25 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

One of the better things (IMO) about the Battletech universe, was always the "multi-media" flavor of the combat elements.

Mechs may be king, but they are expensive, generally extremely maintenance intensive (that many moving parts don't defy entropy) and often too valuable to risk in engagements, in the Pre-Clan canon. True by the War of 3039, Battletechnology was again moving forward, instead of the continued decline to the stone age seen at the beginning of the 31st century, but pre-Clan Invasion, where the game starts, support elements IArmor, Infantry, Artillery, Air Cav and Aerospace) were all integral.

I would love to see that flavor kept, particularly in place of the likely desire and rush that many of us fans will put on PGI to release bigger and badder mechs, open up the Clans for play, etc. I for one would like to see the battle order for the Inner Sphere well fleshed out before the inevitable mind numbing run to see how fast we can release "better" Mechs and weapons *coughCatalyst/JihadeeraBattletechcough*.

I know that most people will want to play Mechs, as they certainly are cooler, but if they do use elements like cost and repair, in particular, Tanks have some significant advantages. Far cheaper to own and operate, far easier to repair, can often carry MORE weapons per tonnage, and contrary to Battletech TT rules, are actually more damage resistant and robust overall than a Mech. Every joint and and cool looking design on a Mech is actually a shell trap waiting to happen. A Tank, real world, is generally only vulnerable on the drive mechanism (which can only be covered to a degree) and in some cases the turrets rotational ring (which tends to be highly armored itself.) but the vast majority of surfaces of a tank are specifically designed to increase deflection, and in areas with flats, armor is armor... Chobham on a mech or a tank will absorb the same damage.

The real drawback with Tanks is in their limited mobility (heavy woods, mountains, underwater are all sorta out of the question, though a fusion powered tank could easily be rigged for underwater travel, if needed) and flexibility compared to mechs, but any talk of mechs somehow being "tougher" is unfortunately pure nonsense.

But also addressing support elements early would lay out the groundwork for playable Elementals for Clanner types in the future.

[CutterWolf]

Sorry but no. I would much rather see them spend time on creating more maps, mechs, and random weather effects.

[Thorgar Wulfson]

maybe for a future project but lets get the mechs in first

[CW Roy]

Save the armored vehicles and whatnot for a future co-op campaign.

Edited by CW Roy, 15 July 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

meh. If we focus on mechs mechs and mechs, it totally loses the flavor of Battletech, and will end up being the linear rush for "bigger and better" that was the downfall of all the other MW titles. Largely pointless to make such a massive game if it's going to be so ridiculously myopic. That was the downfall of Galaxies... everyone realized to really do anything you had to play a Jedi.

Reading these forums have me convinced that as soon as Clan units are opened up, 90% of the players are going to immediately switch to the Clans for the better toys. If that proves the case, you can definitely count me out.

[Adridos]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 July 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

meh. If we focus on mechs mechs and mechs, it totally loses the flavor of Battletech, and will end up being the linear rush for "bigger and better" that was the downfall of all the other MW titles. Largely pointless to make such a massive game if it's going to be so ridiculously myopic. That was the downfall of Galaxies... everyone realized to really do anything you had to play a Jedi.

And do you think a simple tank has a chance against mechs? I hope you're not talking seriously...

[Xandre Blackheart]

The developers have said that at some future point they may consider vehicle assets, especially as part of the commander skill set.

That means AI controlled vehicles most likely. You will probably never get to pilot one.

Right now, I get the impression that they are beating the modelers with Mexican flutes because they have to finish the mechs needed for launch.

Adridos, on 15 July 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

And do you think a simple tank has a chance against mechs? I hope you're not talking seriously...

Demolisher tank is not a "simple" tank. It mounts TWIN ac/20's

It had a well deserved reputation as a "mech killer".

SO yes he's serious.

[Sunny0]

CutterWolf, on 15 July 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Sorry but no. I would much rather see them spend time on creating more maps, mechs, and random weather effects.

Jep first the important things!

CW Roy, on 15 July 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Save the armored vehicles and whatnot for a future co-op campaign.

Agree, i hope there will come something like that.

[Bishop Steiner]

Adridos, on 15 July 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

And do you think a simple tank has a chance against mechs? I hope you're not talking seriously...

And you must only know Mechwarrior through the video games. In the right scenario, tanks can rape mechs... just not the weak sister things in MW4.

[Adridos]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 July 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

And you must only know Mechwarrior through the video games. In the right scenario, tanks can rape mechs... just not the weak sister things in MW4.

Still in a normal game of decent opponents, the tank would get beaten 90% of time. Looking at them, they are slower, have limited equipment, etc. Maybe it's possible in tabletop, but I don't think it would be possible in a video game.

[Bansheedragon75]

If you want to play a Combined Arms Mech game, then I think MWLL is more for you.
This is a Mechwarrior game not combined arms.

Edited by Dragonlord, 15 July 2012 - 09:09 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

For those who think tanks are wimps;
Shrek http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Schrek

Alacorn http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Alacorn

Von Luckner http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Von_Luckner

If you get up close and personal http://www.sarna.net/wiki/SRM_Carrier will ruin your day with 60 SRMs

[CutterWolf]

It still comes down to this, "This is Mechwarrior, not Tankwarrior, or Aerospacewarrior or even Infantrywarrior" I'm here to kill mechs not smash bugs.........

[Bishop Steiner]

CutterWolf, on 15 July 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

It still comes down to this, "This is Mechwarrior, not Tankwarrior, or Aerospacewarrior or even Infantrywarrior" I'm here to kill mechs not smash bugs.........

except that Mechwarriors more commonly faced off against armor and infantry and aerospace and other bugs through most of the 3rd succesion war, and even in much of the 31st Century due to the scarcity of well maintained Mechs,, and the risk of losing one. The average Commander would gladly throw a lance or 3 of tanks away if it meant snuffing out your pretty Atlas.

