BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => General BattleTech Discussion => Topic started by: Talen5000 on 26 February 2017, 17:42:13
-
Quick Question
Is the Introductory Box Set in print?
I'm looking for a copy and can't find one anywhere
-
It, unfortunately, is not in print and is generally only available on the secondary market for outrageous prices. There are rumors of a new box set on the horizon, but there is no substantive information about when or what exactly it will contain.
-
I suspect a new version with the New BT trade dressing will arrive around the release of the New PC game. Having that kinda cross promotion seems like an obvious marketing move to me. Hoping that's the case, anyways.
-
Hope is all that remains... wouldn't bet on it.
Beta of the HBS Battletech game wil start soon. So we will see.
IMHO In this difficult times with good Tabletop Games and boardgames popping up everywhere: A month long, year(s) long "out of print" shouldn't happen. Especially when it is something supposed to bring you into the franchise and hobby.
-
It, unfortunately, is not in print and is generally only available on the secondary market for outrageous prices. There are rumors of a new box set on the horizon, but there is no substantive information about when or what exactly it will contain.
Really?
That seems surprisingly short sighted. The Box Set is the gateway into the game...it's the one product you'd want to have continuously in print, even if only via mail/special order.
Or so I'd have thought.
Another question...I've seen pictures of the set with two covers...one with an Atlas (I think), and one with a Hammerhands.
Are these the same (barring the cover) or are there difference between them? Or is there just one cover?
-
Really?
That seems surprisingly short sighted. The Box Set is the gateway into the game...it's the one product you'd want to have continuously in print, even if only via mail/special order.
Or so I'd have thought.
Another question...I've seen pictures of the set with two covers...one with an Atlas (I think), and one with a Hammerhands.
Are these the same (barring the cover) or are there difference between them? Or is there just one cover?
hammerhands is a 25th anniversary box set it is identical to the atlas intro cover box.
only differences are cover ox and minis are made from different plastic.
and yes even hellbay got ridiculous prices for used sets...500 bucks?
i still have 3 intro extra boxes...long story
-
HBS has an update today stating the Beta was delay which of course means the launch will be delay. If the logic of this thread go, that means we will not see the Box set until June/July the earliest which in "Catalyst time" means lucky if we see anything before Xmas. Hopefully we at least see the new Battlemech Manual by the start of summer but I am not sure about that either.
-
HBS has an update today stating the Beta was delay which of course means the launch will be delay. If the logic of this thread go, that means we will not see the Box set until June/July the earliest which in "Catalyst time" means lucky if we see anything before Xmas. Hopefully we at least see the new Battlemech Manual by the start of summer but I am not sure about that either.
The computer game being produced by Hairbrained Schemes has no relation to the boxed set. Different companies with different goals. The last report I heard about the boxed set is that they were considering reprinting the current boxed set to hold things over until the next version (More modest in scope and less expensive for all involved) was ready.
Really?
That seems surprisingly short sighted. The Box Set is the gateway into the game...it's the one product you'd want to have continuously in print, even if only via mail/special order.
Catalyst has had bad luck with getting boxed sets printed, and Battletech is something of a niche product. They might not be able to afford keeping it in continuously in print without guarantees of larger sales. Catalyst isn't a big company.
-
The computer game being produced by Hairbrained Schemes has no relation to the boxed set. Different companies with different goals. The last report I heard about the boxed set is that they were considering reprinting the current boxed set to hold things over until the next version (More modest in scope and less expensive for all involved) was ready.
Catalyst has had bad luck with getting boxed sets printed, and Battletech is something of a niche product. They might not be able to afford keeping it in continuously in print without guarantees of larger sales. Catalyst isn't a big company.
1) irrelevant. Video games are always the biggest advertising Battletech gets. It does not matter HBS is not CGL, if catalyst does not take advantage of the free advertising they are terrible sellers
2) not an excuse. BT is a niche product that somehow always manage to sell all units its main product. It is bad for the game's image for them letting the intro box sell out. If CGL wants to make money they have to spend money.
I like CGL products, but hate their business model.
-
1) irrelevant. Video games are always the biggest advertising Battletech gets. It does not matter HBS is not CGL, if catalyst does not take advantage of the free advertising they are terrible sellers
2) not an excuse. BT is a niche product that somehow always manage to sell all units its main product. It is bad for the game's image for them letting the intro box sell out. If CGL wants to make money they have to spend money.
So you think that catalyst should wait to have a boxed set to release in concert with the computer game to take advantage of its hype, but they should also already have it for sale? ???
Also, you need to have money to spend money. If catalyst can't afford to keep it in continuous production, they can't afford to have it in continuous production. All the cliches in the world don't bring money spontaneously into existence, or convince banks that niche tabletop games are a safe bet to hand out loans. Do we even know how much profit the boxed set actually brings in? It seems very well priced for what you get. Maybe even a Loss Leader.
There's nothing ideal about the situation, but maybe, just maybe, it's more complicated and difficult than people might think or want to believe.
-
Ont thing to remember: yes, each printing (7500 units) sells out almost immediately. Guaranteed seller, why don't they print more? You have to look at what you get for the price they charge. The profit margin on the starter box has to be slim to nothing.
So it's a product that's extremely difficult to produce that makes little or no money (and may actually be a money loser!). Add in the fact CGL is a skeleton crew with a shoestring budget.
-
Did they even print 7500 units for the last one?
-
I don't know, but if they didn't they should. If they were still in print I would have bought two more for x-mas. Instead I had to buy more lance packs... which wasn't too bad, but I wanted more Hunchbacks and Assassins. And Enforcers.
I know others on the forum also buy multiple copies as well, at least of the most recent box with the better quality minis. If the next box set includes 24 classic minis I know I will buy at least 3 if not more.
It would be nice if CGL could have them ready to coincide with the release of the HBS BattleTech game but I wouldn't hold my breath. We all know they are working on getting a new box set ready but finding a good manufacturer and staying within budget will probably make the search take longer than normal.
Does anyone know if they even have any masters ready for creating the new molds yet? Do we know if the new wave of minis will be single piece or multi-piece?? Too many questions and not enough official rumor from Randall other than the new box will most likely have the classics in it.
-
They really need to raise the price for the box set. It'd be a nice to endure the low return if they were bringing in a substantial new group of players but they aren't.
-
I know others on the forum also buy multiple copies as well, at least of the most recent box with the better quality minis. If the next box set includes 24 classic minis I know I will buy at least 3 if not more.
hey my multi purchase was an accident...
and btw i still have 3 boxes left
-
They really need to raise the price for the box set. It'd be a nice to endure the low return if they were bringing in a substantial new group of players but they aren't.
So it's preferable to milk the existing player base for all they can rather than re-tool their approach to successfully attract new players?
That doesn't sound like the best way to achieve strong & lasting player-base.
Maybe the best way to ensure that the game finds itself in the hands of new players is to simply make it less attractive to veterans. By either offering existing players an attractive alternative for maps & miniatures or by removing the aspects that encourages repeated buys by veterans. One existing player in the other thread mentioned that he had bought not one but six copies of the base game. That represents not five new potential players, but rather five potential new groups of players each of whom could inject money into the game with different purchases.
-
The problem is that the intro box the chief vehicle to introduce new players and also the cheapest way to acquire minis. Assuming you threw the rest of the box out, you're only paying $2.50 per miniature. As long as that overlapping interest exists, vets will continue to buy them.
-
I forget who brought this up... maybe in one of Randalls Q&A or perhaps Adrian.. but CGL (official rumor??) was looking into 2 boxes. One would be a starter box (renamed the intro box IIRC) and the standard box. Starter would be 20 or 25 with a lance of minis.
In another thread (rumor, maybe official, can't recall) someone had said that the box set has a very slim profit margin as is. While I would not like to see the price go up, I wouldn't grumble too much if it only went up by 5 or maybe 10. Though I would rather not see an increase in price at all. Ever. Never ever ever. Well... except to match inflation maybe... or they added something to the box that would justify the price increase.
-
I forget who brought this up... maybe in one of Randalls Q&A or perhaps Adrian.. but CGL (official rumor??) was looking into 2 boxes. One would be a starter box (renamed the intro box IIRC) and the standard box. Starter would be 20 or 25 with a lance of minis.
I believe that was Randall at MechCon 2016, with Ray giving some follow up to the announcement here on the forums when somebody mentioned it.
-
So it's preferable to milk the existing player base for all they can rather than re-tool their approach to successfully attract new players?
Damn those evil businesses for wanting to pay their employees and keep putting out product! Clearly a planned economy would avoid these scourges on our society, bring on the Chancellor!
-
About that price point complaint stuff: It seems this might be the reason for some ideas of introducing a starter set and renaming the box set to... "box set" (from "introductory box set")?
IE there'd be a cheap starter set that would be attractive to impulse buy thing, something that introduces BT in general.
The box set would be pretty good deal even with higher price, when one considers how many minis it has and its general contents. (Provided the minis are good quality like the current introbox/lance pack ones are.)
Damn those evil businesses for wanting to pay their employees and keep putting out product! Clearly a planned economy would avoid these scourges on our society, bring on the Chancellor!
24 people get each one mini. Production run of 7.5k boxes means that 180k people get a taste of BattleTech.
-
The problem is that the intro box the chief vehicle to introduce new players and also the cheapest way to acquire minis. Assuming you threw the rest of the box out, you're only paying $2.50 per miniature. As long as that overlapping interest exists, vets will continue to buy them.
Well, convincing the existing player base to buy the box is hardly a bad thing. I'd echo Kit's comment that, if that is truly the major sales market for the box, rather than highly profitable newbies, they need to price it so it produces a bit more margin on its own.
The big up-front costs probably make it impossible for CGL to keep the box set continuously in-print, but, if it were at least moderately profitable, you'd think they could reprint it at faster-than-geological time scales.
ETA: Of course, it may be that CGL thinks the thing wouldn't sell at $75 (or whatever would make money), preventing them from trying it. If so, I find it sad, but I don't have any sales data.
-
Yeah, nothing that Catalyst (or probably most any gaming company) does is produced in amounts where it is continuously in print. Just variations on how large/how often the runs are done.
-
I will start off and say I love classic BattleTech, started playing back in 9th grade some 30 years ago. I think they need to aim at the alpha strike crowd. My kids and I play war games and they don’t like the slowness and record keeping of BattleTech. But they will play alpha strike. And the Same for the “Kids” down at our local game store. There may be one that will play classic but 4-5 that will play alpha strike.
So I think a good solution would be still make the Intro Box set with 18 or 24 mechs. Lose some of the extra items in the box set poster, fluff books and things like that. Have the intro to classic BattleTech book, record sheets for the mechs. Also add an Intro to Alpha Strike book with the basic rules and mech cards for those mechs, and maybe some card terrain (hills and trees) Then have a pamphlet to point to online PDFs of the fluff books, and MUL.
Old players like me will get the boxset for the minis, and new players will get it for rules. Its two games in one box to appeal to both crowds. Then also should do lance packs. For 15$ I can impulse buy and not feel bad about it, or bring the wrath of the spouse. I am fine with the two new and two “old” minis like the current lance packs. I think that would really help keep the player base and maybe grow it so.
-
Damn those evil businesses for wanting to pay their employees and keep putting out product! Clearly a planned economy would avoid these scourges on our society, bring on the Chancellor!
Never said that Catalyst would be evil for raising the prices, just that your idea was bad. If the game is failing to attract new players because the boxset is bought by existing players, then raising the price isn't going to help attract new players. In fact it will do the opposite.
About that price point complaint stuff: It seems this might be the reason for some ideas of introducing a starter set and renaming the box set to... "box set" (from "introductory box set")?
IE there'd be a cheap starter set that would be attractive to impulse buy thing, something that introduces BT in general.
The box set would be pretty good deal even with higher price, when one considers how many minis it has and its general contents. (Provided the minis are good quality like the current introbox/lance pack ones are.)
24 people get each one mini. Production run of 7.5k boxes means that 180k people get a taste of BattleTech.
Are minis a necessity for a starter box given that this is a board game, not a miniatures game?
Old players like me will get the boxset for the minis, and new players will get it for rules. Its two games in one box to appeal to both crowds. Then also should do lance packs. For 15$ I can impulse buy and not feel bad about it, or bring the wrath of the spouse. I am fine with the two new and two “old” minis like the current lance packs. I think that would really help keep the player base and maybe grow it so.
Why should an introductory box be attractive to old players? Isn't that the core of the problem that the box is having now? That it's not getting into the hands of the desired audience, new players, and expanding the player base?
-
Are minis a necessity for a starter box given that this is a board game, not a miniatures game?
IIRC, the outlined idea for the starter box is to have 2 'Mechs only, rules (maybe the quick start ones or something similar, not sure), some stuff. Price point of 20 dollars or so. Presumably instructions to use whatever you have handy as proxies as necessary?
The box set proper would still have minis of course.
Do note this was just talk as far as i know, until you actually see it, don't treat this even as a rumor.
-
IIRC, the outlined idea for the starter box is to have 2 'Mechs only, rules (maybe the quick start ones or something similar, not sure), some stuff. Price point of 20 dollars or so. Presumably instructions to use whatever you have handy as proxies as necessary?
The box set proper would still have minis of course.
Do note this was just talk as far as i know, until you actually see it, don't treat this even as a rumor.
2 mechs is too few. The game needs at least 2 units aside, for 4 total, to actually facilitate a number of the game's core tactic concepts.
-
I remember the rumors about that Starter Set. Honestly, as much as I like the Intro Box (which did help get me back into the game), I think the lower price and fewer minis option would make a much better intro product.
Nothing about Classic Battletech/Total Warfare requires minis. In some cases, minis only complicate things. I can only speak for myself, but I can't stand spending time fiddling with oversized minis that don't fit into a map hex (I'm looking at you, Stalking Spider).
Instead of minis, I'd rather see a Starter Set come with a second map. Not necessarily the hardback kind that came with the Intro Box, but just some different paper ones.
-
2 mechs is too few. The game needs at least 2 units aside, for 4 total, to actually facilitate a number of the game's core tactic concepts.
I objected like that too, i think, when i first read about this idea. Presumably it is a price thing, both for production and customer, which makes a lot sense really.
A lance pack has 4 'Mechs and 4 cards for 20 dollars, perhaps cutting two 'Mechs and adding printed stuff like record sheets for the 'Mechs (and bigger package needed) are needed for that price.
Strictly speaking one is enough for all the relevant things except turn order. Movement, firing, all that can be done with just 1v1. And if it is like quick start rules, the players use only one 'Mech each, with advanced scenarios adding vehicles and infantry.
And if the instructions are to use proxies or it includes some counters for that...
This is just my speculation. Ideas can change after all.
-
I objected like that too, i think, when i first read about this idea. Presumably it is a price thing, both for production and customer, which makes a lot sense really.
If you are going to go that route, then a set really only needs 2 Mechs.
Having said that, more would be better - or perhaps, a Mech, a vehicle or proto and some BA or infantry.
I think the core point being made here is a good one...that having a lot of mechs per set is of new use of it means the box set can't be produced at a decent price point, or if it makes the set so attractive to existing players that new players don't get a chance to pick it up.
A Box Set similar to the "current" version is a good thing to have, IMO....but an Introductory Box Set probably could be cheaper, and less attractive to established players, if there were fewer units included. You could have 2 Mechs, or 2 combined forces Lances or a Lance and Star combo, but the current set is a good example of overkill. Too many Mechs, not enough profits. An advanced box set with more models might be an idea....or maybe just another PlasTech set. Or maybe make the Introductory minis at a smaller scale...all of them, or maybe have two full size units...suitable for intro play, but not as attractive to established players.
Having said that....I always preferred the BT3rd Edition and CityTech 2 sets precisely because they did include a variety of units and because it was ready to go straight from the box....and still looked decent. I hate to say there should be fewer minis included, but if what is suggested here is true...and I suspect it probably is...the Intro Set we had was priced too cheaply for what it contained.
Anyway....I think I have located a set which I have now ordered. Fingers crossed.
-
The starter box was going to use paper maps from what I recall while the now renamed intro box would continue using the thicker cardboard maps.
-
funny i have a friend who just got his first intro box and he does not like bt or play it.
i asked him why? he said he liked the art on the box...takes all sorts i guess
-
Well that is some really nice art O0
-
Strictly speaking one is enough for all the relevant things except turn order. Movement, firing, all that can be done with just 1v1.
1v1 matches in BT may work to teach the basic mechanics, but it doesn't teach some of the most basic tactics. Movement order, particularly when losing initiative, is a vital skill to learning the game. Encirclement, rear guards and fire concentration are vital skills in any war game.
If the starter box sells the game as a duel game, I fear many players might be driven off rather than encouraged to buy a second box, a lance pack, with more mechs.
I honestly believe that a starter box needs at least 4 mechs to be able to sell the game as a tactically deep experience. I understand the price point concern, but I believe the game would be better served with a slightly more expensive starter box than a misrepresentative one.
-
With head hits and ammo explosions, a one on one fight can end very suddenly and with little satisfaction for all involved (supply your own blue humor).
Personally, I'm hoping for at least four mechs.
-
Well that is some really nice art O0
true
now how can i relive him of the box? >:D
i can always use another one(i know greed is not so good)
-
Never said that Catalyst would be evil for raising the prices, just that your idea was bad. If the game is failing to attract new players because the boxset is bought by existing players, then raising the price isn't going to help attract new players. In fact it will do the opposite.
You don't know that at all. But I do know that if they can't sustain the box set at its current prices something needs to change. After so many iterations of the box set I don't think it is working as the primary motive to draw in new customers, so at least make it worth doing.
-
You don't know that at all. But I do know that if they can't sustain the box set at its current prices something needs to change. After so many iterations of the box set I don't think it is working as the primary motive to draw in new customers, so at least make it worth doing.
The current boxset is what, 60 USD? That's a 60 dollar gamble for anyone not familiar with the game. But for an existing player, buying a boxset means getting 26 miniatures at 2.30 a pop rather than paying 12-16 dollars for a metal miniature. Even if you increase the boxset to 100 dollars per box, the price for miniature is still only 3.84 miniatures. Old players will still buy it because the miniatures are just so cheap compared to metal miniatures.
Increasing the cost will only make it less desirable to new players.
1v1 matches in BT may work to teach the basic mechanics, but it doesn't teach some of the most basic tactics. Movement order, particularly when losing initiative, is a vital skill to learning the game. Encirclement, rear guards and fire concentration are vital skills in any war game.
If the starter box sells the game as a duel game, I fear many players might be driven off rather than encouraged to buy a second box, a lance pack, with more mechs.
I honestly believe that a starter box needs at least 4 mechs to be able to sell the game as a tactically deep experience. I understand the price point concern, but I believe the game would be better served with a slightly more expensive starter box than a misrepresentative one.
The problem with the idea of an intro-box isn't the number of miniatures. It's the rulebook and the record sheets. The size of the rulebook and record sheets dictates that any boxed-version is going to be at least 9x12 or whatever the standard box size is. So if you only put in 2 or even 4 miniatures all it means is that you have a very empty box. Unless you're going to shrink down the rulebook, record sheets and maps into a smaller box-size ala the Munchkin Boxes for example then you're not really saving space.
An ideal intro boxset would have zero miniatures. Again go back to counters. Put in counters and veteran players will stop buying half a dozen of them. Without miniatures the box can be as thin as it needs to be, it doesn't even need to be a box it can just be a few things shrink-wrapped together. Have a cheaper price point, attract new players and then allow those players to upgrade their counters with lance packs. If it still uses the standard sized box, then maybe throw in one or two miniatures not to replace the counters but as a lead-in to the players buying lance packs.
-
An ideal intro boxset would have zero miniatures. Again go back to counters. Put in counters and veteran players will stop buying half a dozen of them. Without miniatures the box can be as thin as it needs to be, it doesn't even need to be a box it can just be a few things shrink-wrapped together. Have a cheaper price point, attract new players and then allow those players to upgrade their counters with lance packs. If it still uses the standard sized box, then maybe throw in one or two miniatures not to replace the counters but as a lead-in to the players buying lance packs.
I'm not sure BT is going to get far without miniatures given the competition out there these days. Many board games use miniatures to increase their tactile appeal as well.
The game is already fighting an uphill battle being an old school slow paced number crunching game. If it also stops trying to appeal to the tactile senses by eschewing miniatures, I'm really not sure it's going to have enough sex-appeal left to draw the eye next to X-wing, 40k and whatever else is out there in wargames these days.
BT doesn't need minis to play, but it might need them to sell. At the very least, it's going to need to have any store it wants to sell this light starter box at to also be well supplied with lance packs (and I haven't yet seem them in any shop here in town, though admittedly that might be an aussie problem). But then we might be headed back towards new players feeling pressured to buy more than the starter to get a proper experience from the game, even if it isn't true.
-
For the starter box a few points: two 'Mechs may mean only two designs, not two mini's, so there could 2 (Or more) mini's of each design, alternatively there might be only two mini's, but more then that in designs and the other ones only have paper tokens.
Two other points: If storage costs for the box set are so bad (despite it selling out so quickly), does this means that CGL is likely to stop making physical products? And does all the old timers buying the box set for the mini's mean that Iron Wind isn't very good at supplying them with mini's?
-
Are minis a necessity for a starter box given that this is a board game, not a miniatures game?
Battletech bills itself as the board game of Armored Combat. However it doesn't fit into the common idea of board game. It fits into the common concept of miniature war-gaming. Alpha Strike even more so. Much as I dearly love Battletech, a starter designed to get new players into the universe, should be an Alpha Strike game with minimum of one lance per side. Fortunately once molds are made, plastic miniatures are quite cheap. I suspect the greater costs of the Starter sets are in printing/box. Vets buying all your 'starter' sets? Easy fix, less miniatures (not none). And a separate miniature only set. Or miniatures and AS cards/record sheets set.
My Suggestion: Pick 8 of the current crop of plastic miniatures, fit them into thematic lances you can pit against each other. Make sure they are reasonably balanced. Put in Alpha Strike quick and dirty rules, suggestions on using household objects for terrain and a few missions, and a Universe background pamphlet. Done. Also I think this could be done in a much smaller format box than the previous starters. Something that is say 6"x9"x2". Less manufacturing costs, less storage costs. Lower price point. Hopefully more new players.
Make sure there are quite a few references to the Master Unit list in the associated paperwork. Free stats for your units are not something most games give. Alpha Strike does, play to your strengths. Maybe in the Universe Guide throw in some suggestions for upgrading the two forces in the starter set to the next level. One or two suggestions each for a lance pack, and metal miniatures that would work well with the forces included in the starter.
Quote from: UrQuanKzinti on Today at 01:12:52
An ideal intro boxset would have zero miniatures. Again go back to counters. Put in counters and veteran players will stop buying half a dozen of them. Without miniatures the box can be as thin as it needs to be, it doesn't even need to be a box it can just be a few things shrink-wrapped together. Have a cheaper price point, attract new players and then allow those players to upgrade their counters with lance packs. If it still uses the standard sized box, then maybe throw in one or two miniatures not to replace the counters but as a lead-in to the players buying lance packs.
I'm not sure BT is going to get far without miniatures given the competition out there these days. Many board games use miniatures to increase their tactile appeal as well.
The game is already fighting an uphill battle being an old school slow paced number crunching game. If it also stops trying to appeal to the tactile senses by eschewing miniatures, I'm really not sure it's going to have enough sex-appeal left to draw the eye next to X-wing, 40k and whatever else is out there in wargames these days.
BT doesn't need minis to play, but it might need them to sell. At the very least, it's going to need to have any store it wants to sell this light starter box at to also be well supplied with lance packs (and I haven't yet seem them in any shop here in town, though admittedly that might be an aussie problem). But then we might be headed back towards new players feeling pressured to buy more than the starter to get a proper experience from the game, even if it isn't true.
This I agree with 100 percent. I'm not sure what happened with the Lance Packs selling poorly. I know they sold out quite quickly every time the local store ordered them. But the owner just wouldn't keep them on the shelves. I suspect part of the problem was the decision to cut the new models with the 'old' models. From the standpoint of we can get more milage from a new set of plastic miniatures that way, it seems good. From the standpoint of the primary purchasers all bought multiple copies of the starter set a few months ago, it seems not so good.
Well that's my two cents.
-
I'm not sure BT is going to get far without miniatures given the competition out there these days. Many board games use miniatures to increase their tactile appeal as well.
I've seen this argument used before and, while I understand the thought behind it, I don't think it is an equal comparison.
Do many high-end board games include minis? Yes. Even some run-of-the-mill board games use minis. Risk has included minis for as long as I remember, to say nothing of something like X-Wing, Imperial Assault, or Super Dungeon Explore. Does Battletech look better with minis? Yeah, probably. I certainly think so. We are still comparing apples to oranges to tangerines, though, because Battletech doesn't really match up to anything else on the market.
Consider Battletech vs 40K. Warhammer and all of its derivatives REQUIRE miniatures to function on the most basic level. Those games also do not take place on a pre-designed map. They are not board games that can be played as a miniatures game, they are dedicated miniatures games.
On the other hand, consider Battletech vs board games like Risk or Memoir 44. Risk and Memoir have minis, yes, but they are all very generic, especially in the case of the latter. You have the same little plastic tanks to represent the entire Allied armor motorpool. With Risk, everyone just has the same cavalry, infantry, and artillery. They all have the same stats and are functionally identical save for who is controlling them. This method might work for Battletech. Throw in a couple dozen small plastic minis of some well-known design for each weight class. Mold them in two different colors, one for each side. Just make sure that there is an easy way for your opponent to tell what represents what.
That's where this comparison falls apart, though. Risk and Memoir are closed systems. Each of the minis can only represent so many things. Because we keep adding new TROs to Battletech, a generic heavy mech mini could represent hundreds of different designs if you account for variants. And that only accounts for canon designs. Once you add construction rules, a generic mini could represent anything.
That's also where the Battletech vs X-Wing comparison falls apart. There are only so many things that you need to make minis for in X-Wing and those things are both easily identified and they are (to my knowledge) tied to the faction using them. It is also, I imagine, much easier to decide what goes into the X-Wing starter box. What is the right combination of mechs for a Battletech Intro set? Is it the mechs that we had in the last set? Is it the Classics designs? What about era? Do you make a different starter set for the Invasion? Or do you skip an Invasion starter but make a Dark Age starter?
Do I want to see Battletech succeed? Of course I do. Would I like to see it succeed with minis? Absolutely. Until those minis are easy to find and cheap to acquire, though, a starter set that relies primarily on cardboard counters is the way to go, IMO.
-
The current boxset is what, 60 USD? That's a 60 dollar gamble for anyone not familiar with the game. But for an existing player, buying a boxset means getting 26 miniatures at 2.30 a pop rather than paying 12-16 dollars for a metal miniature. Even if you increase the boxset to 100 dollars per box, the price for miniature is still only 3.84 miniatures. Old players will still buy it because the miniatures are just so cheap compared to metal miniatures.
Increasing the cost will only make it less desirable to new players.
Oh well. I'd rather the box set be something that is self-sustaining for existing players than a drain on the company that leads to a collapse. Having no one making BattleTech is going to make getting new players even harder than a pricey box set. Again, I don't think the box set has worked as a great avenue to increase the player base.
-
Do many high-end board games include minis? Yes. Even some run-of-the-mill board games use minis. Risk has included minis for as long as I remember, to say nothing of something like X-Wing, Imperial Assault, or Super Dungeon Explore. Does Battletech look better with minis? Yeah, probably. I certainly think so. We are still comparing apples to oranges to tangerines, though, because Battletech doesn't really match up to anything else on the market.
Maybe, but X-wing, 40k, Flames of War etc are the games Battletech is going to end up on the shelf next to. It is going to directly compete with them for customer attention and wallet contents. And we are talking potential new players here, the existing ones aren't the target of this box. New players won't know what Battletech is like when they first spot it on the shelves. And they won't find out if one of the games next to it looks more appealing.
-
For the starter box a few points: two 'Mechs may mean only two designs, not two mini's, so there could 2 (Or more) mini's of each design, alternatively there might be only two mini's, but more then that in designs and the other ones only have paper tokens.
No it was two mechs/minis. But I do agree that if would be best to have say 2 minis and say 16 cardboard counters. Allows for greater play while also showing that the hex based board game aspect can use almost anything to represent a unit.
Two other points: If storage costs for the box set are so bad (despite it selling out so quickly), does this means that CGL is likely to stop making physical products?
IMO the storage cost is an issue of probably being stuck in a bad contract. That or CGL just needs some new management in the business department. They do fine in the creative department. I don't see them dropping physical products. The intro box (or eventual starter box) is the only real way to get new people into the game at a decent price. Look at every other game out there. Can you play X-Wing by buying the minis alone? Not likely unless you can download the rules somewhere, but even so it is cheaper to buy the X-Wing starter box then the minis individually. $40 versus $45. Most other games the intro/starter set will run about $100. Kings of War has a starter for $80 i think as well as a few army boxes for over 150. 40K prices are usually as high just to get started as well.
And does all the old timers buying the box set for the mini's mean that Iron Wind isn't very good at supplying them with mini's?
This... no, it just means we can expand our armies faster and cheaper than ordering from IWM. 2.50 - 5.00 per mini from CGL or $8-16 from IWM. IWM also has a much larger range of BT minis. You can't get infantry and vehicles in plastic. You can't get minis from the XTROs or anything NOT 3025 era from CGL either, which is fine by me. Though I would like to see at least the basic 3025 vees in plastic. Vedette, Scorpion, etc. Doesn't have to be everything deisn, just one per weight class would work.
-
In my experience, X-Wing and WH40K get their own shelves and are among largest sections in gaming stores.
BT? It is stuffed in to a corner along with other obscure or less popular games, if it even is there. You need to know what you're looking to find it or notice it.
"New products" stands usually have new BT books (or Lance Packs, when they were new), for a short time; though these usually hold only smaller products, never seen anything with board game size box on them. (As a result, small starter set could get visibility, at least here.)
In any case they're not fighting in the same league by any reasonable measure. Comparisons to WH40K, X-Wing, etc. don't seem to be meaningful, when it comes to existing popularity and visibility. Trying to match them doesn't seem to be a reasonable goal, it would be work of years, even decades probably, and a gamble.
And BT is rather different game. Reading how WH40K works made it seem it would not be a game i'd be interested in playing (rules-wise).
I would argue that (classic) BT appeals to specific type of player, someone who is looking for a skirmish-size game, with considerable detail but not RPG-detailed, with tech-focused feeling (WH40k is "meat-grinder armies" and Star Wars is Star Wars).
Reaching out to this group of players is an issue, something the theoretical starter set could do, allowing people to try out BT for a low-price point rather than invest in relatively expensive box set. And yes, it is relatively expensive.
I note WH40k's overview doesn't make it seem to be a game for me... and it completely seems to lack any kind of cheap way of testing it! No small starter set, there is a starter box set , with higher price point than BT's but then it is also comparatively bigger.
(It occurs to me that BT is the hipster game of miniature games. Not sure i'm joking.)
-
Maybe, but X-wing, 40k, Flames of War etc are the games Battletech is going to end up on the shelf next to. It is going to directly compete with them for customer attention and wallet contents. And we are talking potential new players here, the existing ones aren't the target of this box. New players won't know what Battletech is like when they first spot it on the shelves. And they won't find out if one of the games next to it looks more appealing.
All the more reason for Battletech to NOT frame itself as a miniatures game. The subheading of the game (as far as I know) is still 'The Game of Armored Combat'. Why does it HAVE to be placed in opposition to 40K or X-Wing? Because the Intro box includes plastic miniatures? The same plastic miniatures that are part of the reason that the Intro box costs so much to produce?
I mean, realistically, EVERYONE is competing with Star Wars right now. X-Wing, Imperial Assault, Rebellion, the card game, the OTHER card game, the RPGs... the franchise is everywhere. There is no niche in the FLGS that Star Wars isn't a part of now. Why does Battletech have to compete with 40K and Flames, though? Any dedicated miniature game needs a huge investment in plastic and/or pewter, plus terrain, and a big enough space to dump all of that onto. What does Battletech need? A map sheet, some chits, and some record sheets. You can play the game anywhere. And when you get tired of using the record sheets that come with the box, you can buy a metric ton of new ones. Those are the kinds of things that need to be pushed on potential new customers, IMO.
-
Are minis a necessity for a starter box given that this is a board game, not a miniatures game?
Actually, in the modern world of well produced, and hyper-polished board games, featuring the likes of Fantasy Flight, and CMON, I would say yes they are. Decent quality miniatures are probably just about mandatory if you want to pitch the game as a board game, and compete on those terms.
If CGL focuses the introduction on Alpha Strike instead (seem reasonable to me), then the game starts looking like a miniatures game, which also means it needs miniatures to compete. If anything, it suggests that they need better miniatures than they have produced so far to compete with the best quality mini games.
-
Zombiecide is a board game and it has some very nice minis. All for $100. Pretty much every game I see anyone at the FLGS near me has some type of plastic figure in it. Provided its not a card game.. My kids like Zombiecide and Munchkin Bites, probably SW Destiny and X-Wing. I have tried to get them into BattleTech but unless I introduce them to Alpha Strike I don't think they will bite. Sadly for us old timers Alpha Strike is where BT is going just to get by. It still requires TW as far as unit construction and there are enough of us to keep both rulesets running, but few people want to play BT using the cumbersome accountech rules anymore. It takes too long for a real large scale game. 4 on 4 isn't much of a fight but 12 on 12 takes WAY too long using TW rules. Especially if you are using vehicles and infantry as well.
Who here has a demo agent in your area?? Do they play enough to really get any good exposure? Local tournaments?
-
Actually, in the modern world of well produced, and hyper-polished board games, featuring the likes of Fantasy Flight, and CMON, I would say yes they are. Decent quality miniatures are probably just about mandatory if you want to pitch the game as a board game, and compete on those terms.
But Battletech isn't a modern board game, it's not even close. The rules complexity, length, paperwork, mechanics are all nearly 40 years old. Furthermore the product line isn't built like a board game either, there are no boxed expansions to the base game. It's not advertised like a board game either. I've seen pictures from the Mechwarrior Online convention that happened a year or so go, in one picture the Demo guys are showing off the board game. They're not using boards. They're using 3-d terrain with hexes. Look in the rulebooks, it's all 3d terrain. Where are the playing boards? They advertise it like a miniatures game. But if you look at the product line, it's nothing like a miniatures game. Most miniature games have rulebooks and army books and that's about it, but Battletech has all of these fluff and setting books, much like an RPG.
So it's a board game, with an RPG-style product line, which advertises itself as a miniatures game.
If that's the case why try to compete with Fantasy Flight? Is the audience for Battletech and Descent the same? Or Battletech and Mechs and Minions? When your local store has the box set in stock, is it even in the board game section?
