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.

With the 25th anniversary box set imminent and Battletech fans coming out of the woodwork, what period do people prefer?

Personally I prefer 3025 as I like the idea of mechs being family heirlooms that pilots really don't want destroyed, I find this makes it a lot more tactical (plus I've played it since its first release...)

Mick (101st Asgard Airborne, House Kurita)

I prefer to stay IS vs IS or Clan vs Clan. Now and then a crossover battle is fun, but takes a bit to make sure its not too lopsided.

As far as year I like 3050-3060 at the latest. I think the XL engines and double sinks allow for a bit more flexibility in mech design. 3025 is good too, but everything takes up so much weight & space it really limits design.

I love the old school. 3025 is the "pure" form of the game to me, and the way I prefer to play, but I enjoy all eras, pretty much any battle.

Unless it is Battle Armor vs. ProtoMechs. That is a HORRIBLE game. Mostly because protos are horrible...

I enjoy the period between the Grey Death Legion's discovery of the Star League memory core on Helm and the Clan invasion.

It's mostly 3025, with some upgrades and some "WTF were you thinking, FASA" 'mechs. And unless you min/maxed customized 'mechs, nothing was too overpowering.

3025, no question whatsoever!

Valete,

JohnS

Amen to 3025. Flawed mechs make for interesting games worried about heat and taking risky shots and such for the occasional fun ammo crit that CASE ruined.

yeenoghu wrote:Amen to 3025. Flawed mechs make for interesting games worried about heat and taking risky shots and such for the occasional fun ammo crit that CASE ruined.

I never bothered with CASE, triple myomer, and other systems like that. Ditto for the optional armor types. Farthest I went was XL engines, 2x sinks, ER laser & PPC. The occasional ultra autocannon & pulse laser, but those were rare.

The most interesting tech level is 3050 IS. Clan Tech is not interesting to play or design with - too easy, any Mech can have everything. 3025 IS limits light and medium Mechs too much with the weight - there are too few ways to make a useful light or medium. Once Endo Steel and Ferro-fibrous come into play, light and medium Mech variety and design possibilities are huge. Things become even more interesting once you factor costs in as well, and the decision to use an XL engine or not becomes a very important one, rather than a no-brainer.

As a fan of the fluff but not of the game, I like it all. However, I do have a preference for pre-clan. As others have mentioned, it's a much more interesting universe when supplies are limited, mechs are precious and mech design really is a matter of tradeoffs rather than optimizations. I also found the various IS factions to be more interesting and diverse than the Clans.

That said, there's some great fiction written about the Clan invasion.

I like it all. I will play any time frame. Though I prefer playing a House Davion and tend to avoid clan stuff, I am not averted to playing against or with clan equipment.


Also any era that I can play a LAM is pure win for me.

3025 for that 'clunky' feel.

Went hunting through my stored stuff this morning, came across my 3025 tech readout, 3026 vehicle tech readout and my old Mechforce UK cheat sheet. Think I might be playing Battletech down at my local club in the very near future...

Mick

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/330494.page

I found this one a while ago. I would love to see more Btech reports. It's no substitute for playing, but I have no other players around here, and its still a good read.

Asking pre-clan or post-clan is like asking "WWI or WWII?" The pre-clan stuff does have this certain eclectic feel... it felt like each mech was its own and all had these different approaches to different concepts... I wanna say almost gladiatorial feel of staged fights matching up distinct styles. The post-clan era could be written as a more efficient refinement to the warfare, which if not for the fluff on the rules of battle the Clans fight by would have been an end to this "purity of combat." I liked both.

I enjoy any era because I can take my beloved Archers in any era. My Archers have fought and crushed waves of ProtoMechs so I have no fear of even the latest Clan tech. Of course, I usually hide behind hills and buildings and use massed indirect bombardment as much as possible (infantry, vehicles, or 'Mech spotters with TAG are well represented in my force composition) , so I do have a healthy respect for Clan tech, but I don't fear it as other Inner Sphere players might. I'll try to do some more batreps in the next couple of weeks. I got some Monsterpocolypse buildings so my cities will look better in the future:

I will play any time period. I don't see any as superior or more 'pure'. They're all BattleTech to me.

