Author Topic: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.  (Read 13048 times)

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1931
The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« on: 24 February 2013, 18:08:30 »
First of all, I have to make one thing perfectly clear:

I love Battletech.

No, that wasn't strong enough.

I ****** LOVE BATTLETECH!!!

Ever since a kid sitting on a bus next to me first pulled out a TRO 3025 and I asked, "What's that?" Battletech has been a huge part of my life. I'm STILL mad at myself for leaving a copy of Sword and Dagger at the O'Hare USO. I could add a hundred more anecdotes, but the point is that it was my first wargame, one of my first RPGs, and still holds a special place in my heart.

That does not mean I think it is perfect.

I've been aware of its flaws for years. Clunky, complicated rules, incompatibility with canonical battles, long and inconclusive games... I won't go on, because the moment I first played Quickstrike it stole my heart away from Battletech.

Now the only part of straight BT I enjoy are the design rules, because complication and transparency are a GOOD thing when it comes to the underpinnings of a game's units, but during the game itself it's pure death - imagine if every first-person shooter stopped for a second before every bullet to judge whether your target dodged, where the bullet hit, whether the target succumbed to shock, or if the sound of your bullet alerted all his companions? Then paused for another second for each of THEIR bullets?

While Battletech has points in its favor, Quickstrike is the superior product - like comparing a Model T to a Shelby Cobra GT350. Yes, one came before the other, but that doesn't make it better; and the second gets you to the same destination faster AND in style.

1) RULES ELEGANCE

There are three types of rules-sets: simple, complicated, and complex. Simple is not a bad thing, if the game only covers a narrow idea (Ninja delivering hot burgers while dodging security and samurai!) then it works. If you try to extend out simple rules too broadly, though, it doesn't work.

Complicated, though... some game designers are under the impression that adding new and unique rules in a new book will add more fun to the game, when it fact all it does is necessitate more tedious book-flipping and arguments. Palladium Games is the worst for this, but Battletech has always been another example. Currently there are FIVE rulebooks that stack in at 300+ pages apiece (Total Warfare, Tactical Ops, Strategic Ops, Tech Manual, and A Time of War), each of which have rules that could be applicable at any time - for example, I like AtoW's Pilot abilities, but damn my eyes if it isn't another set of books to flip through.

Compare that to Battleforce, which has everything Battletech does (Space warfare? Fire? Critical Hits? Heat?) except the design rules in less than a hundred pages of StratOps. It abstracts the rules near-perfectly; I mean, for the purposes of a tabletop wargame do you really need to know whether your hip or knee actuator got hit, or is it enough to know that you've suffered a Motive Hit and your unit is slower?

Or take heat. The abstract concept of heat is "In exchange for slowing down, making it harder to hit, and possibly shutting down, you can do more damage briefly." Is a full 30-point heat scale REALLY necessary to represent that concept? Or would it be easier to say, "this 'Mech can overheat to add extra damage, but if it adds four points total it shuts down, and for every point it has a penalty to hit until it does nothing but vent heat."

Battleforce is cleaner. It covers all the same situations. It's easier to use. It's... complex: a rules-set that has almost all the bases covered, does so easily, and is applicable to a variety of situations.

2) INCOMPATIBILITY WITH CANONICAL BATTLES

Ironically, this was the original reason for the creation of Battleforce - while Battletech is scalable up to about 6-8 units on a side during a single game session, in the canon of Battletech unit engagements are usually at the battalion level or higher. Smaller combats might take place as skirmishes, but the actual determining battles are at much higher levels. Even the scenarios laid out in the older books were always described as "after a major combat," or "ambushing an outlying unit," never "This is the moment that the Fifth Deneb Cavalry broke the back of the Eighth Sword of Light." Some battles were described as duels or heroic one-man-on-the-bridge, but those were after or during major combats with 24 or more elements on a side.

Battletech can't do that. It just can't. It breaks down at high levels.

Enter Battleforce, with its abstraction of everything to do with Battletech. Created to simulate these large battles, its first iterations were rough, but nowadays it's a smooth machine for larger battles - and works for smaller battles, too, without all the unnecessary extra rolls. Which brings me to my next point...