If CGL focuses the introduction on Alpha Strike instead (seem reasonable to me), then the game starts looking like a miniatures game, which also means it needs miniatures to compete. If anything, it suggests that they need better miniatures than they have produced so far to compete with the best quality mini games.
I don't really understand the miniature situation either. Does IWM get a cut of the plastic miniatures sales? I would have to assume that the 3039 mech line from IWM is absolutely tanking with those cheap plastic miniatures available. Last game I played where they had competing miniatures lines had one miniature line die out. If more plastics become available, I would have to assume the same will eventually be true here.
-
In my experience, X-Wing and WH40K get their own shelves and are among largest sections in gaming stores.
BT? It is stuffed in to a corner along with other obscure or less popular games, if it even is there. You need to know what you're looking to find it or notice it.
"New products" stands usually have new BT books (or Lance Packs, when they were new), for a short time; though these usually hold only smaller products, never seen anything with board game size box on them. (As a result, small starter set could get visibility, at least here.)
In any case they're not fighting in the same league by any reasonable measure. Comparisons to WH40K, X-Wing, etc. don't seem to be meaningful, when it comes to existing popularity and visibility. Trying to match them doesn't seem to be a reasonable goal, it would be work of years, even decades probably, and a gamble.
[...]
(It occurs to me that BT is the hipster game of miniature games. Not sure i'm joking.)
If a Battletech box is to hit the stores, those are the games that will be in those same stores. It's unavoidable. That means it will be competing with them regardless of any dissimilarity because those stores' shelf space is what they all fight over. Those kinds of stores don't get a lot of walk through traffic; the majority of their customers are already invested in one or more games. For Battletech to win new hearts in that environment, it must figure out how to appeal to those customers. It's not big enough to 'do its own thing', buck all trends and win.
And BT isn't so much a hipster game as an old man game. Yes, it's very different from most contemporary fare, and that's why I love it despite being younger than the game, but it also isn't going to find a sustainable market trying to sell itself only on that merit.
But Battletech isn't a modern board game, it's not even close. The rules complexity, length, paperwork, mechanics are all nearly 40 years old.
Yes, and that is a terrible sales pitch. It is an age old game that hasn't updated its mechanics in ever. Most of the market has moved on from that, and those that might still appreciate it are being lured away by shinier other games.
-
The fact that BattleTech is even still around says a lot by itself. How many 40 year old games are still on the market?
Oh and the fact that demos MIGHT be done on 3D terrain has nothing to do with the fact that BT is sold as a board game using paper or cardboard 2D map. This game has never to my knowledge advertised 3D hex terrain. It does however advertise 3D terrain for miniatures rules for hexless play. And that is directly IN Total Warfare.
there are no boxed expansions
Actually this would be incorrect if this were still the 80s. BT had multiple box set expansions. CityTech, AeroTech, BattleForce, and BattleSpace. Each was an expansion of the original box set. There was even the Solaris VII box set as well (all of these I bought in the late 80s)
Look in the rulebooks, it's all 3d terrain.
That isn't the game though, that is more of a diorama, and if it is a picture from an actual game it is using the miniatures rules and not standard BattleTech rules.
why try to compete with Fantasy Flight
Same market. Most hobby gamers will play anything provided it keep their interest.
Is the audience for Battletech and Descent the same?
Yes, at least at the stores I have been to. Friday night might be X-Wing, next night Warhammer, another night might be Blood Bowl or Pathfinder.
When your local store has the box set in stock, is it even in the board game section?
What board game section? In the 30 years I have played any sort of wargame, etc I have never seen a local game store with a board game section except when I used to buy my D&D and BT books at a mall book store or a big box book store (when they did carry them).
-
This game has never to my knowledge advertised 3D hex terrain.
2nd edition box had an advertisement for Geo-Hex.
-
Really? I don't remember seeing that in there. Sure it wasn't the 3rd edition that had the minis?
-
looking at the release dates I don't see it being advertised in the 2nd edition since Geo Hex wasn't released until a year after 2nd edition was. Could be wrong... Have the ol box set still to double check?
-
Yes, and that is a terrible sales pitch. It is an age old game that hasn't updated its mechanics in ever. Most of the market has moved on from that, and those that might still appreciate it are being lured away by shinier other games.
Battletech's only selling point is the "classic" or "retro" gaming style. A more detailed game for a more discerning audience, but that's not the mass market. Maybe also the video-game tie ins. And if it's a niche product, does it need the same production value as FFG boxes? Or could it offer less quality at a lower price point?
Is it the shiny factor that attracts new players? Great artwork sure, great rulebook, sure, but are miniatures a necessity? Particularly when some of the most popular games on the market have wooden cubes as playing pieces.
Who knows, but either way seems to me that having a boxed-game instock and sustainable is more important than any production values.
The fact that BattleTech is even still around says a lot by itself. How many 40 year old games are still on the market?
Oh and the fact that demos MIGHT be done on 3D terrain has nothing to do with the fact that BT is sold as a board game using paper or cardboard 2D map. This game has never to my knowledge advertised 3D hex terrain. It does however advertise 3D terrain for miniatures rules for hexless play. And that is directly IN Total Warfare.
Is it sold that way? Look at the back cover:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/A1TGkxBmFsL._SL1500_.jpg)
Do you notice how little of that cover is actually showing the game? It is literally like 20% of the cover space. Some tiny photo showing the boxed contents, you can't even see the miniatures properly. Wheras nearly half of the back cover is taken up by photos of miniatures, which are NOT in the box, which are on hexless terrain and which are not representative of the game.
Whereas if you were to go look at the back-cover for say Descent 2nd edition, a full half the back cover is showing you the actual game, figures and components. I'd link an image but don't think it's within the rules. Look at the back of other boxed games like Ticket to Ride, Blood Bowl, Small World, they all show you the actual game in progress big and proud on the back cover.
Does it not strike anyone else as odd that most of the back cover for the board game doesn't show the actual board game being played? That most of the cover actually shows unrepresentative terrain, painted miniatures and dioramas? Maybe it's trying to sell the world more than the game, but shouldn't the game come first?
My honest impression from both that cover, the demos I've seen and the website is that Battletech is embarrassed to be Battletech. Because most of the advertising tries to dress it up as something that it isnt. Is the boxed game's contents not good enough to take up most of the back cover?
-
Been an interesting discussion. Also a 'bringing Battltech to new players' discussion.
Not that I know much about such things, but why not both? A pair of minis (say, a Hammerhands and a Dragon?) and then some heavy duty carboard cutouts, like Pathfnder Pawns (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/miniatures/pawns)?
So the new player gets a pair of minis to start the crack habit, the box doesn't get as readily snatched up by the veteran player with a crack habit, and everyone wins! :-)
As an aside on the 'new player' part. How many of the younger generation (I hate writing that) actually paint minis?
-
Dull 2D terrain won't sell the game, especially if you are selling a board game in a market dominated by miniatures games that you will be competing with. Also, what more exciting. The top picture or the bottom left picture of the maps?
As for the stores... I have been in a lot over the years and they don't label sections as RPG, board games, etc. Sure would make things easier though when shopping. What I usually do find is games split off as box sets, expansions, and books. Though 40K is almost always across one wall or another and the easiest to spot generally.
But my original post was about the 3D hex terrain not 3D terrain in general. With the exception of actual game examples I doubt you will find a picture of the standard game in any of the rule books, just dioramas.
Oddly enough though i did find a group at the FLGS that has a TW campaign in progress using hex maps including the hexpack maps.
Not that I know much about such things, but why not both? A pair of minis (say, a Hammerhands and a Dragon?) and then some heavy duty carboard cutouts, like Pathfnder Pawns (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/miniatures/pawns)?
Think you are the third person (including myself) to bring this up so far. Or at least the third I can recall running across.
-
Oh well. I'd rather the box set be something that is self-sustaining for existing players than a drain on the company that leads to a collapse. Having no one making BattleTech is going to make getting new players even harder than a pricey box set. Again, I don't think the box set has worked as a great avenue to increase the player base.
To get new players, you need to provide the basic rules, pieces and a playing area.
For BT, that's a couple of mapsets, a set of quick start rules, dice, an intro to the universe and playing counters.
The counters could be cardboard pieces or minis.
If they are minis, then existing players will also buy the boxes because they are a cheap source of models. That's good - in that it means box sets with minis will sell - and bad because it detracts from mini slaves and means the box sets don't go where they are needed.
Solutions?
Return to cardboard playing pieces. Doesn't look as good and doesn't have the same "selling power".
Return to cardboard pieces but add a number of minis. Still possibly attractive to existing players
Increase the price of the box set. Still attractive to old players and a turn off to new players.
Use specialised minis. If the starter minis are of limited use outside the starter set -for example, because they were modelled in a different scale - they might not be as attractive to existing players.
What counters or pieces need to be included? That depends on the scale of play and what units you want to include. Mechs, protos, vehicles, infantry, BattleArmour. Do you want to introduce the Clans? It'd be simpler if not, but they'll be less popular.
And then we'd need to ask if there are any rules which could be dropped to get players hooked. Heat management can be a pain for some. Rolling Cluster hits can be chore.
But overall, the problem can be stated that the Introductory Set needs to be more profitable so it can be more available. The obvious place to cut would be the minis - with fewer included and maybe have a PlasTech box set that is fairly cheap for new players to buy to give them an easy cheap way to expand the starter set and which existing players can buy if they do want the cheap minis.
-
Dull 2D terrain won't sell the game, especially if you are selling a board game in a market dominated by miniatures games that you will be competing with. Also, what more exciting. The top picture or the bottom left picture of the maps
All FFG games have 2D maps & terrain, why is it they can feature it prominently on the back cover of their box but Battletech doesn't?
Do you think it's a good thing that the game is the least exciting thing on the box?
-
On the subject of gateways to BattleTech, isn't one of the major ones going to be (already is?) video games like MWO, or the forthcoming MechWarrior 5 and BTech strategy games. What (if anything) can the intro set do to bring these people into tabletop gaming, RPGs and books? Or are they two different audiences and never the twain shall meet?
In that sense, not sure minis or cardboard, 2D or 3D matter as much as consistent branding & imagery. I realize there are a bunch of different companies involved, but greater coordination on the look/feel might help. I mean, all respect to CGL, but the latest BTech product I got excited about was the fan-made TRO 3028.
-
I think overlap between BattleTech and MechWarrior players is pretty small. There are some (like me), but... *Shrug*
It doesn't help MechWarrior was dead IP for so long. It doesn't help that those who are interested aren't interested in MWO necessarily. (MW5 might change things, if it actually gets made. I'll believe it when i get to play the final release build.)
Obviously cross-marketing makes sense to an extent since both MechWarrior (and HBS BattleTech) and BattleTech are related and niche games within their respective mediums but not sure how effective it really is.
-
The HBS BattleTech game and MW 5 might bring in new blood but not MWO. BT has nothing that would be a real draw for FPS gamers, which is really what MWO mostly caters to. To me it doesn't feel like a real MechWarrior game at all. It feels like a stompy robot version of Call of Duty or Rainbow Six
-
Really? I don't remember seeing that in there. Sure it wasn't the 3rd edition that had the minis?
Never mind, it was for RAFM iron on hexes. Though I could have sworn a few similarly ancient products had Geo Hex adverts, but it may have been Battletechnology.
-
Really? I don't remember seeing that in there. Sure it wasn't the 3rd edition that had the minis?
yes
also box art was slightly changed with slanted bt font in gold
and 12 or more minis look up sarna it should have full article
and i had been hunting that particular box for about 14 years on and off
-
frankly this idea has me intrigued...
some one mentioned that new intro box should have cardboard stock mechs and at least 2 t 6 minis.
i have a little mod to that idea
why not make 2 intro box sets?
say a basic set with all the goods with cardboard standies and second premium/collector/limited/ whatever edition with minis and cardboard stock?
both could be priced differntly?
basic set could help get new players i without older and established players hunting them to a point of extinction and leaving new potential players in the wind so to speak
the second premium box could scratch the old and established player base itch for collecting and what not.
of course basic set would have more copies made right?
just a thought...i know it will never happen but hey surprise me...
-
CGL beat you to it lol
They had a starter (intro box) with 2 minis, paper map, rulebook. Most of us think for this product it should be 4 minis, map, and cardboard counters
Intro box (renamed to something else I can't remember) with the usual hard map, 24/26 minis, etc.
New starter/intro would run $20 while the new intro/whatever would be at its normal price of $60
-
Battletech's only selling point is the "classic" or "retro" gaming style. A more detailed game for a more discerning audience, but that's not the mass market. Maybe also the video-game tie ins. And if it's a niche product, does it need the same production value as FFG boxes? Or could it offer less quality at a lower price point?
Is it the shiny factor that attracts new players? Great artwork sure, great rulebook, sure, but are miniatures a necessity? Particularly when some of the most popular games on the market have wooden cubes as playing pieces.
Who knows, but either way seems to me that having a boxed-game instock and sustainable is more important than any production values.
If Battletech refuses to offer anything besides its old mechanics, I think it's going to die in a game store environment. A cheap price point won't save it; MtG and various other CCGs have the low buy in, continuous addon market cornered, and numerous self contained small box and card games stand by to compete for the wallets of any left over customers. Even in that area, a game needs to be shiny to sell.
Keeping a starter box that won't move in stock isn't going to be of any help.
Maybe it doesn't have to be minis (though I still think they are a necessity in this market), but BT needs some shiny stuff. Malifaux, X-Wing and even the Robotech mini game all include full colour stat cards, for example.
Coloured record sheets with good art might help, possibly custom for each mech in the box (standup or mini). TMM/AMM and heat tokens might be neat (asking players to use will just make the board look cluttered). Include some of the hex pack terrain tokens in the starter box (Memoir 44 does that) for more variety. Tank and infantry tokens lying flat would be neat as it would actually let players stack units in hexes.
-
Maybe it doesn't have to be minis (though I still think they are a necessity in this market), but BT needs some shiny stuff. Malifaux, X-Wing and even the Robotech mini game all include full colour stat cards, for example.
Coloured record sheets with good art might help, possibly custom for each mech in the box (standup or mini). TMM/AMM and heat tokens might be neat (asking players to use will just make the board look cluttered). Include some of the hex pack terrain tokens in the starter box (Memoir 44 does that) for more variety. Tank and infantry tokens lying flat would be neat as it would actually let players stack units in hexes.
I would actually prefer that the game did away with detailed hex maps and instead just offered blank maps with 2D terrain that the players could put on the map any way they like to create a different map every time. What if each level of a hill for example was actually a separate cardboard piece, that would make it more interesting and still playable in a hex setting. Maybe there's a green map, a desert map, a grey urban map and a white frozen map. The only problem would be the terrain slipping during the game and upsetting the field but there are probably ways around that if properly designed. It would be like heroscape terrain except with 1/10th the setup time and 10x the portability.
As for heat, well heat could be handled with a code-wheel. That would be expensive but more tactile and would be easier to read since the penalties for any given heat level would be visible in the windows. Tokens I think might be too fiddly. Problem is you'd need a separate wheel for each mech and the player could get confused in larger games.
As for the record sheets. I think there's a hell of a cost difference between a 4x6 card and a 8.5x11 record sheet so that may not be viable at all. One other problem is that the record sheets are actually not very aesthetic in general design. If you want to fill the card with artwork, one has to realize that close to half the card is just taken up by the critical hit table. The actual outlines and artwork only takes up about 1/3rd of the page. I think also the idea of an armor diagram and a structure diagram is not very intuitive at all, doesn't the vehicle diagram look better with the structure in the same area? If the sheet could be redesigned so the mech's art took up most of the page and the crit table was simplified it may be cooler. But that's a big under taking and would garner a lot of resistance I suspect. Also part of the CGL model seems to involve pumping out regular TROs so not sure how viable a redesign would be under that production pipeline.
But maybe they're exploring these different ideas. Who knows. Are Alpha Strike cards fancy with full colour?
-
How many people have you seen using litko's heat counter? A plastic one that accommodates 31 positions won't be much smaller or cheaper.
-
Modular cardboard terrain tiles would be nice. It would nicer still if they could simply keep their Hex Pack line in stock.
-
Modular cardboard terrain tiles would be nice. It would nicer still if they could simply keep their Hex Pack line in stock.
If only there had been customer interest to keep it in stock....
-
If only there had been customer interest to keep it in stock....
if only CGL would allow reprint something out of stock every once in awhile... especially core rulebooks. Lookin at you mister tech manual.
-
If only there had been customer interest to keep it in stock....
Customer interest is the real problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Box Set. The price point isn't the problem. The game itself is the problem. It just can't compete in today's market. It is currently a specialty game of a bygone era. Unless CGL does something radical to the rules set and revamps their marketing strategy to match some new rules, it will be forever banished to the corners and lower shelves of game stores.
Small print runs of books and a consistent release schedule of a PDF line, seem to be where it is at for Battletech right now.
-
I am unsure how many people are considering that right now that the whole of board gaming is in a golden era. New games including miniature game arrive monthly.
There are plenty of other miniature and/or war games out there and Battletech has to compete with all the new entries.
If I go down to my local war gaming shop, I can maybe get in a Alpha Strike Skirmish. Nobody cares about Battletech. On the tables is Team Yankee, Flames of War, X-Wing and others but very little representation of Battletech unless someone like myself shows up and tries to get people to play. With all those other games, one thing stands out. They are a lot more efficient to play. I look at the new Flames of War 2.0 and they have streamlined a lot of the play and have cut down the rule book from ~400pgs to about ~150pgs. and each unit has a 4x6 card for stats and easy chit/dice to keep track of movement.
Battletech does not have the mindshare which is important and many believe arguably that there is too much book keeping. While many of us in love with this game love making our own mechs and load outs, most of the gaming community would be happy with a fixed set of mechs with maybe a variant on the flip side of a stat card that is no bigger than 4x6.
When I intro the game to new players, they ask "where are the dials" or some other game aid.
Love it or hate is Alpha Strike should be promoted as it could bring Battletech to more people which could bring in interest in classic Battletech. I still believe that Alpha Strike needs better components to compete with other games, but that could be worked out. I myself have taken those tiny stat cards and have made them 4x6 and double sided so you have options for two variants. I have balanced out several lances and made them simple paint jobs that pretty follow no factions but are easy to identify.
I see many of the long standing Battletech fans wanting to push everyone to the old game, but the world of gaming has changed and there needs more of effort to attract new players to Battletech.
People have choices, LOTS of choices and right now, Battletech does not tick off the right boxes to keep it competitive and the lack of communication or long communication blackouts from Catalyst does not help including not having games on the shelf does not help.
Disagree with me and that is fine. I am not 100% correct perhaps but in my little corner of the world, there is zero interest in Battletech. My son and my nephew are happy to play X-Wing or some other miniature/board game other than Battletech. [I also believe there should be a Shadowrun Board game rather than just RPG, but that is for a different forum]
I, like many on here, have backed the HBS game and hope that it will spur new interest in Battletech but I doubt that will happen because when interest turns to some research, they will not find much.
-
if only CGL would allow reprint something out of stock every once in awhile... especially core rulebooks. Lookin at you mister tech manual.
They reprint the profitable stuff, I mean there are four printings of Total Warfare. Printing the Tech Manual so 90% of it can sit in a warehouse just isn't sensible.
-
They reprint the profitable stuff, I mean there are four printings of Total Warfare. Printing the Tech Manual so 90% of it can sit in a warehouse just isn't sensible.
It can be print on demand black and white softcover for all I care lol Iv'e got the PDFs, but I want the warm fuzzy feeling of blood running down my fingers when I turn the page too fast grr..
YOU
ARE
NOT
HELPING!! :D
As for the people issue... the big difference between then and now is the mindset of the hobby gamers out there. Just look at how DUMB the rules for game have gotten. Look at how rich and complex the AD&D rules were back in the days of the 2nd Edition. And now look at it. Yes games have to evolve or die, but the people... Many kids today have the attention span of a dog. It it doesn't take less than an hour to play or require real thought to play they aren't interested. This alone has caused the decline of the wargamming industry as a whole and it affects games like BatteTech the most as it is already a niche product keep afloat by bearded old men.
-
I think this conversation, interesting though it may be, is drifting from 'what should the box set look like', to 'why isn't Battletech more popular'.
-
Maybe try and do what the model train industry does.
They don't make giant runs of everything. When they get enough pre-orders they put it into production +x% for Hobby Stores.
That way people (new and old) get what they want through Pre orders, and a little for the stores to put on the shelves.
There is a whole bunch of stuff OOP on Battle tech, stuff like the basics for the game, rules, box sets, it would be a way to avoid warehouses full of stuff, expensive over orders of something not as popular.
-
<OT> I kind of wish Battletech would switch to a 3d6 system </OT>
So how does Catalyst build the fan base? I mean An Alpha Strike boxed set might bridge the gap, as, from what I've read, the rules are simplified enough to be on par with X-Wing or Armada (No, I'm not saying they're 'dumbed down') though I have been reading the AS articles in the fan articles. but how about marketing? I know there's a Grognard group in Columbus who have been playing their own games forever, but it's pretty much a closed group, as I recall. Is there some kind of Alpha Strike Organized Play?
And cavingjan, thanks for the information on the heat dials. I'll have to pick a couple up.
-
How many people have you seen using litko's heat counter? A plastic one that accommodates 31 positions won't be much smaller or cheaper.
Zero, and I'm not surprised. All it tracks is the heat. Might as well use a dice for that.
The thing I was envisioning would have inner tracks with movement reductions, heat modifiers, shutdown rolls, ammo explosions, etcetera. Could probably only fit 3-4 additional windows on there but some extra info could go on the face itself. At the very least it could have movement and firing mods.
Something more like this, but with less windows visible:
(https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xpa1/t51.2885-15/e15/12598957_441871166007707_365985526_n.jpg)
<OT> I kind of wish Battletech would switch to a 3d6 system </OT>
So how does Catalyst build the fan base? I mean An Alpha Strike boxed set might bridge the gap, as, from what I've read, the rules are simplified enough to be on par with X-Wing or Armada (No, I'm not saying they're 'dumbed down') though I have been reading the AS articles in the fan articles. but how about marketing? I know there's a Grognard group in Columbus who have been playing their own games forever, but it's pretty much a closed group, as I recall. Is there some kind of Alpha Strike Organized Play?
And cavingjan, thanks for the information on the heat dials. I'll have to pick a couple up.
Alpha Strike Boxed set might be cool but the rules for that game are still very long compared to something like X-Wing. At 200 pages, it is literally 5-10x as big as other board game rulebooks.
-
I was more trying to point out the relatively high cost of the ones that are currently available. I suspect that the one you are proposing, while neat and cool, would probably make them much more expensive. I could easily see those as more expensive than a lance pack for four of them. If the heat scale were dropped to 20 or even lower, you can do them cheaper or switch to paper and deal with the short lifespan.
I do find it interesting that people are suggesting things that really aren't unlike MW:DA.
-
I was more trying to point out the relatively high cost of the ones that are currently available. I suspect that the one you are proposing, while neat and cool, would probably make them much more expensive. I could easily see those as more expensive than a lance pack for four of them. If the heat scale were dropped to 20 or even lower, you can do them cheaper or switch to paper and deal with the short lifespan.
I do find it interesting that people are suggesting things that really aren't unlike MW:DA.
Well two games I have, King of Tokyo and Neuroshima Hex both have 4-6 of these sorts wheels in addition to everything else in the box and these aren't very expensive games. Mind you these wheels only track one number on the outside, there are no inner tracks, and the wheels only go to 20, but then again the wheel for KoT is very small as well. KoT you can argue is mass produced so would be cheaper but Neuroshima Hex certainly has a smaller distribution.
And yeah it's a bit like the old Clix games.
Litko is just expensive in general. It's for people who want fancy components.
-
But Battletech isn't a modern board game, it's not even close. The rules complexity, length, paperwork, mechanics are all nearly 40 years old. Furthermore the product line isn't built like a board game either, there are no boxed expansions to the base game. It's not advertised like a board game either. I've seen pictures from the Mechwarrior Online convention that happened a year or so go, in one picture the Demo guys are showing off the board game. They're not using boards. They're using 3-d terrain with hexes. Look in the rulebooks, it's all 3d terrain. Where are the playing boards? They advertise it like a miniatures game. But if you look at the product line, it's nothing like a miniatures game. Most miniature games have rulebooks and army books and that's about it, but Battletech has all of these fluff and setting books, much like an RPG.
So it's a board game, with an RPG-style product line, which advertises itself as a miniatures game.
If that's the case why try to compete with Fantasy Flight? Is the audience for Battletech and Descent the same? Or Battletech and Mechs and Minions? When your local store has the box set in stock, is it even in the board game section?
I don't really understand the miniature situation either. Does IWM get a cut of the plastic miniatures sales? I would have to assume that the 3039 mech line from IWM is absolutely tanking with those cheap plastic miniatures available. Last game I played where they had competing miniatures lines had one miniature line die out. If more plastics become available, I would have to assume the same will eventually be true here.
There isn't a market segment for "not a board game, not a miniatures game, and also not an RPG, but sort of kind of all of them", and Battletech isn't big enough to create that segment all by its lonesome.
I'm sure CGL struggles with how to position the game, and where to compete. It's certainly not obvious to me, but there are only so many hobby dollars getting spent each year, so to stay afloat, Battletech must compete with some, or all of those things.
Alpha Strike is clearly aimed at the miniatures market, and I think that's a good thing. Small-mid scale skirmish games are popular at the moment. Does it have legs for another 40 years? Who can say? It looks more like a streamlined miniatures game, and might have some appeal.
TW Battletech is billed as a "board game" of armored combat, and, to the extent that it comes in a board-game looking box, is likely to be placed on the shelf as such. That means the components and production value should at least be comparable to the other games on the market, and the standards for that have gone up a lot in recent years.
Had you asked me in 1989, I would have said BT was mostly war game, and should be sold as such, but then, there were a lot of high-complexity hex-based games on the market back then. We fit in.
Now? Honestly, the existence of a detailed record sheet, and the pile of modifiers that alter your actions look more like Pathfinder than Blood Rage. I almost wonder if CBT should be pitched more at the RPG market, with an "A Time of War" quick start pack included in the box.
Complex business problems like this are why I'm glad I don't work in sales, marketing
-
TW Battletech is billed as a "board game" of armored combat, and, to the extent that it comes in a board-game looking box, is likely to be placed on the shelf as such. That means the components and production value should at least be comparable to the other games on the market, and the standards for that have gone up a lot in recent years.
....
Now? Honestly, the existence of a detailed record sheet, and the pile of modifiers that alter your actions look more like Pathfinder than Blood Rage. I almost wonder if CBT should be pitched more at the RPG market, with an "A Time of War" quick start pack included in the box.
I think there's more to it than that though. Compare Battletech to say any FFG skirmish game and you see, okay these guys have miniatures, and so do these guys, cool! On par! But what else does your typical FFG skirmish game have? It's got map pieces that can be constructed in different ways. It often has a campaign or at least a series of scenarios to take players through where one person is the GM and everyone else is the player group. And sometimes it will have loot and skill upgrades from scenario to scenario. It will also have pre-defined objectives in each mission.
Whereas Battletech is a game where "Pick a mech and then we fight". Then "okay that was fun, let's pick a different guy and fight" or a "let's take multiple guys and fight". It's more free-form, it allows players to have more freedom, but you know it lacks the context that many other games of that style give.
Now I know the boxed set, at least one iteration, has a whole book about the universe. But- there's a difference between a general overview and playing a specific story. Scenario books from what I understand have always traditionally been some of the poorest sellers for Battletech, but when I look at board games on the market most seem to present the game in a series of scenarios. Even some of the most popular games coming out, so-called Legacy games like Risk or Pandemic Legacy or the underwhelming Seafall are all built around the idea of a game evolving from one play session to the next.
Undoubtedly it's a combination of factors, both in terms of rules, presentation and game structure, but maybe the lesson to be learned is that restructuring the boxed game for a modern market requires more than just miniatures. If the rules are sacred, then at the very least all the components perhaps need to be examined. Not just the counters.
-
If you restructure BT heavily, is it BT anymore?
Consider how much opposition Alpha Strike gets, and it mostly reduces detail to accommodate larger armies more easily, while keeping most fundamentals the same. Or consider the MWDA, which was a different game for all intents and purposes, unlike Alpha Strike.
I don't think rules are sacred per se, rather it is that keeping the same level of detail (the core concept of BT being a game of maneuvering really) while changing rules is rather difficult. If you overhaul something, you probably need to touch something else as well.
EDIT Restructuring the game to be more modern would risk alienating existing playerbase and trying to attract new ones. If you don't succeed in the latter while doing the former, you got a dead game. If you do succeed, then you probably have about as many players as before. 'Mechs are a tad niche concept... (Hell, i don't like mecha outside BattleTech (and Star Wars).)
-
Well, if you look at the broad scope of BT it goes from the very fine detail of Total Warfare to the galactic succession wars style board game. Unfortuanately new players only see a tiny aspect of what BattleTech truly is. If CGL would put together a new succession wars box set using ISW complete with whatever plastic minis/counters it would need you could not only push into the skirmish game of TW/AS but get into the galactic conquest such as Rebellion and another popular game when I am that I can't recall the name.
-
If you restructure BT heavily, is it BT anymore?
Consider how much opposition Alpha Strike gets, and it mostly reduces detail to accommodate larger armies more easily, while keeping most fundamentals the same. Or consider the MWDA, which was a different game for all intents and purposes, unlike Alpha Strike.
I don't think rules are sacred per se, rather it is that keeping the same level of detail (the core concept of BT being a game of maneuvering really) while changing rules is rather difficult. If you overhaul something, you probably need to touch something else as well.
I don't mean re-write the rules. I would enjoy a simpler battletech between what it it is now and AS but I don't think that's in the cards.
What I mean is restructuring the components.
For example, the maps. Aside from the ability to build maps with separate terrain, what about the terrain itself? Why not have some iconography ON THE MAP which tells people the different modifiers? What if every wooded hex had the movement and attack modifiers on it. What if record sheets had movement modifiers for both attacker and defender on it? If Actuator or Leg crits had the main effects listed when you took them. Or actual tokens to tell the opposite player how hard you are to hit. One of the big problems with the game is the constant chart and rule look up, if more of that information was on the record sheet or on the board that could be reduced at the very least without actually changing the rules.
Or are there ways to restructure information to make it more accessible? Is it easier to give people four different gunnery values than to ask them to add +1, +2 or +3 for movement modifiers? "My Mech Jumped, so my gunnery is a 7". Is it easier to base Target Movement modifiers not on how far you've moved but how fast you're going? If a Shadowhawk gets a straight +2 for walking and if Light Woods grants a +1 but only if you stand still (and maybe heavy is a +2 for standing still or +1 when moving), then a Shadowhawk which walks into woods would have the same modifier but with less counting and less math. If some of the math of the game was integrated into the record sheets and maps, and rules then it could reduce the burden on newer players who don't want to do all this math in their heads.
You could even add tactics by say, what if each unit had a movement card and each player has to pick which movement mode they used before initiative or maybe after initiative but before movement. So a Shadowhawk would have four cards, one for standing, jumping, walking and running and would place one face down before all were revealed simultaneously.
There are different ways to approach the game while still maintaining much of the current rules.
Now whether these changes would make the boxed game more accessible to new players, who knows, but that would be the goal. It's not entirely clear if the main problem is that box set is inaccessible or unobtainable.
-
I don't mean re-write the rules. I would enjoy a simpler battletech between what it it is now and AS but I don't think that's in the cards.
What I mean is restructuring the components.
For example, the maps. Aside from the ability to build maps with separate terrain, what about the terrain itself? Why not have some iconography ON THE MAP which tells people the different modifiers? What if every wooded hex had the movement and attack modifiers on it. What if record sheets had movement modifiers for both attacker and defender on it? If Actuator or Leg crits had the main effects listed when you took them. . . . . One of the big problems with the game is the constant chart and rule look up, if more of that information was on the record sheet or on the board that could be reduced at the very least without actually changing the rules.
Or are there ways to restructure information to make it more accessible? Is it easier to give people four different gunnery values than to ask them to add +1, +2 or +3 for movement modifiers? "My Mech Jumped, so my gunnery is a 7". Is it easier to base Target Movement modifiers not on how far you've moved but how fast you're going? If a Shadowhawk gets a straight +2 for walking and if Light Woods grants a +1 but only if you stand still (and maybe heavy is a +2 for standing still or +1 when moving), then a Shadowhawk which walks into woods would have the same modifier but with less counting and less math. If some of the math of the game was integrated into the record sheets and maps, and rules then it could reduce the burden on newer players who don't want to do all this math in their heads.
You know the Intro Box has two nice hard cardboard cards with all those charts and modifiers where folks do not have to look them up in the books.
-
If some of the math of the game was integrated into the record sheets and maps, and rules then it could reduce the burden on newer players who don't want to do all this math in their heads.
:::headdesk:::
Now, granted, I'm a old school player, but this is why the way BT does stuff is so important, IMHO.
Being able to run just simple numbers is an important cognitive skill.
Sometimes too much simplification ruins the experience as well.
BT was created honestly in a different cultural era, but the game is still accessible to younger players. Over the last couple of years, I've been attending a couple of local cons that have been running Grinders and I've seen players of all ages involved. Of those younger players, even total nubies, understand how things go and have been able to reference the charts and the like. I know this is minor, but I think if CGL can get retail starter and deluxe box sets going for reasonable prices, BT can draw new players in.
-
...burden on newer players who don't want to do all this math in their heads
[face palm]
If this is how people have become in general we are doomed as a civilization. Its very basic addition and subtraction. If people think 5+1 is a burden to them they should really take a time out and reevaluate their lives. Basic math is a part of every day life from cooking on up. I could see the math being a burden is it was complex algebra or calculus. Most of which can be done on a calculator anyway.
-
Actually regular play helps keep basic math skills sharp, and learning the 2D6 curve helped me project probabilities at a glance rather than have to chart it.
And for those who DO find it hard, there are apps for phones & tablets. My wife got the BT dice app for her first game at our local con. She filled in the gaps about how far she ran, range to target, what her target did, and maybe other boxes I never looked at and determined what THN she needed. I think it even let her put in the type of mech to determine what the THN were for all weapons on a canon chassis but I do not remember. She was flipping back and forth between apps until she was getting it down for herself.
-
You know the Intro Box has two nice hard cardboard cards with all those charts and modifiers where folks do not have to look them up in the books.
Yeah but the problem is that boardgames don't have reference sheets like that anymore. Miniature games do, like Flames of War, but for many board games the only reference sheet you might have is a turn order card that one player is using for the group. The rest of the players just have a character or unit display which has all the information that they need. Or their character might have a weapon card, which again gives them all the information for that item.
