Author Topic: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?  (Read 33804 times)

Belisarius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #30 on: 16 October 2012, 06:10:47 »
Let me preface by saying that TRO3025 was my introduction to the game and still remains my favorite TRO.

Content - I like seeing a little bit of everything for everyone. I'm not a huge fan of having seven or eight designs for one faction within two or three weight classes and leaving factions out. I don't think we need to have as many designs per unit type, but I'd also like to see most if not all unit types represented in a given TRO. I am also fully comfortable with different faction sets getting different TROs (a la Clans vs IS having different TROs). Trying to cram both sets of factions together seems like it creates TROs that are packed with mechs and vehicles alone, and forgoes a lot of content on Dropships, ASFs, Infantry, VTOLs, WiGEs, Protos, etc. I think a little more specificity faction-wise could help.

Writing - Huge fan of the 'machine/unit history' sections. I love seeing when a unit has character and background, particularly when we're talking about a unit like the Blackjack or the Quickdraw which seems lackluster at first glance but hits above its apparent weaknesses if employed right.

Stats - I don't have any real recommendations here. I love the way the stats are presented.

Rules - Not a big fan of seeing rules in the TROs. Also not a huge fan of seeing deep new technology discussions like TRO3050. It was necessary at the time, but I think we'd be better suited putting that stuff in other updates or some such.

Art - Love the conceptual-looking work from TRO3025. Seeing the over-draws and the rough shading. To be honest, I don't know the individual artists well enough to say who is who, I know what appeals to me, but it isn't so important that it's going to effect either my opinion of the product nor of the designs.

Layout - Prefer the layout like TRO3025 with mechs, ASFs, armor, dropships, etc delineated out into their own sections and, further, weight classes within those sections. While the weight classes are purely arbitrary, they do help to organize one's thoughts and keep the memorizations straight (these are the lights, Locust, Stinger, Wasp, Commando, etc etc), at least for me.

Thank you so much for putting these out, Herb. I really appreciate you taking the time out to open these up and ask us for our input. I love these products and have collected them all (although some of them are no longer with me, RIP my first TRO3025, you'll be missed) - fell apart finally.

Thanks again.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #31 on: 16 October 2012, 06:21:37 »
Content:
Sub-optimal designs.  Still a big fan of crap units.

The ONN and Royals sections were great ideas: a great way to debut some history or current events plus a ton of variants in a small amount of space.

I'd like to see TROs feature units that have been out for a handful of years, instead of those that are just coming off the line, as it gives more room for the writers to tell stories and include notable pilots/battles, which are always great, but don't make sense for new units.

Writing:
I hate seeing "here are the weapons and armour the unit has, restated but this time only wordier".  Tell me a story of procurement or deployment snafus or misfiring SRM launchers or something instead.  This leads me to Quirks - very glad to see them in readouts, and I think their continued inclusion will help produce better readout entries (not that in general they're bad - overall I think they're good right now - this is more of a "something that used to happen that I hope doesn't return").

I'd like mandatory model numbers and intro dates for the main design and all its variants in the text.  Sometimes a variant is written up as just "the one with the MML-5", which is annoying because the record sheet might not come out for a while to tell you what it is.

Layout:
in all the years Battletech has been around, the chassis, communications system, and targeting system lines have served only to take up space and give fact checkers headaches.  I feel they could be tossed with no loss and some actual gain (no more errata on them, room in an entry for more useful stuff).

Stats:
I'd like to see Battleforce/Quick Strike supported in the entries, as TR 3060 did.

Rules:
New Quirks at the absolute most.  A unified rulebook line feels silly when you get new rules scattered all over the place.

Thanks.
« Last Edit: 16 October 2012, 08:51:50 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Blacksheep

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 517
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #32 on: 16 October 2012, 06:41:45 »
Content:
Sub-optimal designs.  Still a big fan of crap units.

A great segway for me as a total contrast because I'm absolutely through seeing "sub-optimal" designs, which have saturated the TROs since their inception.  In fact, I believe some TROs have gone way out of their way to put a limp in what otherwise could have been fabulous designs.  Therefore, give us a TRO of WWII German Tiger tank equivalents...meaning "Lords of the Battlefield" designs (not the website).  Please note I'm not advocating Pulse Laser boats with TarComps or their rules silly equivalents, but truly inspired monster tough designs.  Thats what I want for Christmas...oh, and a Red Ryder BB gun, j/k O0  Similarly, the artwork for some 'Mechs on MechWarrior Online, Fan Art on this site, and elsewhere should set the standard for TRO ink...'nuff said.

Belisarius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #33 on: 16 October 2012, 06:47:23 »
On the 'suboptimal design' discussion, I'm firmly with Xotl. I think a design with character is infinitely more playable than a Hellstar. I play Crusaders and Thunderbolts and Quickdraws and Commandos and the like all the way through. Finding moments when suboptimal designs are perfectly suited to the terrain, the enemy, position, and timing; those are the moments when the game is most exciting to me. Particularly when the design has story and the pilot is exceptional but the enemy is vast. That's my cup of tea.

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #34 on: 16 October 2012, 07:13:28 »
I am sorry about how long and messy this post is.  I tried to keep it more or less pulled together, but at the end of the day I am happy with how things are going overall so this is more of a collection of mismatched points in a rough list than anything else.

Content/Stats

My requests here are more unit specific, but I will still try to keep them as general as possible.

First, I really like seeing non-military units like the Resgate civilian powered armor and would be interested in seeing more non-combat designs because of how they expand the rest of the universe.

Second, I would like to see more niche omni configurations.  I feel like one of the greatest strengths of omnis in universe is that you can convert them into a specialist as needed, but we are lacking stats for things like Arrow IV, anti-vehicle, anti-aircraft, and electronic warfare specialists which would be very helpful for allowing us to do this in game.

Third, I would like to see more of the 9/14 movement profile.  It seems like we do not really have many designs that fill this slot when compared with 10/15 or 8/12 designs, so I would like to see a decent top end (30~35 ton) light 'Mech moving 9/14.

Fourth, I would like to see a reasonably solid Clan 'Mech with at least one ERPPC and LB 5-X AC because I feel like it is hard to find that paring in canon and I love using it on customs.

Fifth, I would like to see more attention payed to heat balance and ammunition levels.  I am perfectly happy working with strange arsenals so long as the unit looks like it was designed as a working whole and not a random pile of weapons with no thought given to heat management or ammo endurance.  An unusual arsenal is what gives designs flavor, not poor heat management, low ammo, or thin armor which do nothing but handicap the unit.

Sixth, I would like to see more variants of old units rather than totally new builds.  It is usually cheaper to modify something that already exists than to build something new in the real world, and I feel like BattleTech should follow this logic as well.

Seventh, I would like to see more WiGEs.  Just because they are new to the rules does not mean they have not been around for centuries, so I would like to see some older designs dating back to the Star League.

Eighth, I would like to see a fast NARC platform.  I feel like good NARC platforms are in short supply so I would like to see a little more variety added here.

Ninth, I would like to see a 3025-era design that actually uses the AC-5 well to shut people up who are griping about it on the forum because it really is a perfectly viable weapon when used properly and kept within its era.

Rules

While I am a fan of quirks and see why they need to be placed with the units, I would still be looking to make some efforts to combine them down into a more unified system as much as possible so they eat less page space.

Art

I like the way the art has been going lately, so I am just going to say that I am more of a fan of a rougher, more practical, and more industrial look for my combat equipment because these are war machines, not sculptures.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Blacksheep

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 517
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #35 on: 16 October 2012, 07:27:42 »
On the 'suboptimal design' discussion, I'm firmly with Xotl. I think a design with character is infinitely more playable than a Hellstar. I play Crusaders and Thunderbolts and Quickdraws and Commandos and the like all the way through. Finding moments when suboptimal designs are perfectly suited to the terrain, the enemy, position, and timing; those are the moments when the game is most exciting to me. Particularly when the design has story and the pilot is exceptional but the enemy is vast. That's my cup of tea.

And that is fantastic because you have such a vast number of designs to choose from across a number of game playable centuries.  Oddly, I personally consider versions of the Crusader and T-Bolt to be superior designs depending on the time period so I have to wonder if you missed my point.  Similarly, although I have not played it, I believe the Hellstar to be along the lines of the rules silly machines I described before...although it really is simply a Clan tech Awesome.  So, again, I'm simply asking for a TRO of very nasty, but equally imaginative Battlemech designs.

