Fact 1: BattleTech was originally written in the early 70's to late 80's. Back then, TAG systems, miniguns, aircraft that could mount 13,000 pounds of GUIDED munitions, and today's stealth technology were almost legendary peices of technology, and as we all know, writers tend to BUILD on those concepts, but tend to fail to see OTHER concepts that had not even been thought of at the time. Either that, or they simply did not put them onto paper because, at the time, the idea was too farfectched or was simply beyond the imagination of the average person from that era. It is not really the writer's fault, and I am not saying that it is. It is simply how things work.
Fact 2: The canonical representation of BattleTech is BEHIND the curve of current imaginatory capability of the average human being. Take a read of early BattleTech novels, or read the early factsheets. Much of the secondary, and tertiary technology, has already come out or been out on the battlefield for over 20 years or so. These being items such as Linked Battle Nets, guided missiles (the most common of all missile munitions in today's world, with unguided rockets only being seen on occasion and most often in use by very poorly supplied 3rd world soldiers.), TAG-like systems (Spotting lasers), supersonic aircraft, REALLY supersonic aircraft, reactive armors, and a host of other equipment that has become so common that there is no way in three hecks-in-a-handbasket that they could EVER disappear in such a way as to become "Lostech."
Fact 3: We are in 2012. If technology progresses in ANY way similar to BattleTech, we will reach their level of technological progress LONG before the canonical date offered by literature. Therefore, I suggest that it is time to put on the big-boy undies and move to make certain items that are God-awfully common today available, despite the level of technology according to the storybooks. I do not care if they are Lostech. Missile technology, especially GUIDED missile technology, can be made and manufactured by nearly ANYONE today. I saw a kid BULDING a small scale guided missile in his backyard as a SCIENCE project a few months ago. If a kid can do it, then can we REALLY say that we expect guided munitions to disappear on a GALACTIC scale just because it was too far fectched an idea 30 or 40 years ago to see it any other way?
If you ask me, Kerensky would be much more worried about more advanced technology than "missiles that go where you want them to."
Any way, that is all I have to say about that. Looking for some input to see how many people are either going to try to bash the crap out of me for "disputing the word of God," and how many people have a more progressive outlook on the whole thing.
Okay, so I did not make myself clear enough to begin with. I can admit that.
The following is the real reasoning for this post.
My concern is that, while I understand that the canon is indeed the canon, and nothing will change that; The canon is just does not cover things that might should be addressed when it comes to technology, and there is nothing stating that you cannot add technology to it that was not even conceiveable at the time of its writing.
Yes, I understand that there were the Succession Wars, and that Comstar really just messed everyone up for their own sickened goals. What I am trying to say here, is that, despite the rarity of many peices of technology, they should not just have DISAPPEARED entirely, and that SOME technology should, while it did not exist at the time of writing, be considered for addition to the game in such a way that it makes gameplay MORE interesting, and MORE BT-like.
Think about it. There are only SO many BattleMechs of ANY given type at ANY given time within this BT timeframe. Hence, BattleMech Regiments that are house affiliated are most likely going to have access to RARE, but STILL EXISTANT technology that MAY OR MAY NOT exist at the time of writing, and/or that MAY OR MAY NOT be only be able to be produced in a certain, small number.
So there you have it. My apologies for not being more clear on the reason for this post.
Honestly, though... I should not need a lawyer to write a disclaimer to ensure there are no loopholes in a forum post for people to nitpick at.
Edited by Prower, 19 May 2012 - 01:42 PM.