BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Administration and Moderation => BattleTech News => Catalyst Asks You! => Topic started by: HABeas2 on 20 September 2012, 20:38:17
-
Hello,
So, this is part 2 of the Retcon Reset discussion: How much change can we bear?
In this part, you are given two votes--and two sets of 6 options: [Story] and [Game] changes. You must place 1 vote in each of the two categories to register your attitudes toward how much change you feel the story can bear versus the game rules. These options all presuppose that a retcon is coming (though how far back in the in-universe timeline it applies was settled in Part 1) that will be significant in some way, affecting more than one book.
[Story] changes reflect in-universe aesthetics, data, history, characters, and such that are what drive the fundamentals of the universe, but may or may not matter to the tabletop play. These can range from the art style of the 'Mechs (yeah, guys, changing the Unseen, as retcons go, is really technically a minor point, as it doesn't do a thing to the storyline at all) and basic cost stats to a paradigm-shifting universe blink in which everything we know about the backstory and setting is completely wrong.
[Game] changes reflect mechanical aspects of how one plays in BattleTech's setting, but may or may not matter to the story at large. These can range from the tweaking gameplay modifiers and range stats (Making ranges more "realistic" might change the size of your gaming tables, but as rules retcons go, they'd be modest at best, as we can easily contain that with scale tweaks throughout the whole setting) to a complete design overhaul in which everything we know about the game is transformed into something that no longer meshes with the 25 years of game rules and stats that came before.
So, cast your votes, and have fun discussing! As with Part 1, this poll runs until this coming Halloween!
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Modest changes all around are best.
Like more than a few players, I got in from the story side (novels in 3rd grade), and for the most part the game system works. I just needs trimming.
-
Originally I said I wouldn't let this frighten me...but I'm getting a little nervous... :)
-
I went with modest all around as well. If done with care, I could see my way up to major in either category.
-
Minor across the board. I don't mind some changes. Most of them can almost be classified under errata rather then a retcon anyway.
-
Minor Story / Modest for Rules are my calls.
If story gets changed so moderately (or more) and it ends up invalidating 25 years worth of material, people will stop buying. I don't think anyone wants that. Fixing minor events, typos and logical errors because someone forgot to check older source shouldn't be barred. I think if anything needs it should be handled in a style like line-item subjects: Such as Unseens's images. Something that hindering the entire franchise's survival ability to function, would require to be fixed. Such as replacing unseens' images.
Rules: Things that needs to be updated, fixed, etc which doesn't compromises what makes the game fun in the first place should happen. Other game plays styles have existed in Battletech's universe, they can continue exist side by side. Not everyone going want everything replaced with another new mechanic unless something REALLY broken.
-
If you are going to go, go all in I say.
-
I love the core mechanics overall, but I think a lot of the peripherals could be made to match a little better, be more consistent with the styles originally set in the core rules that dealt with BattleMechs.
As for Storyline? If I had a choice, it would be less to do with any particular event and more to do with a couple concepts.
The big thing is internal consistency. I've always viewed the fiction and background information as an extension of the game and its mechanics and vice versa. I want to read about how something happens in a battle and want to be able to literally roll the dice in my head and nod and say to myself, "Yeah. That's generally how it goes in a game." On the flip side, the ranges are a particular distance for Handwavium and Bullbutter reasons, and certain modifiers apply in matching cercumstances.
So, the changes would be modest, overall. (Although there are times I'm wanting something slightly extreme, such as reviving the old AT1 rules for Star League Era space battles to bring back the magic of the era, as an example, or refining interpretations of old LAM rules to come up with different generations of that line. Something about the older rules makes the units under them seem more powerful because they have fewer limitations.)
But, that aside the changes I'd make wouldn't be necessarily separate between fiction and rules. There's a handwavium reason for the ranges being so short? Then make sure new items introduced take that into account. Have some author or creative individual come up with a semi-plausible layman's bullshit explanation and build off it. Go backwards in time and show how certain technologies became prevalent and rendered all others irrelevant. The BattleMech is the King of the Battlefield? Show it, and don't pander.
However, if there would be something ignored that would have been cool, there should be a reason and means to include it. Factions with completely unique flavors, and combat units that follow a different set of rules that mesh with the core system would be excellent things to add. Some long lost periphery kingdom decided to focus their efforts on Tanks, and they have antigrav monstrocities that are the equal to a BattleMech. (I think tanks that have an internals table like battlemechs would be cool.)Etc. So on. And so forth.
-
Reset the storyline to 1910. Add new game rules for flying battleships.
W. ;)
-
Excellent Idea, troll!
Tezla Ray Cannons from steam powered titans might have a devestating effect on electroid though.
-
Oh, definitely kill LAM's.
-
Everything in moderation....
-
I gotta be honest, I'd LOVE, absolutely LOVE - and both from a game mechanics standpoint and a story standpoint - to see TPTB go back and change things so that the Clans never existed. But I'm also aware of the fact that the Clans have a HUGE fan base and are a big market, so it really wouldn't help the game as a PRODUCT, despite the fact that I think it would help the game SYSTEM and the UNIVERSE immensely.
-
I voted for minor changes only to both story and rules. By that I mean more of an errata type change than anything fundamental. If a rule has a bug that needs to be tweaked (such as when the skidding rules were corrected to reflect the laws of physics), okie dokie. Anything more substantial needs to be left alone.
Same with the story. Dates don't match up? Errata, including the ever popular in-universe "Comstar lied to you" or "Records were lost during the xyz so we only had sketchy details, but now thanks to 123 we now know..." is a good fix. Beyond that, leave it alone.
Maybe I should have gone with the "Don't change nuthin'!"
-
Modest story and Major game changes.
Modest story because well, I kinda like the idea of the GDL surviving Hesperus II, eh.
Major game since I seriously dislike the rules for motorized and mechanized infantry and would like to see the rules reflect real life closer. I won't get into specifics here but am more than willing to discuss my ideas further in a more appropriate forum thread.
-
All in. I still say if you're gonna do it go all out.
-
Reset the storyline to 1910. Add new game rules for flying battleships.
W. ;)
Like the idea, but only if I can have something like the Space Battleship Yamato in my fleet.....lol
-
I'm for minor tweeks to the game rules (like making tanks and support craft more combat effective/not easily killed especially with it heading into the dark ages timeline when said units will see greater use.) but story wise I wouldn't change it. My 2 cents.
-Gunz
-
I am a huge fan of comics and a reboot of sorts or a major change could be fun to read, write and explore.
Change of game rules? Statting from scratch? Just make a new game don't rewrite any of the core rules.
-
Modest for both.
I don't want a new game, or I'll been in Warmachines a long-long ago.
Extreme retcon for me same as the "another game I'll never play"
-
I went with modest story changes and major gameplay changes. For story changes I think things are more or less fine and shifting the balance of power would not really achieve anything, but there are definitely rough spots that could use changes and they may take more than minor tweaking to fix.
As for gameplay, I am more accepting of changes there because there are some outstanding issues like ballistic weapons (especially the multi-shot versions) that could use some serious help. My other big complaint is the LAM construction rules which I think need to be totally torn down and rebuilt because allowing iJJs offers just as much effective weight savings as all the other technologies that got banned without imposing the same crit costs and also makes it so any optimal LAM must weigh 55 tons. I would have allowed them to mount anything except iJJs and been done with it, but at this point this would require a major retcon.
-
Minor story changes are ok. Especially when there are so many old and overlapping stories that just don't make sense. If you don't tear a hole in the Sphere while doing it, I'm sure we will adjust. Older players, like myself, can be taught new stuff right?
Modest for gameplay. There already so many changes I haven't seen. Why not more. I'm sure it's for the betterment of out gaming experience.
-
I'd love to see the Zellbrigen rules re-written to reflect the realism of canon. The rules should also reflect a logical flow of combat and reasonable incorporation of common weapon types.
Example: The current rules do not consider the large amount of resources spent producing Artillery, Battle Armor and Vehicles. If these pieces of equipment are so easily excluded from combat, why would they be manufactured? Their inclusion in combat as non-warriors seems like a logical and practical idea, allowing them to fire freely at warrior and non-warrior targets.
Current, Total Warfare rules make Clan combat seem like two kickball teams picking partners before a game; it doesn't resemble warfare on any level. The Clans are masters of combat and are the descendents (worshipers) of the SLDF: Understanding and applying dynamic combat seems more reasonable than excluding extremely expensive units from a fight.