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4497
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #36 on: 16 October 2012, 07:50:31 »
Content You've said in the past that single subject TRO's (e.g. TRO 3057, TRO:VA) don't sell as well as TRO's with a variety of content. So maybe you could start adding some civilian stuff to the new TROs. Sort of a TRO:VA "lite". That would expand the civilian content but not isolate it into a separate product.

Rules: Please only include them if they're relevant to the equipment shown in the TRO. The TRO:Prototypes quirks rules for example, or rules that deal with a new piece of equipment introduced in the TRO. Otherwise please try to keep the rules in the rulebooks. And please segregate the rules into their own section, like the original TRO:3050 and TRO:Prototypes.


Edit 20121023: Requested rules be in their own section.
« Last Edit: 23 October 2012, 06:24:48 by mbear »
Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

GRUD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3002
  • Quinn's Quads - 'Mechs on the March!
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #37 on: 16 October 2012, 07:54:32 »
Most other have said the same as I would, though I'll chime in extra agreement with False Son in saying the Aero/Naval forces should maybe need a TRO of their own, like TRO: 3057.  I noticed I'm the only one that could do without infantry though.  Maybe keep them in the "PDF Only" TROs?  I'll also steal what Cateran had to say, since I agree with him the most overall.  ;D

Content - I love the notable pilots/crew, and the battle history section makes things more "real". 

Writing - Same as above, plus the design quirks.

Stats - Placement of heat sinks would be nice to know, but we can probably just keep getting that from the Record Sheets. General service dates, C-Bill cost, basic deploment info (which Houses) would be nice. -- Also, more details of exactly where equipment goes in some of the variants. Some are easy enough to figure out - "swaps RA PPC for an ER large laser" is easy enough, but "replaces fusion engine with an XL model, then adds an SRM 4 with 1 ton of ammo" is a bit vague. Even saying "torso-mounted SRM 4" leaves it wide open to interpretation.

Rules - I think we've hit a saturation point on new weapons. -- As several others have also said, let's keep rules to the Rule Books.

Art - Make sure the art matches the design. Artwork for each variant would be really nice, but that would probably make the cost and page count explode. -- The addition of variant artwork to the back of TRO: Project Phoenix was a nice addition, I thought.   O0

Layout -  Seems to work pretty well so far.

Maybe a blur between a TRO and a RPG sourcebook, but I'd like to see a personal equipment catalog.  I honestly don't know if the demand would justify the effort, though. -- TRO: 3026 worked well in this regard.  O0
To me, Repros are 100% Wrong, and there's NO  room for me to give ground on this subject. I'm not just an Immovable Object on this, I'm THE Immovable Object. 3D Prints are just 3D Repros.

Something to bear in Mind. Defending the BT IP is Frowned upon here.

Remember: Humor is NOT Tolerated here. Have a Nice Day!

Hey! Can't a guy get any Privacy around here!

Stormcrow

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5069
  • Art by Shimmering Sword
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #38 on: 16 October 2012, 08:21:33 »
Content - Less desigs to go with the times that should less manufacturing and/or new tech. With fewer designs, I would like to see record sheets in the TRO books, though only of the main production model.

Writing - No changes

Stats - No changes.

Rules - Leave the rules for rulebooks, Turning points and hot spots type of books

Art - More Lewis, Iglesias and White. Less of Huda.

Layout - No changes.
Commandant Otto Maurus, ARWH-1Z ArcHammer, Maurus' Minutemen
Captain Obadiah Sykes, OSR-5FCR Ostroc, Second Filtvelt Citizens Militia

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. - Confucius
Noli Timure Messorem
May God defend me from my friends; I can defend myself from my enemies. - Voltaire
Wielder of the Ferro-Carbide Bat of DOOM™

Psycho

  • CamoSpecs
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #39 on: 16 October 2012, 09:24:10 »
Content - more aerospace. Fighters right on up through Warships, though fighters especially could use a greater variety. Each major state basically had 3 main designs through (TRO)3060, getting one or two more with '67 and another finally fluffed in '75.

Writing - Just have each entry make sense within itself and with regards to the faction and TRO as a whole. For example, the Arbalest using more standard parts because the Nova Cats don't have enough Clan parts... only to see the Morrigan a few pages later loaded with Clan-spec gear and production being shared with the DC. Huh?

