Register Register

Author Topic: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?  (Read 10264 times)

Nicoli

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 313
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #180 on: 19 November 2021, 18:03:29 »
  While I agree, the idea of another chart with weapons just to circle back to eventual btech-like stats gets me.

In my mind, a light squad, which weighs .5 tons currently in BTECH, can carry a .5 ton machine gun/light machine gun or .5 ton small laser.  A heavy squad, which weighs 1 ton in BTECH, can carry an SRM-2, or flamer, or medium laser, or heavy machine gun, OR can carry a mgun/LMG/small laser + antimech equipment.  Uses the weights we have now for infantry squads and fits with minimal fuss without creating an additional table of weapons.

I also support squad based deployment.  Fitting platoons inside a hex is not a thing, and fitting multiple friendly and enemy platoons would look like a wall of spartans fighting a wall of immortals--IE not a real battle situation.  There is just enough room for 2 friendly squads and 2 enemy squads in a hex if they are being VERY neighborly.
This is why you should look at non-Bt game systems. In Battlefronts system infantry models are not representing where the infantry are but the area in which they are fighting. This is easily transferred to BT. The Hex which an infantry unit occupies represents the center of the unit and while the infantry may spill over in reality to other hexes as their formations are required all distances and line of sight is measure to that hex for record keeping. Adding a bunch of individual units to track is not something Battletech needs as a game. I mean how many players say "I want more paperwork!" and are not being sarcastic A-holes like myself? This is also why I shudder when people suggest bringing in Support vehicle rules for things like jeeps and HMMWVs.

As for the weapons adding tables, I don't mind adding them to construction rules... I just hate the unit sheets not having them.

DevianID

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 979
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #181 on: 20 November 2021, 01:29:57 »
Quote
This is also why I shudder when people suggest bringing in Support vehicle rules for things like jeeps and HMMWVs.
I like attaching support vees to infantry so you dont see them other than as a motive type in a squad.  Personally i think all sub 10 ton units belong in a battle armor style sheet deployed together.  Protomechs being in 5 different places, or a dozen 3 ton toyota hilux running around as independent units, irks me.

Nicoli

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 313
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #182 on: 20 November 2021, 16:39:06 »
I like attaching support vees to infantry so you dont see them other than as a motive type in a squad.  Personally i think all sub 10 ton units belong in a battle armor style sheet deployed together.  Protomechs being in 5 different places, or a dozen 3 ton toyota hilux running around as independent units, irks me.

Yeah, I'm working with my group to do a BT mk2 picking up a lot from the HBS battletech game to update it. The goal is to remove a lot of the extraneous book keeping, while maintaining as much of the core game as we can. We haven't gotten to infantry yet but they'll be run very similar to BA, the idea being that first a squad is the minimal sized element that is viable in a BT game and nothing smaller then what is minimally viable should be tracked. The hitpoints of each squad will be an abstraction of how much damage they can take and still be functional as opposed to the number of people in the squad.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #183 on: 22 November 2021, 13:53:02 »
Playing catch-up.

For example, a PPC Platoon would have 28 men. The crew for a Support PPC is 5, giving a maximum of 5 PPCs for the platoon (28 / 5 = 5.6, rounded down to 5). Let's assign them a revised damage value of, say, 3 per PPC and 3/6/9 range. This would give the platoon a maximum damage value of 15 (5 PPCs x 3 damage) and they'd roll on the 5 column of the cluster table when hitting. As troopers die, the maximum damage value falls, just as it would in a Field Gunner platoon, since those large guns can no longer be manned.

I'm mostly on board with what you're saying, Tiger Shark.  I know I've voiced something similar. 

However, I'd personally limit the amount of support weapons based on squad, instead of weird, seemingly arbitrary, crew requirements.  4 squads of seven are what most house Field Manuals have for a platoon breakdown.

