it can be significant.


Its only significant relative to how much value you place on a ruleset having to come from the brand owner.

Matters not a whit to me. Couldn't care less whether a ruleset comes from someone paid by TOPPS or a guy working out of his basement.

My focus is always on how well a ruleset balances the type of game I'm looking for with fidelity to the setting. Mech Attack is by no means a perfect ruleset nor is it more faithful to the setting than CBT.

However, for the size of game I want to play, in the amount of time I want to spend, Mech Attack is often -IMO- the best intersection of setting fidelity and desired game experience.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/26 19:40:33


Post by: Nurglitch


@Charistoph
I haven't played Battletech in nearly 30 years, so I'm not clear on something: Which CBT-branded book did you get that scenario from? It sounds like fun.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/26 21:39:49


Post by: Charistoph


 Nurglitch wrote:
@Charistoph
I haven't played Battletech in nearly 30 years, so I'm not clear on something: Which CBT-branded book did you get that scenario from? It sounds like fun.

It was a scenario that we had created a couple weeks ago with a discussion on how to do it. We have one guy who is the "Battlemaster" of our weekly groups and provides a scenario to plan for (though to be fair, there has been a couple times where a couple players ignore the scenario and just played what they wanted, especially if there is someone trying out the game for the first time.

This is what was posted on Discord for this week:
This week!
Points: 6000
Pilots: 4/5
Tech Level: Unrestricted
Forced Withdrawal: Yes
Round Limit: 8
Units must have a standard active probe

Intel has been received revealing research on a new weapon system. It is unknown where the data is being housed exactly, however it has been narrowed to 3 buildings. Enemy reinforcements are inbound, time is of the essence!

Attacker:
Your mission, scan each building to retrieve as much information as possible and escape via your deployment zone.

Defender:
Disrupt scan attempts, destroy or drive enemy units from the area.

To scan a building, a unit must begin its turn adjacent to the building and end the turn adjacent to the building. If the scanning unit does nothing, the scan is successful.
If the scanning unit makes an attack, a piloting skill roll is necessary to complete the scan successfully.
If the scanning unit is forced to make a piloting skill roll for any other reason, an additional piloting roll must be made at a +3. On a failure, the scan fails and be restarted.

Victory Conditions:
Attacker: 2 points for each scanned building data returned. 1 point for each defender forced to withdraw.

Defender: 1 point for each enemy forced to withdraw. 1 point for each interupted scan.

The rules for the distanced and requiring a piloting skill came out of not having to deal with ECM and ECCM rules, but still allowing a way for the defending player a chance to counter.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/26 21:45:25


Post by: Eilif


That is a very cool scenario. I may be borrowing that at some point. Interesting scenarios are the hallmark of most of my favorite games.

Really great that you have a "BattleMaster" to put these things together. In my previous club we definitely benefited from having members step up and put together or research/source interesting scenarios.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/26 22:06:48


Post by: Charistoph


Eilif wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:

I'm going to disagree slightly here. Alpha Strike is designed by the owners of the Battletech license and part of the Battletech brand, while Mech Attack is not....

...Mech Attack is not Battletech, while Alpha Strike is part of the Battletech brand. It may be subtle, but it can be significant.

Its only significant relative to how much value you place on a ruleset having to come from the brand owner.

Matters not a whit to me. Couldn't care less whether a ruleset comes from someone paid by TOPPS or a guy working out of his basement.

My focus is always on how well a ruleset balances the type of game I'm looking for with fidelity to the setting. Mech Attack is by no means a perfect ruleset nor is it more faithful to the setting than CBT.

However, for the size of game I want to play, in the amount of time I want to spend, Mech Attack is often -IMO- the best intersection of setting fidelity and desired game experience.

Part of the problem is paying a 3rd party to play with your models. Which leads to reduced support for the original system.

Also part of the problem could be that it may not have that feel for other people. If you like it, that's you, but if I want to play 40K, I don't go to Dropzone, Epic would be something I'd turn to for that level of gameplay. If I'm going to play Dropzone, I'll play with my Dropzone models. Maybe it's a personal thing.

AegisGrimm wrote:Yeah, but Alpha Strike has abstracted BT to death. Nothing about say, a Warhammer's card makes me, a beginning player, instantly think of a Warhammer and it's loadout compared to the miniature/fiction. It's just a bunch of stat lines and bubbles. I need a ruleset where it at least matters that the PPC's are in the arms, and the missile launcher is in the right torso, with appropriate criticals taking out the appropriate weapons systems, rather than just dice amounts degrading.

And I need to feel the gamble represented by firing that second PPC after the first, and whether I am willing to risk the heat effects. I actually think that Mech Attack better represents Classic BT than Alpha Strike, in the above ways, other than heat is not tracked between turns, and weapons are still somewhat generalized (two med lasers, or a med pulse laser, in an arm in MA would just better be represented with a "Twin Linked Med Laser, which grants an accuracy bonus").

But if anything is to be said, BT is still a great way to have hyper-focused skirmish level combat between just a couple models per side (something that is not very widespread in minis gaming), and to me Mech Attack is a third great way to wipe out a bunch of damn Dracs, so there's that!

I won't disagree with the level of abstraction, but for a new player, I don't think they'd notice the lack of crunch unless they had already played CBT or one of the video games.

And who knows, if they get enough in to Alpha Strike, they may try out CBT and the crunchiness isn't as big a problem as it used to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Eilif wrote:
That is a very cool scenario. I may be borrowing that at some point. Interesting scenarios are the hallmark of most of my favorite games.

I found it interesting. I was on the offensive, but the only reason I had a point was because of the kill. And I think the reason he didn't get a a couple kills was because of a combination of Void Signature System (think reverse movement modifier) and Ferro-Lamellor armor.

 Eilif wrote:
Really great that you have a "BattleMaster" to put these things together. In my previous club we definitely benefited from having members step up and put together or research/source interesting scenarios.

It's been helpful. He even gathered up a few ideas of scenario objectives from the past and group.

1 Board Edge
2 Drop Ship (adjacent)
3 Drop pod (~random location per mech)

Neutral complications
1 Buildings to not accidentally destroy.
2 Titan (attacks closest, or in random direction, etc)

Objectives
1 Buildings to destory.
2 Capture Flag (toward specific location)
3 Protect VIP (1 additional mech with terrible pilot)
4 Escort (Vehicles travel along set path)
5 Scan / recover (person, item, data)
6 Territory (control area)

Terrains
1 Urban (buildings)
2 Forest / Jungle
3 Desert (+ heat)
4 Ice (- heat)

Scoring
1 Per destroy building
2 Per Scan / recover (x2 for escaping map)
3 Per mech destroyed (or per X BV)

Pretty much almost ready for just rolling some dice if he didn't want to make the effort. We even went hexless with Miniature rules a couple weeks ago, and before that it was a melee brawl.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 03:36:55


Post by: Manchu


Please note that Charistoph’s example involves a “game master” ... this is very much in line how I have heard long-time BT players describe their approach.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 03:51:08


Post by: Nurglitch


Part of the charm seems to be the DIY aspect rather than a brand-affiliation.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 04:07:01


Post by: H.B.M.C.


A few of the books have had "scan building" scenarios. I once went through (at the time, 2013) all the books that had Chaos campaign missions in there and pulled out... *checks old document* 47 different mission types. There's a lot that's out there already.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I need a ruleset where it at least matters that the PPC's are in the arms, and the missile launcher is in the right torso, with appropriate criticals taking out the appropriate weapons systems, rather than just dice amounts degrading.
Forget critical locations! I need a game where having a PPC matters at all.

I mean look at this.

That's not just abstracting location. That's abstracting everything. 40k is no where near as crunchy as BTech, yet even in their simplified rules (by comparison) a Marine with a Bolter still has a bolter. It's not like all the Marines in the unit are boiled down to a 'firepower rating' or some other such nonsense.

But yes, beyond that I completely agree. I think Alpha Strike goes way too far in abstracting things to the point where it ceases to be BTech in anything but aesthetic.

[EDIT]: Turns out you can't embed MUL pics. Ok then...




My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 04:20:26


Post by: Manchu


My group has been working through the Nashira Campaign scenarios, which can be found here:

https://nckestrel.wordpress.com/campaigns/


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 05:56:45


Post by: Charistoph


 Manchu wrote:
Please note that Charistoph’s example involves a “game master” ... this is very much in line how I have heard long-time BT players describe their approach.

He's someone who's volunteered to lead these weekly meetups like setting up the scenarios, sizes, and such. We do have a couple of Catalyst demo agents (I forget the actual title) here, but they are on the other side of the metropolis and our store is on an extreme edge. He also onboards new potential players, giving them a game to work with.

All in all, it's probably a good thing to have someone like that for a decent-sized group dedicated to a game to work from, especially if they don't have a tournament scene to concern themselves with their locked scenarios (*cough* ITC, Steamroller *cough*).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A few of the books have had "scan building" scenarios. I once went through (at the time, 2013) all the books that had Chaos campaign missions in there and pulled out... *checks old document* 47 different mission types. There's a lot that's out there already.

I just briefly scanned some scenarios myself, but not with any detail. Then there are the old scenario books like Tukayyid, Luthien, and Covenant which can provide some good guide (updated of course).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's not just abstracting location. That's abstracting everything. 40k is no where near as crunchy as BTech, yet even in their simplified rules (by comparison) a Marine with a Bolter still has a bolter. It's not like all the Marines in the unit are boiled down to a 'firepower rating' or some other such nonsense.

I haven't played Epic 40K, but I've seen the models. How detailed and abstract are those units? Comparing Alpha Strike to 40K is somewhat pointless as they don't operate on the same scale at all. Heck, CBT and 40K don't operate on the same scale, one would probably have to go to Battle Troops for that. CBT is probably closer to Titanicus right now than anything else, and that's probably stretching it.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 06:01:29


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I wasn't so much comparing their scale, and more making the point that there's abstraction, and then there's completely removing any element of what makes a game interesting.

Alpha Strike doesn't just abstract 'Mech combat into a more streamlined format. Instead it removes the character/flavour of the units themselves. If you look at that Warhammer AS profile I linked, it doesn't even list the weapons. The Warhammer is reduced to "3" at short and medium, and "2" at long.

It just seems so... hollow.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 06:07:31


Post by: Charistoph


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wasn't so much comparing their scale, and more making the point that there's abstraction, and then there's completely removing any element of what makes a game interesting.

Alpha Strike doesn't just abstract 'Mech combat into a more streamlined format. Instead it removes the character/flavour of the units themselves. If you look at that Warhammer AS profile I linked, it doesn't even list the weapons. The Warhammer is reduced to "3" at short and medium, and "2" at long.

