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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
How does the game incentivize de-optimization?

Most of what I've seen involve people bringing stock 'Mechs. There are literally thousands of variants, allowing people to play whatever they want without ever dabbling in custom designs. Plus the game is divided up into historical eras, and people tend to either stick to one (or a few) of those, and whilst not necessarily recreating battles they'll make up their own battles that fit within that historical era.

Big BTech events tend to be narrative based games where they'll re-do a major battle from the fiction or, a lot of the time, play a battle that will influence the upcoming fiction. It's just a kind of weird gentleman's agreement that everyone plays the game the same way. It's very hard to explain.

I mean, it's possible to play BTech competitively, and it has a complex points system that some people swear by and that I've never used once! I think the closest I've ever come to "competitive" BTech was when myself and a friend came up with the concept of "Endurance BattleTech", where we put out 400-odd 'Mech miniatures and every time you lost a 'Mech you'd walk over to the table, grab a new mini, grab the record sheet, and walk it on next turn. We were trying to defeat one another in whatever manner we could, but there was technically no way to win as we would run out of time before we ran out of 'Mechs.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
How does the game incentivize de-optimization?

I can't speak for Alpha Strike, but classic Battletech allows for luck to effect the game in a way that does not lend itself to a competitive mindset. If you jumped your mech expertly behind mine, and unleashed all of your weapons- you should kill me- but sometimes you won't. Even more sometimes, my rear mounted medium laser will instakill your pilot, or deal your gyro 3 critical hits the very first time it strikes.

Few people talk about the times they gloriously wore someone down to internals and blew one part after another off until the mech died. But everyone's got a story like the time my Valkyrie landed 2 lrms into the back of a Hunchback, set off it's ammo and turned that thing into a crater, or the time that Hollander blew away that Daishi with one shot!

Even something like the LRMs, they might be worth their weight this shot or not- who knows!

Other than a few Ork weapons that competitive players avoid like the plague, 40k doesn't allow luck that sort of power in its game.

and if 40K did ahve that level of luck people would scream bloody murder. I mean some of the compeitive crowd here seem to think the game'd be better if ALL dice rolls where removed.

I mean my personal best dump luck story was the time I took a Templar vs a king crab, due to some poor manuvering on my part the King crab got 3 inches away in my rear arc, I should have been dead. but he missed with both shots, I managed to torso twist and fire my arm moutned gauss rifle...
tore his head clean off

40k is a mostly luck driven game already. I mean, its like 70% listbuilding and about 25% dice rolling, the remaining 5% is what little agency players actually have.

BUT, 40K is perhaps not as "swingy" as BTech is, because it doesn't have any mechanics (anymore) that can delete a unit off the table with a single really look die roll.

Before the third edition compendium we played with tonnage, and damn that was terrible. I think a lot of people had that experience when they first tried Battletech which is really unfortunate. Just picking one or two mechs to a side and basically playing out Solaris7 brawls on one or two hex maps. Using BV and playing within the same era, and just as importantly, taking as close to a lance or star as you can within that BV, makes the game great. I hope more people give this game a chance.

Huh - the time I played the most BT was the early days of it so long ago it is depressing, but we always played by tonnage to balance sides and I do not recall it being too bad? Where does it really fall apart as a balance method? Is it more later years of the timeline?

Im trying to build up to playing it again with old friends but need to review the newest rules I guess - I assume it is all point values in the latest editions?

petrov27 wrote:
Huh - the time I played the most BT was the early days of it so long ago it is depressing, but we always played by tonnage to balance sides and I do not recall it being too bad? Where does it really fall apart as a balance method? Is it more later years of the timeline?

When everyone had the same 'mechs and the same equipment playing by tonnage is doable. When you get into differing tech bases is when it falls apart.

 Ghaz wrote:

petrov27 wrote:
Huh - the time I played the most BT was the early days of it so long ago it is depressing, but we always played by tonnage to balance sides and I do not recall it being too bad? Where does it really fall apart as a balance method? Is it more later years of the timeline?

