Switch Theme:

My First Battletech Game in three decades of Gaming!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

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).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/29 03:36:15


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in es
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 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...
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 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.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 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?

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 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).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/30 21:56:02


 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 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.
   
Made in es
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/01 06:48:19


 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/01 09:04:01


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 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.
   
Made in es
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 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 ^^
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

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".

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/02 21:09:43




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

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.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.

   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 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.
   
Made in us
Seven Year War Afficianado






Chicago

 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/04 02:52:23


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some fast-play, indie gaming in the windy city.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





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.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

What's Quick-Strike, Eilif?



"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in us
Seven Year War Afficianado






Chicago

 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/04 03:03:40


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some fast-play, indie gaming in the windy city.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






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 ^^

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/04 07:20:34


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/04 07:26:47


   
Made in us
Seven Year War Afficianado






Chicago

 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/04 13:33:16


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some fast-play, indie gaming in the windy city.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





OKC, OK USA

 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.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.

   
Made in us
Seven Year War Afficianado






Chicago

 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/04 17:16:27


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some fast-play, indie gaming in the windy city.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.

   
 
Forum Index » Other Sci-Fi Miniatures Games
Go to: