BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Administration and Moderation => BattleTech News => Catalyst Asks You! => Topic started by: HABeas2 on 19 September 2012, 17:39:19
-
Hello,
So, this is another fun poll for my curiosity (and yours). Suppose a retcon (retroactive continuity change) was inevitable, had to be done for some reason in the BattleTech universe. How far back in the setting would you--as a BattleTech player and general fan--consider the changes to be acceptable? Would changes made as far back as the present day be an acceptable retcon point, with the entire setting redesigned around the changes (whatever they might be), or would changes made only be acceptable in the closer time period, such as tweaking the outcome of the Jihad or Dark Age settings)?
Note: This is not a discussion of where the universe would be set, time-wise, but where a significant change in the in-universe history occurs. The story might stay, for instance in the 3090s, but history books record a different history from what the last 25 years of game products have shown since the point of the retcon.
Also note: The retcon in question is not defined here, but must be significant in nature--an alliance that didn't exist before or fails at a different point; a tech item that develops differently; a war goes differently; that kind of thing. A minor change--such as a single personality of minor note marries a different person or dies mysteriously, or the colors of a flag are different, or a specific model of 'Mech is never made--simply won't merit such an impact.
Feel free to discuss, but you all get just the one vote to say when--in universe--a significant retcon might be acceptable to you, the player.
Polls close on Halloween.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
This is a hard decision.i like them all except our current time. I voted early clan invasion probably because i used to get my ass handed to my by early clanners.
-
Personally, I'm of dual opinions on this.
On one side, I love the game just as it is. I've been playing sine '86 and am a stalwart in terms of seeing things continue like they have been.
On the other side, there's a part of me that wishes for an "ancient history" retcon, so some of the present day (circa 2012) technology can influence the "present day" (circa 3090+) technology. Imagine hacking a 'Mech with a RotS or Star League level iPhone? ;)
-
simple
the day Katherine SD arranges the hit on mom, the assassin
turns out to be Heimdall, and oops, Katie has an accident
-
:o
-
I dont like the Dark Age stuff, it was a Wizkids things. Battletech has surivied the Dark Age, use some of the stuff from it, but different history of the future.
-
First I looked for the "Why bother, I don't demand rigourous internal consistency from a beer and pretzels universe".
Then I decided the nature of the retcon would have to determine the retcon needed, if any. For example, as much as it pains me, you could probably lose House Marik altogether, and have an agressive & competant Capellan state on the Lyran border, without really changing anything in terms of game history, other than the unit names involved in battles. Such a retcon could take place any time from before the founding of the Great Houses, to the 1st SW, without really changing the outcomes (except reducing the number of purple 'Mechs in the game). If you wanted to retcon the Clans out of existance, it'd have to be post Amaris Civil War, and so on.
W.
-
If you gotta do it, go back as far as you need to make it work, no sense in doing it half-way.
-
I think the point that offers the best set of possibilities is the Star League. You can still say that all of the implemented technology in the game is advanced Star League gear. You still have a long way to go with the timeline as well, and can still expand from that Star League technology point.
-
If you gotta do it, go back as far as you need to make it work, no sense in doing it half-way.
I agree. O0
If it's worth doing it's worth doing it all the way.
-
I'm of the opinion that if needs fixing, go back as far as necessary to fix it. If that means essentially hitting a rest button and building everything from the ground up again, go for it. I'm not so attached to my factions as to say "I'll quit playing the game entirely" if that happens.
But, on the other hand, a lot of people could and would take major retconning in a bad way. Honestly, I appreciate you want our advice but I don't think this is a decision the community could make; and the topic is too broad to accurately judge what we want.
-
+1 for going as far back as needed. It is not like things haven't been retconed in before (at least, I consider things like Primitive tech as retcons), so if there is a problem that needs fixing, then fix it when it works best to.
But, on the other hand, a lot of people could and would take major retconning in a bad way. Honestly, I appreciate you want our advice but I don't think this is a decision the community could make; and the topic is too broad to accurately judge what we want.
However, this also needs to be considered.
-
Maybe some major retcon in the Star League, Republic, and Dark Age that does not affect the newer products, fiction, sourcebooks that Catalyst has already delivered.
If something really needs a major overhaul (rules, technology, or anything that has to do with the traditional five houses), then just make it a few centuries into the future.
-
I agree with Southern Coyote... if you need to fix it, where ever it is do so... but really, is it worth it? What's wrong with inconsistency? Leaves the player groups options as to directions their games go and leave writers options to build/deconstruct old material. That is not to say I would expect this to become the norm. Consistency is important - but the old stuff that doesn't sit with the new could be acceptable.
It is only a game for all that...
-
I don't know all the new stuff, I'm a 3025 Hardliner so the first Clan setting is reasonable and a has a good story but what I heard and what I read about the modern things is nothing what I like. In my opinion too many changes in a short time.
Changes are necassary and time goes on so please make sure that every reset, every change is really necessary and not only for making money. Investigate and check every step you plan and do what you have to do with the best result.
I agree with others here: If it's worth doing it's worth doing it all the way not half-way!
-
FedCom Civil War period. That's when the IS fleets started getting wiped out just when they were finally getting back on their proverbial feet. Stop that there, and stay the course during the Jihad, and we can keep the same story without crippling the WarShip fleets.
-
If you have to do it, start from scratch.
-
Note: This is not a discussion of where the universe would be set, time-wise, but where a significant change in the in-universe history occurs. The story might stay, for instance in the 3090s, but history books record a different history from what the last 25 years of game products have shown since the point of the retcon.
I'd like to request an example of the scale your talking about.
I like retcons that smooth things & correct complications, not completely change them, if that makes sense.
A good retcon (to me) could go back as far as you want, while a bad retcon I wouldn't want at all.
-
I don't see that you would be able to do a significant retcon of this nature after 25+ years without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
If you're needing to change things that much, make a new game.
-
I am disturbed that the word RETCON is even being mentioned in this sort of fan poll. >:(
-
PErsonally, I don't see the point in a retcon.
-
I'm not in favor of Retcon in sense of changing history that was already established. Fixing typos and mistakes made in early products is bit differient, such as Great House Books's tales of unit historys. Regiments hitting certain place for grand battle that was suppose to be certain year, then come find out they weren't formed yet. Etc, its errant, but also its form Retcon. Fixing stuff like that is fine as far I'm concern.
However, if anything could be adjusted with RetCon, its the Age of War. I know Catalyst wants gets going with time line with limited resources its has, i'm all for that. However, there some serious problems with continum that far back. Retcon that would include missing technologies. We could use, for sake of perhap people who be interesting in playing in those wicked early eras have equipment which would logically should have exist back then. Like guided missiles, which would have had similar BAR limitation like the Rifles (Cannons) which did exist in those earlier eras. LRMs / SRMs were those type missiles aren't true guided one. I thought it was bizzare there weren't any signs of those "primitive" weapons being used by Terran Alliance factions fighting for control of Terra. There was suppose to be Nuclear Shield system from Cripplin station, i'd imagine they'd have guided missiles back then. That kind of Retcon i'd like see.
As for the present and oncoming later part Dark Age, timeline as whole should be left alone. Too much work was put into putting it together to downgrade history we know to a miss-reported events.
P.S. I'd like have Warship fleets not crippled, but unfortunately this way it is now. :-[
-
I'm torn. A far back retcon to eliminate warships as a viable military platform (the drop ship becomes the biggest thing, jump ships simply too valuable, fragile, fighters too powerful to make warship investment worthwhile)..but fiction wise, but retcon away the Republic and Dark Age.
Of course, new technology or simply new military observations that warships arent worth the cost and get wiped out can do that trick. So, that retcon isn't needed.
And heck, as for the Republic, who needs to retcon? Jump forward, have it collapse as a bad idea, and deliver wonderful fan service by long painful death scenes of every Republic unit or leader, where every turn of fortune or break goes against them.
Simple version: Retcon it by having Devlin Stone / whoever he really is come out of the shower, talking about a wierd dream he had, then snuggles up to Katherine Steiner-Davion. Victor Davion starts wearing a cowboy hat for some reason. Cue Dallas theme music. (Lots of potential there to give the Fed Suns Civil war more hillbilly flavor.)
Simple retcon: find/ replace every term referring to House Marik with 'doorstop'.
Even simpler: find replace ever term referring to House Lia with 'Anamaniacs.'
Some of these I'm serious about, others, not so much.
An early retcon to wipe out technologies that slow down the game, or alter how they resolve to speed up the game (good bye cluster chart)..yeah, I'm cool with that. or advance it and make them go away.
