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.

 Albertorius wrote:
I was even a clicky game, for a time.

That wasn't BattleTech. That was MechWarrior: Dark Age, a game that shared the universe and some aesthetics, but was not BattleTech.

BattleTech didn't cease existing whilst the clicky game existed. That's like saying that BattleTech was a computer game at one stage in its life because they made Mechwarrior 2.

It'll be interesting to see if there's any innovation in rules to help sell all the new miniatures at retail.

The motivation is the quality of the new plastics and the fact they are doing well known classic models and more importantly unseens in their original form. the latter being the only reason i bought the 2 sets i did.

 aphyon wrote:
Well that's why there is "classic" battletech and then everything else

.clicky game
.card game
.video game
.online video games
.apocalypse scale simplified game
.RPG

We are back to the fact that something like 6 different companies own parts of the IP.

More like it has been licensed to hell and back. But in and of itself, that's not really any different from GW. I mean, there's no clicky games, but there's at least one of all of the others . And still, GW games' rules tend to have the longevity of fruit flies.

 Albertorius wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
Well that's why there is "classic" battletech and then everything else

.clicky game
.card game
.video game
.online video games
.apocalypse scale simplified game
.RPG

We are back to the fact that something like 6 different companies own parts of the IP.

More like it has been licensed to hell and back. But in and of itself, that's not really any different from GW. I mean, there's no clicky games, but there's at least one of all of the others . And still, GW games' rules tend to have the longevity of fruit flies.

Sabertooth did a clicky GW LOTR under license, so yes, GW had that, too.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8139/lord-rings-combat-hex-tradeable-miniatures-game

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
I was even a clicky game, for a time.

That wasn't BattleTech. That was MechWarrior: Dark Age, a game that shared the universe and some aesthetics, but was not BattleTech.

BattleTech didn't cease existing whilst the clicky game existed. That's like saying that BattleTech was a computer game at one stage in its life because they made Mechwarrior 2.

It wasn't Battletech the game, but it was Battletech the IP. It was also the only miniature-style game under production for its time. There were some very good ideas in there, particularly in regards to encouraging Combined Arms, but I'm just not a fan of some of the Clix aspect of MechClix.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
I was even a clicky game, for a time.

That wasn't BattleTech. That was MechWarrior: Dark Age, a game that shared the universe and some aesthetics, but was not BattleTech.

BattleTech didn't cease existing whilst the clicky game existed. That's like saying that BattleTech was a computer game at one stage in its life because they made Mechwarrior 2.

...Ok. And?

I mean, the point is "there were other games made of similar scale and scope for this universe, but the original one is still enduring, with very little changes". Can we agree on that?

I liked "Clikcy-Tech" until it went off the rails like most Wizkids games. Most Wizkids games definitely have a fixed end date where Wizkids does little to no support afterwards. In this case, they got to a certain point, and basically said "We're done. No more new models, no more new tournament kits." If you are lucky, they will continue to answer some questions about rules and such, and might even throw out an FAQ.

While I wasn't too keen on the Dark Age story line, I did like some of the mechs and characters that came out of it.

You can say what you want about whatever version of Battletech you are playing. It's all in the same universe, and it's all good.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Well, I would not call it exactly a fallacy, and also I don't think it fits the case.

Thing is, Battletech rules have changed over the years. I was even a clicky game, for a time. But the original rules, with small tweaks, have proven to be much more resilient and enduring. Even when the game changes into other systems, like in the case of MW: DA or AS, the original rules chug on unfazed.

So I would not equate it with "Every time that rooster crows, the sun comes up, so the rooster makes the sun go up". More like "even though Battletech as a franchise has been through a lot of changes, the original rules endure". That doesn't seem to be a logical fallacy.

To be fair, Dark Age is to Battletech as Warcry is to Age of Sigmar. I don't consider in-universe spin-offs to be an alteration of the core game. Battletech's core rules are probably one of the most static game systems, while still being given new production, in my lifetime. It's as if GW was still making new models and material to be used with Rogue Trader.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Well, I would not call it exactly a fallacy, and also I don't think it fits the case.