Stats - Personal preference runs to designs that are good at something, but perhaps somewhat lacking in other areas. 'Mechs like the Burrock and PP Longbow do this well. Specialization means there's a reason to take different 'Mechs for different types of games.

Art - Visuals sell the game and universe. While the book covers have been great, sometimes the interior illustrations have been lacking. In general terms better art = better minis, and better minis mean a better impression on casual viewers or first-time buyers.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #40 on: 16 October 2012, 10:52:21 »


Content - BattleMechs, Combat Vehicles, Infantry/BattleArmor.  Maybe Aerospace Fighters and DropShips.    More Phoenix/II/upgrades where the unit gets a full page update with new art, new "history", new pilots.    The Royals (3075) and ONN (3085) are some of the most often used units in my games.  At least, keeping those kinds of sections to update old units if full pages can't be done.

Writing - More of the TR being set in the future and looking back, with information on why the unit was built (missile platform, cavalry, etc), and who is using it (notable mechwarriors).  On the other hand, not all the units in one block.  (TR3050's everything comes out in 3049-3052 with nothing from 3040-3047..)

Stats - I hadn't though about it before Xotl mentioned it, but Chassis, Comms, Targeting and Tracking can go.  Variants section should contain all the information needed to field the unit (or be available online at nearly the same time, not years later). 

Rules - Nothing in the TR.

Art - If possible, a theme across factions and/or manufacturers.  Rather than Phoenix section having one artist for example, have Starcorps with one artist.  (Yes, I know reality intrudes, but as far as wish list..)

Layout - TR Prototypes background does make the art pop out nicely, but is hard on the text.  Perhaps a large white box for the main text area like the stats on the art page does?  Otherwise, Layout is one of the things I'm most impressed with in general.

Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3970
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #41 on: 16 October 2012, 11:33:00 »
...Let me continue to praise TPTB for their TROs.  Good work.

Content:  I would like to see a wider group of factions.  Houses, Clans, fine - what about Primitives from the Fiefdom of Randis, how is the Filtvet Coalition coping with fending off pirates with only local vehicle production, how are the Hansa preparing for an attack by the Escorpion Imperio Navy?

Art:  Less Huda.  Not impressed, sorry.  More White or whatshisname, Eric Ou(?).  Dynamic poses need to remember the 'walking tank' idea.

Writing, layout, stats: Fine, thanks.  I wouln't mind if you wanted to add C-Bill value or whatever.

Layout:  I realize all the TROs have been landscape, but I wouldn't mind standard books either.  They'd fit normally on my shelf, where the TROs have to be laid flat.
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

Fallen_Raven

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3719
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #42 on: 16 October 2012, 11:40:02 »
Content- I'm really liking the TROs that have been coming out lately. I like the general theme of most units, and most of the new tech isn't being abused to badly. I would like to have a tiny bit more variety of Protomechs to play with (we get a lot of monsters and a a lot of disposables, but not much in between), and perhaps some more infantry, but both of these can be spread over several TROs.

My one big desire is for more naval designs. Battlemechs might be kings of the battlefield, but a good coastal bombardment will remind them that kings can still be deposed. Two or three ships/subs/patrol boats per book would be enough to enrich aquatic combat without overwhelming traditional ground combat.
Subtlety is for those who lack a bigger gun.

The Battletech Forums: The best friends you'll ever fire high-powered weaponry at.-JadeHellbringer


ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #43 on: 16 October 2012, 11:52:34 »
Forgive the mildly long reply, but it's not ranting or anything - just a thought on each of the topics that you suggested, Herb.

Content: I like seeing the all-encompassing TROs, especially the way the last few have come out.  Certainly BattleMechs are important, but I think a little more focus on modern vehicles, BA, and fighters would do well.  Round out the content a little more, I think, especially since we're told that tanks and whatnot are easier to produce.  I dunno if historical units would engender their own TRO separately (IIRC that's being done for the Star League, but I could be wrong) however an "Oldies But Goodies" section would be cool to help flesh out areas we don't see at present - something like 3075's historical bit.  Maybe even introduce new infantry weapons that way, too, like 3026 and 2750 had their personal gear sections.  Who knows, it might increase sales of ATOW!