-
Hello,
I am disturbed that the word RETCON is even being mentioned in this sort of fan poll. >:(
It's kind of the point, so... deal with it.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
I say right back to the present day. Add things we know from the last 25 years of real word history. Technology updates to things. I love the game and the universe, but some of the 'Future of the 80's' business bothers me some times, especially in older stories. I don't see any real reason for a major change in how the events of the BTU as we know it went down. Oh, some tweaking here and there would be good, but major events and the main wars can still happen. Even the 'Mad max' feel of the late succession wars can be done if the writers put a bit of work into it.
-
COLD DEAD HANDS!
Nah, but I'm actually a fan of the "fill in what's missing" kind of stuff. Or brushing aside the "that's some guy's perspective in-universe and he was wrong".
Stuff that adds to the universe works best, organic kinds of changes. Just don't do the Advance of Zeta route that tried to fill in 0084-0086 so much that the machines that were supposed to be top of the line in Zeta in 0086 look like junkyard rejects in terms of performance and history.
-
First I looked for the "Why bother, I don't demand rigourous internal consistency from a beer and pretzels universe".
???
tries to imagine how much damage would be caused if we got one copy of every Battletech product, bundled them together and dropped it on the head of an Atlas (from about 5-6 hexes up) ?
:)
not bad for a beer and pretzels game - imagine how much more stuff we could get if they went from beer and pretzels to wine and canapés [drool]
errr ... on topic(ish), I'm voting 'Never' - sure there may be characters/'Mechs/tech/story lines/factions I don't like, but they are "mine" to don't like and you're not to take them from me :D
looks at the voting ..... that kind of interesting, at the moment the two era with the most votes are on the opposite ends of the timeline/table: 2012 (24.3%) and never (25.7%)
-
Let's go all the way...
DUHDUHDUH!
Rosanna, yeah!
-
I voted Age of War for one reason only.The art for for the Unseen mus retconned all the way to their creation. Other than that, the only reason to go back that far is to clarify some minutiae in the History of the BT Universe.
-
I voted Age of War for one reason only.The art for for the Unseen mus retconned all the way to their creation. Other than that, the only reason to go back that far is to clarify some minutiae in the History of the BT Universe.
Voted Age of War for the same reason. Retcon Unseen and not much else.
-
All the way.
If you're going to do it, do it right.
-
I voted back to the beginning because if you need to change something you should really go back as far as you need to to make it right. It would also be nice to clean up the early history because there are a ton of inconsistencies that have popped up the between real world and BT which could really use some attention, especially technologies that seem to be better today than they are in BT.
-
I say right back to the present day. Add things we know from the last 25 years of real word history. Technology updates to things. I love the game and the universe, but some of the 'Future of the 80's' business bothers me some times, especially in older stories. I don't see any real reason for a major change in how the events of the BTU as we know it went down. Oh, some tweaking here and there would be good, but major events and the main wars can still happen. Even the 'Mad max' feel of the late succession wars can be done if the writers put a bit of work into it.
but then in 20 years time do you have to retcon it again so it's not the Future of 2013?
-
but then in 20 years time do you have to retcon it again so it's not the Future of 2013?
That would depend on how the retcon is structured. If you are vague about historical events in the near future you can avoid problems with those entirely which just leaves technology, and that can be sort of woven into newer source material like how canon BT tech is better now than it was a few decades ago thanks to redefinitions of how things work.
-
If you have to ask then I'd say it's only worth doing if you go the whole hog.
-
Never. Once you start resetting your universe, you will always be tempted to do it whenever things get tough. (See DC Comics and their habit of restarting every 5 years or so.) If your writers are good enough you can get out of any situation. Fortunately CGL has some good writers on staff.
-
Wow having this type of poll in the CAY area of the forums was a fun way to wake up today. :o
I'm with the majority that I don't really feel the need for a retcon, but if there was one I'd want it in the Age of War.
There was so much out there still not explored and also so much in the past. Maybe they did have better ships before a horrible event in time screwed it up and we're reduced to the piddling amounts of ships we have now.
Maybe they did have some neat Retrotech innovations.
Maybe this House leader really did choose Jiff like choosy moms have done in the past.
From there it can ripple as far as we'd like into other time frames.
-
I put no retcon reset. Partially by the definitions. If it's major, then I don't want it retconned. If it's minor, then it doesn't count and you can retcon back to the Stone Age (with literal stone tools, not Devlin Stone).
Changing the date of a weapon introduction, minor and doesn't count. More minor? Somebody was too young in year X to do action Y and either their birth date is changed or having somebody else do action Y. (As long as it doesn't cause something else that is major). Whether regiment X was formed in the Star League or in the Succession Wars. (see Night Stalkers).
Retconning out the existence of battlemechs, major and shouldn't happen. Ok, maybe that's too obvious? Operation Bulldog and the destruction of Clan Smoke Jaguar is major and shouldn't change. The fall of the Star League. The formation of the Republic of the Sphere.
-
Hello,
The nature and severity of the retcon/retcons in question have yet to be introduced as a subject at this time. Still, it should be noted that the further back a significant retcon is set (this poll applies to significant retcons only, not minor detail stuff like colors of a state logo, names of individual regiments, or even the look of the Unseen), the more dramatic the impact will be.
The retcons may affect everything from aesthetics (the look of Mechs, vehicles, and aerospace units), to story (which factions have what styles of character, who fought what wars where and when, how bad the conflicts got, and so on), to game rules (changes to weapon ranges, damage resolution, dice mechanics, and the like).
Again, the factors of what a retcon might affect and how significant it is will be addressed in a separate poll; this one asks only how far back does one find such changes acceptable. All the way to start may invalidate the entire collected works of BattleTech ever published. More recent changes may leave most of them untouched.
Hopefully, that helps clarify.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
I still say all the way back.
I then see if I like the changes and then decide if I roll with them or not. ;)
-
I voted for "Age of War". I think it would be interesting to *consider* tweaks to the rise of neofeudalism, the introduction of the Battlemech and what that meant for interstellar governance, warfare, etc. In particular, I think it would be better to have major factions develop dynasties that more closely mirrored European history wherein major Houses dominated for a period of time, rather than an 800 year sweep. I think it would be interesting to have Comstar be a much older entity as well.
-
Herb's latest post here makes me think... I'll rather be cautious on this one. No retcon for me please.
-
"Leave Brittney Alone!" :'(
errr....
Leave it alone. Errata to fix some minor inconsistencies is one thing. Making a major change that alters the universe is a nogo.
I don't like the Republic of the Sphere and the Dark Age. I originally hated the Jihad, but grew to accept it as information came out.
But those are my opinions. Other fans have theirs. I suspect many of the opinions are factional ("I luv me some Liao, so I want the FedSuns to be weaker.") or based on favored style of play ("I luv me some LAMs, so lets make entire SLDF regiments of them!"). There's a strong possibility that my personal preferences are affected this way as well. Which is why I voted to leave things alone.
As others have stated, once you open the retcon genie, the temptation will always be there to do it again whenever styles change (just look at all of the Batman movies), a storyline snag pops up, or the real world invents a new gadget that wasn't anticipated 25+ years ago.
-
That would depend on how the retcon is structured. If you are vague about historical events in the near future you can avoid problems with those entirely which just leaves technology, and that can be sort of woven into newer source material like how canon BT tech is better now than it was a few decades ago thanks to redefinitions of how things work.
I was just thinking of the technological aspect of it. At the rate we're redefining information usage and integration, it's very hard to picture what technology will be like in 50 years, let alone 1,000. I'd rather pick a set point and let things go from there than redefine that point later, only for it to look equally out of date in 20-30 years time.
-
Hello,
The nature and severity of the retcon/retcons in question have yet to be introduced as a subject at this time. Still, it should be noted that the further back a significant retcon is set (this poll applies to significant retcons only, not minor detail stuff like colors of a state logo, names of individual regiments, or even the look of the Unseen), the more dramatic the impact will be.
The retcons may affect everything from aesthetics (the look of Mechs, vehicles, and aerospace units), to story (which factions have what styles of character, who fought what wars where and when, how bad the conflicts got, and so on), to game rules (changes to weapon ranges, damage resolution, dice mechanics, and the like).
Again, the factors of what a retcon might affect and how significant it is will be addressed in a separate poll; this one asks only how far back does one find such changes acceptable. All the way to start may invalidate the entire collected works of BattleTech ever published. More recent changes may leave most of them untouched.
Hopefully, that helps clarify.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
All hail Herb, god of the non-answer. :D
In all seriousness, I do understand why you are evading this question. Specifying the nature of the retcon would add a lot of pressure to people voting and would almost certainly create no votes from people who do not want that specific retcon but would be open to another option.
For example, someone may be opposed to changing the Clan Invasion to let the Clans win, but would be fine with a significant rule change for ground combat because it has happened several times for aerospace units and does not affect the universe significantly. This person would then naturally vote "never" for retcons if they knew the change point was the Clan Invasion example but might vote yes if the rules change was suggested or to say they were open to some changes.
