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.

Hi Peeps

I was trying to navigate my way through the maze that is Battletech, and while it's history and fluff is so encompassing, when-ever I get to the miniatures I just think....meh.

However, it got me thinking about the possibilities for a 28mm Mech game. Large scale detailed miniatures, with detailed crews that could be played on standard 28mm terrain or battle tables.

The theme I'm thinking about is based around 1 player = 1 mech. Depending on the points value of the game will determine not only the type of Mech you can pilot, but also the type of load out you can bring to play. The game would be Wysiwyg, so you'd probably invest in a magnetised type affair to keep miniature costs relatively low.

The actual game play would be strategic, with each Mech being able to take so much damage before the pilot either ejects or is destroyed with his Mech. 28mm scenery would play a big role, allowing cover saves and obstructed line of sight under certain conditions. Movement would be similar to what we all know and love, but I would opt for a more Infinity type response to enemy movement, rather than ugoigo type mechanics.

In terms of miniatures, I could imagine model kits ranging from simple 1 man crewed armoured suits, say around Sentinal size, right up to Warhound sizes for much larger games.....again, depending on the points value of the game. You wouldn't expect a simple armoured suit to go head to head with a giant Mech. Each Mech would have a specific load out, and certain strengths and weaknesses.....but in addition, players could "buy" (points wise) specific skills that they feel would give their pilots more of an edge in combat....maybe something like combat stimms, or enhance metabolism....for example.

Just thinking about it while I type....depending on what people think of the idea, like Beasts of War, have their Gunslingers game in development, this Mech -Warrior type game could be DakkDakkas sponsored game

So, what do you guys think?

1. Could this be an interesting game that people could get excited about, and would want to invest in, in terms of miniatures, rules, fluff, etc?

2. Is there already something very similar out there? Remember the key points though, 1 player = 1 Mech, and 28mm Scale Mech battles!

3. What ideas do you have that could enhance what I already have hovering in my head? Ideas for Mechs (what style)? Ideas for races / pilots? Fluff settings?

Over you guys....

Sounds good. Im not too sure about the 1 player = 1 mech thing. Thats fine for places where there are lots of players, but in places where there arent many most games will be 1 v 1, and that will get boring quick. Id make it geared more towards 2-3 Sentinel to Dreadknight sized mechs per player. Perhaps in larger games a couple players could field a single Warhound size mech instead of the 2-3 smaller ones.

Most important of all would be creation rules...so people could use whatever model they wanted. This would allow people to get into the game faster as they could use stuff they have on hand. Especially if you dont have the capitol to launch a large miniature and model line at once.

1 player=1 'Detachment' sounds better.

Something like:
1x Battlemech
2-5x 'Scout' Mechs
10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry

sounds far more doable.

This might be a good way to put all those cool but now defunct AT-43 mecha back into service. They are insanely cheap on places like ebay at present...

The main reason I liked the idea of 1 player = 1 Mech, was because I liked the idea of really personalising the character/pilot, and really making the player consider his/her loadout and abilities rather than making them think about writing an army list.

I'm interested in why you guys feel that 1 v 1 would get boring? bearing in mind the average size of a gaming table, a game could easily include up to, what, 3 players per side, each with their own Mech, Pilot and abilities.....I think such a game could be exciting and varied...especially if each player has to (repeating myself ) focus on making their Mech a real playable commodity in the game.

Don't you guys think that if we went for the multiple Mech route, it would be too similar in feel to say Warmachine?

just some thoughts.....

By the way guys, I appreciate your input and your ideas! Please keep them coming

All my opinion:

1 Player = 1 mech would be a good game for multiple players, but it would probably not be best represented by a tabletop game. For tabletop games, the interplay of lots of minis, terrain and the distances between them are key to strategy. With a few models, it gets easier to abstract these aspects of the game, and hence there is a better way to represent the fighting.

Thinking more, a card game like MTG, or a game in which each player has a concealed board and a revealed board, might work. You could use minis to represent "revealed" aspects of the game, of course, but it would probably be just as easy to make this work in an abstract way.