It just seems so... hollow.

I understand what you're saying, but by not considering the scale, your expectations get skewed. Like comparing a game meant to handle a couple dozen titans on the field to a game designed around representing that single PBI.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have it be part way in between where you can at least represent some of the weaponry, maybe closer a system where a Mech has about as much health and unique weaponry as a Warjack from Warmachine or a Dreadnought from 40K. But I also am not expecting AS to be something it was never designed to be.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 07:11:05


Post by: Manchu


I actually like (the latest version of) Alpha Strike (using some modifications) with the understanding that it’s not really Battletech.

IMO, HBMC and AegisGrimm are correct: Alpha Strike gets rid of the level of detail that gives rise to Battletech’s fundamental identity.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 11:22:44


Post by: Albertorius


 Charistoph wrote:
I haven't played Epic 40K, but I've seen the models. How detailed and abstract are those units? Comparing Alpha Strike to 40K is somewhat pointless as they don't operate on the same scale at all. Heck, CBT and 40K don't operate on the same scale, one would probably have to go to Battle Troops for that. CBT is probably closer to Titanicus right now than anything else, and that's probably stretching it.

It really depends on the edition and the model. That said, even the most treamlined set (Epic:40.000) has location, weaponry and critical hit rules for the medium-to-big stuff and weapon differentiation (AT weapons, barrage, etc) at the very least, even though most of the regular units are more streamlined.

But the rest of the versions of the Epic rules have more detail: a Leman Russ has a battle cannon and sponson weapons, and those work as you'd expect, a Land Raider has twin linked lascannons, etc.

And even so, Alpha Strike and Epic are two very, very different beasts: Epic is a "whole battle" kinda game whereas Alpha Strike is more of a company-level one, meaning Epic could get away with more streamlining.

It doesn't have it, but it could get away with it more easily.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 13:06:00


Post by: Eilif


 Manchu wrote:
I actually like (the latest version of) Alpha Strike (using some modifications) with the understanding that it’s not really Battletech.

IMO, HBMC and AegisGrimm are correct: Alpha Strike gets rid of the level of detail that gives rise to Battletech’s fundamental identity.

A few questions then:
First,
Is Battletech's fundamental identity wedded to a relatively small scope game?

You can of course run a huge game of Battletech if you have ALOT of time but the fact is that the granularity of Battletech does not scale up well.

Second, for fans who feel CBT IS Battletech,
Is it conceivable that there would be a larger scope game that would both be playable and feel like "Battletech" to them?

We can reasonably disagree but for myself Battletech is the setting and given the variety of scopes (RPG through Strategic Level) and media (TTGs, novels, video games, etc) I think the IP holders agree with me.

I like Alpha Strike. Its Abstractions don't bother me as regardless of genre or setting, I expect greater abstraction as the scope of the game increases.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Charistoph wrote:

Part of the problem is paying a 3rd party to play with your models. Which leads to reduced support for the original system.

Also part of the problem could be that it may not have that feel for other people. If you like it, that's you, but if I want to play 40K, I don't go to Dropzone, Epic would be something I'd turn to for that level of gameplay. If I'm going to play Dropzone, I'll play with my Dropzone models. Maybe it's a personal thing.
l.

I've always been embraced 3rd party models, rules, etc. If a business wants my dollar they have to make what I want.

Largely a moot point given the number of BT books I've purchased but the sentiment remains. Support for an "original system" only extends as far as they make what I want.

You make a good point about other players. Its true that my approach only works with like minded players. I've had good luck finding such people but if I couldn't, I might acquiess to a more conventional approach if it meant finding more players.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 16:03:16


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Maybe if Alpha Strike was Epic scale (Battalion vs Battalion or larger), but as a game to speed up Company v Company play (or things around that size), it cuts out too much of what BTech is.

There are no PCCs in Alpha Strike. There are no LRMs in Alpha Strike. There are no Ultra Autocannons in Alpha Strike. There's a short, medium and long firepower rating. What's more striking is that, despite this abstraction, they've left in tons of modifiers for making attacks - everything from movement modifiers, cover, critical damage, whether the 'Mech is carrying a shield, what type of target, heat levels, and everything in between - but there's not enough scope in the rules to shot the difference between Gauss Rifle and a Smaller Laser?

What???




My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 17:41:36


Post by: Manchu


Is Battletech's fundamental identity wedded to a relatively small scope game?
Yes, I think it definitely is. Because of its simulationist roots, CBT has always been ambitious about adding rules to describe increasingly higher levels and scopes of conflict. But its practical design orientation is anchored to stories about very “personal” engagements. This is par for the course in terms of game design at the time. You see the exact same thing with D&D, where there were rules for running your own fiefdom and mass combat in wars between nations — but really D&D nonetheless remained a game about a particular group of individual adventurers. The BT setting is sweeping, with huge wars fought across interstellar empires but this is mostly a dramatic backdrop for the zoomed-in story of “your guys” who, very much in step with D&D, usually were cast as mercenary companies.
Is it conceivable that there would be a larger scope game that would both be playable and feel like "Battletech" to them?
Alpha Strike is not the first attempt. As early as 1987, there was an alternative rules system for larger engagements, called Battleforce. The legacy of that game survives in CBT today as folded into the Strategic Operations “core book” — in other words, the D&D metaphor applies to this question, too. How “playable” is a large scale war using D&D rules? At what point, in trying to do that, are you no longer really playing D&D? And yet D&D has very consistently “retained” (from its Chainmail origins) an interest in simulating mass battles.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 21:55:57


Post by: Eilif


 Manchu wrote:
Is Battletech's fundamental identity wedded to a relatively small scope game?
Yes, I think it definitely is. Because of its simulationist roots, CBT has always been ambitious about adding rules to describe increasingly higher levels and scopes of conflict. But its practical design orientation is anchored to stories about very “personal” engagements. This is par for the course in terms of game design at the time. You see the exact same thing with D&D, where there were rules for running your own fiefdom and mass combat in wars between nations — but really D&D nonetheless remained a game about a particular group of individual adventurers. The BT setting is sweeping, with huge wars fought across interstellar empires but this is mostly a dramatic backdrop for the zoomed-in story of “your guys” who, very much in step with D&D, usually were cast as mercenary companies.
Is it conceivable that there would be a larger scope game that would both be playable and feel like "Battletech" to them?
Alpha Strike is not the first attempt. As early as 1987, there was an alternative rules system for larger engagements, called Battleforce. The legacy of that game survives in CBT today as folded into the Strategic Operations “core book” — in other words, the D&D metaphor applies to this question, too. How “playable” is a large scale war using D&D rules? At what point, in trying to do that, are you no longer really playing D&D? And yet D&D has very consistently “retained” (from its Chainmail origins) an interest in simulating mass battles.


Very interesting points. Regarding the scope it is interesting that, IIRC, nearly all the electronic media for Battletech has been likewise focused on one guy in a mech or a commander of a lance of mechs. So, despite the fact that far more folks have probably played an easily-accessible BT video game than have ever played the simulation-ist board game, it could be argued that the small-scope of BT is a long-term feature.

I think there's alot to the comparison to D&D also. The detailed small-group emphasis, the wide and dramatic settings, the enthusiasts buying huge numbers of books that will rarely/never be used...

As I mentioned before, while the simulation-ist thing never grabbed me, the setting bit and never let go. However, I suspect I'm not alone in this.

As for Battleforce, Alpha Strike is basically just a port of Battleforce though it's been tweaked a bit since. I was silly enough to buy Strategic Operations not too long before Alpha Strike came out, just to get the Battleforce rules which I think also included rules for Battleforce with minis (Hard to recall as I later sold Strategic Operations) . Never did play Battleforce, but I bought, played and enjoyed Alpha Strike fairly soon after.



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/27 22:36:39


Post by: Charistoph


Albertorius wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
I haven't played Epic 40K, but I've seen the models. How detailed and abstract are those units? Comparing Alpha Strike to 40K is somewhat pointless as they don't operate on the same scale at all. Heck, CBT and 40K don't operate on the same scale, one would probably have to go to Battle Troops for that. CBT is probably closer to Titanicus right now than anything else, and that's probably stretching it.

It really depends on the edition and the model. That said, even the most treamlined set (Epic:40.000) has location, weaponry and critical hit rules for the medium-to-big stuff and weapon differentiation (AT weapons, barrage, etc) at the very least, even though most of the regular units are more streamlined.

But the rest of the versions of the Epic rules have more detail: a Leman Russ has a battle cannon and sponson weapons, and those work as you'd expect, a Land Raider has twin linked lascannons, etc.

And even so, Alpha Strike and Epic are two very, very different beasts: Epic is a "whole battle" kinda game whereas Alpha Strike is more of a company-level one, meaning Epic could get away with more streamlining.

It doesn't have it, but it could get away with it more easily.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Maybe if Alpha Strike was Epic scale (Battalion vs Battalion or larger), but as a game to speed up Company v Company play (or things around that size), it cuts out too much of what BTech is.

I doubt that Epic 40K was usually played in 45 minutes. I think it wouldn't be that difficult to run Alpha Strike as a "whole battle" affair. Indeed, it would be far easier to run the Valley of Death scenario from Luthien than probably with the original rules that came with it those decades ago. All it takes is a willingness to play it for that long and with enough models.

So it appears that Epic doesn't represent each individual bolter (what that quoted question was in response to).

H.B.M.C. wrote:There are no PCCs in Alpha Strike. There are no LRMs in Alpha Strike. There are no Ultra Autocannons in Alpha Strike. There's a short, medium and long firepower rating. What's more striking is that, despite this abstraction, they've left in tons of modifiers for making attacks - everything from movement modifiers, cover, critical damage, whether the 'Mech is carrying a shield, what type of target, heat levels, and everything in between - but there's not enough scope in the rules to shot the difference between Gauss Rifle and a Smaller Laser?

What???

Better question, was Alpha Strike ever advertised to do that?

Manchu wrote:
Is Battletech's fundamental identity wedded to a relatively small scope game?
Yes, I think it definitely is. Because of its simulationist roots, CBT has always been ambitious about adding rules to describe increasingly higher levels and scopes of conflict. But its practical design orientation is anchored to stories about very “personal” engagements. This is par for the course in terms of game design at the time. You see the exact same thing with D&D, where there were rules for running your own fiefdom and mass combat in wars between nations — but really D&D nonetheless remained a game about a particular group of individual adventurers. The BT setting is sweeping, with huge wars fought across interstellar empires but this is mostly a dramatic backdrop for the zoomed-in story of “your guys” who, very much in step with D&D, usually were cast as mercenary companies.