Writing: LOVE all the background details, plot hints, notable pilots, and whatnot.  Developmental histories, political shenanigans (see also Lyran Stealth Armor) all really flesh out the universe with a small investment in wording...but admittedly a big investment in factchecking.  Especially without the novels, it's the best way to introduce characters and events, IMO.  Deployment data is really useful for someone like me; I love factional-flavoring and try to keep the feel of a regiment consistent with the fluff.  Phyr's Hussars likes Dolas?  Sweet!  Lots of DOL-1A*s for them when I make their unit.

Stats: I'm happy with all the stats.  I admit I'd like to see location placement for things like Endo Steel, Heat Sinks, and such simply because that lets me use units that don't yet have record sheets (see also TRO Prototypes) because I can make them myself accurate to canon. I don't need BV or Cost, personally, though I find it a useful bit of side-data sometimes.  LOVE having quirks around, please don't drop them!  The suggestion of QS stats is very cool too.  Would it be possible to include RPG stats for battlesuits at least, or would that be too much to ask for?

Rules: Definitely would like to see more 'experimental' and 'advanced' TL stuff.  I'd like to see some more tie-in (as above) with the RPG, at least stat sheets or something.  I know there's conversion charts, but I admit I'm lazy and wouldn't mind having official stats.

Art: ERHMAHGERD you guys have been awesome and my only request is more!  I also would like to see further 'visual thematics' applied - stuff like the instantly-recognizeable look of the Celestials, or of the classic Clan omnis, or the Star League's curvy armor.  We've got different factions, why not give each of their production a bit more visual cue to identify them?  Doesn't have to be major, but say...bird legs are popular in the Combine, satyr legs are popular in the Confederation, barrel chests and gun-arms are popular in the Suns, that sort of thing.

Layout: Not much to say here.  I admit I like the separation by type more than I do by "side" - having all the Clan tanks with the IS tanks in their own TANK section, rather than "these are all IS units" and "these are all Clan units" works better for me; it's a pan-humanity thing.  I WOULD like to see a lot less grey in the readout layout - it makes it hideously expensive to print my PDFs and arrange them the way I like, because the text gets all kind of background on it that annihilates my ink.  It might also save on costs since you wouldn't be using as much, so perhaps a bit more white space?

That's all, please don't delete me!  I know it's long but I'm throwing ideas, not ranting!
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

IronSphinx

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 910
  • Robots!!!
    • PlayBattletech
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #44 on: 16 October 2012, 13:03:30 »
As has been stated before:

Writing - I like the notable pilots fluff

Stats - Need to keep adding Quickstrike/Battleforce stats for all units. Also, I like how you guys have added unit quirks.

My request:
Please add record sheets for the base unit (not the variants) in the TRO's PDF. I don't like waiting for the PDF/print copy of the record sheets to come out (since the recent print RS books have only had the base unit anyways) and I really hate plugging units into Skunkwerks without knowing exactly where every crit slot goes or spending hours trying to figure out why the design in the TRO is under/over weight when I enter it into the program.

Possible value add: list what worlds are building the unit (not each individual sub-component, just the finished product) as we see in the Objectives: [faction] book.
« Last Edit: 16 October 2012, 13:07:45 by IronSphinx »
Charles "IronSphinx" Wilson (CDT #66)
=======================
Want to find a Battletech game in Michigan?
Go to www.playbattletech.org.

Lord Harlock

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2711
  • Watching from the Shadows
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #45 on: 16 October 2012, 13:27:51 »
Content: Personally, I love TROs like 3067, 3075, 3085 plus Supplement, and even Prototypes which includes a variety of designs and weapons over TROs that just include one type of weapon. Though I enjoy the "Royals" and "Old is the New New" section, and ONN was a step in the right direction with more details, it'd be nice to get some further details such if there is any manufactures.

Writing: 3085 should be the template unless there is a unusual aspect to the TRO like TRO: Prototypes. I love background information, plot hints, notable pilots, variants, and weapon loadouts.  However something has bugged me from TRO 3085, the VLK-QT2 Valkyrie variant got most of the prose. To me a variant or refit should be in the variant section unless there is no manufactured model at that point such as the MAD-6D Marauder II since it's more important to know who is manufacturing the model at that point.

Stats: It's fine. There isn't much I can suggest other maybe the most useless suggestion ever: cost of components in C-Bills. Yeah, that'd probably be more trouble than it is worth, but certain campaigns, it'd help with replacing parts . . . maybe.