3) LONG AND INCONCLUSIVE GAMES

Let's all be adults here. How many times have you played Battletech games where for half of the game time you were rolling to hit, rolling to find location, rolling to find how many missiles hit, and only scratching out circles in the armor without accomplishing anything? The excitement in Battletech only starts once the armor is pierced and critical hits are rolled - that's why TACs are such a popular additional rule.

Why does Battletech have a minimum of two rolls per weapon, and a maximum of 22?

While there are workarounds like software (Megamek!) or dice boxes, it's a fundamental problem with the rules itself if they're so complicated you can't easily play without those aids.

Battleforce does away with those excess rolls, and makes it so that each and every roll you make matters, dammit. Yes, it sucks whiffing four or five times in a row, but each of those rolls mattered, unlike "Out of five medium lasers, three hit, one hit the right torso, two hit the left arm, oh, I get a critical roll? Ok, I roll... a three. I don't force a PSR, darnit."

You can pinpoint critical rolls and important missed opportunities far more easily than with Battletech, where you pound on each other for half the game before anything really happens except pure lucky headshots or TACs.


Can any other fans come up with more reasons to prefer Quickstrike to Battletech?

Wolflord

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3621
  • Look Ma! I have enough posts for a time jump!
Re: The reasons Quickstrike is superior to standard Battletech.
« Reply #1 on: 24 February 2013, 18:51:12 »
Never played Quickstrike, actually got Battleforce before Battletech back in ye olde days.

Battletech to me is primarily a system for duelling if I want to scale things up I prefer to use Battleforce although recently I've experimented with "this timber wolf represents a heavy cluster and that Zeus represents an assault battalion" using battletech rules the results have been mixed.

What I like about Battleforce and from the description above would like about Quickstrike is the scale of the combat that it allows.

William J. Pennington

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1027
Re: The reasons Quickstrike is superior to standard Battletech.
« Reply #2 on: 24 February 2013, 22:30:50 »
I'm a big fan of Quickstriek, and regualr battleech. However, given the default nature of the internet, I'd heartily reccomend changign the thread to :Reasons I like Quickstrike, or Strengths of Quickstrike, or advantages.  Subject headlines of "Why  X is superior to Z" can often derail a discussion from its more positive aspects.


Ok, that said: Things I like about Quickstrike.

This is where I feel elements like Artillery belong.  So I often will use it--using my house rules for Artillery on terrain, or hexmaps.  Quickstrike and Battleforce bring the scale of games where Artillery makes sense.  This is where the bug gun support of artillery, heavy  aerospace support make such sense.

The use of the abstract aerospace rules: best integration of aero units without bogging down the game.

Units begin to shine. Well constructed units (I'm talking company or larger formations) really shine.  The pursuit lance, the fire support lance, the electronics specialist..the synergy if planned construction just seems more evident.

Light 'Mechs are relevant again. Fragile, can vanish if the blink of an eye, but they are combat relevant, in addition to using the objective rules that they excel at.

Its a wondderful hook to bring in new players and then get them exposed to the extra detail and joy of regular Battletech.


Atlas3060

  • Plodding along...
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8467
  • WHAP Wielder
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #3 on: 25 February 2013, 09:01:00 »
Quickstrike is a lot of fun, but I wish there were official rules for hexed play.
My group has cobbled something together though and enjoy it anyways.
I can't really say its superior to Total Warfare scaled games, because that would be like saying Battleforce is superior to both of them.
It is though a great new 'scale' of play in which I highly encourage those who want a fast game to play.

This is where multiple lance battles should focus, it works out so well.
Total Warfare, to me, seems to be best scaled for one lance versus another.
Much like how A Time of War works well with 1-5 character players versus random NPC mooks this is how I see Total Warfare now.

When you get into each side having two lances that's when Quick Strike should be used unless you are a group of experienced players who can quickly play out those lances in TW format.