That's what it means to you. Battletech is as much the universe as it is the base game as 40K is. You even note the difference by changing the noun to "Classic Battletech" in your response. Yet we don't see complaints about Epic and Kill Team not being 40K enough. Yet, that is what is happening here with Alpha Strike.

Could Alpha Strike be better? Yes (and I've stated as such). Is Alpha Strike not Battletech? No, it is part of Battletech, just maybe one you don't want to work with.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/28 01:25:32


Post by: Gitzbitah


Alpha Strike is, in many ways, more true to the Battletech universe than classic ever could be. Today, I led two lances of mechs, 2 lances of vehicles, 2 squads of battle armor and a lance of fighters against a mech company, some VTOLs and an enemy fighter lance. In that respect, it played like the battles described in the novels.

In another sense... I never got the gritty feel of my SRMs finally punching through that hole I opened up in my opponenet's left torso armor 2 turns ago, igniting his AC ammo and blowing off his arm as my heat levels spiked.

I realized that as I was building Jade Falcon mechs for an ilClan Alpha Strike army that I didn't even know what tonnage some of these weird designs were. I just knew their points value and TMM.

Alpha Strike is to Battletech what Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance is to DND. Yes, you can easily do combats that would take you weeks in minutes- but it won't be as rich or satisfying as killing that first goblin, impaling his head on your spear and showing it to his weeping mother just before you send her to join her son, and enjoying the look of horror on your DM's face as they realize their campaign is off the rails already.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/28 12:07:27


Post by: Nurglitch


In the sense that more abstraction means more space to insert narrative/character/etc, yes.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/28 13:49:18


Post by: Albertorius


 Charistoph wrote:
So it appears that Epic doesn't represent each individual bolter (what that quoted question was in response to).

Nor for infantry, no (not every single gun, just what the unit is equipped with in general and any special weapons. That still matters). For the rest, except in the single, specific case of Epic: 40.000, it does. No unit except for infantry is as slim as the posted Warhammer.

By way of example, and keep in mind the Warhammer defined above:

Spoiler:







So, once again: Yes. Epic does represent the weapons of a unit, and except only for E:40k (and even then, with caveats), it does not mush it all together into a single attack value. And that's for a game with a much bigger scope.

As to playing Epic in 45 minutes, it was totally doable, actually, for "lower" points battles. The abstractions are in other places.

In summation: For me, Btech is BTech and AS is AS the same way that 40k is 40k and Epic is Epic. I play one or the other depending on what itch I want to scratch.

But I most certainly don't play AS as a substitute for Btech, because it is not.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/28 16:35:22


Post by: Eilif


One factor that may figure into folks' somewhat firm stances on "What Battletech Is" is how static the rules have been for 30+ years.

This has already been described earlier, but compare it to 40k which started out as a nearly-RPG-like squad experience, expanded to a Platoon game and by the third edition had ballooned to a Company-sized game. Additionally, the rules themselves changed quite a bit over the years.

People's expectations changed over the years as did the rules. This simply didn't happen much with Battletech.

As an aside, it's interesting that GW didn't even try to abstract the rules when they did "Apocalypse" (approximately Battalion size 40k games) or to adapt the Epic rules, which would have been a wise decision IMHO. Instead they basically told players to just put aside a whole day to play which is what a BT player has to do if they want to use CBT for a large-scope engagement.





My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/28 17:34:29


Post by: Nurglitch


The problem with adapting the Epic Armageddon rules to Apocalypse is the ranges, where 15cm in EA is equal to 12" of 40k space you need much much bigger tables for it to work. They did abstract the rules in the latest edition of Apocalypse, including a Battletech-esque take on damage where it's resolved at the end of the turn (yes BT is end-of-phase, but it's a similar concept).


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/28 20:31:55


Post by: Charistoph


Albertorius wrote:But I most certainly don't play AS as a substitute for Btech, because it is not.

And it's not meant to be a substitute for Classic Battletech, but an alternative to play large groups of units much faster. Much like playing an Apocalypse level of a 40K force with Epic so you're not there for the whole day.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/28 21:52:25


Post by: Eilif


 Nurglitch wrote:
The problem with adapting the Epic Armageddon rules to Apocalypse is the ranges, where 15cm in EA is equal to 12" of 40k space you need much much bigger tables for it to work. They did abstract the rules in the latest edition of Apocalypse, including a Battletech-esque take on damage where it's resolved at the end of the turn (yes BT is end-of-phase, but it's a similar concept).


But couldn't ranges simply be adapted along with a few other tweaks so folks could play out faster large battles with EA rules? Ranges and movement distances are Some of the easiest things to adjust when adapting rulesets of different scales.

Thanks for letting me know about the current version of apocalypse. I had no idea.
I think I bought the first two but haven't been in the 40k world for a couple editions now. Good to hear that they've finally given into some abstraction rather than the early versions where most rules additions were simply adding "Formations" which are really just rewards for those with the biggest collections of a given type of miniature/vehicle/etc.

Folks who have read what I wrote earlier will be unsurprised that for the couple of Apocalypse size games I ran we instead used the nicely abstracted first edition of Warpath (basically First edition KoW in space). Very abstract but also very fast and fun and still with adequate rules for weapon differentiation.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/28 23:02:28


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Charistoph wrote:
And it's not meant to be a substitute for Classic Battletech, but an alternative to play large groups of units much faster. Much like playing an Apocalypse level of a 40K force with Epic so you're not there for the whole day.
But in doing so sacrifices much of what makes BTech appealing.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/29 00:19:58


Post by: Nurglitch


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
And it's not meant to be a substitute for Classic Battletech, but an alternative to play large groups of units much faster. Much like playing an Apocalypse level of a 40K force with Epic so you're not there for the whole day.
But in doing so sacrifices much of what makes BTech appealing.

Don't suppose you could spell that out. Presumably the appeal is the level of detail in representing the Battletech ficton?


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/29 00:27:32


Post by: Charistoph


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
And it's not meant to be a substitute for Classic Battletech, but an alternative to play large groups of units much faster. Much like playing an Apocalypse level of a 40K force with Epic so you're not there for the whole day.
But in doing so sacrifices much of what makes BTech appealing.

Sacrifices what makes Classic Battletech appealing. But then, that could be establishing expectations beyond what it is intended and advertised to be. I doubt there is a way one could adequately set up Alpha Strike to meet your expectations and accomplish the objective of Alpha Strike. After all, CBT already operates on Epic 40K's level of play, but operates no where near as quickly.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/29 00:29:34


Post by: Nurglitch


Level of play?


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/29 01:19:17


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Nurglitch wrote:
Don't suppose you could spell that out. Presumably the appeal is the level of detail in representing the Battletech ficton?
Too much abstraction. As shown above in this thread, even Epic didn't reduce every unit to a 'firepower value', even if certain things (like infantry small arms) were abstracted. It removes too much of the individual nature of the units but still leaves in levels of general detail that, given everything they've cut, would seem less necessary over what they have cut (like, we'll include modifiers for the rare instances of 'Mechs that carry shields... but we won't put in any stats that differentiate an autocannon from a laser!).

To quote myself:

ME! wrote:There are no PCCs in Alpha Strike. There are no LRMs in Alpha Strike. There are no Ultra Autocannons in Alpha Strike. There's a short, medium and long firepower rating. What's more striking is that, despite this abstraction, they've left in tons of modifiers for making attacks - everything from movement modifiers, cover, critical damage, whether the 'Mech is carrying a shield, what type of target, heat levels, and everything in between - but there's not enough scope in the rules to shot the difference between Gauss Rifle and a Smaller Laser?


 Charistoph wrote:
Sacrifices what makes Classic Battletech appealing.
They stopped calling it 'Classic BattleTech' a while back. It's just BattleTech.

 Charistoph wrote:
After all, CBT already operates on Epic 40K's level of play, but operates no where near as quickly.
Superficially due to scale.



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/29 02:29:17


Post by: Manchu


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They stopped calling it 'Classic BattleTech' a while back. It's just BattleTech.
This is another excellent point.

“Classic Battletech” is not even a phrase meant to distinguish Battletech from Alpha Strike. IIRC “Classic Battletech” is a trade name that was invented to contrast Battletech with Mechwarrior Dark Age. IIRC “Classic Battletech” is not a phrase that has been used by the licensor (CGL) for the last twelve years or so. The fact we are still casually using it appears to be a hangover from many years before Alpha Strike existed.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/29 03:35:41


Post by: Charistoph


H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
Sacrifices what makes Classic Battletech appealing.
They stopped calling it 'Classic BattleTech' a while back. It's just BattleTech.

I wasn't the first to use it at this point of the conversation, however since there are 3 things that are called "Battletech" at this point, "Classic Battletech" works to indicate the hex-based game in comparison to the video game of the same name or the whole IP universe in question. That's something that 40K does not have the advantage of.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
After all, CBT already operates on Epic 40K's level of play, but operates no where near as quickly.
Superficially due to scale.

They are at the same scale, but CBT operates with a greater level of detail.

Nurglitch wrote:Level of play?

A reference to how "zoomed in" or "zoomed out" the gameplay is to reference. In 40K terms and without going in to the RPG, Kill Team is the tightest level of play, with 40K, the next step up, followed by Epic being the most pulled out (at present). CBT and Epic operate their infantry squads (or even platoon) as one small token while the machines each have their own representation. Technically, Alpha Strike is at a similar level for the model size, but its operations are even more pulled out so that the vehicles and mechs are at the most minimally represented (i.e. firepower and "health pool" as opposed to each weapon and point of armor).


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/29 07:54:01


Post by: Albertorius


 Charistoph wrote:
They are at the same scale, but CBT operates with a greater level of detail.

I guess here you mean the scale of the miniatures, right? Not the engagement level expected...


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/29 23:41:42


Post by: Charistoph


 Albertorius wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
They are at the same scale, but CBT operates with a greater level of detail.

I guess here you mean the scale of the miniatures, right? Not the engagement level expected...

Pretty much.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/30 00:59:37


Post by: Ghaz


 Charistoph wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
Sacrifices what makes Classic Battletech appealing.
They stopped calling it 'Classic BattleTech' a while back. It's just BattleTech.

I wasn't the first to use it at this point of the conversation, however since there are 3 things that are called "Battletech" at this point, "Classic Battletech" works to indicate the hex-based game in comparison to the video game of the same name or the whole IP universe in question. That's something that 40K does not have the advantage of.