So the point is if the game is being sold as a board game, and it wants to compete with Descent or Imperial Assault or some other skirmish-level miniature board game then, it should be recognized that there may be other ways to bridge the gap between the rules and the potential players. I think reducing math and referencing could be ways to help bridge that gap, and not by removing it from the game but rather by hiding it in the rules.
:::headdesk:::
Now, granted, I'm a old school player, but this is why the way BT does stuff is so important, IMHO.
Being able to run just simple numbers is an important cognitive skill.
Sometimes too much simplification ruins the experience as well.
BT was created honestly in a different cultural era, but the game is still accessible to younger players. Over the last couple of years, I've been attending a couple of local cons that have been running Grinders and I've seen players of all ages involved. Of those younger players, even total nubies, understand how things go and have been able to reference the charts and the like. I know this is minor, but I think if CGL can get retail starter and deluxe box sets going for reasonable prices, BT can draw new players in.
Well your experience may vary but our local gaming group tried to bring in a few younger players and they had problems adding up the modifiers. Other players have difficulties just remembering the modifiers or hit locations. Maybe that's not true of all players, but most math-heavy games have migrated to the computer where the program will do all the math. Even a lot of Battletech players now play Megamek exclusively, some undoubtedly due to a lack of local interest but others I'm sure simply prefer it over the tabletop game.
Personally, as a player I would rather spend my cognitive resources making tactical decisions rather than adding up a string of numbers in my head. I don't notice it so much when playing Battletech, but if you play a game like Ticket to Ride or even Lost Cities and you're the one who double checks everyone's score at the end of the game it can be a huge drag.
[face palm]
If this is how people have become in general we are doomed as a civilization. Its very basic addition and subtraction. If people think 5+1 is a burden to them they should really take a time out and reevaluate their lives. Basic math is a part of every day life from cooking on up. I could see the math being a burden is it was complex algebra or calculus. Most of which can be done on a calculator anyway.
Except modifiers aren't 5+1.
They're 3 Gunnery + 2 TMM + 1 ATT + 4 Long Range + 2 Light Woods - 1 Targetting Comp - 2 Pulse Lasers = 9
Hardly the same at all. My example may not be typical of all situations but it is also not uncommon. It doesn't even account for weather, actuators or stealth armour for those who like those sorts of things.
-
Except you rarely need to calculate everything step by step. Once one has gotten into the game, all the basics come instantly usually. Of course it is complex for a beginner but then nearly all board, war and miniature games are.
One learns basics like "if i move X-Y hexes, my TMM is Z", even without looking at a reference sheet eventually. I remember most weapon range brackets and range modifiers static. Etc.
Tactics help too, if i aim for TMM of Z every turn, i can start counting from it and basic gunnery.
It is just basic arithmetic. If someone has issues counting together 4-6 modifiers, they're going to have big problems in life. If someone cannot concentrate enough for such small task, they're not going to be playing board games or miniature games in the first place.
Keeping the big picture in mind, all the positions, tracking potential places to move (for either player), stuff like that is more complex and demanding than the math. And i doubt other wargames are free of this stuff, or math for that matter.
-
It is just basic arithmetic. If someone has issues counting together 4-6 modifiers, they're going to have big problems in life. If someone cannot concentrate enough for such small task, they're not going to be playing board games or miniature games in the first place.
There's a difference between being capable of a task and deriving enjoyment from it.
I can eat a meal cooked with cilantro, but since I hate cilantro, I won't enjoy it.
Similarly someone who can do arithmetic but doesn't want to do it in the context of a game isn't going to enjoy a game which requires a great deal of arithmetic.
Keeping the big picture in mind, all the positions, tracking potential places to move (for either player), stuff like that is more complex and demanding than the math. And i doubt other wargames are free of this stuff, or math for that matter.
No game I've played in 25 years has as much math as Battletech. MAYBE some starship combat games where I needed to add up the damage from a weapon which did say 4d10+20 but aside from that? Nope.
In Flames of War for example, your hit number starts with the skill of the enemy troops, either 2,3 or 4. Are they long range (over 16")? +1. Gone to ground? +1 Concealed? +1. That's it. You just learned how to shoot in FOW.
As for modern board games. I don't have an exhaustive collection but of the 10 or so modern games I've played zero of them have math except for end-game scoring or adding 2d6 together. Many games don't add modifiers, rather they add dice. Is your shotgun at short range? Then don't add 3 damage, but add another dice. Then the player just needs to count the pips.
-
Dungeons and Dragons comes to mind as a game with considerable amount of modifiers and arithmetic. Sometimes it gets to ludicrous amounts, for a single character, before taking into account what others cause... This with more modern editions (no comment on fifth edition). (The way i hear it told, ADD2 was utterly ridiculous and counter-intuitive.)
Doesn't hurt the games popularity.
BattleTech has a lot in common with RPGs. Far a typical game nowadays, me thinks.
Part of the appeal really. Yet it is comparatively simple still, since most information comes pre-digested (no need to build your own 'Mechs for games).
In my experience, people learn BT easily enough, should they get to try it (with a veteran). I once played (slightly modified Alpha Strike when it came to dealing damage) against a total noob who probably had never even heard of BattleTech before and he got the idea of modifiers right away. When he hesitated, i noted what he might have missed etc., he didn't really do the same mistakes again (aside from not quite thinking tactics through, but then people rarely do that the first time they play).
It doesn't matter if you add together 4 1s or 4 different values. The concept is simple enough. The biggest problem is remembering or noting all the values in the field but at introductory level, they're rather few. At advanced level, adding together them becomes automatic enough you don't really even think about it.
And figuring out the optimal numbers is part of the game. And one i think is enjoyable even though i don't particularly care for math. Finding a firing line where i have good advantage against my opponent is fun, especially if he didn't notice it or can't do anything about it.
I really don't get how you would make BT what it is without math, not without reducing level of detail or changing the game to something else (ie no longer one about maneuvering optimally). Alpha Strike offers a faster alternative way to play for those who seek either larger fights or simply faster resolution.
The biggest issues with BT are, IMO:
-Availability. Being worked on as far as we know.
-Getting to test the game somehow (and cheaply). Ties to the point 1 partially (eg the potential starter box), demo teams and players are relevant for this.
-Visibility in the larger world. Also ties to point 2, demo teams and cons and whatever else. This one is perhaps one of the biggest issues. If you know what you're looking for, it doesn't matter if the game is in a store's corner (or that an online store has it but not on the front page). But i don't think people know they might be looking for BattleTech.
-
Alpha Strike should be pushed as the beginner/standard game with BattleTech as the expert version. As much as I like the classic game, I really think it's time to put it on the back burner. Yeah, BattleTech hasn't changed much in its run, but at this point it's like beating the dead horse when the box set is a rehash of the same thing at every release.
The BattleMech Manual is just a step back, IMO. Spent all that work on Total Warfare just to split it up again.
-
BMM is intended for 'Mechs only games. Most players do play with 'Mechs only, since they're the core fiction concept of BattleTech. Vehicles, BA and infantry are neat but considering how slow BT is at large unit counts, using them is probably outside the norm for most players. Easier to use in Alpha Strike for sure.
Also, the book is not a replacement for TW per se, but an alternative for those not interested in stuff outside 'Mechs.
BT not having changed that much over the year is an advantage in that everything you got from years back is workable still. Well, 99% is, some errata aside. Some games have changed far more, to the point of complete incompatibility.
-
[face palm]
If this is how people have become in general we are doomed as a civilization. Its very basic addition and subtraction. If people think 5+1 is a burden to them they should really take a time out and reevaluate their lives. Basic math is a part of every day life from cooking on up. I could see the math being a burden is it was complex algebra or calculus. Most of which can be done on a calculator anyway.
It's not the addition that's the issue, it's the keeping track of many different numbers (BT throws a lot of numbers around). Sure, it's not hard to do, but for many it's also not fun. Battletech is a game, it's meant to be fun. Taking time out from their lives is precisely why people play games. They want to imagine being mecha pilots, not to keep track of numbers.
Yes, we can all do the math (hurray for us) and we all like the game (seeing as we signed up to its official forum), but we are hardly the average gamer (or BT would be doing a lot better).
Yes, games like DnD also throw out lot's of numbers, and that's why crunch-lite RPGs have been gaining favour (e.g. Fate, WoD, Savage World to a degree).
Many other games manage to offer interesting tactical choices with less math. Battletech is at a disadvantage there. I am not advocating that BT should change (I like it the way it is), but it's not going to become a big name in the current gaming market. It's too crusty and difficult to penetrate in comparison. That's nothing to be proud of, nor is the opposite something to look down on other games for. It's simply a design choice that happens to appeal to us but not most gamers.
-
[face palm]
If this is how people have become in general we are doomed as a civilization. Its very basic addition and subtraction. If people think 5+1 is a burden to them they should really take a time out and reevaluate their lives. Basic math is a part of every day life from cooking on up. I could see the math being a burden is it was complex algebra or calculus. Most of which can be done on a calculator anyway.
It is very basic math, I doubt that anyone would dispute that (I HOPE that nobody would dispute that, anyway), but what other games similar to Battletech ask you to do as much of it?
Are the modifiers simple? Yes
Does the Intro Box come with those fantastic cardboard pages that spell them all out? Yes
Do you get used to them after a while? Yes (but I would argue that that is irrelevant to getting new players)
Is this the same kind of thing that could provide a minor educational benefit to kids that newspapers used to write about when CCGs like Pokemon and YuGiOh were new? Yes
All of those above things are great, but what games - that are similar to Classic Battletech - do the same thing? Honestly, I can't think of any. None that I have played, at least. 40K (when I played it) only had a handful of modifiers (if any, come to think of it). Flames of War (using just the intro booklet) is also much simpler. X-Wing (as I understand it) doesn't either. Memoir 44 doesn't. Battlelore doesn't. Out of all of the games that Classic Battletech has been compared to in this thread, the only one that I can think of that gets as heavy on the modifiers is D&D, which make sense because (in my opinion) Battletech works better as a tactical RPG than a wargame. But the game isn't framed like that. It has always been referenced as either a miniatures game or a boardgame.
I think the rules of Total Warfare are awesome. I love them. As an RPG. A veteran player takes the role of Dungeon Master and newer players each get one mech to use during the scenario. The game is brilliant that way.
As a wargame, though, Battletech is objectively slower than anything it is competing with. There will be some gamers who that appeals to, sure, but is it in the franchises best interest to aim ONLY for that demographic? Ultimately, that is what CGL has to balance. What is best for the health of the franchise? Continuing to appeal to a small demographic that appreciates a slower burning game, or either decluttering the game OR putting more emphasis on Alpha Strike to appeal to the growing number of gamers who prefer faster play?
-
https://www.bookdepository.com/BattleTech-Einsteigerbox/9783868893113?ref=grid-view
So this site is advertising a pre-order for the starter box in German with 82 days to go.
What's the story with that?
-
are there any announcements from German publishers (I assume it would be Ulisses Spiele?). seems like a significant enough release for them to hype more than three months in advance
there are phantom BT products that appear on amazon and the like all the time that usually end up being mirages
-
With the intro box for new players though there really isn't a ton of math to track. Not like standard Total Warfare and Tac Ops anyways.
-
are there any announcements from German publishers (I assume it would be Ulisses Spiele?). seems like a significant enough release for them to hype more than three months in advance
there are phantom BT products that appear on amazon and the like all the time that usually end up being mirages
Ja. Es scheint zu sein.
http://www.f-shop.de/tabletop/classic-battletech/grundspiele/59973/battletech-einsteigerbox-neuauflage
Wunderbar. Ich spreche ein kleine deutsche und for everyone else, cheap minis. Book Depository do free postage worldwide I believe :)
edit: urgh, wrong quote... fixed
-
Ja. Es scheint zu sein.
http://www.f-shop.de/tabletop/classic-battletech/grundspiele/59973/battletech-einsteigerbox-neuauflage
Wunderbar. Ich spreche ein kleine deutsche und for everyone else, cheap minis. Book Depository do free postage worldwide I believe :)
edit: urgh, wrong quote... fixed
thanks, that's why i was asking. probably to the chagrin of my ancestors, i do not spreche the deutsche
-
thanks, that's why i was asking. probably to the chagrin of my ancestors, i do not spreche the deutsche
No, thank you. I saw it a while ago and just assumed it was a phantom.
I never thought to check with the German distributor to verify, until you suggested it.
Now that it appears legit, I'll probably pre-order. I have both the previous starter sets, but would like a set with the newer plastic. Not a huge fan of the older plastic.
-
As a wargame, though, Battletech is objectively slower than anything it is competing with. There will be some gamers who that appeals to, sure, but is it in the franchises best interest to aim ONLY for that demographic? Ultimately, that is what CGL has to balance. What is best for the health of the franchise? Continuing to appeal to a small demographic that appreciates a slower burning game, or either decluttering the game OR putting more emphasis on Alpha Strike to appeal to the growing number of gamers who prefer faster play?
Which, if you make Alpha Strike the main game, it would seem to appeal more to the popular gaming culture today. I don't think I necessarily has to do with people refusing to do basic math, I think it has more to do with time/patience. Alpha Strike can easily be at the front of the franchise without botching the integrity of the game and you can still appeal to the old gaming crowd or long time fans. The rule set us old-school players are familiar with can be re branded as "expert" and sold as something like the BattleMech manual. Alpha Strike can be the basic ruleset much like the quick start rules for the introductory level of play.
-
(in my opinion) Battletech works better as a tactical RPG than a wargame. But the game isn't framed like that. It has always been referenced as either a miniatures game or a boardgame.
I think the rules of Total Warfare are awesome. I love them. As an RPG. A veteran player takes the role of Dungeon Master and newer players each get one mech to use during the scenario. The game is brilliant that way.
Perhaps the framing needs to be changed, at least when it comes to classic BT.
It really has more in common with Dungeons and Dragons (which is kind of free-form dungeon combat game more than a narrative/story focused RPG) than board games proper, or miniature games. DnD has aspects of both when one thinks about it. Some players represent combat with miniatures (and IIRC, they sold DnD minis at some point), while some, like my group, use square grid with whatever is on hand for representing characters (d4 dice are useful for this).
Emphasize the RPG-like nature and throw in some basic character generation and leveling: some method of determining skills, throw in some kind special pilot abilities, note what happens upon destruction (ejection, chances of surviving, etc.), etc. Basic unit generation and persistence would be useful as well. But these versions included in a should be light, not complex, similar to how BMM offers simple fires and artillery and the like. Guide players toward more advanced rules if they wish for additional complexity.
BT has several versions of unit generation rules and persistent campaigns but these are complex systems that require their own rulebooks. What i'm advocating here is on par of is on level of determining gunnery and piloting scores, only lightly expanded.
A friend i introduced to BattleTech really liked that we played with persistent pilots (provided they didn't get killed). I like that too, except i quickly noticed an issue with "who starts winning, keeps winning" due to increased experience... (I will probably continue as the OpFor in the future while he plays the "heroes".)
Oh, and funny enough, when i mentioned that BT gets stuffed into corner of a gaming store, ironically enough that same corner also contains all the RPGs... (Big shelf really.)
-
I am at a game shop on my phone so it will be interesting if this even works. Anyway, today is my sons birthday. I asked him what he wanted to do. He said he wanted to go to the local game shop because they are having demo's of various games and he wanted to participate. Sure, I said lets go. We also picked up one of his cousins and a friend.
On the table are the following demo's: Flames of War 4e, Merc's 2.0, Rune Wars, X-Wing and Relic Knights. There was also Warmachine and Hordes which I never heard about before. I believe that one of the tables are being run by a demo team (Given the matching logo shirts). Tables are to a side where you can purchase Starter boxes with some additional perks for purchasing today.
I look at each of the tables and I see that BT could be just as popular if they did a few things differently:
1) All these games have defined factions with a back story. The BT houses: House Liao, House Kurita, House Davion, House Marik, House Steiner have great stories. Instead of Lance Packs, sell "Great House Packs" that include a good story but also a set of Mechs for that house with a painting guide for that house. Sure that info is available but only if you hunt, the other games represented have info right in the box or a QR code to take you to a dedicated microsite. For each Mech, have a double sided card with Mech specific stats for that mech for that house. Balance all the House Packs so it comes down to strategic decisions. The stat cards I saw are larger than Alpha Strike and work great with wet erase markers and they have included dials or chits for keeping track of things or at least dice with special markings. A nice large 8x10 reference card for the modifiers.
2) Have a rule book that focuses on Mech vs Mech combat and skirmish and keep it under 150pgs. Yes, I know Alpha Strike and Mech Manual but I am just laying out an idea.
3) Create Campaigns with objectives and have game aids for those objectives. A blank page is often hard to start with. Many of these systems create a story, a reason to fight, something for you to go after. Yes, there is a ton in Battletech but you need a way for people to get started and that is what these other systems do very well to get you hooked. You can create a series of campaigns that ultimately leads to a larger battle. Battletech has a lot of material and often the fight between the houses made for a great soap operas. Seems like the material exists. A campaign book. A series a small skirmishes interlaced with a great story that leads you to a master battle. Along the way the soap opera can have the collusion of some houses.
4) Each house has their Hero's and Villains and back stabbing and betrayal -- they are all buried in the Novels -- bring them up front. Relic Knights Demo team did an excellent job of giving the story -- you could hear a pin drop as the person went over the back story and giving reason for each faction to fight. IMHO, BT has way, way better stories, they are just buried in hundreds of books. Where is the intro to the universe? Yes, the intro box has some of this, but not Alpha Strike.
5) The obvious other items: Better Communication (Catalyst who?), Product on the Shelf, emphasis on Alpha Strike and IMHO, Separate the Miniatures game from the RPG aspect of the game.
The kids are very much into X-Wing so I am sure we are coming home today with something X-Wing related. There are by my estimate maybe 100-150 people and many will be walking away with something or going home to talk to others about what they learned -- But that something will not be Battletech.
Battletech has a split personality -- and RPG and Miniature game. The two need to separated to emphasize their best parts but shown that you can have one compliment the other. While the Battletech Universe is expansive with many books. It is not what modern gamers want.
-
1) All these games have defined factions with a back story. The BT houses: House Liao, House Kurita, House Davion, House Marik, House Steiner have great stories. Instead of Lance Packs, sell "Great House Packs" that include a good story but also a set of Mechs for that house with a painting guide for that house. Sure that info is available but only if you hunt, the other games represented have info right in the box or a QR code to take you to a dedicated microsite. For each Mech, have a double sided card with Mech specific stats for that mech for that house. Balance all the House Packs so it comes down to strategic decisions. The stat cards I saw are larger than Alpha Strike and work great with wet erase markers and they have included dials or chits for keeping track of things or at least dice with special markings. A nice large 8x10 reference card for the modifiers.
Unfortunately, traditionally faction-specific stuff does not sell well enough when it comes to BT. Apparently.
And if it is not Mercs, Kurita, Davion or Steiner, it sells even less.
Undoubtedly this could be changed with proper marketing and systems. But that would likely be a complex and expensive project, possibly out of reach for BT really.
And then there's the fact BT is not built upon factions really. While post-Clan Invasion factions do have more "character" and unique units, that is also the more complex era rules-wise, and not necessarily a great starting point*.
3) Create Campaigns with objectives and have game aids for those objectives. A blank page is often hard to start with. Many of these systems create a story, a reason to fight, something for you to go after. Yes, there is a ton in Battletech but you need a way for people to get started and that is what these other systems do very well to get you hooked. You can create a series of campaigns that ultimately leads to a larger battle. Battletech has a lot of material and often the fight between the houses made for a great soap operas. Seems like the material exists. A campaign book. A series a small skirmishes interlaced with a great story that leads you to a master battle. Along the way the soap opera can have the collusion of some houses.
I do think that blank slate campaigns are difficult. While various books give a lot of hooks, they are still built upon the idea of players reading through the book, picking something they like, and building a campaign from that, with the help of TacOps, StratOps and CampOps along with the setting book itself...
Excellent for creative sort, perhaps, but not good for casual gamers who still want some kind of framework. Maybe. Do Warhammer and other such games have some kind of framework for individual matches by rules or is it just whatever players want?
In any case, there actually exists campaign book: "Total Chaos". YMMV if it works or sells well. Also all those Turning Points etc.
*Perhaps introductory era should be turned into an "expert era" (due to harder heat management along with other things) and standard tournament rules turned into basic rules? Could this work?
-
I don't think Battletech is an RPG. It can be played that way, sure, but not without a substantial amount of additional rules over and above the intro/mech manual rules (for campaigns and character advancement).
In RPGs, each player controls one character. In Battletech, the rules clearly assume that one player controls all of one side, as seen in the movement phase. The decision in which order to move units is framed as though one player controls all of them.
I have seen various systems of individual initiative used to speed up this part of the game, but in my opinion that always comes with a major reduction in tactical depth to the game.
RPG combat is also meant to take less than an hour per scenario to allow for more than one fight per gaming session, plus some exploration and/or roleplaying. Battletech takes 1-2 hours per scenario, like the larger scale wargames.
It shares many features of RPGs, but it lacks several key ones. It could be reframed to fit that niche, but I would say it is a wargame, not a roleplaying game.
-
Unfortunately, traditionally faction-specific stuff does not sell well enough when it comes to BT. Apparently.
And if it is not Mercs, Kurita, Davion or Steiner, it sells even less.
. . . .
And then there's the fact BT is not built upon factions really. While post-Clan Invasion factions do have more "character" and unique units, that is also the more complex era rules-wise, and not necessarily a great starting point*.I do think that blank slate campaigns are difficult.
I would venture that's because faction-specific books in Battletech have poor content. Field Manuals are just not that interesting and they're even less useful to players. If you compare it a 40K Codex or a Flames of War Theatre book, those books have specific rules for how to construct a force in a given conflict. But Field Manuals are basically logos, descriptions and vague force-construction guidelines with random and limited force selection. They're not even tied to a specific conflict, rather they're just a look at a given faction at a given point in time.
Though if you meant Lance Packs, then I think they have another problem altogether, in that their design is generic and backwards in my opinion. And to explain, it's fairly apparent that rather than say create a Lance and decide what mechs are best suited to be in that lance, the lance packs are built around the idea of there's a big pool of mechs (from 3039) and these mechs need to be divided into lances. And if some of them aren't great fits then, so be it. But you get Striker Lances where half the mechs are slow at a speed of 4/6. You get "Fire Lances" where half of the mechs are slow Assaults, and half are fast Mediums. Doesn't make sense. Some are better, like the Command and Battle Lances but you know, if someone says "Fire Lance" I think 2x Archers, or 2x Catapult or two missile boats anyway, maybe one guard mech and one mixed-bag mech or one spotter. I certainly don't think Shogun, Trebuchet, Dervish and Stalker where the only arguable missile boat is the Trebuchet.
And you can see this idea in TROs as well, mechs are generally "generic". MEchs are lumped by weight class or by tech level not by faction. Probably because campaign gameplay & a lot of fiction for Battletech is focused not on the Houses or Clans but on Mercenaries.
Mercenaries found the lostech core on Helm
Mercenaries stopped the Kurita counter-attack on FedSuns in 4th succession wars
Mercenaries saved Luthien
A Mercenary rose to become Khan of Clan Wolf (inExile)
etcetera
So if you're a mercenary, you can get whatever mech you want from the vast pool of mechs, and you can take whatever mission you want and manage your finances and recruit units, buy transport, etcetera.
Perhaps the framing needs to be changed, at least when it comes to classic BT.
It really has more in common with Dungeons and Dragons (which is kind of free-form dungeon combat game more than a narrative/story focused RPG) than board games proper, or miniature games. DnD has aspects of both when one thinks about it. Some players represent combat with miniatures (and IIRC, they sold DnD minis at some point), while some, like my group, use square grid with whatever is on hand for representing characters (d4 dice are useful for this).
Battletech has virtually nothing in common with D&D from a gameplay standpoint. Critical hits? Feats? Armour Class? d20? Hitpoints? Group vs Dungeon Master? Experience? Levels? Assymetrical combat? One Character per player?
Battletech's only real analogue at this point is still Star Fleet Battles or maybe Advanced Squad Leader. They are all very old war-focused boardgames with detailed units along with expansive and complex rules. Every other game the same approximate age as battletech (that I know of) has chosen to revise and evolve their rules multiple times as the years have passed to make them more palpable for the modern audiences. And oddly enough, Battletech has actually revised its rules significantly in some degrees. We have 4 or 5 RPG editions, 3 Aerospace editions, 3 or 4 Abstract battle systems (BattleForce) culminating in what is now Alpha Strike but the main game has remained largely unchanged and it's possible that time has finally caught up with it. Battletech certainly looks a hell of a lot prettier than something like SFB at this point, and its production values are probably superior to many modern games but if the rules are dated then that's what will determine the play.
Another poster above was correct I think in saying that CGL should focus on Alpha Strike and make Battletech second fiddle. I'm not a fan of Alpha Strike, I think it sacrifices too much detail, but it will connect more with modern gamers.
So as someone else mentioned, maybe an Alpha Strike starter box is warranted and a better idea than another Battletech intro box.
-
Battletech has virtually nothing in common with D&D from a gameplay standpoint. Critical hits? Feats? Armour Class? d20? Hitpoints? Group vs Dungeon Master? Experience? Levels? Assymetrical combat? One Character per player? I honestly think that it's hubris to compare Battletech to D&D, Battletech certainly has a rich & storied history across many mediums but it has never held the industry dominance or house-hold name power of D&D.
Crits exist. If SPAs are used, they are analogous to feats, or equipment itself can function like this. A die is a die. 'Mech armor and internal structure are identical to hitpoints in function, while to-hit number is basically equivalent of Armor Class. Typical campaign play has one player as the OpFor/GM. Pilots gain experience if persistent pilots are used (and if a DnD game is one-shot, experience is probably not counted). Levels... You got this one, unless pilots overall skill level is counted as analogous to "level". Asymmetrical combat can happen, or it might not, DnD can have fights ranging from players having advantage to ridiculous hordes, depending on the GM's mood. And again, a campaign game can be played with a lance of players, each one piloting one 'Mech, though i reckon this kind of situation involves Time of War (of course, nothing really prevents a player from running multiple characters in DnD...).
Of course, many of these things exist in other games as well.
In any case, i was not talking about game mechanics per se (especially not thinking them identical) but rather the form of game. Both are very free form. They don't have strictly defined map (by rules), though ready-made maps can be used. Game units and characters are whatever players fancy (Orc Bard, a lance made from Liao and Davion unique 'Mechs...). Current situation's narrative background, if any, is not necessarily relevant or important in any way, or the game may be tied to narrative very tightly (BT may or may not have a GM producing the narrative, if not, players may have some narrative just because).
And both have quite "a lot" of math, with extensive record sheets and a lot of stuff to keep track of.
When one considers these, yes, they're very similar. On top of this, BT's basic setting is basically a space fantasy world (you know, knights ('Mechs and MechWarriors), wizards and magic (ComStar, LosTech), feudal Greath Houses, Periphery barbarians and pirates are akin to orcs or goblins, etc.).
As for popularity, i've understood BT was pretty popular long ago when it was released. (Hell, they translated some of it to Finnish, a language with barely 6 million speakers.) And MechWarrior Dark Age was very, very successful, and MechWarrior video games used to be some of top video games. BattleTech may not be a superstar like DnD, but it has been near the top, even if it no longer is (and DnD has had its own share of setbacks).
-
So let me try to understand, you're saying that a D&D character having a flat 17 hit points is the same as a Battlemech having 300 points of armour, and 150 or so Internal Structure points spread across 12 locations, along with components spread across up to 78 critical spaces? A flat 17 hitpoints is the same as all that?
Or that a character swinging a 1d6+1 Longsword against a Target Number and doing 2-7 points of damage is the same as a mech firing 8 different weapons on 3 different hit numbers with up to 7 Cluster rolls and up to 42 location rolls in a single combat phase? And this Mech (the Mad Dog-A) being only one mech that the player is using out of a probably group of 2-5 while that RPG player has only a single character. Two dice rolls is the same as up to 57? Not to mention all the extra math that goes with it.
Sorry but that does not sound like the same game at all to me.
Battletech's closest existing analogue is again Star Fleet Battles, ASL, etcetera. Complicated hex-based wargames with heavily detailed units.
RPGs have detailed characters but that detail is in the construction of the character. It's not in the game play. Most of their skills will only apply in certain situations, seduction in social, 1-handed weapons in combat, traps in exploring, etcetera. Maybe you're a Wizard like Harry and have a few spells up your sleeve but even then, the sheer amount of dice rolling and regular table look-up in Battletech is way beyond anything for an RPG player.
-
A hit point is a hit point regardless of a game. The concept is the same, scale is different (obviously).
Them being called with different names does not change anything.
And BT can be played with player constructed 'Mechs as the standard. Or DnD can be played with pre-made characters.
-
A hit point is a hit point regardless of a game. The concept is the same, scale is different (obviously).
Two games cannot depict vastly different scales (or levels) of detail and be said to be the same game.
EDIT - Or more accurately to be said that they're "very similar"
-
Alright everyone. I'm locking the thread for 24 hours to let tempers cool and to let people know that a) the mods' patience is running thin and b) the mods still see merit in the thread.
We've seen tempers get out of hand and posts have been pulled. Please reconsider your arguments, retorts, grievances, and namecalling and convert them to placid discussion about a *game* and a *box set*. That is played for fun. And enjoyment. If we cannot handle that boys and girls, then the lock will rapidly become permanent.
Edit: Thread unlocked. Carry on.
-
I don't think that you can describe Total Warfare as a tactical RPG, those as I understand things, those come across as war games pretending to be RPG's, while Total Warfare doesn't pretend to be something it's not.
In regards to A Time of War and it's immediate predecessor, Mechwarrior, 3rd ed., I think because the companies making them also had a stand alone RPG going at the same time there was a lot of bleed over improving them and them original universe design borrowing heavily from Mad Max also helps, leaving a lot of short comings being player caused and not system problems.
-
I think some of the arguments in the thread are caused by a division between people who want to talk about the way things "should" be (people should be able to do math, it should be a wargame, the box set should attract new players) and those who want to describe the way things "really" are (people don't like a lot of math, it's used like an RPG by many players, the box set is bought by veterans).
I think an acknowledgement of both is necessary: what is the goal we are aiming for, what is the current reality, and how do we bridge the gap between reality and the ideal?
The second issue is of course we're far from being in unanimous agreement about what the goal should be. More popular (in order to sustain the IP), yes, more accessible to new players, okay, but what kind of game would be more popular and/or accessible? What is it that makes BTech unique in a crowded market?
Should it be a more streamlined wargame? Should RPG elements be more clearly/strongly integrated? Should it remain just as it is, simply marketed better? Whatever goes into the box set will reflect those decisions.
My own gut feeling is BTech should push the role playing aspects over wargaming. I mean I've been playing since the 80's, but maybe 80% of it has been players vs GM. I think it's the lore and flexibility in creating your own situations and scenarios that can be BTech's unique selling point.
-
Part of it is the passion I have for this game and its survival, the other part is being sick of the same old thing. I know the core game hasn't really changed much but, while it's seen as an advantage by some, at this point I see it as a huge flaw. Every box set is basically the same old thing with a few things thrown in here and there.
Alpha Strike is what brought me back into the game. For over a year, with a group of friends (some old, some new to the game), we ran a very fun and nail biting mercenary campaign utilizing the campaign rules and some advanced rules from the companion. From this, we even tweaked the game and even suggested some changes to the rules of the game/created some house rules. We had a lot of good moments in this campaign that were similar to battles depicted in the old novels and scenario books. In my 15+ years of playing BattleTech, I have never, ever, had this kind of experience. I love the game, don't get me wrong, but it is just way too time consuming outside of MegaMek and I doubt it would have been the same experience playing BattleTech. Some of our games were an hour, some maybe 3 or 4, and we were able to play a variety of units and formation sizes that kept us interested.
For me, it has nothing to do with math, it has to do with time and complexity. If I want to crunch numbers I'll gladly spend that making my own designs, campaigns, units, etc. I loved what Total Warfare and the follow up books did but the rules bloat, followed by a bunch of seemingly unnecessary new equipment, just killed it for me.
Pushing Alpha Strike as the main game, and throwing out box sets for it, yeah I think it's a great idea. I don't want to see another rehash of the Intro Box Set just to get something out there. It offers nothing new even if there are new miniatures in the set.
EDIT: Please, don't throw stones at me. I'm not trying to step on toes/troll.
-
What is it that makes BTech unique in a crowded market?
In my opinion, it's one of very few mecha combat games currently out. It needs to capitalise on that. The transformers movies (whatever you think of them, they made money) and Pacific Rim showed that robot fights are considered pretty cool, and it's visuals that sold them.
I think Battletech needs to sell the mecha brawl image, with minis and art, including on the record sheets.
-
I think some of the arguments in the thread are caused by a division between people who want to talk about the way things "should" be (people should be able to do math, it should be a wargame, the box set should attract new players) and those who want to describe the way things "really" are (people don't like a lot of math, it's used like an RPG by many players, the box set is bought by veterans).
I think a larger problem is a failure by the core player base to really recognize how Battletech fits into the current war gaming landscape. Boardgaming has changed in the last 30 years, and with Battletech staying steadfast to its original rules it has been passed by with time. There is the tendency I think for groups of fans to resist change because they fear losing something very dear to them, but the danger is that without change the game will stagnate, fail to grow and possibly even disappear. Catalyst has made great strides raising the production and art values over all, delivering if nothing else some well-produced books. People can argue the value of their content but most don't discredit the full-colour pages or the myriad of other books, such as historicals, which have been released. Yet despite these advances, the core rules of the ground game has not changed to any large degree.
And one would have to ask, are the fans really that resistant to change? Five editions of the RPG, three editions of Aerospace combat, new vehicle/infantry rules, various Battleforce 1/2/Alpha Strike/Quick Start Rules, four or more point valuing systems, many campaign systems, lost art, reseen art, re-done unseen art, five distinct eras of gameplay with a shift from Mad Max to modern warfare to religious jihads and whatever else. Battletech as a whole has changed a lot, and yet many players are still here.
So is change so terrible? To either focus on Alpha Strike or to create another version of battletech which is much quicker playing but with more detail than AS? Change for the sake of change is arguably wasteful, but if its change for the sake of necessity then is it good?
And that necessity again ties back to the failure of the core playerbase to understand how Battletech fits into the landscape. A common reaction I find to the suggestion that Battletech is too complicated is either "There's something wrong with the player" or "veterans should be helping them learn". We've seen a bit of that in this thread, but another example is this youtube review of the Introductory Box Set:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WGmeS-lADE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WGmeS-lADE)
Three guys try the game, one a battletech veteran, one a dabbler who's played on and off and the third a total newbie. In the end, the vet gave it a thumbs up, the other two didn't. What's important isn't the judgement of the three players, what's important to me is the comments below the video where almost everyone says they disagree with the video, and that there is something wrong with the two players who didn't like it. Some say they suffer from ADD, another calls them "deadbeats", a third says they lack the patience of even a goldfish.