Though the personal touch of pleading that your AC holds together for that one last shot is gone it is traded off by the ability to play a lot of quick and fun games with people which brings in curious players.
Kerensky: Ahh! After 300 years I'm free! It's time to conquer Terra!

Blake: Toyama-5, Kerensky's escaped. Recruit 5 House Teens with attitudes.

GO GO COMSTAR RANGERS! *Guitar Riff*
--Intercepted transmissions from children's programming on Terra 3057

Son of Kerenski

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Everything is AWESOME.
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #4 on: 25 February 2013, 11:13:05 »
I am definately going to teach any newbies Quickstrike/BF over the full game of Battletech as an easier way to get them into the basic feel for the game.

Toyama

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #5 on: 25 February 2013, 16:01:38 »
so:

4) ARTILLERY and ABSTRACT AEROSPACE
Without these two, Quickstrike can get stale in just a few plays; with them, Quickstrike ROCKS!
Unfortunately, at the moment, both artillery and aerospace rules are too scattered through rulebooks and not clear enough for use with Quickstrike. Our playgroup uses heavily house-ruled variants - and we play Quickstrike on hex.

also:

5) CAMPAIGN PLAY
The more speedy gameplay combined with larger force sizes of Quickstrike makes for an excellent basis for campaign play. The detail of the Chaos Campaign system is a bit too much for Quickstrike. Besides, we wanted both players in a scenario to be part of the campaign, instead of one player campaigning and the other filling in the role of generic opponent. We wrote our own campaign system.
This campaign is played over the map of the Inner Sphere. Each battle/scenario in the campaign is proxy to the outcome of a larger conflict. Between scenarios, the timeline is advanced one year and the map of the IS is adjusted. The RPG element is restricted to the experience of pilots, according to which the skill stat of pilots is being set. More detailed traits than just the skill stats tend to get overlooked during gameplay anyway.
Scenario objectives (2/player, attacker and defender) are chosen randomly and secretly. Guessing what the exact objectives of the opponent are makes for an interesting "sub-game" (like in Risk).

6) USE YOUR PREVIOUSLY DISLIKED MODELS
In Quickstrike, lots of your previously disliked models appear to be not as bad as you thought. Also, combined arms are more feasible. It is less common to see battles with only 'mechs. Vehicles and battle armour have their own specific role and there is room to take them to play that part.

Stolenbjorn

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Knight of the Internet
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #6 on: 25 February 2013, 16:42:37 »
Is this when I ask somebody to point me to Quickstrike/battleforce rules?
Personally, I've loved ASL, especially the way squads are treated, and I have made some lance = smallest unit-sort of games on my own where I've incorporated things from ASL that I like, but it would be fun to compare it to theese two games :D

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 30500
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #7 on: 25 February 2013, 16:44:20 »
Is this when I ask somebody to point me to Quickstrike/battleforce rules?

StratOps. O0
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
Battleforce Space is too bulky. I vote we start calling it BattleFace.

Cambo

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 183
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #8 on: 26 February 2013, 02:03:45 »
Is this when I ask somebody to point me to Quickstrike/battleforce rules?
StratOps. O0
There's also the quickstart rules for download in the downloads section of the homepage
http://bg.battletech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BattleForce_QSR.pdf

Again Kerenski and I have had much success once you modify the init (to battletech style), and add artillery
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,21152.0.html



Son of Kerenski

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Everything is AWESOME.
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #9 on: 26 February 2013, 04:21:15 »
/\ What he said! /\

Especially setting stacking limits & the staggered/normal Battletech initiative rule.

keisukekun

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 477
  • A Love Suicide
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #10 on: 26 February 2013, 05:46:55 »
I just played a game of QS and while it was fun I prefer vanilla BT. When I was playing I didn't feel too invested in my units.  It felt too much like a skirmish/army scale game where your units drop pretty fast.  They have basic health points and damage numbers.   Vanilla BT does a much better job of illustrating that feeling of two big robots pounding on each other.  You look at your unit and you see it has lost an arm, is limping, the pilot is barely conscious, hes out of ammo and is left with a few lazors, running away from an assault mech trying to land a lucky shot.  Its a much more cinematic experience and that is the experience I play this game for. Vanilla BT, up to 12 mechs a side I think works great and quick as long as everyone knows the rules. QS is great I think for battle over 18-20 mechs a side, especially once Interstellar ops comes out and we have more rules for large campaigns. 

