BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Administration and Moderation => BattleTech News => Catalyst Asks You! => Topic started by: Øystein on 25 June 2012, 15:42:09
-
What kind of conflicts do you enjoy reading about in fiction and sourcebooks?
- Is it the scrounging down-on-your-luck setting of the late 3rd Succession Wars and the early Dark Age? When BattleMechs were scarce and often a Lance or Company would attack a plant?
- Is it the era of small border changes, between the major offensives? A Battalion or Regiment attacks a world, either to capture loot or try to capture the planet?
- The full scale wars of conquest between nations? War of 3039, 4th Succesion War, Operation Revival are prime examples. When multiple regiments would assault on a broad front, with the objective to capture territory.
- The prospect of Total War. When every glove comes off. Factories are targets to deny to the enemy, collateral damage is ignored. Better to destroy a planet to get rid of the BattleMech factory, damn the civilians. Jihad, Age of War (pre-Ares Convention), 1st and 2nd Succession Wars are prime examples of this level of warfare.
This is more of an academic interest to me. I see so many varied opinions on the forums and elsewhere so I wish to sample what the population here believes.
Feel free to elaborate below, list various conflicts that you've enjoyed the most to read about.
Note - I am inquiring about in-universe conflicts levels, and not what scale level you play.
With regards,
Øystein
WarMongerer
-
When not a frenzied state of war, I love the small raiders scenarios. Single lances or companies, or maybe at the higher outside combined arms battalions are the stuff of the nitty gritty, every unit matters, lose-that-'Mech-and-you're-screwed mentality that made the initial setting so attractive.
When war is on the horizon, or already here, bring on the regiments. In fact, bring on more than that. I want to see aerospace fighters jockeying for the kill, I want to see a full battalion of 'Mechs leveling a city block on their march of conquest. I want to see a pair of regiments and then some pitting and scarring the countryside with stray blasts of energetic death and divots torn out of armor to the tune of the rippling staccato of more autocannons than you can count. I want a doomed ASF plunging into the middle of a storm of missiles that weren't even meant for it in a last ditch effort to mean something on a battlefield the size of an entire planet.
That's what I like. O0
-
I like the smaller scale conflicts, something where the individual unit (or even the individual) can make a difference, where a death is not just a statistic.
-
the mad max era of salavge everything is cool but everything in battletech is cool though. Local focus on small units is the best thing i like for small battles. but it would be cool to see stuff on the 1st and 2nd seesion wars though where everything and anything was being nuked....it would give herb more chances to use his fav weapon on texes again......
-
Love the small to mid-size battles the most.
-
Personally, I've always loved the small-scale, low intensity battles of the 3rd Succession war, where warfare seemed to be more a "gunfight at the OK Corral" -- just replace the Earps/Doc Holliday and Clanton's Cowboys with Wolf's Dragoons and the Waco Rangers or the 3rd Crucis Lancers and the 5th Sword of Light.
There seemed to be something more personal when it is Wayne Waco wanting to avenge the death of his son or Yorinaga Kurita chafing at the humiliation of defeat, rather than Hanse Davion going and saying "Y'know what? I woke up today and said to myself, 'Hanse, I feel like making the Capellan Confederation cease to exist,'" or the WoB decreeing pretty much the same for the entire Inner Sphere. (Full disclosure: I am a supporter of House Davion and actually loved the 4th Succession War storyline. I just prefer the more personal scale of combat.)
-
I voted for the smaller scale conflicts. Individuals and lances can make a difference, but you can still throw a full regiment at things sometimes.
-
a good mix of all three is the best. But small scale battalion or regiment is the best. Big enough to have known characters of your choosing and small enough for new characters to be made through luck
-
I personally enjoy reading about the Full scale wars (i.e. the Jihad). Plus all the toys that were brought out, etc. New ideas that get brought out, showing why certain ideas are good, bad, etc. It also makes a Change in the BT universe. The Clan Invasion killed a smaller government, and punched a wedge into two others. The Fourth Succession War halved the Capellan Confederation, etc. It shows that the BT universe changes over time, unlike other games where they are stuck in a perpetual stalemate.
The problem is you can't have too many of them.
-
I like action of small units. :)
-
Total Warfare and Other I voted.
I love seeing the BIG fights, the ones that rock the Universe and shake off the units that need to die.
However I also voted Other because I want to see the individual, not a lance, make the difference.
Lyran Fire is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here we have the Coalition taking Terra and Stone is facing ungodly amounts of Blakists, yet Lyran Fire is a story about a small group who try to hold off as many possible before death. I think the Guide to Covert Ops had a similar story, one person destroys the jumpship by explosion and they are inside the ship. One death stopped how many 'Mechs from taking his/her home?
