BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Administration and Moderation => BattleTech News => Catalyst Asks You! => Topic started by: HABeas2 on 15 October 2012, 14:18:30
-
Hello,
So here we are again, looking for input from the fans. If you are the type of fan who thinks these polls and queries never get read by me or taken into any form of consideration, we are not interested in your opinion. The rest of you, as always, are welcome to join in. (Yes, that's snark. I apologize if you were offended, but if I actually offended you, it probably means you're precisely the sort whose input will not be helpful, so feel free to carry on without providing any.)
This time the topic is not a poll, but a general question: If you could improve any aspect of the Technical Readouts CGL publishes in print format (not the PDF-exclusives), what would it be, and how?
For the sake of organization and legibility, I would request that all responses be kept as brief as possible. Multi-page dissertations are tiring to read through, especially when they get ranty. Time is money, and I can get in trouble for spending too much time reading and not enough time doing. Plus, I--like most of my fellow humans--have a strict "I don't have to take this kind of abuse" policy, where I mentally switch off when faced with long, winding, complaining messages. Think of the look in my eyes going glassy as a four-year-old being read Chauser. That's what happens when anyone goes on for more than seven paragraphs in an e-mail or forum post.
For further organizational help, aspects of the book can cover the following:
Content - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in the book in general (specially such things as what type of units and technologies the book covers--or even how many to cover at a clip. Just remember, though: More content = more cost to the consumer).
Writing - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the fluff text.
Stats - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the units' statistical data.
Rules - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of extra/expanded game rules.
Art - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of art.
Layout - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in terms of the physical arrangement of the book and its contents.
So, help us get a handle on what we can do to improve the Technical Readouts, and feel free to post your thoughts here.
I'll keep this one open until 17 November 2012. That's about a month. In the meantime, be civil!
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
Thank you
-
In terms of TROs I'd enjoy seeing more Advanced or Experimental Tech get mounted, but that's just me.
-
Content
I like the TRO's as they are. About the only thing I've ever wished for when developing events or working on various campaigns is an actual Date in General Service. You can usually work it out to a rough guess based on the fluff and most of the TRO years however having an actual date at least for me would be handy.
-
Content - I am pleased with seeing advanced and experimental technologies trickling into the core TRO's
Writing - I like the notable pilots fluff myself.
Stats - Quickstrike stats, please!
Rules - Minimal to none: I'd prefer the rules staying in rules books as much as possible.
Art - More David White!
-
Content - I would also like to see actual Date in General Service as well. Also, I would like to see re-visitation of Battle History like in original TRO:3025 and notable pilots. History gave the 'Mech more background and character. Deployment which factions would be using it and how scarcest the mech is. Perhaps a page or two dedicated to variants/refits of existing/surviving units still in service at the time. I would gladly pay more money to see all these things added to it.
Writing - Writing quality has always been good since CGL taken over, I have no complaints.
Rules - I'd like see the continuation of the Quirks, with possibly more added. Again I like how it gives the unit more character and uniqueness to let stand apart from other hundred of publish units.
Art - I would like see least section of Mechs, vehicles, extra done by same arts. Example: David White would draw all the Light Mechs, Brett would do Medium mechs for this faction. etc
Layout - I'd Like TRO look you guys came up with for 3085 over Prototypes.
-
Content - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in the book in general (specially such things as what type of units and technologies the book covers--or even how many to cover at a clip. Just remember, though: More content = more cost to the consumer).
I wouldn't mind if aero and naval were moved into seperate TROs for space considerations. If the newest Lyran _sturm takes up space which could potentially add another ground unit to the game, i'll take the ground unit.
Writing - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the fluff text.
Dig it when real world(ish) logistics are taken into consideration beyond "it doesn't need to reload lasers". Commitee mechs, mechs based on stockpiles of existing equipment, those sorts of things. I also like the occasional quirky mech snuck in there, because RL militaries have and do build units for very specific roles, even if those roles are much cooler on paper.
Art - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of art.
I actually really like the newer 3d art. Also, the conventional infantry illustrations in TRO3085+sup really inject a human face (no pun) into a game of mechs and tanks. Nicely handled in most cases. Not a huge fan of TROs like 3058 where the majority of the artwork seems uniform.
-
In terms of the fluff I really liked the section on notable MechWarriors/crew. I always thought that section was fun.
For stats, I'd like to see the cost included.
When it comes to content, I liked the RPG equipment section in the original edition of TRO3026. I remember either you, Herb, or it may have been Randall, say that the reason BA was not included in the original editions of TRO3055 and TRO3058 was because there wasn't a construction system for BA at the time to base a TRO on, or something to that effect. Well we've got conversion formulas for RPG weapons now so maybe that might apply?
And I do like that you've included conventional infantry in TRO3085 and its supplement. I'd like to see more.
-
I wouldn't change rhe current way they are. I like the new dynamic covers, the very nice art inside, the going back to the original style like from the 3025.
-
Content - I'd like to see the in service date (as well as an extinction date if one applies), faction distribution and rarity of the unit, and cannonized design quirks.
Writing - Battle history. Fluff in general. Design Quirks.
stats - C-Bill cost and BV3. BV modifier for including Design Quirks.
Rules - Supplemental rules installments would be great - this would lend well to Design Quirks, as well as other new things that may come up. We've seen this in TROs and Record Sheets booklets already; but I'd like to see more of it. It might help tide us over for Interstellar Operations.
-
I wouldn't mind if aero and naval were moved into seperate TROs for space considerations.
I'd like to second this - not so much for space considerations but more for organizational reasons. I'd even extend this to say a seperate TRO for combat vehicles as well.
-
Content - Aside from obviously asking for more WarShips(my current wish list is the alluded-to Aquila variants that were used by nascent Houses, Periphery powers, and pirates alike), I'm loving the current spate of experimental and/or primitive tech units. For the vast majority of this game's history, we'd had almost no examples of these extremes in the technological spectrum, and all of the ones we've been getting lately are a godsend. It'll be a very long time before I get tired of seeing these things. Same goes for support vehicles and 'mechs. And for Cat's sake, more 3085-style infantry, please!
Writing - I'm really not sure here...I love what we've been getting lately, so...keep up the good work? Oh, I know! More words like horsepoopery, please!
Stats - Uh....more Fluid Guns, please? Beyond that, I'd really like every piece of equipment in the game to have at least one unit that mounts it. That's probably going to happen anyway with all the experimental and unique things we've been getting, but I'm remembering the days of Maxtech and prior, when we'd have oodles of cool gear, but no canon units fielding it. This more or less removed that equipment from the game as far as canon-designs-only players were concerned.
Rules - Friendly fire rules? Pwease? O:-)
Art - More stuff by White or Iglesias. To me, those two are very clearly the gold standard for unit art right now.
Layout - I liked the layout of TRO: Prototypes, where everything was grouped by unit, and then within those groups were sorted by IS/Clan tech base.
-
More large PWS and larger fighter carrier DropShips as well.
-
Content - Since you asked: Please stop the design spam. BattleMechs, battlearmor and aerospace fighter types have become a blurry haze, and that's before variants and Omni configs. At least restrict "new" designs to older and rarer types. Old is the new new.
Writing
Want: Notable pilots. Variants (careful not to overdo these though). Quirks. Fluff on manufacturing and proliferation.
Stats
Would like as regular entries: Introduction year, heat sink placement.
Don't like: Omni configs. Simply stating Pod space would suffice.
Rules - I've grown tired of new weapon rules. No new guns please! But I love quirks - with the understanding that they are optional, being ignored by default. Quirks add color to fluff, campaigns and roleplaying but are irritating in tournament play or pickup games.
Art - Please make sure art and stats (esp. gun barrels/crit placement) match.
For all I care, art can be re-used more often. If you're looking to cut costs, don't commission new art for existing designs.
Layout - Everything's peachy here
-
Mostly a ditto for what has been said already:
Content - I love the notable pilots/crew, and the battle history section makes things more "real".
Writing - Same as above, plus the design quirks.
Stats - Placement of heat sinks would be nice to know, but we can probably just keep getting that from the Record Sheets. General service dates, C-Bill cost, basic deploment info (which Houses) would be nice. I like the infantry units.
Some designs are made just to fill an empty profile (weight class/movement combo) and it is obvious that they didn't have a "real" in-world purpose for being made.
Rules - I think we've hit a saturation point on new weapons. The "round to the nearest .5 ton" rule still bugs me.
Art - Make sure the art matches the design. Artwork for each variant would be really nice, but that would probably make the cost and page count explode.
Layout - Seems to work pretty well so far.
Maybe a blur between a TRO and a RPG sourcebook, but I'd like to see a personal equipment catalog. I honestly don't know if the demand would justify the effort, though.
-
Layout: The TRO:Prototypes I found difficult to read because there wasn't enough contrast between the background image and the text. The pattern was (IMO) too busy.
Writing: I have no complaints. Keep up the good work.
Art: Again no complaints.
Stats: Year in General use would be nice, but I imagine that's included on the Master Units List.
Content: I'd like to see more "Old is the New New" style stuff. That was awesome. Maybe add some personal equipment or conventional infantry equipment to a TRO?
-
Content - The content from TRO Prototypes and such I enjoyed quite a bit. New tech being shuffled into key faction specific forces are what I like.
Writing - The current writing is fine. No real distracting faction slant on write up, I'm told who has what, and notable pilots when applicable.
Stats - Current stats, some quirks if possible, and Quickstrike/Battleforce stats!
Rules - TRO Prototypes' tech advancement table is perfect for the big eras.
I want to see when some advanced bit of equipment becomes mainstream.
Art - I don't care too much for 3d art at times (unless we're going all 3d for a book), but certain designs like the Stinger IIC are great in 3d. I guess I don't like mixing of art like that.
Layout - Clan and Inner Sphere seperated, incorporate the Project Phoenix stuff into the respective faction. It doesn't need to be on its own anymore.
-
Writing - I like the "Capabilities" and "Deployment" sections because they give the most flavor to a design. I like knowing that a particular design is quite common in say, the Crucis Lancers or that a particular design has problems with the ejection system.
Stats - I don't like seeing Battleforce (TRO: 3060ish) stats.
Rules - Quirks! Oh please let quirks be part of every TRO!
Art - I personally do not like the "human" looking designs like the Brahma, Parash, Kuma... and a lot of the designs in TRO 3060 do not look good either. I'd say I'm a fan of the blocky 80s aesthetic, although I do like the looks of the new Celestials and many of the designs in 3085 are good looking to me.
Layout - I like... Consistency. I don't like TRO 3060 and 3067 because they don't match with the other TROs.
-
Once upon a time I was walking through Waldenbooks, and I found a new thing called TRO3025. Beauty incarnate. It was a TRO that got me hooked on the game.
Content: TROs by type vs consolidated TRO - 3025/3026/3057 were great as by type since you were giving us a whole history of products. You could fill the books without serving some spam. These short jumps in years don't really allow for by type TROs. How big of a jump to the next TRO can be a major factor in this decision.
Writing: The battle histories have always been nice. Since you people don't have enough to do, you could use this section to help tell the story of changes in the game universe leading up to the next TRO. It shouldn't take too many months to figure out which vehicles would be available for which battles at a certain point in time. >:D
Stats: I agree with others that intro date and faction use would be nice. For vehicles with house variants, if room would permit, a stat block for the variant instead of space in the fluff might be nice. If you are going to have battleforce, quickstrike or whatever rules, those stats need to be in the TRO. (If nothing else, maybe something like a two page table of stats at the end of the book.)
Rules: Rules should live in rulebooks as much as possible, but it takes a lot of new rules to fill a rulebook. A few pages of rules for new equipment added to the end of a TRO is fine.
Art: Maybe we could quit exaggerating the size of weapons.
Layout: In partnership with content, variants of previous work don't need a two page spread. It might just take half of a page to say what it is, who makes it, and here's the stat blob. Depending on how many designs you work on, this could be the difference in question of TRO by type vs consolidated TRO.
Battletech is, and always has been, the TROs. We aren't playing the fluff books. TROs should be the flagship product of Battletech. Take care of them and they'll take care of you.
Meow Liao
-
Content - More specialist/niche designs. The Scout, Trooper, Main Combatant, Linebreaker (light-assault) standard roles are well-represented. I'd like to see more focused/specialize/exotic-role designs. Designs deliberately unbalanced towards one corner of the Speed/Weapons/Armor triangle, like the Panther or the Charger.
Writing - Another vote for notable pilots/battles. Intro dates would be nice, I mean, I know we have the MUL, but I like to read the fluff.
Stats - I see no need to change
Rules - Rules in rule books, please. though the advancing tech level as demo'd in TR:3085 was OK
Art - Keep on trucking
I'll agree with Meow Liao - TRO's are your flagship, and follow up with, it's not the designs that sell these, anyone can design a mech. It's the fluff and the art that brings me back to BT every time. Literally in the most recent case, I happened to pick up TRO 3055 (first version) off my shelf and that led me to buying CAT35001-4 pretty much sight unseen. And that's IMHO one of the weakest TROs out there.
-
Hello,
Congratulations on the first deleted post of the discussion [insert name here]! Try something less ranty next time, and don't say you weren't warned!
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Content - More Protomechs and WiGEs. I really think every IS faction should have at least 2 total native(meaning that
Steiner, Kurita, and Davion only need 1 more), More Inner Sphere OmniMechs. More Clan 'Mechs (omni or "second-line") with
melee weapons. More Aerospace Fighters, both Standard and Omni, for both Clan and Inner Sphere. More OmniTanks for Inner Sphere and Clans.
Writing - I like the notable pilots. Also knowing consistently how open a unit is for sale to other Houses/Mercs would be nice.
Stats - Traditionally, TROs have not listed the armour type on units, forcing one to have to look into the fluff to figure out what type of armour it has. I would like to have that listed in the entry, since there is often a delay between the books release and the canon record sheets. I would also like to see notation where the criticals are located for internal structure, armour, and heat sinks outside the engine. I like that you have started putting in the Design Quirks, and hope that you continue to do so.
Rules - I liked the TRO:P entry on what is now tournament legal for tournaments fought in a set time period. I would like to see this more often.
Art -More David White and S. Huda, please. More sleek, predatory lines of Clan 'Mechs, more Samurai Aesthetic look to Combine 'Mechs.
Layout - While I like the classic layouts with vehicles, I understand that, as the universe has progressed, this has become something that would not make sense for the in-universe authors, as they no longer see 'mechs as the undisputed kings of the battlefield. One thing that would be nice, and I think it would be done in layout, would be something like was done in 3075 for the Age of War section: a graphic in the upper left of the entry where you can tell at a glance what the originating House/Clan the design was from. Also, I miss the alphabetical listing of units that used to be in every TRO.
-
I think the current TROs are great products.
I do want to see a continuation of the Notable Pilots and the rest of the "fluff". I love the addition of the infantry section, although I think some of the PBIs are a tad unbalanced.
If I had one complaint, it would be that I'm not interested in the trend towards "space variants", IndustrialMech stats and "underwater variants", but it certainly isn't enough to turn me off of buying them.
-
My thoughts..
Content: More TRO's like 2750, 3067, 3075-85.
Give me a couple new (old) infantry, vees, mechs, fighters, large ships, for each faction & I'm good. I don't need to be combarded w/ 55 new mechs at once.
Less New Units. But more variants.
Seriously. I love the "Royals" & "Old is New New" sections & don't need to wonder why there are 8 new mechs coming out of a factory but the classic Warhammer is going extinct.
Feeling bombarded w/ all the "new" stuff instead of the classics.
That said, not EVERY mech needs a new RAC or Plasma or MML version, etc etc.
Writing: Deployment History & full data variants sections.
(I want to see the text description & be able to make it in HMPro w/o wondering where that last ton goes)
Stats: Dates, Factions, Factories, C-Bills, & BV.......... Basically the MUL info
Otherwise the placement of structureal items (Endo, FF, HS) would be nice, just like you see in the design programs.
Rules: Quick Strike Stats & Minimal Advanced/Experimental Equipment
I'd preffer to keep "most" designs as TW/Tournament legal. (But a trickle is ok)
One other thing, "new" rules belong in the TRO, not the RS
(IIRC, The way the LAM rules were only in print RS not Print TRO or PDF RS was really annoying)
Art: Just avoid the "lines" thing from 3057 or the "flexable ankles" & "exposed ammo belts" things that make little sense & we are good.
Layout: I could go w/ a smaller picture a lot of the time w/o background details to fit in more stats room myself.
-
Hello,
(I want to see the text description & be able to make it in HMPro w/o wondering where that last ton goes)
You DO realize that HeavyMetal is hopelessly obsolete now, right?
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
You DO realize that HeavyMetal is hopelessly obsolete now, right?
/Insert random design program then.
But I still find it works fine for 95% of designs.
-
Content - Worldbuilding. I know TRO VA wasn't super popular though it is one of my favorite TRO's. In that line of thought, it would be nice to sneak a couple of civilian units (maybe 6 pages of content) into the back of any major TRO. A new industrial, a new engineering vehicle, a particularly famous model of personal hovercar, whatever.
Whatever I can squeeze in at $50 or less a TRO, significantly more if you guys ever make the jump to hardback or limited ed. hardback.
Writing - I want to know: who builds it; where it's built; at what volume (few to many); its major field variants if any; and here's the important one, what is its battle history? I weep every time I see "it has a gauss rifle for punching holes in things" that gets drawn out for a paragraph vs. saying "it was featured prominently in Operation Chapter 11 against C* on Quentin in 3196".
Notable Pilots are a must. They breath life into the designs.
Quirks are a must. I got so excited when you guys started to officially include them in TRO's.
Stats - Happy with the current stuff.
Rules - I like having the tourney rule eras included in the TRO's. Other rules I'd rather have in other sourcebooks. TRO's are catalogs not construction manuals.
Art - A great colorful cover, dynamically posed grayscale entries, no angles looking up from the bottom (don't need to repeat the horrorshow that is the Nightstar and the Bushwhacker). Here's a big one though. No pasted stock textures. The microsoft bubbles on stuff like the the Primitive Shad made me sick.
Layout - Lump together by type (mechs, ASF's) and weight (Light, Med, etc.). Use your availability symbols from the MUL to show who it's available to. Dump the "by faction" breakup.
-
I'll preface by saying that I've been quite pleased with CGL-era TROs. What would I like to see in new volumes?
Content: Firstly, I'd like to see more infantry entries. Also, while there has been more support vees of late (thanks!), I'd like a small section on civvie stuff, as well as non-vehicular material*. I know TRO:VA wasn't the best seller ever, but a small section could really add to the universe, for both the TW level of play as well as ATOW.
* I haven't gone through ATOW and ATOW-C equipment lists to give you specific examples at this time. Sorry!
-
Content I wouldn't mind seeing more specialists and more support units as well as old/primitive and prototype units. I'd love to see all the equipment items used at least once. Not necessarily all in one TRO but eventually.
I'd love to see more infantry.
Civilian stuff would be nice as targets. Unless it isn't possible/practical there should be some mention as how they are used by military/militia/government/merc/partisan units. Otherwise fluff really isn't needed. It's still nice though. ;)
If going for a really big book, a section in the back for main variants with smaller picture and stats for the units included. Although, if there were enough you could make a supplemental TRO of just them. Even if it were just a small picture, stats, and bare bones fluff, that'd be nicer than a RS. Like how the TRO part of the TRO/RS booklet was done for Solaris VII.
I'd rather not see items for the RPG included though unless Battletech stats are included. Otherwise its just nice art and fluff and isn't applicable. The same goes for other stats. Some units barely have enough room for their stats as it is. Adding in other stats would just confuse things.
Writing It's been mostly good so far. I do like when all the overview/capabilities/history/variants/pilots sections are filled in but I know that isn't possible for new units. Testing and test pilots could be used in place of some though.
Stats It'd be nice to have unit cost, intro date, and who by included. Having Fuel/Range listed for all units would be nice. I know a lot would be unlimited but it'd be nice to see the effects of extra fuel tanks and quirks change things on the stats for those that do use fuel. And it'd save time having to look it up.
I love quirks and hope to see more but if they mimic an actual physical item, please, please, please include a location and type. I can't use a quirk like "searchlight" if I don't know where it's pointing or how far it'll go. Also if a quirk effects a specific item/items please put an indicator by it/them on the stats. Otherwise I won't know which one you mean. Thanks :)
Please list all equipment items in the stats. If you need to add in another section for Other Equipment or just change Weapons and Ammo to Weapons and Equipment or something, please do. Notes: really isn't the place to list them and they get missed when looking at stats. Their being listed as notes also sometimes means locations and weight get left out.
Rules
In the TRO's? }:) If new equipment, quirks or abilities, is included, and there aren't rules for them already in print, then please by all means include rules. If its just an item here or there put the rules on the stats page as a note. If its a lot of items put all their rules in their own section. It's rather frustrating not being able to use a unit because you don't know how to use it's equipment. Even now there are still items listed in TRO's that don't have rules.
Art I'd really like it if the art matched the stats. Pictures of variants would be nice too but they could be in the RS.
Layout It'd be nice if you went back to printing text on white instead of dark grey. It can be hard to read, especially when there's a back ground image or pattern there. The background pattern can be distracting from the art as well. It's alright for the edges but not where you're trying to read.
-
Writing - This is the biggest for me. While I like some of the fun stories of battle histories that some people try to work into the Performance section, I would like to see Battle History separate. While I like a good read the first time, I go back to a TRo to find out who has it, and how prevalent it might be to those who do. That's what I really want to know. This would be part of Deployment.
I'm also less concerned with financial and business history, and more interested in the role it was tapped for in the first place, and how it succeeds and/or fails in that role, why it might have been passed over or is now obsolete, etc.
The thing I'm looking for in a TRo entry is help in figuring out a Mech's place in the various militaries of the IS and Periphery, and how or if I should use it when designing a force for a scenerio. Will it be breaking canon to assume that the Black Warriors had access to Phoenix Mechs in 3065, and a fair variety, which they might have also gifted to some of the Mercs sent to help protect Circinus Worlds from the Marians, for example.
The less I have to guess on deployment and rarity, the better I feel about winging up forces from what I read. Even a vague scale would be helpful.
-
Content - A good mix of units. Infantry, Vees, 'Mechs, Aerospace Units, SuppVees, perhaps buildings.
Writing - Fluff provides fluff. Please stay away from passages that can be interpreted as rules. Or: see Rules.
Stats - Stats as given so far are great.
Rules - Unit Quirks, please. Please add any 'rules' that might result from the fluff to this quirks.
Art - Art is ok. Please keep it up.
Layout - I enjoyed both the classical layout and the TRO Prototypes one. So go ahead, try something new sometimes. Perhaps a layout fitting to the in universe publisher?
-
Let me preface by saying that TRO3025 was my introduction to the game and still remains my favorite TRO.
Content - I like seeing a little bit of everything for everyone. I'm not a huge fan of having seven or eight designs for one faction within two or three weight classes and leaving factions out. I don't think we need to have as many designs per unit type, but I'd also like to see most if not all unit types represented in a given TRO. I am also fully comfortable with different faction sets getting different TROs (a la Clans vs IS having different TROs). Trying to cram both sets of factions together seems like it creates TROs that are packed with mechs and vehicles alone, and forgoes a lot of content on Dropships, ASFs, Infantry, VTOLs, WiGEs, Protos, etc. I think a little more specificity faction-wise could help.
Writing - Huge fan of the 'machine/unit history' sections. I love seeing when a unit has character and background, particularly when we're talking about a unit like the Blackjack or the Quickdraw which seems lackluster at first glance but hits above its apparent weaknesses if employed right.
Stats - I don't have any real recommendations here. I love the way the stats are presented.
Rules - Not a big fan of seeing rules in the TROs. Also not a huge fan of seeing deep new technology discussions like TRO3050. It was necessary at the time, but I think we'd be better suited putting that stuff in other updates or some such.
Art - Love the conceptual-looking work from TRO3025. Seeing the over-draws and the rough shading. To be honest, I don't know the individual artists well enough to say who is who, I know what appeals to me, but it isn't so important that it's going to effect either my opinion of the product nor of the designs.
Layout - Prefer the layout like TRO3025 with mechs, ASFs, armor, dropships, etc delineated out into their own sections and, further, weight classes within those sections. While the weight classes are purely arbitrary, they do help to organize one's thoughts and keep the memorizations straight (these are the lights, Locust, Stinger, Wasp, Commando, etc etc), at least for me.
Thank you so much for putting these out, Herb. I really appreciate you taking the time out to open these up and ask us for our input. I love these products and have collected them all (although some of them are no longer with me, RIP my first TRO3025, you'll be missed) - fell apart finally.
Thanks again.
-
Content:
Sub-optimal designs. Still a big fan of crap units.
The ONN and Royals sections were great ideas: a great way to debut some history or current events plus a ton of variants in a small amount of space.
I'd like to see TROs feature units that have been out for a handful of years, instead of those that are just coming off the line, as it gives more room for the writers to tell stories and include notable pilots/battles, which are always great, but don't make sense for new units.
Writing:
I hate seeing "here are the weapons and armour the unit has, restated but this time only wordier". Tell me a story of procurement or deployment snafus or misfiring SRM launchers or something instead. This leads me to Quirks - very glad to see them in readouts, and I think their continued inclusion will help produce better readout entries (not that in general they're bad - overall I think they're good right now - this is more of a "something that used to happen that I hope doesn't return").
I'd like mandatory model numbers and intro dates for the main design and all its variants in the text. Sometimes a variant is written up as just "the one with the MML-5", which is annoying because the record sheet might not come out for a while to tell you what it is.
Layout:
in all the years Battletech has been around, the chassis, communications system, and targeting system lines have served only to take up space and give fact checkers headaches. I feel they could be tossed with no loss and some actual gain (no more errata on them, room in an entry for more useful stuff).
Stats:
I'd like to see Battleforce/Quick Strike supported in the entries, as TR 3060 did.
Rules:
New Quirks at the absolute most. A unified rulebook line feels silly when you get new rules scattered all over the place.
Thanks.
-
Content:
Sub-optimal designs. Still a big fan of crap units.
A great segway for me as a total contrast because I'm absolutely through seeing "sub-optimal" designs, which have saturated the TROs since their inception. In fact, I believe some TROs have gone way out of their way to put a limp in what otherwise could have been fabulous designs. Therefore, give us a TRO of WWII German Tiger tank equivalents...meaning "Lords of the Battlefield" designs (not the website). Please note I'm not advocating Pulse Laser boats with TarComps or their rules silly equivalents, but truly inspired monster tough designs. Thats what I want for Christmas...oh, and a Red Ryder BB gun, j/k O0 Similarly, the artwork for some 'Mechs on MechWarrior Online, Fan Art on this site, and elsewhere should set the standard for TRO ink...'nuff said.
-
On the 'suboptimal design' discussion, I'm firmly with Xotl. I think a design with character is infinitely more playable than a Hellstar. I play Crusaders and Thunderbolts and Quickdraws and Commandos and the like all the way through. Finding moments when suboptimal designs are perfectly suited to the terrain, the enemy, position, and timing; those are the moments when the game is most exciting to me. Particularly when the design has story and the pilot is exceptional but the enemy is vast. That's my cup of tea.
-
I am sorry about how long and messy this post is. I tried to keep it more or less pulled together, but at the end of the day I am happy with how things are going overall so this is more of a collection of mismatched points in a rough list than anything else.
Content/Stats
My requests here are more unit specific, but I will still try to keep them as general as possible.
First, I really like seeing non-military units like the Resgate civilian powered armor and would be interested in seeing more non-combat designs because of how they expand the rest of the universe.
Second, I would like to see more niche omni configurations. I feel like one of the greatest strengths of omnis in universe is that you can convert them into a specialist as needed, but we are lacking stats for things like Arrow IV, anti-vehicle, anti-aircraft, and electronic warfare specialists which would be very helpful for allowing us to do this in game.
Third, I would like to see more of the 9/14 movement profile. It seems like we do not really have many designs that fill this slot when compared with 10/15 or 8/12 designs, so I would like to see a decent top end (30~35 ton) light 'Mech moving 9/14.