To show that I think squad crews for field guns was an initial consideration, I will reference the history section of the Galtor Campaign BattleForce Supplement - Page 14, Strategic Situation subsection, 2nd to last paragraph: 
Quote
"I entrusted the defense of the fake Star League depot to a company from Prince Davion's heavy infantry regiments: the 782nd Davion Guard Auxiliary.  They were good men and willing to fight to the death for their Prince.  Attached to each squad was a Sniper artillery piece.  No BattleMechs were within the [minefield] perimeter."
I bolded the word squad for emphasis. 

(Aside: I found this little gem a while ago, but I'm now working my way through.  There are some things that I can attribute to misconceptions and typos or misnomers.  But, that seemed pretty straightforward.  The book has a copyright of 1987 on the back cover, so it's still early in the BattleTech Game's history.)

This predates the strange 'crew count by weapon tonnage' found as early as Maximum Tech, last I recall.  It makes field guns very crew intensive for artillery pieces, which makes no real sense when looking at modern 20th and 21st century howitzer batteries and crews.  According to that set of rules, it would take most of a platoon to man the 20-ton artillery piece.  Unless tech has reverted backward so bad that you need a chain gang to aim and load the gun (40k fleet style), it shouldn't need near that many men. 

In this same vein, I find trying to break down 4 groups of 7 into odd increments by an arbitrary number like five equally as odd.

If you need limitations on a weapon, then maybe put in a limit of how many such weapons can be carried per squad of a certain size.  So, instead of 'crew of 5'  A squad of 5-9 troopers is limited to one.  A Marion 'Century' (?) of 10 men is limited to two.

Let's keep in mind that the rest of the squad will be busy with their own tasks, including covering fire against other infantry.   
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Nicoli

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 313
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #184 on: 22 November 2021, 14:34:03 »
This predates the strange 'crew count by weapon tonnage' found as early as Maximum Tech, last I recall.  It makes field guns very crew intensive for artillery pieces, which makes no real sense when looking at modern 20th and 21st century howitzer batteries and crews.  According to that set of rules, it would take most of a platoon to man the 20-ton artillery piece.  Unless tech has reverted backward so bad that you need a chain gang to aim and load the gun (40k fleet style), it shouldn't need near that many men. 

I agree a rework of infantry should split off towed gun unit construction into a separate section

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #185 on: 22 November 2021, 14:49:03 »
Again, playing catch-up.

Except for the fact that we know it happens, probably due to the ablative nature of Battletech Armor. 

From CityTech days, we didn't know jack squat about how infantry damage actually broke down.  It was inferred from the way the squad damage went down incrementally with the Platoon's HP block.

You want to know what changed that?  BattleTroops!  Whatever you might think of that sub-game, it set some lore standards.  It doesn't matter if it was later discarded the same way AT1 was.  It still showed some conceptual intent. 

For as long as it existed, I imagine it was considered canon. And, you know what that game said about infantry damage on Mechs?  Support weapons were the only certain source of damage.  Individual weapons could do damage, but required a roll of twelve somewhere, and it was only one point.  (It might have been in the to-hit roll, needing a nat-12.  I don't have the rules handy to be sure.  Someone feel free to enlighten me.)


And, when you look at the damage drop in the old platoons, I could see each damage value drop being a support weapon lost.  It wasn't the easiest to suspension of disbelief, but it was at least plausible. 

I don't know where or when the notion of the entire platoon's fire having some effect came into being.  Maybe in a novel somewhere?  But, it was never overtly stated that was how it worked.  If you can cite a source for me, please do, and give me the Copyright date on that product.  I'd love to know where the shift happened.


It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #186 on: 22 November 2021, 14:58:49 »
Or we could just realize that CBT's way of handling infantry has been built off of an adhoc set of rules and should of had a complete revisit it to it to make proper rules for infantry a long time ago. The only reason we have small arms doing damage to mechs and full combat vehicles is because that is all the rules they had to work with. There is no reason to even waste time looking at the current rules and how to beat the square peg into that round hole to get the rules to work. Just design proper infantry rules and split anti-infantry weapons from full heavy support weapons.