Thing is, Battletech rules have changed over the years. I was even a clicky game, for a time. But the original rules, with small tweaks, have proven to be much more resilient and enduring. Even when the game changes into other systems, like in the case of MW: DA or AS, the original rules chug on unfazed.

So I would not equate it with "Every time that rooster crows, the sun comes up, so the rooster makes the sun go up". More like "even though Battletech as a franchise has been through a lot of changes, the original rules endure". That doesn't seem to be a logical fallacy.

To be fair, Dark Age is to Battletech as Warcry is to Age of Sigmar. I don't consider in-universe spin-offs to be an alteration of the core game. Battletech's core rules are probably one of the most static game systems, while still being given new production, in my lifetime. It's as if GW was still making new models and material to be used with Rogue Trader.

Rather, it's more like if the core ruleset of Warhammer 40k would still be mainly Rogue Trader with little changes while at the same time releasing other games ala Kill Team, Necromunda, Epic...

 Albertorius wrote:
...Ok. And?

I mean, the point is "there were other games made of similar scale and scope for this universe, but the original one is still enduring, with very little changes". Can we agree on that?

You said that BattleTech rules had changed over the years, and cited Dark Age as an example of that.

Dark Age wasn't BattleTech changing its rules. Dark Age was a completely different game. It didn't supplant BattleTech. It is not an example of BTech changing its rules.

Interesting to see how attempts at a more accessable game result in games like Dark Age and Alpha Strike though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
...Ok. And?

I mean, the point is "there were other games made of similar scale and scope for this universe, but the original one is still enduring, with very little changes". Can we agree on that?

You said that BattleTech rules had changed over the years, and cited Dark Age as an example of that.

Dark Age wasn't BattleTech changing its rules. Dark Age was a completely different game. It didn't supplant BattleTech. It is not an example of BTech changing its rules.

A'right then.

CamoSpecs are showing off a prototype model for the Marauder II:



(Wolf's Dragoons Zeta Battalion, painted by Crackerb0x)

Never been much of a fan of the Marauder II, but that is sexy.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Interesting to see how attempts at a more accessable game result in games like Dark Age and Alpha Strike though.

Games that fail to capture the essence of what BattleTech is, or mangle the lore so badly that people look back on it with nothing but disdain? I mean, there are grogs who act like the Clans killed their mothers, but the Click Age is almost universally reviled. People hate the Jihad as a result, because it forced the hands of the writers into trying to shoe-horn Dark Age into the ongoing story. The Jihad could'a been much cooler if they werne't given a timeline deadline.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Interesting to see how attempts at a more accessable game result in games like Dark Age and Alpha Strike though.

It's worth noting that these two games came from completely different design teams at different companies. They technically share a common origin in Battletech, but had already been split off corporately and developmentally.

Dark Age was produced by Wiz Kids under Wiesmann and was as much a spinoff from Mage Knight and other clix games as anything. It was an intentionally differentiated product in scale and setting and was never designed as a gateway to "Classic Battletech", it was just a way of using the IP to build a clix game. I would even go so far as to say that it was as far from CBT as the various Mechwarrior computer games.

Battletech the game had already been licensed away to FanPro (the German-language licensee) before Dark Age was released as Wiesman headed Wizkids and had turned his attention entirely to clix games.

Alpha Strike on the other hand is an in-house development by Catalyst (the current post-FanPro licensee for Battletech material publishing and creation) and as a game it actually has a long lineage. As has been mentioned, it's simply a port and expansion of the long-running "Battleforce"(first appeared in the 80s) and Battleforce 2 games and it's more recent "Quick Strike" tabletop miniatures rules (as appeared in "strategic Operations") into their own game as "Alpha Strike".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
, but the Click Age is almost universally reviled. People hate the Jihad as a result, because it forced the hands of the writers into trying to shoe-horn Dark Age into the ongoing story. The Jihad could'a been much cooler if they werne't given a timeline deadline.