When everyone had the same 'mechs and the same equipment playing by tonnage is doable. When you get into differing tech bases is when it falls apart.

ahh - ok that would be it then as we basically played only the stuff in the 1st tech readout (otherwise known at the time as the only tech readout )

Yeah. 75 tons of Clans vs 75 tons of IS is going to be a very different story.

Most Clan stuff is half the weight, +50 range & damage on 3025 tech. Armour, fewer limits on actions from heat, better pilots, and at higher speeds, with fewer restrictions on configuration.

True, but to be fair at invasion most IS mechs were refitted with double heat sinks

 Fluid_Fox wrote:
True, but to be fair at invasion most IS mechs were refitted with double heat sinks

'Some', not 'most'. That also doesn't take care of the othe points that Nurglitch listed.

Heh, I've been playing Alpha Strike (the streamlined rules set) and loving it. Points need some tweeking, IMO, but it plays fast for random nights at the game store.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:

Other than a few Ork weapons that competitive players avoid like the plague, 40k doesn't allow luck that sort of power in its game.

and if 40K did ahve that level of luck people would scream bloody murder. I mean some of the compeitive crowd here seem to think the game'd be better if ALL dice rolls where removed.

luck in 40k is different than in BT

getting in the back and blowing up a Mech is not luck as you see it in 40k, as there is no reward for getting in the back of a unit
while in 40k, luck is if you size initiative and get an alpha strike on your opponent or if he fails all his armour saves

There's that theory that you can have something fast, have something cheap, and have something high quality, but you only get to pick two of those.

BTech has a similar thing:

1. You can be fast.
2. You can be well armoured.
3. You can have a lot of guns.
4. You can be good at managing heat.

You get to pick 2 of those if you're the Inner Sphere. Clans get to pick 3, and sometimes all four.

 kodos wrote:

luck in 40k is different than in BT

getting in the back and blowing up a Mech is not luck as you see it in 40k, as there is no reward for getting in the back of a unit
while in 40k, luck is if you size initiative and get an alpha strike on your opponent or if he fails all his armour saves

Indeed: positioning and movement is dramatically more important in Battletech, and that's not remotely down to luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's that theory that you can have something fast, have something cheap, and have something high quality, but you only get to pick two of those.

BTech has a similar thing:

1. You can be fast.
2. You can be well armoured.
3. You can have a lot of guns.
4. You can be good at managing heat.

You get to pick 2 of those if you're the Inner Sphere. Clans get to pick 3, and sometimes all four.

Kind of one of the reasons why we end up gravitating towards 3025 era: there's always tradeoffs.

Even when limiting yourself to official models and TROs and stuff, over time designs started to get more "optimized" with the newest TROs; some still got character, but it feels like the priorities on mech design changed over time.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Fluid_Fox wrote:
True, but to be fair at invasion most IS mechs were refitted with double heat sinks

'Some', not 'most'. That also doesn't take care of the othe points that Nurglitch listed.

Theres no denying the advantage clan tech had, I'm just pointing out mitigating factors and the things that exasperated that advantage. Like playing with tonnage instead of BV, or using older TROs.

BV for points matched games also does a pretty good job.

Sure you can bring top gun pilots in fancy Clan mechs.

But at a matched BV - even if I bring sub-optimal junk - you are going to get a close game.

Quantity does have its own quality. Especially in a game that favours good movement and tactics over raw power of units.

So, still being a relative newbie that only plays casually, for the purposes of better understanding, would you say BV = matched play points and tonnage = power level is a fairly accurate understanding of the two "balancing mechanics"?

Tonnage was only a balancing method before BV was a thing, long long ago.

chaos0xomega wrote:
So, still being a relative newbie that only plays casually, for the purposes of better understanding, would you say BV = matched play points and tonnage = power level is a fairly accurate understanding of the two "balancing mechanics"?

BV is a bit like regular points. Tonnage though, no, that's not like power level if you're using different tech bases. Maybe if you're sticking to one thing in particular (like Clan v Clan, or 3025 Inner Sphere vs 3025 Inner Sphere), but any sort of mix of those will make tonnage comparisons meaningless.