DeathwingCrusader wrote:I enjoy any era because I can take my beloved Archers in any era. My Archers have fought and crushed waves of ProtoMechs so I have no fear of even the latest Clan tech. Of course, I usually hide behind hills and buildings and use massed indirect bombardment as much as possible (infantry, vehicles, or 'Mech spotters with TAG are well represented in my force composition) , so I do have a healthy respect for Clan tech, but I don't fear it as other Inner Sphere players might. I'll try to do some more batreps in the next couple of weeks. I got some Monsterpocolypse buildings so my cities will look better in the future:

Thanks for the pic, Ive been wanting to see how MonPoc buildings looked w BT mechs. Now Im going to have to pick some up.

I'm a blakist, so I like anything past the Fall of Terra.

3025 is fun, but I just love the very distinctive variations of hyper technology that start proliferating once the IS begins seeking solutions to the Clan's superiority.

Maybe its just because I've been playing 40k too long... but does anyone else think BT would benefit from more on table distinctions between factions? What I mean is its as if you were playing Flames of War with Germans and Allies having access to a number of each others tanks.

aka_mythos wrote:Maybe its just because I've been playing 40k too long... but does anyone else think BT would benefit from more on table distinctions between factions? What I mean is its as if you were playing Flames of War with Germans and Allies having access to a number of each others tanks.

...Which is both allowed (Many lists can take 'captured' tanks) and historical (There's supposedly a lot of incidents in WWII of each side's tanks being hastily painted with big stars or swastickas and pushed into service against the former owner). This was, admittedly, an 'in the field' thing not a 'and they kept using it for the next decade' kind of thing.

But your point makes some sense, I guess. Still, BT seems like it should almost be set up such that there's a large pool of common designs, then a few that are 'restricted' and can only be taken outside certain Houses in small numbers, then a very, very small number of ultra-limited designs.

The general 'feel' of BT is such that Mechs are rare enough and valuable enough that no one cares about maintenance and logistics concerns beyond a very high level. Everything is either compatible (They've worked out metric vs. imperial finally, I guess) or close enough that the techs can make it work. Presumably a lot of components are fabricated on demand?

Balance wrote:
...Which is both allowed (Many lists can take 'captured' tanks) and historical (There's supposedly a lot of incidents in WWII of each side's tanks being hastily painted with big stars or swastickas and pushed into service against the former owner). This was, admittedly, an 'in the field' thing not a 'and they kept using it for the next decade' kind of thing.

But your point makes some sense, I guess. Still, BT seems like it should almost be set up such that there's a large pool of common designs, then a few that are 'restricted' and can only be taken outside certain Houses in small numbers, then a very, very small number of ultra-limited designs.

The general 'feel' of BT is such that Mechs are rare enough and valuable enough that no one cares about maintenance and logistics concerns beyond a very high level. Everything is either compatible (They've worked out metric vs. imperial finally, I guess) or close enough that the techs can make it work. Presumably a lot of components are fabricated on demand?

I'm always bad with examples... but I think you got the gist of my point.

That is a good point. The time and energy investment in maintaining a mech is probably on par with a small modern warship. If an enemy nation managed to capture a US destroyer they probably wouldn't care that it doesn't use the same tech as the rest of their fleet and would have no problem investing in maintenance equipment within their fleet unique to that ship.

What you're talking about, with setting some restrictions is exactly what I'm talking about; BT should codify families of mechs and their availability to different faction if for no other reason than to distinguish the factions. I'm not too picky on how it would play out, for example it might just be the C-bill cost for the mech or its maintenance being higher if its not on your factions "common" list, and that price simply climbs as its uniqueness within the faction does. In pick up games where BV is used to balance sides, this won't even come up.