Rules: One of my favorite aspects from the XTRO or Prototypes is Handheld Weapons on the Quickdraw and Axman. More creativity is what I'd like to see there for unique designs.

Art: Art has become one of the more interesting things. It'll never to come to pass because of cost, but it'd be nice to see painted art with the writeups.

Layout: It this point there really isn't much of a difference between Clan and IS since we aren't really focusing on the Homeworld ones, so I'd just say combine them like ANS Kamas P81 stated.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #46 on: 16 October 2012, 14:26:43 »

Content - Later TROs are quite thick, this gives me a bit of a love/hate thing. I love to see all that new stuff but I also know that many of them will never be sculpted or be worth sculpting. I prefer quality over quantity.

But please always have something for everyone. I belief that this can be done by having combat units be faction specific and the remainder (support & militia) be more generic.  It would be a good idea for each support or civilian units in a TRO to have a viable combat or covert variant/config. Then players will always be able to use it on the battlefield.

As for specific unit types. I would like to see more protomechs, combat variants of existing dropships (old is the new new) and generic omni Mobile Field Bases (but for several bay sizes (Light, Heavy, SuperH), like with the APCs in TRO 3060).


Stats - I think that a bit of fat can be cut here. Do we really need to know the tonnage of everything? I think it should be a total list with allocation, example:
4 Medium Pulse Lasers (2RA, 2LA)
6 Double Heat Sinks (1RA, 1LA, 3LT, 1CT)

Also I think that 'Communication System' and 'Targeting and Tracking System' can be left out. 


Art - BT art of the last few years has been stunning. However I don't like animal/monster-like art and bubble-cockpits. What I do really like is the work in the 'Wars of Reaving'.


Layout - I like having a current time and a historical section. The second layer will be a division in unit type (BA, Mech, etc). A separation between Clan and IS isn't needed.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Chris24601

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #47 on: 16 October 2012, 14:43:42 »
I'm pretty happy with the writing, stats, rules, art and layout so I'll just jump to the one area I feel like commenting on.

Content - I think the large time jumps forward (especially the one to 3250) provide an opportunity to present a more coherent picture of the various militaries and/or manufacturers. What I'd like to see for the TRO 3250 is for the units to broken down by faction (or manufacturer if appropriate) with an eye towards creating a coherent mission force.

By this I mean that, barring a return to a scavenger economy, no military force is going to choose to field 20 different units with the same basic mission profile (at most you'd see two as one is being phased out and its replacement phased in). I'd like to see that same sort of approach to a 3250 era TRO.

Give us the standard units (recon, cavalry, frontline, fire support, civil defense, artillery, air support, et cetera) for each of the major players in 3250 with an eye towards the synergies that such militaries would attempt to create in terms of tactics and logistics. Things like all of one faction's units (tank, Mech or aerospace) using the same caliber autocannons (with different cyclic rates accounting for whether its an AC 5 or 10), armor type and model of medium lasers to smooth out supply lines. By the same token, if their scout Mechs have TAG then they should be fielding fire support or artillery units with munitions that can take advantage of it.

In short, don't just build individual units, build faction armies from the ground up for the future TRO's.

Pegasus Actual

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #48 on: 16 October 2012, 15:49:18 »
Writing - I loved reading about the utter fail that was involved in the Mad Cat III's development. More fluff like that would be cool. Also, I'd appreciate having what factions are commonly fielding the unit in question right there in the TRO.

Rules - More canon quirks, please.

Art - I'm a big fan of slightly blockier or less humanoid designs, rather than lots of smooth curves. The Nyx and Penthesilea look pretty good to me, as does the MWO art style. Weapons that are at least close to proportional to the size of the machine would be nice, too.
Warhammer Faye "Cairn Wraith II" avatar by me.

HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6202
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #49 on: 16 October 2012, 16:00:14 »
Hello,

Some of these are getting longer, folks. Just a reminder that my attention span isn't that long these days....

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

Youngblood

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2280
  • metalmans no longer dumpy or metal, can't touch
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #50 on: 16 October 2012, 16:03:13 »
Content - Usually the ideas presented are better than what I could ever think of, so....

Writing - To parrot what a lot of people are saying, less design spiel/listing, more flavor text.  Set up a writing test for whoever the work's being delegated to, if you can.  Board Game Space Robot Technical Journals must be interconnected with the flavor of the universe and the people in it.

