9 replies to this topic

[Rob Tallos]

Use strategic views like other online games (Godfather and Ebony) but incorporate tactical mech combat of MW. Of course need to slow down production, maybe have technology research, but not necessarily. Research things like repair, salvage, medical, gunnery, piloting, tactics, strategy, movement, negotiation, instead of just weapons. Everyone gets the canon weaponry, you just get better and more efficient in producing it. Can produce or purchase replacement/repair parts, recruit or develop mechwarriors/techinicians.

https://www.kabam.com/the-godfather/

Have Houses instead of Families, Units instead of Crews.

You organize at higher levels, then do a tactical attack which switches to MW combat.

Would be sweet.

Thanks for this effort!

[Rob Tallos]

Can even have training instead of research. Train individual mechwarriors, techs, etc.

[Threat Doc]

I think you're talking more about MechWarrior: Tactical Command, the iPad only game.

[Rhinehart]

No no stratagey. I don't want to be the guy moving pieces around on a map board. I want to be the guy in the cockpit blowing things up. Stratagey games in my house usually end up broken. Either physically or metaphorically. Sometimes both.

Edited by Rhinehart, 28 December 2011 - 04:37 PM.

[Pht]

Rhinehart, on 28 December 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:

No no stratagey. I don't want to be the guy moving pieces around on a map board. I want to be the guy in the cockpit blowing things up. Stratagey games in my house usually end up broken. Either physically or metaphorically. Sometimes both.

Actually strategy would be great - in its proper place.

Strategy is the "what and why" ... tactics is the "how" we implement a strategy in the field. Strategy has been thin in the previous MW games; they simply didn't have enough depth of play. Having deep enough gameplay (logistics, mechlab, economy, travel time) outside of the "BLOW STUFF UP! YEAAAHHHHH!" part of the game such that strategy could come in (and it would pretty well necessarily have to come in pre-game most of the time, as it requires a lot of thought) would just ROCK.

[Rhinehart]

I don't mind the type of strategy that involves setting up mechs and loadouts in the mechlab, selecting a particular contract or such. What I have no interest in is anything that smacks of a real time strategy game. IE "Unit x go here and do this, Unit Y do that" using a mouse pointer from a godlike attitude above a map that looks suspiciously like a bunch of table top hexes. Now, If I'm in my cockpit broadcasting on the com and saying "Unit X go here" that is a different story. Especially since all the mechs will have actual pilots and they might not give a care what I have to say.

Edited by Rhinehart, 28 December 2011 - 05:45 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

If your in a group that plays together then people usually understand that you need to work together. Plus the "Commander" will be the one the scouts report to and has the radar grid display. If you prefer playing as part of a scratch group, hope you don't come up against organised opposition.

[Threat Doc]

Nik, I reached my Like quota for the day, man. So, LIKE!

Rhinehart, on 28 December 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:

No no stratagey. I don't want to be the guy moving pieces around on a map board. I want to be the guy in the cockpit blowing things up. Stratagey games in my house usually end up broken. Either physically or metaphorically. Sometimes both.

What Pht said, exactly. I love strategy -not that I'm awesome at it, to be frank- but I love to see how logistics, resources and assets, will be used on the field, and I love to set waypoints for patrols and potential hot-spots. There's obviously more to it than that, but I'm long on emails and short on time...

I really need to get out of some of these conversations. Out of this one, folks.

[Rhinehart]

Just to clarify what I'm saying, I love the concept of Tactical command vs strategic. I like the idea of being in the command mech and using my coms to tell various lances or mechs to perform this objective or hit that target, all the while still piloting my own machine, using my own firepower and trying to manage the flow of information.

But to be at a war planning table moving icons around directing "12th Company Syrtis Fussilers will drop on world X glacier, 1st Company Richard's Panzer Brigade will drop on y desert."-No thanks. I'm not interested in any strategy I can't conduct from inside a mech cockpit other than configuring my chassis and (Since I am a Merc) choosing a contract with a good risk/reward payout. Anything else takes the game out of the realm of Mechwarrior in my opinion, though I respect others who view things differently.

[Shadowstarr]

Rhinehart, on 29 December 2011 - 08:31 PM, said:

Just to clarify what I'm saying, I love the concept of Tactical command vs strategic. I like the idea of being in the command mech and using my coms to tell various lances or mechs to perform this objective or hit that target, all the while still piloting my own machine, using my own firepower and trying to manage the flow of information.

But to be at a war planning table moving icons around directing "12th Company Syrtis Fussilers will drop on world X glacier, 1st Company Richard's Panzer Brigade will drop on y desert."-No thanks. I'm not interested in any strategy I can't conduct from inside a mech cockpit other than configuring my chassis and (Since I am a Merc) choosing a contract with a good risk/reward payout. Anything else takes the game out of the realm of Mechwarrior in my opinion, though I respect others who view things differently.

Not that I am expecting MW:O to have a real deep strategic level, I do feel there is room for interplanetary stuff, in the realm of mechwarrior. I agree its not for everyone, not would I want just anyone making such calls when my "fun time" is on the line.

I think you and I are very like-minded in what level of command we are comfortable with. Not that i had such problems as stratagy, mine was the damned paperwork.

Back in my House Steiner days I "think" i highest command level I accepted was a Reg XO, was definitely a Battalion CO, Company CO, lance ect at one point. Even at those levels I was hating the noncombat duties, pushing info down the CoC, meetings, e-mails, meetings, hassling' the commanders under me for their BS duties, and more meetings... All the while for a game (MPBT Solaris) with absolutely no depth aside from the sometimes disturbing, communal political meta-game. About the only duty I enjoyed was training/recruiting. Would hang out in the newbie start room and help get folks started in game. (you had to be there, Solaris wasn't exactly newbie friendly) most the time the newbie would wouldn't end up part of the unit but still felt more productive then trying to convince my people that were so pose to use a three page sign/counter sign authentication sheet to confirm that everyone is indeed who they say they are, Meanwhile I just want shoot something.

From whats been said thus far, It looks like MW:O will have a good bit of tactical stuff to play with and that's great. That is the level I want. just because that's all I want doesn't mean i wouldn't like to see planetary, interplanetary, or house leader level command stuff for a player to handle. That said, PGI would need to take great care in having the right folks filling those ranks. Its more then just winning the game for one's house. The house leader player has to take the health of every player's overall game experience into consideration, not just their people.

-SS