I was just thinking of the technological aspect of it. At the rate we're redefining information usage and integration, it's very hard to picture what technology will be like in 50 years, let alone 1,000. I'd rather pick a set point and let things go from there than redefine that point later, only for it to look equally out of date in 20-30 years time.
You can actually brush that aside with later fluff. For example, I think that the Targeting Computer was intended to be mostly actual computing hardware when it was first introduced, but its fluff has since been changed so most of the mass is in aim-assist hardware attached to the weapons and the actual computer is tiny. You can also retroactively introduce technologies that were previously never imagined into the universe like Blue Shield so technology is not that hard to keep up to date if you are clever about it.
-
My two cents :)
I was initially going to go with "all the way" but then thought of the 2nd Soviet Civil war changed my mind... The way it's described kind of sets the scene for the rest of BT for me in that it shows humanity taking the more violent course that underlies the BT universe. I kinda reminds me that I need to change my perspective when looking at BT and not apply 'real world' motivations to it.
In other words if a major retcon did happen I don't think it should be to make BT the 'future of today'. It should stay the 'other kind of future' that could have been if our own past had turned out differently.
'Inspired by' reality rather than 'based on' if that makes sense...
-
Hello,
The nature and severity of the retcon/retcons in question have yet to be introduced as a subject at this time.
I was just clarifying that I go to extremes in this particular subject. All's fair in minor, nothing's fair in major. Therefore I voted no going back for this poll. In case the presumed later poll on retcon subject my answer seems contradictory (you said "no going back at all", then voted for half of these subjects to be retconned!) :)
-
Retcon is extremely appealing. Go back as far as you need to, in order to have it work, but I think things went wrong after the early 3040's, as the War of 3039 was the last good thing in the BT universe.
My group started playing in late 86. Over about 10 years, we slowed gamed our way along through the many conflicts and mercenary action the 3025-3039 time frame offered. However, when the clans showed up, none of us liked all the stat creep or the storyline, so we kept going like there were no clans for a while. After a few more years, we ended up drifting away though, since the whole BT universe was clan-war-centric.
Slow, gradual tech upgrades were good, and eventually working up to a conflict that included Comstar and WoB would have been doable, but the clans should never have existed, and nothing even remotely like Dark Age should ever have existed.
/rantoff. I feel much better now.
-
You can actually brush that aside with later fluff. For example, I think that the Targeting Computer was intended to be mostly actual computing hardware when it was first introduced, but its fluff has since been changed so most of the mass is in aim-assist hardware attached to the weapons and the actual computer is tiny. You can also retroactively introduce technologies that were previously never imagined into the universe like Blue Shield so technology is not that hard to keep up to date if you are clever about it.
I think we're looking at this crossways. I'm not talking about changing the fluff of existing weapons to clarify they do this or that. (Eliminating the "for 6 tons I'd expect more than 256 colours" Targeting computer joke). I'm talking about the idea that we change BattleTech from the Future of the 80s to the Future of some other timeframe, in order to prevent the idea of technology marching on. But IMO, when you do that, you just leave yourself open to the risk of retconning again in another 20 years when your future looks horribly outdated once more.
So, let's say hypothetically we retcon BT's background to make the tech level more of an exrapolation of modern-day technology. And we retain the Blue Shield, and we leave the Blue Shield introduction date as 3055 or so. And then in real life a similar device gets invented in 2021. Do you then retcon the universe again so the Blue Shield is a mature, thousand-year-old technology?
Looking at BattleTech's fluff, there's sections where hundreds of megabytes are referred to as a lot of data - notably Natural Selection, where the Assassin's home computer is very similar to the modern desktop PC. If we retcon that so it's terabytes or petabytes, what happens if exabyte-level data storage becomes commonplace? and for that matter, the desktop and laptop are fading away as a standard. If we were to retcon BattleTech's background so everyone has phones or tablets as their primary interface to cloud-based storage and applications, what happens when that paradigm radically shifts?
-
I think we're looking at this crossways. I'm not talking about changing the fluff of existing weapons to clarify they do this or that. (Eliminating the "for 6 tons I'd expect more than 256 colours" Targeting computer joke). I'm talking about the idea that we change BattleTech from the Future of the 80s to the Future of some other timeframe, in order to prevent the idea of technology marching on. But IMO, when you do that, you just leave yourself open to the risk of retconning again in another 20 years when your future looks horribly outdated once more.
So, let's say hypothetically we retcon BT's background to make the tech level more of an exrapolation of modern-day technology. And we retain the Blue Shield, and we leave the Blue Shield introduction date as 3055 or so. And then in real life a similar device gets invented in 2021. Do you then retcon the universe again so the Blue Shield is a mature, thousand-year-old technology?
Looking at BattleTech's fluff, there's sections where hundreds of megabytes are referred to as a lot of data - notably Natural Selection, where the Assassin's home computer is very similar to the modern desktop PC. If we retcon that so it's terabytes or petabytes, what happens if exabyte-level data storage becomes commonplace? and for that matter, the desktop and laptop are fading away as a standard. If we were to retcon BattleTech's background so everyone has phones or tablets as their primary interface to cloud-based storage and applications, what happens when that paradigm radically shifts?
Ok, first thing first. History progression and technology progression are two separate topics so I will discuss them separately and explain how you can structure a retcon to minimize or eliminate the need for future changes.
First is history. This is very easy to leave fuzzy because you can just leave details on the near future fuzzy. Thus there will be no canon information to be contradicted by real world developments so if something unexpected happens like the US splitting into two countries it will not cause serious problems. This is easier to do when you are starting development and can deny information in the first place, but even so you could publish a new timeline for the early years which dismisses some of the previous canon events which cannot work like the stuff about the Soviet Union and other near-term events which specify things too much.
Second is technology. This is similarly easy to play with if you are clever by simply not mentioning specific numbers. For example, the data descriptions can be changed from "megabytes" to "enormous amounts of data" which is always subjective and therefore does not get overrun by technology. The other side of this is the portable computing shift which can easily be limited by ruggedness, ease of manufacture, wireless network vulnerability, and the simple need for a full sized keyboard with tactile feedback. The other thing is there are some details like numbers which can be retroactively attributed to in-character errors or simply ignored, and introduction dates can be changed if needed. The other thing that can be done is retroactively roll some equipment into what is already on 'Mechs like ECM, so if a Blue-Shield-like system were to be introduced in 2021 you could just say that was built into every 'Mech already and penetrating that was the reason it took so long to develop useful PPCs, or failing that it you could change the introduction date and fluff of a system without really changing anything important.
-
Second is technology. This is similarly easy to play with if you are clever by simply not mentioning specific numbers. For example, the data descriptions can be changed from "megabytes" to "enormous amounts of data" which is always subjective and therefore does not get overrun by technology. The other side of this is the portable computing shift which can easily be limited by ruggedness, ease of manufacture, wireless network vulnerability, and the simple need for a full sized keyboard with tactile feedback. The other thing is there are some details like numbers which can be retroactively attributed to in-character errors or simply ignored, and introduction dates can be changed if needed.
Some of this I agree with - note that Shadowrun has moved away from giving file sizes for applications or data. There is a level of futureproofing you can do, but it's still not going to stop everything.
The other thing that can be done is retroactively roll some equipment into what is already on 'Mechs like ECM, so if a Blue-Shield-like system were to be introduced in 2021 you could just say that was built into every 'Mech already and penetrating that was the reason it took so long to develop useful PPCs, or failing that it you could change the introduction date and fluff of a system without really changing anything important.
But let's say we retcon technology tomorrow, so BattleTech is now the future of 2012, and ECM is more important than armour and so on. And in 2 years time we invent shields, by 2020 every fighting vehicle has shields and BattleTech looks hopelessly outdated. Do we now retcon BattleTech again so it's the future of 2020, and 'mechs always had shields? And what happens in 2040 when the next major technological protection comes along?
And that's the crux of my problem. if you make BattleTech more contemporary now, that means it'll look outdated again in the future. So why not just leave it looking outdated now and expend the effort elsewhere?
-
Some of this I agree with - note that Shadowrun has moved away from giving file sizes for applications or data. There is a level of futureproofing you can do, but it's still not going to stop everything.
True, but it still goes a long way towards keeping things working down the line.
But let's say we retcon technology tomorrow, so BattleTech is now the future of 2012, and ECM is more important than armour and so on. And in 2 years time we invent shields, by 2020 every fighting vehicle has shields and BattleTech looks hopelessly outdated. Do we now retcon BattleTech again so it's the future of 2020, and 'mechs always had shields? And what happens in 2040 when the next major technological protection comes along?
And that's the crux of my problem. if you make BattleTech more contemporary now, that means it'll look outdated again in the future. So why not just leave it looking outdated now and expend the effort elsewhere?