Call the video game BattleTech VG if you must. The 'Classic' moniker for BattleTech was dropped in 2008 and does not show up in any products produced since that time.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/30 19:50:07


Post by: Charistoph


 Ghaz wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
Sacrifices what makes Classic Battletech appealing.
They stopped calling it 'Classic BattleTech' a while back. It's just BattleTech.

I wasn't the first to use it at this point of the conversation, however since there are 3 things that are called "Battletech" at this point, "Classic Battletech" works to indicate the hex-based game in comparison to the video game of the same name or the whole IP universe in question. That's something that 40K does not have the advantage of.

Call the video game BattleTech VG if you must. The 'Classic' moniker for BattleTech was dropped in 2008 and does not show up in any products produced since that time.

First, I wasn't the first one to use that title, please address it to them. I started using it here because they did.

Second, does it make it any less of a classic?


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/06/30 21:53:11


Post by: Manchu


 Charistoph wrote:
I started using it here because they did.
But you did make the argument that some of us using the term CBT shows that Alpha Strike is “as Battletech” as actual Battletech.

But in reality, using the term CBT is probably just a hangover from the days when Battletech was published under the name “Classic Battletech” because WizKids started selling MWDA clix. We didn’t come up with that term; WizKids did. But it has been out of use officially for over a decade now.

At the end of the day, Battletech is the name of (1) a board game originally released under the name of Battledroids in 1984, (2) the setting of that game, and (3) various other table top and video games featuring that same setting.

Alpha Strike is very clearly Battletech in sense (2) and (3). And it is very clearly not Battletech in sense (1).


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/01 03:13:45


Post by: Charistoph


 Manchu wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
I started using it here because they did.
But you did make the argument that some of us using the term CBT shows that Alpha Strike is “as Battletech” as actual Battletech.

Only in the fact that Alpha Strike is part of the IP (unlike Mech Attack), not a whole replacement of the classic game. Any other connection by my statements is an assumption on other party's part.

 Manchu wrote:
But in reality, using the term CBT is probably just a hangover from the days when Battletech was published under the name “Classic Battletech” because WizKids started selling MWDA clix. We didn’t come up with that term; WizKids did. But it has been out of use officially for over a decade now.

At the end of the day, Battletech is the name of (1) a board game originally released under the name of Battledroids in 1984, (2) the setting of that game, and (3) various other table top and video games featuring that same setting.

Alpha Strike is very clearly Battletech in sense (2) and (3). And it is very clearly not Battletech in sense (1).

So Alpha Strike IS justifiably Battletech by your definition, just not in relation to the original, classical sense, which has lost some of that definition over time, by your confirmation.

So including the "Classic" on Battletech to reference the original game that is performed by utilizing rules found in the Battlemech Manual or Total Warfare is justified to avoid confusing the statement with the IP (which is how I referenced it earlier) or the video game under the IP's name. The alternative is to refer to such as "Total Warfare". If that is what you'd prefer, it would be better to lead off with that than lambasting the person who is using it for clarification after someone else used it as such.

So, complaining to ME, who did not bring up the "Classic" originally, is still complaining to the wrong person.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/01 06:47:35


Post by: Albertorius


It seems to me that the only person that apparently would get confused by that here is you, but eh.

If someone speaks about "Battletech", here, I assume he means the boardgame. If someone speaks about "Alpha Strike", here, I'm assuming they mean the actual AS game. Don't see how much confusion could that bring.

If someone is referring to a videogame, or to something else like the setting... they say so.

I mean, it's not like this is Something Awful, a muggle forum or anything else.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/01 07:43:20


Post by: Charistoph


 Albertorius wrote:
It seems to me that the only person that apparently would get confused by that here is you, but eh.

If someone speaks about "Battletech", here, I assume he means the boardgame. If someone speaks about "Alpha Strike", here, I'm assuming they mean the actual AS game. Don't see how much confusion could that bring.

If someone is referring to a videogame, or to something else like the setting... they say so.

I mean, it's not like this is Something Awful, a muggle forum or anything else.

Apparently it was needed because someone thought I was referring to Alpha Strike as part of the Classic Battletech system, which I wasn't nor ever did. Then people starting complaining to me about using it, even though several others, including one who complained about it, were using it that way as well.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/01 09:03:14


Post by: Manchu


which has lost some of that definition over time, by your confirmation
what?
If someone speaks about "Battletech", here, I assume he means the boardgame.
Yep, it’s that simple.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/01 10:29:50


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Charistoph wrote:
So Alpha Strike IS justifiably Battletech by your definition, just not in relation to the original, classical sense, which has lost some of that definition over time, by your confirmation.
BattleTech is BattleTech. Alpha Strike is Alpha Strike.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/01 11:43:33


Post by: Albertorius


 Charistoph wrote:
 Albertorius wrote:
It seems to me that the only person that apparently would get confused by that here is you, but eh.

If someone speaks about "Battletech", here, I assume he means the boardgame. If someone speaks about "Alpha Strike", here, I'm assuming they mean the actual AS game. Don't see how much confusion could that bring.

If someone is referring to a videogame, or to something else like the setting... they say so.

I mean, it's not like this is Something Awful, a muggle forum or anything else.

Apparently it was needed because someone thought I was referring to Alpha Strike as part of the Classic Battletech system, which I wasn't nor ever did. Then people starting complaining to me about using it, even though several others, including one who complained about it, were using it that way as well.

Maybe you crossed the line of fire at the wrong moment, then, I guess ^^


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/02 06:06:14


Post by: Charistoph


Manchu wrote:
which has lost some of that definition over time, by your confirmation
what?

Mostly this:

Manchu wrote:I was really perplexed by CBT at first. Something seemed to be wrong with the game — or me?...
...
...For some reason, miniatures gamers who come to CBT tend to overlook this. The (only somewhat) less obvious element is the heavy emphasis on simulationism. One of the most fundamental drivers of fun with CBT is “seeing what happens” when one aims such-and-such weapons systems at such-and-such chassis at such-and-such range.

Second, there’s the roleplaying element. Listen to CBT vets talk about their experiences over the decades and you will start to notice they are not talking about a player-versus-player concept, like in WHFB or 40k. Instead, they talk about running campaigns for their players as game masters. This is really puzzling to the uninitiated because, unlike reading through D&D starter set materials, this isn’t exactly spelled out by the CBT rules. In fact, if you didn’t know to look for it, you could be forgiven for never discovering it. One reason for this is, when we think about RPGs, we tend to look for characters. Again, here’s where you have to listen to CBT vets to figure things out. The mechs themselves, or rather the mech designs, end up being the CBT equivalent of RPG PCs.

And now you can understand why so much ink has been spilled on mech construction rules over the years! Not only is it the way CBT as a roleplaying game, rather than a miniatures game, handles “making characters” but it’s also the way that CBT, as wargame rather than a miniatures game, handles simulation. The overarching point that you, dear reader, should have noticed by now is that Battletech is NOT a miniatures game.What it actually is, is a hybrid wargame/RPG. It’s much more in line with early TSR (= Tactical Studies Rules) than GW.

I think this is the most important factor in many miniatures gamers finding themselves frustrated and disappointed with CBT. It’s not just that we are “doing it wrong” — more fundamentally, we’re looking at it the wrong way.

Manchu wrote:No doubt some people just won’t enjoy CBT no matter how they approach it.

But people will have the best chance of enjoying CBT if they accurately understand what kind of game it is.

Manchu wrote:This is a site about miniatures gaming so there are bound to be some suggestions about how to use BT minis to play, ya know, an actual miniatures game (rather than CBT). I think the main thing to avoid is sweeping statements about how CBT is “clunky” or “outdated” etc, etc when it seems that way, to the people saying so, because they aren’t getting what they are looking for from the game. This is a problem with their expectations; not a problem with CBT.

Manchu wrote:...
What I mean by “perspective” is the aesthetic sensibility that a rule set is built around. For CBT, it’s detail-driven simulation. This perspective has some pretty clear limitations. For example, I think we can all agree that CBT is probably not the best rule set if what you really want is a game with dozens of units fighting.

And it wasn't until I used the moniker "CBT" and "Classic Battletech" that you stopped using the "CBT" in favor of the "BT".

Manchu wrote:Please note that Charistoph’s example involves a “game master” ... this is very much in line how I have heard long-time BT players describe their approach.


I was using it as the terms were bandying about Alpha Strike not being Battletech, I started attaching "Classic" to it to deliberately identify the specific hex-based game to indicate when I wasn't talking about the IP in general.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/02 21:08:23


Post by: AegisGrimm


Regardless of the semantics of name and what the thread devolved into, because my gaming "coming of age" is a product of the couple of years on each side of 2,000, I tend to keep calling it "Classic Battletech", as I understand it was branded back then. Hell, I am a member of a Facebook group called "Classic Battletech". If anyone types "CBT", regardless of where it's being mentioned, I know exactly what they are talking about. Even Dakkadakka highlights it as such.

I still think that Alpha Strike, while a novel undertaking as an "Alternative Fast-Play Battletech from the same company", suffers from being a conversion of Battleforce, as far as a newbie like me understands. There at least the firepower stats of a unit was/is a generic representation of the overall damage output of a whole lance of mechs, to be rolled at once. It's simply too generic in it's model information presentation (for me) in a game where you are trying to make a fast-play Battletech. I still like to see a laser function differently than a flight of missiles, even if I am looking for a more casual "feel".


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/03 04:20:51


Post by: Ghaz


The name BattleTech has been used for the tabletop game since 2nd edition was released in June 1985 (1st edition used the name Battledroids when it was released in 1984 but was changed due to legal problems with the use of the word 'droids'). Of the 36 years that the BattleTech name has been in use for the tabletop game, only between 2002 and 2008 was the 'Classic' nomenclature added, a small fraction of the game's lifespan.

So why hang on to a name that the manufacturer doesn't even use and hasn't used for almost a decade and a half? Should we call the current edition of Warhammer 40,000 'Rogue Trader 9th edition' instead? Let the old 'Classic' nomenclature die and the dark period in the tabletop game's life that it represents.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/03 07:49:02


Post by: Charistoph


 Ghaz wrote:
So why hang on to a name that the manufacturer doesn't even use and hasn't used for almost a decade and a half? Should we call the current edition of Warhammer 40,000 'Rogue Trader 9th edition' instead? Let the old 'Classic' nomenclature die and the dark period in the tabletop game's life that it represents.