One of the best things about GW and the strongest aspect of its IP, is how its distinguished its factions on the tabletop. Unless a 40k player is doing something unorthodox with their army, each faction is relatively easily identifiable and distinguishable. With the more realistic slant a simulation game like BT takes, it doesn't have to go so far. In BT its perfectly possible for opposing lances to have more of each others mechs than their own, and while that should still be possible, maybe it should just be a bit less common.

On another tangential topic I've noticed on the official BT forum, that a number of players have made their own alien mechs... what do you guys think of this? I wouldn't want the game to devolve into Monsterocalypse, but given the mecha sci-fi genre there is something appropriate about it.

I think Clickytech tried to do this, with a lot of designs unique to various factions. I can't remember if they really eforced it or did the (common for click games) schtick where matching factions was advantageous, but not required.

A lot of the 'old guard' Battletech players may honestly be resistant to the idea. and their viewpoint matters as well.

I think you're right that GW has things very unique, at least among the 'core' factions. It's probably why they've backed off on alternate IG regiments (So IG has one 'look') although they've obviously kept at differentiating the Space Marines.

Alien mecha as a concept don't bother me as long as they have a role in the setting that makes sense, either initially or forced in. For BT it'd be a bit of a stretch and I'm sure the IP holders don't want to repeat the uproar of the clans by having anther faction of ultra-powerful invaders from outside known space show up.

I dunno about the faction specific thing. I mean, I thought the conceit was that all the technology was remnants of Star League Tech, which all the factions had equal access to, and that innovation had pretty much ceased since. If everyone starts with the same tech, and doesn't develop much in the way of new tech over the years, what would distunguish them?

Zarathstra, I think that's why most people have suggested it not being a strict distinction, but rather one that represents preferences towards certain mechs. When the fluff says "X" faction developed a particular mech, it would stand to reason they'd make more common use of it. Hypothetically when faction "X" supposedly prefers say mechs with jump jets it would stand to reason they'd have a preference and access to those mechs that do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Balance wrote:Alien mecha as a concept don't bother me as long as they have a role in the setting that makes sense, either initially or forced in. For BT it'd be a bit of a stretch and I'm sure the IP holders don't want to repeat the uproar of the clans by having anther faction of ultra-powerful invaders from outside known space show up.

I had one friend joke around about doing aliens in the War of the Worlds style... I actually liked that alot. Aside from distinguishing their mechs by being tripods, it also made it more interesting for them to be awakening from a buried slumber on different planets. I'm not saying its perfect, just interesting.

The difference between GW style presentation and Btech cannot go beyond this:
GW encourages factional collector style purchases. Btech does not, it encourages rules. Use them as you like. As a referee/GM/DM of battletech games, it was on my own sense of propriety to make the distinctions between factions for my players, rather than a list based 40k-ish idea of 2000 pts. of one vs. 2000 points of some other. Scenario style play is important. In the pure BV vs. other BV. games, sure Btech will get repetative and see many of the same mech overused (Madcat... the LongFangSpam of Btech? 4 Wraiths jumping 7 every turn on back n forth routesw pulse lasers to make up for the hit mod? yeah i've seen the spam in btech too) because its good, so in a WAAC game like 40k that seems obvious. Btech isnt like 40k in that sense though. It doesn't have a new rules upgrade every few months so the WAACoffs can get ready to repaint their marines or play captain counts-as either as a result. It doesn't get griping that "Liao gets all the best pilots in the new edition" or "Davion gets all the heavy autocannon".