Fourth, I would like to see a reasonably solid Clan 'Mech with at least one ERPPC and LB 5-X AC because I feel like it is hard to find that paring in canon and I love using it on customs.
Fifth, I would like to see more attention payed to heat balance and ammunition levels. I am perfectly happy working with strange arsenals so long as the unit looks like it was designed as a working whole and not a random pile of weapons with no thought given to heat management or ammo endurance. An unusual arsenal is what gives designs flavor, not poor heat management, low ammo, or thin armor which do nothing but handicap the unit.
Sixth, I would like to see more variants of old units rather than totally new builds. It is usually cheaper to modify something that already exists than to build something new in the real world, and I feel like BattleTech should follow this logic as well.
Seventh, I would like to see more WiGEs. Just because they are new to the rules does not mean they have not been around for centuries, so I would like to see some older designs dating back to the Star League.
Eighth, I would like to see a fast NARC platform. I feel like good NARC platforms are in short supply so I would like to see a little more variety added here.
Ninth, I would like to see a 3025-era design that actually uses the AC-5 well to shut people up who are griping about it on the forum because it really is a perfectly viable weapon when used properly and kept within its era.
Rules
While I am a fan of quirks and see why they need to be placed with the units, I would still be looking to make some efforts to combine them down into a more unified system as much as possible so they eat less page space.
Art
I like the way the art has been going lately, so I am just going to say that I am more of a fan of a rougher, more practical, and more industrial look for my combat equipment because these are war machines, not sculptures.
-
On the 'suboptimal design' discussion, I'm firmly with Xotl. I think a design with character is infinitely more playable than a Hellstar. I play Crusaders and Thunderbolts and Quickdraws and Commandos and the like all the way through. Finding moments when suboptimal designs are perfectly suited to the terrain, the enemy, position, and timing; those are the moments when the game is most exciting to me. Particularly when the design has story and the pilot is exceptional but the enemy is vast. That's my cup of tea.
And that is fantastic because you have such a vast number of designs to choose from across a number of game playable centuries. Oddly, I personally consider versions of the Crusader and T-Bolt to be superior designs depending on the time period so I have to wonder if you missed my point. Similarly, although I have not played it, I believe the Hellstar to be along the lines of the rules silly machines I described before...although it really is simply a Clan tech Awesome. So, again, I'm simply asking for a TRO of very nasty, but equally imaginative Battlemech designs.
-
Content You've said in the past that single subject TRO's (e.g. TRO 3057, TRO:VA) don't sell as well as TRO's with a variety of content. So maybe you could start adding some civilian stuff to the new TROs. Sort of a TRO:VA "lite". That would expand the civilian content but not isolate it into a separate product.
Rules: Please only include them if they're relevant to the equipment shown in the TRO. The TRO:Prototypes quirks rules for example, or rules that deal with a new piece of equipment introduced in the TRO. Otherwise please try to keep the rules in the rulebooks. And please segregate the rules into their own section, like the original TRO:3050 and TRO:Prototypes.
Edit 20121023: Requested rules be in their own section.
-
Most other have said the same as I would, though I'll chime in extra agreement with False Son in saying the Aero/Naval forces should maybe need a TRO of their own, like TRO: 3057. I noticed I'm the only one that could do without infantry though. Maybe keep them in the "PDF Only" TROs? I'll also steal what Cateran had to say, since I agree with him the most overall. ;D
Content - I love the notable pilots/crew, and the battle history section makes things more "real".
Writing - Same as above, plus the design quirks.
Stats - Placement of heat sinks would be nice to know, but we can probably just keep getting that from the Record Sheets. General service dates, C-Bill cost, basic deploment info (which Houses) would be nice. -- Also, more details of exactly where equipment goes in some of the variants. Some are easy enough to figure out - "swaps RA PPC for an ER large laser" is easy enough, but "replaces fusion engine with an XL model, then adds an SRM 4 with 1 ton of ammo" is a bit vague. Even saying "torso-mounted SRM 4" leaves it wide open to interpretation.
Rules - I think we've hit a saturation point on new weapons. -- As several others have also said, let's keep rules to the Rule Books.
Art - Make sure the art matches the design. Artwork for each variant would be really nice, but that would probably make the cost and page count explode. -- The addition of variant artwork to the back of TRO: Project Phoenix was a nice addition, I thought. O0
Layout - Seems to work pretty well so far.
Maybe a blur between a TRO and a RPG sourcebook, but I'd like to see a personal equipment catalog. I honestly don't know if the demand would justify the effort, though. -- TRO: 3026 worked well in this regard. O0
-
Content - Less desigs to go with the times that should less manufacturing and/or new tech. With fewer designs, I would like to see record sheets in the TRO books, though only of the main production model.
Writing - No changes
Stats - No changes.
Rules - Leave the rules for rulebooks, Turning points and hot spots type of books
Art - More Lewis, Iglesias and White. Less of Huda.
Layout - No changes.
-
Content - more aerospace. Fighters right on up through Warships, though fighters especially could use a greater variety. Each major state basically had 3 main designs through (TRO)3060, getting one or two more with '67 and another finally fluffed in '75.
Writing - Just have each entry make sense within itself and with regards to the faction and TRO as a whole. For example, the Arbalest using more standard parts because the Nova Cats don't have enough Clan parts... only to see the Morrigan a few pages later loaded with Clan-spec gear and production being shared with the DC. Huh?
Stats - Personal preference runs to designs that are good at something, but perhaps somewhat lacking in other areas. 'Mechs like the Burrock and PP Longbow do this well. Specialization means there's a reason to take different 'Mechs for different types of games.
Art - Visuals sell the game and universe. While the book covers have been great, sometimes the interior illustrations have been lacking. In general terms better art = better minis, and better minis mean a better impression on casual viewers or first-time buyers.
-
Content - BattleMechs, Combat Vehicles, Infantry/BattleArmor. Maybe Aerospace Fighters and DropShips. More Phoenix/II/upgrades where the unit gets a full page update with new art, new "history", new pilots. The Royals (3075) and ONN (3085) are some of the most often used units in my games. At least, keeping those kinds of sections to update old units if full pages can't be done.
Writing - More of the TR being set in the future and looking back, with information on why the unit was built (missile platform, cavalry, etc), and who is using it (notable mechwarriors). On the other hand, not all the units in one block. (TR3050's everything comes out in 3049-3052 with nothing from 3040-3047..)
Stats - I hadn't though about it before Xotl mentioned it, but Chassis, Comms, Targeting and Tracking can go. Variants section should contain all the information needed to field the unit (or be available online at nearly the same time, not years later).
Rules - Nothing in the TR.
Art - If possible, a theme across factions and/or manufacturers. Rather than Phoenix section having one artist for example, have Starcorps with one artist. (Yes, I know reality intrudes, but as far as wish list..)
Layout - TR Prototypes background does make the art pop out nicely, but is hard on the text. Perhaps a large white box for the main text area like the stats on the art page does? Otherwise, Layout is one of the things I'm most impressed with in general.
-
...Let me continue to praise TPTB for their TROs. Good work.
Content: I would like to see a wider group of factions. Houses, Clans, fine - what about Primitives from the Fiefdom of Randis, how is the Filtvet Coalition coping with fending off pirates with only local vehicle production, how are the Hansa preparing for an attack by the Escorpion Imperio Navy?
Art: Less Huda. Not impressed, sorry. More White or whatshisname, Eric Ou(?). Dynamic poses need to remember the 'walking tank' idea.
Writing, layout, stats: Fine, thanks. I wouln't mind if you wanted to add C-Bill value or whatever.
Layout: I realize all the TROs have been landscape, but I wouldn't mind standard books either. They'd fit normally on my shelf, where the TROs have to be laid flat.
-
Content- I'm really liking the TROs that have been coming out lately. I like the general theme of most units, and most of the new tech isn't being abused to badly. I would like to have a tiny bit more variety of Protomechs to play with (we get a lot of monsters and a a lot of disposables, but not much in between), and perhaps some more infantry, but both of these can be spread over several TROs.
My one big desire is for more naval designs. Battlemechs might be kings of the battlefield, but a good coastal bombardment will remind them that kings can still be deposed. Two or three ships/subs/patrol boats per book would be enough to enrich aquatic combat without overwhelming traditional ground combat.
-
Forgive the mildly long reply, but it's not ranting or anything - just a thought on each of the topics that you suggested, Herb.
Content: I like seeing the all-encompassing TROs, especially the way the last few have come out. Certainly BattleMechs are important, but I think a little more focus on modern vehicles, BA, and fighters would do well. Round out the content a little more, I think, especially since we're told that tanks and whatnot are easier to produce. I dunno if historical units would engender their own TRO separately (IIRC that's being done for the Star League, but I could be wrong) however an "Oldies But Goodies" section would be cool to help flesh out areas we don't see at present - something like 3075's historical bit. Maybe even introduce new infantry weapons that way, too, like 3026 and 2750 had their personal gear sections. Who knows, it might increase sales of ATOW!
Writing: LOVE all the background details, plot hints, notable pilots, and whatnot. Developmental histories, political shenanigans (see also Lyran Stealth Armor) all really flesh out the universe with a small investment in wording...but admittedly a big investment in factchecking. Especially without the novels, it's the best way to introduce characters and events, IMO. Deployment data is really useful for someone like me; I love factional-flavoring and try to keep the feel of a regiment consistent with the fluff. Phyr's Hussars likes Dolas? Sweet! Lots of DOL-1A*s for them when I make their unit.
Stats: I'm happy with all the stats. I admit I'd like to see location placement for things like Endo Steel, Heat Sinks, and such simply because that lets me use units that don't yet have record sheets (see also TRO Prototypes) because I can make them myself accurate to canon. I don't need BV or Cost, personally, though I find it a useful bit of side-data sometimes. LOVE having quirks around, please don't drop them! The suggestion of QS stats is very cool too. Would it be possible to include RPG stats for battlesuits at least, or would that be too much to ask for?
Rules: Definitely would like to see more 'experimental' and 'advanced' TL stuff. I'd like to see some more tie-in (as above) with the RPG, at least stat sheets or something. I know there's conversion charts, but I admit I'm lazy and wouldn't mind having official stats.
Art: ERHMAHGERD you guys have been awesome and my only request is more! I also would like to see further 'visual thematics' applied - stuff like the instantly-recognizeable look of the Celestials, or of the classic Clan omnis, or the Star League's curvy armor. We've got different factions, why not give each of their production a bit more visual cue to identify them? Doesn't have to be major, but say...bird legs are popular in the Combine, satyr legs are popular in the Confederation, barrel chests and gun-arms are popular in the Suns, that sort of thing.
Layout: Not much to say here. I admit I like the separation by type more than I do by "side" - having all the Clan tanks with the IS tanks in their own TANK section, rather than "these are all IS units" and "these are all Clan units" works better for me; it's a pan-humanity thing. I WOULD like to see a lot less grey in the readout layout - it makes it hideously expensive to print my PDFs and arrange them the way I like, because the text gets all kind of background on it that annihilates my ink. It might also save on costs since you wouldn't be using as much, so perhaps a bit more white space?
That's all, please don't delete me! I know it's long but I'm throwing ideas, not ranting!
-
As has been stated before:
Writing - I like the notable pilots fluff
Stats - Need to keep adding Quickstrike/Battleforce stats for all units. Also, I like how you guys have added unit quirks.
My request:
Please add record sheets for the base unit (not the variants) in the TRO's PDF. I don't like waiting for the PDF/print copy of the record sheets to come out (since the recent print RS books have only had the base unit anyways) and I really hate plugging units into Skunkwerks without knowing exactly where every crit slot goes or spending hours trying to figure out why the design in the TRO is under/over weight when I enter it into the program.
Possible value add: list what worlds are building the unit (not each individual sub-component, just the finished product) as we see in the Objectives: [faction] book.
-
Content: Personally, I love TROs like 3067, 3075, 3085 plus Supplement, and even Prototypes which includes a variety of designs and weapons over TROs that just include one type of weapon. Though I enjoy the "Royals" and "Old is the New New" section, and ONN was a step in the right direction with more details, it'd be nice to get some further details such if there is any manufactures.
Writing: 3085 should be the template unless there is a unusual aspect to the TRO like TRO: Prototypes. I love background information, plot hints, notable pilots, variants, and weapon loadouts. However something has bugged me from TRO 3085, the VLK-QT2 Valkyrie variant got most of the prose. To me a variant or refit should be in the variant section unless there is no manufactured model at that point such as the MAD-6D Marauder II since it's more important to know who is manufacturing the model at that point.
Stats: It's fine. There isn't much I can suggest other maybe the most useless suggestion ever: cost of components in C-Bills. Yeah, that'd probably be more trouble than it is worth, but certain campaigns, it'd help with replacing parts . . . maybe.
Rules: One of my favorite aspects from the XTRO or Prototypes is Handheld Weapons on the Quickdraw and Axman. More creativity is what I'd like to see there for unique designs.
Art: Art has become one of the more interesting things. It'll never to come to pass because of cost, but it'd be nice to see painted art with the writeups.
Layout: It this point there really isn't much of a difference between Clan and IS since we aren't really focusing on the Homeworld ones, so I'd just say combine them like ANS Kamas P81 stated.
-
Content - Later TROs are quite thick, this gives me a bit of a love/hate thing. I love to see all that new stuff but I also know that many of them will never be sculpted or be worth sculpting. I prefer quality over quantity.
But please always have something for everyone. I belief that this can be done by having combat units be faction specific and the remainder (support & militia) be more generic. It would be a good idea for each support or civilian units in a TRO to have a viable combat or covert variant/config. Then players will always be able to use it on the battlefield.
As for specific unit types. I would like to see more protomechs, combat variants of existing dropships (old is the new new) and generic omni Mobile Field Bases (but for several bay sizes (Light, Heavy, SuperH), like with the APCs in TRO 3060).
Stats - I think that a bit of fat can be cut here. Do we really need to know the tonnage of everything? I think it should be a total list with allocation, example:
4 Medium Pulse Lasers (2RA, 2LA)
6 Double Heat Sinks (1RA, 1LA, 3LT, 1CT)
Also I think that 'Communication System' and 'Targeting and Tracking System' can be left out.
Art - BT art of the last few years has been stunning. However I don't like animal/monster-like art and bubble-cockpits. What I do really like is the work in the 'Wars of Reaving'.
Layout - I like having a current time and a historical section. The second layer will be a division in unit type (BA, Mech, etc). A separation between Clan and IS isn't needed.
-
I'm pretty happy with the writing, stats, rules, art and layout so I'll just jump to the one area I feel like commenting on.
Content - I think the large time jumps forward (especially the one to 3250) provide an opportunity to present a more coherent picture of the various militaries and/or manufacturers. What I'd like to see for the TRO 3250 is for the units to broken down by faction (or manufacturer if appropriate) with an eye towards creating a coherent mission force.
By this I mean that, barring a return to a scavenger economy, no military force is going to choose to field 20 different units with the same basic mission profile (at most you'd see two as one is being phased out and its replacement phased in). I'd like to see that same sort of approach to a 3250 era TRO.
Give us the standard units (recon, cavalry, frontline, fire support, civil defense, artillery, air support, et cetera) for each of the major players in 3250 with an eye towards the synergies that such militaries would attempt to create in terms of tactics and logistics. Things like all of one faction's units (tank, Mech or aerospace) using the same caliber autocannons (with different cyclic rates accounting for whether its an AC 5 or 10), armor type and model of medium lasers to smooth out supply lines. By the same token, if their scout Mechs have TAG then they should be fielding fire support or artillery units with munitions that can take advantage of it.
In short, don't just build individual units, build faction armies from the ground up for the future TRO's.
-
Writing - I loved reading about the utter fail that was involved in the Mad Cat III's development. More fluff like that would be cool. Also, I'd appreciate having what factions are commonly fielding the unit in question right there in the TRO.
Rules - More canon quirks, please.
Art - I'm a big fan of slightly blockier or less humanoid designs, rather than lots of smooth curves. The Nyx and Penthesilea look pretty good to me, as does the MWO art style. Weapons that are at least close to proportional to the size of the machine would be nice, too.
-
Hello,
Some of these are getting longer, folks. Just a reminder that my attention span isn't that long these days....
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Content - Usually the ideas presented are better than what I could ever think of, so....
Writing - To parrot what a lot of people are saying, less design spiel/listing, more flavor text. Set up a writing test for whoever the work's being delegated to, if you can. Board Game Space Robot Technical Journals must be interconnected with the flavor of the universe and the people in it.
Writing (again)- BattleTech is trying way, way too hard to make names of units sound foreign. The reality of the game is that the majority of its players are Caucasian and speak Caucasian languages, like it or not. I'm very tired of people at Capellan games whispering about how they can't identify the difference between a Ying Long and a Jinggau and a Du Shi Wang-class--it's kind of insulting.
Stats - Considering how many BattleTech fans the TRO series has to cater to, there's not much that should be changed lest it alienate all the different players and fiction-followers who want to see different things out of the same book. Also, never again do something to the Capellans like hose the Shen Yi with MRMs and not give it any definite variants. Gah. :'(
Rules - Highlight each Unit Quirk and each piece of new equipment and put descriptions and game rules in a separate section that gets its own fluff. The original TRO: 3050 comes to mind. Please do not fill up valuable space on individual TRO entries with them.
Art - We've pretty much found our best work for this era in Alex Iglesias and David White. I have a suggestion for a plan! Have only the two of them do every TRO from now on. Alex can do 'Mechs and David can do other vehicles in one TRO, then in the next TRO they switch places and do each others' sections. Keep them on salary. Work them to death or lobotomy, whichever comes first. O0
Art (again) - Multiple shots of each 'Mech please, including dynamic poses with backgrounds, (Iglesias and White can do these, I have faith in them) as well as a variant section just like in the back of the book a la FanPro's TRO: Project Phoenix.
Layout - More room for more text, please. Three- or four-page entries if you have to.
-
Content[/b] - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in the book in general (specially such things as what type of units and technologies the book covers--or even how many to cover at a clip. Just remember, though: More content = more cost to the consumer).
Writing - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the fluff text.
Stats - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in the units' statistical data.
Rules - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of extra/expanded game rules.
Art - What you like to see (or don't like seeing) in terms of art.
Layout - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in terms of the physical arrangement of the book and its contents.
Content: I like tthe idea of Date in Use. It would be good to know when general production started.
Fluff: I would love to see Notable Pilots and Battle History, if any.
Otherwise, I'm good.
-
Hello,
Some of these are getting longer, folks. Just a reminder that my attention span isn't that long these days....
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
Sorry about that, I tried to keep mine as short as possible, but it is hard to list nine independent points without taking up a fair amount of space and/or making things hard to read.
-
Sorry about that, I tried to keep mine as short as possible, but it is hard to list nine independent points without taking up a fair amount of space and/or making things hard to read.
Agreed...and I take too long to make my points, and try to explain, but at least it's understandable if long-winded. Sorry Herb!
-
It's already been proposed (Sigma), so just for reinforcement's sake...
Content: if there's no enough market for a dedicated civilian and auxiliar machinery TRO, it'd be a good idea to enable a related section where appropiate. And if it's even considered worthless to have it in printed form no matter how, it would be nice to have a dedicated PDF-only TRO at least.
-
Sorry about that, I tried to keep mine as short as possible, but it is hard to list nine independent points without taking up a fair amount of space and/or making things hard to read.
Nothing requires you to comment on everything. Prioritize what you have to say?
-
Hello,
You DO realize that HeavyMetal is hopelessly obsolete now, right?
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
SSW vs. HMP discussion = over. Herb has spoken
:P just kidding
====
COntent: So far I like what I am seeing, but I would like to see some specialized but still useful for general combat sort of designs (for instance AA Mechs like the rifleman, great at shooting down aircraft, but can still take on other mechs and vehicles reasonably well so long as you don't try to brawl). Hyperspecialized stuff for extreme environments would also be nice to have, but I would prefer them alternate variants rather than the main item (speaking of which, everything should have a few variants). I would also like to see some more advanced gear on units, though most should still be tournament legal (and keep the XTROs coming). I think it is important to have a good spread of unit types, which we have been seeing recently; this includes conventional infantry; we don't need a huge infantry section like 3085, but that shouldn't be the only book with infantry (cannon mounted and K9 platoons anyone) And more omnis please; I know you can't have everything be an omni or you won't be able to sell any TROs, but it's pretty bad when a half century after their introduction I am still stuck using first generation omniments with five thousand warts if I don't plan on playing as WoB (hell even RoTS celestials would be an improvement similar to what you did with the Bolla in TRO:3085)
The old is the new new and historical sections are also nice, and I would love if you used them to retcon some units into existance (for instance House Steiner has finally declassified an old FedCom combat WiGE from the clan invasion period), in fact, WiGEs baldy need retconned in, we just don't have enough and so far there is nothing to show for the fact they have (supposedly) been available for centuries. You might also consider making a specialized TRO like An aerospace TRO or a support vehicle TRO occasionally. Maybe even if they are online exclusives; I feel these items don't get enough face time, support vehicles escpecially get ignored too much and could stand to have a couple examples slipped into each regular TRO. and give us more omnis.
You might also consider AToW scale record sheets for infantry (inclduing BA) units and their vehicles for motorized and mechanized infantry to further integration of AToW and TW gameplay.
Writing is good for now, but you should include design quirks and indroduction dates and factions
Art and layout are good so far.
Remember, more omnis, this includes vehicles and fighters.
-
Stats - Dates and cost, please. I like the idea of a "faction availibility" chart. Maybe, say, a chart that says basicly "you have a [whatever]% chance of finding this unit in this faction."
Art - Honestly, Matt Plog is my favorite TRO artist. Ingelas, White, and the others are good, but I prefer Plog's clean designs for the TROs. Some other art is better done by other artists, and even some TRO stuff (like, for example, areospace) are better done by others. (Huda in that example.) TRO3055U and the BA in 58U cinched that for me.
-
Writing: I agree with what others have said: less listing, more battle history, quirks and notable pilots.
Stats: C-Bill cost and introduction dates would be lovely.
Rules: Quirks and experimental tech becoming mass produced would both be interesting to see.
Layout: I enjoy plain white or light grey backgrounds to my pages. The textured background for TR:Prototypes made reading a bit hard, and also blotted out the artists' signatures on a few occasions, which I found sad.
Keep up the awesome work!
-
Just a few comments on the topic from me.
Content: I like seeing a mix of units to keep everyone happy. Much as I am a "mechs and vees" player, I know not everyone is like me. I don't see a need for any TRO's with any units from before the Dark Age timeline from here on out; let's call that fixed and move on. Address any "new variants on old machines" with an ONN-type section.
Writing : I like having a good bit of fluff, deplyoments, adventure hooks, depth and breadth to the universe.
Stats : Add in the Quick-Strike Stats and introduction dates
Rules : Limit this as much as possible.
Art : Very happy with several of the artists, especially David White. I would like to see only a few artists per TRO, to keep styles as consistent as possible throughout a book.
Layout: I like keeping the IS and Clan stuff in separate sections.
One other issue I would like to see addressed: While I do not want to see the Record Sheets published inside the TRO's, I absolutely want to see the Record Sheets published/made available for sale concurrently with the TRO. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to wait 3/6/9/14 months after the publication of a TRO to have the official canon Record Sheets made available. Yes, I understand the issues at present with it. If those issues are going to continue, then TRO's should wait until the Record Sheets for them are available and ready, at least in PDF form.
-
One other issue I would like to see addressed: While I do not want to see the Record Sheets published inside the TRO's, I absolutely want to see the Record Sheets published/made available for sale concurrently with the TRO. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to wait 3/6/9/14 months after the publication of a TRO to have the official canon Record Sheets made available. Yes, I understand the issues at present with it. If those issues are going to continue, then TRO's should wait until the Record Sheets for them are available and ready, at least in PDF form.
Frankly, this could be fixed with two things:
1) A set standard on the crit placing of all gear, such that anyone can use those rules and given stats, and end up with
canonical sheet.
2) Listing exactly what location everything that takes up crits is located.
These would just mean the variants that never actually work out exactly using the stuff in the book would need to wait
for the record sheets PDF.
-
One other issue I would like to see addressed: While I do not want to see the Record Sheets published inside the TRO's, I absolutely want to see the Record Sheets published/made available for sale concurrently with the TRO. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to wait 3/6/9/14 months after the publication of a TRO to have the official canon Record Sheets made available. Yes, I understand the issues at present with it. If those issues are going to continue, then TRO's should wait until the Record Sheets for them are available and ready, at least in PDF form.
Use blank record sheets. That's one of the reasons we have them.
-
Use blank record sheets. That's one of the reasons we have them.
Without a canon crit layout, units can't be used in canon/official events.
Now can we get back to the topic please?
-
Without a canon crit layout, units can't be used in canon/official events.
Now can we get back to the topic please?
You can say the same about minis and they're more critical to have than a pre-printed record sheet.
Of course. : ) Ready made place holders to get the units into the game right away would be nice.
-
Content: I am personally for as much content as possible, and yes, I am absolutely willing to pay more for that as a result. My favorite TROs are 3085 and Prototypes: the wide variety of unit types is what really did it for me. Also, I like lots of advanced and experimental technologies, as long as they're applied with a modicum of intelligence.
Writing: I hate fluff that doesn't tell you anything the stat block doesn't. Notable pilots/crews, deployment info, equipment brands, interesting stuff about the history of the design: that's the good stuff.
Stats: I like 'Mechs that are quirky, but not ones that are nigh-useless. More Templar Bs, fewer Targes, please. Also, quirks should be a part of every design.
Rules: I use the vast majority of the TacOps special rules when possible, so I'm all for their inclusion in TROs.
Art: To echo others, more of Mr. Iglesias and Mr. White, please. And I know his stuff is a little more controversial, but I'm a big Matt Plog fan as well.
Layout: I think the layout of 3085 is probably the best way to go, honestly. It's a little complicated but it's very useful too.
-
Content - I'd like to see TROs organized by era and type of conflict : surface or space, with ASFs, that span both, in the space section. Actually, I'd like to see an all space assets TRO, regrouping all that was published previously (and adding some new things, of course)
Writing - Notable pilots and deployment : that's what makes the units more tangible for me. Even at the expense of the development history and variants, unless these bits are containing some uncommon bits.
REmainder is fine for me as it is.
-
You can say the same about minis and they're more critical to have than a pre-printed record sheet.
<snip>
Nope. For gameplay, the proper record sheet is far more important than the mini. Bt is not wysiwyg like some miniatures-based games.
-
Hello,
You can say the same about minis and they're more critical to have than a pre-printed record sheet.
Incorrect. Catalyst Game Labs is NOT a minis company, so we do NOT require minis to play. Proxies have always been acceptable as long as they have a front/back. Meanwhile, we DO require Record Sheets to play.
So, please, stay on topic, and argue elsewhere.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Content - I'd like to see TROs organized by era and type of conflict : surface or space, with ASFs, that span both, in the space section. Actually, I'd like to see an all space assets TRO, regrouping all that was published previously (and adding some new things, of course)
Writing - Notable pilots and deployment : that's what makes the units more tangible for me. Even at the expense of the development history and variants, unless these bits are containing some uncommon bits.
REmainder is fine for me as it is.
yeah I would love to see one combined TRO for Star League/Reunification wars and another with Age Of War specifically for 2nd/3rd wars
-
Layout: I think separating units by tech base is a mistake nowadays. Clan and IS factions have integrated enough that the tech base is no longer inherently indicative of which faction is using it, and I expect that trend to continue.
Content: I would love to see an ONN TRO, or just a weekly/monthly online feature, presenting new variants (and QUIRKS!) for older designs. In any case, I think any new TRO should include an ONN section like '85.
Rules: New quirks are tolerable but I think anything past that is more suitable for a dedicated sourcebook on the era of introduction.
And last, please find a way to get record sheets existing. At least get the unabridged versions of Prototypes and '67 in the wild before more stuff comes out. TROs are great but being able to use the stuff in them is better.