As explained, it was being used to denote the specifics between the IP and tabletop game as part of the discussion had went to Alpha Strike being part of the IP. In the context of such a discussion, utilizing such a title makes sense when it is perfectly understandable as such. So much so that even a Moderator was using its abbreviation for the majority of their posts in this thread.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/03 08:00:44


Post by: Manchu


Again, using “Classic Battletech” or “CBT” is just a holdover from a short period when that was the name of the product.

To get back to the main point of the thread, the issue is that (Classic) Battletech is not a miniatures game, but rather a hybrid board game/RPG.

Meanwhile, Alpha Strike is a miniatures game and a spin-off of Battletech.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/03 10:27:53


Post by: Albertorius


 Manchu wrote:
Again, using “Classic Battletech” or “CBT” is just a holdover from a short period when that was the name of the product.

To get back to the main point of the thread, the issue is that (Classic) Battletech is not a miniatures game, but rather a hybrid board game/RPG.

Meanwhile, Alpha Strike is a miniatures game and a spin-off of Battletech.

Pretty much, yes, although I'd call Btech a boardgame with expected campaign play as default rather than an actual RPG. But that's just nitpicking.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/03 14:16:16


Post by: Eilif


 Gitzbitah wrote:
I recently started playing Battletech again as well, and still vastly prefer classic over Alpha Strike- for mech vs mech action.

But the group I found was AS, so I've been playing it regularly. Mech on mech, it is cold, and it puts very little emphasis on individual units- indeed, most of the players I'm with move lances instead of units, so the individual mechs don't matter as much. This is a huge adjustment, as Classic every unit, and every shot counts.

However- once you get deeper than just the mechs, the system unfolds into a complex web of counters, combos and options. Drop smoke so you can advance past that enemy strongpoint? Pop your hover transports out behind a lance of mechs and down them with inferno infantry? All possible. The bolt on, optional rules are what makes the game good.

The appeal's not in the combat, which is basic compared to Battletech- it's in the system itself, which lets you do things that are wildly impractical in Classic.


This is one of the better descriptions of Alpha Strike that I've seen. There's alot of critiques of AS on this thread that seem to miss the entire point of what Alpha Strike is.

-Alpha Strike is not fast-play Battletech.

-If you're looking for a game where different weapons loadouts on a mech make a very specific difference, you're playing the wrong game.

-If you're concentrating on the finer differentiations between individual mechs in Alpha Strike you're playing the wrong game.

-If you're only playing with one lance in Alpha Strike you're probably playing the wrong game.

Alpha Strike is Battleforce with miniatures. The focus is still "combat" but it's not mech-v-mech combat, it's strategic company vs company, maybe even regiment-vs-regiment combat. Abstractions, the like of which people complain about are entirely necessary and appropriate for a game of this scope.

Many of the objections to Alpha Strike seems to be that folks who might like a faster-playing Battletech are unsurprisingly disappointed when they pick up a strategic Company-level game like Alpha Strike and find that it has ALOT of abstraction . Those players might be more satisfied with Quick-Strike (EDIT Ignore this, Quick Strike is simply the predecessor too -and no more complex than- Alpha Strike) or perhaps(gasp) Mech Attack, but Alpha Strike simply isn't designed for what they are looking for.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/03 16:28:51


Post by: Rihgu


When I played Alpha Strike, and I think another poster commented on this earlier, it seemed like they abstracted the wrong things.
Weapons were very much simplified, but there was still a lot of crunch in actually figuring out what you needed to roll. If you moved, if there's 1 piece of forest or 2 to clip through, etc.

I'd rather weaponry be more granular and fiddly modifiers be less, as overall it was basically the same amount of complexity, my friend and I felt, as just playing Battletech.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/03 23:59:17


Post by: AegisGrimm


What's Quick-Strike, Eilif?


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 02:49:29


Post by: Eilif


 AegisGrimm wrote:
What's Quick-Strike, Eilif?


Quick strike was the predecessor to Alpha Strike. I thought it was more granular then Alpha Strike but looking back at it now I see that was not the case.

I sold my Strategic Operations book but IIRC Quick Strike is just the combination of Battle Force with the miniatures rules which were both contained in that book.

I'll Edit my earlier post.

I think this just confirms to me that if you want a Battletech universe experience that is between Battletech and Alpha Strike in terms of complexity and scope you need to look outside of Catalyst. Mech Attack is my preference but it lacks official rules for jump jets and some notable CBT weapons. It is however an easy system to mod and house rule...

There are other options, that may or may not require some adapting. IIRC, Gruntz 15mm basically started out as a port of Battletech into the Warmachine rules. There's CAV, and other options too, though many alternatives may leave you thinking that Alpha Strike was good enough or that they should just go back to CBT.



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 06:28:51


Post by: Charistoph


Manchu wrote:Again, using “Classic Battletech” or “CBT” is just a holdover from a short period when that was the name of the product.

Not argued, so it does not bear repeating, yet you do, even though you used it more than most in this thread.

Manchu wrote:To get back to the main point of the thread, the issue is that (Classic) Battletech is not a miniatures game, but rather a hybrid board game/RPG.

I'd rather say it was a hybrid miniatures/board game. And the only reason I'd even concede the board game aspect is because the hexed nature of what it was normally played on. Of course, the first box of Battletech I owned was 3rd Edition, so that may color my opinion. Even with that, the terrain on most mapsheets was always more interesting than any modern miniatures game, and generally more impactful.

Eilif wrote:... There's alot of critiques of AS on this thread that seem to miss the entire point of what Alpha Strike is.

-Alpha Strike is not fast-play Battletech.

-If you're looking for a game where different weapons loadouts on a mech make a very specific difference, you're playing the wrong game.

-If you're concentrating on the finer differentiations between individual mechs in Alpha Strike you're playing the wrong game.

-If you're only playing with one lance in Alpha Strike you're probably playing the wrong game.

Alpha Strike is Battleforce with miniatures. The focus is still "combat" but it's not mech-v-mech combat, it's strategic company vs company, maybe even regiment-vs-regiment combat. Abstractions, the like of which people complain about are entirely necessary and appropriate for a game of this scope.

Many of the objections to Alpha Strike seems to be that folks who might like a faster-playing Battletech are unsurprisingly disappointed when they pick up a strategic Company-level game like Alpha Strike and find that it has ALOT of abstraction . Those players might be more satisfied with Quick-Strike (EDIT Ignore this, Quick Strike is simply the predecessor too -and no more complex than- Alpha Strike) or perhaps(gasp) Mech Attack, but Alpha Strike simply isn't designed for what they are looking for.

One of the things I have been maintaining is that the problem people are having with Alpha Strike has more to do with expectations more than the game itself. Admittedly, I'm going by the complaints themselves rather than experience.

I haven't had time to do anything about playing it at present. However one of the local demo agents has a training event scheduled later this month at an LGS that is only irritating to get to, as well as a tournament a month later. Don't know if I'll be able to make it to either, so we'll see.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 07:19:49


Post by: Albertorius


My main current problem with AS is that I also have Battleforce (Battleforce 2, not the original one), and IMHO Battleforce does it better, and you can "zoom out" more to play at the regiment level, or even at the full scale invasion level, from jumping into the system to the bitter end.

So that colors my opinion a bit ^^


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 07:22:31


Post by: Manchu


I think we must be misunderstanding each other about this “classic” thing because you keep pointing out that myself and others use it and insinuating that means something, although you are dancing around exactly what, when it has been explained many times that the reason is because the game was briefly called that when a number of us started playing it. Literally nothing more.

Battletech is a board game plain and simple. The miniatures are just a luxurious replacement for the counter chits found in war games, design-wise. From the very start until today the game has come with cardboard standees. The thing that made Battletech more than a simulationist war game are the notions of campaign play and mech customization, which are its RPG elements. There is no miniatures gaming “DNA” in Battletech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Battleforce is not a great comparison to Alpha Strike because Alpha Strike is a miniatures game, not a board game that can be played with miniatures like Battletech and Battleforce.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 13:26:42


Post by: Eilif


 Manchu wrote:

Battleforce is not a great comparison to Alpha Strike because Alpha Strike is a miniatures game, not a board game that can be played with miniatures like Battletech and Battleforce.

I'm not sure how this can be true.
It's literally almost the same game with a few tweaks for minis and measurement rules to allow for play on 3d terrain. Further, AS can be played easily on a hex map.

Just to lay it all out for those who may have come to the game more recently.
-Battleforce (just like Battletech) is a hex based hand has rules to allow for play with minis on terrain.
-That variant is called Quick Strike.
-Quick Strike was eventually released in it's own book with a few tweaks as Alpha Strike.
-In the grand tradition of Battletech additional level of rules were added, an ” Alpha Strike Companion" were released, and then a second edition was released.

None of which changes the fact that the core rules are the same and AS can easily be played on a hex map.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 15:55:03


Post by: Platuan4th


 AegisGrimm wrote:
If anyone types "CBT", regardless of where it's being mentioned, I know exactly what they are talking about.


I can think of quite a number of places where if someone types "CBT", they are in no way talking about Battletech.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 16:16:15


Post by: Manchu


Whatever its origins, sources, and inspirations, Alpha Strike is explicitly now designed and marketed as a miniatures game. I don’t have my copies of first edition and its expansion to hand, but the very first page of Commander Edition literally spells out the main difference between Battletech (referred to as Total Warfare in Cmmdr Ed) and Alpha Strike is that the former is played on hex maps while the latter is “primarily a terrain-driven game” where “the primary goal of any terrain used for Alpha Strike is to achieve a reasonable sense of scale with the miniatures the players are using to represent their forces.” Also on the first page is a paragraph on scale and the inclusion of a tape measure and terrain in items required for play.

Now I am aware that Battletech can be played off the hex grid at “map scale” and that AS can be reversed engineered to be played as a board game — again, I am familiar with the origins, sources, and inspiration of AS — but the point is that AS is not marketed to that effect. The fundamental assumption of Cmmdr Ed is that players will approach it as a miniatures game and it has been designed, published, and presented specifically to that end. Cmmdr Ed does include instructions for converting to hex-based play but this is explicitly treated as a non-ideal fallback option for those “who don’t have the table space or storage room for miniature terrain.”

While it is certainly true that AS is not some totally novel design without shared history or “DNA” with Battletech, it is equally true that AS is marketed around creating and fulfilling the expectation that it is a miniatures game.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 17:15:21


Post by: Eilif


 Manchu wrote:
Whatever its origins, sources, and inspirations, Alpha Strike is explicitly now designed and marketed as a miniatures game.
Spoiler:
I don’t have my copies of first edition and its expansion to hand, but the very first page of Commander Edition literally spells out the main difference between Battletech (referred to as Total Warfare in Cmmdr Ed) and Alpha Strike is that the former is played on hex maps while the latter is “primarily a terrain-driven game” where “the primary goal of any terrain used for Alpha Strike is to achieve a reasonable sense of scale with the miniatures the players are using to represent their forces.” Also on the first page is a paragraph on scale and the inclusion of a tape measure and terrain in items required for play.

Now I am aware that Battletech can be played off the hex grid at “map scale” and that AS can be reversed engineered to be played as a board game — again, I am familiar with the origins, sources, and inspiration of AS — but the point is that AS is not marketed to that effect. The fundamental assumption of Cmmdr Ed is that players will approach it as a miniatures game and it has been designed, published, and presented specifically to that end. Cmmdr Ed does include instructions for converting to hex-based play but this is explicitly treated as a non-ideal fallback option for those “who don’t have the table space or storage room for miniature terrain.”

While it is certainly true that AS is not some totally novel design without shared history or “DNA” with Battletech, it is equally true that AS is marketed around creating and fulfilling the expectation that it is a miniatures game.

Meh,
The author's can say whatever they like to market the game but the proof is in the pudding. The majority of the rules are essentially identical.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 17:17:08


Post by: Manchu


Uh, I don’t think we will disagree there.

But my main argument ITT has been that a lot of frustration around people trying Battletech involves their expectations versus what the game actually is. When it comes to AS, how the expectations are set by the marketing is really important.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 19:42:16


Post by: Charistoph


Manchu wrote:I think we must be misunderstanding each other about this “classic” thing because you keep pointing out that myself and others use it and insinuating that means something, although you are dancing around exactly what, when it has been explained many times that the reason is because the game was briefly called that when a number of us started playing it. Literally nothing more.

The only meaning I assumed you used it for was the same reason I did, to reference the normally hex-based game. Nothing else. That you used it was to indicate that you were specifically talking about said game and not the IP property as a whole, or at least, that is how I took it. I never stated in assuming that CBT should be considered as anything else by anyone.

If you think I am dancing around that, then that is based on assumptions YOU are making about what I said, and not actually reading what I said. I have danced around nothing, except having to keep going back to address this concept.

Manchu wrote:Battletech is a board game plain and simple. The miniatures are just a luxurious replacement for the counter chits found in war games, design-wise. From the very start until today the game has come with cardboard standees. The thing that made Battletech more than a simulationist war game are the notions of campaign play and mech customization, which are its RPG elements. There is no miniatures gaming “DNA” in Battletech.

Then you are ignorant. All wargames of the last century has a little bit of miniature gaming DNA in them. Battletech was NEVER a plain and simple board game. It was far too complex to be considered such, even by today's standards. And as miniatures became available, it stopped being a board game, plain and simple, but something more. As I said, though, I started with 3rd Edition (and was disappointed with the lack of miniatures in the 4th Ed box), so that may color my expectations.

Manchu wrote:But my main argument ITT has been that a lot of frustration around people trying Battletech involves their expectations versus what the game actually is. When it comes to AS, how the expectations are set by the marketing is really important.

Except a lot of the complaints about Alpha Strike ITT do not follow marketing expectations. Alpha Strike even utilizes all the stats from Battleforce, save for an adjustment in movement and points. I know this because Solaris SkunkWerks can make Alpha Strike cards for any custom machine, except they haven't managed to get the point conversions yet and so the PV they put in are still the Battleforce values.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 21:05:21


Post by: Eilif


 Manchu wrote:
Uh, I don’t think we will disagree there.

But my main argument ITT has been that a lot of frustration around people trying Battletech involves their expectations versus what the game actually is. When it comes to AS, how the expectations are set by the marketing is really important.

I think we mostly agree there.
Maybe the problem is that someone trying Battletech today probably has no similar gaming experience to compare it to. You can't say ” If you like Starfleet Battles you'll like this” because In terms of well known wargames its kind of the last of a breed.

I don't know if it's that hard to describe Alpha Strike. ” Fast playing Company Level Mech Combat” probably sums it up well. Hardcore CBT fans won't like it but they probably won't like it anyway.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/04 22:04:43


Post by: Albertorius


 Charistoph wrote:
Battletech was NEVER a plain and simple board game. It was far too complex to be considered such, even by today's standards.

Won't comment on the rest, but that? That is blatantly untrue. "Too complex to be considered a boardgame"? What the feth I don't even.

I guess, by that metric, Advanced Squad Leader is not a boardgame either. Or Rise and Decine of the Third Reich. Or Europa Universalis. Or Air War. What the fething feth.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 01:48:14


Post by: Nurglitch


You don't have to be rude about it. These days we commonly distinguish between wargames, role-playing tables, board games, and other tabletop games. There's no real hard-and-fast classification at work, bit typically board games are tighter, less simulationist, and less sandbox-y.

As someone said earlier (Manchu, I think), there's a certain experiential factor at work in this wargame-type of board games than in board games that are less open-ended and more winning than whether they represent something appropriately.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 03:07:25


Post by: Eilif


 Charistoph wrote:

Then you are ignorant. All wargames of the last century has a little bit of miniature gaming DNA in them. Battletech was NEVER a plain and simple board game. It was far too complex to be considered such, even by today's standards. .

You're just plain wrong about that but I don't blame you for your ignorance. You have to be of a certain age to remember the way complex boardgames with and without miniatures proliferated in their own boardgaming universe. Technically they still do, though the rest of the gaming world has grown much more.

I'm not even quite that old but I had the good fortune to have an old gaming store that was stocked to the gills with these sort of hex based wargames and others often of dizzying complexity. Battletech fit perfectly into that meliue.

Sure it had minis and great art and perhaps an argument can be made for it being more than a boardgame but not based complexity.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 03:49:45


Post by: Manchu


Yep, the “wargame” tradition of board gaming has frequently been VERY complex. Albertorius gives a wonderful example with ASL. That is the “branch” of gaming Battletech descends from.

Eilif and others have usefully introduced another line of thought ITT that even AS is not necessarily a good fit for its own marketing presentation as a miniatures game.

When I think of Battleforce, I don’t think of the way Cmmdr Ed talks about AS, as some kind of “fast-play” style! To me Battleforce is more in line with the another game Albertorius mentioned, Rise and Decline. (At least wrt the planetary assault conception.)


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 05:51:12


Post by: Charistoph


Albertorius wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
Battletech was NEVER a plain and simple board game. It was far too complex to be considered such, even by today's standards.

Won't comment on the rest, but that? That is blatantly untrue. "Too complex to be considered a boardgame"? What the feth I don't even.

I guess, by that metric, Advanced Squad Leader is not a boardgame either. Or Rise and Decine of the Third Reich. Or Europa Universalis. Or Air War. What the fething feth.

Eilif wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:

Then you are ignorant. All wargames of the last century has a little bit of miniature gaming DNA in them. Battletech was NEVER a plain and simple board game. It was far too complex to be considered such, even by today's standards. .

You're just plain wrong about that but I don't blame you for your ignorance. You have to be of a certain age to remember the way complex boardgames with and without miniatures proliferated in their own boardgaming universe. Technically they still do, though the rest of the gaming world has grown much more.

I'm not even quite that old but I had the good fortune to have an old gaming store that was stocked to the gills with these sort of hex based wargames and others often of dizzying complexity. Battletech fit perfectly into that meliue.

Sure it had minis and great art and perhaps an argument can be made for it being more than a boardgame but not based complexity.

Maybe you should go back and actually read what you quoted. I said, "Battletech was never a PLAIN and SIMPLE board game." I never made claim that it was the only complex board game, though I do argue that it was more than just a board game, even back in the Battledroids era, and I'm sure that most of the players of those games you mentioned were ever considered "plain and simple". I think it can safely be said that none of these were on the level of Candyland or Chutes/Snakes & Ladders, right? Instead, they followed the patterns of a lot of different wargames of the time.

Note that a lot of the first wargames used just tokens showing their organizational symbols to be used on a paper or cloth map (sound familiar?). In this, Classic Battletech/Total Warfare is actually closer to the original style of wargame than 40K, Flames of War, or Bolt Action are.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 05:55:05


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Yeah I gotta say when I think of board games things like BattleTech don't spring to mind. When I think of 'board game' things like the aforementioned Snakes & Ladders all the way through to Space Hulk come to mind. Or Zombicide. Or even Warhammer Quest (but to me that's pushing it as there's so much of that game that doesn't involve moving around on a board taking actions as a player).

 Charistoph wrote:
In this, Classic Battletech/Total Warfare is actually closer to the original style of wargame than 40K, Flames of War, or Bolt Action are.
You keep adding extra words to the name of this game.

Why can't you just call it what it is: BattleTech.



My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 06:31:51


Post by: Albertorius


 Charistoph wrote:
Maybe you should go back and actually read what you quoted. I said, "Battletech was never a PLAIN and SIMPLE board game." I never made claim that it was the only complex board game, though I do argue that it was more than just a board game, even back in the Battledroids era, and I'm sure that most of the players of those games you mentioned were ever considered "plain and simple". I think it can safely be said that none of these were on the level of Candyland or Chutes/Snakes & Ladders, right? Instead, they followed the patterns of a lot of different wargames of the time.

I did. I still don't agree. I was playing Blue Max, ASL, Crimson Skies and many other "plain" and "simple" boardgames that look and feel the same as Battletech at the time.

I am not sure what your beef with boardgames is, why do you feel they are so inferior or cut and dry compared with miniatures games, but they're not.

Of course, if for you the only real boardgames are Snakes and Ladders and the like, well... yeah, almost no boardgame is plain and simple, by that definition.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 08:50:47


Post by: Manchu


I guess we should establish some basic history and vocab here. When we say board game, we aren’t referring to Milton Bradley but rather to Avalon Hill. In America in the late 1960s through the 70s, there was a boom in military-themed board games designed for committed adult hobbyists. This kind of board gaming, called wargaming (specifically, a type of board game focused on simulating military realities), goes back to the 1950s when Avalon Hill introduced the hex grid and the first wargame in the sense of our meaning, Tactics.

You could say this tradition goes further back to 19th-century Prussia, when the general staff taught officer cadets strategy and tactics by reference to an abstracted, rationalized, statistical approach they called Kriegsspiel (“wargame”). This sense of wargaming, as a scientific approach to actual military theory and practice, caught on beyond the German states in the wake of Prussia’s stunning defeat of France in 1870. Certainly, wargaming has been an increasingly important aspect of U.S. military practice ever since. I suspect the huge number of American men drafted into military service throughout the second half of the 20th century provided the basis for an interest in moving wargaming from an actual military exercise to a recreational activity.

