153 replies to this topic

[Sychodemus]

Leitwolf, you and your friends do very nice work.

There are many old-timers out there that agree that the rules are terribly slow; some like it that way while others do not. The biggest problem has always been that any new rules would have to supplant the existing ones without alienating the hardcore fanbase - who have repeatedly kept the game alive.
Thus, that is why I am strong proponent of alternate rules. Should such a set prove to be more effective and more popular for the duration, it could (eventually) replace to old set.
As of yet, there has been no such option that works on all fronts (new players AND old players.)

[Leitwolf]

Sychodemus, on 31 March 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

Leitwolf, you and your friends do very nice work.

There are many old-timers out there that agree that the rules are terribly slow; some like it that way while others do not. The biggest problem has always been that any new rules would have to supplant the existing ones without alienating the hardcore fanbase - who have repeatedly kept the game alive.
Thus, that is why I am strong proponent of alternate rules. Should such a set prove to be more effective and more popular for the duration, it could (eventually) replace to old set.
As of yet, there has been no such option that works on all fronts (new players AND old players.)

Thanks Sychodemus! Sorry, that i go so bad emotional. Yes, I see it like you. It is a problem, that nobody wants to alienate the old players. But i think, it would be better, to go the way of redesign step by step. And I think, the Fans, which want´s to have a modern game, should go louder. Everybody says "we can do nothing to make it better".... like in policy. We have so a great univerce and it deserves a better support. So, I´m soooo happy about the new games and the new artworks. I wish, they bring minis in BT-tribblesize, so we can smash the Warhammer - Dreadnoughts Maybe, we become an other movement in the fanbase, when we unite in a alternative rulebook. I would make the design/artwork for it

And it´s good to see, that there other fans, which understand our frustration.... Thanks!

[Leitwolf]

And one other point: Why should I (an old fan) buy the new german Battletech-Box? Because there is a nice Thor and a Loki in it? (And they are mentioned on the packaging.) Because there are old maps in it, which are allready in my sideboard? Because of the other uggly minis? And why is the covermech not in the box??? I don´t understand this marketing.

Edited by Leitwolf, 31 March 2012 - 04:58 AM.

[Turnon]

I'd like to see new rules. Completely new rules, not just some balancing and stuff like that. Something similar to what D&D does with it's new editions. Not that I don't like the ruleset of the old Battletech. I just want to see a totally different approach. Less "roll the dice and hope" and even more tactics and strategic planning.

And no, nothing like the MWDA clicky thing. That was a collectible wargame, not a tabletop board game, was kinda silly in terms of storyline, and wasn't marketed well, to my knowledge.

Just because someone tried and failed doesn't mean no one else can try and succeed.

[Jagermeister2]

Sychodemus, on 31 March 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

There are many old-timers out there that agree that the rules are terribly slow; some like it that way while others do not. The biggest problem has always been that any new rules would have to supplant the existing ones without alienating the hardcore fanbase - who have repeatedly kept the game alive.
Thus, that is why I am strong proponent of alternate rules. Should such a set prove to be more effective and more popular for the duration, it could (eventually) replace to old set.
As of yet, there has been no such option that works on all fronts (new players AND old players.)

I agree to a large extent. However, in my experience, many people who used to play Battletech have left because of the slow rules and have moved to other games (this includes me). I believe there's a huge potetial player base here who might give the new rules a try.
I like the idea of alternate rules, just let the hardcore players play the old rules and make a new set that they may eventually come to like...

Pht, on 30 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

... there's nothing stopping you from building your own 3d hex tables and terrain. If the tables the guys around you are bulding are boring, blame them, not the game.

I have lots of terrain for other games, it's just not worth the effort to build any for BT at the moment. But we did that. And _I'm blaming the game because the box set still comes with maps instead of doing a (simple) conversion to true tabletop. Still, to each his own.

Pht, on 30 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Slow does not mean bad. Slow does not mean bad.

It's not necessarily great, either... ANything bigger than 1-on-1 and/or more than a lance of mechs just takes too long to play for my tastes.