The Battletech veteran who gave the thumbs up, to his credit enjoys the game but acknowledges that the opinions of the two newer gamers are valid. And to me that's an attitude that should be more readily adopted by more players, the game is great but in this era of gaming it probably will not appeal to a lot of people and that's not because those players are flawed its because the game doesn't connect as well with a modern audience. Is this example definitive? No, but my prevailing feeling is that change appears to be a necessity.
-
I guess we are well-and-truly done with discussion on the box set itself. Alas...
What is it that makes BTech unique in a crowded market?
Classic BT/TW has a lot going for it. It has a rich setting that has been developing for 30 years. It has a very pure focus on giant robots. It has, in its attempt to be everything to everyone, a multitude of scales that it can be played at. It has/can have a level of detail that is not found in many of its contemporaries. It has a small audience of very loyal customers. It has a more realistic approach to futuristic warfare than certain other games.
Why isn't it more popular, then? All of the above things are great, IMO. They are exactly the kinds of things that I look for in a game, at least. I think it comes down to exactly what FearFactory mentioned...
For me, it has nothing to do with math, it has to do with time and complexity. If I want to crunch numbers I'll gladly spend that making my own designs, campaigns, units, etc. I loved what Total Warfare and the follow up books did but the rules bloat(... )just killed it for me.
CBT/TW is a very detail-oriented game compared to (most of) its contemporaries. That level of detail brings with it a lot of number crunching. It isn't difficult number crunching. Usually it is just basic addition and subtraction. But that number crunching is slow. It takes time. Personally, between work, kids, and everyday life stuff, I don't have that time anymore. I only barely had that kind of time BEFORE work, kids, and everyday life stuff. Alpha Strike is the only way that I can enjoy the BT Universe in tabletop form these days because it is the faster option. Even then, I keep trying to find ways to rework the rules to make it faster.
Now... do other people disagree with this? Of course. Maybe they have more time than me. Maybe they just don't mind the time that CBT eats up. The question is, though, which of the two groups represents a longer, healthier, more popular and financially viable Battletech? In this market, looking at the games that seem to sell more, I have to believe that that is not what the majority of gamers are looking for, though.
Maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. It wouldn't be the last time, either. Maybe there is a much larger part of the gaming community that really wants to see a slow-burning, record keeping-heavy wargame. If that is the case, though, why isn't Battletech more popular? Why aren't there other games out there with similar levels of detail to Battletech? Why don't games like 40K and Flames of War and X-Wing (all, arguably, more popular right now than BT) have rules for tracking heat? Or ammunition? To put it bluntly, if Classic Battletech is such a sound system - in the current tabletop gaming market - why don't other games replicate the complexity and record keeping?
-
I guess we are well-and-truly done with discussion on the box set itself. Alas...
It's become a hot topic lately, so it seems.
Why isn't it more popular, then? All of the above things are great, IMO. They are exactly the kinds of things that I look for in a game, at least. I think it comes down to exactly what FearFactory mentioned...
CBT/TW is a very detail-oriented game compared to (most of) its contemporaries. That level of detail brings with it a lot of number crunching. It isn't difficult number crunching. Usually it is just basic addition and subtraction. But that number crunching is slow. It takes time. Personally, between work, kids, and everyday life stuff, I don't have that time anymore. I only barely had that kind of time BEFORE work, kids, and everyday life stuff. Alpha Strike is the only way that I can enjoy the BT Universe in tabletop form these days because it is the faster option. Even then, I keep trying to find ways to rework the rules to make it faster.
Now... do other people disagree with this? Of course. Maybe they have more time than me. Maybe they just don't mind the time that CBT eats up. The question is, though, which of the two groups represents a longer, healthier, more popular and financially viable Battletech? In this market, looking at the games that seem to sell more, I have to believe that that is not what the majority of gamers are looking for, though.
Maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. It wouldn't be the last time, either. Maybe there is a much larger part of the gaming community that really wants to see a slow-burning, record keeping-heavy wargame. If that is the case, though, why isn't Battletech more popular? Why aren't there other games out there with similar levels of detail to Battletech? Why don't games like 40K and Flames of War and X-Wing (all, arguably, more popular right now than BT) have rules for tracking heat? Or ammunition? To put it bluntly, if Classic Battletech is such a sound system - in the current tabletop gaming market - why don't other games replicate the complexity and record keeping?
This is probably the least snarky/most supportive reply to an opinion I've voiced on this forum (from a BattleMaster) in a while. Thank you. It seems like we have the same general idea on what needs to be done with the franchise going forward.
Let's say that, going forward, the Classic game takes a back seat to Alpha Strike. Alpha is the quick start/introbox level game to pull people in and it can operate on its own. Make small box sets, each with a Lance/Star of miniatures, all built around Alpha Strike, with adverts inside pushing the Classic game. Even if this is the case, you still need the Classic game to get Alpha Strike stats, so things like the BattleMech Manual or a new Tech Manual wouldn't be counterproductive. These books can be re-branded as "Expert" BattleTech, with Alpha being a Basic or Introductory level. Alpha actually teaches the tactics of the game rather well without compromising the core integrity of the game.
So you get new and old without breaking a BattleTech tradition of being the same old game. The focus is on the new, breathing life into a game that has been stagnant for years, without giving that nod to the old crowd.
-
I have a weird perspective that I've found in one or two other friends who I've tried the game with. I do software design and have found that the more I do the less interesting the arithmetic workflow becomes. Software engineer friends have said what amounted to the same thing. We're so ingrained with the discipline of automation that or brains can't help but think of ways we could automate the repetition. That's by no means a dis on people still enjoying it but a quirk of professional life leaking in. I don't doubt that it strikes a lot of game developers (esp. designers and programmers) the same way.
-
These threads just suck the life out of me. Oh well...
Normal caveats: I don't see numbers but I talk regularly with several people who do; I've learned more about BT's current position than the average bear, but by no means know everything that is going on; all opinions are my own and not CGL's.
Let's say that, going forward, the Classic game takes a back seat to Alpha Strike.
Trying to support the Classic game and Alpha Strike simultaneously is not sustainable. It's one part of what brought us to where we are. Production costs and staff availability necessitate one successful version of BattleTech, not two semi- or un-successful versions. And they are different versions of the game, not beginner vs. advanced versions.
To put it bluntly, if Classic Battletech is such a sound system - in the current tabletop gaming market - why don't other games replicate the complexity and record keeping?
Silver bullet argument. I'm tempted to sig this. Markets favor success and invalidate anecdotes such as "I personally taught two people to play that one time, and they seemed to like it." Yes, CBT might be in a slightly better place with more frequent releases, an in-print Intro Box, etc. But the fact that no imitators have popped up to do what we do better than we do it, ought to be very telling.
I realize that there is a legacy fanbase that would not react well to CBT "going away." But it wouldn't be going away, it just wouldn't be actively supported. All their books and experience still matter, but CGL would not invest in further development of that game. There are still people playing D&D 2e exclusively, and there are people currently releasing their own fan-brew TROs. We're already really not that far off from being there with CBT, honestly.
These threads always turn into everyone staring at a dead tree in the yard, and suggesting a few branches to cut so it will come back to life. It's time to plant a new tree.
-
And they are different versions of the game, not beginner vs. advanced versions.
I know. :) I was merely suggesting that Alpha Strike be the "beginner" version and Classic becoming the "advanced" or "expert" version. They are two different games, but they can be what the Quick Start rules are to the Intro Box rules.
I honestly don't see how these systems can't be supported or even be promoted together. It's like Alpha Strike was created and eventually ended up in the shadow of the old system as an inferior counterpart.
-
They are two different games, but they can be what the Quick Start rules are to the Intro Box rules.
I understand what you're getting at--trying to save CBT by bolting it onto Alpha Strike--but this is a contradiction. If they're two different games, and they are, then they don't fall on the same spectrum of simple vs. difficult.
Look around the gaming industry. There are games which offer simplified versions of their rules for beginners, and then add layers of complexity to those same basic rules to widen the gaming experience to "advanced" or "expert" levels.
But what you're suggesting is a much more significant leap--starting players out with one "beginner" experience and then completely tossing those fundamentals for an "advanced" experience which bears little resemblance to where they started. "Did you enjoy that hexless, tabletop terrain, fast-play game with small unit cards? Ignore all of that, use this different map sheet, this different basic methodology of moving and shooting, this wildly different record sheet and...well, I guess you can still use the same minis."
Think of Warmarchine, et al.--they use the intro-level rules as a building block and add to them--not trash them at a higher level for something completely different. Plus, the marketing, packaging, branding aspects would be very hard.
I'll say this, if I'm coming off harshly: it IS good to see the community trying to throw stuff out there, generating some ideas, and kicking them around. I just don't think a two-system model would work.
-
And there Cubby I think is part of the problem in regards to recent releases & Alpha Strike. When the issue was raised of Alpha Strike replacing Classic as the standard bearer, or even on a equivalent footing . . . well, mod/admin/TPTB responses mocked that concern. Its refreshing to hear someone who is not just the average player saying that Alpha Strike will/should be the company's BattleTech priority.
And as ActionButler may remember my previous stance (not as bad as SteveRestless I think) . . . I am coming around to it. I would definitely prefer a Alpha Strike Starter Box like we have had described than a redo of the previous BT Intro Box, as good as it was in production. For me, the proposed IS company vs Clan binary will provide what I want- Clan plastic mechs!!!- that I will buy one, maybe more. I would also hope it might cost less to produce (no nice had cardboard map) but I do think some of the other comments here also hold value. The intro box needs to get the prospective players you are trying to acquire invested in the story. Get them caring about the factions, the story, and they might become long term customers.
Looking at the situation now we have several decent digital representations- MWO, upcoming HBS game, a proposed MW5 . . . and MegaMek. I have not been tracking MWO, I would assume their numbers work in their business model because I have not heard any chicken little comments. Unfortunately for me, its not what they originally proposed so I barely mess with it. I know their is some excitement over HBS' BT, and after being burned on MWO I will wait and see- especially true with MW5. The merch from HBS looks awesome and hopefully it carries over to the game. Now for the one I know . . . MegaMek. I want to say ten years ago they had 3 or 4 servers up- 3025, IS Jihad, and a Clan Homeworlds server . . . and there existed a league doing the 'conquer the IS' thing. Now there is only a single active server I know of, a 3025 that rather than playing the whole IS is just doing a even- the Andurien-Canopian invasion of the CC. It used to have a consistent population of 30-50, now 20 is the high point and rarely hit from what I have seen. Now I know a lot of folks playing MWO are former MegaMek server players . . . but that right there points to remarks about the current market wanting a sped up simplified game. I was shocked by how much it dropped off, but it makes some sense when their are alternatives that do not require as much preparation even if the detail & story are not as good.
Then we look at what has been published by BT in the last year . . . we get combat manuals which to me are a bit of re-tread but if the emphasis of the 'universe' publishing is to Alpha Strike works b/c its laying the foundation for that format. We get the Mech Manual, definitely retread. Spotlights & Tourings . . . but nothing moving the universe forward concretely. Even the novels we have been given are filling in backstory rather than pushing it ahead.
And I would much rather the universe's story continue forward, so if that is Alpha Strike pushing it forward as the vehicle through new post-3150 sourcebooks & stories. Then let's do it. Produce a Alpha Strike Intro Box instead of a TW Intro Box- just admit this is what is happening and what needs to be done for the sake of the franchise. Like gets said, no one is going to show up to take away my TW rules, HMP sheets or erase MegaMek off my computer (heck, I would like to see a AS MegaMek version, probably be easier to code) so I can play any future stories with TW.
-
And there Cubby I think is part of the problem in regards to recent releases & Alpha Strike. When the issue was raised of Alpha Strike replacing Classic as the standard bearer, or even on a equivalent footing . . . well, mod/admin/TPTB responses mocked that concern. Its refreshing to hear someone who is not just the average player saying that Alpha Strike will/should be the company's BattleTech priority.
I get that concern, and while I might be too strident in arguing against it, I wouldn't ever mock it. People have invested a lot of time and energy and love into BattleTech, long before I put on my little safari hat and dived into the wilds of being a contributor. I care a lot about the game too, which is why...
I would much rather the universe's story continue forward, so if that is Alpha Strike pushing it forward as the vehicle through new post-3150 sourcebooks & stories. Then let's do it.
I've said to others in private that, if I were the Grand Water Buffalo of CGL:
I'd have held Alpha Strike's release until 2014, refining the rules, developing 18 months worth of AS releases and (this is crucial) stockpiling the capital to support it all.
Then, when the 30th anniversary of BattleTech rolled around in 2014, I'd have announced that CBT would be giving way to this "modernized rules system." ("Modernized" sends the message that "we're all moving forward, and we're embracing the modern gamer, don't get left behind." "Stripped down" or "fast-play" implies that we're both taking away something you like, and/or making it dumber.) Probably not called Alpha Strike, to avoid brand confusion, just "BattleTech."
Basically, make the leap and commit to a quality modern system that's seen thorough playtesting and has a catalog of releases ready to roll to sustain and build interest.
-
But what you're suggesting is a much more significant leap--starting players out with one "beginner" experience and then completely tossing those fundamentals for an "advanced" experience which bears little resemblance to where they started. "Did you enjoy that hexless, tabletop terrain, fast-play game with small unit cards? Ignore all of that, use this different map sheet, this different basic methodology of moving and shooting, this wildly different record sheet and...well, I guess you can still use the same minis."
I think the biggest factor in this would be throwing map sheets in. Yeah, I can definitely see where it could throw people off. Maybe it's easier for me because I actually played most of my Alpha Strike games on hexmaps with some house rules here and there.
EDIT: At the end of the day, you're still adding in modifiers, moving tactically, performing to-hit/skill rolls, tracking heat, tracking critical hits, etc. I guess I can agree to disagree here, but I can see where you are coming from.
I'll say this, if I'm coming off harshly: it IS good to see the community trying to throw stuff out there, generating some ideas, and kicking them around. I just don't think a two-system model would work.
No offence taken, it's refreshing to see a response like this and I appreciate it.
I guess I'm just one of the strange old fans. I actually prefer Alpha Strike to regular BattleTech because the game flows nicely and seems to be more consistent with what happens in the lore.
-
I'll admit to probably being harsh when it comes to the possibility of Alpha Strike or something like it as the new primary ruleset. Too many people seem to have the 'head stuck in the sand' mentality that the game is sustainable as it is and better that nothing get made rather than the storyline continue accompanied by some other set of rules. Its not hard to port over a BattleTech scenario into Alpha Strike or vice versa. Certainly easier than the Pathfinder/5th ed shuffle that folks are doing for D&D. Just because some of the rules may be changed on the new material doesn't mean you have to stop playing the game the way you do. Heck, most groups have some house rules in there as it is.
So yeah, screw the folks that would rather the game die than change.
-
Heck, most groups have some house rules in there as it is.
So much so that a bunch of those unofficially official rules were incorporated into the BattleMech Manual.
I really don't think that a full changeover to a modern system would inspire widespread ragequitting. Some folks, sure, there's always a few. But many die-hard players already freely ignore or alter whatever they want to suit their needs, and some create very detailed unofficial sourcebooks and long-running AU settings.
CGL caters to the remaining folks who will only ever buy CBT product at the risk of being unable to access and retain younger, modern gamers.
-
While getting rid of the math that seems to turn some people off is likely impossible, I think that a couple of house rules could easily cut down on some of the book keeping a speed up gameplay.
-
Problem is Kit, no one official is admitting that its in trouble- 'do this or the product number drop drastically.' And when that has come up over the shift of emphasis, again derision.
From the outside looking in, with what has been done over the last year it honestly seems like there is not a 5 or 10 year business plan. Maybe a single year . . .
. . . then again, from the inside looking out, I am not sure the company I work for has any real plan either. Get kind of nervous when the CFO and 4 VPs under him all retire at the same time . . . and we have had 3 CEOs in the space of 3 years.
-
So if I understand rightly,
Goal: Stable and/or expanding player base capable of sustaining ongoing material publication, with a game focused on BTech's unique values: tactical wargame with big stompy robots
Current status: Small and shrinking player base, with material focused on existing player retention rather than acquisition of new players
Market changes: Growth in the popularity of streamlined, visual games among younger players
Way forward: Refocus product line on Alpha Strike rules, betting that incoming player volume will be greater than defection
What does that mean for the Intro Box: Focus on Alpha Strike. If it's being pitched as a miniatures game, game pieces--plastic, cardboard or whatever, maps and terrain probably a must.
Key to success: How attractive is Alpha Strike? I'll admit I've never played it, only seen the cards.
My concerns would be (a) that simplification seems to have taken some of the flavor out of combat (weapons fire reduced to a single abstract value), and (b) if it is aimed at new players, the wisdom of pitching it as a miniatures game, with the implied cost of buying minis, etc. Wonder if that would scare off budget conscious consumers unsure if they want to invest so much.
-
Let me the other side of the coin...
In all honesty, while I like BT and don't have a issue with the overall storyline moving forward, you'd loose me as a player (and future purchaser) if AS was the intended rule set forward. I hated MWAoD. That to me isn't Battletech. I have looked over the AS quick-start rules. The AS rules are just a bit too 'simple' for me. Also for me it is the ability to customize or create entirely new designs of Mechs/Vehicles/Areo/VTOLs that makes Battletech worth while. I really don't see that viable in AS.
If there was a AS-focused box available, I'd just get it for the Minis, if there any. Otherwise I'd pass...
-
Goal: Stable and/or expanding player base
Expanding only. Stability is stagnation. Constant intake of new players is required for sustained success and growth--40K isn't successful because it's a great game, it's successful because there's an endless stream of 13-year-olds with birthday money who think Space Marines are awesome.
Current status: Small and shrinking player base, with material focused on existing player retention rather than acquisition of new players
Would add: limited resources available. That is, there isn't money to both cater to the legacy fanbase and launch a major new product to acquire new players and grow the line.
Way forward: Refocus product line on Alpha Strike rules,
(and other similar discussion of AS specifically in the OP)
An important point I wasn't very clear about before: I don't think AS exactly as it stands now is the perfect answer. Something like AS, yes. But that system needs some tweaks and adjustments and retooling. The fact that a whole second printing with very different points valuations--a major part of the game--exists, and that the ASC had to patch some problems with the main book, means current AS is not an ideal vehicle to suddenly be upjumped to be the "new" BT. At one point, it was meant to be, but I think that window has closed--a new package, new launch is needed.
betting that incoming player volume will be greater than defection
"Betting" makes it sound like a dart throw. Solid, core business practices, such as ensuring capitalization of the first few products, a good plan for the first couple years of operation, mar/comm efforts around the launch, etc. will make any new product launch less of a bet and more of a calculated gamble. It's a leap of faith, yes, but so is any new product line in any business. We're at an "anywhere but here" point.
Along those lines, you may have seen the recent "teasers" on social media and here on the forums for the upcoming PDF products. With Adrian Gideon's blessing, they're my initial, limited attempt to try and build some launch marketing into new products.
Randall does occasionally share updates about BT products on his social media platforms, primarily Tumblr. But those are generally development updates or notes on products that are still farther out. For too long now, BT fans have gotten accustomed to product simply dropping out of nowhere, with little to no fanfare or build-up. This is bad for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the repeated cycle of "when is [Product X] coming out"/"why won't you just tell us what's going on" threads. This way, at least we're building up a little excitement and expectation. I hope.
-
you'd loose me as a player (and future purchaser) if AS was the intended rule set forward. I hated MWAoD. That to me isn't Battletech.
And that's fair. I have the utmost respect for the long-time BT players and, if I were the person making these calls, the prospect of losing some people along the way would truly weigh on me. But it wouldn't dictate my actions--the issue is ensuring that there are BattleTech products for you to be a future purchaser of. If things don't get turned around, then we lose you as an active purchaser anyway...and everyone else along with you.
My hope would be that the presence of a vibrant, growing, more visible "new" BattleTech would eventually win you over. If not, I'd hope you'd at least still enjoy and play Classic BattleTech using the materials you've already invested in.
-
The problem with BT/TW as it stands is that it encourages weapon choices and mixes that slow down gameplay (LB-X's, ML spam), if the designs going forward discontinued making use of such weapon mixes I think things might improve, but rules level changes would help more.
-
Actually regular play helps keep basic math skills sharp, and learning the 2D6 curve helped me project probabilities at a glance rather than have to chart it.
And for those who DO find it hard, there are apps for phones & tablets. My wife got the BT dice app for her first game at our local con. She filled in the gaps about how far she ran, range to target, what her target did, and maybe other boxes I never looked at and determined what THN she needed. I think it even let her put in the type of mech to determine what the THN were for all weapons on a canon chassis but I do not remember. She was flipping back and forth between apps until she was getting it down for herself.
What's the name of that app?
-
In all honesty, while I like BT and don't have a issue with the overall storyline moving forward, you'd loose me as a player (and future purchaser) if AS was the intended rule set forward.
If you will allow me to ask, because I am genuinely curious about this concern, would you stop buying AND playing? Or would you just stop buying?
I don't think that anyone wants to push veteran players away from the game. I certainly don't. I doubt that CGL does. Let's face it, there aren't THAT many of us playing any flavor of Battletech as-is. We can't afford to push players away even if the system does change in the name of attracting new blood.
Anyway... let's say that CGL comes out tomorrow with an announcement that, going forward, all future products will be mainly focused on Alpha Strike. They might be compatible with Total Warfare (in the same way that the Touring the Stars books are compatible with every flavor of Battletech), but the primary goal of future products will be to support the miniatures-based, fast-play system of Alpha Strike. Would you really stop playing? Altogether? Even though all of your CBT/TW products are still yours to use as you see fit?
Again, I'm not trying to pick on you or single you out. I am genuinely curious about this mindset, because you are definitely not the first person who has voiced it.
-
So myself and my friends are really the new target audience. I have played Mechwarrior games since MW2, one of my friends played some MW, and another two never played. They did however player Warhammer (I never played wargames/TT). I recently got into TT, but all the boxsets/map packs were out of printed. After half a year of searching I found one at a normal price. 4 months later found another. I now own 2 boxsets. All the map packs are practically impossible to find in Canada and are out of print. The only thing available are the Alpha Strike plastic minis and random assortment of metal mini's but not a large selection. They rarely get replaced. If the store gets any in they'll get 1.
CGL really needs to grow their fanbase and cater to newer players. The problem its so F en hard when everything is out of print. Most people wont dedicate as much time as I have to try and get some basic pieces. I've taught my friends how to play BT, but the games do run too long. I do however prefer the Record Sheets, and I find tracking armor damage, heat, ect some of the best parts of BT. I'm sure as we play more we'd get faster at it. We are also using the unofficial BT app to figure out chance to hit. Without that it would take even longer.
I dont think CGL needs to abandon CBT, the rules are still their, and after this many years how much more can you change? You can use the same mechs, and maps for both versions. I could see players who have never played any BT, prefer alphastrike or at least have it as a gateway. Have the next boxset an Alphastrike boxset with hexed maps, and reference CBT for advanced users. The players once they get used to alpha strike can buy Total Warefare or download a pdf of the quick start rules and try the system.
My biggest problem is the the storyline. The community is so fragmented by what eras the play and CGL has been pussyfooting on where they stand. Some recent manuals they've released, reference some of the eras, but not up to current eras. It's a cluster F, i don't understand how any new player could get into that. There are so many mechs from different eras, how do you start? I think most players prefer pre clan or early post clan but i'm not 100% sure. Some polls might help.
If I had a couple million dollars an I could buy CGL I would do a Gundam and do an alternative universe or reset and fix some of the problems with Dark Ages/Clan balance. Start again pre clan or post clan, but balance the mechs better. Perhaps just delete double heat sinks? The timelines are such a mess, that even CGL has no clue what to do with it. Its moving forward with the 3145 timeline, but none of the manuals reference it. The boxsets have 3025 era mechs. That is the biggest thing that needs fixing. That and having the actual product available and in stores so new player can actually get into the game.
-
The main problem for me (and for most people, it seems) with the classic game is that it takes too. damn. long. there's far too much rolling and it takes far too long to destroy units.
If you want to streamline the game while disrupting as few other elements as possible, you have to do away with hit locations. it's, at least in my mind, the cause of most of the holdups. make armor a single value and have thresholds where crits are not just possible, but mandatory (this could be the one place where you would roll for location hits to preserve a bit of complexity and save the construction rules). I think these two changes would speed up games considerably.
-
Just so you know Konrath you can find those old maps, you just have to print them for yourself.
-
Surprised the map packs aren't available. Thought someone mentioned that they were poor sellers, which would imply that they'd be in stock, sitting unsold on store shelves rather than the opposite.
-
i think a fresh run of the paper map compilations that fanpro did would sell. the embarrassment of trying to sell potential players on the game isn't necessarily the mechanics of the game itself (i still think the rules could be streamlined), but the general lack of the basic materials to actually play.
-
Just so you know Konrath you can find those old maps, you just have to print them for yourself.
Thats not very new player friendly. Finding a printer that can print to board, diecutting the extra hexes, scoring and slits maps isn't easy. I guess you could print on cheaper paper stock and fold it, but its not the same quality. I would love to be able to get Woods & Rivers at retail price. I feel like thats something easily able to reprint vs doing plastic mini's they have such a hard time producing but every other company can somehow do.
-
Surprised the map packs aren't available. Thought someone mentioned that they were poor sellers, which would imply that they'd be in stock, sitting unsold on store shelves rather than the opposite.
Because they sold so slowly, they were never reprinted, I believe. They still ran out eventually, but apparently not at a rate that would make another print run a viable investment.
The main problem for me (and for most people, it seems) with the classic game is that it takes too. damn. long. there's far too much rolling and it takes far too long to destroy units.
On the other hand, that's what some people like about the game: That it doesn't always quickly result in dead mechs, but rather that they get piled on with more and more penalties through damage and that it becomes a challenge to keep them alive and still push for the win.
Satisfying slowpokes who like that (such as me) and impatient mayflies who want everything faster at the same time isn't really going to work, and I am aware that I'm on the smaller, less attractive side of the target audience in that :(
-
There is too much dice rolling. Whether units die quickly or slowly, it takes too long to resolve attacks. The problem only complicates itself by degrees of scale the more units that are added. It takes too long to play a game. And yes, I play with objectives almost exclusively (50-60 games per year).
Look no further than the damage resolution diagram in the BMM. Nothing should be that complicated.
-
For my CBT experience, in alpha strike, I just roll for each point of damage. It drags the game out a bit more without too much clutter.
I'm glad to see that even though we all have varying opinions we all want this game to progress.
-
On the other hand, that's what some people like about the game: That it doesn't always quickly result in dead mechs, but rather that they get piled on with more and more penalties through damage and that it becomes a challenge to keep them alive and still push for the win.
Satisfying slowpokes who like that (such as me) and impatient mayflies who want everything faster at the same time isn't really going to work, and I am aware that I'm on the smaller, less attractive side of the target audience in that :(
I think it's important to note that your two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Satris's main complaint is that it takes too long to destroy a unit.
Whereas you favor the game because units degrade and take penalties before being destroyed.
So what you enjoy is not that the game is slow, and what Satris' objects to is not that the units degrade in abilities, just that destroying them takes a long time. But can there not be a game which is both faster playing and in which the units degrade?
Take a 3025 battle between two Wasps. If they're both jumping around they could need 10 or 11s to hit every round and when they do hit, their ML and SRM-2 will hardly be decisive. The game really becomes one of luck, where who will hits enough times and get concentrated hits to disable or kill the opponent first. Is that long, luck-based game really compelling? Or is there a way to speed up the game, give more interesting tactical choices, while at the same time allowing for degrading units.
-
Surprised the map packs aren't available. Thought someone mentioned that they were poor sellers, which would imply that they'd be in stock, sitting unsold on store shelves rather than the opposite.
They were printed over a decade ago. Eventually they get sold or tossed.
-
They were printed over a decade ago. Eventually they get sold or tossed.
Map Packs haven't been printed in over a decade? That's a bit crazy given this is supposed to be a boardgame.
-
I think it's important to note that your two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Satris's main complaint is that it takes too long to destroy a unit.
Whereas you favor the game because units degrade and take penalties before being destroyed.
So what you enjoy is not that the game is slow, and what Satris' objects to is not that the units degrade in abilities, just that destroying them takes a long time. But can there not be a game which is both faster playing and in which the units degrade?
Take a 3025 battle between two Wasps. If they're both jumping around they could need 10 or 11s to hit every round and when they do hit, their ML and SRM-2 will hardly be decisive. The game really becomes one of luck, where who will hits enough times and get concentrated hits to disable or kill the opponent first. Is that long, luck-based game really compelling? Or is there a way to speed up the game, give more interesting tactical choices, while at the same time allowing for degrading units.
I'd like to add a clarification that I think the turns themselves take too long. A unit that dies in three turns that take two hours and a unit that dies in three turns that take 40 minutes still dies in three turns. I'm interested in solutions that speed up play but conserve (as much as possible) the character of the current game
-
Map Packs haven't been printed in over a decade? That's a bit crazy given this is supposed to be a boardgame.
It'd probably be crazier to keep making a product that loses money. I'd imagine that's where the Hex Packs came into play, trying a new twist on maps.
-
It'd probably be crazier to keep making a product that loses money. I'd imagine that's where the Hex Packs came into play, trying a new twist on maps.
Oh so Hex Packs are still in print? I assumed that Konrath included "Hex Packs" when he said that he couldn't find any map packs in canada, either hex packs or older map packs, but essentially some sort of map-expansion for the boxed game
-
The Hex Prints are out of print, both the CGL ones and the ones done by the german licensee. It doesn't look like either set sold fast enough to justify tying but that quantity of money for so long. You want to recoup the money from your print run within a year, not five years. All of that extra warehouse cost really cuts into the profit margin.
-
Map Packs haven't been printed in over a decade? That's a bit crazy given this is supposed to be a boardgame.
All reprints, so old timers have little reason to buy them. And I think their all 20 or more years old and not really inspiring.
-
Well, if those hex packs weren't selling quickly enough- then maybe either there weren't enough new players, or the boxset wasn't available for those players, or those players who are new are playing hexless not with boards.
Alpha Strike aside, if the BT box set came back into print, I would think the hex packs would be necessary as a go-to way to expand the game. But if they're not selling on their own, maybe if they were bundled with record sheets and scenarios they would do better. Some way to expand the boxed-game beyond simply new terrain. Though with free programs like SSW maybe not. Or maybe the way to ensure sales is to simply appeal to the core audience by introducing new maps. Though, that might create the same problem as the boxset where veterans who still play with maps buy all the expansions and the new players still can't get them.
-
There is too much dice rolling. Whether units die quickly or slowly, it takes too long to resolve attacks. The problem only complicates itself by degrees of scale the more units that are added. It takes too long to play a game. And yes, I play with objectives almost exclusively (50-60 games per year).
Look no further than the damage resolution diagram in the BMM. Nothing should be that complicated.
Sure it takes a while if you can't do most of the resolution in your head, or you don't have a hit chart at hand. If it's individually rolling dice that's difficult, invest in dice boxes, number them, and assign each weapon on the mech to a box.
I'd like to add a clarification that I think the turns themselves take too long. A unit that dies in three turns that take two hours and a unit that dies in three turns that take 40 minutes still dies in three turns. I'm interested in solutions that speed up play but conserve (as much as possible) the character of the current game
So do you want a mech to die in one turn? Two? Saying you want to conserve the "character" isn't enough information. Do you just want turns sped up?
-
Scenarios are also poor sellers along with record sheets. I'm not sure bundling several poor sellers together won't just result in a worse seller.
-
Scenarios are also poor sellers along with record sheets. I'm not sure bundling several poor sellers together won't just result in a worse seller.
My idea was to mirror other successful boardgames, such as Descent, where an expansion adds to the game on all levels. It adds new maps, new campaigns (scenarios), new monsters, new cards (weapons & loots), etcetera. Battletech originally did that with CityTech but since then, it seems like everything gets separated into its own products so I don't really think it should be surprising that some do not sell well and I don't believe that it necessarily follows that combining two-three poor sellers will result in another poor seller.
-
Sure it takes a while if you can't do most of the resolution in your head, or you don't have a hit chart at hand. If it's individually rolling dice that's difficult, invest in dice boxes, number them, and assign each weapon on the mech to a box.
I have most of the tables memorized and have a box of death. it's too many rolls to resolve cluster attacks. As stated above, I believe eliminating hit locations would speed things up considerably as that is where a lot of the rolling happens. The shop-worn shortcuts merely move the pace of the game slightly faster than what I would consider excruciatingly slow.
So do you want a mech to die in one turn? Two? Saying you want to conserve the "character" isn't enough information. Do you just want turns sped up?
By preserve the character of the game, I mean keep most of the rules intact while chopping out what I consider the unnecessary accounting bloat. I want the game to move faster. Whether that means faster unit attrition or finding ways to cut turns in half (or more), that would be great. I can't be super-specific about mechanic ideas because it would drift into fan/house rules posted outside of the appropriate forum spaces (yes, I know they're probably not good or tenable). I think that you can eliminate hit locations and still allow it to feel like Battletech. I like Alpha Strike well enough, but it's a bridge too far in abstraction for my taste.
Bottom line, I want the game line to survive and see continued production of the line for the foreseeable future. Right now we're sticking largely with the devil we know and I don't know how long that's going to work.
-
Sure it takes a while if you can't do most of the resolution in your head, or you don't have a hit chart at hand. If it's individually rolling dice that's difficult, invest in dice boxes, number them, and assign each weapon on the mech to a box.
None of those assertions are incorrect, but I don't think they address the issue at-hand, either.
Resolving the modifiers in your head only works if you are, like us, veteran players and have had enough time to study the charts. In my opinion, telling new players that, 'well, these two pages of charts aren't THAT bad if you memorize them' is not especially accommodating.
Referring new players to the charts doesn't fix the problem either (again, in my opinion). In an era of streamlined, fast-play miniature games, 'please refer to the full-page list of possible to-hit modifiers and cross-reference with the terrain modifiers' doesn't cut it. Those cardsheet reference pages that came with the Intro Box are brilliant for looking up modifiers, but they don't address the fact that we are still asking new players to refer to more modifiers and adjustments than any other game out there. Sometimes by a very wide margin.
The same is true with the dice box. Is it a good idea? Heck yeah. What other game is asking players to do that, though?
At the end of the day, the question that Battletech has a very important question to answer. If the game, and the franchise, are going to succeed, who needs to change? Tabletop players are getting more and more used to games that play faster and simpler than Total Warfare. Is it the responsibility of those players to give up on those faster games and learn to love Battletech's slow burn? Or is it the responsibility of Battletech to speed itself up?