-
Content - A variety of units with a relatively even balance, though 'Mechs should have an edge due to the nature of the game. Concurrent record sheet releases would be nice, but I believe those should be a PDF product only. Royal segments and ONN segments are nice updates to designs that may feel forgotten; I would like to see an introduction date for that type of entry and a manufacturer listing.
Writing - Introduction and proliferation dates, battle history, design idiosyncrasies, and quirks of the design that give it character beyond what the stats are capable of displaying.
Stats - TRO: Prototypes style. Particularly fond of quirks. Number of crit slots taken by equipment is probably no longer necessary.
Rules - Limited technology additions would be a decent addition, along with the aforementioned quirks.
Art - Always preferred the engineering style concept art style. The most recent artwork however has been a good trend, so no real complaints about the current direction.
Layout - No issues with the layout.
-
I've liked most of what I've seen lately, no reason to say anything other than "keep it up" for most of the categories except:
Stats: Speaking as an "old school" fan who still occasionally uses a pen and/or pencil to fill in a blank record sheet using just a TRO book I'd like to see notes about crit placement for heat sinks and other miscellaneous gear like TSM, as well as notes about arm actuator deletions and such. That'd make it easier to get things done with blank sheets, a pen, and a TRO when I don't have access to Heavy Metal or PDF record sheet downloads.
-
Content - A Drac zombie Heavy/Assault 'mech would be swell. That's been my biggest complaint with that faction for a long while. So many glass cannons that can't hit the broad side of a barn once you get past that 60-ton mark.
Also, dialing back on the Advanced/Experimental technologies would be nice. Instead, simply having additional "Variants" of the new 'mechs that use TO rules would be nice. TRO 3085 is outstanding, don't get me wrong, but if I want to use anything with rules of a higher level than Tournament Rules (Like that spectacular-looking Orochi on pages 102-103), I have to lug my copy of TacOps to the LGS on top of my dice, rulebooks, maps, miniatures (in a massive Overlord minis bag), recordsheets, hexpacks, so on and forth. My bookbag is bursting at the seams and I weigh an additional 50 pounds* when I step out the front door. There is rarely that additional square inch of space to fit another core book.
This might sound like sacrilege to a lot of players, but I'd honestly like to see a brand new batch of 'mechs made for Succession Wars play. Say, a batch of designs made during the early succession wars? I think that with all the 3025-only people I run into (and myself sick and tired of that era after having to play in it almost exclusively since 2005), it would only make sense to make supplements that they'll actually buy, and something for guys like myself - for whom having to field the same old Jenners and Dragons over and over again gets dry. Plus, a new batch of introbox level 'mechs might make a good foundation for a future boxed set without falling back on artwork from 1985.
Writing
One thing I didn't like about TRO 3075's fluff text for the age of war section is the fluff for the Gladiator. I mean, the fluff itself was alright, but after being presented with these outstanding stats for a 'mech, to find out that the faction it's filed under pretty much never uses it felt like a raw deal. I would like to see more designs that are contracted to multiple factions. That's part of what made the unseen/phoenix mechs so versatile compared to, say, a Fafnir or Komodo. When it's a good design, but anyone can have it, it's popularity will certainly go up.
For the most part, I just breeze through the flavor text to find out who makes it and uses it.
Stats
I'd honestly like to see C-bill costs included in all of the TROs. I think that it feels more at home in a fluffier book like this.
Rules
I honestly prefer seeing rules left in the core rulebooks. The things already weigh a ton, and there's a wealth of options therein that haven't really been effectively explored with the canon designs, yet.
Art
A resounding YES to Mr. Iglecias, White, and Plog. Lewis, however... I'd rather he be removed from TRO duty. I'm sure he's a great guy, but I find his art to be bland and lacks detail - and when you're drawing stuff that's going to be sculpted, effectively making it the face of the franchise, you can't afford to have unappealing designs.
On the topic of my prior mention of making a TRO for the early succession wars, if we could get Loose to do some industrial design inspired 'mechs again, it would be a fantastic nostalgia trip. Some people might speak ill of his artwork, but I, for one, loved the heck out of TROs 3025 and 3058.
Layout -
I think that rather than having deployment listed purely in text format, a quick-glance section on each page showing which factions each design is available to (Using faction logos, most likely) would make this game a lot more approachable for new players.
*This is not an exaggeration. I did a before/after with my bathroom scale.
-
off the top of my head...
Content: I've always wished the TROs and record sheets were the same book. Scenarios. Especially scenarios that work well with 3 players. :)
Layout: sort by I.S. and Clan at most. 3085 was a bit of a mess.
Art: More of it. I loved how Project Phoenix had the variant artwork. Don't need every one, but the more the merrier.
Stats: Watch the heat. Not every mech needs to be 100% heat efficient, but what's the point of giving a mech more lasers than it could ever fire without shutting down?
I'd REALLY like an alphabetized index.
-
Content - some of the most recent stuff from 3085 and prototypes fills my heart with joy because it's so bad my own customs, using mostly only teach available in the old HM programs are still world's better. On the one hand---Kinda neat to see more deliberately flawed designs again, on the other---gods, have we learned nothing? too much like real life, lol.
I'd like to see more support vehicles, dropships and jumpships (especially the leviathan, I'll be your best friend if you stat the Leviathan). I'd also be interested in seeing a kind of Infantry Weapons TRO; something along the lines of "Jane's All the InnerSphere and Periphery's Infantry Weapons and Small Arms"
Writing - the writing is great!
Stats - too many lame duck units in the latest editions, not enough common-sense modifications; like swapping out weapons for different roles, like in TRO 3025 for instance.
Rules - I don't like how infantry are built and handled in game, but that's it.
Art - art is consistantly fine to great. But in general; smaller heads.
Layout - nope, love the layout.
-
Content - I'm alone on this, I daresay, but I hate the ONN/Royals/Infantry things we've been seeing, with the caveat that if record sheets are released at the same time as TROs, then I'm okay with ONN or Royals. I have zero use for or interest in infantry. If at all possible, TROs should not repeat not be released without the record sheets.
Writing - I'll go with the flow and say I like to see a story, or an explanation of why X unit was procured with Y weapons, or information about the design phase, or how it fits with existing units for the users.
Stats - I like a good mix of designs, some good, some bad, some mediocre. I'm not a fan of the whole "just make it slower and add IJJs!" trend, but there are in-universe reasons for it, so.
Rules - These have no place in a TRO.
Art - I really love Plog and Dave White. Chris Lewis is more hit or miss for me, but he has done some fine drawings. Art is an essential part of TROs, to my mind, and I really like the standard unit/illustration format.
Layout - I'd prefer the older FASA-style organization, a la TRO 3058. I'm not a fan of the random sections of Star League 'mechs, or Phoenix 'mechs in their own areas. I understand the reasons why that was done, but I wouldn't dig it much for the future.
-
Content - A Drac zombie Heavy/Assault 'mech would be swell. That's been my biggest complaint with that faction for a long while. So many glass cannons that can't hit the broad side of a barn once you get past that 60-ton mark.
Not a fan of the Grasshopper or the Warhammer or the Victor or the Hatamoto-Chi or the Katana or the Naginata or the O-Bakemono or the BattleMaster or the Longbow or the Tai-sho or the Mauler or the Akuma or the Atlas or the Marauder II, I take it? I can smell a Warlord/Hellstar fan from a million Internet miles away. Also, check out the Maelstrom as well as new availability of the PPC Catapults, I find them to be quite resilient despite XL Engines.
Broad side of a barn...don't you use C3? Or are you having Targeting Computer/Clan weapon envy?
Also, dialing back on the Advanced/Experimental technologies would be nice. Instead, simply having additional "Variants" of the new 'mechs that use TO rules would be nice. TRO 3085 is outstanding, don't get me wrong, but if I want to use anything with rules of a higher level than Tournament Rules (Like that spectacular-looking Orochi on pages 102-103), I have to lug my copy of TacOps to the LGS on top of my dice, rulebooks, maps, miniatures (in a massive Overlord minis bag), recordsheets, hexpacks, so on and forth. My bookbag is bursting at the seams and I weigh an additional 50 pounds* when I step out the front door. There is rarely that additional square inch of space to fit another core book.
A new edition of Total Warfare with the rules for the weapons that became Tourney Legal as of 3090 would be nice.
-
Content - I also love ONN, and I think there's an opportunity to use it to update units that don't warrant a full TRO entry with upgraded technology. DropShips haven't seen any upgrades in forever, Aerospace Fighters and moreso conventional fighters rarely get the number of variants 'Mechs do, and similar.
Writing - More of that snappy MadCapellan fellow.
Stats - A few tweaks I'd like to see to the stat-blocks in TROs:
Quickstrike/BattleForce stats.
The placement of heat sinks on non-Omni BattleMechs
Make sure that the stat block specifies what type of armor or structure is being used. Generally this is done, but occasionally it's omitted in a frustrating way.
As far as stats are concerned, I feel like the game is up to its proverbial ears in big, slow heavy and assault 'Mechs slathered in the big gun du jour. I feel like the game has a severe lack of good, jumpy skirmishing units in the medium and light weight class at this point, and I'd like to see more designs of that nature.
Rules - I don't see a problem with introducing rules with a TRO, per se. We've been doing it since TRO: 2750. The problem does become that when you do this, you have to eventually reprint it in a rulebook.
Art - My favorite BattleMech designs have always been the sleek, fast, humanoid looking ones like the Phoenix Hawk, Valkyrie, Wraith, Incubus, Dola and Goshawk. I believe Big scary walking tanks have pride of place in this game, but I'd really like the fast skirmishers to look as fast and flexible as they are.
David White's art is mind-blowing. Alex Iglesias and Steve Huda also do a bang-up job. I feel like Matt Plog is Battletech's best artist, but I also feel like his best work is of existing designs, as sometimes his original ones seem overly abstract.
Layout - TRO: 3085 was my ideal. We could keep that format forever and I'd never complain.
-
Content - How about some stuff that would work well in the RPG and the table top. Like Exo Armor and Ultra Light Mechs. But otherwise I think more variants of existing Mechs and other Vehicles since there just so many out there people just got to be using old designs just updating them a bit. And Record sheets of the new goodies would be nice.
Rules - Unless its a Quirk, like Jettison-Capable Weapon, for a mech then I say no. There are already a lot of rules to work with so just stay with in them until a new Main Rule Book
-
You asked for short and sweet....
Content - Lots of new, beastly mechs.
Writing - Fluff with variants, canon quirks, and notable pilots.
Stats - Variants stats, era/time of availability, quirk stats.
Rules - No rules. Put those where they belong. In a rule book.
Art - No more PokeMechs please. Use 3025/3026 as your guide. That's the gold standard. Art is key to bringing the game to life. Many of us bought our first box set because of art. See avatar. See 25th anniv. box set. See Citytech, 1st Edition box art.
Layout - current is fine. An easy way to determine availability for each house/state would be nice. An example would be...
Zeus: Steiner - common, Davion - uncommon, Liao - rare
Finally, an uber tech readout, PDF, including stats for everything from Battledroids to present. That should keep you busy for a while.
-
Content - I like semi-mixed content. Ground unit (Mechs, Armor, battle armor). Aerospace Fighters, Warships, Dropships, I'd prefer in seperate ones...mainly because I'd probably delay or skip some of those. Warships and most dropships are just filler that I'll never use, qand likely not read more than once.
I'm torn on the next issue: sometimes, I'd be willing to have fewer units if TRO's were reformatted to include page write up for variants,artwork for the variant and the record sheets for the unit and variants in the TRO, or at least instructions in the TRO to produce the record sheet. Other times, I waver back to the current TRO book / Record Sheet format.
Writing - Eliminate useless stuff, like the names of components or systems, or limiting descriptions of where the 'mech is made beyond the corporate producer or faction level. Who makes a medium laser or a targeting system is completely unimportant.
Stats - Quickstrike/ Battleforce stats, and BV (or BV's replacement) numbers. Suggested positive and negative quirks.
Rules - No rules in a TRO.
Art - I enjoy it as it is, wouldn't mind variant artwork
Layout -
I may be a heretic, but I'd be happy with a deviation from traditional layout from the 'landscape' ortientation to match up with all other sourcebooks for ease of shelf arrangement.
-
Content
- More 'Mechs (and combat vehicles), less aerospace units and less infantry (I feel that CBT has more than enough of these not-so-important unit types). Less historical types, more current ones.
Writing
- It's okay.
- One thing: I like "Notable pilots" section, but please - stop doing such blatant fan-servicing such as those tiring advertisements of BattleCorps legion, especially how excellent and magnificent those mercenaries are.
Stats
- Okay
Rules
- Rules belong into rulebooks. The purpose of TW, TechManual, TacOps and StratOps was to keep all rules in one place. If you are tossing additional rules, quirks, etc. around in various TROs and sourcebooks, then the situation is becoming very similar to what old FASA did.
Art
- Duane Loose, Matthew Plog (but keep him on a short leash, he has a bad habit to turn his pictures into very/too ornated mess), David White and Brent Evans.
- I liked variant guide as it was in TRO: Project Phoenix.
- Also, I like technical drawings style (with some dynamics), not album of entries for contest "Who will paint BattleMech in more outrageous pose."
Layout
- use precise A4 format.
!!! Please, use clean white background for text, no ornaments, no grey background, no wrapped paper as background. Just plain white will suffice, thank you.
One generic remark
- please, do not print TROs that will make reader sad/pissed off that his faction was omitted and that other factions got all those cool toys. I mean TRO: 3058 specifically. It was more or less TRO: Federated Commonwealth, with one quarter given to Draconis Combine OmniMechs. But 3/4 of said TRO were for FedSuns - almost all Star League 'Mechs and tanks were for FedSuns, and almost all new 'Mechs and vehicles were earmarked as for AFFS/LAAF. Of all dozens of entries just "one" was for FWL - and it was damned Galleon tank.