What if they couldn't do it? Then the Blakists could have overwhelmed another Coalition force and possibly swung the overall battle.
So I love reading about the big brutal fights that nearly rip our known space in half, but I also want to read about that one Spec Ops trooper who sacraficed his/her life to stop the great evils haunting their home.
-
I chose small scale because you get to know the characters and pick your favs. Some of the early MWDA novels were great for this. Double Blind also comes to min even though that had a pretty big battle at the end. Or even a good story about a small group fighting off a much larger invasion force.
Then I chose more 4th, War of '39 types because you get a lot more page time for a big variety of characters, and even the leaders. Heir to the Dragon, Capellan Solution and some FCCW books were good it that sense.
But hey! I just like reading about anything in one of my favorite universes. Bring it all on!
-
I'm a fan of the idea that a lance or company of 'mechs are significant enough to decide the fate of worlds. A few skirmishes as the COs get a feel for each other, ending in a nice climactic battle suits me fine. Double Blind was a pretty good example of the sort of fiction I like in Battletech.
Some non-'mech stuff is always fun, too. There's plenty in the universe that would be halfway decent story hooks. It'd be cool to see stuff about say, the Ebon Magistrate or something else covert ops style sometime.
-
I like the small-scale battalion or regimental size conflicts as well as the full-scale broad front wars of Battletech. The former because at least small units can still make a difference on a single planet and it fleshes out multiple characters and unit details and histories.
However, with that said, i equally enjoy full-scale wars especially the 4th Succession War, Reunification War, Operation Klondike, Wars of Reaving(this one is a stretch between Total Warfare and Full-Scale War) and stuff like that where it is glorious warfare still limited to conventional means. The factories will still be there and become capturable and prime objectives instead of something to nuke from orbit for denial to the enemy and the associated "loss" of the designs associated with that factory, such as what is happening with the current post-Jihad situation. There are actual broad changes to the factions in full-scale wars to keep things interesting, such as War of '39 and 4th SW instead of things remaining static and only getting the illusion of change.
Lance or company-sized actions are just too unbelievable on planetary or interplanetary scales. It reminds me too much of Dark Age and the "single 'Mech defending an entire planet" type of storyline.
-
In fluff I want the full no holds barred conflict.
Why?
It is always possible to zoom in onto a specific unit or a single guy with a rifle.
The opposite is not possible.
If there are 4 guys and 2 Mechs duking it out- well.. that is it. Soon there will be everything said and done and thats it.
It is also easier for me as a GM to focus and zoom in onto a small lance to lance or Batt vs Batt engagement. Also the sheer amount of forces allows me to find a place to set my own scenarious and allows my players to fit into the story.
-
Small scale and full scale conflicts.
Interesting, there is room for some hero action.
Raids are too small, and I despise total war.
Nukes, orbital bombardments etc. are boring. Oops, killed a regiment by accident. ::)
-
I like warships and the all out war that they are used in, in space.
On the ground the biggest fights I like are Ronin War style mid side combats.
So for my the ideal war is big raids lead by assult droppers and light warships. 3-4 assult droppers with a CL or smaller leading. 3-7 lances of mech, tanks, and infantry on the ground. Covered by 1-3 aerospace fighter lances. Just big enough to use the warships, but small eight that individual action still make a big impact.
-
Smaller scale conflicts
I love the 3rd succession war and the major campaigns that begin when a full regiment or two drop on a world to take the planet out right are those major events that break up the day to day low level actions.
-
My preference is the full scale war. The kind of thing that military formations are born for. In a total war scenario, all of the energy devoted to building effective units is often wasted because they vanish in the blink of an eye due to orbital bombardment or nuclear strike or what-have-you. Conversely, in long duration raiding, you don't get to see the full capability of these formations- it's skirmish, do what you came to do, the GTFO before the other guy can respond. While fun at the level of the raiding unit, it doesn't really do units justice because they aren't tied in together and communicating, they're out there alone, doing their own thing (not part of the larger military). Full scale is where it's at.
-
Well, I voted smaller scale conflicts, and other option. The second mostly since I feel that the options are a bit too narrow.
My reason for this is that the best example of what I like is the Galtor Campaign, which is A) 3rd Succession War = 1st option, B) a smaller scale conflict = 2nd option, and C) a multi-regimental action = 3rd option.
So in essence what I like is the 3rd Succession War semi-static situation where few planets change hands, and taking one requires multiple regiments. I have a general dislike of both too much focus on small unit actions, and total war blitzkrieg in space situations.