-
Minor changes to storyline and rules- just to make it easier for the team to deal with inconsistencies and errors made in the past and to get rid of the unseen.
-
[Story] Minor. (Examples: Statistical data or imagery changes that tweak universe factoids but have little impact on story. Changes to population numbers, economic factors, planetary data, force sizes, the look of the Unseen, etc.)
I voted this, but with the caveat that I'm agreeing in general principle, not specific detail.
[Game] Modest. (Examples: A swath of rules tweaks are made that shifts game balance to a small degree or changes one aspect of design, such as a rewrite of large spacecraft construction, or a change in dice mechanics from D6 to D12.)
Again I voted this, but would add that I was torn with the next level up, but the specific details put me off. The principle was good though.
-
Hello,
I voted this, but with the caveat that I'm agreeing in general principle, not specific detail.
Again I voted this, but would add that I was torn with the next level up, but the specific details put me off. The principle was good though.
No specific details were given, only examples, which were needed to delineate between the levels and impact of change. There's a difference.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Story- Minor
Though I would take issue with some of the things you lumped into minor, like the looks of machines or force sizes vs. straight goofy FASANOMICS. Application of these kinds of changes can really go into much heavier brackets. If you modify force sizes to make sense with stated Btech populations and industry, suddenly every Battletech war shown in the concurrent timeline looks far different than previously depicted.
Art issues are more an issue I take with Catalyst's position(and those that came before them) that all art is the lowest form of canon. While this keeps you from getting bogged down in goofy stuff shown in a one-off page in a scenario-book, it also tempts you to view all Battletech art as simply a skin applied over concepts. The iconography of the game is not such that I believe all art can be treated with so little value.
All in all, I trust you guys, but that first bit seems kind of weighted, like those bundle commercials. "But I just want you to fix population sizes." "Too bad, bundle."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BcQpOGpxcI
Rules- Modest
I trust you guys to keep the feel, even if I'm rolling a D20 for LRM-20 cluster hits. Catalyst has a pretty solid record of playtesting so the trust is there for most folks I think.
-
Hello,
No specific details were given, only examples, which were needed to delineate between the levels and impact of change. There's a difference.
With all due respect to you, as is your due, what you think you've said and meant is not the same as what the reader will think you've said and meant. :o
You may not like the fact that I am a total moron who doesn't understand the Queen's English and who misinterprets anything you say, and uses it against you, but it is not done out of malice a forethought. ??? It's just that writing is an art, not a science; otherwise it would be called mathematics. :-*
-
[Modest] Story and [Minor] Game and with my Age of War selection from part 1 that's the most comfortable I can be.
For the story I have no problems with certain things being lost to history.
Maybe there was a small kingdom that was absorbed or had their own exodus. Now they've come back to cause mayhem on the House Lord that specifically targetted them all those centuries, or even just they now shift the balance of power after masterfully moving into the right spots.
Oh we got the introdate to a lot of things wrong, there was serious erratta in Encyclopedia Terra volume 3,000.
For the game I chose minor changes because honestly that's where I'm scared. Yes the story is the main reason I'm here but the gameplay helps me stay here when there's not enough stories to read. I almost voted for Severe because I saw the words Quick-Strike and dear sweet Ghu/Cat I love that format of the game, but the parts of removing non 'Mechs from the game entirely scared me.
I love non Mech elements! In fact I pulled people into the setting with the fact that this game scales everywhere. And I do mean everywhere. You can go nitty gritty in story or just blow stuff up at random. You can be a House Lord dictating the moves of everyone or just a simple infantry trooper hoping to survive this one gun fight. It shows the fun in a game when I can be a ship's captain dropping off the ground pounders then switch to being that kickass Mechwarrior striding into battle.
Now if Battletech proper was still provided and Quick Strike was sold as "Mechs only, want more detail? Go to traditional Battletech" that would be good, but we run the same risk of having a redheaded stepchild title again. However if done right you can set up the Mech rules for Quick Strike and pocket it away because it isn't going to be integrated into TT Battletech. It would be the little sibling to the title and not a forgotten one. That was the problem with RPGs and Aerotech. You practically had to integrate them because of the variety it provides to the fight.
But Quick Strike? Oh it just has Mechs. BT TT has Mechs too. There's no integration needed, thus it could stand on its own.
Now I don't know what's behind the curtain manpower-wise and if this would be a feasible notion. I'll trust in your judgement either way.
I hope this wasn't too much of a ramble and explained my position well.
-
If only I could pick two here.....
-
If only I could pick two here.....
You can and are supposed to. Read the OP. O0
-
Minor changes to storyline and rules- just to make it easier for the team to deal with inconsistencies and errors made in the past and to get rid of the unseen.
This is pretty much my stance as well. I'd rather the Unseen stuck around just in case the image rights ever can be regained, but I've no problem with there being Age of War, Star league, and Project Phoenix versions that look different.
Overall, I'd be more open to changes to the rules than to the setting - while it's impressive that the core rules haven't changed much since 1984, we've had radical changes to infantry, Aerospace, the RPG, BattleTroops and BattleForce and the franchise has survived all them.
-
Star Maps 3D or at least recognize that there are three dimensions.
Fix populations. Try to fix economies.
Not as concerned about army sizes. More emphasis on conventional arms, I guess. Battlemechs must be supreme on battlefield. No aliens, of course.
-
[Story] Minor - I kind of like the way things are, but if TPTB need minor room to make this universe go more smoothly then they may have it.
[Game] Extreme - I always wanted to see a truly unified construction and a more consistent rule system. The only limit that I would have is that all previous units must remain optional in the game (like still being able to design and play with warships). I would give a big applause if the required amount of handwavium that we need gets reduced.
-
I wouldn't mind minor or moderate changes. I can accept most rule changes so long as they can overall improve the flow of the game and story line. After all I don't have to use them if I don't like them. But I don't want changes force me to buy the basic battletech stuff all over again just to stay current or be able to have a reasonable chance to win against another player. I got out of magic the Gathering because I couldn't keep up the cost of buying the latest pack of cards. etc. The overall cost for me will be an big indicator if I accept changes or not.
bottom line, pocket book
I hope this is helpfull.
thanks
John
-
I went with moderate story changes and minor rules changes.
I think the rules we have are pretty good, my gripes are mainly on small issues; like the LAM rules and how infantry units are made up (Guys, seriously? That could have been SO much simpiler) and, yes mech height. I love most of how the game works, what doesn't I can fix myself in my games.
Like my infantry who carry many different types of weapons in differing ratios than allowed under the rules. Simple record keeping for support weapon ammo, grenades, LAWs, ect. or my LAMs which I design in Heavy Metal so I can use advanced materials. Mech height which we just common-sense in our games and I love the quirks system!
But story...I agree with Sigma on the bundling.
Images matter to me and you know which ones I mean. It's much easier and more palatable to say that a certain design built in different areas will look different, it's how I reconcile the varying proportions of the Atlas minis. Much easier to swallow than saying that the marauder has always looked like a gawky cyborg chicken fetus.
I LOVE the attention to the star league era and I hope TPTB continue to explore alternate eras, it's neat and adds to the rich tapestry of the game.
But after thinking my game was gone forever after FASA died, The Dark Age pissed me off with it's demilitarization and bizzare styling. We could have enjoyed all the chaotic, post-apocalyptic, knights in giant stompy robots of the original 3025 era, with expanded technology, warships, the clans, ect...
And instead we got the slap-dash post-peacetech era of malformed art and story we're still labouring to amalgamate. And I am an understanding guy on art, I think the Anime stylings of 3025 fit in just fine with the more of less realistic bents image has taken in the game, but the huge bubble canopies, superflourus rollbars and generic looking arms and legs on the dark age stuff just look too out of place, even for me. But I can live with it.
But the final chapters of the Jihad will forever be my point of departure in the game, up till then, I could enjoy what was going on and carve out my own little niche in my imagination. As soon as you involve Stone and his coalition of allstars, things get increasingly wonky culminating in the post-Jihad silliness and The Dark Age.
-
Alternate. Timelines.