In any case, Avalon Hill published a game titled PanzerBlitz, designed by Jim Dunnigan, in 1970 which represented a major watershed in recreational wargaming. Rather than dealing with strategic scope, PanzerBlitz focused on tactics including individual armored vehicles. PanzerBlitz also delivered an unprecedented level of technical detail in simulating these vehicles’ battlefield performance. Nine years later, Yaquinto published James M. Day’s game Panzer which zoomed even further into this detailed, tactical approach including the concept of facing. In playing Panzer, hobbyists took to replacing the diecut cardboard counters standard for wargaming with metal miniatures. I have never seen Weisman and Babcock discuss what wargaming designs influenced Battledroids but the parallels to Dunnigan’s and Day’s games are obvious.

The wargaming scene of the 1970s in the Midwest is where RPGs were born. Arneson and Gygax were keen wargamers. Without getting too far into the weeds, the key idea that would become roleplaying was that board game players could imagine themselves taking on an “in-game” perspective. TSR published D&D in 1974, Traveller by Marc Miller of GDW followed in 1977, and Weisman and Babcock founded FASA in 1980 and got started publishing materials for use with Traveller but pretty soon was handling the Star Trek license. This is the context for the origin of Battletech.

An interesting insight from Jordan Weisman himself about the genesis of Battletech:
One of the things that I tried to do with the game was create a hybrid. At the time, there were role-playing games and there were board games. What BattleTech tried to be was a board game that thought it was a role-playing game. We really immersed everything in the fiction. So you had these scenario packs that were actually short stories or character studies.
source

So I mean, you don’t have to take my word for it.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 14:02:17


Post by: Nurglitch


Interestingly Dakka annotates CBT with BT.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 14:51:44


Post by: Albertorius


I noticed xd.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/05 17:30:29


Post by: Eilif


Spoiler:
 Manchu wrote:
I guess we should establish some basic history and vocab here. When we say board game, we aren’t referring to Milton Bradley but rather to Avalon Hill. In the America in the late 1960s through the 70s, there was a boom in military-themed board games designed for committed adult hobbyists. This kind of board gaming, called wargaming (specifically, a type of board game focused on simulating military realities), goes back to the 1950s when Avalon Hill introduced the hex grid and the first wargame in the sense of our meaning, Tactics.

You could say this tradition goes further back to 19th-century Prussia, when the general staff taught officer cadets strategy and tactics by reference to an abstracted, rationalized, statistical approach they called Kriegsspiel (“wargame”). This sense of wargaming, as a scientific approach to actual military theory and practice, caught on beyond the German states in the wake of Prussia’s stunning defeat of France in 1870. Certainly, wargaming has been an increasingly important aspect of U.S. military practice ever since. I suspect the huge number of American men drafted into military service throughout the second half of the 20th century provided the basis for an interest in moving wargaming from an actual military exercise to a recreational activity.

In any case, Avalon Hill published a game titled PanzerBlitz, designed by Jim Dunnigan, in 1970 which represented a major watershed in recreational wargaming. Rather than dealing with strategic scope, PanzerBlitz focused on tactics including individual armored vehicles. PanzerBlitz also delivered an unprecedented level of technical detail in simulating these vehicles’ battlefield performance. Nine years later, Yaquinto published James M. Day’s game Panzer which zoomed even further into this detailed, tactical approach including the concept of facing. In playing Panzer, hobbyists took to replacing the diecut cardboard counters standard for wargaming with metal miniatures. I have never seen Weisman and Babcock discuss what wargaming designs influenced Battledroids but the parallels to Dunnigan’s and Day’s games are obvious.

The wargaming scene of the 1970s in the Midwest is where RPGs were born. Arneson and Gygax were keen wargamers. Without getting too far into the weeds, the key idea that would become roleplaying was that board game players could imagine themselves taking on an “in-game” perspective. TSR published D&D in 1974, Traveller by Marc Miller of GDW followed in 1977, and Weisman and Babcock founded FASA in 1980 and got started publishing materials for use with Traveller but pretty soon was handling the Star Trek license. This is the context for the origin of Battletech.

An interesting insight from Jordan Weisman himself about the genesis of Battletech:
One of the things that I tried to do with the game was create a hybrid. At the time, there were role-playing games and there were board games. What BattleTech tried to be was a board game that thought it was a role-playing game. We really immersed everything in the fiction. So you had these scenario packs that were actually short stories or character studies.
source

So I mean, you don’t have to take my word for it.


Good stuff Manchu.

We on this thread seem to go round and round regarding the origins of Battletech as boardgame. I think the takeaway should be that regardless of what ”boardgame” or "wargames" mean to the public today (30+ years later ) or to an individual (largely irrelevant), one can't really understand Battletech's origins without understanding it's placement in the military board "Wargames" community of the second half of the 20th century.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 00:08:04


Post by: Charistoph


H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
In this, Classic Battletech/Total Warfare is actually closer to the original style of wargame than 40K, Flames of War, or Bolt Action are.
You keep adding extra words to the name of this game.

Why can't you just call it what it is: BattleTech.

Already explained, and nobody properly countered it. Go back and read the explanation I've given several times.

Albertorius wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
Maybe you should go back and actually read what you quoted. I said, "Battletech was never a PLAIN and SIMPLE board game." I never made claim that it was the only complex board game, though I do argue that it was more than just a board game, even back in the Battledroids era, and I'm sure that most of the players of those games you mentioned were ever considered "plain and simple". I think it can safely be said that none of these were on the level of Candyland or Chutes/Snakes & Ladders, right? Instead, they followed the patterns of a lot of different wargames of the time.

I did. I still don't agree. I was playing Blue Max, ASL, Crimson Skies and many other "plain" and "simple" boardgames that look and feel the same as Battletech at the time.

I am not sure what your beef with boardgames is, why do you feel they are so inferior or cut and dry compared with miniatures games, but they're not.

Of course, if for you the only real boardgames are Snakes and Ladders and the like, well... yeah, almost no boardgame is plain and simple, by that definition.

Because in the common vernacular of American English, "board games" are more with Milton Bradley than Avalon Hill (to use Manchu's reference). They are games that are played on a board. They were usually simple affairs that families or friends can play a quick game on.

Manchu wrote:I guess we should establish some basic history and vocab here. When we say board game, we aren’t referring to Milton Bradley but rather to Avalon Hill. In America in the late 1960s through the 70s, there was a boom in military-themed board games designed for committed adult hobbyists. This kind of board gaming, called wargaming (specifically, a type of board game focused on simulating military realities), goes back to the 1950s when Avalon Hill introduced the hex grid and the first wargame in the sense of our meaning, Tactics.

You could say this tradition goes further back to 19th-century Prussia, when the general staff taught officer cadets strategy and tactics by reference to an abstracted, rationalized, statistical approach they called Kriegsspiel (“wargame”). This sense of wargaming, as a scientific approach to actual military theory and practice, caught on beyond the German states in the wake of Prussia’s stunning defeat of France in 1870. Certainly, wargaming has been an increasingly important aspect of U.S. military practice ever since. I suspect the huge number of American men drafted into military service throughout the second half of the 20th century provided the basis for an interest in moving wargaming from an actual military exercise to a recreational activity.

In any case, Avalon Hill published a game titled PanzerBlitz, designed by Jim Dunnigan, in 1970 which represented a major watershed in recreational wargaming. Rather than dealing with strategic scope, PanzerBlitz focused on tactics including individual armored vehicles. PanzerBlitz also delivered an unprecedented level of technical detail in simulating these vehicles’ battlefield performance. Nine years later, Yaquinto published James M. Day’s game Panzer which zoomed even further into this detailed, tactical approach including the concept of facing. In playing Panzer, hobbyists took to replacing the diecut cardboard counters standard for wargaming with metal miniatures. I have never seen Weisman and Babcock discuss what wargaming designs influenced Battledroids but the parallels to Dunnigan’s and Day’s games are obvious.

The wargaming scene of the 1970s in the Midwest is where RPGs were born. Arneson and Gygax were keen wargamers. Without getting too far into the weeds, the key idea that would become roleplaying was that board game players could imagine themselves taking on an “in-game” perspective. TSR published D&D in 1974, Traveller by Marc Miller of GDW followed in 1977, and Weisman and Babcock founded FASA in 1980 and got started publishing materials for use with Traveller but pretty soon was handling the Star Trek license. This is the context for the origin of Battletech.

An interesting insight from Jordan Weisman himself about the genesis of Battletech:
One of the things that I tried to do with the game was create a hybrid. At the time, there were role-playing games and there were board games. What BattleTech tried to be was a board game that thought it was a role-playing game. We really immersed everything in the fiction. So you had these scenario packs that were actually short stories or character studies.
source

So I mean, you don’t have to take my word for it.

I have never heard of Avalon Hill as a board gaming developer more than Milton Bradley to the extent that Milton Bradley was excluded from the group before now. And yes, I was speaking of Kriegsspiel when I was talking about the history of wargaming.

And it seems like I was right in saying that Battletech was never a plain and simple board game, but intended to be something more.

As an interesting side note, Games Workshop started out making models for Dungeons & Dragons. Then they wanted to make large battles more possible, so what they worked on became Warhammer Fantasy Battles.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 14:51:08


Post by: Manchu


 Charistoph wrote:
And it seems like I was right in saying that Battletech was never a plain and simple board game, but intended to be something more.
You’re tilting at windmills. This is from my first post ITT:
 Manchu wrote:
The overarching point that you, dear reader, should have noticed by now is that Battletech is NOT a miniatures game. What it actually is, is a hybrid wargame/RPG.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 14:57:39


Post by: Nurglitch


Technically it's a Roll-and-Write.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 15:01:56


Post by: Easy E


 Manchu wrote:
I guess we should establish some basic history and vocab here.

*SNIP*

An interesting insight from Jordan Weisman himself about the genesis of Battletech:
One of the things that I tried to do with the game was create a hybrid. At the time, there were role-playing games and there were board games. What BattleTech tried to be was a board game that thought it was a role-playing game. We really immersed everything in the fiction. So you had these scenario packs that were actually short stories or character studies.
source

So I mean, you don’t have to take my word for it.


Great post and a great quote find to help buttress your argument.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 15:52:06


Post by: Manchu


 Nurglitch wrote:
Technically it's a Roll-and-Write.
I mean, dice are rolled and bubbles are filled in but I think roll-and-write usually refers to games like Yahtzee. Roll-and-write doesn’t really explain Battletech. It’s a decent wry joke to call BT a roll-and-write but you’d be hard pressed to really teach anybody what BT is by saying it is like Yahtzee.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 16:51:25


Post by: Ghaz


From 'New to BattleTech' on the official BattleTech website:

Initially published thirty-five years ago as a tabletop board game, BattleTech has gone on to become one of the gaming industry’s most important and longest-lasting science-fiction universes.