Damn it, I've got ideas running in my head now...

I really like the idea of 1 player = 1 mech. There are a lot of mech games where you play a team this could be something a bit different.

It wouldn't really restrict people with only 2 players as there is no reason you couldn't play as 2 mechs each if done correctly, just play as 2 people.

Something I think would make it interesting would be to make the game very detailed and from the perspective of the pilot rather than a team manager / commander. You could use a resourse management system where you have a certain number of energy points to allocate on different parts of the mech (weapons, movement, shields, ect..).

Delephont wrote:The main reason I liked the idea of 1 player = 1 Mech, was because I liked the idea of really personalising the character/pilot, and really making the player consider his/her loadout and abilities rather than making them think about writing an army list.

While I find the idea intriguing, there is a severe downside to the 1 player = 1 mech idea. I used to play alot of Star Trek space combat simulator minis games and back in high school we used the 1 capitol ship = 1 player idea to speed up weeknight games (weekends had fleets per player since we had 8+ hours to finish). The big problem is that 99% of minis games have a very important luck factor to them (in addition to talent/skill) and a single lucky shot to a ship (or mech in your case) at the outset could shut down a player for the entire game. We had it happen a couple times when a long range photon torpedo hit a ship at max range when they didn't have much energy in the shields at the beginning (most of the first turn or two was spent pumping power into engines for maneuvering) and the player was crippled in the first 10 minutes of a 4 hour game. If you've got multiple ships/mechs/whatever, losing one to an early lucky shot doesn't ruin the fun. Also, remember that not all minis players are good sportsman. We also had games like that where one side would spread out their shots to the ships that were closest while the other just tried to knock out a single player regardless of the odds. Having one mech makes those types of situations more devastating.

I like it, and really like the idea of titan sized mechs where you could have a pilot for the body / controls, + 1 per weapons system. You could limit the weapons available by 'plug' points per pilot. Ie, a rocket launcher needs 1 pilot or plug point, whereas a huge gatling cannon could need 2 or 3. Add extra armour for additional protection - give the player the choice of what part of the mech they're shooting at. Close combat attacks possible even if no weapons by allowing each mech to charge and try knocking the other down... I like it.

BUT. Practically, what size of board would you need to play this? What size would the miniatures be? Sentinel for a base mini up to... what? I'm only thinking about weapon range and scale, the key selling point would be to cost effectively field huge titan style machines, but if thats the case, then you'll always be in range to shoot anything you like.

Honestly though, I'd get behind this. I like the idea of being able to destroy the terrain too. Shoot all weapons off the enemy, blast a huge crater / trench in front of them that cant get past and just blast the living crap out of them from a far. Complete pwning. Get in!

Delephont wrote:The main reason I liked the idea of 1 player = 1 Mech, was because I liked the idea of really personalising the character/pilot, and really making the player consider his/her loadout and abilities rather than making them think about writing an army list.

I'm interested in why you guys feel that 1 v 1 would get boring? bearing in mind the average size of a gaming table, a game could easily include up to, what, 3 players per side, each with their own Mech, Pilot and abilities.....I think such a game could be exciting and varied...especially if each player has to (repeating myself ) focus on making their Mech a real playable commodity in the game.

Don't you guys think that if we went for the multiple Mech route, it would be too similar in feel to say Warmachine?

just some thoughts.....

By the way guys, I appreciate your input and your ideas! Please keep them coming

My concern is for areas with few available players. Theres likely not many places/ groups that can pull a 3 v 3 game...thats 6 people. Not many can pull 6 people together easily. The requirement for at least 6 people will turn off most people. You really need to base it on 2 players, with the possibility of adding other if wanted.

IMO a feel somewhat like the first edition Warmachine wouldnt be a bad thing. I really liked the game until they flooded it with infantry. Well, I never liked the requirement of a caster, I wanted just machines.

A 1 on 1 match would basically just be a boxing match, each player slugging away at the other with no strategy.

