When will we finally get another solid Battletech video game?

[jackpot4]

I tried, i honestly tried to play HBStech again and the gentleman's warfare is just too much....

I know my opinion on this matter isn't the majority and for those who are beyond excited just to have a Battletech universe game, they may not just disagree but, may hate my opinion. 

I remember my excitement that HBS was actually going to make a Battletech game where you control your lance from overhead.  Finally something new, current generation!  I was on the hype train with everyone else.  Then, my heart sunk.  When i found they were going to do 1700's gentleman's warfare for combat rather than Battletech's 30 year old, and modern, simultaneous combat.  I could not grasp how the guy who made Battletech would regress to such an archaic type of combat. 

Immediately they were under fire for going that route, they had to make entire videos justifying their decision, essentially saying that people weren't mentally capable of keeping up with what was going on if they chose simultaneous combat.  They came up with all these reasons why it was "better" like the idea that light mechs were now more viable.  It was unbelievable to hear this after playing Battletech.  After playing HBStech I have never seen light mechs so useless. 

One major reason I remember them justifying the need for gentleman's warfare because people couldn't mentally keep up was because of multiplayer.  Already I was hesitant because of gentleman's warfare but, when I saw the KS tier that included multiplayer, I refused to donate if it got anywhere near that level.  Time and again in many games, even AAA titles when there is multiplayer, there are shortcomings in the single player mode that wasn't there when the focus was solely on single player.  One epic example is the catastrophe around the end of Mass Effect 3.  They had plenty of multiplayer but, had the resources been committed to the story - what would live on for years and decades longer than multiplayer - they could have given us the truly epic, visual conclusion we were all expecting on release.  Minutes more of space combat as thousands of vessels fought for dear life, larger scopes of ground combat as thousands, possibly millions of allied warriors made groundfall, and more.  So much wasted potential.  What we got in Mass Effect 1 for when it was made was more than what we got in Mass Effect 3 for when it was made.  Similar parallels can be drawn such as the Gears of War Trilogy vs 4 and 5, or Halo CE/trilogy vs 4 and 5, etc.

As far as what we get for the time we are in, a great comparison is (IMO) the pinnacle of Battletech on PC, MW4: Mercs.  Set during the FedCom Civil War, voice acting throughout the game, picking and choosing missions all over, control of two full lances of mechs at a time, and even on the Overlord Assault, COMPANIES of mechs fighting with VTOL and armor support.  How was a game, made 20 years ago, more capable of that kind of onscreen content than one made in the current generation?  A homeowner can have more powerful equipment that Microsoft had when they made MW4 Mercs.  How can the AI control 15 mechs or more at a time but we cannot control more than 4?  Yes, they are two different types of games, I totally see that, but, how are there more restrictions now than then?

Simultaneous combat could easily be implemented and made in such a way that is easy to view and understand plus, the BALANCE.  Simultaneous combat balance on tabletop wargaming is the most balanced form of gameplay I have ever witnessed.  Massive war machines moving around aren't taking cover like a foot soldier, they are up and moving near constantly, the expectation is to be under barrages of fire and returning that fire constantly.  Moving at the same time and firing at the same time are very basic expectations for the battlefields of Battletech.  Had multiplayer never even been a (failure) goal, the amount of effort that could have gone into single player would have made it infinitely re-playable (my opinion).  I remember checking the MP list on a Sunday afternoon a month after release and there was 1 game being hosted.  I was very vocal about how multiplayer should not have been included with this game.  Without it we could have easily had simultaneous combat, we could have had dozens of alternate sequences for the space flights, we could have had dozens of more motion slides for the cutscenes, we could have actually taken part in the assaults against the main enemy armies in the campaign sequences. 

I find it baffling how games playing with 1700s style gentleman's warfare are successful.  The wife and I are a bit into Star Wars and wanted to give the game a try so we got the box sets and a mat and played.  We gave the games a few tries and it nearly always ends with one side getting steam rolled because while your fighter is sitting still, it gets shot out of the sky and then you gang up on the rest.  After just a few games, we agreed, it was not fun.  So, I fixed the rules, I made it simultaneous combat.  All the fighters constantly moving, constantly firing, chaos and FUN.  I simply told her "This is why I play Battletech".  Another game I wish would fix the rules and advance past the 1700s is 40K, somehow after 40,000 years, they fight like the British before losing the Revolution.  I really enjoy watching miniwargaming, striking scorpion and other youtubers playing the game because I can just enjoy seeing the models and hearing about battles happening.  If I get too into it, as an outsider with little knowledge of the rules, I can even identify stuff that is nonsense balance wise.  I get that game has a great many issues but lining up and getting shot, before shooting back will never make sense to me. 

After giving HBStech a real, solid try, yes, 20+ hours, it pushed me over the edge tonight.  ctrl+alt+delete, end task, steam, uninstall.  They had such an opportunity and (IMO) squandered it.  I hear roguetech has helped make the game dramatically better and I sincerely hope people keep building on it.  Perhaps in a few months when I can stomach gentleman's warfare enough to try to play this game for just being in the Battletech universe, that mod may help salvage my opinion of the game.  Hopefully we have a slew of non-MWO mech designs we can play with (just a personal desire). 