There are two key problems with this. First, you are not looking at the historic interplay between weapons and armor. Throughout history there has been a cyclical pattern of improving weapons and improving armor which results in combat going back and forth between one-shot-kill capability on both sides to nearly impenetrable defenses. We are currently in a one-shot-kill phase which makes it tricks like ECM critical to avoid being hit, however whenever defenses get to the point that they take a lot of luck/work to get through heavy ECM will loose some of its value because you could replace it with a bigger gun or more armor to get a comparable combat effectiveness (this is not to say it will disappear, however it will fade into the background). BattleTech on the other hand is in a phase where armor has the advantage which is why you see 'Mechs taking repeated hits with little trouble and why ECM is a much less critical part of combat. This means there is no reason to assume one-shot-kill capabilities and active defenses like ECM are critical on the battlefield in BT even building from modern technology.
Second, you are assuming that something can fundamentally replace armor which is simply false. The traditional Star Trek energy shields are simply not physically possible, so every futuristic defense scheme that involves taking hits (meaning no assumed one shot kills) relies heavily on armor. The materials and construction may vary, but at the end of the day that is the kind of detail that can be left vague just like the file sizes you mentioned in Shadowrun.
-
Just because of how dangerously open ended the question is I had to go cautious and opt for cold dead hands. I know Herb already mentioned that the nature of a retcon is not up for discussion at this point, but it makes an enormous difference in my vote. Tweaks to put the unseen issue to bed for all time or patch over hilariously out of date tech references? Have at it, do whatever you must. Radically altering in-universe history? Please leave well enough alone. It's not that I don't trust CGL to do a fantastic job, but part of what's so wonderful about BattleTech is the rich universe that's developed over the last quarter century. Please don't set that aside.
-
I'm pretty happy with everything thus far.
I'm not really interested in navel gazing, I just want to be part of the game as it unfolds.
Saying a retcon is necessary presumes that the existing story is somehow inadequate, which IMHO isn't so. So cold dead hands, sir.
-
I'm pretty happy with everything thus far.
I'm not really interested in navel gazing, I just want to be part of the game as it unfolds.
Saying a retcon is necessary presumes that the existing story is somehow inadequate, which IMHO isn't so. So cold dead hands, sir.
There are always problems and inconsistencies that pop up in everything, and BattleTech is no exception. My best guess is they were working on some historical stuff set before the Star League and ran into serious problems with existing canon because that era has not received nearly as much attention as the later periods and would thus be more susceptible to dates not lining up, conflicting sources, and other issues which may need to be thrown out to make room for a new book on the subject.
-
The poll basically shows it's all or nothing as a preferred option right now...Makes sense.
-
I say keep it the way it is. Retconning certain items (making planet discriptions make sense, etc) I'm fine with, but ultimately I see no need to do sweeping changes.
-
There are two key problems with this. First, you are not looking at the historic interplay between weapons and armor. Throughout history there has been a cyclical pattern of improving weapons and improving armor which results in combat going back and forth between one-shot-kill capability on both sides to nearly impenetrable defenses. We are currently in a one-shot-kill phase which makes it tricks like ECM critical to avoid being hit, however whenever defenses get to the point that they take a lot of luck/work to get through heavy ECM will loose some of its value because you could replace it with a bigger gun or more armor to get a comparable combat effectiveness (this is not to say it will disappear, however it will fade into the background). BattleTech on the other hand is in a phase where armor has the advantage which is why you see 'Mechs taking repeated hits with little trouble and why ECM is a much less critical part of combat. This means there is no reason to assume one-shot-kill capabilities and active defenses like ECM are critical on the battlefield in BT even building from modern technology.
Second, you are assuming that something can fundamentally replace armor which is simply false. The traditional Star Trek energy shields are simply not physically possible, so every futuristic defense scheme that involves taking hits (meaning no assumed one shot kills) relies heavily on armor. The materials and construction may vary, but at the end of the day that is the kind of detail that can be left vague just like the file sizes you mentioned in Shadowrun.
I'm not talking about specifics, which is why I said earlier that I think we're talking at cross purposes. You can fugde the specific of technology, but you can't protect against radical pradagim shifts. So when you retcon technology to make closer to contemporary tech, that just means it'll seem outdated again in the future.
-
Well, when I said retcon right back to the begining, I meant to do it in such a way that doesn't really invalidate the history and story we have now, just tweaks it a little. Cut out hard numbers, maybe add in a few notes on why some things are, or where the way they are even though current real world technology may appear to surpass it. I don't want to see any huge changes anywhere. A few little ones however, over the course of everything, could work wonderfully.
-
So, this is another fun poll for my curiosity (and yours). Suppose a retcon (retroactive continuity change) was inevitable, had to be done for some reason in the BattleTech universe. How far back in the setting would you--as a BattleTech player and general fan--consider the changes to be acceptable?
Anything you could hope to achieve by retconning past eras can be accomplished better, and with less headache, by instead building the new "current" era to the desired state. Use new "current" events, stats or locations as implicit analogues for any past material you can't let go of.
If the desired state can't be achieved without a retcon then you're probably overestimating how necessary it is.
If it can't be achieved without retcon, and it really is necessary, then you're better off starting from scratch. (I'm not sure if making a new universe counts as "never" or "all the way back" for purposes of this poll.)
...of course, I don't personally know that much about (for example) the Dark Age timeline, so I can't honestly say that I'd notice a major retcon to that period. Other fans probably have their own blindspots.
My best guess is they were working on some historical stuff set before the Star League and ran into serious problems with existing canon because that era has not received nearly as much attention as the later periods and would thus be more susceptible to dates not lining up, conflicting sources, and other issues which may need to be thrown out to make room for a new book on the subject.
My guess is that they're having trouble getting FASAnomics to work for Interstellar Operations.
-
MY COLD, DEAD HANDS, HERB! MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!!!!!!! O0
-
My Retcon is simply this: Jackson Davion should never have died the way he did/when he did. Consequently, the WoB should have been kicked off New Avalon sooner, and Jackson's presence amid the leadership chaos of the Post-Jihad time should have led the FedSuns into a stronger nation than what current canon reveals. Possibly this would change even who is the next First Prince.
-
Hello,
My Retcon is simply this: Jackson Davion should never have died the way he did/when he did. Consequently, the WoB should have been kicked off New Avalon sooner, and Jackson's presence amid the leadership chaos of the Post-Jihad time should have led the FedSuns into a stronger nation than what current canon reveals. Possibly this would change even who is the next First Prince.
It amuses me to see this, considering that Jackson's death was the result of the outcomes from a CDT world-wide event, so in essence it was the BattleTech players at the demo team events who got the man killed.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Age of War
Why there, you may be asking?
...because if you get ride of the Unseen, maybe we can finally get something that i would excrete square brass bricks from a tight orifice: TV, Direct-to-Cable/Netflix or Movies. If you can get Harmony Gold off your &^%es (and maybe, Topps will let you, sadly), then maybe all this awesome fiction that i grew up with, will see the light of day... too bad Rachael Welsh is too busy to play Natasha K... Sure that means changing a lot of things (or not, since the re-seen serve their purpose well.) but if that means you can finally expand the fan base... derp.
I mean, my boy would &^%$ himself if a Mechwarrior movie ever came out. he's already raving mad about MWO...
-
I don't know if I'd consider a redo of the Unseen in the SW timeframe to be a retcon; or really any art changes. I would love to see the Unseen with new art in the SW period (separate from the Phoenix designs - that way the Project Phoenix fluff doesn't have to change). I love what they did with the Primitive SHD
-
Wow. I'm really torn. I'm actuallly kind of fond of the Dark Age because of all its open potential. However, I really love some of the 'magic' that the First Star League was supposed to have compared to modern tech, and am kinda disappointed with the current accepted view that it has been equalled or surpassed. If I were to reset, it would be there, and put some of the power back into the ultimate technological golden era.
-
If a retcon were inevitable, and no limits on company resources are being imposed, I vote for total retcon. Start from scratch and rewrite the timeline based on current world events... I've never been a big fan of a one world government eventuality in most settings.
That said, my nerdrage would reach incalculable levels if a large section of my mini collection loses canonization due to a massive reshuffling of the BTU.
-
Hmm, thte toal rewrite or super far jump ahead is appealing to me more, but I think I'd favor the super jump ahead so the old stuff could remain official and out there for those who wanted to stick with it.
Avoid/Undo so many problems..like never really detailing where factories are, where parts are made. Just name companies with myriad productin facilities at all key transportation hubs. There, less stupid facts to keep track of that add nothing to the game except a headache when someone complains that widget X is only made on Planet Spaceball. No need to waste the effort tracking pointless trivial details.