You have seen how detailed battletech is and thats meant for an ideal 4 (5 for clans) mechs per player. I really wouldnt get any more detailed than Battletech either, as the complexity already tends to turn off many potential players. I still think an ideal of 2-3 smaller or 1 larger mech per player would be best. That way even a 2 player game would have only 4 mechs on the table, keeping the size small, but avoiding the boxing match feel a 1 on 1 fight would have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

4M2A wrote:
Something I think would make it interesting would be to make the game very detailed and from the perspective of the pilot rather than a team manager / commander. You could use a resourse management system where you have a certain number of energy points to allocate on different parts of the mech (weapons, movement, shields, ect..).

Then its just a RPG, and there are already many mech RPGs on the market.

4M2A wrote:
Something I think would make it interesting would be to make the game very detailed and from the perspective of the pilot rather than a team manager / commander. You could use a resourse management system where you have a certain number of energy points to allocate on different parts of the mech (weapons, movement, shields, ect..).

I absolutely love this idea!! That's exactly the kind of game feel I think could work well. Per game a Mech could have limited ammo, and like you said limited enegry, with each decision made by the pilot costing him/her those valuable points....this would certainly make the 1 player = 1 Mech much more involving.

For those who really would like to have more than just two models on the battle field, we could introduce rules for "drones"....different types with different abilities for various scenarios....and they to could have resource restrictions....what do you think?

warboss wrote:While I find the idea intriguing, there is a severe downside to the 1 player = 1 mech idea. I used to play alot of Star Trek space combat simulator minis games and back in high school we used the 1 capitol ship = 1 player idea to speed up weeknight games (weekends had fleets per player since we had 8+ hours to finish). The big problem is that 99% of minis games have a very important luck factor to them (in addition to talent/skill) and a single lucky shot to a ship (or mech in your case) at the outset could shut down a player for the entire game. We had it happen a couple times when a long range photon torpedo hit a ship at max range when they didn't have much energy in the shields at the beginning (most of the first turn or two was spent pumping power into engines for maneuvering) and the player was crippled in the first 10 minutes of a 4 hour game. If you've got multiple ships/mechs/whatever, losing one to an early lucky shot doesn't ruin the fun. Also, remember that not all minis players are good sportsman. We also had games like that where one side would spread out their shots to the ships that were closest while the other just tried to knock out a single player regardless of the odds. Having one mech makes those types of situations more devastating.

I think this is a very good point. It's somthing we would have to build into the game engine, that such an overpowered weapon or lucky hit scenario couldn't appear. We could build in regeneration aspects, again, at a cost to resource....so if a player did take a critical hit, he could chose to fight on and cross his fingers, or he could opt to spend resource on regenerating, but would be at a disadvantge further on in the game.

On the point of game cards....what about if after each game turn, players could pick from a random card deck....let's call it a resource deck, which would give them a random number or type of resource....again, even though the player who took a critical hit in the beginning of the game has to chose whether to spend resource points or not, after a turn he would have the opportunity to gather more, same as his opponent.....what do you think?

Are the mech models 28mm tall, or are the pilots 28mm figures in a model about 12 inches tall?

Id rather command a lance/star of mechs then a single one.

Kanluwen wrote:1 player=1 'Detachment' sounds better.

Something like:
1x Battlemech
2-5x 'Scout' Mechs
10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry

sounds far more doable.

That would just be scifi warmachine...and I think thats already in the works. OP seems to be going for something smaller, and more detailed. I would definitely lose the "10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry" part, as i think OP has no intention of infantry in the game...a huge part of its appeal IMO. If a person wants an infantry game, theres already a ton of them to choose from.

kitch102 wrote:I like it, and really like the idea of titan sized mechs where you could have a pilot for the body / controls, + 1 per weapons system. You could limit the weapons available by 'plug' points per pilot. Ie, a rocket launcher needs 1 pilot or plug point, whereas a huge gatling cannon could need 2 or 3. Add extra armour for additional protection - give the player the choice of what part of the mech they're shooting at. Close combat attacks possible even if no weapons by allowing each mech to charge and try knocking the other down... I like it.