Tonnage in 40k would be like balancing by taking the same amount of models on both sides. Probably fine if playing Marine v Marine or some other close mirror, but a bad idea if you're using it to balance, say, Orks v Cutodes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's that theory that you can have something fast, have something cheap, and have something high quality, but you only get to pick two of those.

BTech has a similar thing:

1. You can be fast.
2. You can be well armoured.
3. You can have a lot of guns.
4. You can be good at managing heat.

You get to pick 2 of those if you're the Inner Sphere. Clans get to pick 3, and sometimes all four.

All true but with BV balancing a Clan force will be there times lighter than its IS counterpart.

Unless a Clan player can actually play very well they won't survive a matched encounter.

Clan or Word of Blake is playing on hard mode in a BV matched game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clan tech is also not the be all and end all.

By the FedCom Civil War and Jihad Era the Inner Sphere has plenty of high tech goodies.

Although the BV on units is increasing to more match the pricy Clan tech.

Solid play wins Battletech games in all eras though. A badly moved DireWolf or MadCat is just a fat target even to intro level tech.

 infinite_array wrote:
Tonnage in 40k would be like balancing by taking the same amount of models on both sides. Probably fine if playing Marine v Marine or some other close mirror, but a bad idea if you're using it to balance, say, Orks v Cutodes.

Not really, as 4 Assault Mechs won't be the same as 4 Lights in Tonnage and it would be more like 1 Assault against 4 Lights


From my point of view, Tonnage in BT is similar to Matched Play Points in 40k (and Power level is like "lets play 4 VS 4" in BT)
they work for everything that is on the same level, but as soon as a faction uses the newer tech level, balance is off

for 40k tech level would be different Codex generation, just rememeber playing an Index Army VS Codex Army at the start of 8th, matched play points could not help to balance them as the advantages were on a different level not affected by points at all, same here with Tonnage
but as long as both players use the same technical readout it works

BV and tonnage, and BV2, all have their flaws, even within similar tech levels. It's just the way of Battletech's idiosyncratic designs.
For tonnage, let's toss a JM-6s Jagermech against a CPLT-C1 Catapult. It's horribly unfair for the Jager, even though they are both 65 tonners.
For BV, Let's take a Wolverine, 957, vs a Cyclops 965. This is very bad news for the Wolverine pilot.
BV 2 is a bit better, saying that Cyclops 1308 is equal to a Thunderbolt 1335.

For a lot of it, to get a fair fight you do have to tweak it to fit certain mechs that just happen to be built at the intersection of the cracks in the weighting system and just use some common courtesy when making your list.

In any method, of course you COULD just toss out a pocketful of Savannah Masters and invoke several hours of missed shots and minor damage. But should you?

 Gitzbitah wrote:
In any method, of course you COULD just toss out a pocketful of Savannah Masters and invoke several hours of missed shots and minor damage. But should you?

The most horribly unfair experiment I've seen was with tonnage:

Friend: "Ok, let's play 100 tons, I pick a Wolverine and a P-Hawk"
Other friend: "Right. I'll get... 20 Savannah Masters"

ROFLstomp ensued, because of course it did.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
How does the game incentivize de-optimization?

I can't speak for Alpha Strike, but classic Battletech allows for luck to effect the game in a way that does not lend itself to a competitive mindset. If you jumped your mech expertly behind mine, and unleashed all of your weapons- you should kill me- but sometimes you won't. Even more sometimes, my rear mounted medium laser will instakill your pilot, or deal your gyro 3 critical hits the very first time it strikes.

Few people talk about the times they gloriously wore someone down to internals and blew one part after another off until the mech died. But everyone's got a story like the time my Valkyrie landed 2 lrms into the back of a Hunchback, set off it's ammo and turned that thing into a crater, or the time that Hollander blew away that Daishi with one shot!

Even something like the LRMs, they might be worth their weight this shot or not- who knows!