Cut down faction tracking. A few houses, and handful of Clans, good enough .I can't keep up with the worings of Clan Trunkmonkey and its conflict with the Republic of Bellybutton Lint on the Periphery.
Advantage two: gut the existing number of 'Mechs and vehicles. Redefine TRO concepts to be fewer machines, but more entries and art on variants. Eliminates overlap, needless duplication, and shelf space bloat on the miniatures line. (But make translation rules for those who want to play old outdated antiques or retrofittedAncientTech) go with an initial 75 to 90% reduction, then slowly build up to maybe 30 to 40% (tops) of the current size, then phase out obsolete designs in fiction for every new one brought in.
No matter when the retcon happens, it retroactively forever alters the Unseen images to new art. Old Minis are welcome at the table, but with the understanding in canon thats never how they looked, you just happen to be fielding a heavily modified or frankenmech version of the 'mech. Stick a fork in the issue, its done, and not worth a second more discussion.
Kill Warships. Kill protomechs. Make the strategic level of play far more palatable and common. (Not that i'm biased or anything.) Mechs uber alles in fiction and gameplay.
Change tech bases for mechanical gameplay improvement. No cluster charts, easy to do battle point system, modify or eliminate the hit location/ ciritcal hit process to speed up damage resolution, vastly simplified construction. Heck, I'd dump the current skill and 2d6 system for something more intuitive and flexible. d10's/20's are ok with me.
Or just clean up the fiction and make minor improvements. I'm not unhappy now, just realizing we coudl make things better. Change will upset some, and lose some players, but meh, fear of change and losing a few customers means you never gain a wider audience and doom yourself to a dead end in the long run. Grow or die.
-
The poll basically shows it's all or nothing as a preferred option right now...Makes sense.
"These words he speaks are true ... "
W.
-
(can't find delete button)
-
is a retcon needed ? if so be through because once you do it and risk alienating part of the community you could end up endlessly tinkering trying to fix it.
-
I'm sure if a retcon is needed TPTB will handle it intelligently and with fan help. There are many things that could be changed. We're talking about 1000 years of "history" here. Things won't change THAT drastically. Right Herb? Right.....?
-
By the way. My vote went to early space flight. Really can't say why.
-
YOU CAN PRY MY MAD DOG FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!
Other than that feel free to retcon warships into unarmed jumpships, remove the unseen entirely from the game, etc.
-
Rethinking my original desire, I still favor a retcon from the start..but its qualified.
Some aspect of any retcons should start from the ; changing certain numbers, population densities, economic facts--simply to make the desired end state more plausible. Production dates, when certain events changed to a different time, they still happen, but just a different date or location hung on them. Changes like this probably not noticed by the majority of players. So the default answer for when any retcon should start has to be from the very beggining. Its deciding if and when to make the big changes (and what those shoudl be) that is the big question.
-
Hello,
Rethinking my original desire, I still favor a retcon from the start..but its qualified.
Some aspect of any retcons should start from the ; changing certain numbers, population densities, economic facts--simply to make the desired end state more plausible. Production dates, when certain events changed to a different time, they still happen, but just a different date or location hung on them. Changes like this probably not noticed by the majority of players. So the default answer for when any retcon should start has to be from the very beggining. Its deciding if and when to make the big changes (and what those shoudl be) that is the big question.
That's Volume 2 of this poll, already posted.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Provisionally, I'd have to say all the way to the beginning. And then only to correct mistakes and fill in the blanks. Otherwise go back only as far as you need to. The general history of the universe shouldn't change. Specifics can be changed if there's conflicts. But they're forward ripples should be made as minimal as possible. The universe shouldn't be so drastically altered that major event don't take place and characters and tech aren't introduced.
-
I voted "NEVER! ... ".
Rather you may detail events we know little about and include updates in upcoming products so changing certain settings as result.
But for the past, there should only be different viewpoints of historians, journalists , and so on.
So what you have been doing so far (as the SL era products) is ok.
-
I'm new here, and just got back into the game, but I never cared for the Dark Age setting. It wouldn't bother me to re-write it. As for the history of the Battletech universe, it would be a travesty to "delete" it and start over.
-
This is interesting. We have almost 30% of votes saying never here, yet the two categories of no retcon whatsoever on the other poll are only about 5% and 7%.
-
This is interesting. We have almost 30% of votes saying never here, yet the two categories of no retcon whatsoever on the other poll are only about 5% and 7%.
That's because the second poll doesn't actually list what most people view as real retcons for all of the options.
For instance, when Fanpro changed the vehicle operation rules in the original Total Warfare, was that a retcon? I would say no. When Infernos were changed from only being used in SRM 2's vs. all standard SRM's, was that a retcon? A new edition != a retcon.
The game lives and breathes. The current era of the story lives and breathes. Those can and do change, they are tweaked bit-by-bit.
The designs do not change, the history does not change. This is where the retcons happen. Most people also do not see laying down the word of god on old conflicting information as a retcon either. If book A says B, and book C says D, then a new book E confirming B is not altering history. It is simply a clarification.
-
Voted dark age. simply because it annoyed me- not the GAME, strangely, but how everything just fell apart. i dunno- maybe I should have picked republic era. but I think the universe NEEDED a cooling down period, no matter how... thin... the cause. the Vees are damn cool, the mechs are okay from the era, it's just, other than a few great moments, the whole shattering of the universe could be re-done.
I DO like the idea of retconning out the unseen images (not the mechs), but that can be done while either changing very little / nothing / everything. Otherwise, leave it all alone, it is what it is.
-
This is interesting. We have almost 30% of votes saying never here, yet the two categories of no retcon whatsoever on the other poll are only about 5% and 7%.
I voted no retcon here, and minor on both points in the second poll My reasoning is that I don't want to see a retcon, but if there is going to be one, I want minimal changes
-
I voted NO RETCON.
Many people around say that they are okay with the shape of things. That's my opinion too.
"If it's not broken, don't fix it."
-
Frankly, my answer depends on entirely if we're talking about a Hard Retcon or a Soft Retcon here.
If it's a soft retcon, where we go and incorporate changes to the story, but try to keep as much of the storyline in place? Heck, anywhere at all. Sometimes things need fixing and I'd rather TPTB not have their hands tied because of a fixation on canon being absolute. However...
A hard retcon though, where we start from point A and rewrite everything, ignoring what was written down previously? No no no. Thousand times no. There's fixing things, and then there's throwing it ALL out. There's a lot emotionally invested in the game and I'd rather not have it tossed aside just because. Additionally, there's always going to be that thought in my head...they changed it once, what's to keep them from doing it again.
So I went with this choice as my default as I'd rather side with caution.
-
Hello,
As stated before, the extent of the retcon is discussed in Volume 2. They are separated for this reason:
Even a minor retcon has increasing ramifications for the various published works, potentially compounding over time. If the change is something like economics, for instance, every instance where population figures, manufacturing output, and the like will need to be examined for as many products as fall into the period in question and beyond it. If the change is made to game rules, it likewise impacts various years of sourcebook material if it's applied to a classic weapon like the medium laser versus a much latter developed weapon like the medium VSP laser.
A major retcon will actually have the same impact. For example, if the retcon is "WarShips are extinct", but the era selected is Clan Invasion and forward, we only lose the newer Inner Sphere ships and (depending on how the retcon is applies) the Clan navies...while the Star league is still that golden age when everyone fought in space and BattleMech armies were bored.
Hopefully, that clarifies.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
I personally think that a retcon isn't what the franchise needs to attract new players so much as an aesthetic overhaul.
The "reboot" would just be to make a whole new batch of 'mechs that cater to the tastes of the 2010s crowd.
I love the 1980s looks of many of the 'mechs, and think they had the right idea with being inspired by old tanks, but I recognize that many new players simply don't
The story, on the other hand, seems to be rather solid. If I were to ask for any changes at all, it would be to the gap between the end of Tukayyid and the fight against the Smoke Jaguars. that 3052-3059'ish period feels really empty and uneventful, and Operation Guerrero feels heavily downplayed and is largely ignored.
-
Hello,
As stated before, the extent of the retcon is discussed in Volume 2. They are separated for this reason:
Even a minor retcon has increasing ramifications for the various published works, potentially compounding over time. If the change is something like economics, for instance, every instance where population figures, manufacturing output, and the like will need to be examined for as many products as fall into the period in question and beyond it. If the change is made to game rules, it likewise affects impacts various years of sourcebook material if it's applied to a classic weapon like the medium laser versus a much latter developed weapon like the medium VSP laser.
A major retcon will actually have the same effect impact. For example, if the retcon is "WarShips are extinct", but the era selected is Clan Invasion and forward, we only lose the newer Inner Sphere ships and (depending on how the retcon is applies) the Clan navies...while the Star league is still that golden age when everyone fought in space and BattleMech armies were bored.
Hopefully, that clarifies.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
My biggest worry is simple: Every time I've seen a retcon* it's just led to more problems down the line. So many in fact that the only solution the creators found was to reset everything again. And this stuff keeps going on and on and on, rehashing the same stuff again and again.
So I think that all this retcon will do is take 25+ years of work and throw it away.
Or the Zero Hour situation: DC Comics decided that their universe was far too detailed for a new audience. There was just so much stuff. So they launched the Zero Hour storyline to clean it up and make it more accessible. Great. Except that they didn't retcon everything, and everything that wasn't retconned was said to carry through from the previous storylines. So they updated several characters/teams/settings but not all of them. This led to even more confusion, as people tried to explain how the universe/character worked, and they had to introduce two universes to do it. And as you've alluded to in the post I quoted above, you might very well have the same problem if you retcon everything. You just have thousands of pages of material you'd have to go through and change.
And you think your production schedule is tight right now? Imagine putting everything back through the wringer.
* I always thought that retcon meant something that happened in the storyline, but was never explicitly stated. For example, Primitive technology. Age of War units were always equipped with sucky armor, but because we never had stats for it, no one knew. Then we found out later during the Jihad exactly how bad the equipment was. So that, to me, is a retcon.
It seems to me that most people here are talking about a reset. Start from scratch. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. You've got 25+ years of information to work with, and it's pretty good stuff overall. Don't make more work for yourself. You don't have to polish a piece of garbage, you've got a good system with a few flaws in it. Releasing errata and updates seems to take care of those issues as they rise.
-
I'd like to request an example of the scale your talking about.
I like retcons that smooth things & correct complications, not completely change them, if that makes sense.
A good retcon (to me) could go back as far as you want, while a bad retcon I wouldn't want at all.
These are my feelings as well. I do think certain eras are more open to retconning, though.
for instance, I would most likely welcome the ancient history stuff (ie. 20-22nd centuries.) It would be interesting if BT is the future rather than the future of the 1980s.
We have also seen some equipment introduced that is retroactively stated to have existed in previous eras published that it would be nice to see inserted into the past (WiGE vehicles for instance, they have existed all along but the only canonical examples we have are jihad era and later.)
-
Hello,
Again, that's Volume 2's question. The scale of change and time period it occurs in are two separate concepts.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
The "reboot" would just be to make a whole new batch of 'mechs that cater to the tastes of the 2010s crowd.
then you end up with a game like CAV (Great minis, but game was poorly supported)where your main weapons are PPCs and Gauss rifles (Rotary and plain) with missile (DFM/IFM) thrown in as an afterthought. Not much room for tactical ingenuity, IMO, more like charge and attack and see what is left standing.
-
I think CG should have retconed the events of Dark Age to make it easier for them to plan the future. Whatever is consitent with their future plan stays, the rest is out.
-
I voted for "all the way back." I believe the game's status as the "alternate future of the 80's" is kind of a niche thing at best and doesn't bode well for bringing in the new blood necessary to survive.
Also, the inconsistencies in the world were a lot more forgivable in the "beer and pretzels" era that BT has long ago left behind:
For its time, it was indeed simple. It's now an extremely complex, top-heavy beast (in terms of both setting and system) with one of the largest bodies of printed game matter in existence and multiple hardcover flower pressers full of rules for every situation....yet' it's built on decades-old inconsistencies, "fly by night" decisions, unworkable premises fixed with bailing wire and duct tape, and hastily hand-drawn maps all inherited from a company that no longer exists.
FASA was making it up as they went along because that's what you did back then. Catalyst (God bless them) and modern fans take things a lot more seriously and have more to work with. Due to the evolution of the technology and methodologies involved in creating and maintaining IP and the increasing sophistication of fans (as well as BT's evolution from a side project to a major property), that has changed. RPG's have always been a market with demanding fans, but now they have greater access to information and better tools, resulting in increased scrutiny, tightened cycles of fan reaction, and a greater focus on the two key words of everything that caters to the geek segment these days: "internal consistency."
I have confidence that it's possible to make something that keeps many important elements of the original while also being relevant to today's audiences and many of the assumptions that extend from much of modern history and technology post-Cold War. With some thought, more finely worked excuses can be developed for the rest, a la the "toxic ECM environment" that was added in the last decade as an explanation for simplistic weapons performance. Get a bunch of guys like Cray in a room together long enough and an elegant balance could be achieved.
I'm excited to see where any potential reset goes...and I've been in since 1990. This old dog doesn't mind new tricks. :)
-
Hello,
As stated before, the extent of the retcon is discussed in Volume 2. They are separated for this reason:
Even a minor retcon has increasing ramifications for the various published works, potentially compounding over time. If the change is something like economics, for instance, every instance where population figures, manufacturing output, and the like will need to be examined for as many products as fall into the period in question and beyond it. If the change is made to game rules, it likewise impacts various years of sourcebook material if it's applied to a classic weapon like the medium laser versus a much latter developed weapon like the medium VSP laser.
A major retcon will actually have the same impact. For example, if the retcon is "WarShips are extinct", but the era selected is Clan Invasion and forward, we only lose the newer Inner Sphere ships and (depending on how the retcon is applies) the Clan navies...while the Star league is still that golden age when everyone fought in space and BattleMech armies were bored.
Hopefully, that clarifies.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
Heck take away warships and the Jags may still exist. Because you don't have thr Turtle Bay glassing
-
Heck take away warships and the Jags may still exist. Because you don't have thr Turtle Bay glassing
Well Herb could then just change the warships into combat dropships, then the Jags can still Turtle Bay all they like.
-
For as long as I have been playing this game and has much as I would like to see BTU get rid of the Dark Ages and Jihad (The WoBs have way too much fire power) I think we need to go back from 2012 and sooner. There have been advances in technology that could help out the earlier stuff before the upheaval of the Star League and Kerensky's exodus
-
If we go all the way back to today in order to account for historical events and technological advances then we will have to retcon this part continuity every few years. Keep it the future of 80's and bring back the 80's hair in the product art.
-
I think the tech levels need fixing but I don't think TPTB need to redo everything to account for today's technological advances. For one, there's nukes. With all the nukes being thrown around everyone's going to be forced to go back to using older technologies and rediscovering advancements. Or at the very least they'll go back to using what's easier to manufacture. Which is canon.
2 The area's technology. Not every place now uses the most advanced equipment much less can build it. In some places older is either cheaper, easier to use and to maintain. That's going to keep manufactures building them or/and dealers buying and selling used. That's only going to increase when you consider the size of Battletech's universe compared to just our planet. It's also canon.
-
I voted "Early Clan Invasion", because while I like the 'Tech, I can do without the "Clans" themselves. :P
Frankly, I'm amused we're being asked our Opinion like it might actually matter to those in charge. ::) Whenever people complain about the Jumping LE Minis on the IWM Board, we're told that we're "Not Representative of the BT Community", so therefore our opinions and complaints about/against the Jumping minis means nothing. But then Polls on This Board lead us to believe our opinion DOES matter? ??? I fail to see the difference between the two.
-
It's about proportions. In the last Battlechat, Herb has said that CGL estimate roughly 10,000 BT players worldwide. and he's also said that in some of his polls, enough people vote to get a representational slice of players, but often times the polls are useless due to the low number of voters. At the moment, this poll's voters represent about 0.4% of BT players, for example.
The second thing to bear in mind is how many people are actually talking. To look at the board here, you might think that IWM's jumping 'mechs aren't popular - but how many people are actually saying they don't like them? 10, 20? IWM have their sales numbers to go on, which we don't see. If they sell 1,000 LE jumping 'mechs in a year, does it matter that a dozen or so people complain online?
-
Also, folks on a company's forum are self-selecting, and therefore usually not the most useful metric to use for the fanbase as a whole.
-
It's about proportions. In the last Battlechat, Herb has said that CGL estimate roughly 10,000 BT players worldwide. and he's also said that in some of his polls, enough people vote to get a representational slice of players, but often times the polls are useless due to the low number of voters. At the moment, this poll's voters represent about 0.4% of BT players, for example.
The second thing to bear in mind is how many people are actually talking. To look at the board here, you might think that IWM's jumping 'mechs aren't popular - but how many people are actually saying they don't like them? 10, 20? IWM have their sales numbers to go on, which we don't see. If they sell 1,000 LE jumping 'mechs in a year, does it matter that a dozen or so people complain online?
First, I Apologize to Herb for getting things Off Topic. Second, my point about the LE minis is that most of the comments here are Strongly AGAINST Jumping minis, with the rest being those that don't care, or that like them. I know of at least 2 BT Fan Sites where most of the comments are against the Jumpers also. Granted, some of them are members at this board as well as the other 2, so there will be some "Votes" that are from the same person. My MAIN point is, to be told on one board that, basically, our opinion doesn't matter, then to be told on THIS board that it does, simply makes no sense.
And I'm done with this, so Enjoy. On with the Poll!
-
Remember that it's two different people, from two different companies saying these things . Just because IWM interact with people here doesn't mean their opinions are binding on Herb or anyone at CGL.
-
Remember that it's two different people, from two different companies saying these things . Just because IWM interact with people here doesn't mean their opinions are binding on Herb or anyone at CGL.
I know I Said I was done, but...
It's NOT someone from IWM saying our opinions don't matter, it's Mods and Admins from this site that are "Supposed" to "Represent" CGL that say we don't matter. But then, They're Always Right, and We're Always Wrong. ::)
-
I know I Said I was done, but...
It's NOT someone from IWM saying our opinions don't matter, it's Mods and Admins from this site that are "Supposed" to "Represent" CGL that say we don't matter. But then, They're Always Right, and We're Always Wrong. ::)
No, they're saying they can't only consider 100 fans and ignore the other 9,900. Saying you're not 100 times more important than others fans is not saying that you don't matter. Flip that around, should CGL tell the other 9,900 that _they_ don't matter, GRUD said no more jumping minis?
it's not like you have to buy the limited edition minis. It's not like IWM didn't also release a bunch of special edition minis this year (Omega, XTRO lance pack, Hauberk 28mm?) If you don't like jumping minis, just don't buy them.
-
If we go all the way back to today in order to account for historical events and technological advances then we will have to retcon this part continuity every few years. Keep it the future of 80's and bring back the 80's hair in the product art.
dude I still have my long hair from the 80's unlike some of the guys i know my age :P As for the tech advances its taking them 25 years to ask this so why not?
-
Herb, as long as you retcon the Clans out of existence, you can go as far back as you need to. O0
-
Don't really see the point of retconning back to any given point in time because once you start in on any period you may well find you have to do the lot for consistancy
I imagine that would annoy a lot of players including me to no real purpose
-
I voted for redoing everything after 3048, because the clans were just the start of the long downhill fall in my mind. And now that it is too late to change my vote, I realize that what I really should have chosen was redo back to 2012. Just as the Jihad and Dark Age will never occur in any Battletech universe I use, any retcon can just as easily be ignored by those that don't like it. Doesn't do much good, it seems.
So, what I've long wanted was to stop the forward progress in history. Instead of a constantly moving timeline, release new settings. Base some off modern tech advances. In another every single mech has jump jets, or every one is a LAM. Have a universe with 50 different warring star nations, and another where there's just one, but they're about to go to war with aliens from an unknown dimension. Have fun with the idea, and publish them as PDF-only documents of about 24 pages or so history, and then whatever rules changes are necessary to run in them. Give us about as much info as we got in the 4ed basic boxed set.
-
For this part of the poll of doom, I picked 2012 and before. On a pure timeline choice separate from poll 2, I think it must be all or nothing, and I pick all. If you have a retcon to fix something, it needs to be fixed from the beginning.
Meow Liao
-
Companies have retcons for two reasons:
First is that there is argument for costs involved in using intellectual property. This is common with literary/comic book characters (see Neil Gaiman). Then stuff where ownership is in question is simply written out of existence.
Second is that sales have been a disappointment and property cannot be be dumped off for one reason or another. Then changes are used to blow some life to game/setting to make it more appealing to potential audience in hope of achieving better sales.
Thus I put the reset to 3025 (i.e. situation of the house books before 4th Succession War). My reasoning is that I truly enjoyed that setting. It was also a time when board game's balance worked best (this is something that I often see mentioned in general miniatures gaming boards as setting where game rules and balance are best). However, I fail to see that anything polled actually matters. CGL's core creative people happens to be the same people as with Fanpro and FASA so what we have seen is what we will see.
-
Companies have retcons for two reasons:
First is that there is argument for costs involved in using intellectual property. This is common with literary/comic book characters (see Neil Gaiman). Then stuff where ownership is in question is simply written out of existence.
Second is that sales have been a disappointment and property cannot be be dumped off for one reason or another. Then changes are used to blow some life to game/setting to make it more appealing to potential audience in hope of achieving better sales.
Thus I put the reset to 3025 (i.e. situation of the house books before 4th Succession War). My reasoning is that I truly enjoyed that setting. It was also a time when board game's balance worked best (this is something that I often see mentioned in general miniatures gaming boards as setting where game rules and balance are best). However, I fail to see that anything polled actually matters. CGL's core creative people happens to be the same people as with Fanpro and FASA so what we have seen is what we will see.
What about correcting problems in older work? One of the biggest problems BattleTech has is that it is saddled with silly scale problems and infeasible economics which would need a retcon to correct. This has sort of half-worked and been half-changed over the years by attributing things to in-character errors, but a major retcon would be needed to get the population and economy numbers to make any kind of sense. Given that CGL is attempting to create rules to allow play at larger and larger scopes, this is almost certain to cause problems for players trying to play extremely large entities like entire states or mercenary companies that become nations unto themselves because they will need rules to manage their economy and have their games make sense.
-
I would go back as far as the 1. Succession war as this is basically were FASANOMICS started. After that the force levels shrunk down a lot. They were probably not sufficient during the Star League but afterwards they were too low.
-
I am ok with 3025 era, succession wars era stuff, and I am ok with the clan invasion time. The FedCom civil war is iffy, the jihad I understand and can deal with, but the dark ages was just a bad idea in my opinion. I never liked the idea of the dark ages... But what TPTB decide I abide by for the most part. I do however feel that if it is not done well it will alienate all the older players and thus slow if not kill the game. I have played the game since it was battledroids, I am teaching my kids to play. I do not want a different game - I do not want rule changes, but to redo fluff in a positive way would help the game. I would have to hear more details however to decide on whether it is something I would like. I do think that it would be good to clean house - fill in blanks, re-write stuff with the designs that we now have that were supposed to be around, that type of thing.
-
Our campaign is currently at 3012. So I guess the short sighted answer would be anything after 3025 doesn't affect me much. On the other hand many players started in the 3050 era, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea to rile them up too much either. IMHO the closer you get to 3090, the less people your gonna agitate. BattleTech doesn't have the player base of some game systems, so running off repeat purchasers is not something to take lightly.
Overall I'm for retcon'ing rules (and please start with Ground units attacking Air Units), but don't change the fluff in any areas near and dear to long time fans.
-
I couldn't vote because my answer would be along the lines of: "I dunno, how far back do you need to go to repair what you decide needs fixing?" ???
-
I'd rather have line-items type of Retcon, like fixing certain "Era" verse, how far back should we go.
-
If we go back to 2012 and earlier will it be okay to discuss real world politics? ::)
-
Hello,
No.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Hello,
I couldn't vote because my answer would be along the lines of: "I dunno, how far back do you need to go to repair what you decide needs fixing?" ???
Sounds to me like that falls under "All the way back", then. That's the "blank check" of this particular poll, after all.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Maybe, but as I put under the other thread, many of us have posted our issues with certain aspect of the game over the years. My personal pet peeve was always weapons ranges and effects, for example. Some were addressed to one degree or another along the way. However, with the release of the latest avalanche of products to include the TW series and ATOW I feel it is too late to go back for a major retcon with the expense of those books IMHO...it just doesn't seem fair to the majority of game players. Again, my only caveat would be if the change was driven by marketplace competition and the survival of the game were at stake...my two cents.
-
My personal pet peeve was always weapons ranges and effects, for example.
Well, that's one the aim of the blank check retcon. By introducing Minovsky particle and the limitations they inflict on targeting, the weapon ranges become feasible, due to targeting limitations.
-
I know...perhaps I'm getting old, but if I only cared about whatever I care about then where would that leave us? On one hand, yes, if FASAnomics, FASAphysics, and FASAweaponstech could all be repaired with a magic wand then great...as long as it's within the scope of what I like. Get it? However, what would I be giving up? I know there are those out there who don't like LAMs, Warships, d6, d10, d20, etc., or much of anything else they can't win at while equipped with beer goggles and a bag of pretzels. I want variety and options to play the way I want to play. Right now, I think we have that. Is it perfect? No, but I can work with where we're at so that was the point of my earlier posts.
-
The concept of the Star League is hamfisted and reeks of Mary Sue. It is an atrocity. Why have a history of a Star League if the point of the entire universe is war amongst nations?
-
Why did the world have a Pax Romana?
It was the result of the times, and to be honest most of the fiction and storyline from there happened well in the past. As such, the 'peacetech' is only for people who REALLY want to play in that era (or in the Republic era). If you want to play warmonger, then you have the Age of War, Succession Wars, Invasion, Jihad. . .
-
Why did the world have a Pax Romana?
Because the world was not just the Roman Empire back then. Let's not also forget all the wildmen they were curbstomping at the borders.
-
The concept of the Star League is hamfisted and reeks of Mary Sue. It is an atrocity. Why have a history of a Star League if the point of the entire universe is war amongst nations?
Because 400 years of war and counting are all the more tragic after 300-odd years of peace.
-
Never, we have a good thing here, novels, source books, a (horrible) TV show. Do we really want to throw all that away? We don't need a reset, it would invalidate everything that draws pretty much everybody to the game.
-
Because 400 years of war and counting are all the more tragic after 300-odd years of peace.
How tragic can one really be feeling about a long-dead super space international organization while he or she is trying to have fun blowing his or her fellow armored humans to scrap? Centuries of events can't really be consciously comprehended by individual people while they are in steaming-hot cockpits pulling the trigger.
And that's just speaking in-universe. Out-of-universe, a character or organization trying to use ties to the Star League just sounds like attempting to put additional prestige or honoure (note the additional "u" and "e" added for importanceses) to their name or reputation. It's really quite arbitrary and bogus after so long. Like genealogy!
-
When you care to look at real Human History writings you will find the same patterns.
Specialy in Europe.
Roman Empire = Star League glorified to the Bones golden times a time period from which current humanity should learn and a lot of lies about universal peace (the Mars Tempel was closed for 2 weeks during the Pax Romana and even that was a lie)
Medieaval = Sucession Wars Dark times with one conflict errupts another one cruel, Dark, Inquistion you get the picture
Now = Dark Age Now everything is getting better but we didn't reach the standards of the golden times.
Also during many wars between France and Germany they justified their actions based on the Roman Empire and thats a timeframe of 1000 years.
And yes people believed that!
-
Also during many wars between France and Germany they justified their actions based on the Roman Empire and thats a timeframe of 1000 years.
And yes people believed that!
Considering how most of the people in the world back then didn't know how to read and believed much more of what their lieges told them, I don't find that terribly surprising.
-
Hello,
Try staying on topic, shall we?
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Yessir!
In the end, the Star League was much more of a useful bargaining tool for its member states rather than whatever it may have been intended for. Its fall was just the movement of hidden hostilities...back into becoming enthusiastically sincere hostilities. Perhaps from that perspective, the Succession Wars were actually beneficial for the return of "honor", wouldn't you say?
I find it shameful that players willingly wax poetic about the glory of the Star League and then turn around and poo-poo the Dark Age as "PeaceTech". Just because there were fewer giant robots around didn't mean the idea of giant robots fighting other giant robots disappeared. Quite strangely, the art of 'Mech combat may have actually become more...efficient since then. Egalitarian, even. Also, Vibroblades are awesome.
-
I'd start with the Jihad in order to eliminate the republic and the darkage.
Goodbye Jihad, hello 5th succession war! Mad Max 3025-era play with better tech in the mix.
-
Well I would go as far back as I could, fixing inconsistency's wherever possible, making the universe more streamlined if you will instead of a patchwork of fluff which may not work always together, or perhaps do but are a bit haphazard in application.
A more consistent art package might be nice, perhaps each faction having it's own style, or perhaps not?
A more consolidation of the number of units however would be nice, while the main draw is the TROs, however it seems its difficult to tell if a unit is actually replacing another unit in service. Though this dose not necessarily mean the replaced unit should get completely replaced right off the bat, it could go to militia or mercenary or even pirate use for a time.
Though unit design for some units should improve, for example IIRC large aerospace units could differently need some improving, IIRC you (Herb) mentioned once that current warships are "so bad" that it makes it difficult to place a older design to that ship in universe...
The industrial and military size is one of the more broken aspects of the B-tech universe in the game, this could be improved, though a true fix is not realy needed however even a partial fix can be useful.
Well one thing I would like to see put to rest is the notion that depending on your view point current day military vehicles could easily beat it's B-tech counter parts. It's kinda jarring to know that depending on your view it's possible that the B-tech unit around could easily get defeated by a unit that was technically made 1,000 years ago in B-techs past, and this dose not even have to be along military lines, you can look at civilian vehicles, electronics and what naught...
In some ways this is part of B-tech flavor... So I do not think we need AIs, anti gravity, and what naught, but what B-tech dose have should be made a bit more clear that it while perhaps not as flexible as current tech it at lest dose what it dose a lot better than what we have, or at the lest roughly equal in capability (I have found a number of references to gigabyte and terabytes in the fluff for instance).
Also better attempts to explain why some things are would be nice instead of as some guys I know would say as badly done half-arsed attempts.
One example is it seems even though it's said that the ranges in game are their for play ability reasons and not necessarily what they could be in the B-tech universe but the fluff still uses them like crazy! So which is it?
Edit:
Another thing I would like to see changed is the notion that the Gauss Rifle fires a large spherical nickel iron cannon ball, to something else...
-
Myself, I really like the storyline as it is, My only qualm is the period between the Clan invasion and Operation Bulldog. It might be because I was just some kid with only the Mechwarrior games as the basis of my knowledge of the game, but it felt like a bit of a void, with all the factions rushing to come to par with the clans. The few wars that did happen during that time really didn't feel like anything significant - mere footnotes at best.
I was a little surprised that other people voted "All the way back" by such a huge degree, but I have a feeling that this isn't based off of their disliking the fiction. If anything, early Battletech fluff seems to be the one thing that everyone agrees on liking, so I can't imagine that the votes turned out that was because they didn't like it.
Instead, I think why the "All the way back" option was taken so frequently is because the fluff for the pre KF-Drive era is so very Reagan-era hokey. Soviet Civil Wars? Mining operations on asteroids? That might have been alright to swallow a quarter-century ago, but it really kills that suspension of disbelief that we can enjoy with this series.
As such, instead of rewriting the whole thing, I think that what we really want is a rewrite of the early history - the stuff that really doesn't have a significant effect on the universe as a whole - so pretty much everything leading up to the Age of War should be fair game for a retcon (And I'd even say scrap the Dark Age stuff if we could, but there are still fans of that out there that I have to consider). Rewriting when humanity sets out to colonize the stars shouldn't have an adverse effect on the universe, nor will it make loved Battletech stories like the Warrior trilogy or Wolves on the Border obsolete.
-
Myself, I really like the storyline as it is, My only qualm is the period between the Clan invasion and Operation Bulldog. It might be because I was just some kid with only the Mechwarrior games as the basis of my knowledge of the game, but it felt like a bit of a void, with all the factions rushing to come to par with the clans. The few wars that did happen during that time really didn't feel like anything significant - mere footnotes at best.
Clans vs Sphere is a classic conflict, with easy plot, clear terms, clear goals and epic scale. There are two opposite sides with different feeling and style: "I'm the Clan, I challenge you by honor and SLDF." and "I'm IS, I fought to re-establish League four times and that was hell, so F**K U!". You are either Clan or IS and that's it. Like Mordor and Gondor, USA and CCCP, Rebel and Empire. And like them it has it's beginning and end.
It prefer it over IS neverending story. It's easy to write a script based on invasion era. Less to explain and more time for action.
-
Going back to that whole 3025 style mad max thing would kill this for me. Maintaining
an interstellar war on breadcrumbs does not strike me as viable, or more importantly fun.
If you all want to meddle, fix the DA into something meaningful you know with actual mechs
again.
-
To be fair, it seems like things were ramped up after the first few years. When it stopped being about groups of partisans and the like.
-
Any earlier than the (common) use of the Battlemech and you've just invalidated the point of a retcon in Battletech, IMO. I would say, therefore, somewhere around the 3rd Succession War.
-
Delete the Mad Max era or explain it away as events just happened to be on some atypical dirt poor planets.
Refusal war needs fixing something like - Ulric sees the writing on the wall, decides to unify Wolves by launching preemptive attack on Falcons (we get that there are wardens and crusaders by that stage we dont need a sham trial to explain it to us) in the OZ and in the homeworlds - cut out all the legalise shenanigans and just have one clan or the other win and go from there without magic sibkos.
Fedcom Civil War needs more outside interventions - lots of piranahs nibbling round the edges - and more provincial rulers getting uppity.
Jihad did what it needed to do.
War of reaving - excellent
-
Hello,
*checks calendar*
Last Day, folks!
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas
BattleTech
Catalyst Game Labs
-
Just Retcon the whole Dark Age out of existence and I'll be happy.
One of Battletech's strengths is its history. If you change that, you might as well kill it off.
For instance, when Eureka (the goofy show on Syfy), up and changed their universe, I stopped watching. Was like the last 3-4 years of watching it was for nothing. I really hate when you 'invest' in a character and then some bored goober of a writer goes and up-ends everything 'just because'.
-
Hello,
Sorry, but this poll has expired. We nevertheless appreciate your input.
Thank you,
- Herbert Beas