Yup.  Whole-heartedly yup.
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #187 on: 22 November 2021, 15:14:45 »
Yeah, I'm working with my group to do a BT mk2 picking up a lot from the HBS battletech game to update it. The goal is to remove a lot of the extraneous book keeping, while maintaining as much of the core game as we can. We haven't gotten to infantry yet but they'll be run very similar to BA, the idea being that first a squad is the minimal sized element that is viable in a BT game and nothing smaller then what is minimally viable should be tracked. The hitpoints of each squad will be an abstraction of how much damage they can take and still be functional as opposed to the number of people in the squad.

I like that last idea.  It can be a combination of stress, wounds and other things like ammo deficiency, right? 

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #188 on: 22 November 2021, 15:33:02 »
Okay.  Now I'm caught up.

I'm gonna make one more comment.  Someone made a comment, many posts and days ago, about the current version of infantry in TW being the current compromise that the PsTB were hamstrung into making.  But, the BattleMech Manual has shown that they really don't have to make compromises anymore.  They can simply not include them, and the game seems to run fine without their inclusion.

If they don't have to compromise, then, as per my thoughts at the start of this thread, what's stopping them from coming up with something a little more palatable.  It speaks to me that they didn't include them in the Mech Manaual.  It suggests that they aren't comfortable with even throwing in the core units in TW, which are pre-generated.  No TechManual required.

If they wanted to, they could fix things, and present that in a new product.  If they wanted to abstract infantry, now would be the best time to do so.

I'm personally fond of the Platoon broken down like a BA squad, with two different attack values, one for Anti-Armor, and one for Anti-personnel, with separate ranges for both.

But, I'm not averse to Infantry as objective pieces to transport, protect, and get them to an objective point, where they need to spend so many turns to accomplish their role.  Engineers to take over a control tower, or start up a shutdown mech and put a pilot in it.  Security to sweep an objective hex of any enemy resistance (in the form of Security squads) before bringing in a specialist to find whatever the objective is and cart it away.  Imagine if that were a boarding party to a landed dropship.  The imagination is the limit.

I've stated all that before, and my inspiration is also from watching playthroughs of the HBS BattleTech.  Those games, in my eyes, seem much more satisfying when you can potentially gain a huge advantage or lose it by protecting or failing to protect a simple APC while it goes to a designated part on the map.  The battle can be swung so easily by something so fragile.

By leaving them out, I feel people are missing out on that aspect of gaming, and I think it is a shame.

Everything else is semantics.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7707
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #189 on: 22 November 2021, 15:41:23 »
Okay.  Now I'm caught up.

I'm gonna make one more comment.  Someone made a comment, many posts and days ago, about the current version of infantry in TW being the current compromise that the PsTB were hamstrung into making.  But, the BattleMech Manual has shown that they really don't have to make compromises anymore.  They can simply not include them, and the game seems to run fine without their inclusion.

If they don't have to compromise, then, as per my thoughts at the start of this thread, what's stopping them from coming up with something a little more palatable.  It speaks to me that they didn't include them in the Mech Manaual.  It suggests that they aren't comfortable with even throwing in the core units in TW, which are pre-generated.  No TechManual required.

If they wanted to, they could fix things, and present that in a new product.  If they wanted to abstract infantry, now would be the best time to do so.

I'm personally fond of the Platoon broken down like a BA squad, with two different attack values, one for Anti-Armor, and one for Anti-personnel, with separate ranges for both.

But, I'm not averse to Infantry as objective pieces to transport, protect, and get them to an objective point, where they need to spend so many turns to accomplish their role.  Engineers to take over a control tower, or start up a shutdown mech and put a pilot in it.  Security to sweep an objective hex of any enemy resistance (in the form of Security squads) before bringing in a specialist to find whatever the objective is and cart it away.  Imagine if that were a boarding party to a landed dropship.  The imagination is the limit.