Your argument about the rulebooks has some merit but the way the rulebooks are designed you usually only need one or two of them.  Total warfare is pretty much all you need for most regular BT games and tac ops expands on those rules with more equipment and options.  Past that you have the construction rulebook, and the one that deals with mostly aerospace.  Interstellar will mostly deal with large scale stuff.

All in all I like how they structured the different books so you can dive in as deep as you want.
« Last Edit: 26 February 2013, 05:59:40 by keisukekun »

YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4187
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #11 on: 26 February 2013, 13:40:27 »
↑ Seconded ↑

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

...oh gods, I just tried to imagine herding mimetic cats.
The Lyrans aren't losers.  They're...winning impaired.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7332
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #12 on: 26 February 2013, 15:01:06 »
I certainly like both.  And agree that BattleTech leads to an investment in an individual unit (BattleMech) far beyond what almost any game, even most RPGs, can manage.
That said, I like the option of Quickstrike to either 1) play a game faster and/or 2) enjoy commanding a force (without having to spend an entire weekend doing so).  It's far more likely i'll enjoy important options like objectives (where having a reserve to throw to reinforce one side or another is a necessary thing), artillery (I'm usually going to spend one of my 4 units on being artillery), aerospace/infantry (again, if my BattleTech games are normally 4 on 4, that doesn't leave much room for non-'Mechs).
When playing a game with more than 2 players, I can still hand out a command, not just a single unit.  Again, without making it a 12+ hour game. 

So I'm not going to play one exclusive to the other.  But I'm going to enjoy my options.
Master Unit List website - where to find units, what factions use them, what's their BV?
http://www.masterunitlist.info
3025-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Gunbunnie

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • My first mech was a...
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #13 on: 26 February 2013, 15:05:40 »
We play Battletech for small engagements or important engagements. For anything larger that lance on lance we have been using Quickstrike with and without hexes. My stepson and I, after the semester is over, are going to start a campaign with Planetary Assault worked in ( I am thinking of some house rule to use) with Quickstrike. Might have one or two battles with Battletech.

I guess for this topic I would say that I perfer Quickstrike over Battletech for large engagements.
"Artillerymen believe the world consist of two types of people; other Artillerymen and targets."
- Unknown

George_Labour

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 284
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #14 on: 26 February 2013, 19:23:34 »
I've pretty much run nothing but QS every week for the last two years as part of an ongoing Jihad campaign at my FLGS. I've found I like it far more than even intro rules battletech for its sheer speed and ease of learning.

For example I had a chap join four weeks ago, and had him play one game as the Opfor. The next week with a bit of help from me he had his own mercenary company up and rolling. Last week I got his girlfriend to play against him and by the end of the game she had learned to make extensive use of cover, overheating, and jumping versus ground movement. Next week she'll be taking her own group onto the field while the boyfriend plays his unit against one of the other players.

So in about two to three games I can take someone who has never played a war game before and get them to a point where they can play through most of a game with only a handful of questions from me and most of those involve LOS judgements.

And since the rules are so simple even folks who don't sit down and read the entire rule set seem quite able to retain the information needed to play a game without referencing a chart to often. In fact most of my current crop of players have memorized the to hit modifiers and the mech critical hit charts thus speeding up play.

Then there is of course the matter that having 12 mechs stomp through a 3D battlefield of rivers, buildings, and craters is just so much more visually appealing than the maps. In fact that visual element is what has gotten us a handful of casual sorts who show up every now and then to play the 'bad guys' for that week. People who are more into games like Flames of War or 40k seem to transition very quickly to the way cover and maneuver works in QS.