I am glad that some people really cherish this game and find satisfaction in it but, after experiencing Battletech, HBStech is lacking in so many areas and those areas cause me great frustration when I just want to enjoy it, use some strategy and have fun playing Battletech.  I cannot wait until we can start getting back together at the LGS for some games, I miss them greatly.  [Written during the C19......situation  ::)  ]

My one request, of anything, if HBS makes another Battletech game, they make it simultaneous combat.

If you read this through, thanks for the time, I hope I have provided an insight to an idea/opinion that some may not have considered. 

[Elmoth]

I agree that lights are replaced ASAP if you can. Only exception maybe is a Panther as a backup for when your PPC mech is in repairs. IN general, in the game, bigger is better since all missions end up being slugfests. that is my main criticism. All missions are pitched battles in the end.

Simultaneous play?= I dont' know if this would solve it, though. I don't think so. More mission variety would be better for me, so to each one his own. As opposed to you, I did enjoy the game, and still am. Right now I am starting a career mode with all the settings in stingy mode, no massive upgrades in the Argo, and I will sell all assault mech components I get in order to get a more realistic lance. Besides that (autorestrictions to keep witgh the light-medium and 1 heavy maybe) limit to have what I believe to be a more sensible unit evolution, I am ok with the game as it is :)

[Nightlord01]

I agree that lights are replaced ASAP if you can. Only exception maybe is a Panther as a backup for when your PPC mech is in repairs. IN general, in the game, bigger is better since all missions end up being slugfests. that is my main criticism. All missions are pitched battles in the end.

Simultaneous play?= I dont' know if this would solve it, though. I don't think so. More mission variety would be better for me, so to each one his own. As opposed to you, I did enjoy the game, and still am. Right now I am starting a career mode with all the settings in stingy mode, no massive upgrades in the Argo, and I will sell all assault mech components I get in order to get a more realistic lance. Besides that (autorestrictions to keep witgh the light-medium and 1 heavy maybe) limit to have what I believe to be a more sensible unit evolution, I am ok with the game as it is :)

More mission types may help, but they aren't going to fix it. One change that could fix this would be sensors like in MC1/2, where your mechs could detect something well beyond visual range, and if the mechwarrior was specced right, could tell you what it was. I could see this being very useful, having at least one light mech out for scouting.

Realistically, the issue is the pilot skills and equipment, where a heavy mech can get good evasion, and a light mech can have their evasion attrited by numerous enemies, there's a serious law of diminishing returns to speed. Since the PC always outnumbers the players unit by a significant number, they get better reduction of evasion. In the environment where speed is no longer armour, there's no substitute for armour.

Can't fix that one now, players are used to it. For every player you made happy because lights are worthwhile again, you have ten who would be pissed at the exchange. Most of the players I know look forward to replacing their lights and mediums with heavies, change that and you might be getting somewhere.

[Sartris]

cpu pilots with higher skills also make life very hard for lights.

besides the one lance limit, the other problem is mission structure - you usually get dropped a few turns from the objective. there is not really room for a ton of sophisticated tactics. the other thing is you don't need a scout mech. i just got to the lostech cache mission and my "recon" is a thunderbolt with a 10 tactics decker. run in, sensor lock, bombard with LRMs.

another annoyance is that the enemy often doesn't show up until you fulfill an objective. you can't scout ahead because there's nothing to scout.

[MarauderD]

It sounds like a MechCommander 3 is what you would prefer?

I think the issue here is no AAA studio can (or would) touch BattleTech.  Microsoft doesn't seem to think it is a profitable license, as they've sat on their hands since MW4 back in 2000.  That is 20 years.

I totally understand HBS' BattleTech isn't for everyone.  Having played all the BattleTech games in the last 10 years, and some of them with 1000+ hours poured into them, I would love to see a MechCommander 3 with simlutaneous combat come out.  I just don't think we'll see it in our lifetimes.

As a side note, having played MWO for years and the newer MW5, at least HBS BattleTech had some love and care crafted into it.  PGI took the bones of fun 1st person shooter, and continued to make it worse for 5 years.  Then, they took the worst AI I've ever seen in gaming (been playing PC games since the early 90's) and made MW5.  I'd give the game one out of 5 stars, and I love all things BattleTech.

Pray PGI doesn't keep the license in 2025, and someone makes another worthy BattleTech game.  Because it won't be them.

[Maingunnery]

I supported the KS, and when I played the game I quickly found out that I don't like turn-based PC games.
I rather have a Real-Time Tactical game such as MechCommander.

[nckestrel]

cpu pilots with higher skills also make life very hard for lights.

besides the one lance limit, the other problem is mission structure - you usually get dropped a few turns from the objective. there is not really room for a ton of sophisticated tactics. the other thing is you don't need a scout mech. i just got to the lostech cache mission and my "recon" is a thunderbolt with a 10 tactics decker. run in, sensor lock, bombard with LRMs.

another annoyance is that the enemy often doesn't show up until you fulfill an objective. you can't scout ahead because there's nothing to scout.