And then slightly further down the page:

There are five ways in which people enjoy the BattleTech universe.

1. As a tabletop miniatures game
2. As a board game
3. As a roleplaying game (RPG)
4. As a reader of fiction
5. As a computer game

For the tabletop miniatures game, you're given a link to the Alpha Strike Quick-Start Rules, while for the board game you're given a link to the BattleTech Quick-Start Rules.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 17:52:31


Post by: Nurglitch


6. As a giant robot fetishist enthusiast

@Manchu: I wouldn't really reference Yahtzee as a modern Roll-and-Write either, but I've been doing a fair bit of thinking on the subject, but about the appeal of Battletech and the appeal of Roll-and-Write games in general, and I think you've hit the nail on the head about the experiential aspect. Maybe I would go so far as to sell BattleTech as Yahtzee, but with robots and explosions. I think it would depend on the person, but that's just KYC.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 18:06:02


Post by: Charistoph


Manchu wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
And it seems like I was right in saying that Battletech was never a plain and simple board game, but intended to be something more.
You’re tilting at windmills. This is from my first post ITT:
 Manchu wrote:
The overarching point that you, dear reader, should have noticed by now is that Battletech is NOT a miniatures game. What it actually is, is a hybrid wargame/RPG.

But it IS something more than a plain and simple board game. You have provided more evidence of that than in countering it. So who is tilting at windmills here?

And all things considered, it is played more as a wargame and miniatures game than it is as an RPG.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 18:20:39


Post by: Albertorius


Mainly because by those metrics almost no boardgames are "plain and simple" boardgames.

Or, in other words, because it's a distinction without substance, that seems to be made in an attempt to give it additional legitimacy to something that does not need it.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 19:26:24


Post by: Nurglitch


It's certainly more complicated than common, mass market board games. It also needs more DIY to make it work, as it's more of an open-ended sandbox of rules rather than a specific out-of-the-box play experience with specific end-games and goals.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 19:33:40


Post by: Manchu


Did anyone really think I was calling Battletech a plain and simple board game?

No, the issue is it a plain and simple fact that Battletech is a board game. Weisman designed it that way. As Ghaz demonstrates, CGL sells it that way even now.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 19:44:10


Post by: Albertorius


 Nurglitch wrote:
It's certainly more complicated than common, mass market board games. It also needs more DIY to make it work, as it's more of an open-ended sandbox of rules rather than a specific out-of-the-box play experience with specific end-games and goals.


Common, mass-market board games are, interestingly enough, outnumbered 100 to 1 by all the others. If one hears "boardgame" and (here, of all places) only hear "Monopoly, Cluedo, Snakes and Ladders, Trivial Pursuit...", well... boy do they need to broaden their horizons.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 19:58:48


Post by: Nurglitch


BattleTech is certainly a board game in that it's played on a board, but it's more like Warhammer in that it's a sandbox of stuff that can be used in games that you put together yourself. All the different 'mechs, maps, record sheets, and optional rules seems to place it in its own distinct sub-genre with Warhammer and so on.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 20:25:32


Post by: Manchu


On the score of Battletech being mistaken for a miniatures game, the basis for this goes back to the very beginning.

According to Weisman, inspiration struck while he and Babcock were trying to find distributors for FASA products at a hobby trade show. Because there were few dedicated game stores at the time, this show was more for the kind of businesses that sold hobby products along the lines of sewing, crafts, and scale models. While walking around, Weisman found a booth for a company called TCI, which was importing remaindered Japanese model kits based on designs from mecha anime like Macross. By miniatures gaming standards, these were quite large models, standing approximately 3-4 inches tall. But Weisman thought they would look impressive on the table and conceived of writing a game around them.

That game was, of course, Battledroids and the initial Battledroids set even came with two of these model kits, the Shadowhawk and Griffin. Unfortunately, the models could not really be used for the game considering they were too large for the hex map. So Battledroids also came with cardboard standees to use for the game. Nevertheless, FASA continued to sell these large models, imported through TCI, under the BattleTech name, although this was phased out because of production of smaller metal figures that could actually be used to play. All the same, FASA used these TCI models and 3D terrain to demo Battletech at conventions, going so far as to rip up the models with pliers and melt them with soldering irons to reflect battle damage, which of course got them the desired attention!

It was this partnership with TCI that led to the disruptive lawsuit in the mid 90s about the rights to the classic mech designs.

So although Battletech is a wargame, we would not have it at all without models. It was the models that inspired Weisman to develop the game in the first place and the models were used at conventions to make the game stand out. Maybe more importantly, perhaps taking a cue from the likes of Dunnigan and Day in the historical milieu, writing detail-oriented background information for the mechs is what led to the most successful aspect of Battletech all these years — its fictional setting, which has gone on to find a huge audience beyond the board game experience.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 21:15:26


Post by: Charistoph


Albertorius wrote:Common, mass-market board games are, interestingly enough, outnumbered 100 to 1 by all the others. If one hears "boardgame" and (here, of all places) only hear "Monopoly, Cluedo, Snakes and Ladders, Trivial Pursuit...", well... boy do they need to broaden their horizons.

Yet if you go on to the street asking random people if they know of Settlers of Catan, Nemesis, Super Dungeon Explorers, or similar, you'd get a blank stare more of then than not. If you asked them to list the board games you know, more often than not you'd hear of Monopoly's group then the ones I mentioned, and most wouldn't even consider something like Battletech as part of that game group. This is what I meant by common nomenclature.

Nurglitch wrote:BattleTech is certainly a board game in that it's played on a board, but it's more like Warhammer in that it's a sandbox of stuff that can be used in games that you put together yourself. All the different 'mechs, maps, record sheets, and optional rules seems to place it in its own distinct sub-genre with Warhammer and so on.

Which removes a lot of that "plain and simple" designation away from the Battletech concept.

If I said to my family, let's play a board game, then pulled out the Battlemech Manual, gave each 2-3 record sheets, and a couple mapsheets, I'd get some very strange looks, even from those who are Catan fanatics.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 21:35:08


Post by: Albertorius


 Charistoph wrote:
Yet if you go on to the street asking random people if they know of Settlers of Catan, Nemesis, Super Dungeon Explorers, or similar, you'd get a blank stare more of then than not. If you asked them to list the board games you know, more often than not you'd hear of Monopoly's group then the ones I mentioned, and most wouldn't even consider something like Battletech as part of that game group. This is what I meant by common nomenclature.

Good thing, then, that we're not on the street. If I were to go to speak with a muggle like my sister or my mum, I might have to explain that, much like everything else, there is a gradient of complexity in board games. But I was not. I was speaking in a miniatures games forum, wich if anything is more of a niche than boardgames.

Also, you might be surprised, taking into account that boardgames nowadays sell like crazy. Absolutely bonkers amounts, and they target all demographies, now.

If I said to my family, let's play a board game, then pulled out the Battlemech Manual, gave each 2-3 record sheets, and a couple mapsheets, I'd get some very strange looks, even from those who are Catan fanatics.


Lastly... how do you think most of us were introduced to Battletech? Exactly that way. And with exactly the same amount of previous knowledge you're stipulating.

Somehow, we managed.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/06 22:41:57


Post by: Nurglitch


I was introduced to it by a schoolmate in grade 6 because he showed it to our teacher and it's basically grade 6 math worksheets.


My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/07 01:58:24


Post by: Eilif


 Manchu wrote:
On the score of Battletech being mistaken for a miniatures game, the basis for this goes back to the very beginning.
Spoiler:


According to Weisman, inspiration struck while he and Babcock were trying to find distributors for FASA products at a hobby trade show. Because there were few dedicated game stores at the time, this show was more for the kind of businesses that sold hobby products along the lines of sewing, crafts, and scale models. While walking around, Weisman found a booth for a company called TCI, which was importing remaindered Japanese model kits based on designs from mecha anime like Macross. By miniatures gaming standards, these were quite large models, standing approximately 3-4 inches tall. But Weisman thought they would look impressive on the table and conceived of writing a game around them.

That game was, of course, Battledroids and the initial Battledroids set even came with two of these model kits, the Shadowhawk and Griffin. Unfortunately, the models could not really be used for the game considering they were too large for the hex map. So Battledroids also came with cardboard standees to use for the game. Nevertheless, FASA continued to sell these large models, imported through TCI, under the BattleTech name, although this was phased out because of production of smaller metal figures that could actually be used to play. All the same, FASA used these TCI models and 3D terrain to demo Battletech at conventions, going so far as to rip up the models with pliers and melt them with soldering irons to reflect battle damage, which of course got them the desired attention!

It was this partnership with TCI that led to the disruptive lawsuit in the mid 90s about the rights to the classic mech designs.

So although Battletech is a wargame, we would not have it at all without models. It was the models that inspired Weisman to develop the game in the first place and the models were used at conventions to make the game stand out. Maybe more importantly, perhaps taking a cue from the likes of Dunnigan and Day in the historical milieu, writing detail-oriented background information for the mechs is what led to the most successful aspect of Battletech all these years — its fictional setting, which has gone on to find a huge audience beyond the board game experience.

That's fantastic. I had no idea.
I wonder if those convention games looked something like this....




My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  @ 2021/07/11 19:53:48


Post by: Platuan4th


 Albertorius wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
Yet if you go on to the street asking random people if they know of Settlers of Catan, Nemesis, Super Dungeon Explorers, or similar, you'd get a blank stare more of then than not. If you asked them to list the board games you know, more often than not you'd hear of Monopoly's group then the ones I mentioned, and most wouldn't even consider something like Battletech as part of that game group. This is what I meant by common nomenclature.

Good thing, then, that we're not on the street. If I were to go to speak with a muggle like my sister or my mum, I might have to explain that, much like everything else, there is a gradient of complexity in board games. But I was not. I was speaking in a miniatures games forum, wich if anything is more of a niche than boardgames.

Also, you might be surprised, taking into account that boardgames nowadays sell like crazy. Absolutely bonkers amounts, and they target all demographies, now.


Can confirm that plenty of muggles know what Catan is. It's been a Target staple in the states for over 10 years. So much so that for a small period of time, it was the only place you were able to obtain Star Trek Catan for its original release. Board games above the "classic" offerings have been a growing part of the market for quite awhile.