Also, it lets me throw out entire battalions complete with support units and get a major game done inside of six hours when I play with my fellow GM.

doulos05

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 632
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #15 on: 27 February 2013, 01:41:59 »
[Battletech] a much more cinematic experience and that is the experience I play this game for.
This is very true. Battletech is very cinematic. But it's also pretty slow and it only feels cinematic once you've internalized the rules sufficiently that they don't break suspension (this happens at different thresholds and rates for different people)

Quote
Vanilla BT, up to 12 mechs a side I think works great and quick as long as everyone knows the rules.
12 mechs to a side!?! How long do your games take? I can't imagine a 12v12 taking less than 6 hours unless you're on MegaMek. One of the things I love about board games is that they are relatively slow. But even I balk at a 6 hour time block for 1 game. That's why I haven't played Axis and Allies in years.

Quote
QS is great I think for battle over 18-20 mechs a side, especially once Interstellar ops comes out and we have more rules for large campaigns. 
I think that, just like "cinematic" is the word that best describes BattleTech, "Epic" (in the traditional sense of large rather than than the leet speek sense of totally awesome) is the word that best describes Battleforce. The dramatic, sweeping engagement between 2 Bn+ forces as they wrestle across a massive AO is the essence of Battleforce.

And, just as you play for the cinematic, these days I play for the epic. There was a time I liked knowing my individual units made a difference on the battlefield. These day, I find I like the feel of large clashes between soldiers rather than climatic duels between warriors.

Honestly, the tool which would make BF the only version of Battletech I ever play (aside from random MM games) is a computer program where I could enter my BF force and the damage and criticals it took and it would spit out a Megamek unit roster I can load into MegaMekHQ for repairs and which could take a Megamek unit roster and convert them back to BF (to handle partially repaired units, etc). If we had that, I'd never look back because unit continuity in BF is the biggest campaign challenge due to the increased abstraction
« Last Edit: 27 February 2013, 01:46:47 by doulos05 »
I mean, it's not like once you having something in low Earth orbit you can stick a gassy astronaut on the outside after Chili Night and fart it anywhere in the solar system.

Gustav Kuriga

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 424
  • Fluffeh Fennec
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #16 on: 27 February 2013, 03:36:26 »
Try 18 mechs versus over 40 vehicles on MegaMek. in a dropship landing...

Personally, I don't like how incredibly simplified things seem to be for Battleforce.
that's nonsense you loon. i use a hammer to drive screws and I ENJOY IT  - Cik


William J. Pennington

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1027
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #17 on: 27 February 2013, 04:27:24 »
I've found that, in a very controlled scenarios, given two experienced players with a lance each, using time limits, you'll hopefully get 10-12 turns in two hours with equal BV forces.

Anythign approaching a company per side, that I want to finish in a afternoon, or just a day, I now play exclusively with Quick-Strike.

Given the ability to translate damage up or down between the scales of play, plenty of opportunity still exists for synergy.  I could see players fighting down to one unit a piece in Quickstrike, then saying 'Let's settle this in Battletech rules".


Dropkick

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 614
Re: The reasons Quickstrike is superior to standard Battletech.
« Reply #18 on: 27 February 2013, 19:04:08 »

Light 'Mechs are relevant again. Fragile, can vanish if the blink of an eye, but they are combat relevant, in addition to using the objective rules that they excel at.


OMG you said it.  I played a Dragonfly the other day.  The guy I was running against got close enough with this Stormcrow that I was able to jump behind him and shoot.  It was a tough shot and I missed but I noticed that due to the move of the Dragonfly that stormcrow was never gonna get away from me.  I was always going to end up, as long as I won ini., on his tail.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1931
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #19 on: 27 February 2013, 19:29:05 »
Thank you, Doulos! You put the perfect word to Battleforce/Quickstrike:

EPIC

It's on a grand and sweeping scale, which is what Battletech feels like it should be to me: armies of giant robots struggling for the fate of worlds. It just doesn't feel... right to me that a lance-sized conflict is the deciding battle each time, every time - sometimes it may be important, but by and large it simply doesn't feel like it should be the key of the Battletech universe, to me at least.

