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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No, BattleTech rules are the very definition of complex. They're not complicated, they're complex.

Then I'd argue damn near every game except for Checkers and War is complex if we are using the literal definition of the word. If we are using complex to mean difficult to learn, which is what I understood judgedoug to mean, then no it isn't as long as you stay with the basic elements of `Mech on `Mech combat and leave out the 25+ years of additional weapons and optional rules that were added to the core system.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Then I'd argue damn near every game except for Checkers and War is complex if we are using the literal definition of the word. If we are using complex to mean difficult to learn, which is what I understood judgedoug to mean, then no it isn't as long as you stay with the basic elements of `Mech on `Mech combat and leave out the 25+ years of additional weapons and optional rules that were added to the core system.

Complex =/= Complicated. Complex things can be complicated, but the words do not have the same meaning.

They are two different things. Difficult to learn would imply it is complicated, as complicated implies a level of difficulty. Complex, on the other hand, just means that it has a great deal of structure/details/inherent components.

And BattleTech does have tons of components. The more books you add (Tactical Operations, Strategic Operations, the various unit design rules, even just the jump from 3025 to 3050), the more complex it gets.

The game allows for a variety of environments and their impact.
The game allows for the tech for the unit to be explained and the consequences as systems fail.
It is a simulator of sorts which is understandable and manageable.
I would say less complicated than Star Fleet Battles but not lacking in the detail.
The real fun for me was designing mechs and trying them out.
The tech and universe tries very hard to be consistent and "believable" within it's rules and fluff.

I have been a long time fan (25 or so years) and still find the game fun.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Then I'd argue damn near every game except for Checkers and War is complex if we are using the literal definition of the word. If we are using complex to mean difficult to learn, which is what I understood judgedoug to mean, then no it isn't as long as you stay with the basic elements of `Mech on `Mech combat and leave out the 25+ years of additional weapons and optional rules that were added to the core system.

Complex =/= Complicated. Complex things can be complicated, but the words do not have the same meaning.

They are two different things. Difficult to learn would imply it is complicated, as complicated implies a level of difficulty. Complex, on the other hand, just means that it has a great deal of structure/details/inherent components.

And BattleTech does have tons of components. The more books you add (Tactical Operations, Strategic Operations, the various unit design rules, even just the jump from 3025 to 3050), the more complex it gets.

In other words, it is not roll the dice and forget, you have to keep track on the resources and damage done to which parts, not just a simple amount of wounds like other games, i played with Miguel a few times, it takes a while to get into but i agree with HBMC

 Talizvar wrote:

I would say less complicated than Star Fleet Battles but not lacking in the detail.

Real life is less complicated than SFB. I'm not sure that is a good yardstick. That's like saying a 28mm model has a more efficient parts count than a Robotech Destroid. While technically true, it's still not a great comparison.

I have not gotten to play it in years, but the last time I played, I still remembered 99% of the rules and almost all of the charts.
Yes it can be a little overwhelming at first, but after a few games you don't even need the books unless you are using some of the post 3060 Gear and Weapons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Complex =/= Complicated. Complex things can be complicated, but the words do not have the same meaning.

Exactly the reason why I disagree completely. The core system of Battletech, which is what we were talking about, is quite simple, even taking it all into account (heat management, ammo, vehicles, infantry, even air support).

Infinity? Hells yeah, I would agree with you naming it "the very definition of complex". Battletech? Er, nope. And I like Infinity, mind, but it is orders of magnitude more complex.

They are two different things. Difficult to learn would imply it is complicated, as complicated implies a level of difficulty. Complex, on the other hand, just means that it has a great deal of structure/details/inherent components.

This might be me not being an english native speaker, but to me it feels like the meaning is the other way around.

And BattleTech does have tons of components. The more books you add (Tactical Operations, Strategic Operations, the various unit design rules, even just the jump from 3025 to 3050), the more complex it gets.

Of course. Same way any other system gets when you add all supplements. To me, Warmahordes is insanely complex due to the insane amount of intricacies of the relations between units and casters/warlocks/whatever, but I kind of feel that way about most CCGs too. WFB/40k gets very complicated very fast, too, when you realize every single fething unit has its own load of non-universal rules that you have to account for.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Battledroids certainly was. I'd argue that Battletech through early 2nd edition was as well when you only had the single TRO: 3025 and some scenario books. Once multiple TRO's were released, the game got dense. But all the charts and "complex" rules are a relic of the time, no? I mean, weren't most games chart heavy back then?

Back then, complex rules did seem to be the norm, and that was actually one of the things I liked about BT.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Perhaps the real issue is that "beer and pretzels" is a subjective term. The definition I am most comfortable with centers on a game that requires little if any background knowledge on the players' part in order to play. That means you can have a quick game over some "beer and pretzels" with a few friends without having to study up on list creation, or even know much more about your `Mech than what is on your unit sheet. You don't need to be well versed in Battletech's history in order to enjoy a `Mech on `Mech or even a lance on lance battle and to play you only have to be able to count to 12, so again, perfect for beer drinking.