-
Hello,
One generic remark
- please, do not print TROs that will make reader sad/pissed off that his faction was omitted and that other factions got all those cool toys. I mean TRO: 3058 specifically. It was more or less TRO: Federated Commonwealth, with one quarter given to Draconis Combine OmniMechs. But 3/4 of said TRO were for FedSuns - almost all Star League 'Mechs and tanks were for FedSuns, and almost all new 'Mechs and vehicles were earmarked as for AFFS/LAAF. Of all dozens of entries just "one" was for FWL - and it was damned Galleon tank.
Congratulations. You just killed the series entirely. After all, the Niops fans are ALWAYS being left out...
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Hello,
Congratulations. You just killed the series entirely. After all, the Niops fans are ALWAYS being left out...
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
Okay, okay. O0
My bad.
-
We could use a few general (ie. not limited to a few or single faction) designs per TRO.
-
I'm basing my responses on TRO:Prototypes as that's the latest TRO.
Content - The current content meets all of my requirements although i feel the TRO's should only show new equipment with newer variants of older equipment only appearing in an ONN section.
Writing - I would like to see notable pilots come back and the ONN section continued.
Stats - Show heat sink locations and armour types.
Rules - I'm not a big fan of rules appearing in a TRO.
Art - I would prefer the art to be on a clean white background.
Layout - I feel there is now no need to separate clan and IS tech, just splitting the equipment by unit type and weight is sufficient.
-
Like Rainbow 6, I'm basing my comments off of TRO Prototypes. It's most recent and probably the template for future TROs.
Content - I prefer seeing 'Mechs, that's what the game is really about. Some BA and vehicles. Please no more ProtoMechs. And stick to tech that is readily available to a faction. All well and good to have a specialized 'Mech written up, but less fun if there's only five of them. Just saying.
Writing - Notable pilots are fun. But spread them out faction wise.
Stats - I don't see the need for any changes here.
Rules - Not what the TRO is about. That's what the Rule Books are for.
Art - Well done pen and ink or computer drafted art. David White or artists with similar quality.
Layout - That very busy square background in Prototypes has got to go away. A proper font for 'Mech names on the page. No need to separate Clan and IS... that would be covered in deployment. I like the landscape layout.
-
[- One thing: I like "Notable pilots" section, but please - stop doing such blatant fan-servicing such as those tiring advertisements of BattleCorps legion, especially how excellent and magnificent those mercenaries are.
I know of only two references to BattleCorps Legion pilots in the notable pilots section of TRO 3085, and only one of them (Colonel Joey Nicole) was named. I don't see how that can be considered "those tiring advertisements." Where else are BattleCorps Legion pilots named?
The BattleCorps Legion is Battlecorps.com own cannonized unit, and are fair game as every other cannonized unit. They're a "Good guy" unit, white knight, help get kittens out of trees sort of people. There are a few of them out there.....
Craig
-
I don't own a lot of the TRO's, so my comments may seem irrelavant to some.
Content - Maybe a page for abbreviations? I know when I try to abreviate long vehicle names to some simple things like the Svantovit IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle). I remember picking up 3085 and going, what's a WIGE? The picture explained alot, but I was still curious to the actual meaning.
Writing - I love to see some example of a tactic the unit used, whether it was a success or failure, or just sat in a hanger because people refused to use it for that reason. I like to get a feel of the machine's purpose.
Stats - I liked the charts in the back of the TRO record sheets, at least the one I saw for 3068 where it recaps the machine, adding a few pages quick strike stats in that section would be nice.
Rules - Also as I saw stated before, a TRO really doesn't need them.
Art - "Pretty!" - I leave art to the artists. For a game like this, it's nice to have.
Layout - The flipbook format is pretty classic. I like it.
-
Content - Keep it to Mechs, Vehicles and Battle Armor. Over the last 20 years and numerous gaming groups I have seen ASF's used 1 time. Keep it with the Aerotech fans and give ASF, Dropships and Jumpship/Warships their own book. Record sheets for included units would be helpful too.
Writing - No complaints.
Stats - No more 'makes' of weapons and systems. Leave that stuff for the fiction and RPG. Add better discriptions of variants instead of the the small write-ups they get now. QS stats.
If a new weapon or technology is debuting on a featured unit then a brief write up with some art would be cool (ala; the Solaris 7 book).
Rules - No rules, keep those in the rulebooks.
Art - Multiple views would be cool. Both from an in-game standpoint and possible miniture standpoint. No complaint about the current quality of the art.
Layout - No more Landscape layout. They fit wonky on shelves. #P No faction specific sections. Simply label on the sheet what faction has access to that design. Organize by tonnage and unit type.
-Gunz
-
Content - I like pretty much everything in my TROs: Battle Armor, Mechs, tanks, hovercraft, VTOLs, WiGEs, fighters, DropShips, JumpShips, WarShips, etc. The only real exception is the infantry sections from TRO:3085 and TRO:3085 Supplemental. They aren't military equipment, so they don't seem to belong.
Writing - I want to know how the unit was created, what military role it fufills, what it's capabilities are and who has access to it. I like to see the whole text page full; 3050 and 3055 were light on text and therefore a bit boring and uninformative. I also enjoy stuff like battle history and notable pilots, although that's more like the icing on the cake. I feel like the recent TROs and the earliest ones are the best examples of what I think is good and the Clan Invasion TROs are the best examples of what not to do.
Regarding the amount of content, I think 3085 plus the supplemental were way too big. I don't see why the already over-saturated list of military equipment in the BattleTech universe needs to be expanded like that. Prototypes was a much more reasonable size.
Stats - I have no opinion on this matter.
Rules - I have no opinion on this matter.
Art - The art lately has been fantastic. Whatever you guys have been doing, keep it up.
Layout - I'm pretty happy with the way the contents were arranged in TRO:Prototypes, although I don't know if it's still necessary to segregate the Clan equipment from the Spheroid equipment.
All in all, I think the Technical Readouts have been better than ever lately and I'm definitely excited for TRO:3045.
-
Content - I think 3085 was really done well. The nice variety of different units from infantry to mechs helps bring the universe to life.
Writing - I like the notable pilots/units and the layout overall. I would enjoy seeing that layout brought over to dropship/jumpship/warship and battle armor as well. Right now the battle armor section is a bit hard to find the information needed at a glance.
Stats - As others have said, price, date of entering service, and a bit more of the gritty details
Rules - quirks would be fine, but I would prefer that new rules are kept seperate.
Art - Compared to the original TRO 3050, I think the art has improved greatly and am quite happy with how it is now.
Layout - What you like to see (or don't like to see) in terms of the physical arrangement of the book and its contents.
-
Content
Keep doing what you have been doing while trying to fill holes in force tables for factions. If faction A lacks a medium LRM boat, give them one.
Writing
The story of developement and combat fielding. These help give a unit character. I love this game for it's fluff so the fluffier the better.
Introductory date (No need too be specific, doesn't matter if it's June 5th or 6th)
Faction availabillity (I imagine the MUL team would like that)
Stats
Stats are fine. Record sheets are there to know if the heatsink is in the left or right torso.
Rules
The rulebooks are for rules. So do not insert any new rules into the TROs. Do however make use of as many existing rules as possible.
Art
Artwork has been getting better and better with each new TRO. Give the art director a pat on the back from me.
Layout
Layout has been done well in the last print TROs. Keep following along those lines.
Extra
If at all possible, to list it in the book (but the website would also be fine). I wouldn't mind knowing which writer wrote which unit entry. So I can grow to love and loathe indivdual writers just like the artists. O:-)
-
Art- I would like to see continuity of art. i.e. have one artist do all the art for one faction. (shameless plug David White should draw everything homeworlds related)
I am content with the status quo other wise .
-
Art - I have always liked White and Igelesias, but I would also like to see more Evans, but that is just me :D
-
I should have added that Chris Lewis' and Matt Plog's art are fine, too...when they're 'Mechs in dynamic poses.
-
Content - Keep it to Mechs, Vehicles and Battle Armor. Over the last 20 years and numerous gaming groups I have seen ASF's used 1 time. Keep it with the Aerotech fans and give ASF, Dropships and Jumpship/Warships their own book. Record sheets for included units would be helpful too.
Content - Quick Strike values would do worlds of good for an Aerotech TRO. I have my own system for Aero Quick Strike that I'm working on, but still. Doing all the math myself takes time. :P
-
Content - For this area I like what is given.
Writing - The writing style of TRO3025 ORIGINAL was one of the things that hooked me to the game. The fluff seemed to fit the mechs and vehicles, it gave them character and color. Go back to that style. Same setup as found in that book.
Stats - Give more of the variants listed.
Rules - In TRO3025 ORIGINAL there was a rule note that had the JAVELIN on page 16 saying that the mechs' odd shape caused it some issues and here is the rule to use if you want. More things like that can add character and color to the mechs.
Art - NOTHING BY PLOG. Bring back LOOSE!
Layout - Go back to the TRO3025 ORIGINAL Style of layout for the TROs. To include the ones offered as PDFs aka the XTRO.
-
Content - Battlemechs and other combat units. Please limit support units and no protomechs.
Writing - Notable Pilots.
Stats - Provide stats to fully complete a record sheet (i.e. structure, heatsink, armor, etc crit locations)
Rules - None in the Tro's please
Art - David White and Anthony Scroggins
Layout - I like the layout of TRO: Prototypes.
-
I tend to enjoy the TROs best of all the publications. In general i'm happy
with where they're going with a couple of quibbles.
Content - 3085 felt like a great book, but what missed the cut and ended up
in 3085 supplemental should have been in the main book. We could have had
variants of the Panther, Wolfhound etc in the ONN section really. I don't mind
seeing new versions of classics, but seeing great new units shuffled off like that
was disappointing. I'll agree on support units, they could always go into some
sort of PDF TRO VA2.
Oh and Notable Pilots please keep, it adds a great deal.
Art, Layout etc all more than happy with.
-
Content - A mix of unit types, Mech, vehicle, infantry/BA, aerospace/JumpShip/WarShip, support units
Make it balanced. If the FedSuns get 3 units, the Lyrans get 3, if Clan Nova Cat get 2 units, the Ghost Bears get 2.
Prototype/Production dates of equipment.
Keep variants of units as PDF downloads. If joe bloggs wants 60 variants of the Stinger let them download it (Stinger IIC doesn't count).
TROs should introduce the new/staple units of the universe
Writing - Battle History, anyone that really doesn't use it
Stats - generally happy overall, a mix of units and capabilities continue
Rules - I think I'm alone in this but Quirks should not be in production equipment, experimental yes. But a production model that is supposed to be a standard across the board should have ironed out the quirks before production. You don't buy a car and expect it to have a quirk "pull to left"
Art - Happy
Layout - Split by weight Class or by techbase not by both
-
Rules - I think I'm alone in this but Quirks should not be in production equipment, experimental yes. But a production model that is supposed to be a standard across the board should have ironed out the quirks before production. You don't buy a car and expect it to have a quirk "pull to left"
But the Production Model of the Ford Pinto had the "Design Flaw" of "Explodes when rear bumper struck sharply", and several years ago some Jeep Grand Cherokees had the one "Steering Wheel comes off in driver's hands". Then there's all the problems Toyota has had the past 3 or 4 years. :-\ While I Originally meant it Jokingly, it also points out that stuff like that DOES happen "In The Real World". #P Also, didn't some car company re-surface a stretch of highway, then design one of their cars so that it plays "The Wiliam Tell Overture" when you drive on it at whatever the speed limit is? That sounds like a "Design Quirk" to me! :D
-
Also, didn't some car company re-surface a stretch of highway, then design one of their cars so that it plays "The Wiliam Tell Overture" when you drive on it at whatever the speed limit is? That sounds like a "Design Quirk" to me! :D
They cut grooves into the pavement so that when driven over it with a particular model with stock tires it "played" a song.
-
Rules - I think I'm alone in this but Quirks should not be in production equipment, experimental yes. But a production model that is supposed to be a standard across the board should have ironed out the quirks before production. You don't buy a car and expect it to have a quirk "pull to left"
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of quirks. They aren't bugs in the system, they are features (both good and bad) of the design, for instance the Rifleman is designed to be an AA platform while a jenner doesn't have a waist.
-
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of quirks. They aren't bugs in the system, they are features (both good and bad) of the design, for instance the Rifleman is designed to be an AA platform while a jenner doesn't have a waist.
I get them, unfortunately it's players who have problems understanding they are optional :-X
-
Content: - Well, I feel that the number of mechs has reached a saturation point. On the other hand, there is still need for more Vehicles (especially those with limited amphibious capability and Star League/Age of War era ones.), Battle Armor (especially for other factions than the FedSuns), and Transport Dropships (both civilian and military transports, we probably have enough PWS:s for now. The Vampire II in XTRO:Phantoms was the second dedicated Battle Armor dropper?)
Also, I would like to see the lost fluff from TRO:3050, TRO:3055, TRO:3058 and TRO:PP republished. It would not matter if it was a pdf only with black outlines. I just want to own legal copies of the stuff.
Writing: - I have been mostly happy with the writing lately. What I especially like to read about is the reasoning behind the design, its mission and when it enters deployment.
Stats: - I am mostly happy about how the stats are represented. However, it is a bit awkward to have to have TW, TM, or the record sheet open to be able to evaluate the heat performance of the unit. So, I would like to see a heat column in the weapon stat table.
Rules: - Not too much of them. Less is more.
Art: - While except for the obvious wanting to have good art, I would very much prefer art of mechs that looks like they are able to move, tanks that looks like they are drawn by someone who has a clue about tank design, and battlearmor that looks like a human can fit inside. I also dislike the big panorama window cockpits see on several of the later designs. No mech should look like they should have a easy to hit head quirk.
Layout: - The TRO:Prototypes layout with the dotted lines in the background and was bad, give us back the TRO:3075 & TRO:3085 style layout.
-
Content: More Inner Sphere General designs that are actually IS General on production. 3025 has a strong core of designs that are all easily available to every faction, as well as a few more exclusive ones that give them flavor. Post 3025, the trend seems to have been each faction has a strong core of designs that are available to them and only them, barring flavor, and very few non-exclusive designs. With the jump to the new time period, I'd like to see that reversed somewhat. Notable pilots and unit history would also be welcome re-additions.
Writing: I have no complaint with.
