Introduction and help: MW 1e vs. MW 2e: how do they differ?

[rabindranath72]

Dear all,
first time poster here!
I am a long-time BT player (started with the first Battletech boxed set when it was new...a long time ago; I've still got it) it was my first "serious" board game, and a few years later I'd buy MW 2e and run one of the best campaigns ever set during the Clan invasion (our group gravitated towards AD&D 2e and BT/MW 2e).

Last time I played MW/BT was 13 years ago (marriage, two children and moving abroad can wreck your gaming life!) I haven't touched the game ever since. We had a brief stint with MW3e back in the day, but we found it needlessly complex, so we remained with 2e. I gave a look recently at AtoW, and it left me rather cold; same complexity of 3e or even "worse" and the page count scares me somewhat.

So a few weeks ago I got the chance to acquire MW1e for a dime and a song, I have given a good read, and I *really* like it; it looks a lot more complete than 2e in terms of pieces interacting with BT, especially for campaign play.
What I can't get a "good" feel for, is how different in practice does the game play w.r.t. 2e. For example, combat seems much more lethal due to the HTK per location; is that the case?
I'd be interested in hearing opinions based on experience with both games.

I am still on the fence on what campaign to run, but that's probably food for another post (no Clans or further, though: either 3025, or Age of War or Star League period.)

Thanks in advance,
Antonio

[Daryk]

It's been a LONG time since I played 1e, but I do remember it being a bit more complex than 2e, at least as far as character advancement.  My main memory of 2e was that things moved very fast experience wise, and that was a huge change from 1e.  Sorry I can't be more help at the moment, but it's been over 20 years since I played 1e, and my book is somewhere in storage (I just returned from an overseas tour myself).

[imperator]

I've played both.  I prefer 2e because of streamline mechanics and ease of conversion with everything.  2e just does not scale vary well in Character growth.  1e has combined class and skill system, but doesn't really do well with animals, Personal scale vs BT tactical, or Clan type characters.  Also the skill system is a bit limited in what you can do.

[rabindranath72]

Thanks for the replies! They'll give me something to think about. I'd like to comment on some of the points though. (By the way, is this the correct place to post about RPGs different from AtoW? Mods, feel free to move this to another section if I am violating some rules!)

- I agree that MW2e didn't scale very well in terms of character growth; acquisition of experience was definitely too fast. So, if MW1e is slower in this respect, I'd consider an advantage in my case.

- I am not overly concerned by the "class and skills" nature of character options in MW1e. In fact, one of the things that didn't do much for us with MW2e were the archetypes; we didn't feel we needed the "hot shot mechwarrior" or the "technophile mechwarrior" etc. The game mostly did what it was written on the cover; we liked strongly thematic games, we didn't want it to be anything much different from a RPG about mechwarriors (or thereabouts.) So, MW1e being even more upfront about this, is yet again an advantage. Looking at the additional character options in MW1e, the game seems to cover all the necessary roles we'd want in a game. Then, the character points seem flexible enough to cover many possible character variations along the basic types.

Also, I was quite surprised to read that the game suggests troupe style play! Thinking about it, it makes perfect sense. In fact, one of the issues we struggled with during our MW2e campaign (with only three players) was how to handle a full lance, and we never thought about using multiple PCs per player (although we did use some NPCs for technicians or infantry units in employ.)

- I don't care a lot about animals or other critters; I only used one alien species when running MW2e (one of the critters in the Companion) and in any case it doesn't seem too difficult to abstract the rules for characters to animals.

- I am not sure about the "Personal scale vs BT tactical" issue raised here. The personal weapons in MW1e mention a resolution system to attack BT vehicles; and I suppose any weapon fired by a 'mech or other vehicle would kill a human anyway. I recall the conversion notes in Battleforce which put at a 4d6x the damage inflicted on humans from BT units (so a 'mech machine gun would inflict 8d6 damage.) Am I missing some other issue?

- I quite like limited skills systems; I prefer a few catchall areas (although when I read about the bow/blade skill I was somewhat perplexed.) At 25 skills, I think MW1e already has a very good selection. MW2e already had a few too many, and MW3e really overdid it (one other thing we didn't like in the latter.) So hopefully the 25 skills will provide enough nuances for the different character types described.

Thanks,
Antonio

[VictorMorson]

You have chosen.. wisely.

2nd Edition is definitely way more streamlined.  My advice is if you have 3rd Ed or even 4th Ed (ATOW), they're decent enough books for individual things.  So if you're playing 2nd Edition the other editions are fine for equipment or new ideas, and not all that hard to convert.

1st Edition is something of a clunky attempt, and 3rd Edition is getting pretty complex (but still readable); 2nd edition also was one of the few that directly used BattleTech TT skills for the RPG skills, making it a very smooth conversion if you want to mix & match games.  (This can be fun; use the RPG to discuss the mission, and jump into the war game to play it out); it's a shame only 2nd Ed was seamless in this way.