*walks away*
-
You could justifiably give a great many things in the Battletech universe a retcon. This includes technologies, game mechanics, established history, and established plot lines. But I fear too much of it and it would not be the Battletech that I have enjoyed. If a sweeping rules change needs to be done, set it into that future era that we have been teased about. I think that the handling of the Republic/Dark Age/Age of Destruction eras so far has been great and using a 'light touch' to wrap it up and fast forward to another era would be a good move. As for the eras that are post Dark Age/Age of Destruction? The possibilities are endless and its is something that I would look forward to.
-
The level of change isn't important to me. It could be all-encompassing or minor. It's the quality of the material and rules as a result of the change that matter.
-
Major story changes, modest rules changes.
I think there is opportunity to change/eliminate events while keeping long-term fans happy. I'm not sure if I would eliminate any one of the big houses or the Clans as a whole, as plenty of players are onboard with a certain faction already.
I wouldn't like the deletion of Clan Snow Raven for instance, but personally I would understand if it somehow served a good narrative. I would find my place somewhere else in the Battletech Universe, like Liao.
I think the core mechanics of the basic game are solid, but if there were some changes I would be on board with it. I would love an overhaul of the campaign system. I can read all of the rules I want in ten different books and understand the concepts, but at the end I would still pay money to have a program that did the grunt work for me.
It just depends on what kind of game you want to produce, and who your demographic is. Sure, I'm on board and have been for 17 years and a lot of people have been with the game for longer. I honestly think from a business standpoint you have to gear yourself towards making more advanced digital options to play/construct/campaign etc available to your consumer base. And I think that if you have to change some rules/complexity to adapt to that scenario, then you have to do it.
-
I like the Fiction, but it can always be altered, so long as it remains recognizable as Battletech. The size of the Great Houses, their militaries, and populations never made much sense. I chose major fiction changes, as the balance of power can shift readily anyway as time progresses.
Rules I chose modest, I don't want to lose any available unit type in game. I personally love LAM's(they are what brought me into the game), but don't care about Protomechs as much(yet realize that there are those that do).
Changing the Hex scale could work like double the size making each battletech map about a Kilometer rather than the roughly half Kilometer that it is now, just make the turn 20 seconds instead of ten, and the fluff speeds wouldn't need to change. If you further multiply all ranges buy 1.5 you get longer ranged weapons, but don't make them unreasonably long.
Aerospace fighters have always been a bugbear of mine. They don't flow with the rest of the units movements. Leave it as is for space missions, but alter it for ground interaction. Maybe give them 7 MP per current thrust point, and have a turning restriction of one facing change at the end of each 7 MP's used or every 14 MP's used if using the Overthrust movement.
-
Fiction wise it'd be easy enough to take care of a lot of the problems by chopping about 500 years off the timeline though it would seem that the second part of what I'd do on that front, cutting population figures by a factor of 10, is at least underway.
Rules wise I fully do believe everything that can operate in space needs a serious ground up redo of the construction rules.
On the other fronts I would re-balance the weapons, in particular the ACs, UACs, RACs, LB-X, and Gauss Rifles of all flavors. The ACs, UACs, RACs, and LB-Xs would have their weights universally lowered, crits reduced(never going below a minimum of 1), minimums removed, and shots per ton of ammo altered. Gauss Rifles would also get their minimum ranges removed, heat increased, count for power amplifier tonnage with ICE engines, count for Heat Sink usage on combat vehicles, and the Heavy would get its range adjusted, damage normalized, and shots per tons adjusted. LRMs would be reworked to make bigger launchers a bit more appealing versus smaller launchers in sufficient numbers to make up the difference. I have particular numbers in mind for all listed items but I am torn on if I should place them in this thread or not.
-
Hello,
While I do not intend to discourage discussion here, it should be noted that this is not a solicitation for ideas on the nature of the hypothetical retcon, but merely an effort to gauge the degree to which one is acceptable by the fan base.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Story: I voted for Minor. Numbers and things can be changed, dated fixed, errors corrected, blanks filled in, and so on. That can go all the way to the beginning but the changes shouldn't be so big and far reaching that it renders old material completely worthless. If you're going to do that you might as well be starting a new game.
Game: I voted Minor but I'm kind of in between Minor and Modest. I'm fine with bug fixes and rules changes up to one aspect of design (mostly). I'm even hoping for some blanks in tech items and unit construction to be filled in. But I don't want things to be so changed that its unrecognizable and all the old material is rendered useless. If you do make Major changes, I would hope that you'd include conversion that are backwards and forwards compatible. But like I said above and as many others have said, you might as well start a new game.
-
Hello,
Hmm. Fascinating.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
A question before I vote:
Do I have to consider a sudden change (let us say at the (probable) end of DA (appr. 3150)) while I still used to "the old way", or maybe something like both story and time jump with new conditions?
-
Hello,
I do not understand your question. But in the interest of time, a simple "move forward to a new era" is not, in itself, a retcon. For the purposes of this discussion, the retcon means a deliberate and overt change to the history of the canon.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Factoids about planets and fasanomics wouldn't bother me so much and I've always felt that the unseen should've been rectonned in the 90's. They're just images and dated ones at that. CGL has upped their artwork 500% and can easily make something better than that tired 80's shogun warrior junk. The rest of the setting is just fine. CGL has shown that they can make a history that engages their fanbase and can keep them guessing about the future. CGL should leave the past where it is.
Changes to rules scare me mainly cause I don't want to see Btech fall into a routine of rules tweaking resulting in me having to buy $75 rule books and $150 worth of mini's just to stay competative every five years. My pocket book can't take that.
-
minor tweaks to the story (go away, unseen images! rest in peace!)
I WOULD have picked minor tweaks to rules- but as it is, weapons are becomoing so powerful, armor is damn near worthless (In my opinion!!!) So, since fixing that fell under "game balancing," I piked major tweaks. but, minor/major, either or.
I do like the quick strike rules, but as an additional way to play, not the main game.
-
I voted Minor story, but I think Moderate works for me, too. For rules, quite honestly, one of the things that I love about BT is that, while there are differences in the details, the tables on the back cover of BT 3E are still valid. I skipped about 10 years of BT development and two major rules editions and I can still play the game.
Example from your brothers over in SR - I like the world changes in SR4, I wasn't thrilled by the rules changes. I barely noticed the change from SR2 to SR3; and I find the changes from SR3 to SR4 quite jarring.
-
Hello,
I do not understand your question. But in the interest of time, a simple "move forward to a new era" is not, in itself, a retcon. For the purposes of this discussion, the retcon means a deliberate and overt change to the history of the canon.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
I mean is that retcon supposed to get active while the old systems have been using for the ongoing story and gameplay?
For example, due game rules changing the rules for WoB SDS systems that they are for more capable than those in JHS: Terra.
Or due story line let the Blood Spirits reconcile with the Adders after the Viper annihilation (info to us in the Jihad era), but tell us that later (info in DA era).
-
Hello,
Um, yes, these would be retcons that immediately change some aspect(s) of the setting and game rules, applying throughout. It could be "well, we decided that the Unseen 'Mechs never existed in the forms shown", or "we decided to rewrite all large spacecraft rules again, and re-stat the entire line of DropShips, JumpShips , and WarShips published to date", or "we decided the Wolf's Dragoons never existed". These would immediately apply to all sourcebooks and rulebooks written after the changes, and could even be added to all active products via errata.
Does that clarify enough for you?
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
I have voted for "Minor" in both categories.
Rules
Some small improvements are in order, some errata or changes of not-so-important modifiers are okay too. But one part of the charm of BattleTech is that it's backwards-compatible. You can take a decade or two decades old scenariobook or sourcebook and that book will be still useful today (well, 90% of it). I consider it a great feat.
Story
Small changes are permitted, be it the case of those damned Unseens or something similar.
But I don't want to see some well-known facts changed from unclear reason.
Change too many (important/established) things and you will repel old players without attracting new ones. Personally I am pretty comfortable with BattleTech as is, and I am not sure if I would be interested in it after some big changes would occur. Probably not.
-
I believe any major changes would disenfranchise the current fan base. Requiring that new books be purchased to continue the game in any capacity always leaves a bad, "Magic: The Gathering" taste in peoples' mouths.
Are these changes being made because of some compelling need to fix holes in the story? Is the current BT timeline inadequate? In the first case, minor changes can clarify plot holes and bridge the gap between modern canon and FASA canon. In the second, a new game (like MW:DA) would be in order.
-
modest story changes - death/survival of a unit 2 examples that jump at me the GDL survives as noted in the example or the Jihad really was the swan song for the Dragoons.