Writing (again)- BattleTech is trying way, way too hard to make names of units sound foreign.  The reality of the game is that the majority of its players are Caucasian and speak Caucasian languages, like it or not.  I'm very tired of people at Capellan games whispering about how they can't identify the difference between a Ying Long and a Jinggau and a Du Shi Wang-class--it's kind of insulting.

Stats - Considering how many BattleTech fans the TRO series has to cater to, there's not much that should be changed lest it alienate all the different players and fiction-followers who want to see different things out of the same book.  Also, never again do something to the Capellans like hose the Shen Yi with MRMs and not give it any definite variants.  Gah. :'(

Rules - Highlight each Unit Quirk and each piece of new equipment and put descriptions and game rules in a separate section that gets its own fluff.  The original TRO: 3050 comes to mind.  Please do not fill up valuable space on individual TRO entries with them.

Art - We've pretty much found our best work for this era in Alex Iglesias and David White.  I have a suggestion for a plan!  Have only the two of them do every TRO from now on.  Alex can do 'Mechs and David can do other vehicles in one TRO, then in the next TRO they switch places and do each others' sections.  Keep them on salary.  Work them to death or lobotomy, whichever comes first. O0

Art (again) - Multiple shots of each 'Mech please, including dynamic poses with backgrounds, (Iglesias and White can do these, I have faith in them) as well as a variant section just like in the back of the book a la FanPro's TRO: Project Phoenix.

Layout - More room for more text, please.  Three- or four-page entries if you have to.
« Last Edit: 16 October 2012, 16:09:38 by Youngblood »

Hawk

  • Retired AF
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 798
  • Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #51 on: 16 October 2012, 16:25:22 »
Quote from: HABeas2 link=topic=23845.msg532598#msg532598 date=1350328710

[b
Content[/b] - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in the book in general (specially such things as what type of units and technologies the book covers--or even how many to cover at a clip. Just remember, though: More content = more cost to the consumer).

Writing - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the fluff text.

Stats - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the units' statistical data.

Rules - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of extra/expanded game rules.

Art - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of art.

Layout - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in terms of the physical arrangement of the book and its contents.


Content: I like tthe idea of Date in Use. It would be good to know when general production started.

Fluff: I would love to see Notable Pilots and Battle History, if any.

Otherwise, I'm good.
Is the height greater than the distance from yourself?
Accidental Falls From Above are merely improvised clubs wielded by gravity.

USAF, Retired

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #52 on: 16 October 2012, 22:20:30 »
Hello,

Some of these are getting longer, folks. Just a reminder that my attention span isn't that long these days....

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

Sorry about that, I tried to keep mine as short as possible, but it is hard to list nine independent points without taking up a fair amount of space and/or making things hard to read.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #53 on: 16 October 2012, 22:31:07 »
Sorry about that, I tried to keep mine as short as possible, but it is hard to list nine independent points without taking up a fair amount of space and/or making things hard to read.
Agreed...and I take too long to make my points, and try to explain, but at least it's understandable if long-winded.  Sorry Herb!
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Tizona

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Caput Castellae
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #54 on: 17 October 2012, 17:40:58 »
It's already been proposed (Sigma), so just for reinforcement's sake...

Content: if there's no enough market for a dedicated civilian and auxiliar machinery TRO, it'd be a good idea to enable a related section where appropiate. And if it's even considered worthless to have it in printed form no matter how, it would be nice to have a dedicated PDF-only TRO at least.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #55 on: 17 October 2012, 18:05:10 »
Sorry about that, I tried to keep mine as short as possible, but it is hard to list nine independent points without taking up a fair amount of space and/or making things hard to read.

Nothing requires you to comment on everything.  Prioritize what you have to say?
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

BirdofPrey

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4118
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #56 on: 17 October 2012, 20:38:44 »
Hello,

You DO realize that HeavyMetal is hopelessly obsolete now, right?