I've stated all that before, and my inspiration is also from watching playthroughs of the HBS BattleTech.  Those games, in my eyes, seem much more satisfying when you can potentially gain a huge advantage or lose it by protecting or failing to protect a simple APC while it goes to a designated part on the map.  The battle can be swung so easily by something so fragile.

By leaving them out, I feel people are missing out on that aspect of gaming, and I think it is a shame.

Everything else is semantics.

You make it sound so...arbitrary.  "If they wanted to..." but here's the thing:

what's the business case for doing it?  Catalyst, like Fanpro, and to an extent FASA, is a for-profit business.  Every move, every compromise, every development decision and rulebook, every boxed set and approved miniature, is designed to do one more thing beyond the artistic pleasure of doing it.

Make Money.

The diversity angle they were working with infantry rules? is about making money from an audience thirsty for more.  The decision to exclude things from the combat manual, was about the need to increase the audience in an ever-shrinking tabletop gaming market by presenting an easier to handle, 'dumbed down' version of the game as a gateway drug.

to make money.  Money so that they can pay artists, and writers and game developers, suppliers and distributors.  Money.

so...


make your business case, present the ways Catalyst and Topps can make money from your idea.

because in the end the decisions are NOT arbitrary-they're not governed by 'want to' beyond 'do you WANT TO be able to eat and pay rent?'

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #190 on: 22 November 2021, 15:52:36 »
I was including the monetary considerations as part of the 'if they want to'.



It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Nicoli

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 313
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #191 on: 22 November 2021, 16:17:34 »

I like that last idea.  It can be a combination of stress, wounds and other things like ammo deficiency, right?

Yeah, its's kind of a catchall for a bunch of things. Say a basic infantry squad had 5 hitpoints. might actually be 8 guys but when you account for Morale, carry capacity, and chance for special equipment to be destroyed once 5 points of damage have been done the squad is ineffective and the rest are either running or worrying more about taking care of the wounded. If the troops are poorer quality just reduce the number of hitpoints, say conscripts would be 3 hitpoints as they are more likely to book it after fewer casualties. Mechanized platoons can have extra hitpoints to represent the extra defense of the vehicles they fight from. Also since they are like BA you can include ammo pips for Support weapons like SRMs.

make your business case, present the ways Catalyst and Topps can make money from your idea.

because in the end the decisions are NOT arbitrary-they're not governed by 'want to' beyond 'do you WANT TO be able to eat and pay rent?'

The reason to do it to make money is that bad rules kills engagement with your game regardless of the strength of the IP. There is a reason that Battletech has maintained such a small market share of the games industry and it is entirely the fact that it is an outdated rule set that is extremely clunky and time consuming to play a fairly simple game overall.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7707
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #192 on: 22 November 2021, 16:26:35 »
Yeah, its's kind of a catchall for a bunch of things. Say a basic infantry squad had 5 hitpoints. might actually be 8 guys but when you account for Morale, carry capacity, and chance for special equipment to be destroyed once 5 points of damage have been done the squad is ineffective and the rest are either running or worrying more about taking care of the wounded. If the troops are poorer quality just reduce the number of hitpoints, say conscripts would be 3 hitpoints as they are more likely to book it after fewer casualties. Mechanized platoons can have extra hitpoints to represent the extra defense of the vehicles they fight from. Also since they are like BA you can include ammo pips for Support weapons like SRMs.

The reason to do it to make money is that bad rules kills engagement with your game regardless of the strength of the IP. There is a reason that Battletech has maintained such a small market share of the games industry and it is entirely the fact that it is an outdated rule set that is extremely clunky and time consuming to play a fairly simple game overall.

YOu do realize, don't you, that Battletech has outlived not only three publishers so far, but also most of the competition?  that it was a growing concern even when it was not being published anymore??

ISTR there's even a list of games with 'mechanics not as clunky' and detailed world building that came, burned, and went.  there are even more that never got to the burn stage.

It's only tiny compared to Warhammer.  That's like being second behind Microsoft, and far ahead of your competitors.