Stats: Having record sheets immediately available for all variants mentioned (even in passing) in the TRO is absolutely my biggest desire to see. Even if it means that the number of distinct designs in a TRO has to plummet to twenty or thirty, I'd much rather have all the canon record sheets available immediately. Incidentally, having IS General designs would no doubt help this.
Rules: Including new quirks? That's okay. Including new rules for the way a certain type of environment works? No bueno.
Art: I love it all, as long as the art is actually there and of decent quality (by which I mean production quality. Quality doesn't account for taste).
Layout: No issues with layout.
-
Writing - I really like the deployment fluff, it helps me with force composition, other sections are a good read as well
Rules - We have rule books for that, no need for additional rules in TROs unless it is introducing some new tech
Art - I would love to see one artist do all the faction machinery. For example if there were three artists doing the TRO, one would do Wolves, Republic, FWL and Bears, another would do NC, DC and CC, and Periphery while the third would LC, FS, Falcons and Ravens.
-
Art - I would love to see one artist do all the faction machinery. For example if there were three artists doing the TRO, one would do Wolves, Republic, FWL and Bears, another would do NC, DC and CC, and Periphery while the third would LC, FS, Falcons and Ravens.
This would only work if David White does everything I could possibly ever be interested in.
-
Content:
More combined-arms units (battle armor, tanks). The Upgrade series has been very good about this, folding in 'Mechs and other units from minor products; it makes re-buying them a much less bitter pill to swallow (I'm looking at you, 3039), and even gives me a reason to pick up some others (3055u).
Writing :
Other than the typos, I'm fine with the current style. And yeah, I know how hard they are to hunt down and correct. Intimately.
Layout & Stats:
I'd like to see a mini-MUL and/or list of Quick-strike stats as an appendix to the TRO. I know it adds page count, but it lights up things that might not be immediately apparent: I'd also like to see variants explored a little more, rather than having to wait months or years for a new RS pack that may or may not actually materialize. Maybe not a full stat block, looking at what that does to the Omnis, but if there's an MUL-like appendix it can list off variants with their armor, availability and equipment.
Rules:
More Experimental tech that isn't just "wedge Clan gear in an IS chassis". There's a prejudice among many players against allowing any of the fringe designs, simply because so many of them are boring to play with and against. For every RVN-1X, there's a dozen AWS-11Ms. Also, now that we're revisiting the TROs from the ground up and a much later era - having all of the designs in a TRO use the latest and greatest (all IJJs, all XPulses in the Solaris 'Mechs) rather than a mix of proven and Newtech makes many of the designs - and the equipment - feel gimmicky (3050 was actually really good about this, with many designs having an advanced system or two, but still relying on, well, dependable tech, adding in the H-types to the classic Omnis, etc.).
Adding "Advanced" rules supplements to the RS packets is an excellent way of adding value - it's the entire reason I own RS:3055 and 3085. Having the advanced rules in the TRO, however, means more stuff to lug around. How is this different than the RS packets, or my suggestion above?
• The TRO should be providing background information, helping you build your games' story and your unit collection. It's what you want to know about the 'Mechs, their history, etc. But you don't take a Jane's on the battlefield. Adding an MUL-style appendix lets you know at a glance what you want to field, and why.
• The Hexpacks and RS packs, on the other hand, are play aids. If you need special rules to field something in the RS, having those rules to hand (instead of having to lug around Tac-Ops, Strat-Ops, and I-Ops to play a Terra siege with LAMs, say) makes it easier to play while not requiring extensive hunting through 3-6 books in the heat of battle. It lets you know how to field what you have, and it lets players dip their toes into the advanced/experimental rules without getting slammed with everything at once.
Art:
A variety of art styles. Having different artists show their own visions of 'Mech design makes it look more like different companies and countries are making them. (Incoming criticism): My biggest problem with 3060 and 3067 is how homogenous the art is, especially when some of the designs are just outright awful-looking. Putting 60 illos on one artist makes everyone more likely to crank out/wave through another Yeoman -6Y or Lobo. Likewise, the art in 3050 makes everything look like it's from the same army (are the checks the Star League's equivalent to D-Day stripes..? If so, why not mention it in the opening blurb? "This commemorative edition, showcasing the brave men and women who broke the back of the Clan juggernaut, displays them at their finest hour. The checkered pattern was a intended to aid fast recognition of "friendlies" from hundreds of units in the chaos of battle. Indeed, many veterans bear their honored "Mechty Checks" to this day").
Layout:
My favorite layout style is actually the current one, used in 3085/3050u &c.. Clean, clear, consistent, and easy-to-read. "Primary Factory" can be kind of misleading, however. I'd rather see that kind of info in the MUL supplement. It lets you add in more information we can use in campaigns (building games), without having to hork up another Objective Raids. On the other hand, it does restrict wiggle room for authors a little, even with the "this is a snapshot in time from a semi-reliable narrator" caveat.
My least favorite layout is the one used in the original 3050 (short paragraph, no organization, little information, and sketchy art).
After that, 3060/3067's "stat bar on top" and hard-to-read black text on dark grey backgrounds are also very bad. TRO Protos is a little hard to read, but not nearly as bad.
(Edit: fixed a formatting error)
-
Content:
I'm probably in a minority when I get a new TRO or XTRO I look for dropships/jump ships/warships first and then the other aerospace units, small craft etc so would like to see more of them along with support and combat vehicles.
Writing Art etc I'm very happy with all of these.
-
I want a "Pop-Up" version of TRO 3025! [whipit]
In Color!! :D
"Make it so Number One!" ;D
-
Content - TROs are virtual encyclopaedias of BT. I want as much content from a TRO as possible; these are the books I'm willing to pay big bucks for. I want each new TRO to bridge the gap between the last TRO, I want a detail overview where martial developments tell a story of the era covered. It should be big and it should be comprehensive - starting early on (3058), TROs folded in all units from peripheral publications. I want my TROs to always do that, and damned if there are cries of "retreading": before I want new creations, I want the TRO's function as encyclopaedia - or more like it, a "Jane's" - to be fulfilled. In terms of specific content, I'm not fussed.
Well, I hope I'm not the only one who really enjoyed 3058U's and 3075's massive servings of BA. I'd love to see that done again in the future.
Writing - Pretty much what the TROs do. There's a fine line that sometimes is crossed though: the capabilities really shouldn't be a literal description of the game stats; nor should the overview be a pure story of corporate management. Notable pilots are a nice touch, but not absolutely essential; I liked that 3085 mixed the approach there.
Stats - they should be correct. Beyond that, I don't care one iota. TROs are about universe advancement and consolidation; if they were about stats only, all the units ever needed were probably published some 15 years ago.
Rules - none whatsoever. TROs consolidate an era's units. Rules should be consolidated/introduced elsewhere.
Art - a contextual question: depends on the artist! Possibly the most astounding TRO in that department is TRO VA, a single-artist TRO. But I do like a mix, though it would probably be best if certain (sub-)chapters remained in the hands of a single artist.
Layout - I preferred the earlier style of TROs where unit types (Vehicles, 'Mechs, etc) were divided by chapters, before being sub-divided by tech base. I liked it that each of those small chapters had their own header pages; while technically a waste of space in terms of cramming in content, it did give the TROs a rather meticulous feel. But I still like 3075's/3085's layout, too, with tech base being the big divider, and units following a strict order. I did not like Prototypes' structure as much, despite being reminiscent of earlier TROs, but SV and Indies interspersed with CV and BM and a lack of clear divider between tech bases giving it a kitchen sink feel.
TRO Prototypes' page background graphics kills my laptop and distract the eye. I'm ok with the preceding TROs' approach, but yearn the simple, white pages of earlier books - with simple, clean text layout, those were very pleasant to look at, while being easy on the eye/pc.
-
Content - Mix of optimal and sub-optimal. I'd prefer the balance be weighted towards more optimal, but all munchy gets boring.
Writing - I like the pilots and history.
Stats - Usual stuff as well as QucikSrike stats.
Rules - More quirks, please.
Art - It's been pretty solid in the last couple of TROs, so keep that up, please.
Layout-white background, please. It makes it easier on the eyes.
-
The stats should allow you to write up a record sheet that is legal to play in all games.
Rules should be limited to quirks that are optional for advanced play only.
Good art makes or breaks a design for me. Stats are nothing really, because if I like the look of a unit then I can re-stat it to suit me.
Landscape is okay, but there might be some advantages to going portrait in that there would be space for recording the critical locations of all assigned equipment, which I think is a must.
-
Content:
More Protomechs, Infantry, MBT's, combat VTOLs and Battle Armor! Also I like the older stuff as much as the next guy but ONN (Which is awesome awesome) is the right way to introduce variants, not full blown entries that could be better used for newer mechs. That said if said mech the variant is based on hasn't been in a TRO (Like the Tundra Wolf) before then its fine, but those with preexisting entries don't need to waste the space.
Writing:
I like notable pilots, the reason/how it was developed and who gets to use them. What I don't like is when the writer just rehashes the stats/configs to pad it out. I'd rather hear the reason for its slower/faster deployment due to <insert reason> than hear the writer explain in detail what weapons/heat/etc the config uses. Let the fluff flow!
Stats:
What we get now but I wouldn't mind MUL icons either. MUL has been a godsend for getting newer players ready with a faction/force and linking up the faction icons to the unit would help them when they get the book.
Rules:
I don't buy the TRO for rules nor do I want to.
Art:
Less S. Huda unless he brings his A game. He was easily the weakest link in Prototypes yet one quick look at his website shows the man has skills that shouldn't have resulted in what we got for Prototypes. He has the ability to do amazing work its just it looks like he gets away with being lazy in TRO's.
Also without a doubt the art is perhaps one of the most important things next to the stats. Bad art can quickly sour the designs and extreme cases like Protomechs flat out cripple it. I would take less entries for an increase in art quality.
Layout:
I like how Clan/Inner Sphere was together in Prototypes but I disliked how it wasn't mixed.
-
content- Less varients on none omni designs. Omni VTOLs more power armor and infantry. RPG epuipment ala tro3026
stats- c-bills for units. and quick strike stats. Intoductry year on all new designs.
Rules- Keep the quirks coming
art- I would like to see more units desiged using CAD. I also thing bad art should get great stats so people will use it.
Layout. Thicker paper that feels like it will last in my hands. No grey backgrounds ever please
-
Omni VTOLs
Oh Cat yes. I don't care if it's a garbage truck compared to most VTOLs, if it's Omni, it'd be a wonderful thing.
-
Content - Content in terms of choice of unit types and so forth has been very good the last couple of rounds, and should not change much in my opinion.
Writing - The best parts for me are the design notes, and the notable pilots/warriors. The variants section is great also.
Stats - I think having the Quick Strike/Battleforce stats in that section would be a good idea.
Rules - The references that have been included for the level 3 rules in the back of the Prototypes book ought to be the standard here
Art - David White. Can't say enough about that guy. :)
Layout - Having sections by era and then by unit class as in the 3075/85 TROs was great.
-
Writing - The fluff-rich entries for 3085 and Prototypes have been great. This more than anything is what make or breaks a TRO for me. Notable pilots, background fiction, etc. make a unit come alive for me. Just listing that it has equipment x, y, and z and calling it a day is simply bland and boring.
-
Content - Honestly, I don't think we need any more 'mechs - I've probably fielded only about 30% of the published mechs in 15 years of playing this game.
That aside, I'd like to see general service dates, (by faction if appropriate) and designations for varients
Writing - Major engagements where the design had a pivital role, and noteable pilots/crews/units. Procurement compromises & snafus. Design intentions vs what they actually got to build. Flavour rather than verbal description of the Stat-Block.
Stats - I love seeing the quirks.
Rules - Please, no rules in TROs. The whole reason I was so happy with re-write of the core rules for TW was it removed the need for lots of books to reference special-case rules
Art - I've been generally impressed by art in recent TROs, but I'd like to see fewer exposed ammo feeds and smaller barrel sizes.
Layout - Please give us plain white backgrounds for the fluff text. Black-on-grey and Black-on-texture are so much harder to read.
-
Mini-Rant: I've stopped buying the XTRO's because the designs usually don't make sense. Seems to me that most of the new TRO designs went like: "Hey designer, make a mech with one of 'these'." "OK, I have a couple minutes, lets take some random stuff plus 'one of these', and *kablam*, new 'mech!"... Which results in a 'mech which makes no sense from a cost perspective, and there is no fluff which explains why anyone in their right mind would actually buy and use it except maybe because it's the newest shiny and they have _way_ too much money and not enough oversight. *tries to wipe foam from mouth*
Prime Example out of a real TRO:
Dasher II and Dasher II-2
-Joe
-
Hello,
There are two key differences between the XTRs (Experimental Technical Readouts) and the TROs (standard Technical Readouts). One is that the XTRs represent in-universe attempts to employ experimental weapons or design theories on prototypes and one-off units while the TROs represent production-grade units. The other is that XTRs are exclusively PDF-only products, while TROs are planned for print.
This public opinion survey is focused on the latter (TROs), so we would appreciate if all registered opinions focused on those products.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
-
Content -
More warships and pocket warships!
More battlearmors.
Furthermore, keep the combined-arms principle you did so well in the last TROs. The different infantry variants are among those I like the most.
Given all the various worlds and factions you could add far more faction-specific and specialized infantry units.
Writing - Major engagements where the design had a pivital role, and noteable pilots/crews/units. Procurement compromises & snafus. Design intentions vs what they actually got to build. Flavour rather than verbal description of the Stat-Block.
I agree and add include simply more flufftext (as to including scandals, corruption and so on). I am not interested in reading boring stats, rather reading about the quirks of the material used.
Stats -
Add quirks for each design, but add for these quirks appropiate flufftext, please.
Rules -
No rules.
Art -Each of the artists working for is excellent. A small bonus could be if you use a single artist only for a faction.
Layout - Please give us plain white backgrounds for the fluff text. Black-on-grey and Black-on-texture are so much harder to read.
I agree.
-
I'd love to see QS/BF stats included in the TRO's.
-
I'd love to see QS/BF stats included in the TRO's.
Yes, a thousand times yes!