Its funny, if asked for a definition of BnP games I'd probably give almost the same as you, but to me BT still doesn't qualify. I've got a few of what I consider BnP games in my collection. Generally they are less than a dozen pages of rules, don't require more recordkeeping that will fit on a note card, and as you say don't require a lot of intense concentration to play. In the end, its all opinions though as long as we both know what the other is talking about.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I played Battletech for years with nothing more than two miniatures. My group would trace hex-shaped tokens on paper, mark the front arcs, and write the unit name on the paper and be good to go. I have heard other player groups doing similar tricks to save cost. More to the point, the Battletech community members I have interacted with generally seem okay with this practice. The miniatures are viewed as secondary to the game, and completely optional. That can't be said for a true miniatures games like Warhammer 40k, or Warmachine.

I'll agree that as written BT probably qualifies as a "board game" to be played on a 2D gameboard with 2D counters and the minis were a late addition to the system. Still, while your experience may be different I've just never seen anyone play without the miniatures.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Some of the designs are just plain bad too. Like the Yeoman, or the Super Griffin (hey, look I am jumping, but really it looks like Vlad the Impaler got to me!) which are unfortunately tied to bad artwork that the sculptors dutifully translate to 3d models.

Ugh! You would bring up the Yeoman! Without a doubt the ugliest thing in BT.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I disagree that everything would have to be thrown out. Catalyst could go really far with just updating artwork and miniatures without completely wiping units, historical events, and fluff. IWM already has to archive miniatures because their catalog is too big. Leaving those archived models in the past, and updating them based off new artwork and using new technology (like 3D sculpting) could really revitalize the miniatures line, and draw more players in. Look at how people are responding to the news of the redesigned unseen as evidence that the aesthetic is what is really dragging the game down.

Perhaps. A lot of the background could remain, but even some of that looks a bit dated at this point. As far as the rules, if I was in charge and was doing a total reboot I'd throw those out and rewrite a much simpler system. Actually, I think they have done a pretty good job with Alpha Strike. While its not perfect I think its a much better system for appealing to the modern gamers. For IWM metals, though, it would be a throwing everything out. I agree that one of the problems with the mini line is that its just too big. Too big for a retailer to stock all of it. Too confusing for many beginning gamers. The designs are all over the place in terms of looks making for a barely cohesive appearance on the table. Still, I think at this point its only the continued release of more new miniatures that keeps the line alive. I don't have access to IWM sales records, but I suspect that the new minis are the big profit makers. Maybe a total revamp of the minis and releasing a whole new line of mechs redesigned from the ground up would reinvigorate the game. It would be a huge gamble though, and if it didn't pay of could well kill the game.

 mdauben wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Some of the designs are just plain bad too. Like the Yeoman, or the Super Griffin (hey, look I am jumping, but really it looks like Vlad the Impaler got to me!) which are unfortunately tied to bad artwork that the sculptors dutifully translate to 3d models.

Ugh! You would bring up the Yeoman! Without a doubt the ugliest thing in BT.

Add to the fact that bare metal always looks worse than a painted model.

Yeoman? That is one nasty looking mech, I have it.
I agree it is a whole lot of ugly.
Ghetto-blaster with legs:The only other contender would be the "Jackal" were it looks like the mech all others bully.BUT my vote for best mech was the original "unseen" Marauder:

Both for looks and it's brutal capability.

Just remove tracking of heat and ammo.

Things tend to move much faster and die a lot quicker.

 TalonZahn wrote:
Just remove tracking of heat and ammo.

Things tend to move much faster and die a lot quicker.

The only issue with removing tracking of heat and ammo, then it can also become awfully one sided unless you are playing with stock mechs. If you didn't allow customization and only allowed stock and variants in the TRs, then it might not be so bad. Otherwise you'll have 4-6 PPC/ER PPCs running, alpha striking without having to manage heat (which was a part of BT, knowing when to hold back and when to open up).

 Dark Severance wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:
Just remove tracking of heat and ammo.

Things tend to move much faster and die a lot quicker.

The only issue with removing tracking of heat and ammo, then it can also become awfully one sided unless you are playing with stock mechs. If you didn't allow customization and only allowed stock and variants in the TRs, then it might not be so bad. Otherwise you'll have 4-6 PPC/ER PPCs running, alpha striking without having to manage heat (which was a part of BT, knowing when to hold back and when to open up).

Well just don't be "THAT GUY" and bring that super customized CHEESE wagon, and you have nothing to worry about. I don't know about you, but I like the people I game with and want to keep them as friends.

Using the BV Calc to set points limits also mitigates a lot of garbage. Scenarios really shine to keep things level as well.

Throwing dice and drinking beer for a fast game of BT doesn't need to have the recordkeeping like a SrzBzns game.

Yep. Knowing when and when not to fire either due to heat or ammunition concerns is a big part of BattleTech.

 judgedoug wrote:
Battletech is a complex hex and counter wargame.

The core rules of Battletech, since the "advanced" option of Battledroids (which became the BT we know and love) is complex. The BT Intro Set with all 3025 tech, is complex.

Alpha Strike is much closer to "beer & pretzels" but merely because the system is more elegant; it still produces satisfying games with tactical depth.

I wouldn't say it is all that complex, you only need the control sheets, a Quick Ref sheet of the charts and an understanding of the core rules to play. It's not anything like as complex as Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, for instance.

 Talizvar wrote:
Yeoman? That is one nasty looking mech, I have it.
I agree it is a whole lot of ugly.
Ghetto-blaster with legs:

Spoiler:

The only other contender would be the "Jackal" were it looks like the mech all others bully.

Spoiler:

BUT my vote for best mech was the original "unseen" Marauder:

Both for looks and it's brutal capability.

Don't forget it's ability to make you swear like a sailor when putting the blasted thing together.

So the original box used Hunchback and cicada vs Enforcer and Hermes II for its intro scenarios- any speculation on which will be the poster children for this round? I'm betting its Marauder vs Warhammer for sure, but don't know about the secondaries.

Guys, I said it was a complex hex and counter game, which it is.

Not complicated, but certainly more complex than the vast majority of other hex and counter games out there (which usually boil down to ratios and a single die roll for resolving combat between multiple units)

If you're not thinking about it in terms of a hex and counter game, then the best descriptor for Battletech is "lengthy", which it very much is (unless rolling locations for every point of damage from an LB-10X autocannon is quick for some people).

Does the RPG use pretty much the same combat rules for mech on mech action or something different? It would be interesting if the RPG actually simplified things compared to CBT. I'm not a fan of CBT (tried it three times in as many decades) but I would say that the heat management is one thing I definitely liked in theory and was iconic to the game.

 warboss wrote:
Does the RPG use pretty much the same combat rules for mech on mech action or something different? It would be interesting if the RPG actually simplified things compared to CBT. I'm not a fan of CBT (tried it three times in as many decades) but I would say that the heat management is one thing I definitely liked in theory and was iconic to the game.

A Time of War (the rpg) uses a system appropriate to an RPG, so, no, it's not like Battletech, haha. (keep track of your internal metabolism! cool down after running! replish your water ammo!)

 Talizvar wrote:
I would say less complicated than Star Fleet Battles...

NOTHING is more complicated than Star Fleet Battles, my income tax included!

(Don't get me wrong, I love the game... but the complete rules barely fit in a 5" ring binder. )

 Vulcan wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I would say less complicated than Star Fleet Battles...

NOTHING is more complicated than Star Fleet Battles, my income tax included!

(Don't get me wrong, I love the game... but the complete rules barely fit in a 5" ring binder. )

Off topic: Have you seen Federation Commander Rules set? It is like Alpha Strike is to BattleTech.

Back on Topic: I want to see the Rebuild of my favorite BattleMech of all time, the RFL-3N Rifleman.

 TalonZahn wrote:
Just remove tracking of heat and ammo.

Things tend to move much faster and die a lot quicker.

Completely missing the point that BattleTech, like real warfare, is about managing resources as much as anything else.

Anpu: Yeah, but I've invested too heavily in SFB to want to start afresh with a stripped-down version. Call me grognard...

 Vulcan wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:
Just remove tracking of heat and ammo.

Things tend to move much faster and die a lot quicker.

Completely missing the point that BattleTech, like real warfare, is about managing resources as much as anything else.

Half the fun is the heat. I spend most of my Battle with my Riflemen as 8-13 points of heat if not more, the best way to surprise people is to run your Mechs hot while they try not to overheat. This usually would let me pull out 50% more firepower in the first few turns that let me win a lot of games.

EXACTLY!

You're gamble cooking your targeting computer - and thus missing more often - against the benefits of potentially doing more damage.

It also allows for a long-range/short range weapons loadout. Take the basic WHM-6R - 2 PPCs, SRM-6, 2 Medium Lasers, 2 Small Lasers, and 2 MG. Potentially 34 heat if you fire everything and run... and only 18 heat sinks to dissipate heat.

You fire the PPCs during the approach battle to about range 6 (probably in a 2-2-1 volley pattern, to clear your overheat out during that last 'midrange' turn before switching to the short range suite). Then you switch over to a PPC and the mediums from range 6-3, and then dumping the PPC for the SRMS, smalls, and MGs at close range (incidentally leaving the arms free for punching, should the range get THAT close).

And if you loose a PPC on the way in, you've still got plenty of weaponry left to play with.

 Vulcan wrote:
EXACTLY!

You're gamble cooking your targeting computer - and thus missing more often - against the benefits of potentially doing more damage.

It also allows for a long-range/short range weapons loadout. Take the basic WHM-6R - 2 PPCs, SRM-6, 2 Medium Lasers, 2 Small Lasers, and 2 MG. Potentially 34 heat if you fire everything and run... and only 18 heat sinks to dissipate heat.

You fire the PPCs during the approach battle to about range 6 (probably in a 2-2-1 volley pattern, to clear your overheat out during that last 'midrange' turn before switching to the short range suite). Then you switch over to a PPC and the mediums from range 6-3, and then dumping the PPC for the SRMS, smalls, and MGs at close range (incidentally leaving the arms free for punching, should the range get THAT close).

And if you loose a PPC on the way in, you've still got plenty of weaponry left to play with.

Ye-up, I love the classic 3025 setting, that and the war of 39. Not big on the Clan+ setting, but it is fun to pull out the high Tech stuff.

judgedoug wrote:Guys, I said it was a complex hex and counter game, which it is.

I still don't see it personally, but I can agree on that it matches your definition of complex.

Not complicated, but certainly more complex than the vast majority of other hex and counter games out there (which usually boil down to ratios and a single die roll for resolving combat between multiple units)

Having played my fill of Avalon Hill games back in the day... huh. Ok then.

If you're not thinking about it in terms of a hex and counter game, then the best descriptor for Battletech is "lengthy", which it very much is (unless rolling locations for every point of damage from an LB-10X autocannon is quick for some people).

On THAT I can absolutely agree. It is involved to very involved. But even then, third time you play you've already memorized the location table ^^.

warboss wrote:Does the RPG use pretty much the same combat rules for mech on mech action or something different? It would be interesting if the RPG actually simplified things compared to CBT. I'm not a fan of CBT (tried it three times in as many decades) but I would say that the heat management is one thing I definitely liked in theory and was iconic to the game.

Yes and no. Personal combat uses their own set of rules, tactical rules are more or less the CBT ones, but much, much, much more involved. If you think that regular CBT lance-on-lance is lenghty, this is what they have to say about the AtoW's tactical rules:

While standard Total Warfare rules can cover engagements of any size, from a one-on-one duel between units to a regimental scale engagement, the tactical combat rules addendum presented here provides far more detailed engagements that can bog down play. These rules are therefore best recommended when the tactical battle includes no more than 1
lance of vehicles or ’Mechs per side, and the players want to add another layer of play to regular Total Warfare games using A Time of War characters.

Personally, I'm currently running a Mechwarrior campaign, and after taking a good long look at the AtoW book, decided to use MW 2nd edition adding AToW's edges and flaws, with the regular CBT combat rules for vehicular characters (player side, I'm using Alpha Strike for NPCs).

judgedoug wrote:A Time of War (the rpg) uses a system appropriate to an RPG, so, no, it's not like Battletech, haha. (keep track of your internal metabolism! cool down after running! replish your water ammo!)

Er... yeah. It also has the most needlessly complicated and abstruse character creation system ever. It makes me, that am used to do fething Eclipse Phase characters in minutes, flee running and screaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Half the fun is the heat. I spend most of my Battle with my Riflemen as 8-13 points of heat if not more, the best way to surprise people is to run your Mechs hot while they try not to overheat. This usually would let me pull out 50% more firepower in the first few turns that let me win a lot of games.

Agreed. This is why I still like 3025 the most. That and, you know, mech designs with actual defects that make you think on how to best use them.

All later tech changes the game a lot.

The only modification I ever do the the RFL-3N is I move the Medium Lasers to Rear Facing and call it my 'Rear Armor'.
With the Flipping arms I also can what my opponents call 'Dancing' with them as at time I would turn around to give them my "Fresh" Armor, what little there is...

Complex rules are what drew me to BTech (the game, I already liked the universe from MechWarrior 2, 3, and later MechCommander). They were a good break from 40K.

Haven't played in years though, which is sad as I've got a whole ton of 'Mechs just waiting to be used.

 Vulcan wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:
Just remove tracking of heat and ammo.

Things tend to move much faster and die a lot quicker.

Completely missing the point that BattleTech, like real warfare, is about managing resources as much as anything else.

As someone who owns every Battletech publication made since the game was introduced, I can assure you, I'm not missing the point.

I simply said if you want to really speed the game up, remove those items. It really speeds the game up, trust me.

Personally, I don't think the game is that slow with everything thrown in. Just like with any other game, the more you play and learn the rules, the faster it becomes.