If you look in a quarter the number of btech annex books than the number of factionalized 40k rulebooks constantly being re-released, nerfed, then rereleased again, like mercenaries or mechwarrior books, there is always ALWAYS a chart of random mech distribution based on house affiliation 'common' mechs. I hated when I got stuck representing Steiner back in the day because whenever I actually got to use an assault mech it always came out to be a lame ass Zeus for this reason. Give me a good Liao pilot in a Vindicator half its size any day over that lumbering waste, but that's what it was so that's what I played with. I have never met anybody who uses the random mech guidelines since those days, they just use common sense instead, but they are there at least to provide the RPG aspect of the game with a basis for referance of what is considered "common" where.

40k has it built in that anything goes with what exists in the book (until the next rules update or superior codex makes you a chump for sticking to your guns, or maybe just have better money priorities). When a new book comes out, GW dictates what is or isn't valuable as a force asset either within that book, or within any of the other books that have to match up against it. Btech has a system for guaging a mech's value with BV, but that is it. Scenarios are unimportant in 40k as the factionalization exists in whatever the current golden boy rulebook says, whichever model range got you to have to choose whether or not to pay the utility bills that month, etc. Btech left it up to the players to (gasp) make an evenly matched game they wanted to play without the training wheels of a point system and list of options for every modeler's personal decision.

but most of the games I have played or seen are nothing like that spam Wraith combo I mentioned that was unheard of in btech (just happened once, to prove a point about maxxing BVs) they are a common affair in 40k because factionalizing creates codex creep. When I GM'ed mechwarrior back in high school, my players going against a Kurita backwater warlord meant I had a Jenner, Panther, Dragon in the mix. My discretion as the guy making the scenario. The discretion in 40k is 'which codex did you use, and how many points is it'. It's handed out as part of the rules. I'm not saying this is good or bad, it just is fundamentally different.

This doesn't happen in 40k where even the fun home games are often regulated to the factionalization of the miniatures rules. It can't happen. Not obeying a FOC is a no no. Not abiding by the 25% terrain is a no no. Using your Imperial Assassin to back up your Imperial Space Marines is frowned upon, as is combining elements of any 2 different Codex to minimise weakness and maximize strengths. 40k games are more suited to factional support from the players because those same Eldar that just fought off a Tyranid invasion of Iyanden will next week be fighting over three random pieces of ork loot counters or whatever counts as a goal for the next game, scenario's are just haphazzard makeshift explainations to accomodate the 2 opposing forces on planet X fighting over objectives y and z. Btech as a story oriented game, is up to the players to decide what is appropriate for the scenario, not the GW catalog of what kicks the most ass this month and fudge a backstory for fluff behind why the two forces of even amounts of troops happen to be fighting over whatever it is they fight over, and why Lord Mephiston is tromping around on foot again with 25 other blood angels right in Ghazkull Thrakkas backyard for the umpteenth time. The 40k game is set up to invent its own scenario with things like arbitrarily placed objectives, take-all-comers armies, randomly distrubuted terrain, etc.

comparisson is impossible because 40k is a great deal of pregame work coupled with an afterthought of missions, or (if people even bother) backstory why they are there at all, while btech starts with the premise and works into the details of forces.

I think thats very well put in addressing the game side, but there is also the side that I originally pointed to, ease of identifiable factions for newer people coming into it. Its probably one of the single greatest reasons GW can get so many new players; they can select a faction by its easily identifiable characteristics. Wheter those beginners pick Blood Angels cause they're red and like to get into close combat or Tau for their animesque crisis suits, each faction in 40k has a distinctive draw, that lowers the barrier for a new players entry into the hobby or game. I think that would help Battletech... between the different time periods and constantly changing (though realistic political factions) the distinctiveness is ambiguous.

My call seemingly contradictory:

- 3025/3026 for game play.

- Clan Jade Falcon for faction choice.

Is there an actual release date for the 25th anniversary boxed set? Can't find any UK retailer offering preorders of it...

Mick

Its been announced as March 30th. Its about a year late from when it was due out, but it is finally happening.

Here it is, from them:
http://www.catalystgamelabs.com/2011/02/26/catalyst-march-30th-street-dates/

Ive already preordered mine!