-Gunz
-
Content - I am liking what is out there. I will echo some of the comments that less 'Mechs and more vehicles/battlearmor/areospace would be nice.
Writing - More notable pilots. Perhaps a little more battle history or deployment information.
Stats - I like the current format, very clean and well organized. Some folks seem to want battleforce and quickstrike stats as well. . .why not.
Rules - Not a fan of rule sets in TROs
Art - Happy with the trend here. While there are some designs that I love, some that I hate, and others that I love to hate; the artwork has been consistenly good and getting better with each TRO. My only complaint may be with some of the busier backgrounds; but that is really small potatoes.
Layout - Keep the 3085 style layout - it was nice, clean, and easy to read. I think that perhaps the best way to get the battleforce and quickstrike stats in the TRO may be to have them in a separate section, as it may cause the main page for each unit to appear a bit cluttered.
Generally speaking I have really enjoyed the last few TROs (3075, 3085, and Prototypes) and look forward to more.
Of course that is just my opinion. . . .I could be wrong.
-
Content -
In general I would really like to see more jumpships, even LF variants that have been talked about before. I know regular jumpships aren't the flashiest but it's just insane how many more warship designs we have than jumpships and yet warships are supposedly rarer. In general I like seeing content that fills holes in unit types and gives us stats for things that have been mentioned but never gotten any stats and/or TRO writeup.
Writing -
I particularly enjoy the short stories about how the unit has been used in-universe, the pilot writeups, and the quirks that said unit might have.
Rules -
I'm not crazy about extra rules in TRO's, maybe new equipment like 2750/3050 while we wait a few months or so on an updated rulebook.
Art -
Fairly happy with the current Battletech art direction although it does bother me when there will be just a few sketches in each TRO that get lax on detail, like the 3075 Eyleuka & Hyena, 3085 Trajan or Prototypes Enyo, not that I dislike the art in questions, it just seems unfinished. Not a fan of the over the top totem mechs or things like the Gen1 Protomechs but appreciate the variety as long as such designs remain rare and unusual.
Layout -
I really prefer the same unit types be together, battlemechs, vees, fighets, etc with only possible exception being divisions by technology base. It's definitely knowing which units are used by which factions but found the 3075 style faction sections to be a bit much. IMO the perfect TRO has an overall layout like Prototypes but with a somewhat more traditional page layout as seen in 3085.
-
I'll keep it in brief Herb-sized (sound)bites...
Content - Seperate books for different unit types would be nice. (unimportant compared to cost factors of printing)
Writing - Nothing. It's always good!
Stats - Please don't include ANY optimal designs. It makes the rest of the canon designs look bad. (if they can get it perfect once, everything else is obsolete)
Rules - Don't belong in TROs. If a new unit needs new rules, rethink the idea or put it in the next RULEbook.
Art - For the love of Cat, PLEASE make missiles and launch tubes that are the size they should be! (2-4 inches in diameter, not the size of a 500 lb. air-to-ground missile) Along those lines, properly scaled weapons are a must. Units that actually look like they can move is nice too.
Layout - White. Paper. Background. 'Nuff said. (i.e. no grey backdrop, no fancy "display screen" borders, etc.) When all else fails, look at the original TRO 3025 and TRO 3026. If it dosn't look like that, you got it wrong.
YMMV as always. 8)
-
Content - All units and technologies in each book. Like TRO 3075 or TRO 3085. Please include also infantry. Not so many min-maxed designs, but more the bread-and-butter line units of each house.
Writing - Definetly no unit costs. The system is SOOO broken, that the mention of xx million c-bills is a wwaste of space. Also please no " the ammo is sufficient for nearly two minutes of fire." The game is an abstraction. If converted to e.g. battleforce, the ammo would last longer...
Stats - Okay
Rules - Normally no rules required. Otherwise, as we are wainting for several years for IO (which should cover LAM rules) - it would have been nice to see them included in TRO 3085.
Art - I liked TRO3055U, TRO3075 and TRO3085. Not the "comic style" of TRO3050U...
Layout - Black&White. Not the background of Prototypes.
-
Content - An update to 3057! More focus spacecraft may bring in more general sci-fi fans. It seems to me that ground units have already been covered in exhaustive detail. After 3039 this is the most read readout in our gaming group.
Writing - Less focus in problems that were resolved during the development phase, but keep the notable units sections, these are alot of fun to read.
Stats - Cost, Cost and Cost. With a price modifiers by era.
Rules - Quirks are always nice, I'm unaware of any quirks incorporated into the older warships and areospace craft.
Art - Most areospace craft don't look like they would actually fly, so a bit more realism would be nice. Also jumpships and warships are never represented as the flying skyscrappers that they actually are in the rules.
Layout - I like the current layout.
-
I miss the introductions that divided sections. For example 3058 had vehicles and mechs separated with one page write ups on general changes before get into the new stuff. They were also divided by inner sphere and clan sections and I wish that you could add an all periphery section. More focus on support units to the mechs as well as more nation specific units. For example the periphery could always use its own VTOL unit or units for each of the realms in the periphery.
Other then that cost in c bills would be nice. Perfer the more realistic art work.
-
Rules - Normally no rules required. Otherwise, as we are wainting for several years for IO (which should cover LAM rules) - it would have been nice to see them included in TRO 3085.
THIS is a key example of why I believe it is completely appropriate to include rules under certain conditions. In essence, if there are new/experimental weapons, equipment or design quirks that aren't already included in some other rulebook that was published prior to the publishing of the TRO in question, then the TRO should include those rules.
-
Content - I would prefer to see more factions covered in the book, even if small(er) factions only receive one or two designs each. It feels a bit incomplete if nations like the Marian Hegemony, Rim Worlds Republic and Taurian Concordat aren't covered in at least minor detail, given their impact on certain story lines (what did the Periphery Powers fight with in the Reunification Wars -- Seems like they don't make anything at all) This could even be satisfied with a larger "Variants" section or a single page description, like in TRO:3075's "Royal Designs" section.
It would also be nice to see designs represented in the Record Sheets at least getting a brief description in the Variants section. This gives players a miniscule amount of basic info without having to join a message board to ask questions.
Writing - I enjoy seeing the "Notable Pilots" section as it provides a real-world application for the design in a given scenario. Data for the beginning of production, appropriate factions and date the design fell out of usage is also helpful for MUL purposes.
Stats - Please include the critical locations data again, as was provided in earlier TROs. This included the location of fixed equipment and crit slots like Endo Steel and heat sinks. It makes it much easier to customize an accurate record sheet.
Rules - Rules are an excellent draw for Record Sheet books if the rules somehow pertain to the content therein. If a new or unique design is included in a TRO, construction data (such as in the original TRO:3060's ProtoMechs section) would be desirable.
Art - Matt Plog and David White. Lots of this. A whole TRO of this.
Layout - The layout of Total Warfare, Tech Manual and Tac Ops is quite irritating. The construction rules and fluff data should be included in a single paragraph with sub headings to separate the two. Having the data on different pages or tucked away in the bottom of the page leads to frustration. MaxTech had a great format I believe everyone was comfortable with.
-
Stats - Please include the critical locations data again, as was provided in earlier TROs. This included the location of fixed equipment and crit slots like Endo Steel and heat sinks. It makes it much easier to customize an accurate record sheet.
Can you provide an example of a TRO that does such?
-
Can you provide an example of a TRO that does such?
I think he's talking about OmniMech configurations where everything is fixed including non-crittable equipment like Ferro.
-
Can you provide an example of a TRO that does such?
TRO:3058's OmniMech entries.
Example:
Location Fixed Spaces Remaining
Right Torso 3 Engine 3
3 Jump Jets
Double Heat Sink
-
TRO:3058's OmniMech entries.
Example:
Location Fixed Spaces Remaining
Right Torso 3 Engine 3
3 Jump Jets
Double Heat Sink
Why would there be any reason to sell Record Sheet packs if you could put together every single 'Mech yourself in designer software?
-
Why would there be any reason to sell Record Sheet packs if you could put together every single 'Mech yourself in designer software?
Because the only software that still works can't do protos, super heavies, infantry, battle armor, or aerospace and can only kinda sorta do vehicles? He also might be doing it by hand.
Good argument for putting TRO's and record sheets in the same book though. O0
-
TRO:3058's OmniMech entries.
Example:
Location Fixed Spaces Remaining
Right Torso 3 Engine 3
3 Jump Jets
Double Heat Sink
Omnis have always been presented in this fashion and continue to be, but even from those you cannot make accurate Record Sheets.
-
Why would there be any reason to sell Record Sheet packs if you could put together every single 'Mech yourself in designer software?
Record Sheets are print-capable stats for table top gaming. If you play table top, they'll be useful with or without that data being divulged in the TRO. For those of us who can't readily find a table top game or play online, it's a lot easier to make a file out of those stats than buying a separate Record Sheets book we'll never use. Crit data won't add a single page to the TRO.
-
Omnis have always been presented in this fashion and continue to be, but even from those you cannot make accurate Record Sheets.
The OP asks for aspects you like about content and stuff you don't like. That was something I liked and would enjoy seeing more of. :) Even for non-Omnis, if possible.
-
Record Sheets are print-capable stats for table top gaming. If you play table top, they'll be useful with or without that data being divulged in the TRO. For those of us who can't readily find a table top game or play online, it's a lot easier to make a file out of those stats than buying a separate Record Sheets book we'll never use. Crit data won't add a single page to the TRO.
And since the point and design of the game is to be played as a tabletop game, why wouldn't the company gear their business model towards that end?
-
And since the point and design of the game is to be played as a tabletop game, why wouldn't the company gear their business model towards that end?
I'd say most BattleTech games aren't played on table top any longer. I'm sure someone will dispute that, but we have hard numbers stating that 40,000 - 60,000 games are played on MekWars servers alone each year. That's not counting MegaMek pickup games, online gaming like MWO or anything else.
Anyhow, that (crit data) was my suggestion.
-
TRO:3058's OmniMech entries.
Example:
Location Fixed Spaces Remaining
Right Torso 3 Engine 3
3 Jump Jets
Double Heat Sink
That is how Omnis are currently and have always been done. I still don't know what you mean by:
Stats - Please include the critical locations data again, as was provided in earlier TROs. This included the location of fixed equipment and crit slots like Endo Steel and heat sinks. It makes it much easier to customize an accurate record sheet.
You're asking for something 'again' that never went away. Do you mean you just want it continued? Or do you want something new, that wasn't provided in earlier TROs?
-
That is how Omnis are currently and have always been done. I still don't know what you mean by:
You're asking for something 'again' that never went away. Do you mean you just want it continued? Or do you want something new, that wasn't provided in earlier TROs?
Continued. It's something I like about the current TROs I would enjoy seeing continue or possibly even branch out into the non-OmniMechs.
-
Thanks
-
I'd say most BattleTech games aren't played on table top any longer.
I'm not sure its an accurate comparison to say this, but, you could say that about Scrabble given all the cell phone apps I've seen, and I'm sure that Milton Bradley/Parker Bros/Whoever, is still going to focus on selling the original game in a cardboard box. Not to mention (and I could be wrong here) that I don't think I have ever heard of even one person saying they 1st heard about BT via playing Megamech. So I can see the focus on live gaming. That said I completely agree with your request, it is info I'd love to see in the TRO. I'd always heard RS books sold badly & were not good money makers to begin with, though perhaps that has changed with all the PDF products now.
-
Content – Clear and clean Sections for Ground(Elementals, Protos, Infantry, Armor), Mechs and lots of them, Aerospace craft up to Warships. If you would like numbers something like Inner Sphere: 35-45 Clan: 30-40 Periphery: 20-30 Units or different items for the book, whatever would make a good $30-$35 Solid TRO.(My favorite is Clan Equipment) Also I’m looking forward to the post Jihad timeline now that we have a complete Jihad Era (Yay!)
Writing – Many TROs hold Strong in a lot of Fluff content which I favor, because if shows you the game universe. I have no real complaints.
Stats – If there are Variants of the design, is there room to list the data like Omnimechs?( but with the location of the weapons and ammo and listed with the different model mech numbers.
Rules – not really a need of rules as maybe just with this new Hardware can we fit new Faction random deployment by equipment rating in the back? And can we have the BV list and Factions that field the model listed somehow.
Art – Some clearer Definition between Laser barrel lens and AutoCannon Open mouth Barrels or PPC Tubes. Many pics in the art in 3085 are great, the artist for the “MEB-9 Ebony” I would like to see do Periphery mechs and equipment and I like the feel of that art look for there.
Layout – I really don’t want to see TRO: 3075 layout repeated again. I believe the “Age of War” section should have been its own TRO, not crammed into 3075 in the middle of the Jihad. Please have the entire TRO dedicated to equipment/Mech/airspace of the time area covered. The only thing I can think of that would be acceptable is Project Phoenix if applicable in said time period.
I hope this helps as Battletech has been with me a long time and I would love to see this game live forever!
-
If "Life is cheap. BattleMechs are expensive." is still going to be part of the universe I'd like a reason to be using expensive BattleMechs in scouting roles when I could use far cheaper Vehicles.
Going into the new meta-era (3250+) I'd like to see the scout/lite 'Mechs in TRO:3250 (or whatever we end up getting, basically the new 3025) being armed like one would expect such units to be, with long range weapons so they can conduct harassing operations
-
Many pics in the art in 3085 are great, the artist for the “MEB-9 Ebony” I would like to see do Periphery mechs and equipment and I like the feel of that art..
..I hope this helps as Battletech has been with me a long time and I would love to see this game live forever!
Unfortunately, BT may live forever, but artists do not. The gentleman who did the Ebony, Doug Chaffee, has passed on.
-
A bit late here, but I would also would like to see some buildings, examples:
Pop-up turret
Regular turret
Hand-held Weapon dispenser building
Mech-Hanger
-
A bit late here, but I would also would like to see some buildings, examples:
Pop-up turret
Regular turret
Hand-held Weapon dispenser building
Mech-Hanger
Oh that would be cool!
-
A bit late here, but I would also would like to see some buildings, examples:
Pop-up turret
Regular turret
Hand-held Weapon dispenser building
Mech-Hanger
O0