The core of the Battletech rules are suited to a role-playing game scale with only a few units on a side, and it's well-suited for that, but that isn't what's described in the Battletech universe as being THE common battles.

What matters are engagements like the first battle on Trellwan, where the Clans cut the unsuspecting defenders to ribbons and they sacrificed themselves to get Prince Victor off the planet, not Prince Victor's minor battle where he used the terrain to win a brief victory.

Or the last stand of the Dragoons on Misery, where the entire warmachine of the Draconis Combine sought to defend the honor of the Coordinator against one mercenary unit, rather than take advantage of the FedSun's focus on the Capellan Confederation to invade the Draconis March.

Or the Great Refusal where the Crusader and Warden philosophies collided on Strana Mechty.

Or Halstead Station, where in a raid-in-force by Prince Hanse Davion to destroy massive supply depots the Coordinator had been building up actually discovered the lostech stash which lead to the founding of the NAIS.

Or... well, dozens of other examples. Like every planet actually invaded and lost to another force. Battalion level engagements are the de facto universe standard, and EVERY scenario book I've ever read (from the ancient Kell Hounds book to the newest Sword and Dragon book) stretches plausibility to make the minor 3-5 element battle matter, or outright said it DOESN'T matter and that it takes place before or after an actual, important battle.

The NOVELS focus on stories where one hero turns the tide of battle (the dramatic situation where Kai Allard-Liao destroyed an entire Cluster, for example) but the whole REASON he was there was because a larger battle was lost, and (if you'll recall the book) Victor didn't consider the planetary battle lost and was planning to redeploy his forces to cover the lost flank.


So, er. tl;dr version: Battletech the GAME doesn't accurately represent Battletech the UNIVERSE for me, whereas Battleforce/Quickstrike DOES.

And with Kell's rules for pilots and pilot abilities adding just the right touch of RPG elements to the QS rules (shout out to tha man who made 'em!), I find no real reason to go back.

Well, unless I run a Solaris VII RPG campaign. For one-on-one duels where suspenseful combat is THE choice, then I'd pick Battletech.

William J. Pennington

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1027
Re: The reasons Quickstrike is superior to standard Battletech.
« Reply #20 on: 27 February 2013, 22:27:16 »
OMG you said it.  I played a Dragonfly the other day.  The guy I was running against got close enough with this Stormcrow that I was able to jump behind him and shoot.  It was a tough shot and I missed but I noticed that due to the move of the Dragonfly that stormcrow was never gonna get away from me.  I was always going to end up, as long as I won ini., on his tail.

A slow heavy or assault lance that gets seperated from the main body and attacked by a good group of light movers can be in trouble.  It's like large dangerous herd animals being stalked by a pack of wolves.  I've seen the target lances go back to back (or in a square formation just  in desperation to make sure someone gets a shot.

Cik

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #21 on: 03 March 2013, 16:18:50 »
shrug. megamek makes everything easy for me. it doesn't seem like i need any more simplification when i've played trinary V trinary in MM and it doesn't take that long tbh. i'd give it a try, but the advantages you seem to give it don't appeal to me. maybe i'm just too vanilla.

Gustav Kuriga

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 424
  • Fluffeh Fennec
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #22 on: 03 March 2013, 16:38:17 »
shrug. megamek makes everything easy for me. it doesn't seem like i need any more simplification when i've played trinary V trinary in MM and it doesn't take that long tbh. i'd give it a try, but the advantages you seem to give it don't appeal to me. maybe i'm just too vanilla.