[skiltao]

For example, combat seems much more lethal due to the HTK per location; is that the case?

I haven't had a chance to play 1e, but 2e has locational thresholds too, and they seem about the same as 1e's HTK per location.

[guardiandashi]

from what I remember as someone who has all 4 editions mw1's main issue was it in many ways was "unfinished" 2nd edition as far as it goes was more finished, but it has its own issues most in that in many ways progression is "too easy"

3rd edition took it to a ridiculous extreme in complexity.

4th edition (ATOW) in most ways is a compromise between 2nd edition and 3rd edition that gets the balance closer to "right" now I won't deny that there is some areas that I feel there are some major flaws, but the skill system is a reasonable (imo) balance between sufficient skills to not be excessively broad, and excessively narrow.

[rabindranath72]

I haven't had a chance to play 1e, but 2e has locational thresholds too, and they seem about the same as 1e's HTK per location.

My bad! What I wanted to write is that it seems the thresholds are higher in MW2e due to a x2 factor, but that's clearly not the case, since the scale of attribute scores is not the same (something I missed on a first read). However, looking at the effects of damage, MW1e seems definitely grittier. For example, a Head hit for double the damage threshold is an autokill in MW1e, but not in MW2e.

[rabindranath72]

2nd edition also was one of the few that directly used BattleTech TT skills for the RPG skills, making it a very smooth conversion if you want to mix & match games.  (This can be fun; use the RPG to discuss the mission, and jump into the war game to play it out); it's a shame only 2nd Ed was seamless in this way.

Not sure what do you mean? As far as I can see, the skills in MW1e work based on TNs, skill levels decrease the TN. And the list of skills matches those in the Battletech Compendium. Am I missing something?

[skiltao]

My bad! What I wanted to write is that it seems the thresholds are higher in MW2e due to a x2 factor, but that's clearly not the case, since the scale of attribute scores is not the same (something I missed on a first read).

Ah! I see. Technician skills are like that too- four levels of Technician in 2e is twice as good as four levels of Technician in 1e.

However, looking at the effects of damage, MW1e seems definitely grittier. For example, a Head hit for double the damage threshold is an autokill in MW1e, but not in MW2e.

That sounds right.

Another change is that where 1e let you spend XP to affect a single die roll, 2e has you spend Edge points; I'm a little curious about how that affects the grittiness.

[rabindranath72]

That sounds right.

Another change is that where 1e let you spend XP to affect a single die roll, 2e has you spend Edge points; I'm a little curious about how that affects the grittiness.

Just noticed that in MW1e you actually *track* the hit to kill points for each location, so they don't act as thresholds as in MW2e. This is a huge difference! A high BLD character in MW2e could withstand lots of gun shots to a location (say, an arm) if none of those shots went over the threshold. In MW1e one or two shots to an arm would likely disable the limb, possibly permanently. Given the lethal nature of the system, the recommendation for players to avoid gunfights makes a lot of sense (and actually PCs get XPs  for successfully avoiding engagements.)

[PurpleDragon]

Just noticed that in MW1e you actually *track* the hit to kill points for each location, so they don't act as thresholds as in MW2e. This is a huge difference! A high BLD character in MW2e could withstand lots of gun shots to a location (say, an arm) if none of those shots went over the threshold. In MW1e one or two shots to an arm would likely disable the limb, possibly permanently. Given the lethal nature of the system, the recommendation for players to avoid gunfights makes a lot of sense (and actually PCs get XPs  for successfully avoiding engagements.)

This was the thing I liked about 1e that I wish they had brought back to AToW.  I am one of only a handful of players here who actually liked 3e and still use it's character genration system somewhat. 
 
AToW I like the way they implement armor vs armor piercing effects.  I also happen to like the game mechanics of AToW more than the others, with the exception of personal damage. 
 
To me, 1e was an afterthought to the boardgame.  That is why it seems incomplete.  2e had some good ideas and refinements, but was still not quite what I was looking for.  Unlike you, I want to have a good amount of skills.  However, I do believe some skills should be combined with others.  For example, What is the difference between gunnery/mech; gunnery/vehicle; and gunnery/aerospace?   Now, I can see gunnery/energy; gunnery/missile; and gunnery/ballistic as being something that might be divided up, but it would still not be my preference. 
 
I'm sorry, I get to thinking about different games and their mechanics and then I go off on a tangent.  What was this thread about?   LOL

[rabindranath72]

I'm sorry, I get to thinking about different games and their mechanics and then I go off on a tangent.  What was this thread about?   LOL

LOL don't worry it's all good! As I said, I am returning to BT, and I'd like to choose a game which fits my current needs, so any comments in relation to that are welcome. MW1e caught my fancy and it's the top candidate at the moment (it was a chance buy, really; it was very cheap couldn't pass it!)
I also had a look at AToW in the weekend (courtesy of a friend owner of a game shop), saw a lot of things to like about the game, but those I didn't like seem to offset the former in terms of decision of not to buy.