-
You are starting with the assumption that the game system is the problem, then demanding an answer that requires changing the game system.
There are plenty of other issues than can be the problem. And those could be the solution.
-
You are starting with the assumption that the game system is the problem, then demanding an answer that requires changing the game system.
There are plenty of other issues than can be the problem. And those could be the solution.
Why not all of the above? The game system is certainly a problem, with TPTB trying their best to offer solutions (Alpha Strike, BT manual). But there are also other problems such as logistics (availability), marketing, the general boardgame industry.
-
In my experience, it's very hard to fix a problem if you don't agree on what the problem is, or if there even is a problem.
If we agree that a small and perhaps shrinking player base is a problem, we have to ask what happened to create the situation. As a businessperson, I don't think you can look at the situation and conclude the customers are the problem. That's not the way markets work. Products and companies live or die based on their ability to be the choice of customers.
You can analyse the issues a number of ways, eg chronologically (at what point in time did the game lose popularity) or using the 6 P's:
People: do the people designing the game lack the necessary skills/know-how
Place: is the game sold in the wrong locations
Price: does it represent poor value for money
Process: is the way it is designed or sold wrong
Promotion: has not enough been done to market it to the right people
Product: is there an issue with the product itself (rules design etc.)
The recent conversation in the thread has focused on the last P, but as mentioned it might not be the only issue. Still, I think you need to prioritize, and it sounds like the Product (rules and packaging both) is the bigger challenge and needs to be addressed first.
-
None of those assertions are incorrect, but I don't think they address the issue at-hand, either.
Resolving the modifiers in your head only works if you are, like us, veteran players and have had enough time to study the charts. In my opinion, telling new players that, 'well, these two pages of charts aren't THAT bad if you memorize them' is not especially accommodating.
I learned most of Battletech before I was 10, and could reasonably play Shogun and sort of play the Star Trek Combat Simulator, so I'm probably not the best person to comment on that.
Referring new players to the charts doesn't fix the problem either (again, in my opinion). In an era of streamlined, fast-play miniature games, 'please refer to the full-page list of possible to-hit modifiers and cross-reference with the terrain modifiers' doesn't cut it. Those cardsheet reference pages that came with the Intro Box are brilliant for looking up modifiers, but they don't address the fact that we are still asking new players to refer to more modifiers and adjustments than any other game out there. Sometimes by a very wide margin.
The problem I have with this is two-fold: The first is that the comparison between something like X-Wing to BattleTech is similar to apples and watermelons. There's some overlap, but the two are fundamentally different. The second is that as a whole, the industry is rapidly trying to entice the internet generation, and, in my opinion, are sacrificing depth to get people to put down their social media and cell phones.
The same is true with the dice box. Is it a good idea? Heck yeah. What other game is asking players to do that, though?
Relatively few. Blame the 80s and their obsession with D6s.
At the end of the day, the question that Battletech has a very important question to answer. If the game, and the franchise, are going to succeed, who needs to change? Tabletop players are getting more and more used to games that play faster and simpler than Total Warfare. Is it the responsibility of those players to give up on those faster games and learn to love Battletech's slow burn? Or is it the responsibility of Battletech to speed itself up?
On the one hand, that's a good point. On the other, rarely do these topics present a solution only "make it faster." Faster how? Gutting all of the complexity so that it's generic and bland as possible, so you can sell? Modifying it to run more easily, while still retaining "I picked up my own shot off arm and beat the other guy to death with it?" If the former, are you prepared to lose a significant portion of your playerbase? If the latter, can the line survive something similar to the fracturing it had with AS, regardless of the overhaul's quality?
-
You are starting with the assumption that the game system is the problem, then demanding an answer that requires changing the game system.
It is not my intention to demand anything. If I have come off that way, then I have not crafted my posts properly. Everything that I've posted in this topic has been pure personal opinion based on years of playing the game and observing other, similar games. Frankly, I am the last person on aeatth that TPTB should listen to for design advice.
On the one hand, that's a good point. On the other, rarely do these topics present a solution only "make it faster." Faster how? Gutting all of the complexity so that it's generic and bland as possible, so you can sell? Modifying it to run more easily, while still retaining "I picked up my own shot off arm and beat the other guy to death with it?" If the former, are you prepared to lose a significant portion of your playerbase? If the latter, can the line survive something similar to the fracturing it had with AS, regardless of the overhaul's quality?
You are completely, 100% correct. 'Make it faster' or 'make it less complicated' is jot a solution. Not a viable one, at least. I know that I have ideas on how to simplify the game, but, like I said, I am the last person who should be giving CGL design advice. They definitely don't need my amateur input.
As for the other thing, streamline the game to make it (possibly) more successful vs possibly alienating some of the existing base, I suppose that is the whole point of what this thread has become. I certainly don't have the right answer. I know that I, personally, don't want anyone to feel alienated from the game, but I also don't want to see the franchise wither. Though, that being said, I was perfectly happy with this thread just being about the contents of the Intro Box, so... there's that.
-
Would doing something like the battletechgear.com site where they propose an idea, list a certain price and minimum purchase, and if enough people buy it they place the order with the factory?
In this case, it would be players buy a certain number of boxed sets (1 to however many the player wants). If enough pledges for boxed sets are made, CGL can place the order with a factory.
From there, there would be a fun option. The pledgers can specify how many boxed sets they are wanting up front vs delayed. Up front boxed sets are shipped directly to the pledger. Delayed boxed sets would be offered to game stores to sell to local people. If a game store sells a box, the money is refunded to the pledger. If the game store doesn't sell the boxed set within X time frame, it is shipped to the pledger.
CGL could put up a bit extra on the price to allow for extra sets to be made, at CGL's discretion. If enough people are willing to pledge for a longer print run at a lower cost per boxed set, that could also be offered by CGL.
The key is the players put up the money initially, rather than CGL risking its cash flow on something that might not sell enough. If not enough players put up the money, then CGL is only out the money to get a price quote from a company, rather than the full cost of the production run.
Similar to a kickstarter, but with a known product.
-
The problem I have with this is two-fold: The first is that the comparison between something like X-Wing to BattleTech is similar to apples and watermelons. There's some overlap, but the two are fundamentally different. The second is that as a whole, the industry is rapidly trying to entice the internet generation, and, in my opinion, are sacrificing depth to get people to put down their social media and cell phones.
What do you mean by fundamentally different? What is the difference between those two games? To say that the rules are different is true of any two games, even those from the same line with the same base mechanisms. What actually matters is though is what market the games are targeting, and if X-Wing and Battletech are targeting the same consumers then there certainly is a basis for comparison. And if Battletech is targeting a different market, then what market is it? And is it still sustainable in the current climate.
For example, if in the past Battletech was targeting High School and College Kids because the nature of the game and the market supported it, then it did fairly well because it was a good fit and the population was of a good size. But if now the market has changed, and Battletech appeals more to older gamers rather than the HS/College demographic, then it should also be recognized that the older demographic will be smaller because they generally have less time to play because of "real life" demands such as families or jobs.
If the subset of the market you were targeting has changed as culture has evolved, and if the people you targeted originally have changed their tastes over time, then there's going to be a bit of disconnect.
-
On the one hand, that's a good point. On the other, rarely do these topics present a solution only "make it faster." Faster how? Gutting all of the complexity so that it's generic and bland as possible, so you can sell? Modifying it to run more easily, while still retaining "I picked up my own shot off arm and beat the other guy to death with it?"
There are a lot of exit ramps between "changes" and "gut the system into a lifeless husk." We're not allowed to get into specifics. They either get split off into the custom rules forum where they'll never be seen or have to be immediately disavowed for legal reasons. So no, specific solutions can't be made besides "make it faster". All we're left with is to do some early 20th century-esque efficiency studies to make the cumbersome elements of the system less onerous.
-
If enough pledges for boxed sets are made, CGL can place the order with a factory.
I'm straying from the things I have direct knowledge of, but my understanding is that it's not nearly as simple as picking up the phone to China and saying "ok, we have money in hand, start producing." Production runs have to be booked well in advance, months out at least. Folks like Adrian Gideon or Bosch or others know more than I do here.
-
I think he is hinting at Harebrained Scheme BT merch set up. No idea how they are doing it, since their description sounds exactly like what he said.
-
Objective: Be a popular game
Issue: Isn't
Cause: Time-consuming (also: product availability, but that quickly becomes a circular argument), Lack of "cool" factor maybe?
Break down the problem: Why is it time-consuming?
- Number/volume of rules & special cases to know/memorize
- Number of modifiers to each roll
- Number of rolls to hit & damage made by each unit
- Amount of damage (and thus time) required to destroy/cripple opposing units and/or conclude a scenario
Countermeasures:
- Streamline core rules, especially number of combat modifiers
- Reduce number of die rolls required per attack and to determine damage
- Reduce the amount of damage required to incapacitate a unit
"Cool factor"
- How to do all the above without making game play overly generic?
Suggestions: play up BTech's signature moves, like death from above, headcapping, engine explosions (for Stackpole fans); play up "Hero" abilities like the Black Widow or Kai Allard; give weapons more unique flavor than generic PPC or AC/20: it's a Lords Light cannon, a Tomodzuru cannon, etc.
-
Objective: Be a popular game
Issue: Isn't
Cause: Time-consuming (also: product availability, but that quickly becomes a circular argument), Lack of "cool" factor maybe?
Break down the problem: Why is it time-consuming?
- Number/volume of rules & special cases to know/memorize
- Number of modifiers to each roll
- Number of rolls to hit & damage made by each unit
- Amount of damage (and thus time) required to destroy/cripple opposing units and/or conclude a scenario
Countermeasures:
- Streamline core rules, especially number of combat modifiers
- Reduce number of die rolls required per attack and to determine damage
- Reduce the amount of damage required to incapacitate a unit
"Cool factor"
- How to do all the above without making game play overly generic?
Suggestions: play up BTech's signature moves, like death from above, headcapping, engine explosions (for Stackpole fans); play up "Hero" abilities like the Black Widow or Kai Allard; give weapons more unique flavor than generic PPC or AC/20: it's a Lords Light cannon, a Tomodzuru cannon, etc.
With the exception of the unique weapons, that sounds almost exactly Alpha Strike. Which personally I like, but which more than a few of the existing fan base have said would turn them off.
Question: is it more important to seek new blood, even if their interests don't mesh with the 'old guard', or to retain a static/shrinking old guard? Oddly - and before I get accused incorrectly - one would have to say the old guard get plenty of attention from TPTB.
So perhaps the question is "how do we balance the need for new blood, against the need to retain a significant fraction of the old guard?"
-
Question: is it more important to seek new blood, even if their interests don't mesh with the 'old guard', or to retain a static/shrinking old guard? Oddly - and before I get accused incorrectly - one would have to say the old guard get plenty of attention from TPTB.
So perhaps the question is "how do we balance the need for new blood, against the need to retain a significant fraction of the old guard?"
In my case, I'm the new blood that wants to mesh with the old guard. I came on my own volition/obsession. I suspect I'm not alone there, but certainly not numerous. I've been sucked in over the past year via backing the HBS game and am falling over the tabletop game hard, despite not actually having played it yet. I look forward to eventually joining a home group though. I've given up on buying the box set (unless it reveals itself to be too awesome to pass up) and just going for the BattleMech Manual, then build up from there. The online sources are enough to get me started and I'll buy the print books I know I'll use a lot... all through my local store to support them.
-
I have most of the tables memorized and have a box of death. it's too many rolls to resolve cluster attacks. As stated above, I believe eliminating hit locations would speed things up considerably as that is where a lot of the rolling happens. The shop-worn shortcuts merely move the pace of the game slightly faster than what I would consider excruciatingly slow.
By preserve the character of the game, I mean keep most of the rules intact while chopping out what I consider the unnecessary accounting bloat. I want the game to move faster. Whether that means faster unit attrition or finding ways to cut turns in half (or more), that would be great. I can't be super-specific about mechanic ideas because it would drift into fan/house rules posted outside of the appropriate forum spaces (yes, I know they're probably not good or tenable). I think that you can eliminate hit locations and still allow it to feel like Battletech. I like Alpha Strike well enough, but it's a bridge too far in abstraction for my taste.
Bottom line, I want the game line to survive and see continued production of the line for the foreseeable future. Right now we're sticking largely with the devil we know and I don't know how long that's going to work.
Personally I suggest severally limiting the impact of weapon that make use of the box of death, limiting the number of weapons that can be fired by a 'Mech at once, and maybe even switching to a single to-hit roll (But with multiple hit location rolls, as per weapon type)
Setting up this last one would require a lot of work, especially if it's customized per 'Mech, but potentially worth it
-
Meridian, you may want to look into MegaMek- it will let you play folks from across the world at your own schedule. I use it and play table top games, both offer different dynamics.
I think the key is going to be portability between the two formats. I think it will also be important for TPTB to be honest about this as mentioned up topic.
I think arranging product development as 'expansion' set/packs is the way to go- its a format that the target audience understands. It allows BT to market the products as a 'building' project- how many topics do we get from new folks of 'what should I get next?' or 'what do I need now?' WE like the sandbox nature and so do a lot of folks, but even most the folks who like sandbox style game play still have to get the foundation somewhere. Its a selling point that has been done the wrong way- 'You do not even need minis to play this game!' Sure, you do not but we should be encouraging players to invest in the game but also use that as one difference between other game systems- 'Well of course it looks great when you have all your minis painted in a theme but if your collection is small you can use proxies to still play AS, we encourage flexibility unlike other games.'
If we are talking about the game's vehicle shifts from TW to AS rules, then yes the difficulties need to be solved- roll out the 2.0 rule set. Get a Alpha Strike Intro Box that works with the Combat Manuals being released, market them as companions. If the Clans are not in the AS Intro Box, release a Clan Expansion Pack that tells the story's setting change- if nothing else use chunks from ER3052 for the fluff & art. Next expansion would be the Inner Sphere Counterattack- '55, '58, & '60 IS designs and detail the build up to Operation Bulldog & Serpent. Other options would be a Mercenaries Expansion which can cover 3025-3065 and should be timed with any CM Mercs.
-
I started getting interested in Battletech at age 12, buying my first mini, a Phoenix Hawk, and began actively playing at 14-15.
These days, I'm 43, married, and have a three year old. Even before I met my wife, I hadn't actually played on tabletop for, well, years. Hell, I think the FGC was still a thing here on these boards. If it wasn't for MegaMek and MekHQ, I wouldn't be playing at all.
Alpha Strike looks interesting but, with the absence of an equivalent to MegaMek, I don't think that's going to be happening for me, and that's kept me from investing in Alpha Strike.
I mention this because, while I'm sure the particulars are different for others, I've no doubt there are plenty of others in similar situations.
-
The problem with BT/TW as it stands is that it encourages weapon choices and mixes that slow down gameplay (LB-X's, ML spam), if the designs going forward discontinued making use of such weapon mixes I think things might improve, but rules level changes would help more.
If you are going to get that way, there are several factors which slow down BT.
The use of numerous small weapons.
Crit seeking with weapons like SRMs and LBXs
Heat management
And other aspects such as C3.
One could say weapons which do less than 3 damage deal 0 against combat units. No more small lasers, no more MGs, etc. The LBX spam would be dead and missile rules would need to be adapted.
It would speed up gameplay, it would change design by bringing back an emphasis on bigger weapons - but would it BE BattleTech? Would it have the same feel?
Same with Heat management. It would be easy to add a rule to say that Mechs must be designed with enough heat sinks to dissipate all their heat. But that would remove a limiting factor on the game, one that prevents/discourages (for most units) continual Alpha Strikes and adds a tactical element in deciding if the pay off is worth the cost. You could rejig the heat rules so that heat becomes an issue in certain circumstances and is ignored otherwise, or reduce the scale form 1-30 to 1-10 to reduce or eliminate the math.
There is also the tone...maybe Mechs should be presented not as the main order of battle, but as specialist strike units. The units sent into battle to take out planetary defences for example, to allow for an invasion. The regulars have vehicles...the SAS/Green Berets/Spetsnaz have Mechs. It doesn't sound like a major change, but it could bring about a change in tone and feel.
But care should be taken. For all that AoD was popular and simplified, it is also now dead.
As for minis....we'll always need designers. But....the industry is moving away from metal, and the rise of 3D printing should be a concern. High quality detailed minis from home based 3D printers are only a matter of time.
-
If you are going to get that way, there are several factors which slow down BT.
The use of numerous small weapons.
Crit seeking with weapons like SRMs and LBXs
Heat management
And other aspects such as C3.
Also:
Irregular Weapon Ranges
Simultaneous Combat
Individual Unit Movement
Distance-Based Movement Modifiers & Skids (as opposed to speed-based)
etcetera
There is also the tone...maybe Mechs should be presented not as the main order of battle, but as specialist strike units. The units sent into battle to take out planetary defences for example, to allow for an invasion. The regulars have vehicles...the SAS/Green Berets/Spetsnaz have Mechs. It doesn't sound like a major change, but it could bring about a change in tone and feel.
But care should be taken. For all that AoD was popular and simplified, it is also now dead.
That I think would be a mistake. The mech-focused lore is the one thing that separates Battletech from many other properties. Warmachine for example has warjacks, and 40k has dreadnoughts/wraithguard, but in both cases they only make up a portion of the army.
Also mechs as special/rare units is also something which typified the clik-based game and was comparatively unpopular with the core players. Players wanted mechs the center of the game but instead would get swarmed and taken down by peasant infantry.
-
limiting the number of weapons that can be fired by a 'Mech at once
Like say... heat?
-
All reprints, so old timers have little reason to buy them. And I think their all 20 or more years old and not really inspiring.
If they were printed a decade ago, that was pre alpha strike and pre a lot of the new MW/BT games. If they want to grow their franchise and open up to new players they cant look at 10-15 years ago when it didnt sell. I see people looking for Woods & Rivers all the time and they are crazy expensive. And each boxset keeps releasing the same 2 maps, so its hard to get some new maps. Maybe the next boxset can include some new maps. Also as someone who works in the printing industry producing these map packs isnt that expensive.
-
Now I know the boxed set, at least one iteration, has a whole book about the universe. But- there's a difference between a general overview and playing a specific story. Scenario books from what I understand have always traditionally been some of the poorest sellers for Battletech, but when I look at board games on the market most seem to present the game in a series of scenarios. Even some of the most popular games coming out, so-called Legacy games like Risk or Pandemic Legacy or the underwhelming Seafall are all built around the idea of a game evolving from one play session to the next.
Undoubtedly it's a combination of factors, both in terms of rules, presentation and game structure, but maybe the lesson to be learned is that restructuring the boxed game for a modern market requires more than just miniatures. If the rules are sacred, then at the very least all the components perhaps need to be examined. Not just the counters.
Sure.
I am claiming the miniatures are necessary in this day and age, but re-examining how the existing game is presented to new players seems reasonable enough to me. Scenarios and mini-campaigns are a good tool.
In many respects, that is what the Starter Book series was meant to accomplish. Maybe a scaled down version of those would help.
-
Also as someone who works in the printing industry producing these map packs isnt that expensive.
How much does the art for each map cost?
-
And map cost is a small part of the overall costs getting a product into stores.
Let's say a buck a map - hardly excessive. Four maps, four bucks. Then you got to pay for packaging. Let's go shrink-wrap with a printed insert. Lash out - another buck.
Then you have to sell to a distributor. Don't forget to include shipping costs to get it to them! Let's say the distributor will offer 10 bucks per unit. The margin - $5 - minus incidental costs is all the money CGL sees.
The distributor onsells it to the game stores at $20 a pop - they have even more shipping to cover - and the game store sells it for $39.95 - to cover the 'dead money' involved in things sitting on shelves.
Let's say Cat runs off 4000 copies - the sort of minimum most distributors want to see; they don't want to be nickle-and-dime-ing their business. So that's $20K up-front costs, with about $6K profit to pay wages, rent, and beard-grooming products. How many hours go into the whole process from "Hey, let's do maps!" through to the very end? How many people touch it? And what happens if only around 600 sell, and the rest go into the 'bargain bucket' spiral?
Maybe in time Print On Demand can short-circuit this. But it ain't happened yet, and doesn't make life easy for new pickups to get into things.
Niche business. Whenever I hear people blaming the "Catalyst suits" for bad business decisions, I laugh my keister off. Personal opinion, not a PTB, YMMV.
-
How much does the art for each map cost?
From limited experience in other fabrication and production, Kit's right. There's a host of costs that have to be recouped and get expensive more quickly than people commonly think.
It's kind of the same thing as when a business owner says the actual employee costs are somewhere around double take-home pay due to benefits and hiring expenses. Lots of people forget that. And boy do those things add up quick. If you run an LLC of any kind for the first time many nasty surprises descend upon a person.
Regarding Konrath's point, I definitely grok what you're saying. However, it's kind of like the popularity of any cult product. Maybe there's increased popularity after time has passed but as others have said, you need to recoup costs inside of a year. Getting popular on the secondary market three years later doesn't do the publisher any good. To them and their business plan the product is still a failure even if the product is going for $500 on Ebay. So you could try to tap into that interest, but you need to make sure you'll make the money back sooner the second time around and be sure you won't have a repeat performance. Paper publishing is hard.
edit: partially ninja'd by Worktroll.
-
I'm unaware of how the process works so forgive my ignorance, but is print on demand a possiblity for maps?
-
Not currently, but been looking into it.
-
Federation Commander, which probably caters to an audience even smaller than Battletech's included new map boards in every major expansion they did. Admittedly the boards are lacking in art being set in space, with only the occasional planet or moon to decorate them, but they were also double-sided with different size hexes on both. The expansions did also included full color counters. They were lower-quality than the boxset hard-card board, but they still being cardboard were superior to the fold out paper mappack sheets.
If the boxed-set style high quality maps are unprofitable maybe something like this would be a good alternative.
Also I can't imagine that artwork for a new map would differ considerably from that of a cover for a book. It's a larger piece of artwork certainly, but elements could be copy-pasted around (trees, rocks), since the map itself needs to be readable. Ultimately it's whatever they negotiate the with the artist.
-
Federation Commander, which probably caters to an audience even smaller than Battletech's included new map boards in every major expansion they did. Admittedly the boards are lacking in art being set in space, with only the occasional planet or moon to decorate them, but they were also double-sided with different size hexes on both. The expansions did also included full color counters. They were lower-quality than the boxset hard-card board, but they still being cardboard were superior to the fold out paper mappack sheets.
Which is why I've personally argued for more box sets, and less individual items (map packs, record sheet books, scenario books, etc).
But Federation Commander doesn't have minis, and as you say probably has an even smaller audience. I don't think most of us want to settle for Federation Commander's product. Compare to Star Trek Attack Wing, which is similar to what many are advocating. Minis, simpler game, MUCH larger audience.
-
Which is why I've personally argued for more box sets, and less individual items (map packs, record sheet books, scenario books, etc).
But Federation Commander doesn't have minis, and as you say probably has an even smaller audience. I don't think most of us want to settle for Federation Commander's product. Compare to Star Trek Attack Wing, which is similar to what many are advocating. Minis, simpler game, MUCH larger audience.
Miniatures? Yes it does. The Boxsets and expansions all come with full-colour cardboard counters, but in addition they sell various sized boxes of pewter miniatures. Each box is paired to an expansion, so if you want one of every ship that comes with say the intro box you can buy one product and get it. They also did cheaper, laminated record sheet expansions of say 8-10 ships which each also had a matching box of 5-6 miniatures (duplicates excluded). So every expansion was self contained, there were large expansions and smaller expansions, and each of these small and large expansions had a specific boxed set of miniatures which went along with it. Miniatures can also be purchased individually.
Another thing ADB does that CGL doesn't do is release one or two free record sheets every month which feature ships from upcoming products. Which is not only a free bonus but allows playtesting. I've seen other companies do the same. That said CGL does have its share of free goodies like some quick start and miniature rules.
-
Miniatures? Yes it does. The Boxsets and expansions all come with full-colour cardboard counters, but in addition they sell various sized boxes of pewter miniatures. Each box is paired to an expansion, so if you want one of every ship that comes with say the intro box you can buy one product and get it. They also did cheaper, laminated record sheet expansions of say 8-10 ships which each also had a matching box of 5-6 miniatures (duplicates excluded). So every expansion was self contained, there were large expansions and smaller expansions, and each of these small and large expansions had a specific boxed set of miniatures which went along with it. Miniatures can also be purchased individually.
I wasn't familiar with Federation Commander, and didn't see anything in the Box Set mentioning miniatures being available. Didn't read down to related products :).
BattleTech has done something similar, with metal Lance Packs supporting the cardboad Box Set. It didn't work for BattleTech (Randall had a blog post long ago about using cardboard box sets as wallpaper they sold so poorly, and box sets with minis going out of print regularly).
But yes, I'd love to see a more box set + expansion product release for BattleTech. But to hit numbers BattleTech PTB/fans want, I think it has to include minis. But the Box Set (and/or expansions), is the way to see the game properly supported ( maps, record sheets, etc).
-
But yes, I'd love to see a more box set + expansion product release for BattleTech. But to hit numbers BattleTech PTB/fans want, I think it has to include minis. But the Box Set (and/or expansions), is the way to see the game properly supported ( maps, record sheets, etc).
I agree. O0
-
Not currently, but been looking into it.
Don't stop there. Try doing a print on demand setup for Alpha Strike cards (like, the good color ones) and record sheets on the MUL. Maybe make BattleTech record sheets in the color style of the color Alpha Strike cards. IMO, that would be awesome. Maybe you can even bundle things like maps a counters for a discount.
I like 'Mech designers, but I would invest in some decent color card stock Alpha Strike cards. Even custom ones.
-
Don't stop there. Try doing a print on demand setup for Alpha Strike cards (like, the good color ones) and record sheets on the MUL. Maybe make BattleTech record sheets in the color style of the color Alpha Strike cards. IMO, that would be awesome. Maybe you can even bundle things like maps a counters for a discount.
And maybe a nap after that. Maybe.
-
I think it would make sense for CGL to release or reprint more map-packs when they are doing the new boxsets. IF they are already printing maps for the box, adding more versions would reduce the the overall cost of production for them. But its kind of chicken or the egg. If they dont release new things based on how they did 10-15 years ago, they wont get new players. I guess they need to do their market research or gauge what retailers are saying. If they push some new marketing, they need to support it. Or they keep status queue and just have a tiny community of 15-30+ year vets and never grow a newer audience. To me that does not sound sustainable for the future.
-
None of those assertions are incorrect, but I don't think they address the issue at-hand, either.
Resolving the modifiers in your head only works if you are, like us, veteran players and have had enough time to study the charts. In my opinion, telling new players that, 'well, these two pages of charts aren't THAT bad if you memorize them' is not especially accommodating.
Dumb question. Has anyone ever tried teaching the game to new players with the hit location rolls printed on the actual 'Mech sheet by the location on the armor diagram? Would it be too scattered for people?
In fact, what information could be added to the 'Mech sheet that would speed up play, but not overly clutter/ confuse if included?
-
So there has been discussion about a box set . . . but what should be in it?
As discussed I think a Alpha Strike Intro Box might be the way to go, so for that I think it would need-
12 IS Mechs- mix of Classic & Lance Pack Mechs
10 Clan Mechs- Dire Wolf, Warhawk, Timberwolf, Summoner, Hellbringer, Mad Dog, Stormcrow and Kit Fox. The 8 mechs are all stars of MechWarrior and MechCommander games. Other recognizable mechs would be Shadow Cat and Cauldron Born, but that makes it a lot of heavies using 2 not from TRO3050.
The 'special' might be Elementals or a ComGuard Star League mech
Simple Rules book- none of the SPA or other things making it more complicated, instead indicate that the is a option.
Setting book . . . bring home the desperation of the Clan invasion
Azakael, it would be a speed home rule . . . it works but it does neglect some of the tactics of turning damaged sides away or positioning your attacks for that damaged side.
-
So there has been discussion about a box set . . . but what should be in it?
As discussed I think a Alpha Strike Intro Box might be the way to go, so for that I think it would need-
12 IS Mechs- mix of Classic & Lance Pack Mechs
10 Clan Mechs- Dire Wolf, Warhawk, Timberwolf, Summoner, Hellbringer, Mad Dog, Stormcrow and Kit Fox. The 8 mechs are all stars of MechWarrior and MechCommander games. Other recognizable mechs would be Shadow Cat and Cauldron Born, but that makes it a lot of heavies using 2 not from TRO3050.
The 'special' might be Elementals or a ComGuard Star League mech
Simple Rules book- none of the SPA or other things making it more complicated, instead indicate that the is a option.
Setting book . . . bring home the desperation of the Clan invasion
Azakael, it would be a speed home rule . . . it works but it does neglect some of the tactics of turning damaged sides away or positioning your attacks for that damaged side.
Not saying we ditch the left and right side charts. My idle question is, can we redesign the 'Mech sheet entirely to facilitate faster play without a full need of redesigning the rules? I think it's possible to do so. Not sure how.
Honestly, what I find slows our games the most is grabbing the appropriate charts. What can be moved from charts to the 'Mech sheet, without overloading the sheet?
-
SSW sheets have the charts on the sheet, might want to check those out if you have not since it might be what you are looking for.
-
SSW sheets have the charts on the sheet, might want to check those out if you have not since it might be what you are looking for.
As a option.
I will admit it is a decent option to have. It does scrunch the Crit table a bit, but considering that you get the full, upper, and lower body charts, as well as the most used to hit mods, stuff for Physical Attacks and the Cluster table. I can deal with a scrunched up Crit table...
-
I think a larger problem is a failure by the core player base to really recognize how Battletech fits into the current war gaming landscape. Boardgaming has changed in the last 30 years, and with Battletech staying steadfast to its original rules it has been passed by with time. There is the tendency I think for groups of fans to resist change because they fear losing something very dear to them, but the danger is that without change the game will stagnate, fail to grow and possibly even disappear. Catalyst has made great strides raising the production and art values over all, delivering if nothing else some well-produced books. People can argue the value of their content but most don't discredit the full-colour pages or the myriad of other books, such as historicals, which have been released. Yet despite these advances, the core rules of the ground game has not changed to any large degree.
***snip***
that's an attitude that should be more readily adopted by more players, the game is great but in this era of gaming it probably will not appeal to a lot of people and that's not because those players are flawed its because the game doesn't connect as well with a modern audience. Is this example definitive? No, but my prevailing feeling is that change appears to be a necessity.
I found this post interesting, so I want to share my own experiences.
Storytime. Skip the next two paragraphs if you want.
I started Battletech in high school in the late 90's when I joined a group of older kids who had a group that played every Thursday. They were experts; I was a good four or five years younger than them. They never gave me the rulebook. They just said "look, this is how you move, this is how you shoot." They gave me (and a couple of other kids around my age) a bunch of 3025 Inner Sphere basic 'Mechs like the kind you get in the introductory box set (we wouldn't have known anything about that... they were all just big stompy robots to us). Meanwhile, they brought their customized top tier homemade 'Mechs using advanced Clan tech like ER PPCs, Arrow IV with special munitions, C3 slave systems, double heat sinks, endo-steel armour and so on. They put all us young kids on one side and themselves on the other and creamed us every week. We kept at it, because we didn't realize that our 'Mechs and theirs were on a fundamentally different scale.
The second group I played with was in college. I was much more experienced, had bought a couple 'Mechs of my own, read the rulebook (one of the high schoolers gave me one of his beat up master rulebooks when he graduated). I had even read two or three of the fiction books and played the Mechwarrior 2 computer game (one of the first computer games that I owned on CD instead of 3.5" floppy disk). The college group were "professionals." Each had their own opinion about the most powerful 'Mech and they argued about it until they were close to throwing punches. Each one owned at least 100 metal Battlemech models and every TRO. They scheduled weekly games over email and would only ever play one format: a massive game with around a dozen 'Mechs per side on an 8'x6' table. Of course, their games typically lasted around 6 hours. I stuck with them for a while, but this was way too much of a time investment for a commited fan but a casual player like myself. Plus, when you played, you were always on a team with two or three of these professional players and they would criticize me very harshly if I made a maneuver which they did not feel was tactically optimized (that is, every move I made). And it was no holds barred... if you made a mistake, the other team would exploit it mercilessly and expect nothing less from you.
Ok, storytime over. My experience is not that the rules of Battletech are somehow out of date with modern gamers. It is true, games have changed a lot... games in general are a lot quicker, more simple to pick up and brightly and beautifully packaged. They have the "strategies" and "tactics" of the game baked right into the rules and clearly flagged by the designers so that a new player can instantly see the "combos" that will make a play session exciting and fun. Battletech is obviously "old school" in that regard, since you learn the effective strategies by initially failing. And failing a lot. But that is not a problem, and it can even be quite fun if you can do this with friends (or at least friendly players) and be as enthusiastic as I was to compete against your own record and do better next game. The real problem in that regard is that, at least in my experience, a lot of Battletech gamers and clubs are really toxic.
But I don't really see this as a problem with the rules. Battletech's popularity is not because of some wistful nostalgia... rather, at its heart Battletech is a really great game.
I will say that in my modest two decades with the game, Battletech has increasingly folded the "kitchen sink" into the default rules. To this day, I turn to the 3rd Edition rulebook when playing Battletech (I own Total Warfare too, but it sits on the shelf looking pretty). If you look at the 3rd Edition rulebook that came in the starter box, it is dirt simple and incredibly slim. It's the same rules as Total Warfare in essence, but 3rd Edition has a different understanding of where you draw the line between the "core" game and the "expanded" advanced rules of the supplements.
-
My personal quick-and-dirty analysis says that we can spin the argument of complex vs simplified forever. But as long as we do not have entry-level products available, a large portion of potential customers (regardless if they are many or few) and new blood will drift on to other things. Currently people need to go on a small personal crusade and devote considerable time to dig up things like basic boxes and maps, even if/when they become aware of BattleTech and would like to try it "because it looks cools" or whatever.
An intro/box set should be an absolute priority. BT or AS matters less in my mind...just...get...it...out...there!
(And this is only magnified with the HBS game enroute in the near future - the people who play that game and get interested in BattleTech need to have an entry-level product to try! It's the best chance to breathe a bit of new life into the player base in many years.)
"Save us Catalyst, you're our only hope." :))
-
That pretty much sums it up, FredrikR :)
-
My personal quick-and-dirty analysis says that we can spin the argument of complex vs simplified forever. But as long as we do not have entry-level products available, a large portion of potential customers (regardless if they are many or few) and new blood will drift on to other things. Currently people need to go on a small personal crusade and devote considerable time to dig up things like basic boxes and maps, even if/when they become aware of BattleTech and would like to try it "because it looks cools" or whatever.
An intro/box set should be an absolute priority. BT or AS matters less in my mind...just...get...it...out...there!
(And this is only magnified with the HBS game enroute in the near future - the people who play that game and get interested in BattleTech need to have an entry-level product to try! It's the best chance to breathe a bit of new life into the player base in many years.)