-
Smaller scale conflicts, where two or three dozen guys decide the fate of an entire world.
-
Big wars are good for the Plot books, but the stories need to stay on a smaller scale. I like seeing what the intrepid heroes are doing as part of the whole war effort.
-
I love the smaller unit actions, although the large scale "national" battles are cool. The excess of the Jihad, while neat, is not something I require.
So really, I would like to vote for the top three, but settled for the smallest and national scale. Regimental is fine as well. I'm not picky. I just don't need planet-shattering levels of conflict all the time.
-
I like when small unit is the focus within the context of a mid-sized conflict.
-
While full scale warfare is interesting as a backdrop and for fictious historical background, the novels and fluff have always been about individuals like most adventure fiction. Situations don't have to be epic in order to create interesting stories, as some of the classic paperbacks have shown rather well (Wolves on the border and some GDL books) - even if the scale tends to generally escalate as a book progresses.
Personally, it's just more interesting to read fluff that is heavily set on an individual's level than plain battle reports, though for sourcebooks the latter is an exception. Especially for scenarios it's good to have more generic progress on the "historical" side of things with singular outtakes of individuals, which leaves the players more leeway to see how things turned out in their version of the encounters.
The Battletech rules themselves seem to work best in lance to company sized games, too, and some writers base their work heavily on the numerics. I don't have personal experience on the mass scale rules, mostly with lack of interest as my fluff tastes probably suggest already ::)
-
We should keep in mind, when they talk about 'level of conflict' they're not talking about the setting of individual stories within novels and the like. They're talking about 'over-all' level of conflict. Comparing the deep 3rd SSW of light raids and very small unit actions (D@TR level) to the War of 3039 and 4th SSW to the Clan Invasion to the Jihad and 1st/2nd SSWs. These are the backdrops, the levels of conflict, and individual actions within those arcs can range from Cassie Suthorn to VISD. Saying that I like low level raids because I want stories about individuals and small teams is probably going to result in miscommunication. It's quite possible to have stories set at grand, in-personal levels that involve slow, low-echelon grinding affairs of raids.
-
Not to be retentive about it, but the question was "What scale of conflicts do you enjoy most in the BattleTech universe?" - and so the answer was based on personal enjoyment. I look at both ends of conflict scale as a writer's means to an end in fiction, and find them enjoyable for different reasons. But yes, it was likely miscommunication on my part if it wasn't apparent from the text.
-
I personally do not mind the level of conflict that provides the backdrop for the story. A good writer will be able to make the story entertaining no matter what level of conflict after all. But I must say I do enjoy the stories where two nations need to band together so as to defeat a common foe. Like the Clan invasion or the Federated Suns and Lyran Alliance fighting against the Draconis Combine. (Though on seperate fronts so there was sadly almost no interaction)
I also have to say though that as much as I like those tales and the tales of galaxy wide conflict. I think I have burned out on it. We had the 4th Succession War, Clan Invasion, Operation Serpent and Bulldog, the FedCom Civil War (not that big a galaxy spanning conflict in comparison, but everyone still got involved) and the Jihad all happening within a little over 40 years from one another. I would like to see more regional style conflicts explored in the fluff and writing in the future. And such major wars being closer to a once in a century style affair.
-
What kind of conflicts do you enjoy reading about in fiction and sourcebooks?
- Is it the scrounging down-on-your-luck setting of the late 3rd Succession Wars and the early Dark Age? When BattleMechs were scarce and often a Lance or Company would attack a plant?
- Is it the era of small border changes, between the major offensives? A Battalion or Regiment attacks a world, either to capture loot or try to capture the planet?
- The full scale wars of conquest between nations? War of 3039, 4th Succesion War, Operation Revival are prime examples. When multiple regiments would assault on a broad front, with the objective to capture territory.
- The prospect of Total War. When every glove comes off. Factories are targets to deny to the enemy, collateral damage is ignored. Better to destroy a planet to get rid of the BattleMech factory, damn the civilians. Jihad, Age of War (pre-Ares Convention), 1st and 2nd Succession Wars are prime examples of this level of warfare.
This is more of an academic interest to me. I see so many varied opinions on the forums and elsewhere so I wish to sample what the population here believes.
Feel free to elaborate below, list various conflicts that you've enjoyed the most to read about.
Note - I am inquiring about in-universe conflicts levels, and not what scale level you play.
While I enjoy playing all, when i look at my favourite novels and short stories they are mostly set around the first two choices.
