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

 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.

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
Brigadier General






Chicago

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/26 21:45:49


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual 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

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/26 22:16:54


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

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.

   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Part of the charm seems to be the DIY aspect rather than a brand-affiliation.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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...


This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2021/06/27 04:37:56


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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

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

   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 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.

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 au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 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.

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

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.

   
Made in es
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer






 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.
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/27 13:17:03


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual 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 au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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???


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/27 16:06:38


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.

   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/28 16:25:46


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual 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

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/28 20:21:32


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 ca
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




Monarchy of TBD

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.

Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





In the sense that more abstraction means more space to insert narrative/character/etc, yes.
   
Made in es
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer






 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.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/06/28 17:26:11


 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

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.




Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual 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





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).
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

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.

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
Brigadier General






Chicago

 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.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual 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 au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 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.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 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?
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 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.

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 ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Level of play?
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/29 01:22:39


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/29 02:29:42


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