BUT. Practically, what size of board would you need to play this? What size would the miniatures be? Sentinel for a base mini up to... what? I'm only thinking about weapon range and scale, the key selling point would be to cost effectively field huge titan style machines, but if thats the case, then you'll always be in range to shoot anything you like.

Honestly though, I'd get behind this. I like the idea of being able to destroy the terrain too. Shoot all weapons off the enemy, blast a huge crater / trench in front of them that cant get past and just blast the living crap out of them from a far. Complete pwning. Get in!

The idea would be to be able to play this game on a standard game table, so what? 6x4 or 4x4? the type of terrain and table size would anyway dictate the type of points game you'd play, and therefore the type of Mech you could field.

I love the idea of being able to target terrain, very realistic....especially very tactical...if you targetterrain it one less thing for your enemy to hide behind, but it's also one less thing for you to hide behind....nice!

I'm not sure how big the models should go, I was thinking up to Warhound size?....but as far as range, I'd suggest unlimited range...totally realistic....and why terrain would play such a huge role in the game....think urban combat with Mechs

Delephont wrote:

4M2A wrote:
Something I think would make it interesting would be to make the game very detailed and from the perspective of the pilot rather than a team manager / commander. You could use a resourse management system where you have a certain number of energy points to allocate on different parts of the mech (weapons, movement, shields, ect..).

I absolutely love this idea!! That's exactly the kind of game feel I think could work well.

That would make it Starfleet battles with mechs. Starfleet battles never got a big following outside of Trek fans because its crazy detailed, super slow to play, and overall incredibly boring. I once watched a couple people playing it, and after 30 minutes of them they moved the ships once and did a bunch of paperwork. I walked away not wanting anything to do with the game.

IMO part if the draw of miniatures gaming is seeing the minis move and the battlefield active. Even Battletech pushes the limits of that.

Theres nothing wrong with a resource management system, but something that requires 10 minutes of record keeping and fooling around between rounds is not attractive at all.

@KilKrazy

scale wise I'd look to have 28mm scale pilots, and the mechs modelled to suit....a challenge, but Mechs don't necessarily need to be Gundam giants, I'm thinking about the cockpit of a Valkyrie and imagining the size a Mech would have to be to suit that....

@Mad4minis

I take on board your point. Do you think that having Drones would suit your needs? I understand the point about it being a simply RPG otherwise, and maybe the game needs to ride the thin line between RPG and Tabletop wargame....I just like the idea of a player feeling they are in the cockpit making realtime choices, as opposed to being abstracted away from the action by thinking in three of four differnt places at once....the "god view" as it were


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad4Minis wrote:

That would make it Starfleet battles with mechs. Starfleet battles never got a big following outside of Trek fans because its crazy detailed, super slow to play, and overall incredibly boring. I once watched a couple people playing it, and after 30 minutes of them they moved the ships once and did a bunch of paperwork. I walked away not wanting anything to do with the game.

IMO part if the draw of miniatures gaming is seeing the minis move and the battlefield active. Even Battletech pushes the limits of that.

Theres nothing wrong with a resource management system, but something that requires 10 minutes of record keeping and fooling around between rounds is not attractive at all.

Ah, ok, I see what you mean....yes, this would be bad, and boring

I think any resource management system would need to be simple, easy to follow and fluid. Same as damage assessment. I can imagine a round playing like this:

Player 1 moves, and enters player 2s weapon arc.

Player 2 declares an attack, selects a target, in this case player 1s leg section, and resolves the phase.

Player 1 responds, and spends resource points to either repair the damage or return fire.

Somehting like that could play out well I think.....with loads of refinement

Delephont wrote:

@Mad4minis

I understand the point about it being a simply RPG otherwise, and maybe the game needs to ride the thin line between RPG and Tabletop wargame....I just like the idea of a player feeling they are in the cockpit making realtime choices, as opposed to being abstracted away from the action by thinking in three of four differnt places at once....the "god view" as it were

Im not too sure about the "in the cockpit" thing...people who really want that are likely to be more attracted to video games like Armored Core than tabletop miniatures games.