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs
SSW vs. HMP discussion = over.  Herb has spoken
:P just kidding
====
COntent:  So far I like what I am seeing, but I would like to see some specialized but still useful for general combat sort of designs (for instance AA Mechs like the rifleman, great at shooting down aircraft, but can still take on other mechs and vehicles reasonably well so long as you don't try to brawl).  Hyperspecialized stuff for extreme environments would also be nice to have, but I would prefer them alternate variants rather than the main item (speaking of which, everything should have a few variants).  I would also like to see some more advanced gear on units, though most should still be tournament legal (and keep the XTROs coming).  I think it is important to have a good spread of unit types, which we have been seeing recently; this includes conventional infantry; we don't need a huge infantry section like 3085, but that shouldn't be the only book with infantry (cannon mounted and K9 platoons anyone) And more omnis please; I know you can't have everything be an omni or you won't be able to sell any TROs, but it's pretty bad when a half century after their introduction I am still stuck using first generation omniments with five thousand warts if I don't plan on playing as WoB (hell even RoTS celestials would be an improvement similar to what you did with the Bolla in TRO:3085)


The old is the new new and historical sections are also nice, and I would love if you used them to retcon some units into existance (for instance House Steiner has finally declassified an old FedCom combat WiGE from the clan invasion period), in fact, WiGEs baldy need retconned in, we just don't have enough and so far there is nothing to show for the fact they have (supposedly) been available for centuries.  You might also consider making a specialized TRO like An aerospace TRO or a support vehicle TRO occasionally.  Maybe even if they are online exclusives; I feel these items don't get enough face time, support vehicles escpecially get ignored too much and could stand to have a couple examples slipped into each regular TRO. and give us more omnis.

You might also consider AToW scale record sheets for infantry (inclduing BA) units and their vehicles for motorized and mechanized infantry to further integration of AToW and TW gameplay.

Writing is good for now, but you should include design quirks and indroduction dates and factions

Art and layout are good so far.




Remember, more omnis, this includes vehicles and fighters.

dddddddd207

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #57 on: 17 October 2012, 21:01:15 »
Stats - Dates and cost, please. I like the idea of a "faction availibility" chart. Maybe, say, a chart that says basicly "you have a [whatever]% chance of finding this unit in this faction."

Art - Honestly, Matt Plog is my favorite TRO artist. Ingelas, White, and the others are good, but I prefer Plog's clean designs for the TROs. Some other art is better done by other artists, and even some TRO stuff (like, for example, areospace) are better done by others. (Huda in that example.) TRO3055U and the BA in 58U cinched that for me.

GreekFire

  • Aeternus Ignis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3881
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #58 on: 17 October 2012, 21:13:33 »
Writing: I agree with what others have said: less listing, more battle history, quirks and notable pilots.

Stats: C-Bill cost and introduction dates would be lovely.

Rules: Quirks and experimental tech becoming mass produced would both be interesting to see.

Layout: I enjoy plain white or light grey backgrounds to my pages. The textured background for TR:Prototypes made reading a bit hard, and also blotted out the artists' signatures on a few occasions, which I found sad.

Keep up the awesome work!

Tu habites au Québec? Tu veux jouer au BattleTech? Envoie-moi un message!

Charlie Tango

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6494
  • I'm feeling a little sketchy...
Re: Technical Readouts: What Would You Like to See?
« Reply #59 on: 18 October 2012, 03:26:11 »
Just a few comments on the topic from me.

Content:  I like seeing a mix of units to keep everyone happy.  Much as I am a "mechs and vees" player, I know not everyone is like me.  I don't see a need for any TRO's with any units from before the Dark Age timeline from here on out; let's call that fixed and move on.  Address any "new variants on old machines" with an ONN-type section.

Writing :  I like having a good bit of fluff, deplyoments, adventure hooks, depth and breadth to the universe.

Stats : Add in the Quick-Strike Stats and introduction dates

Rules :  Limit this as much as possible.

Art :  Very happy with several of the artists, especially David White.   I would like to see only a few artists per TRO, to keep styles as consistent as possible throughout a book.

Layout:  I like keeping the IS and Clan stuff in separate sections.

One other issue I would like to see addressed:  While I do not want to see the Record Sheets published inside the TRO's, I  absolutely want to see the Record Sheets published/made available for sale concurrently with the TRO.  There is absolutely no reason why we should have to wait 3/6/9/14 months after the publication of a TRO to have the official canon Record Sheets made available.  Yes, I understand the issues at present with it.  If those issues are going to continue, then TRO's should wait until the Record Sheets for them are available and ready, at least in PDF form.
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature.
There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games."
  
-- William S. Burroughs