The thing about Mechs is...
#1
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:12 AM
The BattleTech Universe has all kinds of war machines from Battle Armoured Infantry to Tanks and Hovercraft to Aircraft. There are heaps of Worlds whose defence force is mainly tanks with only 2 or 3 Mechs! Only the best of the best of elite pilots get to be MechWarriors.
If every combatant is a Mech then a Mech is not a Mech. It's just a vehicle or even worse, a player. This is why MechWarrior games need all kinds of units to get a feel for the scale and responsibility of piloting a Mech.
#2
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:16 AM
or are you saying they should have small infantry butting in on the action?
#3
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:17 AM
#4
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:21 AM
Playing a co-op against NPC's and be swarmed by Clan Elementals in a night fight would be damn cool.
If they want to add the clans later as players they should add them AFTER Tukkayid.
#5
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:22 AM
While fragile, most tanks can give a pretty good punch.
#6
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:25 AM
#7
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:28 AM
1st - Make them player controllable:
Problem is that you need to completeyl rewrite the game to allow a different type of vehicle to the game.
Then there's teh problem that most of them aren't good enough to face off against mechs, therefor they would stagnate.
2nd - Make them AI controlled:
Well, here's the problem that you need to make a complete AI from the ground up, which is a very long and hard process, while it still wouldn't be perfect and interfere with matches.
If you have any idea on their implementation that would be plausible, I bet anyone would like to hear it.
#8
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:32 AM
#9
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:33 AM
I agree though I'm not sure the scope fo the game can really allow that nuance of the genre easily.
Maybe it is best to think of it as the moments in time where the large forces ARE meeting. Just like when we see a movie about the 2nd world war,... they aren't hours of guys digging trenches or sleeping (which is probably mostly what they did).
In the novels, I always enjoyed how a handful of mechwarriors would have to salvage a light mech to lead a militia infantry to repel a company (12 mechs). It made it seem that if you had a few mechs, you really were the most powerful force on the planet.
The one thing that I think really takes away from the genre (in all mech games) is the high level of customization. A mech is supposed to be some old relic that is held together for generations like your dad's old Chevy. To me, it should be VERY costly to customize at all, and it should need to be based on a base stock chassis, none of this upgrading an engine to go 2X as fast what the chassis was not designed for it.
Personally, I think we should all have to play stock and live with the inherent weaknesses in each IS design.
#10
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:34 AM
JFlash49, on 20 July 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:
or are you saying they should have small infantry butting in on the action?
See that is a problem if a Tank is the size of a toy. You already feel that a Mech is just a player.
An Infantryman should feel like a player, a Tank large and a Mech tall and very large.
#11
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:50 AM
How can you people be talking about how small tanks are?
I don't know what the canon says about tanks in BT, but I look over at my other screen here, has the specs on an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. 67 tons, or close enough to it.
Did tanks get miniaturized in BT?
#12
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:55 AM
Think of mechs as tanks built vertically, so all that weight builds to the height, not width.
#13
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:56 AM
Those are some darn painful toys then. Quite a few off the heavy tanks pack a punch that could oneshot a light or even a medium with a good shot.
The heavy missile carriers shoot salvos of 60 missiles (3x LRM-20 or 10x SRM-6), the Rommel runs around with an AC20 and a LRM-5 and there's even a tank with 3 PPCs, the Burke (it also has a LRM-10, just in case). Heck some tanks are more expensive than the standard Atlas.
If they are ever implemented anyone seeing these as "toys" will be in for a rather nasty surprise.
#14
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:59 AM
#15
Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:59 AM
They are artificaly downgraded to make mechs useful, and though they have comparable weights, they are flat on the ground and therefore look 'smaller', they are also commonly pictures smaller overall... probably to further boost the special snowflake mechwarrior feeling.
#16
Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:15 AM
Feindfeuer, on 20 July 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:
They are artificaly downgraded to make mechs useful, and though they have comparable weights, they are flat on the ground and therefore look 'smaller', they are also commonly pictures smaller overall... probably to further boost the special snowflake mechwarrior feeling.