I would make it so a single player could manage 2, maybe 3 mechs. I think that would be a good number. That way 2 player games wouldnt be boring slugging matches, and would give the option for multiple players to take a single mech each.

if you want a bit more of a realtime feel, make it so each player only has a certain amount of time. Either for the resource allocation phase or the whole turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Delephont wrote:
Ah, ok, I see what you mean....yes, this would be bad, and boring

Player 2 declares an attack, selects a target, in this case player 1s leg section, and resolves the phase.

Im all for hit locations, but I would be careful with targeted shots. Hitting a specific part of a moving object is terribly hard, and that should be reflected.

Game cards could be a brilliant win. Random cards dealt out at the start of the game - you could have different ammo types, bonus shields, regeneration, OOOO!!! Hacking ability!!! Something that lets you bluetooth in to your enemies mech and disable something, or take control of a weapon to shoot another mech thats not in your range, or control movement and run it in to terrain!!! That would be incredible!!

What part of england are you in? We need to meet up, quaff ale, and master mind this sucker in to existence!

I'm with you on this being a 1 model per player game. I like the idea of carrying around a gw style carry case, pulling out 1 'miniature' and thats it - game on.

Drones are definitely the way forward for those that want more tactical options - pincer moves, smaller models but more on the table (smaller models maybe harder to track / hit with precision weapons due to speed?).

I can see some potential in the 1v1 idea, but you'd have to accept certain inevitable outcomes. I play MtG with my kids and sometimes a game is a real to-the-knuckle slug fest, but most of the time, one player pulls off a combo that sends the opponent reeling and the gamer is basically over. The first few turns are the tactical manoeuvre phase, and after that, the game's just playing out the inevitable.

For MtG, that's OK. A game takes 10-15 minutes and no one puts all that much effort into building a deck. But there is an expectation that a miniatures game should be more tactically fluctuating.

R.

Mad4Minis wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:1 player=1 'Detachment' sounds better.

Something like:
1x Battlemech
2-5x 'Scout' Mechs
10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry

sounds far more doable.

That would just be scifi warmachine...and I think thats already in the works. OP seems to be going for something smaller, and more detailed. I would definitely lose the "10-18x 'Battlearmor' Infantry" part, as i think OP has no intention of infantry in the game...a huge part of its appeal IMO. If a person wants an infantry game, theres already a ton of them to choose from.

The whole point is the ability to take them.

Not making them 'mandatory'. Detachments could be anything from a single large mech to a single unit of Scout mechs stumbling across a battlemech, etc.

Also, "scifi warmachine" isn't a bad concept. Integrated force detachments need to be done more imo.

The way around the quantity of models debate is to make this a standard RPG then. I never played it but imagine dungeons and dragons. Your character is the pilot - you have 1 pilot and thats it. This pilot can control 1 large mech, or a number of smaller units from a single sentinel style control mech.

You could also bring in traits or abilities for your pilot as they gain experience or win / lose games.

here's how i see this playing out:

All players start with no traits or special abilities, and play out a randomly generated number of individual games, though a minmimum of 3 to ensure a clear victor.

The winner of game 1 gets x number of traits, all others get y number. If destroyed you dont get any traits, or a much lower number. Think of it as victory points. These allow you to upgrade your mech or similar for further games.

Help me out with this, I have the idea in my head and can really see it working but I'm struggling to put it across

I like the idea. I'd lean it more towards a league based game. so including finances and character/ mech development. that makes it a bit more exciting for the 1 player= 1 mech idea

kitch102 wrote:
What part of england are you in? We need to meet up, quaff ale, and master mind this sucker in to existence!

the more help the merrier if you ask me!

Regarding the slug-fest.....that really depends on the mission. I think, in reality, no one would expend resources and materiel just to engage an enemy with the sole aim of wiping them out.....I mean, there is the real risk that instead they wipe you out So games need to be strictly mission based....