I'm not a big fan of the Dark Age or the Jihad as far as story, However, I like alot of the mech designs that came from the Dark Age. I am looking forward to what comes next.

I will always be thankful for MWDA though. Not because of the clix game -which I never played- but because the aftermath of that game it enabled members of my club and I to acquire absolutely massive amounts of prepainted 10mm/1:144 sci-fi miniatures for pennies on the dollar. Once rebased, those figs fueled our exploration of so many sci-fi rulesets including Mech Attack, Future War Commander, Panzer8, Alpha Strike, etc.

CGL also represents a continuity from the FASA days, I believe. Bryan Nystul hired Randall Bills back in the FASA days.

 Manchu wrote:
CGL also represents a continuity from the FASA days, I believe. Bryan Nystul hired Randall Bills back in the FASA days.

That's a good point. Bills was around through FASA, FanPro and Catalyst.

Looking closer, it's possible Bills might be one of the few people involved in FanPro with CBT and also doing some work for WizKids with MW Dark Age.

I still stand by my assessment, though that CBT and MWDA were different teams, different products and MWDA was not designed as a gateway to CBT.

Agreed. The existence of MWDA is why Battletech was (briefly) rebranded as Classic Battletech in the first place.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Never been much of a fan of the Marauder II, but that is sexy.

Indeed. About the only issue I have with it is the muzzle on the Large Laser. Makes me think of an Autocannon.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Interesting to see how attempts at a more accessable game result in games like Dark Age and Alpha Strike though.

Games that fail to capture the essence of what BattleTech is, or mangle the lore so badly that people look back on it with nothing but disdain? I mean, there are grogs who act like the Clans killed their mothers, but the Click Age is almost universally reviled. People hate the Jihad as a result, because it forced the hands of the writers into trying to shoe-horn Dark Age into the ongoing story. The Jihad could'a been much cooler if they werne't given a timeline deadline.

Still, even as badly coordinated the fluff was (almost as much as the timeline given for Disney Star Wars), one can appreciate the challenge of redefining a game in to the ruleset you want to sell and somewhat represent what the original game had. Not talking about the level of success of either property in doing so, just appreciating the challenge.

And oddly enough, our local Battlemaster and his roommate really enjoyed the MechClix game.

Eilif wrote:I'm not a big fan of the Dark Age or the Jihad as far as story, However, I like alot of the mech designs that came from the Dark Age. I am looking forward to what comes next.

Some of the equipment extrapolated out of it is pretty good, too. I like the MML concept and the Plasma Rifle the most.

Eilif wrote:I will always be thankful for MWDA though. Not because of the clix game -which I never played- but because the aftermath of that game it enabled members of my club and I to acquire absolutely massive amounts of prepainted 10mm/1:144 sci-fi miniatures for pennies on the dollar. Once rebased, those figs fueled our exploration of so many sci-fi rulesets including Mech Attack, Future War Commander, Panzer8, Alpha Strike, etc.

"Always look on the bright side of life. *whistling*" It's always a breath of fresh air to see someone getting something positive out of a less-than-welcomed system.

Eilif wrote:I still stand by my assessment, though that CBT and MWDA were different teams, different products and MWDA was not designed as a gateway to CBT.

That much is true. There is no reason to think that WizKids were not thinking about having a huge system eventually if it sold well enough. As a semi-side note, it seems that Star Trek Clix worked only a little better such that they took the models from it and used them for Star Trek Attack Wing after getting the rules licensed from FFG.

New today in the store are Alpha Strike cards for WarShips, JumpShips, and DropShips and other small craft–completely FREE to download, or pay what you want. And, don't miss our next AMA with the factchecking team tomorrow, Sat 7/17 at 2 pm EST. http://ow.ly/a05P50FxSVh

 Charistoph wrote:
You've sparked my curiosity. What do you not like about BT Capital Ships? Aesthetics, Construction, rules, or a combination?