"Save us Catalyst, you're our only hope." :))
I have to agree with this. Not many people want to play with printed out rules, and then using coins or other objects as minis, it's not 1985 anymore, every other game out there has minis and a polished look to it. Printed out rules and mini proxies, are basically the only way to get into the game, short of knowing someone with a box set already, and when you want your own box set, or Book copies for the rules, they are simply unavailable, or take months to ship, or a 1000 other things.
I get the feeling CGL is just trying to ride the wave as long as possible until even the old grognards give up. Even with the new PC game, i don't see a rush of people buying the box set. Board Games, Mini Games, are a niche industry, and fickle, and kids today like video games. Why would a new person, play a 3 hour board game version of a video game that takes 15 minutes on a computer, when the computer game costs $60, and the Rules, board game and minis costs $200 if you can find them?
-
An intro/box set should be an absolute priority. BT or AS matters less in my mind...just...get...it...out...there!
(And this is only magnified with the HBS game enroute in the near future - the people who play that game and get interested in BattleTech need to have an entry-level product to try! It's the best chance to breathe a bit of new life into the player base in many years.)
Planning a re-released box set to coincide with the HBS game would have been good marketing, I wonder if there's anything in the works for just that idea?
-
How much does the art for each map cost?
Well....finally a question I can honestly answer.
Having been in the past (and I would love to continue in the future) a Cartographer for hire:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/tags/people/artists/danielThomson
I did the original map for the City of Ilizmagorti for Pathfinder, while that was then 'reskinned' to have a consistent look in their product line. As to what I was paid for my work. $100. I don't know what Rob Lazzaretti's fee was, but I am certain it was something similar.
So, assume a similar cost for the art for the maps, maybe even less as a little less work is involved, so maybe $50 per map sheet.
-
$100 is too low for color art of a battletech map.
One word of caution on using the 3050 clan omnis. They are IWM's best sellers consistently over the years. Any use of IWM sculpts for plastic minis would come at a very steep price.
-
i know its silly but i would love to see a tiny addition to the box...cardboard or cardboard stock tanks and apc markers
i know silly wish but when i was digging through some old stuff i found few cardboard prints of tanks...not sure which box set they came but it reminded me that some flavor can be had on the cheap
-
Pretty sure that was CityTech.
-
Pretty sure that was CityTech.
I know the minis in that box (2nd edition) get a lot of flak but I thought they were great. Yeah, I though CityTech was a good box set.
-
dang...now i have to replace it...lent it out years ago somethings came back but box did not....
-
i know its silly but i would love to see a tiny addition to the box...cardboard or cardboard stock tanks and apc markers
i know silly wish but when i was digging through some old stuff i found few cardboard prints of tanks...not sure which box set they came but it reminded me that some flavor can be had on the cheap
CityTech, First Edition
(https://puu.sh/uM1er/e0fbbc527d.png)
CityTech, Second Edition
(http://puu.sh/uM1oq/5fe54c98f3.png)
-
Niche business. Whenever I hear people blaming the "Catalyst suits" for bad business decisions, I laugh my keister off. Personal opinion, not a PTB, YMMV.
So what you are saying is that when the forum-ites think "Catalyst suits" their mind's eye sees:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/a6/16/65a616d9a47ee41ed95ba38812eb135a.jpg)
When in reality the "Catalyst suit" is:
(http://www.fancydressball.co.uk/big_images1/penguin-costume-23632.jpg)
-
Well, as I put it in another email, the fans seem to think CGL is more like this:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SjnNZeKhheo/S7gY3KnIDYI/AAAAAAAAAW4/8R3xEZxEHVY/s1600/PyhtyonCorporation.jpg)
When I always think the reality is more like this:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/23/5a/ec/235aecaaa82762b745a218ec7dd5f793.jpg)
Remember, FFG - 150 full time employees (from news reports, and people self-identifying as employees on Linkedin). CGL: something like 5 full-time employees. You can't put freelancers in charge of production.
-
A though that keeps returning to my mind is having a deck of cards included in the box set, with each card describing a quirk or special equipment/ammo. This would allow TPTB to pack more diverse gameplay with fewer minis.
-
A though that keeps returning to my mind is having a deck of cards included in the box set, with each card describing a quirk or special equipment/ammo. This would allow TPTB to pack more diverse gameplay with fewer minis.
Ok this is cool
-
Remember, FFG - 150 full time employees (from news reports, and people self-identifying as employees on Linkedin). CGL: something like 5 full-time employees. You can't put freelancers in charge of production.
According to Wikipedia, FFG was started by one guy, not 150. If they've grown to 150 employees from one over the last 20 years it's probably because they're anticipating or leading market trends, and publishing well-received, high quality, successful products.
Whereas if Catalyst Games labs started with 5 people and 10 years later, still has 5 people, well . . . let's just say that I don't think a company's size, large or small, gives anyone a get-out-of-jail-free card. Company size can temper expectations, particularly when it comes to frequency of product, but customers can certainly look for a minimum level of service, such as having the core, introductory products available, and also ask for changes that they feel would help grow the game.
-
No arguments with that point. My bigger issue is when people say "Company X does this, CGL should do this!" without understanding the differences.
One suspects that company X couldn't have done it when they had 5 people, either.
The separate issue - how does CGL expand from its current state to a different, larger one - has many possible solutions. It's worth noting that the number of gaming companies who've managed this over any length of time are about as many as the current number of CGL employees :) GW, FFG, Pirhana, SJ - about it. FASA, SPI, Avalon Hill, Yaquinto, Flying Buffalo, where are they now?
(And no-one need point to Palladium as a "success story" ;) )
-
(And no-one need point to Palladium as a "success story" ;) )
I honestly don't know how Palladium continues to function. I suspect that Kevin Siemba is a space wizard.
-
I honestly don't know how Palladium continues to function. I suspect that Kevin Siemba is a space wizard.
More like:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c0/7b/2d/c07b2d7a6fc44a6f76519d1ca2488d08.jpg)
A bit mean, but... well, Kevin brought it on himself. ANYHOO....
-
No arguments with that point. My bigger issue is when people say "Company X does this, CGL should do this!" without understanding the differences.
If a player buys two evenly-priced games of the same production value, one from a self-publisher, and one from a large corporation, and if both of these games end up being clearly broken and untested, should the player be more forgiving of the game from the self-publisher? He's a one man company, and doesn't have an army of playtesters, so that game's failure is less damning than the corporate game's failure?
I don't think any customer should be expected to sympathize with a company, large or small. The average joe (or jane) just wants value for money, they want a fun game, that they're happy to share with friends and they don't want to feel ripped off. I think it is the tendency of fans who are attached to certain games or companies, to sympathize with that company and defend it, and this is no more apparent than in the video-game space- but for the average customer this is not the case, nor should it be, because I don't think it's healthy consumerism.
So in that regard, I think customers asking for the company behind their game to be "more like X" is perfectly fine. Aim high, and inspire the company to aim high as well. If the company can't achieve that, then what alternative can they deliver?
But either way it's better to aim high and miss the mark than to aim low and nail it.
-
But either way it's better to aim high and miss the mark than to aim low and nail it.
Personally, from a business standpoint I'd disagree. If I were publishing I'd treat the operation the same way as an indie games design company. You don't try to make the MMO. You try to make a new twist on a platformer or structure your game around one or two twists on RPGs at a smaller size. Then polish it to a fare-thee-well. I need to survive on the one smaller idea or iteration executed well because I know I can't gamble my business on a longshot production of high difficulty (this is how you get BattleCruiser 3000... another auteur disaster from the 90s).
So likewise for the tabletop production. Make sure I can execute well on a smaller idea or subset of ideas, building trust and reliability with my audience. Definitely not
(https://bookloversunite.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/do-all-the-things.jpeg)
:)
-
But either way it's better to aim high and miss the mark than to aim low and nail it.
You just described Leviathans, which
a) I am capable of making relevant comments on, and
b) to some extent almost broke CGL.
Certainly, since then CGL has been far less ambitious, and far more controlled when it comes to production of non-printed material. Which is no bad thing.
Would we have had Clan plastic 'Mechs had CGL either not gone into Levs, or had they not had all the production issues they did? We'll never know. Maybe Clan plastic "Mechs would have had all the problems in Levs' stead. CGL have to deal with the cards they're dealt - for example, prior to the 2008 crash it would have been financially possible to make the components outside China. Post 2008, China was the only affordable option. I can blame CGL for many things, but not the sub-prime crisis.
-
Personally, from a business standpoint I'd disagree. If I were publishing I'd treat the operation the same way as an indie games design company. You don't try to make the MMO. You try to make a new twist on a platformer or structure your game around one or two twists on RPGs at a smaller size. Then polish it to a fare-thee-well. I need to survive on the one smaller idea or iteration executed well because I know I can't gamble my business on a longshot production of high difficulty (this is how you get BattleCruiser 3000... another auteur disaster from the 90s).
So likewise for the tabletop production. Make sure I can execute well on a smaller idea or subset of ideas, building trust and reliability with my audience. Definitely not
You just described Leviathans, which
a) I am capable of making relevant comments on, and
b) to some extent almost broke CGL.
Certainly, since then CGL has been far less ambitious, and far more controlled when it comes to production of non-printed material. Which is no bad thing.
Would we have had Clan plastic 'Mechs had CGL either not gone into Levs, or had they not had all the production issues they did? We'll never know. Maybe Clan plastic "Mechs would have had all the problems in Levs' stead. CGL have to deal with the cards they're dealt - for example, prior to the 2008 crash it would have been financially possible to make the components outside China. Post 2008, China was the only affordable option. I can blame CGL for many things, but not the sub-prime crisis.
Aiming high doesn't necessarily mean aiming for high quality.
Aiming high just means setting a lofty goal, and it can mean a lot of things, such as:
1. Consistent and regular releases
2. Having an introductory boxset that is always available
3. Great customer service
4. Clear and organized product line
5. Accessible rules
Or at the end of the day, value for money. Maybe BT hits the mark in some places, not in others.
etcetera. As I said:
"Aim high, and inspire the company to aim high as well. If the company can't achieve that, then what alternative can they deliver?"
And both of you have brought out some existing ideas, but I don't think you need to go much further than the BT product line. The boxset for example aims for high quality with nice maps and good figures, and in that regard it's been well received by fans if no one else. But it's perpetually out of print because the production runs are too costly. So if they can't compete with plastic miniatures, could they reduce the quality and offer it a lower price point and have it in-print more often?
Or the core rulebook line, the idea of creating not one but SIX rulebooks. The goal of not a new rulebook, but a virtual encyclopedia-style collection of rulebooks. It's a very lofty goal and after 10 years its been achieved but also in that 10 years Battletech core rules have remained static. Is the game better for all of those rules? Are many of those advanced rules going to be experienced by the majority of the player base or would the game have been better served by a quicker-playing, streamlined Total Warfare 2nd edition? Mech Manual aims to address that in part but it's no more faster playing than any previous game.
Seems like they're aiming high just in the wrong direction.
Pushing the quicker playing game of Alpha Strike seems a good idea, in theory, but rather than just aim for quicker playing version of Battletech they also aimed to inject the complete Battletech experience. So players have a rulebook which has not one but three levels of the rules along with all the minutiae that comes with it. One can argue that if they were aiming for a quicker playing battletech game, they got it, but if they were aiming for a modern-style miniatures game, they missed it.
-
The boxset for example aims for high quality with nice maps and good figures, and in that regard it's been well received by fans if no one else.
Who, I've gleaned, represent most of the market for the Box Sets, not new players. Getting 24 'Mechs for $60 is more attractive to longtime players trying to fill out their third regiment, or whatever, than a player just starting out. For them, $60 is a pretty substantial ask. Look around the industry--the trend is toward making intro products an impulse-level buy. D&D has a $20 starter, Shadowrun went to a beginner box and an advanced box, Warmachine has a $40 starter box. Even GW tried to make Age of Sigmar accessible by releasing (very short) basic rules for free.
Yes, there are exceptions--especially if you equate BT with one of the true big-box board games like Twilight Imperium or something. But that's a much less apt comparison than the mini games. (Starts praying we don't have to rehash "what type of game is CBT" for the 4,500th time.)
But it's perpetually out of print
I realize the Beemer I wear is going to make me sound like a CGL apologist, but: this has been the vibe running through this entire thread, and it's not really true. The box set has been out of print for a combined total of a little over a year out of the last 15. The difference is that, this time, the state of affairs is dire enough to warrant a discussion (at high levels, not this thread) about what form the introductory BattleTech product should take.
Because despite the several anecdotes we've heard from newer folks upthread, BT can no longer afford (literally, afford) to win hearts and minds three or six at a time. The Intro Box in its current state has not succeeded in bringing on rafts of new players. "Yeah, because it's never available." See previous three paragraphs.
So players have a rulebook which has not one but three levels of the rules along with all the minutiae that comes with it. One can argue that if they were aiming for a quicker playing battletech game, they got it, but if they were aiming for a modern-style miniatures game, they missed it.
Ding ding ding. This is why I said upthread that my intent would not be to simply kill CBT and say AS is the sole BT system now. AS no longer what it was originally intended to be--and probably never was that, I'm learning--and it's an imperfect vehicle to "save" BT.
AS has essentially become just a faster horse. What we need is a car.
One last note: some folks have started to conflate the idea of "faster" rules with "simpler" rules, and I don't think that's quite right. Sure, BT would be faster if you reduced, say, all weapons fire from one side to a single roll. That's an extreme, but the point is that I actually don't think a super-simplified game would be any more effective in keeping players' interest than an unnecessarily complex one.
What I've been pondering on my commutes all week is how to create a BT game that's "hookier" than what we have now, takes less time on average to play, but is deep enough ("deep" not meaning thousands of pages of rules!) to maintain players' interest AND is financially successful.
Crass as it sounds, I'd settle for just the last thing. Let Chess be the perfect "minutes to learn, lifetime to master" game. I'd settle for a BattleTech line that's financially viable.
-
What you just described is MW:DA. It ticked all of those marks. Another time jump with a massive tech advancement that renders our current units obsolete. Couple it with omnis only to reduce the mini count to something reasonable in plastic and simpler rules since you effectively reduced the weapon count too and you have yourself something that can go into the future for a while.
-
As I said upthread, I've come around to the need for streamlining the current gameplay. As I said, I think you need to balance that against making things too generic.
There's a lot of personality in the BTech fluff, but I feel it tends to get lost in tables of standardized quirks, weapon stats or pilot skills. Maybe more needs to be done to bring these front and center.
I think "hero" MechWarrior abilities and Mech abilities would be an interesting avenue to explore.
Side note, but is the constant timeline evolution really necessary? I mean Star Wars has been Star Wars for the last 40 years. The core rebels vs empire paradigm hasn't changed much in all that time. Warhammer 40k is almost as old as BTech but it's still basically "space marines kill stuff". Whereas I stop following BTech for 5 years and I have no clue what's going on.
So if the intro box is going to rewrite the rules, I'd recommend also resetting the clock. Pick the most popular timeframe and stick with it for the main game. House v House? Clan v IS? Let other periods be explored in supplements.
-
Well, if you're a miniature company, you can make money off of selling those. If you're a publishing company you need a different revenue stream. AFAIK the advancing plot is producing the products that keep the game afloat.
-
I agree that the game appears to be addicted to this model. Not sure it has to be that way though. I would've thought there was enough material in the setting to explore without rewriting it every few years.
-
The box set has been out of print for a combined total of a little over a year out of the last 15. The difference is that, this time, the state of affairs is dire enough to warrant a discussion (at high levels, not this thread) about what form the introductory BattleTech product should take.
This isn't the first time the Box Set has been out of print. I'd say it's been more like 4 years out of the last 10. Between the Classic Intro Box Set (2007, ten years ago) and the 25th Anniversary (2011) it was out of print for a while. The 25th Anniversary Box Set went out of print by May 2013, and the improved reprint was Feb 2014. The Feb 2014 Intro Box Set went out of print within days, and needing another print run that came out late that year.
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/539948/so-waityou-cannot-buy-anymore
http://bg.battletech.com/news/battleblog/introductory-box-set-the-improved-reprint/
http://bg.battletech.com/news/news-and-announcements/introductory-box-set-reprint-lance-packs/
-
OK, let's take this from a different perspective: it been mentioned a few times now that $60 for an intro set is a bit steep, and that a number of other games, as Cubby pointed out, have $20 buy-in introductory sets. That doesn't seem bad to me, price-wise.
So, what could Catalyst realistically produce at that price tag? Remember, we have the rules, game pieces, artwork, writing, etc. to factor in. If we're not talking about streamlining to a different rules set, we could use the quick start rules or introductory rules published previously, which cuts down on writing, but what else would need to be included, and can fit in that kind of budget, once you factor in production and shipping costs, plus profit margin?
-
OK, let's take this from a different perspective: it been mentioned a few times now that $60 for an intro set is a bit steep, and that a number of other games, as Cubby pointed out, have $20 buy-in introductory sets. That doesn't seem bad to me, price-wise.
So, what could Catalyst realistically produce at that price tag? Remember, we have the rules, game pieces, artwork, writing, etc. to factor in. If we're not talking about streamlining to a different rules set, we could use the quick start rules or introductory rules published previously, which cuts down on writing, but what else would need to be included, and can fit in that kind of budget, once you factor in production and shipping costs, plus profit margin?
CGL's mentioned their likely plans, including a $20 intro box set.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55482.msg1279195#msg1279195
"1) New Intro Box, with the small possibility of the old box reprinted in the interim.
2) new Intro Box will be $20 with two minis and introductory game materials
3) This may not have been stated and MechCon, but should be: What we think of as the Introductory Box Set will be reworked into "BattleTech: A Game of Armored Combat" box, with price and contents comparable (but updated) to what we have now as the Introductory Box Set. So the new IBS will be something all together different (see point above)."
-
Who, I've gleaned, represent most of the market for the Box Sets, not new players. Getting 24 'Mechs for $60 is more attractive to longtime players trying to fill out their third regiment, or whatever, than a player just starting out. For them, $60 is a pretty substantial ask. Look around the industry--the trend is toward making intro products an impulse-level buy. D&D has a $20 starter, Shadowrun went to a beginner box and an advanced box, Warmachine has a $40 starter box. Even GW tried to make Age of Sigmar accessible by releasing (very short) basic rules for free.
Well, there might be other factors in why the box is preferred by old rather than new players.
But if other games are offering cheaper alternatives, BT should certainly follow suit.
Ding ding ding. This is why I said upthread that my intent would not be to simply kill CBT and say AS is the sole BT system now. AS no longer what it was originally intended to be--and probably never was that, I'm learning--and it's an imperfect vehicle to "save" BT.
AS has essentially become just a faster horse. What we need is a car.
...
What I've been pondering on my commutes all week is how to create a BT game that's "hookier" than what we have now, takes less time on average to play, but is deep enough ("deep" not meaning thousands of pages of rules!) to maintain players' interest AND is financially successful.
Well from what I can gather, CGL doesn't solicit outside ideas as far as board game design goes. So even if someone in the community had a great set of rules, it's still up to someone within CGL to design that new streamlined version.
-
I agree that the game appears to be addicted to this model. Not sure it has to be that way though. I would've thought there was enough material in the setting to explore without rewriting it every few years.
Such as?
-
As a new TT player, i think $60 for the introbox is the perfect price. Its not too steep. May have $20 expansions, but thats a great price. It has a ton of mini's, nice thick maps, and rules. $60 is less than most PS3 or Xbone or PC games on release. Most board games in the larger boxes are over $60 and they sell like hot cakes!
My problem was after buying the intro boxset, the alpha strike boosters for $20 had 2 mechs I already had and then 2 new ones. Have the booster packs have all new mech or additional that you didnt have before. If I want doubles I can buy a second intro boxset.
-
Side note, but is the constant timeline evolution really necessary? I mean Star Wars has been Star Wars for the last 40 years. The core rebels vs empire paradigm hasn't changed much in all that time. Warhammer 40k is almost as old as BTech but it's still basically "space marines kill stuff". Whereas I stop following BTech for 5 years and I have no clue what's going on.
So if the intro box is going to rewrite the rules, I'd recommend also resetting the clock. Pick the most popular timeframe and stick with it for the main game. House v House? Clan v IS? Let other periods be explored in supplements.
I think the evolving Timeline is one of the few things that Battletech has going for it. It has worked for other games in the past, such as the CCG Legend of the 5 Rings where AEG both evolved the story and allowed tournament results in part determine how the story is moving. The problem I think is that the base game and the current era are not in sync. The Intro box is 3025, Total Warfare is Civil-war/Jihad era and the actual story is 50-60 years later.
-
One last note: some folks have started to conflate the idea of "faster" rules with "simpler" rules, and I don't think that's quite right. Sure, BT would be faster if you reduced, say, all weapons fire from one side to a single roll. That's an extreme, but the point is that I actually don't think a super-simplified game would be any more effective in keeping players' interest than an unnecessarily complex one.
What I've been pondering on my commutes all week is how to create a BT game that's "hookier" than what we have now, takes less time on average to play, but is deep enough ("deep" not meaning thousands of pages of rules!) to maintain players' interest AND is financially successful.
Crass as it sounds, I'd settle for just the last thing. Let Chess be the perfect "minutes to learn, lifetime to master" game. I'd settle for a BattleTech line that's financially viable.
As an introduction, or as a replacement? As was said upthread, MWDA ticks lot of those boxes, and (I am told) was a pretty decent game. That makes it a product worth selling, but then I have to ask: What counts as promoting/growing/saving battletech? A new, streamlined game could carry on the Universe, but if you actually enjoy the "classic" game, you are instead being presented a shiny new toy, rather than a new gadget to enhance the old one.
I am asking as an honest question, and I expect the answer to be different for different people: Are you aiming to promote the game (meaning the existing board game) or the Universe / feel? It may be that at some point the old board game will no longer be fiscally viable, and CGL won't be able to sustain it, but helping CGL and helping Battletech (the board game) are different goals. Both are worthy, but they are not equivalent. The path to satisfying both of them may diverge substantially at some point.
Obviously, CGL needs to keep itself solvent to do anything at all, but I think it's worth keeping the distinction in mind.
Anyway, this is starting to drift away from the main topic. I'm all for a streamlined new boxed set to draw in the marks. I'll do what I can to help it happen, but, in my position, that mostly adds up to buying Catalyst products to keep them in business in the mean time.
-
I have always wanted the story to go on, as fed up as a I get with aspects (kill the small factions!), the universe is what I enjoy. Its why I am happy to see novels come back even if its only one so far though the digital releases have been great.
I think it is important if they go forward with AS to remember the 'backwards-portability' for those of us still playing Classic.
-
I find the reality that even the fans here can't reach any form of concensus telling.
"CGL should do more" is, I suppose, a consensus, but there's too many fracture lines in the opinions expressed here on what that "more" should be.
-
Aiming high doesn't necessarily mean aiming for high quality.
Nice strawman.
However, aiming high - in any or all of the areas you've chosen to highlight - doesn't mean achieving high. Plenty of evidence CGL is aiming high where they think they can achieve. Extent of achievement - that's something each of us has opinions on, which is how it works. To quote the ITIL guide (hey, fellow IT people!) "value is determined by the customer", and quite rightly.
-
Nice strawman.
To quote the ITIL guide (hey, fellow IT people!) "value is determined by the customer", and quite rightly.
Well I just broke out in hives
-
I find the reality that even the fans here can't reach any form of concensus telling.
"CGL should do more" is, I suppose, a consensus, but there's too many fracture lines in the opinions expressed here on what that "more" should be.
A highly parochial audience, encouraged by tptb to be parochial (whatever works at your table), is going to have a wide variance of concerns, needs, and wants. Especially when there are so few of us who post here regularly enough to form any representative consensus on those opinions. I voice my concerns here and generally show appreciation with my wallet. Ultimately it's up to CGL to sort though the noise and make decisions. But my, or anyone else's, thoughts won't be heard if they're not expressed - cacophonous or otherwise.
-
Thinking about it more I think it would be good to have a $60 standard boxset as before, hopefully with new mini's + an actual intro boxset that has 8 minis (1 lance each side) that is balanced and a paper map + intro rules for AS. That way you have a smaller point of entry and have 4 mechs per side, balanced well out. Quicker rules. IF they like it, there can be a link to CBT intro rule set.
-
I find the reality that even the fans here can't reach any form of concensus telling.
"CGL should do more" is, I suppose, a consensus, but there's too many fracture lines in the opinions expressed here on what that "more" should be.
Well, between what Sartis laid out and the fact we do not have any sort of narrow focus in the OP there are several conversations going on.
-
I find the reality that even the fans here can't reach any form of concensus telling.
"CGL should do more" is, I suppose, a consensus, but there's too many fracture lines in the opinions expressed here on what that "more" should be.
Actually, for all my speculation in this thread, I'm actually pretty content with the Battletech goodies they've been handing me over the years.
I may be atypical. ::)
-
Well, between what Sartis laid out and the fact we do not have any sort of narrow focus in the OP there are several conversations going on.
And to be sure I'm monitoring the conversation for further "upsetted-off" outbreaks and generally don't have a problem with the varying lines of conversation. They continually link back to the OP inquiry as anything Catalyst wants to do to boost BT revenue revolves around box set availability of some kind. So I guess regard that as officially approved as on topic, natural conversation for the thread.
-
True, what I was meaning is that if we had a question of 'What do you think needs to be in a $20/25 Intro Box' vs 'Should intro boxes have maps?' is part of why we have a variety of answers.
-
I find the reality that even the fans here can't reach any form of concensus telling.
"CGL should do more" is, I suppose, a consensus, but there's too many fracture lines in the opinions expressed here on what that "more" should be.
Consensus comes through the course of discussion, the fact that players have varied opinions when they enter into a discussion should be fairly normal.
Nice strawman.
However, aiming high - in any or all of the areas you've chosen to highlight - doesn't mean achieving high. Plenty of evidence CGL is aiming high where they think they can achieve. Extent of achievement - that's something each of us has opinions on, which is how it works. To quote the ITIL guide (hey, fellow IT people!) "value is determined by the customer", and quite rightly.
Clarifying my point doesn't make it a strawman, the fact that I have advocated less quality in the boxset (cardboard counters) earlier in this thread is consistent with that. Also I never made any argument about achievement, so not really sure what you're responding to.
Either way I don't believe that making vague or blanket statements about what a company has or has not achieved really contributes to anything. what's more helpful is the discussion of specific examples. For example what was it about Leviathans that caused that project to fail? How can those lessons be applied to the battletech line. What are some of the strengths of the line, what are some of its weaknesses. Current availability of the boxset is a weakness, some have said that the price is a weakness as well, others have argued that it's good value. Etcetera
-
True, what I was meaning is that if we had a question of 'What do you think needs to be in a $20/25 Intro Box' vs 'Should intro boxes have maps?' is part of why we have a variety of answers.
Two paper maps, an Enforcer and a Hunchback. Intro to the Universe book from the old Intro box set, Quick Start rules. Quick Start record sheets for a handful of 'Mechs besides those two, to give you a feel for other 'Mechs, and encourage you to step up to other products, including the classic box set.
-
I find the reality that even the fans here can't reach any form of concensus telling.
"CGL should do more" is, I suppose, a consensus, but there's too many fracture lines in the opinions expressed here on what that "more" should be.
I think that is the case with most fandoms, though. I can only speak from my own experience, but if you get a group of fifteen Transformers nerds together and ask them what the worst version of the franchise is, you will get nineteen different variations on how such-and-such RUINED EVERYTHING FOREVER.
It may be helpful to start back at the beginning. We are all here because we enjoy this game. Most of us have invested significant amounts of time and money into it. It would be foolish to deny that the game is not as popular as many of the titles that are often framed as competitors, though. 40K is more popular. Flames of War is more popular. X-Wing is more popular. So what is the deal? What needs to be done to make Battletech more financially viable?
You will never convince me that the rules aren't too complicated. But that's me. I recognize that a lot of existing fans really like the rules as they are and I do not, despite appearances, want to deny those fans the game they enjoy. Looking at competing games, though, I (personally) have to believe that that complication is (at least) part of it. What is the solution? I don't know. I would say that someone at CGL might take a look at reframing Total Warfare as Advanced Battletech and reworking the most basic, introductory rules to cut away some of the detail. Do we really need so many target and movement modifiers for a basic-level game? I would say no, but that decision isn't mine to make.
Coming back around to the point of this topic, though, one thing that DEFINITELY needs to happen is better options for introducing new players to the game with, or without, a rules change. We need an Intro Box. Would it hurt to have a more basic, $20 Super Intro Set that comes with stripped down rules, a fold up paper map, and a lot of cardboard counters? I don't think it would. I understand that not everyone sees it that way, though. I understand that a lot of people see 'cardboard counters' and think 'cheap'.
One question that we have to ask, though, is whether or not the plastic minis that came with the last box set say something other than cheap. Are they nice minis? Heck yeah. I love them. How much of that has to do with the actual minis, though? And how much of it is nostalgia? Do potential players look at our Intro minis and see the improvements that we do? Or do they see the 'future of the 80's, guy in a cardboard box suit of armor' that a lot of the 3025 designs look like (if I'm being honest)?
What about focus groups? Is that a thing that business do anymore? I realize that they cost money, but... would it be a viable option?
-
One question that we have to ask, though, is whether or not the plastic minis that came with the last box set say something other than cheap. Are they nice minis? Heck yeah. I love them. How much of that has to do with the actual minis, though? And how much of it is nostalgia? Do potential players look at our Intro minis and see the improvements that we do? Or do they see the 'future of the 80's, guy in a cardboard box suit of armor' that a lot of the 3025 designs look like (if I'm being honest)?
What about focus groups? Is that a thing that business do anymore? I realize that they cost money, but... would it be a viable option?
I don't think you need focus groups for a game this size, just outside playtesters. You can even pretend that it's a brand new game, strip off the labels, give it to a group of people who never played battletech (or a group that's never played games), allow them to learn the rules on their own, and see what feedback they give.
-
Why should an introductory box be attractive to old players? Isn't that the core of the problem that the box is having now? That it's not getting into the hands of the desired audience, new players, and expanding the player base?
I remember when the last Box Set came out, several people were whining that they didn't get one, because other people had bought 2-3 copies of it. ::) Some were "Old" players doing the whining also, while some were "New". I guess CGL getting money is a "Bad Thing" unless certain people are allowed to give it to them? ;D
I was one of MANY that took advantage of the BattleShop deal, where you buy 2 Box Sets (for a slight discount I think?), and you got a 3rd set of the minis for free. Sure, I've got all the other Box Sets, but I wanted to support CGL. I guess now I'm somehow a "Thief" of some sort, because I was "Greedy" and bought 2 of the Box Sets for myself? ::)
I can remember "Back In the Day", when you could always find a Box Set (2nd or 3rd Edition) on the shelves, but that was many years ago, and things have changed Considerably since then. As others have said, CGL is doing what they can, and I'm sure everyone from Randall on down WANTS a new Box Set in stores ALL the Time. As frustrating as it is for us Fans, it's Probably MORE so for Randall and the gang. :-\
-
Coming back around to the point of this topic, though, one thing that DEFINITELY needs to happen is better options for introducing new players to the game with, or without, a rules change. We need an Intro Box. Would it hurt to have a more basic, $20 Super Intro Set that comes with stripped down rules, a fold up paper map, and a lot of cardboard counters? I don't think it would. I understand that not everyone sees it that way, though. I understand that a lot of people see 'cardboard counters' and think 'cheap'.
I think this might have been mentioned upstream before, but has anyone looked at Paizo's Bestiary Boxes? It's about $45, you get over 300 pawns, with nice art, you get *at least* one of every monster in the Bestiary of "Huge" size or smaller and then 35 bases to mount them on. (They only expect you to use what you need, not mount all of them.)
Heck, look at the Arkham line of games from FFG. All the investigators are just thick cardboard pawns.
Key here is not to call them "Counters" but "Pawns".
-
I see Scythe goes for $90, Abaddon for about $30, Weta's GKR Heavy Hitters box set requires $99 on Kickstarter, it's about $30-50 for the Hawken card game sets, so there's a range of price points. Not sure it's a question of price so much as perceived value for money.
-
I remember when the last Box Set came out, several people were whining that they didn't get one, because other people had bought 2-3 copies of it. ::) Some were "Old" players doing the whining also, while some were "New". I guess CGL getting money is a "Bad Thing" unless certain people are allowed to give it to them? ;D
I was one of MANY that took advantage of the BattleShop deal, where you buy 2 Box Sets (for a slight discount I think?), and you got a 3rd set of the minis for free. Sure, I've got all the other Box Sets, but I wanted to support CGL. I guess now I'm somehow a "Thief" of some sort, because I was "Greedy" and bought 2 of the Box Sets for myself? ::)
I can remember "Back In the Day", when you could always find a Box Set (2nd or 3rd Edition) on the shelves, but that was many years ago, and things have changed Considerably since then. As others have said, CGL is doing what they can, and I'm sure everyone from Randall on down WANTS a new Box Set in stores ALL the Time. As frustrating as it is for us Fans, it's Probably MORE so for Randall and the gang. :-\
I don't blame anyone for buying the boxed set. If the product is good value to you, spend your money. I do scratch my head at people buying six of them, but ultimately the product would be the thing to blame. My thought was more if new players are having a hard time getting their hands on it, and the box is particularly attractive to existing players, then maybe the product itself should be re-tooled. If they're just making it, to sell it, then mission accomplished. But if it's made to introduce new players then maybe it's missing the mark.
As other people have mentioned there's a new starter set allegedly in the works which may address many of the perceived issues.
-
I find the reality that even the fans here can't reach any form of concensus telling.
"CGL should do more" is, I suppose, a consensus, but there's too many fracture lines in the opinions expressed here on what that "more" should be.
It depends.
The game - as it is - works. It works well. The fact it has lasted so long with minimal changes shows this.
But at the same time, it doesn't seem to be bringing in many players and it is surviving on the backs of the Old Guard. Tastes have changed and the current gaming crowd appears more casual and more fickle. MWDA was a good game...but I think the RNG nature of the sets worked against it to a degree. Sure, there was the excitement of seeing what you got, but people also like to know what they are buying.
Part of expanding BattleTech is having a gateway into the game. In todays market - that does mean a ready to play set with simple rules and flashy visuals - aka minis. It means engaging players imaginations. It means having bad guys and good guys.
Getting rid of the Jaguars was, from this point of view, a mistake. Love them or loathe them, whether you think they were painted too simplistically, too black and white, handed the stupid stick or whatever, the problem is that they served a purpose within the game. They were "Bad Guys". They could be resurrected of course but could they fulfil the same role?
Could the rules do with simplification? For an introductory set? Yes. The game is, in many ways, too slow. Part of this is with the nature of the games....crit seeking with multiple low damage weapons?