I agree with you. It loses its uniqueness and becomes just another strategy game...
that's nonsense you loon. i use a hammer to drive screws and I ENJOY IT  - Cik


Cik

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #23 on: 03 March 2013, 18:11:34 »
I agree with you. It loses its uniqueness and becomes just another strategy game...
there is an argument to be made for it i think, but i was always on the complexity and depth > learning curve and time to play
to me it's almost always better to play something more deep and interesting for much longer, than to play something that is shallower for less time. but then again, i have a lot of time so.

doulos05

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 632
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #24 on: 03 March 2013, 19:45:57 »
shrug. megamek makes everything easy for me. it doesn't seem like i need any more simplification when i've played trinary V trinary in MM and it doesn't take that long tbh. i'd give it a try, but the advantages you seem to give it don't appeal to me. maybe i'm just too vanilla.
Megamek has opened up a whole other world of options. But first of all, Trinary vs. Trinary is still only 30 elements in total. Battleforce is optimized at the Bn. vs. Bn. or Cluster vs. Cluster level, that's 70 to 72 elements in total. And it works smoothly up to Regiment vs. Regiment, that's 216 elements in total. Battles at that scale feel much different than even Trinary vs. Trinary fights. As a kid, my dad and I hacked together an interlocking strategy game with 3 levels of maps to play out the invasion of Tikonov in the 4SW. Operational to Strategic is the level I love, and Battleforce does that. Cleanly and easily.

I mean, it's not like once you having something in low Earth orbit you can stick a gassy astronaut on the outside after Chili Night and fart it anywhere in the solar system.

Cik

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #25 on: 03 March 2013, 21:58:17 »
Megamek has opened up a whole other world of options. But first of all, Trinary vs. Trinary is still only 30 elements in total. Battleforce is optimized at the Bn. vs. Bn. or Cluster vs. Cluster level, that's 70 to 72 elements in total. And it works smoothly up to Regiment vs. Regiment, that's 216 elements in total. Battles at that scale feel much different than even Trinary vs. Trinary fights. As a kid, my dad and I hacked together an interlocking strategy game with 3 levels of maps to play out the invasion of Tikonov in the 4SW. Operational to Strategic is the level I love, and Battleforce does that. Cleanly and easily.

cluster V cluster could be done i think, but halfway past that would start to become unmanageable i think. and that's assuming it's mostly 'mechs, toss in omnifighter and infantry/battle armor stars and it gets very cluttered.

doulos05

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 632
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #26 on: 03 March 2013, 22:52:52 »
cluster V cluster could be done i think, but halfway past that would start to become unmanageable i think. and that's assuming it's mostly 'mechs, toss in omnifighter and infantry/battle armor stars and it gets very cluttered.
Cluster v. Cluster would take way too long, I think. And I play games like Diplomacy, Risk, Axis and Allies, and all the old Avalon Hills, so I have a high tolerance for long game lengths.
I mean, it's not like once you having something in low Earth orbit you can stick a gassy astronaut on the outside after Chili Night and fart it anywhere in the solar system.

Gustav Kuriga

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 424
  • Fluffeh Fennec
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #27 on: 04 March 2013, 02:51:15 »
Megamek has opened up a whole other world of options. But first of all, Trinary vs. Trinary is still only 30 elements in total. Battleforce is optimized at the Bn. vs. Bn. or Cluster vs. Cluster level, that's 70 to 72 elements in total. And it works smoothly up to Regiment vs. Regiment, that's 216 elements in total. Battles at that scale feel much different than even Trinary vs. Trinary fights. As a kid, my dad and I hacked together an interlocking strategy game with 3 levels of maps to play out the invasion of Tikonov in the 4SW. Operational to Strategic is the level I love, and Battleforce does that. Cleanly and easily.

My campaign group gets up to 70 units occasionally. The Dropship landing especially was memorable. ^_^
that's nonsense you loon. i use a hammer to drive screws and I ENJOY IT  - Cik


Son of Kerenski

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Everything is AWESOME.
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #28 on: 04 March 2013, 06:42:31 »
My campaign group gets up to 70 units occasionally. The Dropship landing especially was memorable. ^_^

We played a Battalion vs Battalion with just 9 minis per side.

Gustav Kuriga

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 424
  • Fluffeh Fennec
Re: The reasons to prefer Quickstrike over Battletech.
« Reply #29 on: 04 March 2013, 11:20:24 »
We don't play with minis, just Megamek. I have much more fun than I think I would with the tabletop version.
that's nonsense you loon. i use a hammer to drive screws and I ENJOY IT  - Cik