Michael Cerpent, on 18 July 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:
And honestly, I get that. Unfortunately, I didn't really have access to the earlier Mechwarrior franchise games. I got to play Crescent Hawk's Inception and Revenge when I was younger, but my father bogarted the computer when it game to the early Mechwarrior games. Not having any real money to speak of on my own until the past several years meant that I didn't really pick up any of the later ones.
So, I think that if I had played those games, I might get it more. But at least I can see where you're coming from on it. Thanks!
A good way to get a feel for the original tabletop game is to read through the mech descriptions over on sarna.net. The original tabletop game was a fairly detailed game of small unit mech combat. A supplement allowed you to use single paper chits to represent lances which made it possible to fight regimental sized battles with fewer people. If you had the supplement and a good number of people it was easy to setup a campaign and use the chits to play out the battle until you had people available who wanted to play a specific smaller portion of the battle.
The biggest problem with this game honestly is that the mechwarrior 2-4 titles were effectively arms races. The original concept was more of a post apocalypse mech wars where both sides weren't able to easily replace losses so were much more cautious in risking their mechs. The pc games show clan tech stomping all over the IS tech and most people get all wrapped up in that. What they should be reminding themselves of though was that the tabletop game was fairly well balanced and as long as the dev's carry over those balancing aspects (namely heat, bulkiness, costs in c-bills and BV) it will all be good.