That I understand.
It was just all of the comments about tanks being little toys, etc. Tanks' low profile is actually a good think when it comes to battle. Lower profile means you are not as easily spotted, targeted, or hit. But we want the special feeling of big stompy robots because that's cool. I get that too.
It's just that every time I see those kinds of comments, it really is a bit of a disconnect for me. Hell, a non-futuristic tank such as the M1A2 has a cannon that would poke a hole right through the armour on any mech on the field, and a targeting system which would put that round through the canopy window every time, on the fly.
Sry.
I am really stoked about "piloting" a very cool looking large stompy robot. I really am.
#17
Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:25 AM
fett, on 20 July 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:
I agree though I'm not sure the scope fo the game can really allow that nuance of the genre easily.
Maybe it is best to think of it as the moments in time where the large forces ARE meeting. Just like when we see a movie about the 2nd world war,... they aren't hours of guys digging trenches or sleeping (which is probably mostly what they did).
In the novels, I always enjoyed how a handful of mechwarriors would have to salvage a light mech to lead a militia infantry to repel a company (12 mechs). It made it seem that if you had a few mechs, you really were the most powerful force on the planet.
The one thing that I think really takes away from the genre (in all mech games) is the high level of customization. A mech is supposed to be some old relic that is held together for generations like your dad's old Chevy. To me, it should be VERY costly to customize at all, and it should need to be based on a base stock chassis, none of this upgrading an engine to go 2X as fast what the chassis was not designed for it.
Personally, I think we should all have to play stock and live with the inherent weaknesses in each IS design.
I hear ya man. The canon variants would be a lot more fun to pilot than every Mech with 6 times the same weapon, which I think people might do.
You reminded me of another concern I have too. They let everyone pick freely between Jenner, Hunchback, Catapult and Atlas. But an Atlas is three times the cost and weight of a Jenner! So there should be at least three Jenners for every Atlas but we're going to see them 1:1 or worse.
Oh dear.
#18
Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:30 AM
Similarly it'd be great to play power armor, though obviously it'd kinda have to wait until the Clans and Elementals come, no IS power armor for quite some time.
Not that either option will ever be added.
#19
Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:31 AM
mechs are mechs.
now i'm okay with putting in tanks and helicopters and little guys who run away screaming so you feel like you're in a big mech, but its not suddenly a fps if none of those things exist. you're still going to feel like a big robot since you're towering over trees and buildings and whatnot.
Edited by Broceratops, 20 July 2012 - 07:32 AM.
#20
Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:32 AM
Willpower, on 20 July 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:
That I understand.
It was just all of the comments about tanks being little toys, etc. Tanks' low profile is actually a good think when it comes to battle. Lower profile means you are not as easily spotted, targeted, or hit. But we want the special feeling of big stompy robots because that's cool. I get that too.
It's just that every time I see those kinds of comments, it really is a bit of a disconnect for me. Hell, a non-futuristic tank such as the M1A2 has a cannon that would poke a hole right through the armour on any mech on the field, and a targeting system which would put that round through the canopy window every time, on the fly.
Sry.
I am really stoked about "piloting" a very cool looking large stompy robot. I really am.
I know what you mean, but when talking Battletech (or Mechwarrior), it's best to leave realism at the door, as the world is constructed around rules that support mech combat and artificialy drop the effeiciency of other weapon systems to make them mechs a viable weapon platform. For example, the low profile is not an advantage at all in pure BT rules, as there is no bonus or malus on the to-hit table for beeing a full-sized mech or 'just' a heavy tank.
This of course works a bit better in the videogame adaption, as true line of sight is used for the direct fire weapons, but still tanks and conventional vehicles will always be artificial lowered in performance to make mechs viable, and special. Which is a good thing, cause otherwise we would not get to play with giant robots with laser, cannons and rockets... but still... best leave realism and to some extend logic at the door when arguing about battletech/mechwarrior.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users