Personally, I never played BattleSpace when I had it. Too busy with the Mechs, and the more realistic movement style was intimidating. However, setting up a spreadsheet to do the heavy lifting of calculations was oddly satisfying.

A lot of it does come down to aesthetics. I like the spheroid drop ships (for the most part), but in a ground-combat/in-atmosphere context, not in a space combat context. I don't think that most BTech ships look good. I think that, of everything that BTech has, they're the things that have suffered the most from the old art style as they look like a jumble of random angles and shapes.

I also like 'age of sail' style naval combat, which is why I like Star Wars capital ships and especially 40k capital ships. Big ships letting off broadsides with lots of different classes. SW and 40k ships tend to have a unifying aesthetic to them depending on faction, but BTech, like is said, is more jumbled. They also lack the big line of cannons. Naval combat in BTech, by design, is something that does not happen all that much so seems to have been given less attention. It's different to my general disinterest in aircraft; that's universal. The 40k fighter game and X-Wing hold no more appeal to me than BTech Aerospace fighters.

I mean there are all sorts of space ship games that I've loved - Homeworld, Sins of a Solar Empire, SW Battlefront, Battlefleet Gothic. I love the naval combat in Assassin's Creed 4/Rogue. I love big ship battles in everything from Star Trek to Stargate. BTech has just never done it for me. The weird ships never illicit the same response in me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A lot of it does come down to aesthetics. I like the spheroid drop ships (for the most part), but in a ground-combat/in-atmosphere context, not in a space combat context. I don't think that most BTech ships look good. I think that, of everything that BTech has, they're the things that have suffered the most from the old art style as they look like a jumble of random angles and shapes.

I also like 'age of sail' style naval combat, which is why I like Star Wars capital ships and especially 40k capital ships. Big ships letting off broadsides with lots of different classes. SW and 40k ships tend to have a unifying aesthetic to them depending on faction, but BTech, like is said, is more jumbled. They also lack the big line of cannons. Naval combat in BTech, by design, is something that does not happen all that much so seems to have been given less attention. It's different to my general disinterest in aircraft; that's universal. The 40k fighter game and X-Wing hold no more appeal to me than BTech Aerospace fighters.

I mean there are all sorts of space ship games that I've loved - Homeworld, Sins of a Solar Empire, SW Battlefront, Battlefleet Gothic. I love the naval combat in Assassin's Creed 4/Rogue. I love big ship battles in everything from Star Trek to Stargate. BTech has just never done it for me. The weird ships never illicit the same response in me.

Interesting.

I can understand that stand point. Oddly enough, while the Warships do have a lot of broadsides in them in the stats, they definitely don't SHOW them in the imagery, old or new.

And yeah, there is no real cohesive faction design, but oddly enough most of the Mechs are that way, too.

And yeah, there is no real cohesive faction design, but oddly enough most of the Mechs are that way, too.

Well with mechs generally speaking it is not (well except for kurita) the look of the mech that is the focus of the factions design but rather it's preferred combat style or weapon load out.


Most davion variants or home specific designs will favor an autocannon of some sort with RAC 5s becoming the new iconic davion weapon. comparably you will see steiner with heavier mechs sporting gauss, heavy gauss or AC 20s of some sort. kurita tends to lean heavy on PPCs on fast heavy chassis

As for capitol ships, i really do love the design of several ships and i own a few of the minis. my favorites being the
tatsumaki

https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/3/35/Tatsumaki-class_Warship_TRO3067.jpg/287px-tlvlcc17c057u51gitc005mpwd1j0we.jpg?timestamp=20180223024938

conqueror (clan)

https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/3/34/Conqueror-class_Warship_TRO3067.jpg/1200px-sa2wmhzvchlcpyfx991fu29mhbdk23f.jpg?timestamp=20180223032030

mjolnir

https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/c/c3/Mjolnir-class_Warship_TRO3067.jpg/287px-qwfzfvjzgwx9tl5cp7y2oyve88hofsq.jpg?timestamp=20180223030927

feng huang

https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/f/fe/Feng-Huang.jpg/287px-gxzcegkd0knjfxkanzhyjboddqp8ung.jpg?timestamp=20141202221713

And the classic sovetski soyuz

https://www.ironwindmetals.com/images/com_hikashop/upload/thumbnails/300x300c000000/btwarships/20-172.jpg

As far as game play goes, i have been really spoiled by playing B5 wars for my battle tech-esc space combat system. as such i never really got into the warship combat side of the game relegating aerosapace fighters to ground map combat rules.