I think an all out RPG would put alot of wargamers off, but an RPG element, in terms of immersion is a must, so that would need to be worked out.

I think drones are definately the way to go, in terms of model count......maybe with an AI type function.

Hacking is just absolutely a brilliant idea, that is a must for this game, not to mention scramble fields.

I'll get to work on some basic rules during the week, and I'll post them here so you guys can critique them and improve on them.

All we need now is a working name for the game....what do you guys think? I'm thinking "Event Horizon: The brink of war"

I am seeing several people mention more than one mech per player. I disagree. The whole point, he said, was to build a mech, not an army list. Rather than 2 or 3 mechs, or mechs with support infantry/vehicles, one mech would make for a breath of fresh air in wargaming.

Think about it... EVERY popular game out now has players with multiple models in their army. Whether it's large armies, a few squads, or a gang, you are still building an army list and playing a meta-game where you link combos between models, tailor armies to fight others, move every squad across the table in a manner that suggests that every single model can see what every other model can see. That is the meta-game. It's also a sort of Achilles heel for most wargames that you can't break out of unless you do blind deployment (like Battleground WWI).

If you have ONE mech with a 3 man crew, it makes perfect sense that all 3 see the same thing. No meta-game. None. That would be BRILLIANT! What else would be fantastic would be building your mech, inside and out. You start with a hull. Is it a light, fast mech with excellent maneuverability? A heavy, slow mech with great firepower? An all-purpose, medium mech? Now build the crew: 2 -man for light mechs, 3 for medium, 4 for heavies. Purchase some crew skills. Want a gunner with good aim? Driver with great reflexes? What about saving points by picking less powerful weapons to purchase a commander with better leadership? How many hardpoints do the mechs have? 2 weapons for a light mech vs. 4 for a heavy?

I would buy into a game like this in no time flat. Building the equivalent of an army in just one model is exactly the type of game that this hobby could use. As I said before, a breathe of fresh air.




Ghidorah

Event Horizon I like, but would that cross in to the film of the same name too much?

I like Brink of War too, but wdyt to something that more points to all out warfare? Brink suggests that somethings about to happen, and if you're blowing 7 bells out of something then you'd kind of cross over in to total destruction. Ooo, there yar.... (something like) Mech Knights: Total Destruction.

I like the *2 words* : *2 words* thing.

I admit Mech Knights is a bit cheesy, but just as a thought.

If you want one mech games, you're best off with a RPG.

I can't really think of there being a large market out in the general public that is there for simply "You have a mech, your opponent has a mech. Now go to it!" styled 'Gladiator' games.

I can say that anything which would involve a high level of strategy, where 'points' are essentially campaign driven styled contributions and various elements come into play(power armored infantry with targeting relays allowing for your heavy mech to open up on the enemy's heavy, scout mechs providing ECM spoofing, etc) would get me in a heartbeat though.

The game "chromehounds" might give you some inspiration.

Just convert money into points... so everything has a points value instead of a monatary cost.

Chassis determines speed + weight allowance,
Generator determines the amount of power you can draw upon to work all your weapons and do-hickeys.
Options for scramblers, mines, sniper cannons, rockets, machine guns, etc gave alot of variety so alot of mechs were very individual.
Not saying copy+paste the game, but theres alot in it that could be useful.

I'd definetly have a look at it if you can get hold of it, last time i checked it was £5 second hand for xbox 360 and that was a long time ago.

I loved that game, pure brilliance.

Anyone know how much it costs to scratch build a mech?

By the sounds of things, you want a tabletop FPS with a hint of RPG and run around in battlemechs?

I agree with Kanluwen, if I only had one model, I would want the biggest cannon i could get my greasy hands on.

Possibly a points system to allow a player to control a handful of powerful mechs, a large quantity of light mechs or a combination of the two. Points would also allow players to customise their mech, choosing from hulls, drive mechanisms, weapons, wargear, perks like driver skills etc etc.