EDIT - same goes for characters - Stone was a real person who had a history, Stone never existed and the Inner Sphere did what it has done for hundreds of years and worked through the war.
minor game changes - balancing of RATs in some cases but overall I like the game (not a huge aerotech or infantry player here so I won't judge what I don't use) - although from a designer point of view canon dropships with space to carry cargo, Mechbays properly explained for size, ability to overload DropShips to explain ammo, spare parts, food would be nice.
Overall the universe is pretty brilliant and it has the flexibility for players to go it themselves if they want (fan fiction and designs for a start), I'd say if it ain't broke you don't need to fix
-
I voted "minor" for story. I'm pretty happy with the current state of the BT universe (yes, even the Dark Age stuff which improved greatly towards the end of its run). That said, I wholehearted approve of retconning aspects of the distant past (ex. Delaying the invention of the FTL drive by a century or two) or elements that just don't make sense (ex. FASAnomics) to make the present age (c. 3025 and on) more internally consistant.
I voted major on the rules because I wouldn't mind a ground up reworking of aerospace and ground assets to return BattleMechs to the undisputed Lords of the Battlefield. If that means that warships turn out to have been an 'in-universe' fad that gets completely discredited and scrapped after the jump to 3150 then so be it.
-
Yes, it did.
Thank you.
---------------
Due the story, I voted "Modest".
Due he game, I voted "Extreme" :)
Hello,
Um, yes, these would be retcons that immediately change some aspect(s) of the setting and game rules, applying throughout. It could be "well, we decided that the Unseen 'Mechs never existed in the forms shown", or "we decided to rewrite all large spacecraft rules again, and re-stat the entire line of DropShips, JumpShips , and WarShips published to date", or "we decided the Wolf's Dragoons never existed". These would immediately apply to all sourcebooks and rulebooks written after the changes, and could even be added to all active products via errata.
Does that clarify enough for you?
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
I believe any major changes would disenfranchise the current fan base. Requiring that new books be purchased to continue the game in any capacity always leaves a bad, "Magic: The Gathering" taste in peoples' mouths.
I dunno, GW get away with it.
-
For the story I almost said none because the story is the story and while there are some things that I dislike (see Kell Hound nuking) the story survives it. I put minor because of the one thing that made me much more incensed--Natasha K's death. On the lame scale of 1-10 this ranked 37. Okay she knew it was her last stand and we knew it was her last stand. It would not have hurt anything to have a star or 2 of "red-shirt" JF's put down before Joanna shows up. And come on, jump jet to the face :D That's all I'm going to say about that.
For the game, minor as well. A few game balance tweaks here and there are can be a good thing. When I run games, they are non-canon and I do what I want (within reason). It has been said more that once--"it's your universe, have fun"--and my players and I do.
-
Due he game, I voted "Extreme" :)
Maybe. Current game have too many rolls and too slow for company's sized battles.
-
That's what Quickstrike is for. You can run a Batallion-level game in a few hours there.
-
And which is why I think Quickstrike should be seperate from Battletech proper.
That way the game can be a flexible, fast, and more pickup/play version compared to the original.
It is similar to the Dark Age game in terms of pace yet still keeps to the Battletech flavor of initiative plus no random boosters. :)
-
I put minor because of the one thing that made me much more incensed--Natasha K's death. On the lame scale of 1-10 this ranked 37. Okay she knew it was her last stand and we knew it was her last stand. It would not have hurt anything to have a star or 2 of "red-shirt" JF's put down before Joanna shows up. And come on, jump jet to the face :D That's all I'm going to say about that.
yeah
I wanted to see Jo and Nasty literally cripple each others mechs then
crawl out and punch each other for a while, collapse from exhaustion,
then get up and say
"screw this, we are too old for this, lets grab a beer, maybe we could start our own academy for wayward mechjocks"
-
That's what Quickstrike is for. You can run a Batallion-level game in a few hours there.
Hm, this is making me wonder how long it would take to run a battalion vs. battalion game now. I should probably set up a pair of MegaMek bots to duke it out some time and see how long it takes. I think it could be interesting to see how the larger force sizes affect things.
-
I'm good up to severe/severe. not saying we have to go that far, but if TPTB determine they can make a better game, and preserve a good story, I'm willing.
Just because they retcon stuff, doesnt mean my books burst into flame. I can enjoy my novels and sourcebooks forever; if the chance to change gives the chance for as good, or even better stories, I'm all for that too.
-
Hm, this is making me wonder how long it would take to run a battalion vs. battalion game now. I should probably set up a pair of MegaMek bots to duke it out some time and see how long it takes. I think it could be interesting to see how the larger force sizes affect things.
In full-on BattleTech? I've done them over the course of a few nights. A Regiment on Regiment game is a bit much though...
-
In full-on BattleTech? I've done them over the course of a few nights. A Regiment on Regiment game is a bit much though...
How long did that take? Part of why I am curious is to see how large battles like that would affect ammunition consumption because I have noticed that I need more ammo for company-scale games than lance-scale or duels.
-
I voted Modest in both categories, although I tend to Severe in specific cases. The following is pure stream of consciousness, I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
Rules
-Stop honoring the FASA tradition of publishing another 'patch' as a new edition or at least really trim the fat/streamline game and equipment rules for once. If you don't want to do this then publish QS in a separate book.
-Go D8 or D10 - we've only gotten 2D6 and base 4+ because a) other dice were hard to come by in the mid '80 and b) because FASA knew the bell curve thanks to their work on Traveller.
-Drop the tired 'no old weapon is ever obsolete' paradigm. There will always be someone using the older equipment simply because it's cheaper, easier to get/keep or just because they don't have anything better. And while you're at it, stop putting so much weight on trying to balance equipment by tonnage and crits - that's what BV is for.
- Light/Heavy Machine Guns, Rocket Launchers, MRM, Primitive 'Mechs...all of them are perfect for the lower tech AoW and Succession War eras, so use them accordingly.
-Rework Autocannons to make them viable (drop LACs, fold LB-X and Ultras into a iAC series and give them access to all alternate ammunitions).
Story
Stuff like Natashas death, or finding the Homeworlds thanks due to a traitor instead of having the Explorer Corps vindicate their raison d'être, or disbanding the Second Star League for no real reason? Lame. I started to lose interest in the official timeline (and BT in general) around 3058, because a lot of the things happening felt incredibly forced and broke immersion for me.
-
How long did that take? Part of why I am curious is to see how large battles like that would affect ammunition consumption because I have noticed that I need more ammo for company-scale games than lance-scale or duels.
3 days at a con. And we didn't really finish it...
-
3 days at a con. And we didn't really finish it...
Wow. Well, it definitely looks like I will have to run my own ammo endurance test at some point, so I will need a few days that I can leave my computer working to grind through the battle.
-
Minor for both. Maybe there are some reaons for some minor - modest changes. Better transperancy for Beginners and faster gameplay for company's sized battles.
With that in mind and without change the complete game it should be possible to find new friends and costumer for the universe without loosing the fan base.
I don't want a complete new game!
Extreme retcon means stop playing "our" game - it means playing and buying a new game, so please change the name Battletech for better understanding if you plan major changes!
p.s. a useful retcon would be: Dead of Natasha by Jump Jet! I will never ever forgive this. :D
-
p.s. a useful retcon would be: Dead of Natasha by Jump Jet! I will never ever forgive this. :D
At least have her crawl out of her bashed up mech before she gets torched by the jump jet. }:)
-
For story only Modest since the story is the story. Fixing weirdness and inconstancy are always wonderful but some times that changes things. And adding in neat new tidbits would please me greatly.
For Rules, Major. Changing the dice system so it can have a greater range of variable would be nice. As in some systems/Weapons are D6s, other D12s maybe a few D20s as well. Just wiping out unit types would be uncool for so many people. Having a good reason to take something other then mechs that is balanced would be nice. Combined Arms for the win! And a more user friendly universal make your own death machine rules. ICE powered Ultra Lights with Snub Nosed AC2 would be fun!
I know it is out of CGL hands but suggest Iron Wind Minis to get BETTER SCULPTORS! I cringe at some of the things they produce. I will admit some times they don't have even 'decent' material to start from but still...
-
Not a big fan of story changes - the universe works well for me in that regard. But something relatively small wouldn't really break things for me.
