11 replies to this topic

[Hans Von Lohman]

I've always liked online shooters like Battlefield 3, or even an older shooter called Joint Operations from Novalogic.

I know the leading contender for "most similar game" for MWO is World of Tanks, aka we're getting World of Mechs, sort of.

Well, not having ever played WoT's I can't comment on that, but I'm guessing that one battle doesn't have any affect on the next one. You just play. All shooters tend to do this. They just treat each fight as a fight, and you get xp points to unlock new gear (as everyone who keeps swiping my Mt Dew caps for double XP in Modern Warfare ought to know).

What I want is a game that has a flowchart of scenario types. For those who own the more rare Battletech rulebooks there was one called Combat Operations. It had a rather overcomplicated rules for how to run a campaign. However, it did in fact have a flowchart of seven scenarios. Drop in, Meeting Engagement, Advance, Assault, and then you were declared the winner. Obviously each scenario also had a corresponding scenario if you lost. There was also a Counter Attack if you lose an Advance or Assault, or win a Defend or Pursuit scenario.

I want something like that. I don't just want to log in and fight a single battle that is stand alone. Winning should change what the next battle has as it's goal or winning conditions.

[Kevin Kirov]

This seems like an interesting idea, maybe each Merc Contract could be for one specific one and each company has to pick up all the contracts or just the ones they want. Or not just my .02

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Excellent idea which has been touched on in some of the other threads, in particular with regard to objective based linked matches. trying to get away from the just find the enemy and kill them all scenario. Usually this has been as part of the "campaign" game and is of interest to a number of the denizens of this forum.

[John Frye]

I have no problem with a flow like in Combat operations. However, It seems to me like it would need to be a less linear pattern that gave the options to the both sides. For example, if you lose a match, your unit commander could have the option of counter attack (same map), Flank (new map), or fall back (previous map). The winning commander should have a similar set of options. I think that would help offer both variety and maybe an element of more strategic game play.

The other thing I would like to see is something that helps determine the map, since the old axiom is that commanders choose the battlefield that best suits their forces. What I have been thinking was something like a random table of maps by planet (ex: call it 4 terrain options: Urban, Snow fields, Forests, and Plains). The unit commanders then get to vote for which map of those types they would like that would then be added into the table (ex: CO 1 wants Urban, CO 2 Snow fields) so now we have 6 options, with Urban and Snow biased to be 1/3 each of the random table. The system could then randomly select the map, which is what would be used in the scenario fight.

[pcunite]

A lot of us are wanting a great deal of complexity introduced into this release of MechWarrior. I'm hardly ever opposed to ideas that get suggested here. We do have nine more months of waiting so plenty of time to design a 500 page manual ...

[Zyllos]

I would like to present this post and thread here.

It talks about some ideas of making various types of contracts follow a flowchart that, in my mind, is simple to follow.

[Threat Doc]

Thanks, Zyllos, you're the man.

I have Combat Operations, but have never had time to sit down and read it. I'll have to peruse it and see if it would improve our debate in the other thread Zyllos just linked here.

[Semyon Drakon]

One of the main points in Battletech canon is that armies tended to fight armies around the time of the 4th Succession War. You fought over objectives but due to the potential for damage to those rare irreplaceable facilities the fights were often held nearby but not close enough for collateral damage to wreck anything.

Therefore the defenders would choose the terrain and the attackers would bring enough friends to deal with the problem.

This does lead to another point. Standard military thinking states that an attacker needs 3:1 odds to negate the advantages possessed by a defender. How will this be handled, a smart commander is always going to bring more friends than the people holding a position.

Semyon

[Threat Doc]

If the intel is there to tell the general force size and/or structure, then yes, a smart commander would bring a larger number of 'friends'. Unfortunately, and fortunately, in this game I am of the presumption that smaller engagements will be fought, to disrupt infrastructure, supply chain, patrols, etc., prior to the main event, which will knock down many of the advantages a normally dug-in enemy will have.

Now, I know that your 3:1 statement is correct, but that's the truth for a purely ground war. Aviation assets have managed to knock that requirement down to, roughly, 2:1. Imagine what space assets and relatively prophetic and judicious use of real intel, prior to beginning descent, will change that number to? It would be right at the border between 1:1 and 2:1, but it would be on the lower end.

[Hans Von Lohman]

Just to note that defenders are tough nuts to crack because of things like minefields and surprise attacks. I don't know if anybody would find those sorts of things as "fun" in the game, though.

Still with play ballancing and OBJECTIVE over total kills style gameplay I can imagine a few scenario types that would be fun, i.e. an Advance scenario with the goal of getting your mech across the battlefield and out an exit zone, spawn and repeat vs the defenders trying to stop you getting through.

[Ghost73]

Kay Wolf, on 18 December 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

Now, I know that your 3:1 statement is correct, but that's the truth for a purely ground war. Aviation assets have managed to knock that requirement down to, roughly, 2:1. Imagine what space assets and relatively prophetic and judicious use of real intel, prior to beginning descent, will change that number to? It would be right at the border between 1:1 and 2:1, but it would be on the lower end.

Assuming of course, that the defender has no air/space assets or anti-air/space assets

Edited by Ghost73, 19 December 2011 - 02:47 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Hans Von Lohman, on 19 December 2011 - 02:33 AM, said:

Just to note that defenders are tough nuts to crack because of things like minefields and surprise attacks. I don't know if anybody would find those sorts of things as "fun" in the game, though.

I think you put in some 'toe' poppers and it will make people think, go around, clear the area, waste resources on a Commander controlled mine-clearing vehicle.

Quote

Still with play ballancing and OBJECTIVE over total kills style gameplay I can imagine a few scenario types that would be fun, i.e. an Advance scenario with the goal of getting your mech across the battlefield and out an exit zone, spawn and repeat vs the defenders trying to stop you getting through.

Yeah, I still think balance is over-rated. It's not a matter of winning because you have equal forces because, in warfare, if there are equal forces, someone's done something horribly wrong.

Ghost73, on 19 December 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

Assuming of course, that the defender has no air/space assets or anti-air/space assets

Good point.