It's Chrysler to GM.  get it? 'tiny' is relative.  The entire tabletop MARKET is tiny, and when it started, there was Avalon Hill and TSR dominating the market.  where are they now??
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

Nicoli

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 313
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #193 on: 22 November 2021, 17:00:45 »
YOu do realize, don't you, that Battletech has outlived not only three publishers so far, but also most of the competition?  that it was a growing concern even when it was not being published anymore??

ISTR there's even a list of games with 'mechanics not as clunky' and detailed world building that came, burned, and went.  there are even more that never got to the burn stage.

It's only tiny compared to Warhammer.  That's like being second behind Microsoft, and far ahead of your competitors.

It's Chrysler to GM.  get it? 'tiny' is relative.  The entire tabletop MARKET is tiny, and when it started, there was Avalon Hill and TSR dominating the market.  where are they now??
Hate to tell you but the overall games industry has taken off quite a bit at a far faster rate then BT is growing. Battletech stuck around in spite of the game rules because the fact that the fan base is filled with dies hards. But the sad reality is that even though BT got a massive bump from the KS and recent screw-ups of GW, people playing BT have taken an absolute nose-dive in all my local FLGSs. And the reason is that after spending 3 hours playing after memorizing a bunch of tables and using a bunch of player created aids you feel like you just finished a 1 hour skirmish game and not in a good way. Even among the diehard Battletech fans in my local group I'm the only one still buying stuff, and that is just to finish out my collection pre-ilclan, because at that point barring a proper rules rewrite I'm out. There are just frankly a lot more games out there that I can get a better game out of it, if I want to deal the the Battletech IP I'll just go to the Computer games which are much more enjoyable and get rid of all the clunk of the game.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11747
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #194 on: 22 November 2021, 17:28:42 »
Avalon Hill is actually still a going concern under Hasbro.

TSR's most popular game is still very much alive under Wizards of the Coast.

Charistoph

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #195 on: 22 November 2021, 18:49:00 »
Again, playing catch-up.

From CityTech days, we didn't know jack squat about how infantry damage actually broke down.  It was inferred from the way the squad damage went down incrementally with the Platoon's HP block.

You want to know what changed that?  BattleTroops!  Whatever you might think of that sub-game, it set some lore standards.  It doesn't matter if it was later discarded the same way AT1 was.  It still showed some conceptual intent. 

For as long as it existed, I imagine it was considered canon. And, you know what that game said about infantry damage on Mechs?  Support weapons were the only certain source of damage.  Individual weapons could do damage, but required a roll of twelve somewhere, and it was only one point.  (It might have been in the to-hit roll, needing a nat-12.  I don't have the rules handy to be sure.  Someone feel free to enlighten me.)


And, when you look at the damage drop in the old platoons, I could see each damage value drop being a support weapon lost.  It wasn't the easiest to suspension of disbelief, but it was at least plausible. 

I don't know where or when the notion of the entire platoon's fire having some effect came into being.  Maybe in a novel somewhere?  But, it was never overtly stated that was how it worked.  If you can cite a source for me, please do, and give me the Copyright date on that product.  I'd love to know where the shift happened.

You might have a point except for two concepts: I was only looking at the Rifle damage chart, not one that had Support Weapons; BattleTroops operates on a completely different standard than Battletech, and that is of which I was speaking, and in there the 1 Rifle Trooper still manages to do 1 damage, and CityTech's Rifle Infantry damage is WAY lower than what is in Total Warfare right now.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25078
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #196 on: 22 November 2021, 20:17:50 »
While the principal focus of this video is on video games, I think the principles discussed are applicable to the argument about the soul of the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3q5nSqGXr4

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #197 on: 24 November 2021, 15:17:49 »
You might have a point except for two concepts: I was only looking at the Rifle damage chart, not one that had Support Weapons; BattleTroops operates on a completely different standard than Battletech, and that is of which I was speaking, and in there the 1 Rifle Trooper still manages to do 1 damage, and CityTech's Rifle Infantry damage is WAY lower than what is in Total Warfare right now.