People can riff of the working name all they want. but Battletech, and therefore Mechwarrior, has ALWAYS been a combined arms game. And funnily enough, MECHWARRIOR Dark Age, the MECHWARRIOR novels and such all feature armored vehicles.....hmmmmmmmmm.

That argument is akin to saying because someone is a Bus Driver every other vehicle on the road therefore must be a Bus.

As for the video game mechanics, Mechs are undeniably more versatile and maneuverable, but that hardly negates the value of tanks. After all.. a Jenner is TONS more agile than an Atlas. Wanna be the Jenner in that fight?

Plenty of situations armor will be just as effective as mechs, and I for one would gladly put togetherr a unit of them. Running my "Hell's Armadillos" armor regiment is one of the more fun things I have gotten to do. And since PGI is sticking as closely to TT rules as possible, tanks should be fully viable. TBH, one of the parts I grew to loathe in Battletech was this feeling they had to keep releasing dozens and dozens of mechs, many duplicating the basic roles and designs and uses of others, just to justify putting out more game stuff.

I would rather they focus on destructible terrain, weather, maps and yes ARMOR, than have them churning out a bunch of useless or retreadd mechs just to make more Mechs for fan boys.

[Xandre Blackheart]

As other have posted, the battletech universe has always included other units, such as infantry, VTOLs, TANKS, and battlearmor.

I would love to see these included, at some point in the future, after they get the base mechanics and the mechs working.

Because I will revel in your tears when I rip you a new one with a demolisher tank.

[Frosty7]

AI controlled vehicles would be neat of course but allowing, and possibly forcing, someone to pilot them is just a dumb idea. With entire teams of mechs on both sides of the battle you would stand no chance in actually surviving for more than five minutes. They're essentially cannon fodder compared to a human in a... well anything!

I hope this "more features, more vehicles, more maps!" mentality dies off soon. So many games are ruined because people demand more and more regardless of how much good or harm it will have in the long run.

[Hador]

No matter what the lore says, the devs have already stated in the forums (somewhere) and in the FAQ, that they are not following the combined arms way (for now).

Perhaps they will do that sometime but my guess is that first of all they want to implement the missing features (like ommunity warfare), everything else will come at a later date (if at all).

[Firefly]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 July 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

And you must only know Mechwarrior through the video games.

This.

I once lost a bet and had to play a lance of Yellow Jacket gunships for a night in tabletop BattleTech. I lost, but I lost due to a pair of Partisan tanks with their stupid AC5s (curse you). The 'Mechs were all dead.

[Bishop Steiner]

Firefly, on 16 July 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

This.

I once lost a bet and had to play a lance of Yellow Jacket gunships for a night in tabletop BattleTech. I lost, but I lost due to a pair of Partisan tanks with their stupid AC5s (curse you). The 'Mechs were all dead.

My "Hell's Armadillos" armor regiment feature a full company of modified Yellowjackets. In place of Gauss Rifles, I mounted Arrow IVs, and a tag unit to use in point defense. (Also upgraded their engines, but that is a different story). Mixed in was a Lance of close supports Yellowjackets w/RAC/5s. Needless to say, once the NARC pods started to fly, and my BattleArmor infantry started to lase everything in sight with their TAG designators, I was able to disabuse many high and mighty Mechwarriors of the "inferiority" of [properly deployed and utilized Infantry, Armor and Artillery. (And by making the Arrows air mobile, removed the vulnerability that tread arty tended to suffer from quick clan attacks)

[CutterWolf]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 July 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

except that Mechwarriors more commonly faced off against armor and infantry and aerospace and other bugs through most of the 3rd succesion war, and even in much of the 31st Century due to the scarcity of well maintained Mechs,, and the risk of losing one. The average Commander would gladly throw a lance or 3 of tanks away if it meant snuffing out your pretty Atlas.

People can riff of the working name all they want. but Battletech, and therefore Mechwarrior, has ALWAYS been a combined arms game. And funnily enough, MECHWARRIOR Dark Age, the MECHWARRIOR novels and such all feature armored vehicles.....hmmmmmmmmm.

That argument is akin to saying because someone is a Bus Driver every other vehicle on the road therefore must be a Bus.

As for the video game mechanics, Mechs are undeniably more versatile and maneuverable, but that hardly negates the value of tanks. After all.. a Jenner is TONS more agile than an Atlas. Wanna be the Jenner in that fight?

Plenty of situations armor will be just as effective as mechs, and I for one would gladly put togetherr a unit of them. Running my "Hell's Armadillos" armor regiment is one of the more fun things I have gotten to do. And since PGI is sticking as closely to TT rules as possible, tanks should be fully viable. TBH, one of the parts I grew to loathe in Battletech was this feeling they had to keep releasing dozens and dozens of mechs, many duplicating the basic roles and designs and uses of others, just to justify putting out more game stuff.

I would rather they focus on destructible terrain, weather, maps and yes ARMOR, than have them churning out a bunch of useless or retreadd mechs just to make more Mechs for fan boys.

That's all fine and good but even you have to admit that what draws the players here and what the fan boys want is to drive Mechs not tanks and aerofighters and thoses are just the facts. If combined arms was so great MWLL wouild be swamped with players and this forum would be a ghost town. Now if the Dev's want to add in some AI down the road just to mix things up a bit down the road fine that mine be fun but I don't see them adding it in for players to run.