For my part, I understand this. I prefer playing the Clans. Why? It isn't just that I like trying to put myself in an alien mindset - it's that the games are quicker. I like the high Tech and lethality of Clan weapons, I like the different feel that brings to the faction. And I like that the Clans are evolving into the faction with quirky vehicles and units. I'm waiting now for Improved QuadVees and Vectored Thrust HoverTanks from the Horses as they lose more and more Mech production, LAMs and ProtoLAMs from the Ravens and lets not forget a new BattleMech scale Horse - a Battlerider - for ProtoMechs to control ride into battle.
Crit seeking has it's place....but to get players into the game, that means that the game probably has to become more lethal. Quicker. Especially for a starter set. And it likely means you'd have to rejig rules surrounding aspects such as heat management, and C3 networks. The game works, but for todays market, it is slow.
But again - how would that affect existing players?
The Starter set from what I understand was great....except for its cost. 24 minis allowed players to set up a playing field and get stuck in straight away. But many established players also saw it as a cheap source of minis. And while that is great, it also meant those sets didn't do what they were supposed to. Act as a gateway into the game.
What can be done?
Well, a starter set does need minis. The number and type depend on what you want from the set. There are argument for one on one and Lance on Lance and Star on Lance or combined arms or whatever.....
Personally....any new Starter Set should be priced accordingly. There are games these days whose starter sets sell for far more than the price asked for by CGL. Yes - some of those are extortionate, but people still seem to pay.
I think the models should reflect that price point. More DA style minis instead of the existing models. That way, you can get away with fewer minis, but still have a visually appealing game as well. Especially if you went the DA combined arms approach and included infantry, battlearmour and vehicles as well. The units chosen should be simple, with few weapons or critseekers, no need for major heat management and no tech which slows play down too much
A universe guide is a good addition, and should be kept. Emphasising the factions and their differences would also be an idea. Homogenity is simple, but differences provide flavour and identity. Factions should tend to have unique Mechs and vehicles of their own designs. The rules - especially for a starter set - should be simplified. Record sheets and lookup charts should be colourful and eye catching. Aspects such as determining LOS, range modifiers, etc should be looked at...
But again....all of this costs money. Requires investment. And may not pan out. Starter sets should not be structured to appeal to established player to the point they are willing to buy 5 or 6 sets for cheap minis.....but neither can they be so expensive that new players can't join in. Maybe the Starter Set should include minis for training Mechs such as a Chameleon rather than a battlefield unit. Or a different scale than the advanced game. Should the game go for a BF2 or Alpha Strike style rules, keep the existing set or move them into an Advanced/Duelling style game?
-
You will never convince me that the rules aren't too complicated. But that's me. I recognize that a lot of existing fans really like the rules as they are and I do not, despite appearances, want to deny those fans the game they enjoy. Looking at competing games, though, I (personally) have to believe that that complication is (at least) part of it. What is the solution? I don't know. I would say that someone at CGL might take a look at reframing Total Warfare as Advanced Battletech and reworking the most basic, introductory rules to cut away some of the detail. Do we really need so many target and movement modifiers for a basic-level game? I would say no, but that decision isn't mine to make.
To be honest, I really miss Levels. I've been thinking about it for a year or two now... Total Warfare is an awesome product and series, but it's impossible for one edition to "do everything." In the case of Total Warfare, it does a terrific job of bringing everything under "one roof": it integrates Aerotech and CityTech and infantry and artillery and Maximum Tech and Battlemechs and campaigns and tournament rules and...
It's basically the universal theory of Battletech—a Rosetta Stone for all those different rules and expansions and spinoffs and supplements and systems that have accumulated over the years. It is perfect for vets looking for a consistent, coherent one-stop shop, but it's not great for new players or for casual players. That's what Levels used to do... Level 1 was just the starter box, Level 2 was tournament rules and the master rulebook, Level 3 was experimental, optional stuff. Total Warfare had to drop Levels (they didn't make sense with TW's "kitchen sink" approach). But Levels were really good for new players and people that just play casually with family and friends.
Does anyone else really miss Levels? I know that it would contradict the TW approach, and I really want the TW approach to continue to be available (and Alpha Strike, for that matter), but it would be great to have a "Basic Battletech" as well. Half the modifiers, a quarter of the options, but still the same rules at the end of the day.
But I agree with everyone else. Ultimately, what I really want is for BTech to stay in print (including a box set!). Catalyst has done an amazing job with Battletech and my suggestions are really just over minor details. Sometimes the echobox of the internet can make our heartfelt applause for CGL sound like boos and jeers, but really we are so passionate about the future of Battletech because CGL has inspired us to be so invested and committed to it.
-
*with apologies for the cascade of quotes and replies....*
I don't think you need focus groups for a game this size, just outside playtesters.
Playtesters is probably what I should have said instead of focus groups. Again, my complete absence of of game designing experience should not surprise anyone at this point.
I guess now I'm somehow a "Thief" of some sort, because I was "Greedy" and bought 2 of the Box Sets for myself? ::)
[copper] Moderator hat time... lets not go down the path of accusing people of being 'thieves' or accusing people or accusing people of being 'thieves'. Thanks, guys. [copper]
I think this might have been mentioned upstream before, but has anyone looked at Paizo's Bestiary Boxes?
That sounds awesome. I'm going to take a look at that.
I see Scythe goes for $90, Abaddon for about $30, Weta's GKR Heavy Hitters box set requires $99 on Kickstarter, it's about $30-50 for the Hawken card game sets, so there's a range of price points. Not sure it's a question of price so much as perceived value for money.
That comes back around to 'what is Battletech?' If Battletech wants to be a relatively closed system like Abaddon and Scythe (as I understand them to be), then yeah, a $60 box set is a great price point. If Battletech wants to be an infinitely expanding and customizable tabletop mini game, where 90% of the available miniatures are not available in the basic box, is that still a good deal?
Does anyone else really miss Levels?
Yes. I do, at least.
What about this? What about a $20 option that basically presents the Quick-Start Rules as a physical purchase? An actual book, a folded paper map (or maps), and some cardboard-mounted counters (pawns?) for mechs, vees, and infantry.
It scratches the basic Battletech itch. It is the same game, but reduces a ton of record keeping. Far fewer modifiers, no heat scale on the record sheets, and a very limited-scope introduction to the universe of Battletech.
-
*What about this? What about a $20 option that basically presents the Quick-Start Rules as a physical purchase? An actual book, a folded paper map (or maps), and some cardboard-mounted counters (pawns?) for mechs, vees, and infantry.
It scratches the basic Battletech itch. It is the same game, but reduces a ton of record keeping. Far fewer modifiers, no heat scale on the record sheets, and a very limited-scope introduction to the universe of Battletech.
It sounds good, but it comes down to the same problem....
To attract the gamers to today, it looks like some minis needs to be included. Would cardboard cut outs - no matter what the quality, appeal? Even Monopoly has its figures.
-
That comes back around to 'what is Battletech?' If Battletech wants to be a relatively closed system like Abaddon and Scythe (as I understand them to be), then yeah, a $60 box set is a great price point. If Battletech wants to be an infinitely expanding and customizable tabletop mini game, where 90% of the available miniatures are not available in the basic box, is that still a good deal?
Not sure I follow your line of thinking there my friend, or how it connects to my point about perceived value for money. Maybe I'm explaining it wrong:
Consumers are evidently prepared to pay north of 60 bucks for a tabletop game. To me, that suggests that it is not the price in and of itself which should be the determining factor of what goes into the intro box, but whether the content of the box is attractive to consumers.
Now, as to whether or not the intro box should be a self contained game or not, my vote is yes. For 20, 40, 60 or 90 dollars or whatever, players should get everything they need to play the game. All other rules, miniatures, setting sourcebooks should absolutely not be required. Whether or not to expand should be up to the player.
-
It sounds good, but it comes down to the same problem....
To attract the gamers to today, it looks like some minis needs to be included. Would cardboard cut outs - no matter what the quality, appeal? Even Monopoly has its figures.
Eldritch Horror, Arkham Horror, and Dead of Winter would like to have a word with you...
(Seriously, the Dead of Winter pawns are great.)
To attract the gamers today, solid gameplay is needed.
-
What about this? What about a $20 option that basically presents the Quick-Start Rules as a physical purchase? An actual book, a folded paper map (or maps), and some cardboard-mounted counters (pawns?) for mechs, vees, and infantry.
It scratches the basic Battletech itch. It is the same game, but reduces a ton of record keeping. Far fewer modifiers, no heat scale on the record sheets, and a very limited-scope introduction to the universe of Battletech.
I also like that idea, but I think I agree that it does need plastic minis. Those minis are an instant sell for me and probably a lot of new players as well. The most recent plastics (the Intro Box and the 8 lance packs) are awesome and I picked up all of them (and am eager to buy more if new models come out!).
But the intro box doesn't absolutely need 24 models... it could do fine with just eight. And just 'Mechs in the intro rules... no need to include vehicles, infantry etc. The core game will always be about big stompy 'Mechs battling it out.
As for making the game quicker, perhaps set the intro box in 3050 so you can use Clans vs Inner Sphere. As Talen5000 said, Clan tech speeds up the game massively because it is much more deady. A lot of the time spent in a Battletech game is not in movement and maneuver (one of the most visually dynamic parts of the game), but in dicing for attacks and damage. If you make attacks more effective, you go a long way to fighting that sinking feeling that "nothing" has happened in the past 45 minutes of gameplay.
-
But the intro box doesn't absolutely need 24 models... it could do fine with just eight. And just 'Mechs in the intro rules... no need to include vehicles, infantry etc. The core game will always be about big stompy 'Mechs battling it out.
Yes....8. Or maybe include a Clan Star for advanced 8 vs 5 play. But such a set could get away with 8.
I would also recommend that any such minis be available separately, for a "reasonable" price so the boxed sets themselves aren't snapped up.
As for making the game quicker, perhaps set the intro box in 3050 so you can use Clans vs Inner Sphere. As Talen5000 said, Clan tech speeds up the game massively because it is much more deady. A lot of the time spent in a Battletech game is not in movement and maneuver (one of the most visually dynamic parts of the game), but in dicing for attacks and damage. If you make attacks more effective, you go a long way to fighting that sinking feeling that "nothing" has happened in the past 45 minutes of gameplay.
Maybe. But there could also be more accessories added to the box. Good quality cardboard mapsheets. Instead of movement dice, how about some sort of movement counter? How about a range meter marked to allow you to get the range in hexes?
Rules? Rules can be - and probably should be - simplified and the 'Mechs chosen - or designed specifically for the set - should have a limited number of weapons, limited armour, limited availability of certain technologies. It may even be worthwhile to adjust some of the basics - setting a Level 1 at 12m high instead of 6 would remove some LOS complexities for example.
Players will pay for a starter set of quality....but I think they'd expect a visually appealing game, one that isn't bogged down too much by rules or feels dragged out.
-
I think the number of miniatures in a boxset is less important than the price per miniature. 24 for 60 bucks is 2.50/mini, 12 for 60 bucks is 5, 8 for 60 is 7.5. That's still decent value, it's cheaper than say 11 dollars per mini for a pewter lance pack from IWM, but it might be less attractive for some players. Now what about the new players, well, if the boxset has other value, like more maps or counters, then the new players still get the value while the veterans maybe pick it up the box or maybe look elsewhere to expand their collection.
-
Eldritch Horror, Arkham Horror, and Dead of Winter would like to have a word with you...
(Seriously, the Dead of Winter pawns are great.)
To attract the gamers today, solid gameplay is needed.
Yeah, cardboard is perfectly acceptable, but it has to be high quality with something like a linen finish and good rounded edges in the cut out. I could see a box set having good quality cardboard pieces combined with a limited set of (also good quality and popular) miniatures.
Make em new-seen and do some combined arms stuff (on cardboard) with them and perhaps you have a winner.
-
Make em new-seen and do some combined arms stuff (on cardboard) with them and perhaps you have a winner.
+100 for this comment as well.
I don't know if it's just nostalgia, but you know I like Vindicators, I like Enforcers, Banshee's cool, but still the original 16 Mechs are king to me. Warhammers, Marauders, Archers, Phoenix Hawk, Shadow Hawk, etcetera. The Stinger and Wasp, less so- but the Locust, or mediums and heavies for sure.
Those newseen mechs also benefit from a modern re-design that may be more visually appealing to the new-to-Battletech gamer.
-
I hope that any new box sets take a good look at volume.
Because stores have to take into account the ratio between value and volume.
-
Yes....8. Or maybe include a Clan Star for advanced 8 vs 5 play. But such a set could get away with 8.
8 IS Mechs: 2 each Light, Medium, Heavy, & Assault?
5 Clan: 1 Light, 3 Medium, & 1 Heavy?
It'll show the sheer power difference between the two groups, while letting the Clan players know there are heavier Mechs that they don't have access to (yet).
You could have additional sheets for some of the different Clan Mechs (3 Light, 10 Medium, 3 Heavy), to whet people's appetites for more. Make the Clan Mechs the duel designs rather than pure optimized designs to reflect the Clan philosophy.
For the actual Inner Sphere 3D models, a sneaky way to pick them would be using the Mechs that were produced in the largest numbers in 3025. Just make sure the designs are sufficiently different in appearance (so if you include the Phoenix Hawk, you wouldn't use the Wasp or Stinger Mechs).
I would also recommend that any such minis be available separately, for a "reasonable" price so the boxed sets themselves aren't snapped up.
Make sure the boxed sets aren't loss leaders, and it would help out. It also lets current players give the rules away to new players so they can read over the rules while playing, instead of people passing around a single copy. Buying extra minis would still be an option in case the players want those.
Maybe. But there could also be more accessories added to the box. Good quality cardboard mapsheets. Instead of movement dice, how about some sort of movement counter? How about a range meter marked to allow you to get the range in hexes?
Range meter can be similar to the blue stick from Battlefleet Gothic (little more than a centimeter ruler for ~45 cm), or just a piece of measuring tape (similar to the cloth rulers used in sewing kits). The second would be better, as it doesn't impose a minimum box size.
Rules? Rules can be - and probably should be - simplified and the 'Mechs chosen - or designed specifically for the set - should have a limited number of weapons, limited armour, limited availability of certain technologies. It may even be worthwhile to adjust some of the basics - setting a Level 1 at 12m high instead of 6 would remove some LOS complexities for example.
Mechs have the 3D models, but make tanks and infantry be cardboard counters? This lets the players know which items are the key units on a battlefield.
The other idea would be putting as few 6 m level stuff. 12m forests and buildings would be a good basic ideas. Also include what would be the closest railroad scale for the battlefield (so players can get more terrain options).
-
8 IS Mechs: 2 each Light, Medium, Heavy, & Assault?
5 Clan: 1 Light, 3 Medium, & 1 Heavy?
It'll show the sheer power difference between the two groups, while letting the Clan players know there are heavier Mechs that they don't have access to (yet).
This would work. Ideally, I'd like the idea of the included minis being a set of shrunken down DA type models. Of course, that probably isn't realistic given the cost and investment needed.
You could have additional sheets for some of the different Clan Mechs (3 Light, 10 Medium, 3 Heavy), to whet people's appetites for more. Make the Clan Mechs the duel designs rather than pure optimized designs to reflect the Clan philosophy.
No - probably best to simply include adverts for new Mechs rather than new record Sheets. For Clan Mechs, you could make them Omnis and include a couple more different configurations but if you give the IS 8 Mechs, those should be standard fixed designs.
For the actual Inner Sphere 3D models, a sneaky way to pick them would be using the Mechs that were produced in the largest numbers in 3025. Just make sure the designs are sufficiently different in appearance (so if you include the Phoenix Hawk, you wouldn't use the Wasp or Stinger Mechs).
I'd recommend fleshing out two factions...say, Davion and Kurita...rather than generic Mechs. Of course, the danger here is that players will prefer whatever factions are in the set and see everyone else as also rans. But then, you could sell <<House Sets>> as XPacs.
Range meter can be similar to the blue stick from Battlefleet Gothic (little more than a centimeter ruler for ~45 cm), or just a piece of measuring tape (similar to the cloth rulers used in sewing kits). The second would be better, as it doesn't impose a minimum box size.
You're going to get a minimum size anyway if you include mapsheets. And maybe some sort of foldable stick for the range counter?
Mechs have the 3D models, but make tanks and infantry be cardboard counters? This lets the players know which items are the key units on a battlefield.
Probably a good idea to limit starter sets to Mech on Mech and ignore other vehicle types for the most part. Add in a few cards for aspects like artillery strikes and strafing runs....each players gets 3 cards per game, and can play them at any time. Clans get ASF support and orbital strikes, Davion and Kurita gets artillery and minefields. That way you get to introduce players to the idea but keep the rules simple...just follow the instructions on the card.
-
How about a range meter marked to allow you to get the range in hexes?
This does not work with hexes, as it quickly breaks down and skews ranges quite quickly.
-
This does not work with hexes, as it quickly breaks down and skews ranges quite quickly.
Which is not quite the same as saying such an addition would be wrong for a starter set, especially if there was an interest in speeding gameplay up or making it more "exciting".
I know several players who don't mind using such range markers but aren't that happy at counting hexes, especially when they come across players who count hexes to every target seeking the optimum shot to maximise their damage output.
As it is, I'm not saying it's a good idea. Or a bad idea....just that I think that the playing speed of the game seems to be too slow to catch the attention of causal players today. For a starter set, for an introductory set, for something to just expose players to the setting and basic gameplay, there is - I think - an argument that some liberties can be taken with the existing rules with an eye to speeding things up. Its not like this hasn't been done before - starter games tend to do away with issues such as the heat scale.
-
Which is not quite the same as saying such an addition would be wrong for a starter set, especially if there was an interest in speeding gameplay up or making it more "exciting".
I know several players who don't mind using such range markers but aren't that happy at counting hexes, especially when they come across players who count hexes to every target seeking the optimum shot to maximise their damage output.
As it is, I'm not saying it's a good idea. Or a bad idea....just that I think that the playing speed of the game seems to be too slow to catch the attention of causal players today. For a starter set, for an introductory set, for something to just expose players to the setting and basic gameplay, there is - I think - an argument that some liberties can be taken with the existing rules with an eye to speeding things up. Its not like this hasn't been done before - starter games tend to do away with issues such as the heat scale.
Except, as I pointed out, it very quickly breaks down, and only works accurately straight down the 6 hex faces. At range 12 (as you can see in my diagram) you could mistakenly target someone at 14 hexes out who would not otherwise be in the appropriate range category.
This also does not address what exactly are the markings on the range finder? You cannot mark it SHORT/MEDIUM/LONG, as this varies for the weapon system. A Machine Gun is 1 hex short, 2 hexes medium, and 3 hexes long, but an ER PPC is 7 hexes short, 14 hexes medium, and 23 hexes long (which using a 'range-finder' reaches out to 26 hexes in some areas).
Inclusion of a range finder in any game that uses any sort of grid (square or hex) will ultimately cause issues as people who use the range finder will find it quickly skews and then come back to be a blemish on the company that uses it. Such devices only work in games that have no preasigned playspace like Warhammer, Mar Machines, or ALPHA STRIKE.
-
Except, as I pointed out, it very quickly breaks down, and only works accurately straight down the 6 hex faces. At range 12 (as you can see in my diagram) you could mistakenly target someone at 14 hexes out who would not otherwise be in the appropriate range category.
This also does not address what exactly are the markings on the range finder? You cannot mark it SHORT/MEDIUM/LONG, as this varies for the weapon system. A Machine Gun is 1 hex short, 2 hexes medium, and 3 hexes long, but an ER PPC is 7 hexes short, 14 hexes medium, and 23 hexes long (which using a 'range-finder' reaches out to 26 hexes in some areas).
You can mark it 1 hex of range, 2 hexes of range, 3 hexes of range and so on.
You can also mark it as 1 inch of range, 2 inches of ranges, 3 inches of range and so on.
You seem very wedded to the concept of "hexes" but all hexes are are a simple way to measure things. The hex is a gameplay aid, and there isn't any special reason to keep it in a starter set if there is a better way.
The only thing that matters is - would such an aid speed up gameplay and make it more visually appealing to a starter audience? Other games use such a system and there is no law stating that a BattleTech game must only be run with ranges measured in hexes.
So - yes. It would get out of sync with counting hexes...because hexes aren't the same distance in all directions. One axis is longer than the other. OTOH, if you were playing a mini game without a mapsheet, then you'd be measuring the range in inches.
To put it another way - in a starter game set, would it be quicker to count out all the hexed between the firing Mech and all of its targets, or put down a stick and rotate it and at the same time clearly determine the hexes for LOS purposes?
I don't really think the fact it goes out of sync with the actual hex count matters. "Accuracy", for me, isn't an issue when what is 30 hexes in one direction might be the same as 40 in another.
-
If the player numbers, and hence sales, really are dire, then I feel that arguing about number or type of minis or whether to include a range finder is like arguing about the color of lifejackets on the Titanic. Surely there are more fundamental issues with the game and intro box?
-
I hope that any new box sets take a good look at volume.
Because stores have to take into account the ratio between value and volume.
Absolutely true. And this (to me) is why the "problem" with veterans buying a lot of sets would seem like...a good thing? :)
A means to an end of keeping the box on shelves...as long as a sufficiently large production run can be accomplished in the first place.
-
Absolutely true. And this (to me) is why the "problem" with veterans buying a lot of sets would seem like...a good thing? :)
A means to an end of keeping the box on shelves...as long as a sufficiently large production run can be accomplished in the first place.
Veterans buying the box set is good.
It is very good
What is bad is that it also means the box set is not ending up in the hands of its target audience. People who have never played the game before. People who are returning after a long time away.
The Box Set was - as I understand it - intended to be a gateway in to the game. However, it appears many sets were snapped up by veterans looking for cheap minis.
Hence why there is a focus on this talk of how to make the box set attractive to new players - by, for example, including minis - without making it so attractive to existing players that the box sets are snapped up.
It has been suggested, for example, that the box set does not need so many minis. 8 IS Mechs, and a Star of Clan Mechs seems like a decent mix, especially if you make the Clans OmniMechs and include a couple of configs.
Other suggestions have related to the visual impact of the game or suggestions whereby a starter set can bypass certain elements of the game in order to speed it up, potentially making it more appealing to todays more casual gamer.
I feel the game itself has a lot to offer....but it is often overlooked because it is old, it has a reputation for being slow, it can look too maths based, there is too much looking up books and tables, it doesn't look exciting enough and so on. True or false, the game has a rep and a big barrier to entry with over 30 years of production behind it.
-
The number of miniatures in the box set should depend upon what type of game we expect new players to do: 1vs1, 4vs4, 12vs12?
In my view/demo experience, I have mostly used 1vs1 setups and sometimes 4vs4. This leads me to think that the ideal number of miniatures is 4 Mechs (Heavies), with each having 4 house record sheets (simplified) and 1 general record sheet (simplified). The extra record sheets will keep them playing for longer and will allow players to have fun in 4vs4 (a reward for both players buying box sets).
-
You can mark it 1 hex of range, 2 hexes of range, 3 hexes of range and so on.
You can also mark it as 1 inch of range, 2 inches of ranges, 3 inches of range and so on.
You seem very wedded to the concept of "hexes" but all hexes are are a simple way to measure things. The hex is a gameplay aid, and there isn't any special reason to keep it in a starter set if there is a better way.
The only thing that matters is - would such an aid speed up gameplay and make it more visually appealing to a starter audience? Other games use such a system and there is no law stating that a BattleTech game must only be run with ranges measured in hexes.
So - yes. It would get out of sync with counting hexes...because hexes aren't the same distance in all directions. One axis is longer than the other. OTOH, if you were playing a mini game without a mapsheet, then you'd be measuring the range in inches.
To put it another way - in a starter game set, would it be quicker to count out all the hexed between the firing Mech and all of its targets, or put down a stick and rotate it and at the same time clearly determine the hexes for LOS purposes?
I don't really think the fact it goes out of sync with the actual hex count matters. "Accuracy", for me, isn't an issue when what is 30 hexes in one direction might be the same as 40 in another.
Except, 'hexes' is how the game is built and played. I am as wedded to the hex system as D&D is to the square grid, and Chess is to an 8x8 black & white game board.
Because, as I pointed out a printed map with actual hexes does not work with linear measurements. I showed you very clearly with a diagram explaining such.
With an intro box set that explains a game played on a hex board, to then give them a straight edge that starts to break down at 5 or 6 hex range by adding an additional hex to the range simply does not work.
PLAYER 1: "here, your range for a short range attack is 6 hexes, us this stick set for 6 hexes"
PLAYER 2: "OK, I shot this guy here *places stick to show in 6 hexes"
PLAYER 3 (counting the hexes): "Actually, he's not in range he's 7 hexes away"
Arguments commence on YES IT IS/NO IT ISN"T, and what a colossal waste of money the starter set is, and why the game company would put something in the game that is so obviously flawed and incorrect.
-
Veterans buying the box set is good.
It is very good
What is bad is that it also means the box set is not ending up in the hands of its target audience. People who have never played the game before. People who are returning after a long time away.
The Box Set was - as I understand it - intended to be a gateway in to the game. However, it appears many sets were snapped up by veterans looking for cheap minis.
Hence why there is a focus on this talk of how to make the box set attractive to new players - by, for example, including minis - without making it so attractive to existing players that the box sets are snapped up.
It has been suggested, for example, that the box set does not need so many minis. 8 IS Mechs, and a Star of Clan Mechs seems like a decent mix, especially if you make the Clans OmniMechs and include a couple of configs.
Other suggestions have related to the visual impact of the game or suggestions whereby a starter set can bypass certain elements of the game in order to speed it up, potentially making it more appealing to todays more casual gamer.
I feel the game itself has a lot to offer....but it is often overlooked because it is old, it has a reputation for being slow, it can look too maths based, there is too much looking up books and tables, it doesn't look exciting enough and so on. True or false, the game has a rep and a big barrier to entry with over 30 years of production behind it.
And here is an issue, I consider my, well, a veteran. I played the game since around 1984 coming out of High School when I looked at the game and thought "COOL, A ROBOTECH GAME!"
Between 1984 and around 2013-ish, I played many games, bought the PC games, bought the X-Box Mech Assault game, played in the Battletech Simulation Pods, and bought...TWO miniatures. A Marauder (Zentradi Officer's battle Pod) and a Valkerie (Armored Veritech Fighter).
in 2013, I came back to Battletech as my 'Main-Game' giving up entirely D&D (having played that game sine 1979 when it was the Basic Box set, and the Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Master's Guide were just starting to be published), selling off my WarHammer armies (Khemri and Lizard Men), and selling off my WarMachine army (Cryx - 'cause Undead Pirates Y'all!).
This meant in 2013 I had a collection of....ZERO. but I am a veteran have played for over 25 years. So which am I? Am I veteran, and so should not buy a lot of Box Sets because it's not for me? Or am I a new player because I have a collection of nothing?
Yes, I bought around 6 intro box sets (2 of the 25th Anniversary with the crappy plastics, 4 of the good plastics). And I do not think I deprived anyone locally of a box set, as I still see a few locally on game store shelves.
-
BattleTech product selling leads to more BattleTech product in stores, leads to it being available to new players. Intro Boxes selling well will do far more for helping new players than veteran players not buying intro box sets (which would cause stores to not carry product and therefore not be available any way). On top of the financial problems if CGL makes a box set that doesn't sell well.
More sales = good, less sales = bad. For veterans and new players. Don't make it complicated.
-
BattleTech product selling leads to more BattleTech product in stores, leads to it being available to new players. Intro Boxes selling well will do far more for helping new players than veteran players not buying intro box sets (which would cause stores to not carry product and therefore not be available any way). On top of the financial problems if CGL makes a box set that doesn't sell well.
More sales = good, less sales = bad. For veterans and new players. Don't make it complicated.
And to be honest, I don't see it as a major problem in and of itself. The big issue is not that veterans bought it...its that for whatever reason, probably financial, CGL haven't kept it in print.
-
Except, 'hexes' is how the game is built and played. I am as wedded to the hex system as D&D is to the square grid, and Chess is to an 8x8 black & white game board.
The game scan be played with hexes and mapsheets - or inches and an empty table. It can be played with pennies or lead minis or cardboard cutouts or large, Dark Age miniatures.
The hexes are a game aid which aids gameplay in many ways.
But a ERPPC has a range of 23 units...on mapsheets, that unit is hexes. On a table top, that unit is inches.
There is no reason the two cannot mix.
With an intro box set that explains a game played on a hex board, to then give them a straight edge that starts to break down at 5 or 6 hex range by adding an additional hex to the range simply does not work.
Presumably an intro box set would work with what is given.
"Use the hexes for movement...use the straight edge to calculate range, and if you lose the straight edge, just count hexes." is not too complicated an instruction for most players.
-
The game scan be played with hexes and mapsheets - or inches and an empty table. It can be played with pennies or lead minis or cardboard cutouts or large, Dark Age miniatures.
The hexes are a game aid which aids gameplay in many ways.
But a ERPPC has a range of 23 units...on mapsheets, that unit is hexes. On a table top, that unit is inches.
There is no reason the two cannot mix.
Presumably an intro box set would work with what is given.
"Use the hexes for movement...use the straight edge to calculate range, and if you lose the straight edge, just count hexes." is not too complicated an instruction for most players.
except.....the range is 23 hexes. If it is inches (and there are rules for it for inches) the range is not 23...it is 46 (see pages 387-388 Strategic Operations)
-
except.....the range is 23 hexes. If it is inches (and there are rules for it for inches) the range is not 23...it is 46 (see pages 387-388 Strategic Operations)
Would that really matter for an intro box?
-
And to be honest, I don't see it as a major problem in and of itself. The big issue is not that veterans bought it...its that for whatever reason, probably financial, CGL haven't kept it in print.
I think the problem is that it is priced for new players to buy and then have a certain amount of them continue to buy other products that are more profitable. It isn't doing that, so they should reconfigure it to be profitable to be able to keep it in stores.
-
Would that really matter for an intro box?
The point is, as I have tried to explain, is, if one were to have an 'intro' box to get people into to the game, the intro box should cover the rules as used by the game.
Battletech is a 'board-game' played on hex mapsheets. Movement is described as moving x# of hexes, facing a hex side side, turning a hex side, range is in hexes, etc.
To then include a measuring stick in inches (or based on a hex) that is only accurate if one measures straight down one of 6 hex faces because someone does not want to count to 12 or something, is wasteful and runs counter to the rules as presented.
Counter point is, if one then says, OK, lets not go the Hex route, lets go hexless, then the intro box set is not a BATTLETECH intro box, but rather now a ALPHA STRIKE intro box (which would be cool). Because once they play the intro box and decide to go full Battletech rules, the intro box did little to teach them the rules of game.
-
I think the problem is that it is priced for new players to buy and then have a certain amount of them continue to buy other products that are more profitable. It isn't doing that, so they should reconfigure it to be profitable to be able to keep it in stores.
If that's the case, then arguably part of the problem is the entire line. If a game's profitability relies not on just being sold, but on converting players from someone who buys & plays a game to someone who collects a game, then there needs to be a very clear and accessible product to transition on to.
If you have a collectible game, like the old MWDA for example, you buy a starter, then you buy boosters. That's it. Maybe there's boosters from different sets, some older, some newer, different collections, but it's pretty simple.
I know the Intro box has a big pamphlet on the next thing to jump on to. But what does the player actually buy?
Let's say they buy Total Warfare. How does this book benefit them? It adds a bunch of technology, unit types and optional rules to add to their game. One problem, none of the mechs in the intro box have this technology. It has no vehicles, no infantry, no anything. They can't even use the advanced technology because construction information is missing so even though they have construction rules into the intro set, Total Warfare doesn't add on to them. I don't believe the intro box has any buildings either, so all of those rules for cities is of no benefit either.
They can buy 3039, but again, all the vehicles, aerospace, etcetera are useless to them. They add some of the new mechs using the construction rules, and guess at some of the variants, but making these by hand will be a lot of work.
Only record sheets 3039 will directly add to their game in one go, but I'm not sure that's in stores. And again no vehicles & aerospace rules.
So either way, it's a 2-step process, an arguably confusing 2-step process to expand the game. Finances aside, that's another barrier to collecting that a lot of players may not bother to surmount.
-
The point is, as I have tried to explain, is, if one were to have an 'intro' box to get people into to the game, the intro box should cover the rules as used by the game.
Battletech is a 'board-game' played on hex mapsheets. Movement is described as moving x# of hexes, facing a hex side side, turning a hex side, range is in hexes, etc.
To then include a measuring stick in inches (or based on a hex) that is only accurate if one measures straight down one of 6 hex faces because someone does not want to count to 12 or something, is wasteful and runs counter to the rules as presented.
Counter point is, if one then says, OK, lets not go the Hex route, lets go hexless, then the intro box set is not a BATTLETECH intro box, but rather now a ALPHA STRIKE intro box (which would be cool). Because once they play the intro box and decide to go full Battletech rules, the intro box did little to teach them the rules of game.
I have seen plenty of people play hexless BT, some simple conversion rules for hexless play would be nice for an intro box.
-
If that's the case, then arguably part of the problem is the entire line. If a game's profitability relies not on just being sold, but on converting players from someone who buys & plays a game to someone who collects a game, then there needs to be a very clear and accessible product to transition on to.
Sure, but 30 years later no one has found that product, TROs coming the closest.
-
I have seen plenty of people play hexless BT, some simple conversion rules for hexless play would be nice for an intro box.
I'm not saying it isn't.
But I AM saying, you cannot mix hexless Battletech with Hex Battletech seemlessly. There needs to be conversion rules.
And again, never have I said an Intro box cannot use both. I've only said you cannot use both together. It has to be stressed that hex and hexless are independent of each other.
-
I'm not saying it isn't.
But I AM saying, you cannot mix hexless Battletech with Hex Battletech seemlessly. There needs to be conversion rules.
And again, never have I said an Intro box cannot use both. I've only said you cannot use both together. It has to be stressed that hex and hexless are independent of each other.
I would add to this that adding the rules for hexless play to the Intro Set sets us down a slippery slope. If we are going to include rules that completely alter one of the most basic aspects of the game (hexes vs inches), what else are we considering 'introductory'? Should we include construction rules? Vehicle and infantry rules? Aero rules? What should the minimum level of rules be?
Again, my vote goes to the Quick Start rules found on the BT homepage. Give it a physical release, a map sheet, and some form of miniature (be it plastic or cardstock).
-
I would add to this that adding the rules for hexless play to the Intro Set sets us down a slippery slope. If we are going to include rules that completely alter one of the most basic aspects of the game (hexes vs inches), what else are we considering 'introductory'? Should we include construction rules? Vehicle and infantry rules? Aero rules? What should the minimum level of rules be?