-
Full-scale war. When you go Total War, it's more about the areospace battles to get into position to nuke people (IMO) while in a full-scale war, a company can still matter for raids and such. Unfortunatly, I didn't notice this wasn't radio buttons, or else I would've voted Small-Scale also.
-
I love massive scale warfare.
Having lead some wars of note in EvE Online [computer game], I can say that the strategic level warfare is fantastic and fits my mind.
That said, CBT is not an easy to manage self contained computer game. I find that anything beyond a binary vs a company is tedious. Add in off-board support, aircraft, infantry and it grinds to a halt. MegaMek hips a ton in this regard (I would FKING LOVE to see a non-java [grumblegrumblejavagrumble] version). The downside being that MegaMek is not all that stable on all of the computers my gaming group uses and using one comp for it is meh. Hell, as of last month JAVA just doesnt work on this computer anymore...at all. [uninstalled, deleted registry stuff, fresh install, no joy]
Outside of the battlefield my group does not have interest in a political RPG or even a detailed mission-based RPG...so, factory strikes and what not tend to be out if it is any more than objective based shooter-style.
So:
PnP or tabletop CBT is ATOW characters using about company sized units with little non-mech support (an arty or some fighters and elementals) using lvl2 rules for the most part.
MegaMek battles tend to be a Nova Trinary or Battalion of mixed forces using lvl3 rules.
My favorite in either case is my Nova Star [5mechs 5elemental points] vs one of my buddies' reenforced lances w/support [usually a mixed lance with some arty and fighter support, or choppers and infantry...or just two lances with light support]...The only other clanner is an 'ally' lol.
-
Total and full-scale warfare
-
I would just like to add that when I read real accounts of wars I tend to read first hand narratives of events. When I want to know about the whole war I tend to read history books that may have some first hand accounts quoted, but generally they are an overview redacted from all of the accounts that the writer has researched.
The former is enjoyment from the vicarious involvement in the story being told. The later is a different kind of enjoyment that comes from understanding the events.
-
I answered as to the state I like to see the whole universe, the regimental or total war options. It's easy, in that kind of environment to zoom in and tell an individual story. Even in the vast real war that was World War 2, there was stories of individual heroism.
-
I prefer the large scale, nation-on-nation battles, although I like the ones with more fluid fronts, where a Regiment or an RCT can maneuver strategically within its assigned area, and still make a difference, like the various regional campaigns of the Fed-Com Civil War or the Jihad (looking only at conventional troop movements, not collateral damage), as opposed to steamroller assaults like Rat and Revival.
But please include unit deployment (and maneuver) tables with at least the Size/Experience/Loyalty and Tech Ratings, and the combat actions, of each unit for the campaign. Those are really helpful. Maybe warships too, if they are relevant.
-
I came in on the curtails on Op Revival, and that is the style I like. Large scale wars/battles where my unit is just a smaller part of the overall events. My Company/Trinary is not going to conquer a planet, but we can be the force that keeps the left flank from collapsing, thus saving the HQ from being overrun and allowing my side to win the battle.
-
I loved Brush Fire Wars and the War of 3039 historicals. So medium-small scale wars to medium-large scale wars. The massive long story arc wars... like the 4th Succession, FedCom Civil War and Jihad are okay. Small unit actions like raids and such are okay too but I rather detest the hero's journey and coming of age stories small units and their actions endear.
-
I enjoy reading about the small scale conflicts for the details about characters, new mechs and their fluff. However, I do enjoy everything getting Fubar'd in total destruction, for the stories of rebuilding shattered nations and large units(in essence remake the BT universe at large...change is good!) and the cornicopia of possible BIG STOMPY ROBOT conflicts that go with that.
-
I will admit I am a bit conflicted on this one. On the one hand when it comes time to put down the map sheets I certainly prefer the smaller scale conflicts of lance to roughly company scale fights but I prefer reading about the big fights between armies.
So there is my not entirely helpful vote.
-
So the question is what kind of conflict we'd like read in fluff or play?
I like full-on wars against nations.
I'm old school too (at no#2) small conflicts with Companies/Battalion size conflicts doing the traditional raids. Which I think where Battletech excels tabletop wise.
-
Thanks to everyone who took the time to vote in the poll. :)
With regards,
Øystein
Strategic Assistant
-
Sure, there's something about the 3025 era where things are rare, but at the same time I don't care to be forced to play in that mode beyond that era. I like the idea of the factions having a serious military, not a whole lance defending a moderately important planet, exageration sure..but not by much.