Pht, on 30 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

It means you should be THINKING between turns, and if you find your tactics not filling up your turn time, start thinking bigger.

I thought it meant people counting their ranges and movement for half an hour for each 'Mech, just to get the best modifier to-hit and the ideal range for all weapons... If that's your idea of fun, fine with me, but I'd like something with a little faster pace. I say again, I think it's ridiculous if a 10-second-turn takes hours to execute.

Pht, on 30 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

I swear, this is just like when I used to play starcraft and total annihilation with my friends, set to normal speed... they all complained and didn't know what to do in a *strategy game* that ran slow enough to do anything other than micromanage and watch stuff blow up continuously.

The micromanaging is exactly what I'd like to reduce in BT. Why keep track of ammunition for all weapons? Like MGs? THe critical hits might be simplified, there are so many simple changes that might speed up play without destroying the BT feel. Nothing wrong with tactics and strategy, but few were the times you'd see that on a BT table.

Pht, on 30 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

From the 80's ... mere age does not make something bad. If it did ... all previous posts behind this one are wrong, because they're older than this one (as I post it).

I agree, not all old things are bad, I'm from the 70s, after all... But what's your point? Old does not always mean it's good, either. Other tabletop games have progressed from the hexmap-games of old, like it or not. If we didn't accept new ideas, we'd be in a cave playing a cavemen vs mammoths wargame. Ah, those were the days.

Pht, on 30 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Because, how odd, ... we like it. How completely odd.

Can't argue with you there. Completely baffles me.

Pht, on 30 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

And yet you're still advocating to rip it from its roots. There's a contradiction between what you're saying and what you want for the game.
As you obviously hate the game, why are you still playing it, much less trying to ruin it for the people that do like it?

We've tried to promote the game for some time, but as the few people who still play seem to like it just as it is, I've given up on them more or less. Oh, and I'm not playing anymore. Doesn't mean I hate the game, and I'm not trying to ruin it for you. Play whatever you like. Play mammoths vs cavemen for all I care. I was just stating my opinion.

Edited by Jägermeister, 31 March 2012 - 07:24 AM.

[Leitwolf]

I WANT A CAVEMEN TABLETOP!!!

[God of War]

Leitwolf, on 31 March 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Ich als ExHannoveraner weiß zwar nicht, wo Böblingen liegt, aber das hört sich gut an.

Wenn du im Stronghold bist frag einfach den Dirk oder den Gunnar hinter der Thecke.

[Curon Hifor]

Sychodemus, on 30 March 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

1) Only if you believe that weaponry should be inherently balanced (which I don't.) The only game mechanic that applies is that better weapons tend to cost more and even then, that is not always the case.

A valid argument. The only problem I personally see is that the current BattleTech metagame often favors Lasers and PPCs over any other weaponry, but then again, that might just be the gaming groups I've been playing with lately. And these groups seem to think Autocannons are worthless (in any form).

Quote

2) The base rulebook has the game-mechanics for the "bare-bones" weapons. The TM/TO/Etc has more experimental and uncommon weapons as well as fluff for everything. In this case, page count and ease of basic game play trumped "ultimate."

Fair enough. I would just like to have all of the information in one book, rather than have to flip through two different ones in order to find a particular rule.

Quote

3) A revamp of construction rules would be extremely problematic since it would in turn require redoing every existing unit and the likelihood of making all previous books/stats obsolete. A simpler method is for the developers to push harder for a computer-based (and well-supported) software option. Heavy Metal did just that until TW introduced those "new" construction rules.

Once again, a fair argument. The statement was more of an afterthought, really.

Quote

4) On this, it is purely preference. I have used "realistic" maps; sometimes they look very nice. Sometimes not. The big problem is that the scale of maps cannot match miniature scales, so the more realistic they look, the more the minis will look out of place.

Fair enough. I've just tried to do games with Geo-Hex, HeroScape, and even scaled-down 40k terrain, and nothing really competes with the clarity and brevity of the regular paper maps. It'd just be nice to have maps that looked like they were not designed in the 90's.