As for game mechanics, I went with Major, specifically because of the mention of deleting select unit types. That's something I've wanted to see since Total Warfare and TechManual came out - IMHO there's just too many units next to no one cares about, but which require not only their own rules section detailing how they work in general, but also constant cross-referencing in many of the other rules sections (e.g. Protomechs on a roof on Sunday move like this, but Support Vehicles move like this), not to mention the space they take up in Technical Readouts.
-
While I technically voted "None" in the other thread, that's because the retcons I'd like to see aren't intrinsically tied to any one period or another.
For story:
I'd like to see population numbers a little bit smaller to half-way support the generally tiny armies of the successor states.
I'd like to see more jump ships. Interstellar trade makes relatively little sense with how little cargo gets moved between planets.
I'd like to see more instances of varied tech levels among factions, instead of the relatively rigid Clan -> Major Inner Sphere -> Periphery.
For gameplay:
Ranges. Just... ranges. Honestly, they don't even hae to change. There just has to be a reason that they're so truncated beyond "because gameplay".
Large aerospace unit construction rules. It's trivially easy to build absolutely anything that can wipe the floor with anything in canon. So trivially easy, in fact, that it makes me wonder who the hell is designing these things to be so deliberately inefficient. The scale of them just makes it hideously easy to break the game. This includes Dropships and larger craft.
-
I'd actually go so far as to suggest as small as ASFs need some construction/game rules changes. Everything bigger, absolutely they need changed without being slaved in any way to the old stats.
-
As for game mechanics, I went with Major, specifically because of the mention of deleting select unit types. That's something I've wanted to see since Total Warfare and TechManual came out - IMHO there's just too many units next to no one cares about, but which require not only their own rules section detailing how they work in general, but also constant cross-referencing in many of the other rules sections (e.g. Protomechs on a roof on Sunday move like this, but Support Vehicles move like this), not to mention the space they take up in Technical Readouts.
I'd love to see all vehicles unified under a single set of (moderately basic) construction and gameplay rules.
-
A lot of the late rules got complex really fast especially since starting from Total Warfare on, you basically had rule book refering to other rule books. Once we started having Extended Range Pulse... things were going too far for me. There were tons of new ammo and tech I didn't even bother looking at. I didn't even pick up the new Tech Manual to avoid getting confused. It was a pain in the butt to see other people busting out hyper-advanced tech in games and using tactics I had no idea were coming based on wonky tech.
In regards to the story. I woldn't want to have to redo everything. A series of "Corrections" to keep people or units alive post Jihad is feasible, but I wouldn't want to have to redo the game. I mean, each game we play is basically a What if scenario. How many sanctioned games were played were the events from location to location were different? It's why we play the game, but that doesn't mean what was written post-event needs to change.
We tried to play a post Jihad game once, the problem we had was that we had no justifiable reason to really start a war. :P We Just finished a major war and each faction took the time to rebuild :) It made sense to us. We were making trades and getting along. :) I like that B-Tech has their major wars, then their brush wars.
If drastic changes are needed, it should be in the post-jihad era. I see all the things about getting rid of protos and I can live with that change, but the warship haters have to acknowledge that warships have been and should always be a part of intergalactic combat. I was so glad when the clans came back and we started having warships again. Not only that, it's fun. I developed my own quick strike rules for Naval Combat just so that we could have big battles quickly :)
Anywho. In the end. I support the game and like the concept and stories :)
-
It is not that I hate Warships. I just understand to make them work in a sane and sensible manner their construction rules need a major overhaul and divorcing from any and all previously published stats to do it.
-
The other thing I think WarShips need is another look at scale. The lengths are essentially mandatory due to the way DropShips have to attach, but make no sense whatsoever with the canon masses so I feel like there should be an order of magnitude revision to give WarShips a lot more mass.
-
I may sound a bit more radical than the average, but if the stroy can be changed, then I'm in favor of a complete and deep change, almost a new storyline, perhaps more in line with the current aesthetics of the rules (more combined-arms with a 'Mech core), with results closer to what we know after all these years of playing the game (a Waps is impressive to a civilian, but it still cannont rule over a whole city, especially when PBIs wait for him with RPGs), solving the FASA-legacy problems ("""FASAnomincs""" for example, unseens, tweakings of technology introduction dates...).
The current one is still very nice (lovec how the Jihad was handled, as well as the transition to the Republican era), though, so perhaps both can be run in parallel ?
However, rules are more set, so apart from bugs and exploits patching, I'd lean towards keeping them... Playing the board game, as it is, is what glue the community :)
-
Personally I love the fiction, RPG, and most aspects of the game, but I would love to see a quick strike release, I believe it should be a separate line much as Dark Age during the Fanpro days, maybe not a replacement for the original rules (they do allow allot more RP opportunities) but as a solid war-game to be played as such, I use quick strike as a way to resolve battles with AToW and it works well enough, but it depends heavily on the group. And I'd love to see more focus on Quick Strike, is my big thing with the rules (5 really thick hardbound books is allot to talk new players into wrapping their heads around, even Total Warfare seems like too much to most people I've introduced BT to)
-
I want to see the rules change to reflect the idea that weapon types all work the same way. I want an unjam roll on the UACs, most certainly. I want either a minimum range slapped on Clan LRMs, or a reduction on IS LRMs.
Fluff wise? I want 3057 gone. AND I want 2750's warships gone. Neither of them fit well, in my opinion. Unseen? Gone. Star Lord and Far Country? Gone. (Star Lord can be re-written, had a neat premise, but sub standard execution).
-
I don't think the story should be changed one whit, though I'm for tweaking numbers like populations, force sizes, etc.. However, I'm all for changing the game wholesale both for me :) and to be more competitive in the modern gaming environment. With the mentioned jump to 3250, it would be perfect time. If something more akin to Leviathans was put in place (or at least something more elegant than the established system), allowing for larger and/or faster battles as the standard, I'd be a happy camper. Proper stat conversion rules would also be a necessary development upon release, possibly even good sized freebie PDF conversions of the machines from select old TROs to keep vets from stampeding away.
-
History: I'm for major changes for appeal to new folks as long as some core elements stay the same.
Rules: Give me weapons tweaks, hex scale changes, earlier debuts for certain items, and other creative use of what's already there so that older published stuff can still function (if not well). Changes to heat, ranges, special rules, etc. are fine, but leave tons and crits alone so that only one predictable section of the record sheet changes.
Examples:
Fix the 2 LRM-5 vs. LRM-10 issue via tweaks to heat output on the LRM-5, relying on limited weapon slots to reign things in on the vehicle end. No construction rules change, but there is a change to optimal use.
Fix ballistic weapons through changes in performance and ammo availability. Leave tons and crits the same.
Certain items, such as OS launchers, that don't actually work, unfortunately need to be redone wholesale, but they tend to appear on few enough units that this should be OK.
Give us innovations based on simple tech (RL's VGL's artillery cannons, etc.) earlier in the timeline and spread them wider, including "logical extension" items like MRM's, L/HPPC's, LAC's, etc. that don't represent real breakthroughs, just changes in thinking and emphasis.
Thoroughly segregate tech bases without balancing them against each other in a "zero-sum" way, rather make new tech totally superior, but more expensive in whatever balance point system is used and leave it at that.
Accomplish this by making the new balance system "results based" i.e. I don't care what a unit is made out of. Look at the final product: How fast can it move + how hard is it to kill + how hard can it hit at each range = how much it's worth.
-
This is tough. On the story front it might be wise to make BT the future of 2012. The backstory the future of the80's is hard for younger people to understand. It is complicated by the fact that at some point the reason for the future of the80's was lost. Tech stoped advancing the way it should. But I ould change the core of the story till the end of the Jihad
Gamewise. I hate to say this but once the core rule books are done I would love to see a major change. I would like to see a game pushed for playing battalion or larger scale games. I love to do this with the current rules but it overwelms most people. That said construction and customiztion should always be a part of any BT game.
I will never stop playing BT as it stands today. But I belive that a larger market of young gamers exist for a game of large scale mech combat.
-
Minor changes all around. I love this game and the story as is and I do not want to learn it all over again. I hate reboots, especially when the original got it right the first time.
-
But I belive that a larger market of young gamers exist for a game of large scale mech combat.
That's why Battle Force rules exist, quiaff?
-
That's why Battle Force rules exist, quiaff?
One battleforce's support traditionaly hasn't been great. Honestly I am wanting more of a market push of rules like quick strike as a mini game not a board game
-
I agree, quick strike seems like a good cross between Battle Tech and Battle Force. I really want to play it some day.