Yeah.  The gameplay has all its own issues in BattleTroops.  (Interaction with armored units from the BattleTech board was one of the most egregious sins I'd ever seen committed.  Forcing them to use the same MP action restriction system on top of heat was the worst of that part.)  I was mostly looking at the fictional padding added to it.

And, yeah, TW infantry are higher damage.  But, CityTech infantry, if I recall, were standard all the way through the BMR, just before TW.  I'll look to be sure.  BMR happened to add a couple new types.

{back to the larger discussion}
Now, as for my treating decisions as arbitrary, in the end, it is just that.  If the people in charge don't feel/think they can justify a budget, they won't act on it.  Cannonshop, himself, pointed out in a different thread some of the early infantry playtest decisions made in spite of seemingly better ideas proposed.  You can make a grand, well-informed case with lots of data points, but it ain't happening if they 'don't want to' for whatever reason. 

Could it have been a knockout success? {quoth the Drinker; "Don't know!"}  And, we may never until someone decides 'they want to' take the risk on making it.  And, this could be done with a simple sentence encapsulating the idea and that person's wheels turning. 

So, yeah.  It really is as arbitrary as 'if they want to'.

And, trying to make a selling case here, in his sub-forum, is immaterial, because the people that make the decisions don't generally come down here, and I gather aren't supposed to for 'covering butt' reasons.



It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Charistoph

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #198 on: 24 November 2021, 15:35:03 »
And, trying to make a selling case here, in his sub-forum, is immaterial, because the people that make the decisions don't generally come down here, and I gather aren't supposed to for 'covering butt' reasons.

There is a point in that.  While a lot of people here would be totally fine with, "Sure implement my idea and I'll buy the book," there are enough people who would be like, "I though it up, put it on their forum, and now they're implementing it.  Where's my cut?", that they can't take the risk of starting it.

In a way, I would almost like to see the whole concept of "Rifle" Infantry disappear, and they would all be using one Support Arm of one or another, be it MG, Laser, Missile, PPC, etc.  The Support Arms would then be what damages armor, and then based on the Support Weapon, they would have a certain amount of Anti-Infantry ability based on who wasn't needed for the Support Arm.  This goes with an earlier idea, it just negates all small arms fire from affecting any armored vehicle.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4746
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #199 on: 24 November 2021, 15:43:34 »
While the principal focus of this video is on video games, I think the principles discussed are applicable to the argument about the soul of the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3q5nSqGXr4

Honers vs Innovators.  I see where some extremes lie.  IntroTech only crowds certainly fit the far end of the Honer crowd.  House Rules folks are definitely in the Innovator class bubble.  Certainly degrees in between.

(Aside: If I were to place myself, I'd call myself a Campaigner.  I like story.  You get to stick with a group of characters and Mechs and hone the use of your team.  Their perpetual use grants you rewards in the form of levelling up.  Story keeps missions different and thus entertaining.  And, some rewards come in the form of upgrades which could potentially be given out if you make a good choice (designed by the GM) in a mission.  And, when I'm the GM, I can play around with some small concepts with rules or tech which are unique to the scenario.)

A bit of everything.  I probably lean more toward the Innovator in many ways.  But, I've done my share of Honing when it comes to BattleTech.
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25078
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #200 on: 24 November 2021, 15:54:27 »
Glad you found the video useful!  :thumbsup:

As far as "rifle" infantry, it should help to remember that a TL C "Auto Rifle" is basically a light machine gun (no, not a Light Machine Gun).

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #201 on: 24 November 2021, 16:25:52 »
The thing with Battletech is that it is a 36 year old game that started showing the cracks in its system 34 years ago (release of AeroTech, CityTech).
The system was for lack of a better word "an outdated board gaming engine" just two years after it was released.
And 5-10 years after its released there were already games doing the same thing better and/or faster. (Renegade Legion, Heavy Gear)

The fact that Infantry is as messed up as it is fall squarely on the fact that they are still trying to make this outdated and flawed from the start engine do things it was never meant to do in the first place (everything except BattleMechs).