 Charistoph wrote:
And yeah, there is no real cohesive faction design, but oddly enough most of the Mechs are that way, too.

I figured you might say that, and I know the criticisms of of BTech artwork both new and old (I mean, what is this? What is this???) but even those monstrosities read as BattleMechs.

I go through the list of BTech startships some of them don't even look like something that fights in space.

I mean it doesn't take long to find a bunch of ships that look more like passenger liners, cargo-ships, satellites with parachutes or... whatever this is meant to be (carrying two oversized land mines?).

It's just not as obvious as others.

Even in the recent video game, the Argo looks like a garbage disposal.

 aphyon wrote:

As for capitol ships, i really do love the design of several ships and i own a few of the minis. my favorites being the
tatsumaki

Spoiler:

https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/3/35/Tatsumaki-class_Warship_TRO3067.jpg/287px-tlvlcc17c057u51gitc005mpwd1j0we.jpg?timestamp=20180223024938

conqueror (clan)

https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/3/34/Conqueror-class_Warship_TRO3067.jpg/1200px-sa2wmhzvchlcpyfx991fu29mhbdk23f.jpg?timestamp=20180223032030

mjolnir

https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/c/c3/Mjolnir-class_Warship_TRO3067.jpg/287px-qwfzfvjzgwx9tl5cp7y2oyve88hofsq.jpg?timestamp=20180223030927

feng huang

https://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/f/fe/Feng-Huang.jpg/287px-gxzcegkd0knjfxkanzhyjboddqp8ung.jpg?timestamp=20141202221713

And the classic sovetski soyuz

https://www.ironwindmetals.com/images/com_hikashop/upload/thumbnails/300x300c000000/btwarships/20-172.jpg

As far as game play goes, i have been really spoiled by playing B5 wars for my battle tech-esc space combat system. as such i never really got into the warship combat side of the game relegating aerosapace fighters to ground map combat rules.

The problem with the BT ships isn't a "faction design" problem, it's that there's no cohesive design principle at all. As an example, If I didn't know what we were talking about or the context of it, your list of favorite "BT ships" looks more like a "my favorite anime/generic sci-fi ships" list than it does a list of ships from the same setting. And I understand that's part of the history of how BT came along, but BT fleet stuff has always looked more like space battles from Futurama(where you have literal flying limos, slightly altered pop culture references, et al next to actual military ships like the Nimbus) than the military fleets of two houses/clans battling it out.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
You've sparked my curiosity. What do you not like about BT Capital Ships? Aesthetics, Construction, rules, or a combination?

Personally, I never played BattleSpace when I had it. Too busy with the Mechs, and the more realistic movement style was intimidating. However, setting up a spreadsheet to do the heavy lifting of calculations was oddly satisfying.

A lot of it does come down to aesthetics. I like the spheroid drop ships (for the most part), but in a ground-combat/in-atmosphere context, not in a space combat context. I don't think that most BTech ships look good. I think that, of everything that BTech has, they're the things that have suffered the most from the old art style as they look like a jumble of random angles and shapes.

I also like 'age of sail' style naval combat, which is why I like Star Wars capital ships and especially 40k capital ships. Big ships letting off broadsides with lots of different classes. SW and 40k ships tend to have a unifying aesthetic to them depending on faction, but BTech, like is said, is more jumbled. They also lack the big line of cannons. Naval combat in BTech, by design, is something that does not happen all that much so seems to have been given less attention. It's different to my general disinterest in aircraft; that's universal. The 40k fighter game and X-Wing hold no more appeal to me than BTech Aerospace fighters.