-
This is a hard question to answer, because I have a hard time choosing just one - for me, it's less a matter of how extensive the change is, but how it's executed.
Severe changes strike me as something like the Dark Age clicky game tried, and that doesn't seem to have worked out, but I wouldn't be opposed to it - so long as the option to keep the classic game was still there. I would hate to see Battle armor or protomechs phased out of the game, but it seems as though warships are being all but eliminated anyway - and it's done in a way that makes sense, so I'm alright with it.
As for the Story, it's a matter of execution. If the 4th Succession War is aimed at Kurita, for me to accept it the timeline would pretty much have to be reset to the 4th Succession War and work from the new angle. I'd probably be pretty upset if the Clans were removed entirely, and it wouldn't be the same game to me. At that point, I'd wonder why it's not just a new game entirely - so that's probably where I would be inclined to draw the line. I'm not particularly attached to the where and the how, but I am attached to the who. It doesn't matter if the Combine gets cut down to the Pesht District, then the Clans come up through the Confederation, just so long as the factions are there, and they keep their core flavor.
-
I agree, quick strike seems like a good cross between Battle Tech and Battle Force. I really want to play it some day.
It's awesome for new players, and allows people who want a mini game to have a mini game without trampling on the board game too much. It needs more support.
-
A couple of things I forgot that wouldn't change the sheets, really, but would change balance a bit:
1. Make 'Mechs as proportionately strong as humans, or perhaps more. None of this "I can only lift 10% of my own tonnage" stuff.
If you want giant stompy robots rampaging across the landscape, then turn this up a notch. Make them able to demolish most buildings in one physical attack phase, pick up obstacles and walk away with them, clear entire woods hexes by smashing through them and uprooting trees. Even short hops over low barriers should be OK. Not nearly as agile as people and certainly slowed a bit by hazards, but strong and coordinated enough to quickly and *reliably* climb, destroy, bust through, or otherwise circumvent any obstacle in their path to get to their targets or clear the way for other units (i.e. much better at it than they are now). Shock troops and combat engineers all in one.
When it comes to obstacles, the king of the battlefield should be as unstoppable as the Kool-Aid Man (but just as awkward in a gross sense).
Modern day robots like BigDog and Asimo already allow for a great deal of mobility at smaller scales and fusion-powered, photon-computer-controlled swarm processors managing insanely strong artifical muscles (perhaps even forming a "soft robot" inside an armored shell) should be able to take it up to bigger items with a bit of sci-fi license...since we're now close enough to such advanced tech today to understand what it will do. This type of "unstoppable juggernaut" mobility was hinted at in the earlier books, but is less emphasized now.
A combination of the above, a consequent increase in physical attack damage (balanced by making it harder to hit moving 'Mechs with physicals due to their agility in their own defense) and the standard incorporation of initiative advantages for 'Mech reaction time or other bonuses for their unique interface should make them suitably terrifying without having to nerf vehicles, which can then be restored to greater competence.
2. Allow ground units with energy weapons or specialized missiles to have some alternate firing mode, power-sharing arrangement, or other justification to hit targets in low orbit a la the powerguns from Hammer's Slammers.
Once reliable lasers hit modern warfare, there is a contention that combat aircraft as we know them will cease to be practical, and I can see the game benefiting from pursuing this line of thought for a few steps.
Fighters and faster Dropships could survive via decoys, target overload, and terrain hugging to prevent themselves from being acquired as targets, with armor to take up the slack (and the "chaff" aspect of the shell around 'Mech drop pods would make even more sense), but WarShips should be huge targets that can't hide effectively from a regiment's worth of targeting computers all sharing their processing power to burn through their ECM or pick up their reflected radiation, mass, or drive plume, and controlling lasers overcharged by the collective effort of company-sized groups of fusion plants. They get close enough for bombardment and they die the death of a thousand cuts unless the defenders are thoroughly suppressed already.
Bang...Zoom...back to warfare that emphasizes 'Mechs and fighters as the tip of the spear, with warships being useful for contesting jump points and as mobile bases for invasions. This also makes small defensive forces somewhat reasonable, given this anti-space capability and the defender advantage it would provide until someone got serious about a multi-regiment assault with a massive fighter/decoy screen.
Just more stuff that I was thinking about today that could be big fluff changes embodied in small, yet significant rules tweaks.
-
My preference is for minor changes, both to the story and to the game system. The former would ideally be invoked to sort out the Unseen issue once and for all (I know this has recently been disconfirmed by Herb, but I can dream), and maybe fix some nonsensical remaining FASAnomics.
Any retcons to the game system would mainly be to improve balance a bit, work out a few remaining kinks here and there, but even then there's not really much of a need for retcons as opposed to tech advances, since there's going to be a big timeskip forward anyway.
-
Story changes minor mostly want changes in numbers at least to not make it so easy to think of ludicrous it seems on the thoughts of certain things like how the SLDF in exile could had even lasted not only a exodus to some far off barely supporting human life worlds when most of them were warriors but a civil war that created the clans.
Gameplay changes minor as well mostly making certain non mech and aerofighter units Combat vees as kill-able as they currently are i mean yes vee killer weapons should be effective against them but not you get hit by them you are pretty much 100% Screwed effective it's actually pretty hard to destroy a modern main battle tank from the outside (hell a few the only mission killed *yes Mission killed not destroyed we never have had one totally destroyed yet in combat* M1 Abrams in the gulf war and the 2003 Iraq invasion had were from friendly fire from other Abrams and even then they just required a few replacement parts and they were good as new) i would expect the same from these advanced tanks century's off in the future. even in the days of the 1980s much less now.
-
Actually, quite frankly, if this is a gage of what I can tolerate, then part of this poll is inaccurate because I'm partially curious enough to see what a whole hog reboot would be like.
-
[Story] Severe. (Examples: A fundamental change is made to the entire balance of the setting, such as the destruction of the SLDF before its Exodus preventing the creation of the Clans, or the deletion of any of the five Great Houses from canon.)
I voted for this one but I wouldn't want to see the clans get removed nor 1 of the great houses. But I think making all 5 of the great houses more or less equal in size and in power could make it more interesting.
[Game] Modest. (Examples: A swath of rules tweaks are made that shifts game balance to a small degree or changes one aspect of design, such as a rewrite of large spacecraft construction, or a change in dice mechanics from D6 to D12.) this was the other I voted on.. I think maybe using a D12 system might be more interesting. but definitely changes to the large spacecraft construction and giving the game more balance
-
I am very open to adjusting the rules to make them work better, but what I don't want to see is a Warhammer 40k-style, "Every edition is a new ruleset, and surprise, your army doesn't do what it used to!" This I am very opposed to. I have no problem with existing rules being changed for the better, just don't make it a religious habit.
-
I wen't with Minor/Modest like many.
That said I don't like the idea under "Modest-Game" of a D12 base, too annoying & rare a die.
Keep it 6, I have lots of those from Shadow Run, or even D20, but prefer 6.
Large Craft rules changes would be good I think.
Another one I thought of just the other day is Range Brackets.... why is it 0-2-4, you'd think it would be a gradual increase by ones instead of twos.
-
Another one I thought of just the other day is Range Brackets.... why is it 0-2-4, you'd think it would be a gradual increase by ones instead of twos.
You need that much variation for range to be non-trivial in calculating accuracy, and adding more range bands to crate a smoother transition would be a bit of a pain for bookkeeping. That said, it would probably be nice for an advanced rule to add a -1 to hit if you are within the shorter half (rounded down) of your range band so you would effectively get six bands at -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, but that would be too much trouble for the core rules.
-
Minor tweeks are fine by me. Can't expect for everything to be internally consistent after nearly three decades and gawd knows how many writers input.
-
Minor tweaks to the story are already being made on a regular basis, and I can't see that changing at all. I would also argue that the constant addition of new weapons and rules is more damaging than tweaks to existing stuff.
For story, I say make big changes, or don't bother. Like I've said elsewhere, I'd love a selection of new settings to play in. As for game play, I'm all for major changes to the rules. As they currently stand, they are loads of fun to play - I admit that. They also give me migraines trying to justify many of them. Battletech has to be the worst designed game I have played more than once. I would love to have a better designed game in the same universe.
-
Part 2 of the poll of doom is much more interesting.