Again, my vote goes to the Quick Start rules found on the BT homepage. Give it a physical release, a map sheet, and some form of miniature (be it plastic or cardstock).
Thanx for the support. Was starting to feel I was a lone voice here.
intro should be INTRO (and believe it or not, IWM has an intro se (http://ironwindmetals.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=16_136&products_id=4564)t as well). Just enough rules to say, here's how you play.
Want Hexless? Get Startegic Operations.
Want Construction? Get Tech manual (needs a reprint tho)
Want Just Mech on Mech battles? Get the upcoming BattleMech manual
Want the Full-Meal Deal? Get TW
Want massive battles...well...get Alpha Strike but completely different set of rules...so maybe an intro box for that too?
-
The point is, as I have tried to explain, is, if one were to have an 'intro' box to get people into to the game, the intro box should cover the rules as used by the game.
Battletech is a 'board-game' played on hex mapsheets. Movement is described as moving x# of hexes, facing a hex side side, turning a hex side, range is in hexes, etc.
To then include a measuring stick in inches (or based on a hex) that is only accurate if one measures straight down one of 6 hex faces because someone does not want to count to 12 or something, is wasteful and runs counter to the rules as presented.
And the reason players cannot make use of both is.....?
Is there a problem with presenting movement in hexes and range in inches or units? Would it affect gameplay? Make it worse?
Adding a range stick to the set might not be the best idea for several reasons...including that it could impose a minimum size on the box, or that a 30 unit stick would be too cumbersome....
But....it would add another visual element to the game, speed up range determination and simplify LOS determination.
-
Assuming CGL had the werewithal to support multiple BT boxed products in print at the same time, I'd love to see both BT and AS intro boxes, with minis, available. They have the potential to both introduce new players, and to appeal to existing players, by means of the combination of new & existing material which can be included (not just minis; new maps which aren't profitable enough to be worth producing independantly, etc.)
But given CGL's relatively small size, and the issues associated with sinking large amounts of their capital into the box-set production process - which is considerably more expensive than print-only, and dependant on a lot more links in the supply chain - they have to do what they can achieve, not what they want, I suspect.
Certainly the "sunk cost" in relaunching Levs looks completely impossible for them to sustain at the moment, although in fairness they haven't abandoned the game. As a side note, one of the biggest changes in the game industry was with the GFC in 2008/2009 - prior to that, most printing companies would accept half payment up front, and the rest after publication (eg. there was a chance to get sales & put that money back into paying the printers). Since then, though, it's 100% up-front, before anything gets done.
Which, in fairness, explains why a lot of people are going kickstarter - it lets you get that money up-front. While I share the emotional wish we could use KS to move BT product, I suspect - purely personal opinion - that TPTB don't want to end up in a RRT-like position, given their small size.
-
I would add to this that adding the rules for hexless play to the Intro Set sets us down a slippery slope. If we are going to include rules that completely alter one of the most basic aspects of the game (hexes vs inches), what else are we considering 'introductory'? Should we include construction rules? Vehicle and infantry rules? Aero rules? What should the minimum level of rules be?
Aren't construction rules already in the introductory boxset? Or were those taken out?
-
And the reason players cannot make use of both is.....?
This is my last response because, you seem to want to just be difficult. Right now all you are doing is:
YOU: Why can't we use a straight line to determine range?
ME: It quickly goes off the rails. shows picture to show exactly what I mean.
YOU: Yes, but why can't you use a straight line?
As I showed, a straight linear measurement does not mesh with a hex system. it quickly goes out of whack.
Is there a problem with presenting movement in hexes and range in inches or units? Would it affect gameplay? Make it worse?
Yes, because at that point it is neither BattleTech nor is it Alpha Strike, but rather now a third variation of the rules. Battletech is played (by and large unless one uses the miniature rules from Strategic Operations) on a hex mapsheet with Hexes denoting range/movement. So, yes it would affect gameplay. Same reason why D&D uses a Square grid and not a hex grid, and why after 1rst edition (which actually had rules for playing D&D without a grid of any kind, and why spells, movement and everything was actually listed in INCHES) everything was changed to reflect a grid game play.
Adding a range stick to the set might not be the best idea for several reasons...including that it could impose a minimum size on the box, or that a 30 unit stick would be too cumbersome....
But....it would add another visual element to the game, speed up range determination and simplify LOS determination.
Then one can simply use a string for LoS determination, a game does not need to include it.
-
Leviathans included the finest piece of string provided in any game ever. To be honest, it was a waste of time & effort sourcing it, no matter how highly regarded it was as a piece of string.
(Oh, and just to be nit-picky, hexes are 1.25" centre-to-centre, so a 1:1 conversion is not correct, and a 1:1.25 conversion rapidly becomes a challenge.)
-
"The measurement for range and movement is measured in 'length units'. One length unit can be a hex, a fixed distance on the tabletop, or whatever else all players can agree upon. This decision is made before the game begins, and is fixed during that game."
If all the players agree to use hexes, then the game is played on a hexmap. If all players agree to use inches, centimeters, 5 millifurlongs, then that is what is used during the game. You do not use tow different forms of measurement during the same game.
-
As I showed, a straight linear measurement does not mesh with a hex system. it quickly goes out of whack.
Yes...but WHY do you have to use a hex system for weapons fire?
All a player needs to know is that the weapon has a range of x units. He can count hexes as one unit or make use of the measuring tool provided.
If such a tool would speed up or improve gameplay, then why is the fact that it doesn't match up with hexes of any importance? So long as it is consistent within a game does it really matter what system players use? I can think of several reasons why this would be a less than desireable addition...cost and size for example...but saying that players would be confused between the two systems...only one of which is in use at a time...isn't one of them
-
Yes...but WHY do you have to use a hex system for weapons fire?
All a player needs to know is that the weapon has a range of x units. He can count hexes as one unit or make use of the measuring tool provided.
If such a tool would speed up or improve gameplay, then why is the fact that it doesn't match up with hexes of any importance? So long as it is consistent within a game does it really matter what system players use? I can think of several reasons why this would be a less than desireable addition...cost and size for example...but saying that players would be confused between the two systems...only one of which is in use at a time...isn't one of them
It's worth noting that Blood Bowl both uses squares to measure movement and a clear-plastic ruler to measure pass plays (throwing the ball).
So using both is perfectly viable. For CGL to include it in the boxset I find to very unlikely as their adherence to the rules has demonstrated, but if your gaming group wants to mock up a range ruler of your own then go for it.
-
Yes...but WHY do you have to use a hex system for weapons fire?
All a player needs to know is that the weapon has a range of x units. He can count hexes as one unit or make use of the measuring tool provided.
If such a tool would speed up or improve gameplay, then why is the fact that it doesn't match up with hexes of any importance? So long as it is consistent within a game does it really matter what system players use? I can think of several reasons why this would be a less than desireable addition...cost and size for example...but saying that players would be confused between the two systems...only one of which is in use at a time...isn't one of them
I'm happy to entertain all possible options for improving Battletech and making it new-player friendly, but I don't understand the line of reason here. Battletech has always measured movement and range in hexes. It has had the option of playing in inches, but hexes have always been the default. If you want to start measuring distances in inches, there is no need for a hex map. If you want to measure one thing in hexes and another thing in inches, you've created a completely different monster altogether.
I'll be the first person to advocate for an Alpha Strike box, but if we are going to approach new players, we ought to do so with clear, consistent rules.
Aren't construction rules already in the introductory boxset? Or were those taken out?
I don't think they are, but now you've got me second-guessing.
-
(Oh, and just to be nit-picky, hexes are 1.25" centre-to-centre, so a 1:1 conversion is not correct, and a 1:1.25 conversion rapidly becomes a challenge.)
Side thought: One of the problems with BT is that you're constantly fighting in 'phone booths'. My basic objection to Strategic Ops 2" = 1 Hex rule was that it made this problem worse. Has anyone had any experience playing 1" = 1 hex? Does it work well?
-
I don't think they are, but now you've got me second-guessing.
It does, pages 65-71, Intro Tech only.
-
i've taught a lot of people how to play the game over the years and counting hexes was never a complaint about the rules. if you're going to use hexes, all distances should be in hexes. if you play hexless, then use your preferred measuring instruments
-
I'll be the first person to advocate for an Alpha Strike box, but if we are going to approach new players, we ought to do so with clear, consistent rules.
I don't think they are, but now you've got me second-guessing.
As I see it, a ruler for combat and hex sides for movement would be consistent. They just wouldn't be exactly tne same. But players who can calculate movement costs and MP and heat should be able to recognise that counting hexes abd use of an edge achieve the same goal. You shouldn't be able to switch inside a match but so long as the rules are consistent within the game, then I don't see how it matters how the tange is calculated.
Would such a system work? Yes.
Would it be easy to explain in the rules? Yes
Would it speed up or improve gameplay? Potentially
Would it stop the use of hexes as a range system? No.
The system isn't without cost or drawback, but I don't think ruling out an idea just because it's never been done that way before is good either. I mean...whats tbe big objection here? That 6 hexes on the stick might be 7 on the board?
So what? It's a game aid. Make it a 15 hex ruler and save LRMs and hex counting for Advanced scenarios if you think its an issue.
Having said that...I think such an addition might be interesting, but ultimately it isn't one I see happening. Not because I don't think players can't handle it or purists might throw a fit...but because a ruler long enough to be useful would be too long gir a standard box.
And a string isn't glitzy enough ;)
A box set....IMO...should include 13 minis (8 IS vs 5 Clan), two high quality hardback maps, a universe guide, rule book and scenarios, up to 4 look up tables (1 per player), dice and cardboard cut outs for terrain snd tevord sheets
The rules should be focussed on Mech vs Mech.
The scenarios should present a range of battles....from 1 v1 to 4v4 to 8v5 to 4 player battle royale.
There should be an emphasis on factions
The Mechs should perhaps be designs created for the Box Set and used nowhere else, with weapons and armour designed to keep the game moving.
And/or available at a reasonable price separately.
And so on. It'd be very nice if the minis were DA style but isn't essential
-
Side thought: One of the problems with BT is that you're constantly fighting in 'phone booths'. My basic objection to Strategic Ops 2" = 1 Hex rule was that it made this problem worse. Has anyone had any experience playing 1" = 1 hex? Does it work well?
The issue which usually forces people towards 1 hex = 2", is stacking. It's bad enough when you're trying to fit a Stalking Spider in the middle of a formation, it becomes ridonculous when vees & infantry are supposed to stack in a single hex. Have you ever tried balancing a stack of Ontii? ;)
Given the real LOS which kicks in once you abandon hexes, this really matters. Going to 2" provides more breathing room, and lets you ignore 'stacking'.
A side problems is that mech scale <> map scale. The average mech mini is 1.5 to 2 hexes tall, whereas if maps were in scale to minis, the hex would be 5" to 6" across. Talk about fighting in phone booths! I've spent a little time building 3D hex maps, and those who've played with me really prefer them over flat maps. I stuck to 1.25" hexes for my 3D maps, and I can get a 3x4 map arrangement on our billiard table (provided the ping-pong top is on). Going for any larger hex sizes reduces the potentially playable area accordingly, otherwise I'd be a 2" hex fanatic.
W.
-
Worktroll has the main benefit of the increased scale. As an experienced player of hexless playing and an advocate of such, I find the traditional 1 hex to 2 inches works best but hexed play has it's own value. I still train all my players on hex maps before making the leap to hexless play because it is easier. IMO keeping the box set to hex map is probably the best idea, leaving the miniature rules to the advanced rule books.
I've never felt as if I'm playing in a "phone booth" with miniature play but I've always had the room to setup what most war gaming plays on = a 4x6 foot setup. If playing at home is a problem due to lack of space, search out a larger space at a college or university, or a public library or community center - all of which should be low cost options.
-
For simplicity's sake, just reissue the existing box set. It's a solid product as evidenced by the fact it basically sold out, and fairly quickly at that if I recall correctly. Simultaneously, put out an updated TRO:3039 using the NuSeen art and at this point the dead-tree (and e-version) of theBattleMech Manual will be available as well. Wonderful start for old and new alike and provides a pair of obvious buys for interested players after the Intro box set.
Follow this with Clan specific lance packs and an updated TRO: 3050.
Follow this with Civil War faction-specific lance packs and reissue or repackage the relevant TROs.
After this comes the Jihad lance packs and TRO and then, you guessed it, finally the Dark Age faction lance packs and TRO.
Welcome to success. Oh, and reprint the Hex Packs somewhere in there as well. People can buy the .pdf versions of the sourcebooks/novels as desired.
-
Like most of the idea. Questions on practicalities are:
1) Can CGL support producing & distributing multiple products in very short periods? Remember they have to spend all the money months before any return is possible.
2) Faction-specific print products fail to sell evenly. Is it better to sell cross-faction packs (like the Lance Packs), lest we end up with large unsold quantities of the Liao and Marik packs?
3) Hex packs weren't profitable before; is there strong reason to suspect this would change?
-
Like most of the idea. Questions on practicalities are:
. . .
3) Hex packs weren't profitable before; is there strong reason to suspect this would change?
What part of the boardgame is actually profitable if not the board game itself and expansion boards for that game?
-
Like most of the idea. Questions on practicalities are:
1) Can CGL support producing & distributing multiple products in very short periods? Remember they have to spend all the money months before any return is possible.
2) Faction-specific print products fail to sell evenly. Is it better to sell cross-faction packs (like the Lance Packs), lest we end up with large unsold quantities of the Liao and Marik packs?
3) Hex packs weren't profitable before; is there strong reason to suspect this would change?
CGL can "pace" the introduction of subsequent eras to fit with their schedule. I was imagining an a new "era" being released every 12-18 months. The reissued TRO's would also include the Alpha Strike stats for each 'Mech.
Faction-specific miniatures are a different beast entirely from faction-specific print products. Ultimately, although they will be marketed as "faction" lances, they can used by all players and there is nothing to prevent using a "Kurita" 'Mech as a "Davion" 'Mech. The idea is to go out and clearly market the concept of prominent factions battling each other for supremacy across a massive universe in different time periods. The idea should come across on the box and not require any previous knowledge. To be honest, MW:DA did a fair job of just this and they sold some miniatures!
In the end, Hex Packs sold out as well, not as quickly as the Intro Box Set. However, if new players are being attracted to the franchise, the sale of Hex Packs will be a fair indicator of this. Existing players likely have extensive maps and/or terrain and are not compelled to buy more. New players will need them. I would resissue a Hex Pack for each "era" released and include one new map in the set.
So, q new player would pick up the Intro Box set learn a bit about BT and the ~3025 setting. They like it, so they move into the Clan Invasion by buying a "Clan Wolf" and a "Clan Jade Falcon" lance pack along with a Hex Pack. Still fun, so they pick up a "Federated Commonwealth" lance pack and a "Draconis Combine" pack with new designs. Next, they pick up the updated TRO: 3039. Hooked, (assuming TRO: 3039 was redesigned with new art and actually looked good).
-
What part of the boardgame is actually profitable if not the board game itself and expansion boards for that game?
Mainly the TROs, plot books and some of the rule books.
-
As I see it, a ruler for combat and hex sides for movement would be consistent. They just wouldn't be exactly tne same. But players who can calculate movement costs and MP and heat should be able to recognise that counting hexes abd use of an edge achieve the same goal. You shouldn't be able to switch inside a match but so long as the rules are consistent within the game, then I don't see how it matters how the tange is calculated.
Would such a system work? Yes.
Would it be easy to explain in the rules? Yes
Would it speed up or improve gameplay? Potentially
Would it stop the use of hexes as a range system? No.
Again, though, you have created a completely new game if you start measuring one thing in hexes and another thing in inches. And you are adding the cost of the rangefinder to the intro box of a game that may, or may not, be financially strapped as-is. Explaining the variations in hex measures and rangefinder measures will also take up more page space.
Is it a viable system? Absolutely. There is not reason that it couldn't work. Why would CGL add a completely new facet to the Intro material that isn't in any other game reference, though?
-
Explaining the variations in hex measures and rangefinder measures will also take up more page space.
There would be no difference....simply weapons range measured in units which might be hexes or inches
Is it a viable system? Absolutely. There is not reason that it couldn't work. Why would CGL add a completely new facet to the Intro material that isn't in any other game reference, though?
Would it speed the game up by providing a quick simple easy to understand mechanism to determine both range and LOS?
-
a $3 laser can determine LOS under the current setup.
again, twenty-five years playing the game and i've heard gripes about almost every rule in the book. counting hexes has never been one of them.
-
There would be no difference....simply weapons range measured in units which might be hexes or inches
Would it speed the game up by providing a quick simple easy to understand mechanism to determine both range and LOS?
I'll reiterate that, as I am not a game designer, I have no place commenting on particulars. I think your idea is a perfectly reasonable one, but I think that it makes a fairly unprecedented change to one of the core mechanics of the game, which probably shouldn't be something that takes place in the Intro Box. I'll add, too, that like Sartris just commented, I don't think that counting hexes is one of the game's biggest problems. I would argue that there are other, more time consuming things about the game that would be better candidates for streamlining.
-
Mainly the TROs, plot books and some of the rule books.
I would've thought it should be the other way around. With the base game being the biggest seller, and with diminishing returns the more advanced the product gets. Maybe profit numbers don't equate to sales numbers, but seems that a healthy paradigm would be that of a pyramid with a lot of entry-level products making up the base, and more advanced products at the tip of the pyramid with everything else in-between.
-
I would've thought it should be the other way around. With the base game being the biggest seller, and with diminishing returns the more advanced the product gets. Maybe profit numbers don't equate to sales numbers, but seems that a healthy paradigm would be that of a pyramid with a lot of entry-level products making up the base, and more advanced products at the tip of the pyramid with everything else in-between.
CGL is, or has been, a book publishing company. Books, not board games, are where BattleTech has made ( and still makes) it's money. The intro box set was just that, an intro to get people able to play so that they buy more books. And based on what I've heard from people that I presume know more about it, the decision was made to favor keeping the price low to entice more new players rather than try to make a profit from it.
CGL has been working for some time now on moving more into making board games, but it's been some numbers of steps back for some number of steps forward on those.
-
Hear me out... but is it possible to combine aspects of Alpha Strike with the main game to shorten it?
Examples:
- Movement: Treat it like it is in Alpha Strike (full TMM for moving, -1 for stand still, etc) but have it where the TMM is slightly more complicated by choosing to walk, run, or jump? So a 7/11/7 'Mech would have a TMM of 3/4/4. You can even say that moving into difficult terrain grants the walking modifier at maximum.
- Weapon ranges: Make it match with the ranges in Alpha Strike. Specify what range bracket the weapon is in (S/M/L/X) and use actual ranges as fluff material? This would make short range weapons like Machine Guns. Minimum range weapons can have the minimum listed next to the short range bracket.
Just some examples off the top of my head. There has to be a way to keep the core of the game but streamline it in a way where it meets new and old fans halfway.
-
Mainly the TROs, plot books and some of the rule books.
Working with the sales info above and trying to change the current game as little as possible, let's try something like this.
1. Box set with generic tokens (Infantry, mech, vehicle etc), maps, and small TRO/Army Book
In my opinion CGL doesn't need to get into the miniature business. IWM does a respectable job and adding CGL miniatures to the mix cannibalizes sales for both companies. I would also pick 2 factions to be in the starter set. Say Davion & Kurita with teaser information on the other factions. You would get the complete core rule book with the set.
2. Make Total Warfare and maybe the Techmanual the core rule book. None of the others are needed. The line will not advance technologically. From the box set the customer can either buy the techmanual or go straight into Option #3
3. Sell Field Manual/Army Books/TRO Combo Books. Much closer to to what 40K does and similar to what Alpha Strike seem to be doing but instead of a random couple of mechs, you would have the Mechs that your faction uses. Any special rules that your faction might have access to would be in these Army books. Or any mechs that your faction might be able to salvage would be included in the index. Etc. From there you can buy the plot/historical rulebooks.
4. Historical/Plot Advancing line like Pathfinders Adventure Paths.
The Core battletech line should stay static. It shouldn't advance per say. The plot books and historicals can advance the line like an adventure. So for instance if CGL takes 3050 as standard entry point for Battletech, then an Adventure Path could be the Operation Guerrero. All the information that you need to play the game will be included with Operation Guerrero, whether that is new mechs, new weapons, weather conditions etc. The players then affect the outcome of the universe but from a sales perspective everything stays static.
You could do a 2nd Succession Wars Path or a 3145 Path, it wouldn't matter as long as all the rules you need are in that adventure path.
Players now know that 3050 is the default setting (or any era CGL chooses). Everyone and their brother can play it. It is your tournament level of play. And now players are hopefully invested in the plot and what their characters do affects the outcome of the universe at their table.
We also have a linear progression of books to buy
1. Box Set/Core Rulebook
2. Army Book/TRO Combo
3. Adventure Paths
Of course CGL can supplement all of this with their current PDF line.
Battletech has basically been marketed the same way for 30 years now. If we are not willing to revamp the game, then we have to at least revamp the way it is marketed to the customer.
-
Mmm... I have been thinking about the concept of a minimalist box set and
I am getting the thought that, the rules and maps would determine the minimal box size. Am I wrong?
I would've thought it should be the other way around. With the base game being the biggest seller, and with diminishing returns the more advanced the product gets. Maybe profit numbers don't equate to sales numbers, but seems that a healthy paradigm would be that of a pyramid with a lot of entry-level products making up the base, and more advanced products at the tip of the pyramid with everything else in-between.
When one becomes a fan they keep buying TROs, but not box sets. If one sells a lot of box sets but not a lot of followup products then something has gone wrong. So in an ideal situation the book portion would be greater, even after removing old fans from the equation.
-
If you want things to change the universe, you either need to reboot the timeline or place it in 3150. But the plotline is planned many years in advance so anything that can can do to the timeline wouldn't actually be seen for many years anyway unless it is so minor as to be unimportant and just a footnote.
-
When one becomes a fan they keep buying TROs, but not box sets. If one sells a lot of box sets but not a lot of followup products then something has gone wrong. So in an ideal situation the book portion would be greater, even after removing old fans from the equation.
I was referring to the individual sales, not product types as a whole. If one compares "Books" to the "boxed set", you're comparing 50 products to 1 product. Of course the 50 will garner more sales. Fans will buy books because books are the only option.
I was thinking of entry products to advanced products, for example maybe the ratio was something like this:
Boxed Set sells 100
Total Warfare sells 80
Tac Ops sells 30
Strategic Ops sells 10
Interstellar Ops sells 5
That to me seems more of a healthy ratio, demonstrating a lot of entry-level players and less people in the advanced tiers. Whereas the CBT community seems more top heavy, a lot of people into the advanced stuff and a significantly smaller number at entry level.
-
In my opinion CGL doesn't need to get into the miniature business.
Heck, I don't think they can with the current licensing agreements. I believe Topps needs to approve the miniatures that CGL has been selling.
-
Hear me out... but is it possible to combine aspects of Alpha Strike with the main game to shorten it?
Examples:
- Movement: Treat it like it is in Alpha Strike (full TMM for moving, -1 for stand still, etc) but have it where the TMM is slightly more complicated by choosing to walk, run, or jump? So a 7/11/7 'Mech would have a TMM of 3/4/4. You can even say that moving into difficult terrain grants the walking modifier at maximum.
Sort of how I play my home games now.
Straight up AS movement on Hexs, so a Jenner JR7-A is a 7 hex move/5 hex jump. Don't pay for tunring, just streamlines the game.
Attack is calculated as per AS rules too:
MOVE = +0
Stand Still = -1
Jump = +2
Can run for Running movement on a Standard Record sheet, but no Attack/spotting/etc.
Does wonders to speed the game up
- Weapon ranges: Make it match with the ranges in Alpha Strike. Specify what range bracket the weapon is in (S/M/L/X) and use actual ranges as fluff material? This would make short range weapons like Machine Guns. Minimum range weapons can have the minimum listed next to the short range bracket.
Just some examples off the top of my head. There has to be a way to keep the core of the game but streamline it in a way where it meets new and old fans halfway.
Weapons are kept as is on the record sheet.
Also, the BIGGEST reason to keep hex range/movement as strictly hexes and not mix the two, I play on a 1.75" hex mat (to match HeroScape tiles), to have to convert them to some arbitrary measuring stick...that's just silly.
And last I checked, no one in my group had difficulty counting from 1 to 23 O0
-
What part of the boardgame is actually profitable if not the board game itself and expansion boards for that game?
Kit's answer, which I suspect you misunderstood, is pretty accurate. I would have said:
1) Flippant answer: TROs
2) Slightly longer answer: individual 'plot books' which advance the timeline or cover significant previously uncovered periods. Individually, things like "Jihad Hot Spots", "War of Reaving", "1st SW", and the like perform well individually - no need to try and shoehorn them together with other 'books'. Books which cover the lesser factions - CC, FWL, almost all individual Clans - perform poorly. The extremely high quality and well received Handbook series were only completed as a labour of love, as commercially they were (as individual books) not highly successful.
3) Practical answer - just because something sells out over three years doesn't make that successful. If CGL sinks (total wild ass guess) $20K into manufacturing a product, it takes three months to be produced, then sells out in 6 months making $30K gross, then CGL then has $30K to sink into another product. If the product takes 3 years to sell out, they don't have that money to make more money in the meantime. CGL, are after all, another small business - ROI, sunk cost of inventory, and cashflow matter.
If you find any of the above unclear, let me know.
W.
-
Sort of how I play my home games now.
Straight up AS movement on Hexs, so a Jenner JR7-A is a 7 hex move/5 hex jump. Don't pay for tunring, just streamlines the game.
Attack is calculated as per AS rules too:
MOVE = +0
Stand Still = -1
Jump = +2
Can run for Running movement on a Standard Record sheet, but no Attack/spotting/etc.
Does wonders to speed the game up
Seemed like it would. I might give it a shot if I pick up classic again.
Weapons are kept as is on the record sheet.
Also, the BIGGEST reason to keep hex range/movement as strictly hexes and not mix the two, I play on a 1.75" hex mat (to match HeroScape tiles), to have to convert them to some arbitrary measuring stick...that's just silly.
And last I checked, no one in my group had difficulty counting from 1 to 23 O0
I have no problem counting either... maybe we're misunderstood here. I was thinking of less to count.
Example (intro box):
Short Range Weapons (1-3 hexes)
Machine Gun
Flamer
Small Laser
Medium Range Weapons (4-15 hexes)
Medium Laser
Large Laser
SRM's
Autocannon 10
Autocannon 20
Long Range Weapons (16-21 hexes)
LRM's (6 hex minimum)
Autocannon 2 (3 hex minimum)
Autocannon 5 (2 hex minimum)
PPC (3 hex minimum)
You're still counting hexes, just not as much.
-
I would hope the movement mods work. You are only dropping the run mod and essentially using a base 3 instead of base 4 gunnery. Any game with lower gunneries tend to go quicker.
-
I would hope the movement mods work. You are only dropping the run mod and essentially using a base 3 instead of base 4 gunnery. Any game with lower gunneries tend to go quicker.
Well, been doing it this way over a year, and no major concerns.
-
Kit's answer, which I suspect you misunderstood, is pretty accurate. I would have said:
What leads you to believe I misunderstood an answer that I did not reply to?
If you find any of the above unclear, let me know.
Thanks. It's was never unclear, I just find it odd that the worst selling part of this game is the actual board-game and the boards used to play it.
-
More people are interested in the universe and story than playing the board game. The novel line was very popular.
-
Case in point. No-one's said they're the worst selling. They are expensive up-front to produce, and aren't being sold at highly profitable margins in order to make them affordable to new players.
Case in point: Kit answered "plot books", you assumed he was talking about the class of plot books taken collectively, where that wasn't what was meant. If you
-
Well, been doing it this way over a year, and no major concerns.
I would expect it to. It isn't a huge change.
-
Case in point. No-one's said they're the worst selling. They are expensive up-front to produce, and aren't being sold at highly profitable margins in order to make them affordable to new players.
You just said "Practical answer - just because something sells out over three years doesn't make that successful."
You also said: "3) Hex packs weren't profitable before; is there strong reason to suspect this would change?"
And earlier "How many hours go into the whole process from "Hey, let's do maps!" through to the very end? How many people touch it? And what happens if only around 600 sell, and the rest go into the 'bargain bucket' spiral?
Is a product which was "unprofitable" not one of the worst sellers? What sells worse than a product you lose money on? (as Kit claimed of Map Packs)
And to be clear, I have been talking about both the boxset and map/hex packs for the last four-five posts.
Case in point: Kit answered "plot books", you assumed he was talking about the class of plot books taken collectively, where that wasn't what was meant. If you
No I didn't. That response you are referring to was to Maingunnery, not Kit.
Maingunnery compared players buying a boxset to then going on to buy "TROs":
"When one becomes a fan they keep buying TROs, but not box sets. If one sells a lot of box sets but not a lot of followup products then something has gone wrong. So in an ideal situation the book portion would be greater, even after removing old fans from the equation. "
And it's quite clear here that he's talking about multiple different TROs, not players purchasing the same TRO multiple times. Whereas there's only one boxset.
If something's still not clear, let me know.
-
Sales is user of units sold. It does mean profitable. They are separate measurements.
-
I need to learn to stop reading these threads before going to work on BT things.
-
Mmm... I have been thinking about the concept of a minimalist box set and
I am getting the thought that, the rules and maps would determine the minimal box size. Am I wrong?
I wouldn't think so. It would be more the size of tne mapsheets and boards than the rules though.
I still think an Introductory Box Set is a good idea....but in todays market, its going to be competing with other wargames. That implies a certain level of quality.
Hardback mapsheets for one. A certain number of minis...I like the idea of 8 IS and 5 Clan but you can get away with 8, or even 4. A universe guide....a scenario book....tokens which could be cardboard but probably better if they were plastic and 3D....re ord sheets...lookup tables for each player
And a ruleset designed to strip out at least some of the complexity and detail in favour of speeding up gameplay....although this aspect would argue for more minis and larger battles. The more lethal a game is, the more units you need to have to avoid lucky wins and keep tne game going for a full session.
A minimalist approach still requires quite a lot to be included.
With reference to the stick....I don't think it matters if its creating a "third set of rules" as some would say. There is nothing to say Alpha Strike isn't a better iteration of the game and more suitable for a startet set. There's no reason its rules couldn't be used in conjunction with a mapsheet, no reason the main BT rules couldn't be described as "advanced" duelling rules.
A Starter or Introductory Set needs to appeal to todays audience.
That means it can't be as complex as it could be....that certain elements which bog down the game should be streamlined, at least for Starter rules. If there is a gameplay element...such as the stick...which can be added to speed up or simplidy gameplay, then it should be considered ....
And considered without worrying too much about how it fits in with the traditional advanced rulesets. No...you don't want the rules to diverge too much, but mixing and matching the best elements of the games different rulesets isn't necessarily bad. A certain level of abstraction can be good for a starter game
-
Getting a maximum amount of playing value out of a certain amount of Money/Size/Volume does seem like a complex challenge.
-
Is a product which was "unprofitable" not one of the worst sellers? What sells worse than a product you lose money on? (as Kit claimed of Map Packs)
And to be clear, I have been talking about both the boxset and map/hex packs for the last four-five posts.
The time taken to recoup the investment is as important as making a profit. if you can turn $20K into $30K in 6 months, you can potentially turn $30K into $45K in another 6 months, and end up more than doubling your money in a year.
If - analagous to Leviathans, and using imaginary numbers - you spend $100K up front, and it takes two or more years to realise sales, and you only make $120K back at the end of it even though every box sold, you've had a number of penalties:
1) You only made $20K margin over a two-year period
2) You were unable to do anything else with that money for two years
3) Effectively, you'd have been better off investing in high-end Lego kits
There's good reason why CGL has moved away from big, intricate box games and concentrated on lots of smaller, fast-returning projects.
So yes, if your product investment doesn't produce sufficient ROI in realistic timeframes, this is as much a problem as a product which doesn't sell. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the real world often is.
-
Make Total Warfare and maybe the Techmanual the core rule book. None of the others are needed. The line will not advance technologically.
The Core battletech line should stay static. It shouldn't advance per say. The plot books and historicals can advance the line like an adventure.
Battletech has basically been marketed the same way for 30 years now. If we are not willing to revamp the game, then we have to at least revamp the way it is marketed to the customer.
Pretty much agree with all of this. It echoes a lot of what I've been saying upthread. Let's face it, there's a lot of bloat in the IP that has come with the kitchen sink approach to rules, designs and factions.
Reboot the timeline, set to 3025 or 3050 or whenever. Provide clearly differentiated factions. If it's IS vs Clan, push that prominently: don't get bogged down in describing 50 different factions right off the bat. Normal folks vs super-soldiers. Cunning vs "honorable" combat. Give players a hook to get them involved.
I know a lot of people enjoy min-maxing the construction rules, but again it's rules bloat and confusing. Pick a technology base and stick with it.
I know timeline books and TROs are the current big sellers, but that doesn't mean the IP has to stick with pumping out new designs and rewriting the setting every 5-10 years. Scenarios, campaigns, adventures, unit profiles, planet profiles, there's plenty of material to work with.
Only point I'd add is that as I said before, based on the earlier comments, I think one logical thing to do is seriously revamp and streamline the rules, while hopefully injecting a little more to make the mechs, factions and people a little more distinctive.
-
...if your product investment doesn't produce sufficient ROI in realistic timeframes, this is as much a problem as a product which doesn't sell. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the real world often is.
Certainly makes sense, you only have the money you have... :-)
Still makes the box set seem like a no-brainer though, since it flies off the shelves. Well, relatively speaking anyway, in a ponderous BattleTech sort of way...
And seriously - I found the latest box set really good value for my money, and would certainly have been prepared to pick it up at a higher price point. Maybe not massively higher, but enough to eke out a bit better ROI for Catalyst.
Dunno about others of course(?)...
-
If - analagous to Leviathans, and using imaginary numbers - you spend $100K up front, and it takes two or more years to realise sales, and you only make $120K back at the end of it even though every box sold, you've had a number of penalties:
1) You only made $20K margin over a two-year period
2) You were unable to do anything else with that money for two years
3) Effectively, you'd have been better off investing in high-end Lego kits
More to the point, my (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that what WT describes here has already happened with the BattleTech line. The Intro Box is only one product, one piece of the puzzle, and the ability to "just reprint it!" may be limited or less desirable now given the overall success of the line as a whole and other recent products.
In a vacuum, maybe reissuing it does seem like a "no-brainer." But given that state of affairs, investing those funds may be less savvy than rethinking the way the introductory BattleTech experience is presented. I gather that the intent in recent months was to pause and look at that exact issue. But time's a-wasting and having something on the shelves, even if it's not the ideal product/method to grow the game, is probably better than nothing.
-
On full review, the moderation staff has decided to leave this thread locked permanently.