I mean there are all sorts of space ship games that I've loved - Homeworld, Sins of a Solar Empire, SW Battlefront, Battlefleet Gothic. I love the naval combat in Assassin's Creed 4/Rogue. I love big ship battles in everything from Star Trek to Stargate. BTech has just never done it for me. The weird ships never illicit the same response in me.

In general, faction-based aesthetics seem non-existent in the setting, in part because I think most tech seems to be available to just about everyone. Im still a noob, but I've yet to find any sort of "design language" that can be interpreted to point at a mech or ships relationship to any sort of faction. With regards to spacecraft the aesthetics of it are especially jumbled. Some portion of spacecraft have a semi-realistic design approach with multi-lateral symmetry and spinning sections that simulate gravity, etc. and then the other portion has an "airplane in space" type design approach where theres a clear top and bottom, etc.

so I guess I am the only one who likes this "mess"?

I mean Mechs are not produced by factions but companies that sell to everyone

while some factions buy by only their own companies, and the specific design are that special that no one else wants them, while others are found everywhere

and in addition there are those leftovers from before the wars that are not really produced any more but some still have them

and this turned up to 11 for space craft as everyone just grabs what he can find, modify it for their need and be done

if there would be a specific design, it would mean the faction can produce them in masses and the others can't get them


just like the wars during the 60ies to 80ies
you would still find factions operating WW2 tanks from different nations because they had them available (Panzer IVs fighting next to IS-3s against Pattons and Centurions)

Right, but military hardware in the 60s through 80s for 1st and 2nd rate powers was overwhelmingly visually identifiable as matching certain design tendencies. Generally you knew where it came from just by looking at it. Its only when you hit 3rd rate powers that sourced their hardware from a mixture of domestic and foreign built kit that the "mess" comes into play.

Battletech, at least from my view as a newb who still doesn't know much about it, treats even the 1st/2nd rate powers as being part of this hodgepodge sourcing strategy. The major players/Houses don't seem to have their own domestic industries producing their own domestic designs that are only used by them exclusively or by close allies (yes I know theres examples to the contrary like the Totem mechs, but these are exceptions to the rule).

Put another way, in the real world, the first rate powers all had their own domestic industry going. The US bought aircraft from Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Fairchild Republic, Lockheed Martin, etc. The Soviets had Mikoyan-Gurevich, Sukhoi, Tupolev, Ilyushin, Antonov, Yakovlev, Myasishchev, etc. The US didn't get fighters from Sukhoi and the Soviet Union didn't get fighters from Lockheed Martin.

Likewise, the "second tier" powers followed suit. The Warsaw Pact nations (Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.) overwhelmingly used Soviet made equipment or localized variants thereof, peppered with occasional domestically produced equipment. Major NATO powers overwhelmingly used their own domestically sourced equipment (Dassault, Breguet, Aerospatiale, etc. for the French, BAC, Hawker Siddeley, Avro, Blackburn, Handley Page, Boulton Paul, etc. for the Brits, etc.) or NATO partnership equipment (Panavia, Eurocopter, etc.) supplemented with imported equipment from the US and other NATO powers.

You don't see things like Soviet equipment being used side-by-side with American/NATO equipment until you get into those third or fourth rate powers whos alignment fluctuated over time or were neutral enough to acquire kit from both sides or were small enough that taking possession of kit captured from enemies was a necessity (i.e. Iran flying Grumman F-14s and McDonnel Douglas F-4s side-by-side with Chengdu J-7s (i.e. MiG-21s), India flying MiG-23s alongside SEPECAT Jaguars). Even then most 3rd/4th rate powers remained in one sphere of influence or the other and didn't really crossover much (i.e. Israel using a mixture of domestic, American, British, French, and German kit, North Korea using Soviet and Chinese equipment, etc.).

The way the Great Houses operate is like if the US bought equipment from China and the USSR to field alongside its own domestic equipment, and the Soviet Union and China did the same.