Quote

5) More options for minis; always a good thing provided that it does not interfere with production. Sometimes, I would prefer less detailed, smaller minis in greater numbers. But, again, preference.

The primary problem I see with gamers trying to get into BattleTech is the relative expense of new 'Mechs. Us older gamers don't really feel that because we bought our 'Mech minis, what, ten years ago? Having a cheaper (even if its less-detailed and smaller) option for the newer guys would be a great addition. Also, It'd be nice if they made the current 'Mechs in resin for detail and weight purposes. My metal Atlas still weighs so much...

Quote

6) In a perfect scenario, you could thumb through a TRO and see the variants and get a RS. However, page count and cost will probably preclude this. But, software developers can most definitely create a suite to do just this. Again, it would require stronger support from the BT PTB.

I'm all about the software side of things, especially if we can get applications for our phones/tablets to track damage and whatnot. Still, it would be immensely helpful if I could see the actual record sheet of the 'Mech in the TRO.

Quote

7) Look at the back of TW, TM, TO, SO... somebody, somewhere has probably already compiled them and added stuff that was overlooked.

Probably, I just have yet to find it, and it is rather irritating at times.

Quote

8) Definite "No." Battletech has always plodded steadily (mostly) forward and while there have been a few retcons they have never wiped any part of the storyline. I will however support the notion of "alternate/what-if" timelines. You could include them in the existing storyline as "fictional" holo-series or as theoretical strategic exercises. (BTW, the Jihad is over.)

Thank god. We had been in the Jihad since, what, 2004/2005? I was hoping we would FINALLY get out of that era and onto more progressive stories.

Quote

9) If only. It may happen one day.

We can only hope. If they don't do one in the next three years or so, I may just try and put one together. It would certainly go a long way to helping the TT BT community.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

Terick, on 20 March 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

No change needed or wanted. Before the Jihad. Removing the Jihad and Dark Age, with changes to the War of Reaving would be great.

The only things that should change would be.

Would be possibly making all energy weapon have damage like the SN PPC. Meaning they do less and less damage the farther away the target is.

Redoing clan tech to make it an the IS tech more balanced... but then I follow the train of thought that no matter what COMSTAR had tried, tech would have moved forward because it always does in war.

As for the arguments that it should only be mechs that shoot. There is a reason your post was deleted. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't possible/plausible.

Well put, I eagerly agree.
Still, personally I wouldn't tweak the ballance of weapons and stuff.
The most ballanced TT will always be 3025, and Jihad with all its dark age stuff must be banned, sealed and forgotten forever)

[Karl Streiger]

Found another way...modify the rounds. Now you have initiative, movement - all units move based on that single roll of initiative, shooting all mechs used there weapons in the same instant, damage is dealt afterwards, physcial combat, heat phase...

There are advanced initative rules, that went in the right direction...now what is about won the initiative - declare a single unit and: move it, shot with it and storm into physical combat at once. Afterwards your opponent is able to move a single unit...

Had a drawback - maybe you are not able to use some units effective

Edited by Karl Streiger, 03 April 2012 - 01:41 AM.

[Moncai Icaza]

Yes and no While i respect the hardcore old school TT players battletech is a little big and clunky for todays minitures games the problem however is how do we speed up a game that for a few mechs can take longer than whole armys in Warhammer without degrading the feel of the game.

Wizkids tried it and failed, other mini games use the same size of forces (anima tactics, AT43, warmachine) but nowhere near the feel.

However without new players BT will die maybe not for years but that time will come and if a large rules revision is what it takes then its what it takes but i think the best place to start would be new mini sculpts maybe based on FD's drawings and probably in plastic so easyer to put together and play.

Edit: in other words make the game compelling and inviting for new players i love 80's/90's computer games but very few would be competitive if releasd to todays gamers (imagine another world a game that forces you to make leaps into the unknown being released today with gamers as they are or some of the old school rp games or platformers where you had to work at it final fantasy 7 had a RECORD play time longer than most modern rp/adventure games average time @ 17 hrs and often took 5 times that)

Edited by Moncai Icaza, 03 April 2012 - 02:53 AM.