Other than a few Ork weapons that competitive players avoid like the plague, 40k doesn't allow luck that sort of power in its game.

and if 40K did ahve that level of luck people would scream bloody murder. I mean some of the compeitive crowd here seem to think the game'd be better if ALL dice rolls where removed.

I mean my personal best dump luck story was the time I took a Templar vs a king crab, due to some poor manuvering on my part the King crab got 3 inches away in my rear arc, I should have been dead. but he missed with both shots, I managed to torso twist and fire my arm moutned gauss rifle...
tore his head clean off

SRM infantry platoon in a building. Atlas passes by hammering my mechs. I get a shot at the back. Hit, roll low on the number of srm hits, but got a double 1 on the location table, An ammo hit later there is a crater where a pristine Atlas was and a player staring at me with murder in his eyes.

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
How does the game incentivize de-optimization?

I can't speak for Alpha Strike, but classic Battletech allows for luck to effect the game in a way that does not lend itself to a competitive mindset. If you jumped your mech expertly behind mine, and unleashed all of your weapons- you should kill me- but sometimes you won't. Even more sometimes, my rear mounted medium laser will instakill your pilot, or deal your gyro 3 critical hits the very first time it strikes.

Few people talk about the times they gloriously wore someone down to internals and blew one part after another off until the mech died. But everyone's got a story like the time my Valkyrie landed 2 lrms into the back of a Hunchback, set off it's ammo and turned that thing into a crater, or the time that Hollander blew away that Daishi with one shot!

Even something like the LRMs, they might be worth their weight this shot or not- who knows!

Other than a few Ork weapons that competitive players avoid like the plague, 40k doesn't allow luck that sort of power in its game.

and if 40K did ahve that level of luck people would scream bloody murder. I mean some of the compeitive crowd here seem to think the game'd be better if ALL dice rolls where removed.

I mean my personal best dump luck story was the time I took a Templar vs a king crab, due to some poor manuvering on my part the King crab got 3 inches away in my rear arc, I should have been dead. but he missed with both shots, I managed to torso twist and fire my arm moutned gauss rifle...
tore his head clean off

SRM infantry platoon in a building. Atlas passes by hammering my mechs. I get a shot at the back. Hit, roll low on the number of srm hits, but got a double 1 on the location table, An ammo hit later there is a crater where a pristine Atlas was and a player staring at me with murder in his eyes.

M.

I killed a mint DireWolf with an ejected pilot on one of the MekWars servers years ago.

One point of damage - through armour critical on the head. Pilot killed result.

Statistically most mechs die though sheer attrition. You need to strip the armour to really hurt them but the possibility of mad rolls is always there.

Can late backers not put up comments on the KS? The Crockett and Flashman have some serious issues. IMO neither of these two sketches convey what mechs they are supposed to represent. I had to pull out my 3025 TRO just make sure I wasn't crazy. To be fair the art for the Crockett kinda sucks anyway.

Conversely, the Guillotine, Lancelot, Crab and Mongoose look fantastic. In fact that mongoose is my new favorite re-design. Even in a mostly static pose there it looks threatening.

The Crockett just...well looks like a Warhammer variant as opposed to the 85 toner it's supposed to be. Arms look like they got PPC's and not large lasers. The shoulders and head-cowl arrangement seem 'bleh' or at the very least non-Crockett'ish. Also, the AC10 looks kinda big.

Flashman looks relatively okay but there's something very off about the shoulders. It looks too hunched up. It's got a weird CT weapons port? Could be the flamer in the head but it looks bigger than it should if that's the case. Arms look too big, again, PPC's instead of large lasers. Tiny thing but the medium lasers were on the outside of the larges not above them.

No, you cannot post on the Kickstarter; technically you were not a Kickstarter backer. You were let into the Crowdox pledge manager. Not the same thing.

Also, there were around 100 mech redesigns here give or take. That a few of 11000 backers don’t like a particular one is unlikely to have any effect at all on Catalyst’s plans.

Compared to this...



... the new artwork wins hands down.