The main issues has always been, how do you make Infantry, tanks, fighter, etc. worth taking while still keeping BattleMechs the main focus. So now you have Rifle infantry that can for some unknown reason damage a mech with their rifles. You have LAM who own rules almost make them non-functional on the game board. You have tanks that have to move like a bunch of slaved RC cars. You also get the ballooning of the game from a couple of 40 page guides (construction rules include) to play most units, to multiple 300+ page mega book just to play most of the same stuff.

The problem with getting new players into battletech is not "Gatekeeping" or "Old Guard" running them off. The issues is Battletech in its frankensteined massive form is a cost and lore gate to new players. Add to this that, sorry to say, the actual game itself is really not that good and you wind up with less and less people willing to pay the entry fee or give it a shot.

To make a long story longer, all these threads about how to fix this part or how to change that part, are just trying to put patches on a system that needs and has needed for years, a complete overhaul.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25078
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #202 on: 24 November 2021, 16:36:22 »
Infantry has always been able to damage 'mechs.  The handwavium and magnitude have changed to varying degrees, but the Godzilla vs. spearmen trope was never quite true.

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #203 on: 24 November 2021, 16:45:13 »
Infantry has always been able to damage 'mechs.  The handwavium and magnitude have changed to varying degrees, but the Godzilla vs. spearmen trope was never quite true.

I know they have always been able to damage mechs that's why I said the cracks start when CityTech came out. You miss the point that they shouldn't be able to without support weapons. And just firing more of rifles at the Mech should not be able to change this.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25078
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #204 on: 24 November 2021, 17:00:14 »
My previous point was that TL C "rifles" would be "support" weapons with current technology.  They're basically "machine guns for all my friends".

Charistoph

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #205 on: 24 November 2021, 17:01:43 »
And 5-10 years after its released there were already games doing the same thing better and/or faster. (Renegade Legion, Heavy Gear)

Better is a matter of opinion.  While I haven't looked at Renegade legion this century, I have looked at Heavy Gear.  It isn't a better system, just different, and closer to trying to do Alpha Strike than Battletech.  It neither had nor has the grit like Battletech did and does.

You are correct that the scale is part of the problem.  The little davids against goliaths.  That doesn't mean the system is wrong, just different and probably needs to be fine-tuned.  That fine-tuning is often met with resistance.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #206 on: 24 November 2021, 17:17:06 »
Better is a matter of opinion.  While I haven't looked at Renegade legion this century, I have looked at Heavy Gear.  It isn't a better system, just different, and closer to trying to do Alpha Strike than Battletech.  It neither had nor has the grit like Battletech did and does.

You are correct that the scale is part of the problem.  The little davids against goliaths.  That doesn't mean the system is wrong, just different and probably needs to be fine-tuned.  That fine-tuning is often met with resistance.

I was pointing out Renegade legion as the better system and Heavy Gear as the faster system to be clear.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25078
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #207 on: 24 November 2021, 17:19:34 »
If Renegade Legion was so much better, why did it not survive but BattleTech did?  ???

I'm not trying to be facetious in any way... that's a totally honest question.

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #208 on: 24 November 2021, 17:32:33 »
If Renegade Legion was so much better, why did it not survive but BattleTech did?  ???

I'm not trying to be facetious in any way... that's a totally honest question.

Same reason that a lot of game with good mechanic fail.
The universe story was not as engaging and FASAs couldn't support both games towards the end.
Add to this the IP limbo that Renegade Legion has been in for awhile and you have an answer.
There was a fan movement to bring it back, but to the best of my knowledge either Topps is unwilling to license the IP or are unaware that they even own it, because they never seemed to respond to the inquiries.
 

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Does Catalyst Not Know How to Handle Infantry?
« Reply #209 on: 24 November 2021, 17:38:52 »
If you are interested in discussing it PM me or we can start a new thread. Don't want to bog this one down.
I have all the books and the Renegade Tech conversion (A Battetech Conversion for the game)