[Story] severe: I would be ok with any of the story choices other than none. There have been some serious issues with the storyline throughout the game's 25 year history. The trick is we have 25 years of story. That's a lot of time invested in living the story (or putting up with the story). Changes are certain to upset plenty. An earlier suggestion of alternate timelines would be the easiest out. It also lets you try out several variations on a theme.
[Game] major: This one is more about additions than eliminations. I want to plug into my mech with my level 3 vehicle control rig and make that 90ton baby do a jig.
As long as any changes are compatible with the current game, I'll be happy (or not). :-\
Meow Liao
-
I think that rules need a total rewrite.
One thing that potential "returners" often complain is the antiquity of the BattleTech rules set. In essence modern miniatures game needs to have a faster pace. It is good to remember that miniatures are themselves the largest investment cost for players so rules books themselves can be updated more often.
I'd like to see rules rewritten to include concept of penetration and reduce number of rolls needed to solve hits and hit results drastically. Rules should be integrated to include all real life modern weapon systems with their strengths and weaknesses.
I do not see any changes to "FASAnomics" being possible with current crop of writers and developers. The revamp should include actual novel writer who would bring with her fresh ideas and approaches to make game more appealing to current audience.
-
Story: I voted for Minor. Numbers and things can be changed, dated fixed, errors corrected, blanks filled in, and so on. That can go all the way to the beginning but the changes shouldn't be so big and far reaching that it renders old material completely worthless. If you're going to do that you might as well be starting a new game.
Game: I voted Minor but I'm kind of in between Minor and Modest. I'm fine with bug fixes and rules changes up to one aspect of design (mostly). I'm even hoping for some blanks in tech items and unit construction to be filled in. But I don't want things to be so changed that its unrecognizable and all the old material is rendered useless. If you do make Major changes, I would hope that you'd include conversion that are backwards and forwards compatible. But like I said above and as many others have said, you might as well start a new game.
For me I think FedComGirl has it right. For most of us this has been apart of our lives for years (20 for me) and it is a history. We are talking about changing our history. I know it is a game but for the most part things have been very consistent for 25 years which I think is something very special. Those that came before tried very hard to have a continuity to the universe that personally I don't think needs much changing. Like FedComGirl stated, dates here and there, errors what have you but completely writing out some faction or unit I think is out of line.
For the past 25 years we have never talked about rewriting history. There has always been inconsistencies and what not but that is kinda expected (to an extent) given the number of people and the number of years our storyline has survived. They have tried to be addressed and fixed but never have we talked about sweeping historical changes. Not since Catalyst has come to the table anyway.
We have seen many instances in these and the past forum that has old players coming back to the game and are very excited and pleased that the mechanics and setting are much the way they left it. It makes the story a bit stale yes with this faction fighting that faction and what have you but that is why we have the creative people we do moving the story along. The jihad was the reset button, I don't think more needs to be done.
Coming at this from the rules side, again things have been very consistent and things tend to work very well. I am not opposed to making certain changes here or there for unit types to have them fit better into game play but a completely new set of rules or mechanics isn't necessary. We have one that works, it just needs to be tweaked here and and there for better overall game experience.
-
Storywise, maybe TPTB should leave out the 21th century and be vague about the 22nd? That should prevent timeline rewrites?
-
I think that rules need a total rewrite.
One thing that potential "returners" often complain is the antiquity of the BattleTech rules set. In essence modern miniatures game needs to have a faster pace. It is good to remember that miniatures are themselves the largest investment cost for players so rules books themselves can be updated more often.
I'd like to see rules rewritten to include concept of penetration and reduce number of rolls needed to solve hits and hit results drastically. Rules should be integrated to include all real life modern weapon systems with their strengths and weaknesses.
I do not see any changes to "FASAnomics" being possible with current crop of writers and developers. The revamp should include actual novel writer who would bring with her fresh ideas and approaches to make game more appealing to current audience.
So basically you want the BattleTech IP to go to another company
-
So basically you want the BattleTech IP to go to another company
Looks like unless TPTB decide to commence work on BT2.0 that would be the only way to get an official new rules set. Don't think either is going to happen, though.
-
I think that rules need a total rewrite.
<snip>
The revamp should include actual novel writer who would bring with her fresh ideas and approaches to make game more appealing to current audience.
As one who has been playing for over 25+ years, and who has played other mini based games, I can honestly say that even though the BT rules may seem "old" and "outdated" to some, the sure as heck work better than other systems I've played.
For example: I've introduced BT to friends that play Warhammer, and they absolutely love the BT rules. My friends went on to say that the BT rules are a lot easier to use than the Warhammer rules. They also went on to start buying BT products...if that's any indication of things.
Also, just out of curiosity, what other games are you comparing BT to, Minerva?
-
As a guy who loves his missile spam, I can get behind finding a way to streamline dice rolls. I love my Box of Death™. I really do. I'd just love to not need it.
-
I'm another grognard who doesn't think things need changing, despite the inconsistencies or mistakes in the plotline. Frankly, those very inconsistencies are part of what makes the universe interesting to me - it gives me and my players a way to insert their characters and situations into the universe but still mostly follow "canon". As an example - we like WarShips. There have been many, many examples of misnaming, renaming, destroying & recreating WarShips over and over. As an example - The Dragon Roars says one Tatsumaki (unnamed) was destroyed; the only other one (The Dragon's Last Tear) was destroyed over Alshain. Yet, suddenly, here comes FM: Updates and we have The Lair of Mighty Wyrms is still part of the fleet. Error? Certainly - and TPTB addressed it in some forum (don't remember where or which one) it by saying that some Nova Cat technicians "fixed" the "destroyed" Tatsumaki listed in The Dragon Roars. These same miraculous Nova Cat technicians (without a shipyard!) apparently did the same thing for the Anna Rosse and the True Vision, both listed as destroyed in FM:U but present in HS: Terra. Our group decided to treat it as bureaucratic "sleight of hand" to use it as a justification for them to set up a small Star League WarShip fleet in payment for the SL destroying the Jags. We stayed "true to canon" but had a loophole to do things our way. So - was this an error fix, a retcon, or a loophole? I think it's just what you want it to be. Too much tinkering with things (especially the storyline, for those of us who have seen in unfold) makes it feel (to me) "forced". The only REAL change I'd like to actually see a destroyed faction STAY destroyed (Houses Liao & Marik, Terran Hegemony/Republic of the Sphere, etc.). Just my 2 cents.
Kamose
-
Minor for both story and game.
CBT has a fairly solid rule-set, so I wouldn't want to see any radical changes there. As for the story, I will only comment that I've been far from a fan of the retcons that CGL has done so far, so I'd prefer that they keep their pens off of the universe that has already been established (for good or ill).
-
I voted modest, there some things that either need to be trimmed out, or eliminated.
would'nt mind seeing the engine tables changed little bit. (sorry but the engine to move a 70 ton tank 65kph does NOT weight in at 32 tons)
Modest for story.
-
Storywise, it'd be nice to keep onto the factions that be. Everyone probably has their own idea of what is a reasonable plot development and what isn't, so it's a hard call. (As long as jih^H^H^H >:D )
Changes to game rules should be toward the simpler direction, I feel. The boardgame has plenty of record keeping as it is, and new developments such as new techs seem to easily add more dice rolls and charts. Some changes, as simplifications (such as what happened with AMS - dice rolls into a fixed bonus) streamline play, and that's what I'd hope to see in the future. This, of course, depends on the direction of development TPTB wish to take: is it a game about lance level action, or company level action and beyond?
-
Minor story changes.
Modest Game changes, something like stupid cost calculations (or is this also covered by minor story changes?) or different technology, weapon stats (Clan Pulse) or construction rules (Warships).
-
Give heads of bloodhouses more authority as well as more influence in clan councils compared to someone who won a bloodname yesterday.
Have clans recognise value of older warriors skill and experience like the dragoons did and expand toumans accordingly.
Bring house militaries up to a sensible size or bring house populations down to a level commensurate with their militaries.
Replace BV with a system based on the cost of training, equipping, transporting and supplying a unit in the field I.e. make logistics matter, make resources [raw materials, factories, skilled individuals, transportation] matter.
Make vehicles much more vulnerable than battle mechs.
Loyalty ratings need to be made more useful some sort of variable [like the tech level percentages maybe???] depending on who the unit is currently fighting for/against.