What I liked was the post 3050 era where they had warships that were active, warships coming online. More mechs being pumped out, more designs with better gear. In addition to that having bigger and better vehicles and fighters. A world should not hinge upon the success of a single mech and I don't care who is in it, it should not come down to that unless all you have is a banjo playing old timer sitting on his front porch watching the space corn grow while his old dog waits for the end of that dreadful "music".
In an era where there is next to nothing the game is stuck in a corner as there is no fight that is going to really mean much, nothing that is going to be big and epic. A lance on lance fight would be increasingly important, but it would not increase the devestation. Instead worlds would be traded upon a whimper of a fight.
What seems to be a problem is that some people want to play small games, which is fine. They might want to read about small fights that took place in the game world, thats also fine. The problem is that if BT blasts itself into a corner it does to negative things:
1. It sticks the game in a rinse, repeat cycle of the same old same old.
2. It removes the possibility of ever reinforcing aerotech/battlespace/whatever its called where there are warships floating around and being used.
There is definitely room for smaller battles in a game world where there are actual armies. Not every action is going to be on the invasion level. There are still going to be recon, harassment, and spec ops stuff to do. The more targets the defenders need to cover, the more spread out they are going to be, the less likely they are going to clump up in one area. They will have to spread out to try and defend what they can. If you drop a company onto a planet that has 3 companies defending it but you have 3 important cities, a starport, a factory, important people, and a base or two with their own targets such as store houses and such, those 3 companies are going to have to split up until they know exactly where you are going. If they know with 100% accuracy that you are going to target 1 with everything, then you kinda screwed yourself and deserve to be hammered. Of course you can remove the player and just make a scenario suggesting someone better did something smarter, so here play this scenario where a lance is attacking an ammo dump to help reduce the build up of faction Z in hopes of delaying what appears to be a likely planetary invasion.
The players and writers are both going to have a lot more wiggle room in a large scale environment. It allows for all playstyles without having to cripple the storyline and the wants of other players.
-
I think Natasha Kerensky said it best when she said "Variety is the spice of battle". The trailing end of the 3rd SW had lance on lance combat with companies being able to take and hold (backwaterish) planets and 'cattle raiding' being the order of the day. Then you have the 4th SW and the Clan Invasion (and now backtracking to the Amaris Civil War). Pretty much, it's all good. O0
-
It looks like I missed the voting but wanted to put my 2 cents in anyway.
The best novels revolved around full sale wars. Note: I said revolved around. The clan books were o.k. but the really good ones were the ones that involved politics, espionage, sabotage, etc. on a grand scale. The books with Justin Allard are a good example.
That being said the best "books" so far have been some of the Jihad sourcebooks. The not knowing what these guys ultimate goals, capabilities, resources, etc. gave them an interesting quality. The Clans on the other hand had a 2 dimensional feel to them. Their only recourse to resolve a situation was to fight. Not quietly slip a knife in but stand up, pistols at high noon fight. The Woblies on the other hand may send an individual, a fleet, a division, or a nuke to solve their problem. They also had at least an inkiling of what propaganda was used for.
-
Personally, i always preferred the smale scale stuff a la 3rd Succession War, especially in the novels.
-
I lean more towards mid scale. Company battalion level. Big enough to be impressive, but small enough to manage, and develop your own "story". The old school lance on lance raids where cool also.
-
I lean more towards mid scale. Company battalion level. Big enough to be impressive, but small enough to manage, and develop your own "story". The old school lance on lance raids where cool also.
+1
In the fiction, I love reading about the full scale wars like the 4th succession war and Operation Revival. In my own games, I prefer small scale raiding and attacks, punctuated with the occasional big battle to take one planet. Any bigger, and the fluff crowds out the game. That might change with IO, but I was always happiest playing company-level battles on the tabletop.
The Clans are ideal for this, too, since their Trial system is mostly geared towards this scale of action. And with them you still get the occasional full-scale war.
Total war, on the other hand, especially nukes and bio-war, totally turns me off. At that point, I start thinking, why play BT in the first place? Big apocalyptic showdowns and constant radical changes make the setting less meaningful for me.
The Mad Max 3025/DA setting doesn't do anything for me either, though to a much lesser extent. Dark Ages was why I stopped playing for a while. With the revival of 3060-3090 material, I got interested again.
-
Well i'm late too but here goes...
Now that we've had all levels we have to feel what would be next and i agree with the poll's result. More invasion of conquest scale. Especially if we are looking for post-Republic "peace time", and Front door Dark Age invasions for nations to use.
This gives us a recent Peace time, and War Just getting into the swing of things again environments to play in. And with Jihad's Total Warfare feel just finished, were in a great reach of all levels range of conflict.