[Leitwolf]

Moncai Icaza, on 03 April 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

However without new players BT will die maybe not for years but that time will come and if a large rules revision is what it takes then its what it takes but i think the best place to start would be new mini sculpts maybe based on FD's drawings and probably in plastic so easyer to put together and play.

Yes, this would be a good start. And I hope, these Minis are double the size of original BT. Higher Quality for the Minis and a large rule revision, with the right Mechwarrior feeling.

[Karl Streiger]

Leitwolf, on 03 April 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

Higher Quality for the Minis and a large rule revision, with the right Mechwarrior feeling.

The plastic minis of Thor and Loki had indeed good quality...what make it to a farce is the size and quality of the 24 other mechs in the starter box... i was roaring in anger when i saw them first...but at least they look even better as the Warlord and Titan II - a chunk of tin would have cost less and would have looked finer. The old RalPartha minis however had acceptable quality and the same size as the 24 starter minis.

Actual i'm still wondering why there are tabletop rules with real LOS rules, when there is no scale - a 100t mech can hide behind a bush and the 50 ton mech is visible?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 03 April 2012 - 03:38 AM.

[SiriusBeef]

A revamped BV system is all that is really needed to balance the game beyond 3025. Introduction of Clan Tech back in the day is what ruined the game in the minds of many of the people IIRC. It's the same mistake many game publishers make. Going back to the introduction of Andromedens in Star Fleet Battles war-game companies have engaged in "Power Creep" to necessitate fans buying new, ever more powerful units and killing their games. Old units grow comparatively weaker over time before disappearing from the scene altogether. Some of the worst offenders are GW with never ending “codex creep” and PP who are now at the siege engine stage of what used to be a skirmish game. FASA did take a pretty good swing at back in the day making mini hoarders cry over all the money they had spent on useless IS lead. It’s why I love Corvus Belli. Almost no power creep in Infinity. Sure there are powerful new models coming out but nothing so far has been a game breaker… Plus, the rules are free and the mini range is pretty sweet…

[Arctic Fox]

It's already confirmed that they're dumping BV2 in favour of a new system now.

[Pht]

Leitwolf, on 31 March 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

The problem is, that the people like what we have done on the conventions, BUT they don´t want to play the game, because it´s to slow... So, we have a problem with the rules.... do you understand our point????

Yes, I understand what's being said. It's been said for years. I simply do not agree with the proposed "fix" - which is not a fix at all.

Quote

Sorry, but it drives me crazy! The last harcorefans of Battletech don´t see, that the look and the rules don´t bring in new player.

"Last hardcore" - funny that. You have no way of knowing if this is the last group of fans of the game.

Anyways, I know good and well and even agree on (the looks) issues to some point. I simply do not think that destroying the game to save it is sane.

I wonder if anyone has realized that better looking minis, and possibly 3d hex terrain (heroscape style) in the starter set would essentially "cure" the visual problems. Heck, put out terrain booster sets too. Maybe even put out pre-painted minis, for those who don't want the hassle of painting; or at least minis that aren't so drab unpainted.

The rules, however? Sorry, not going to bite. Maybe they should solidify quick strike, or resurrect battleforce, and put them out in a starter box set of their own or even put them into the basic starter set box.

It makes zero sense to complain about slow gameplay when there are already alternative rulesets out there for just that specific purpouse; faster gameplay.

Otherwise, we might as well, say, turn chess into checkers, and only because people who have little patience don't like chess.

Leitwolf, on 31 March 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

And one other point: Why should I (an old fan)

why should they market the starter set to people who already play the game?

Turnon, on 31 March 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I'd like to see new rules. Completely new rules, not just some balancing and stuff like that. Something similar to what D&D does with it's new editions.

You do realize that the guys doing d&d have mangaed to badly fracture their playerbase with every new release since 3.5?

Ever heard of the "new coke" effect?