-
Loyalty ratings need to be made more useful some sort of variable [like the tech level percentages maybe???] depending on who the unit is currently fighting for/against.
I thought there were already some optional rules somewhere where loyalty had influence on unit cohesion in in the face of combat losses so more loyal troops would be more willing to fight to the bitter end and less loyal troops would be more likely to break and run in battle.
-
I thought there were already some optional rules somewhere where loyalty had influence on unit cohesion in in the face of combat losses so more loyal troops would be more willing to fight to the bitter end and less loyal troops would be more likely to break and run in battle.
Anyone able to point me at these optional rules?
*offers cupcake as incentive*
-
Morale rules can be found on pg 211-213 of TO. Morale and fatigue outside of combat are on pg 38-41 of SO. The latter include the rules for force quality, loyalty, mutiny, desertion, etc
-
Make vehicles much more vulnerable than battle mechs.
Is this not already done? Vehicles are fairly easy to mobility kill, in my experience.
-
Morale rules can be found on pg 211-213 of TO. Morale and fatigue outside of combat are on pg 38-41. The latter include the rules for force quality, loyalty, mutiny, desertion, etc
Thanks Sartis, guess I'll need to get a copy of TO one of these days.
-
Is this not already done? Vehicles are fairly easy to mobility kill, in my experience.
Hi Legion, I was meaning in an extreme blowing up and scattering debris kind of way. :)
-
Hi Legion, I was meaning in an extreme blowing up and scattering debris kind of way. :)
Ah, I see. I do love explosions!
-
Ah, I see. I do love explosions!
Unfortunately for vehicle crews, this seems to be the opinion of combat vehicle engineers as well. Seriously, would it kill them to use CASE more often? #P
-
I think some moderate storyline changes might help smooth out some of the more glaring sillynesses (like FASAnomics) inherent in the universe we all inherited. As far as game mechanics, I think very limited changes would be necessary to move forward into awesomeness. Perhaps adding a new layer of armor to advanced designs making the current armor set work something like the BARs or industrial armors and thereby rendering current weapons significantly less effective and primitive. This would only require a minor retcon in terms, assigning the new words to old armors.
-
I voted minor...I have my issues with the game, particularly weapon ranges and effects, and I have pleaded my case ad nauseum. Now, with the release of TW and ATOW and so much other (expensive) game and source material over all these years, it's too late in the game now so to speak :P The only way I would change my mind is if it's a question of keeping the game competitive and solvent within the marketplace then I would understand...in which case, I hope the powers that be make their changes wisely 8)
-
I voted extreme...because I'm that kind of guy...no faction loyalties, no games mechanics loyalties at all.
-
Story - minor -- clean-up economics, population/force sizes
Rules - modest -- fix unit construction/sizes so we don't have mm thin armor everywhere
-
PROTOMECH FLUFF, FURRY, GAH, WHY?
-
I would like to see modest changes. I like the story, but can see the issues and contradiction in it. So clean it up, and have some fun along the way O:-). Really it is not the first time that the victor wrote a false history so feel free just keep the basics here, Jumpships, battle mechs, the great houses, clans, and no aliens. As for the rules, modest changes as well, I like to be able to scale my games form the high interstellar down to the tactic. It just needs some clean up of the construction rules, and you can take the construction rule out over my very, very, dead body. They are the most troublesome rules and the best thing about the game. >:D. So do what is needed but try to keep the feel and history of the game alive.
-
Story: Modest
Fixing FASAnomics, dropping the populations a bit (helps show the aftermath of the Succession wars a bit, particularly if the "old numbers" are the before the wars started populations) however I do not think we need a massive culling like some, also increase the military size by a bit as well would go a good way to reducing this issue. Furthermore an enlarged number of transports would also be useful in this area as well. Furthermore I have never been realy a fan of company and battalion sized units being critical units in holding or taking world(s). Though useful for objective & commando raids, as well as a bunch of other tasks, but conquering worlds not so much...
Also fix the inconsistency's and or hokey parts of the story, that have occurred over the years.
Basically go through the time line and write it from the ground up in one go, removing what needs to be removed, fixing what needs to be fixed, correcting that what needs to be corrected.
Fluff wise flesh out why the weapons and gear are like they are (I.e. why do missiles come in swarms instead of single rounds, or why the range is as such?). One thing I think might be useful is a "Tech bible" of sorts, a book that describes what a item of tech is, and what it dose. For a reference so that writers would have a better idea what a particular item is and what it can do (not necessarily in absolutes but at the lest a minimum value). Reducing the inconsistent ability's in the fluff (I.e. In book 1 is has X weapon with a velocity as X, in book 2 the same weapon has velocity Y...).
Art wise it would be nice to have a reference sheet for various components so that when a artist is tasked to draw a mech (assuming the stats are done before hand) they would have a idea of what a component looks like, thus reducing some of the problems that older art had (like small lasers being bigger than Gauss rifles...).
Rules: Modest
More of a mild rewrite of the rules to streamline them, and or fix inconsistency's, speeding up the game play would be nice, though keeping the core elements intact would be good. Basically fixing some of the issues that have plagued the game for some time. Improving the balance of the auto cannons over energy weapons would be nice, reducing the MG ammo bombs, ect. Fixing the Range issue, either by describing why the range is, or by making the weapons have a longer range either via game play or fluff... another thing that could be fixed is changing engine weights, why do they need to be so heavy... their not in real life... (typically the mass a tank spends on getting it moving seems to be around 15-25% of it's over all mass (tracks, engine, fuel, suspension and transmission))
Though I would not mind spacecraft getting some modifications, increasing mass for Armor (so that it's not tin foil), as well as fuel, with a reduction in KF drive to compensate, as well as removing or changing the rules for that solar sail... (the energy one gets via solar recharge is vastly different than what one gets via fusion recharging).
-
If I could retcon the game system I would change the technology of the invading clans.
I would retcon the invading clan tech to the improved versions of the IS tech in Total Warfare. So clan ER Medium laser would be equivalent to IS ER Med lasers. This gives the game somewhere to go with technology innovation, Combine that with Total Warfare rules level for both sides so that by the time we get to the Republic of the Sphere there is just one technology used which is the current Clan tech.
Currently the separation of technologies just does not make sense to me when compared to the innovation and proliferation of technology throughout human history. Nothing has driven innovation more than war. Enemies have always stolen, broken down and replicated or just plain kidnapped and tortured the enemy to gain the technology required. On this count the Inner Sphere is the most innept group of humans EVER!
Rob
-
The thing I would like to see is how the difference between standard I.S. tech, Star League tech, and Clan Tech is handled. No real major differences in the weapons themselves, but have "standard" tech units use d6 dice, Star League tech units use d8 dice, and Clan tech units use d10 dice. Basically the biggest differences in the weapons are not the weapons, it is the targeting systems. This would also clean up the insane number of weapons systems we have now. Sure, it is neat, but there is something to say about the simplicity the game used to have before the Clans showed up.
-
If I could retcon the game system I would change the technology of the invading clans.
I would retcon the invading clan tech to the improved versions of the IS tech in Total Warfare. So clan ER Medium laser would be equivalent to IS ER Med lasers. This gives the game somewhere to go with technology innovation, Combine that with Total Warfare rules level for both sides so that by the time we get to the Republic of the Sphere there is just one technology used which is the current Clan tech.
Currently the separation of technologies just does not make sense to me when compared to the innovation and proliferation of technology throughout human history. Nothing has driven innovation more than war. Enemies have always stolen, broken down and replicated or just plain kidnapped and tortured the enemy to gain the technology required. On this count the Inner Sphere is the most innept group of humans EVER!
Rob
Funny you mention that, I was having the exacy same thought reading through this thread. O0
-Gunz
-
Hello,
*checks calendar*
Last Day, folks!
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Some major story changes would be great.
Something to make BC live in interesting times. [cheers]
-
Don't change anything but the Refusal War.
A winner, preferably the wolves
A loser, preferably the falcons
No exiles, unless the wolves leave/get kicked out en masse
-
Hello,
Sorry; this poll has been concluded. And we are not taking requests at this time.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
-
Hello,
So, this is part 2 of the Retcon Reset discussion: How much change can we bear?
I'm getting the distinct feeling that retcon is coming no matter what anyone says.
So, what part of the game has you all bothered, HABeas2?
-
Hello,
Sorry, but this poll has expired, and your question exceeds the boundaries of the discussion. Therefore, it will not be answered.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas