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.

IMHO heat management is a key aspect of battletech. Without it, you just have another hex wargame. Although I’ll admit to being out of the loop. I think the last time I played was in the early 90s.

I was actually shocked when I looked on my shelf to find the wizkids/fanpro Classic battletech master rules ~2004 book there. I have no recollection of picking it up, or even playing during that era.

Minis are nice, and it’s nice to see some of the old stuff coming back to light. Better then the cardboard standies we used for years.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Off topic: Have you seen Federation Commander Rules set? It is like Alpha Strike is to BattleTech.

I have that!
I enjoyed the game.
It is also automatically set up for a lighter-still game with a different layout card on the back with less boxes / stats.
I would recommend it, I would also agree it has a more Alpha-strike feel.

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

The Robotech kickstarter put out this "unseen" that is to scale and you can get the "Warhammer" along with it: http://www.thewarstore.com/product88631.html

 TalonZahn wrote:

 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.

We did the no Heat a few times and we came to some conclusions.
>It makes some Mechs Stupid Good like the Stalker
>It lost all the flavor, it quickly became lets see who could throw the most firepower out there.
No Ammo, well my Devastator with 4 AC/20s dropping into battle...nothing would last more than two turns with it out there.

It can me fun for a few games, but you need to do some level of balance between Heat vs. Firepower.

Our way of speeding things up was just go smaller, 4 Mechs, total Weight no more than 250 tons of Mechs. Those mad for some quick games if there was not a lot of terrain.

My favorite time killer was the 100-Ton-Maxi. One Map Board, Maximum 100 Tons on the field at a time. When your Mech was destroyed or you punched out you got to bring out another 100 Tones. Those games were a blast.
The most Insane one we had was 5 Locust vs. 20 Savina Masters.

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

Both for looks and it's brutal capability.

Ah! The old Marauder/Glaug! My own favorite of the original mechs, and still one of my all time favorites. Cool looking, great damage potential but it required a bit of finess (due to heat issues) to get the most out of. I've got several of the old Ral Partha miniatures, and at least one example of every succeeding Marauder model. Can't wait to see how this new one turns out. The artwork looks very promising!

 mdauben wrote:
Can't wait to see how this new one turns out. The artwork looks very promising!

It will probably bear a strong resemblance to the MAD-4X Marauder from XTRO: Succession Wars.

So would it be wise to splurge for rulebooks and expansions now, or will new books be released alongside these new shinies?

No. The core rules are not being updated at this time.

 Ghaz wrote:

 mdauben wrote:
Can't wait to see how this new one turns out. The artwork looks very promising!

It will probably bear a strong resemblance to the MAD-4X Marauder from XTRO: Succession Wars.

It looks a lot closer to the "Shimmrauder" Marauder by Shimmering Sword than the XTRO Marauder.

They both look similar to each other considering their different configurations, with the differences being in the weapon loadout (the -4X has a Binary Laser Cannon in each arm and a SRM-6 launcher in each side torso.

 TalonZahn wrote:
Just remove tracking of heat and ammo.

Heat makes everything more interesting.

The invention of double heat sinks gutted the tactical element of gameplay.

 Albertorius wrote:

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).

Wow.. more complicated/complex. Eh, to each his own. I do like the art of the new mechs though so hopefully this will be the first time since the original unseen that I pick up some mechs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:

 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!)

I'm guessing adding heat sinks to your character would involve shaving various body parts. The original question was more in reference to the inevitable mech combat in the RPG and whether it used the CBT rules for that portion or adapted/made up its own.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Our way of speeding things up was just go smaller, 4 Mechs, total Weight no more than 250 tons of Mechs. Those mad for some quick games if there was not a lot of terrain.

Why use tonnage when BV2 exists?

 mdauben wrote:
Perhaps. A lot of the background could remain, but even some of that looks a bit dated at this point.

Yeah, very true. I think in the background the Soviet Union falls in the late 21st century. There are definitely some areas that could be massaged a little and either cut or revamped to make things more relevant.

 mdauben wrote:
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.

I don't disagree. While I love IWM and everything they have done to support Battletech, the line itself is a mess and I think you are correct regarding the sales of new models versus old. It has been a few years, and the posts may have been lost in one of the website crashes, but on the old ClassicBattletech forums there were debates about the viability of IWM keeping old designs around. This was around the time the archive business started, and people were upset that the whole range wasn't going to be available for purchase.

At that time one of the IWM associated posters revealed how infrequently many of the older models sold (I think for some it was less than 10 a year) and the space the molds and stock take up made keeping the whole range around a headache for IWM which made most of its money off of casting services for other companies, and selling other model ranges. Unless things have changed substantially in the last few years the new figures are definitely driving sales with the older models acting as dead weight around IWM's neck.

If IWM were to archive the majority of the current line (some of the models still hold up, anything Drew Williams sculpted is pretty much gold in my opinion) and move forward with new designs I'd be emptying my wallet with new purchases and I would imagine others would too.

CBT is complex in the sense that there is a good amount of stuff to keep track of on a unit-by-unit basis. But I was put off of it for many years based on misunderstanding people calling CBT complex ... I thought they meant it had some kind of extremely intricate set of mechanics or something, which is really not true or at least does not have to be. While admittedly complex, CBT's fundamental mechanics are pretty intuitive.

Observing some kind of common design basis for new models may revitalize the line.

Each mech has a couple distinct features to preserve to keep them recognizable.

Gun arms, cockpit shapes, chicken walker, jump jets, an oversized weapon, hand weapon, feet shape, quad legged, ammo hoppers, plating, limb thicknesses, vents/ports, joint features / plating overlap should have some commonality if not a distinct feature, it should work to make the models more cohesive.

At the very least a mech built from a given company should have a multitude of common features.

Does a Volkswagen Beetle look like a Ferrari 458?

Does a Ford Fiesta look like a Ford Mustang?

So why should all 'mechs look alike?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Our way of speeding things up was just go smaller, 4 Mechs, total Weight no more than 250 tons of Mechs. Those mad for some quick games if there was not a lot of terrain.

Why use tonnage when BV2 exists?

Cuz in my Day there was no BV system

 Ghaz wrote:
Does a Volkswagen Beetle look like a Ferrari 458?
Does a Ford Fiesta look like a Ford Mustang?
So why should all 'mechs look alike?

Would you like some more Lada or Wartburg 353 styling with your Sci-Fi stomping robots?
Some common "good" styling or at least similar looking tech may avoid some prior butt ugly design.
There is a vast difference between agreeing on aesthetically pleasing common elements than the extreme "mechs looking alike".
Mixing 50's tailfin cars with 80's K car design would be painful to mix, some agreement on style for design would be logical right?
<edit> Heck, these are meant to be military machines, at least a nod of the head to robust design would be nice.

 Talizvar wrote:
Observing some kind of common design basis for new models may revitalize the line.
Each mech has a couple distinct features to preserve to keep them recognizable.
Gun arms, cockpit shapes, chicken walker, jump jets, an oversized weapon, hand weapon, feet shape, quad legged, ammo hoppers, plating, limb thicknesses, vents/ports, joint features / plating overlap should have some commonality if not a distinct feature, it should work to make the models more cohesive.
At the very least a mech built from a given company should have a multitude of common features.

That might be one of the few effective ways to go about a not from bedrock reboot; identify which vehicles should share or not share features instead of 'kitchen sink' artwork.
Inserting the Star League (2750) era vehicles into the 3025 era as replacements for the Unseen sure threw a monkey wrench into everything.


The fiction and fluff sure took a nosedive as well, as I don't think I've ever managed to get more than halfway (if that) through any Dark Age novel; they just do not at all read like a BattleTech story.
And even the Clan/post-Clan novels just came across so dumbed down as to not reflect any kind of military fiction intended to portray soldiers who've spent the better part of their lives waging war.
Hell, I think there were occasional stories from Battle Technology that in a dozen or less pages were better than some of the novels in their entirety, even before the less than 250/300 page-count limitation came into being.


Every time I've looked at BT over the past decade it just seems harder and harder IMO to try and figure out who exactly the various companies holding the IP at that time were trying to attract as players or fans.
The composition of a couple of the Alpha Strike lance packs are likewise, interesting, to say the least.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Our way of speeding things up was just go smaller, 4 Mechs, total Weight no more than 250 tons of Mechs. Those mad for some quick games if there was not a lot of terrain.

Why use tonnage when BV2 exists?

Cuz in my Day there was no BV system

I'm not sure what day you mean then. I've got a Mechforce News here with Battle Values in it from 30 years ago.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Our way of speeding things up was just go smaller, 4 Mechs, total Weight no more than 250 tons of Mechs. Those mad for some quick games if there was not a lot of terrain.

Why use tonnage when BV2 exists?

Cuz in my Day there was no BV system

I'm not sure what day you mean then. I've got a Mechforce News here with Battle Values in it from 30 years ago.

BattlDriods, BattleTech, CityTech. I have been playing this game way to long

I never got into MechForce myself.

We'll just agree that we're old then.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 mdauben wrote:
Can't wait to see how this new one turns out. The artwork looks very promising!

It will probably bear a strong resemblance to the MAD-4X Marauder from XTRO: Succession Wars.

It looks a lot closer to the "Shimmrauder" Marauder by Shimmering Sword than the XTRO Marauder.

Spoiler:

Might have to do with it being done by the same guy, yes

 Ghaz wrote:

 mdauben wrote:
Can't wait to see how this new one turns out. The artwork looks very promising!

It will probably bear a strong resemblance to the MAD-4X Marauder from XTRO: Succession Wars.

I hope not. We've already got the MAD-4X miniatures (I think I've got two). I'm hoping it looks more like the Marauder shown in this artwork. This design looks more like the original unseen MAD-3R than anything Catalyst and IWM have done to date (and is better looking that most of the current "Marauder" miniatueres, IMO).

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

The mech in the lower right corner really looks nothing like the MAD-4X.

 Valhallan42nd wrote:
Don't forget it's ability to make you swear like a sailor when putting the blasted thing together.

I'll admit the original unseen Marauder was a little challenging to assemble, but its nothing compared to the unseen Marauder IIC or the current "stork legged" Marauder MAD-5L!

Except for the longer torso they look very similar.

 Ghaz wrote:


Except for the longer torso they look very similar.

The cockpit design on that Marauder is ridiculously stupid. Unless that is a penal machine meant to sacrifice the pilot inside I can't imagine why anyone would design a warmachine like that.

I'd put hidden cockpits way up there on my wish list for aesthetic changes made to Battletech's `Mechs. Going back to the unseen Battlemaster and Griffin, through the Timberwolf/Mad Cat and crap like the Marauder above, a large number of Battletech's designs share a ludicrous legacy of prominent cockpits that would draw all kinds of enemy fire in combat. That crap needs to change. `Mechs have a full suite of sensors/cameras and do not need to have fishbowl cockpits jutting forward from their torsos in order to function.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
That crap needs to change. `Mechs have a full suite of sensors/cameras and do not need to have fishbowl cockpits jutting forward from their torsos in order to function.

Yet a large amount of the weapon systems still miss their target.

Even with today's technology we have ballistic weapons that can accurately hit miles out, but in the future they aren't 100% accurate? Hell, even 85% accurate.

The prominent cockpits, to me, are like Space Marines with no helmets. They don't make much sense other than to "humanize" the war machines.

Lots of mechs have cockpits that are dead center in the chest. That makes even less since when you are usually aiming for center mass.

Cockpits can also be a big thing for a Pilot. Look at the evolution of WWII Fighters like the P-51 and P-47. They both started with the back part as part of the tail section. It gave great coverage from shots from the rear, but at the cost of viability.
When they went to the bubble Canopy they lost some of that protection, but gained viability which turned out to be more important.
Now with the F-22 they have made it so you have full 360* vision, but that did not come cheaply.
The ones with Bubble Canopies are probably cheaper to manufacture and sell, thus will be more common. While the mostly enclosed Cockpits with the 360* Sensors are going to cost alot more.

There is also another factor that a lot overlook when it comes to pilots, a lot trust their eyes more than sensors.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Cockpits can also be a big thing for a Pilot. Look at the evolution of WWII Fighters like the P-51 and P-47. They both started with the back part as part of the tail section. It gave great coverage from shots from the rear, but at the cost of viability.
When they went to the bubble Canopy they lost some of that protection, but gained viability which turned out to be more important.
Now with the F-22 they have made it so you have full 360* vision, but that did not come cheaply.
The ones with Bubble Canopies are probably cheaper to manufacture and sell, thus will be more common. While the mostly enclosed Cockpits with the 360* Sensors are going to cost alot more.

There is also another factor that a lot overlook when it comes to pilots, a lot trust their eyes more than sensors.

Yea, I'd rather have my peripheral vision than a camera subject to malfunctions, jamming, etc...

 TalonZahn wrote:

Lots of mechs have cockpits that are dead center in the chest. That makes even less since when you are usually aiming for center mass.

It may be the easiest place to hit, but it's also going to be the best armored part of the mech (on those that aren't prominently jutting out).