[Pht]

Jägermeister, on 31 March 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

I agree to a large extent. However, in my experience, many people who used to play Battletech have left because of the slow rules and have moved to other games (this includes me).

Wait, you quit playing the game and you are here complaining?!???

Quote

It's not necessarily great, either... ANything bigger than 1-on-1 and/or more than a lance of mechs just takes too long to play for my tastes.

... and it's perfectly fine that you don't like the speed of it. The question is, what sane reason is there to change the game that goes beyond one man's opinion?

Quote

I thought it meant people counting their ranges and movement for half an hour for each 'Mech, just to get the best modifier to-hit and the ideal range for all weapons... If that's your idea of fun, fine with me, but I'd like something with a little faster pace. I say again, I think it's ridiculous if a 10-second-turn takes hours to execute.

Or, say, spending a half an hour deciding whether to move a pawn or not in a chess game ... a game which obviously is on it's way towards death, because it requires thought too... (/sarcasm)

I don't mind at all if the core game has a smaller following. That does not bug me at all - as long as the game is produced, I would expect it to continue to have just what it has now - a small but very devoted - "hardcore" following, willing to stay with it for years.

Quote

The micromanaging is exactly what I'd like to reduce in BT.

Micromanaging in rts games is not the same thing.

Keeping track of a lot of details is not what rts micromanaging is. The rts variety is all about who can click faster.

Quote

I agree, not all old things are bad, I'm from the 70s, after all... But what's your point? Old does not always mean it's good, either.

What's the point? People should offer good and valid reasons for what they want... or at least be honest and simply say that it's their desire, and they can't give a good reason beyond that.

Quote

Other tabletop games have progressed from the hexmap-games of old, like it or not. If we didn't accept new ideas, we'd be in a cave playing a cavemen vs mammoths wargame. Ah, those were the days.

Yes, and lemmings follow each other to their death too... speaking of bad and invalid reasons...

There are ways to draw people into the lore without destryoing the TT game end of things.

[Listless Nomad]

I don't mean to intrude, be rude, or come off like a pretentious ***. However, could the OP please please fix the name of this thread? It's unfortunate that a thread of actual discussion as such a silly looking title.

[Vexgrave Lars]

A makeover.. only in that there is much room for refinement. Nothing sweeping or drastic, just trim some of the flashing of the model.

[Moncai Icaza]

I think you are missing the point Pht for a game to survive it needs to make money now as a long term player i will assume you have your mechs already most of the TROs, record sheets, rule books and such so how to keep catalyst in business even if the hardcore players buy every new product to come out it won't be enough in the long run.

new players need to come in and scaring them away with extremly detailed rules and requires you to use two books (a TRO and a mech sheet book [which you need to photocopy for each mech unless you have lamanted ones or are reusing from an earlyer game]) beyond the basic rules just to chose a force.

Now i have never played the fast versions and maybe having them as the introduction and moving on to the full rules may be the answer but why would someone as an AVERAGE wargamer with no information on the lore chose mechwarrior over say Hordes or dust (GW with there own gouging store in every town aside) when they see the game at a convention or on the store shelf when the others look better are easyer to get into and may be supported better by the FLGS and wargamming comunity as a whole. My own FLGS has a wall with about a 5ft section for hordes & warmachine 2ft section for Dystopian wars and 3 full shelves for dust as for CBT about 1ft of 1 shelf (basicley 1 copy of each of the new rulebooks and TROs) the call of cuthulu RP takes up more space.

BT needs a rebirth if it wants to compete it scared me off and i love the lore and i played the old GW epic / man of war which were also quite clunky rules wise i came back with hope for mechclicks but that turned into who can shoot farthest and the only truly worthwhile thing i got out of it was my dropship model.

so i ask you and all the "Battletech should never be changed" crowd how would you bring new players in and get old players that love the lore and play the computer games back? because if you don't why should any new stuff by Catalyst be released? after all you don't need it and battletech as a product line can end here.

And lemmings don't run over cliffs that was made up they don't have green hair and purple bodies eather.