All of these generally describe BattleTech tabletop.  Ok, maybe not the last. :)

[Sartris]

in tabletop at least you can blame it on time. i've had to get super creative trying to create some variety in mission objectives.

i don't hate the game (except when urban missions with a bunch of enemies absolutely cook my laptop). in fact it's grown on me a lot since i first played it in 2018. i just wish there was some greater variance than what's there where you can solve almost every problem with a bigger, better crafted hammer or intentionally handicapping yourself

[MarauderD]

My biggest bone to pick with HBS game is the immersion factor:  they have all the tools to do it right, but their tools don't quite do it.

Wolverine K in Marik forces?  Shouldn't happen.  Does happen.

Everyone fielding a metric ton of Javelins?  Shouldn't happen.  Does Happen.

Taurian lances should have tons of Warhammers and Marauders:  they only manufacture 3 heavies in their realm, but all I see is Quickdraws.

Etc, etc.  You get the idea.

[Daryk]

I backed early, expecting a sexier MegaMek (with which I would have been quite happy).  That's not what we got.  I played it through the campaign, and even tried to install the first patch, but that exceeded my computer's limits (upon which I based the decision to back the KS).  I don't even remember the last time I played at this point...  :-\

[jackpot4]

I am glad this became a good discussion guys, thanks for that. 

Would I prefer Mech Commander 3 or Battletech on PC?  Most certainly, I would take either over HBStech.  The comparison I draw is that home PC owners now can have more powerful machines with better tools than Microsoft had when they made Mech Commander or MW4.  We can see that the mod communities are using this aspect to accomplish great things.  If they made the one change from Gentleman's Warfare to Simultaneous Combat, I would venture to say the game would be amazing and I'd have had thousands of hours logged.  But, in my opinion, the most important aspect that affects every game played, ruins the entire experience.  No matter how much effort went into character development, graphical design, what little voice acting there is, etc.; all of it falls by the wayside where the gameplay at its core is gentleman's warfare.

While typing this and thinking about everyone else on the team, it really is a shame.  I bet the world designers really put in the effort, the artists, all of them put in a great amount of effort and because someone made this decision to change the base, fundamental element that puts Battletech above other game systems in balance and fairness, it stole from everyone's work and took from my experience as well.  I am sure there are worlds, environments, and missions I have never experienced because I can't stomach such a consistently bad gameplay experience (IMO). 

All of these generally describe BattleTech tabletop.  Ok, maybe not the last. :)

I did spot this comment and would have to disagree.  A true 4 to 6 movement mod is far more effective than 7 evasions in HBStech.  Even at short range a 2/3 pilot still has to roll 6 to 8 (assuming no woods hexes are nearby) to even hit the light mech and I've seen a great number of easier shots miss. 

Even in games with all 3/4 pilots, the light mechs can be the most devastating.  A Spider can harass and nearly kill an Atlas that is on its own, a Gunsmith can shred armor off larger mechs, etc.  Having the capability to control when your mechs move is what gives lights such power.  HBStech's gentleman's warfare made lights nearly worthless or constantly having to be move in such a way to abuse the turn based system or having to flee the majority of the time.  Forcing lights to move first or have them sit and be shot at by all the other lights and mediums makes them incredibly easy targets.  The only thing protecting them is if programming was put in place to force the in game AI to look toward bigger targets a specific % of the time.

[Colt Ward]

Would I prefer Mech Commander 3 or Battletech on PC?  Most certainly, I would take either over HBStech.  The comparison I draw is that home PC owners now can have more powerful machines with better tools than Microsoft had when they made Mech Commander or MW4.  We can see that the mod communities are using this aspect to accomplish great things.  If they made the one change from Gentleman's Warfare to Simultaneous Combat, I would venture to say the game would be amazing and I'd have had thousands of hours logged.  But, in my opinion, the most important aspect that affects every game played, ruins the entire experience.  No matter how much effort went into character development, graphical design, what little voice acting there is, etc.; all of it falls by the wayside where the gameplay at its core is gentleman's warfare.

While typing this and thinking about everyone else on the team, it really is a shame.  I bet the world designers really put in the effort, the artists, all of them put in a great amount of effort and because someone made this decision to change the base, fundamental element that puts Battletech above other game systems in balance and fairness, it stole from everyone's work and took from my experience as well.  I am sure there are worlds, environments, and missions I have never experienced because I can't stomach such a consistently bad gameplay experience (IMO). 

I am sorry, you are looking at MechCommander, etc with rosy glasses.  MC2 had the worst AI I have ever encountered and when I have gone back to replay it I constantly have to remind myself NOT to go with my usual cavalry tactics b/c it uses a exploit in the AI.  Changing the difficulty setting did not make the AI smarter, it just increased the probability of headshots- that is it.

Your first paragraph explains why you are never really going to get what you want- why what we got with MWO was long on promises that did not deliver.  I thought their original concept, replaying the invasion in real time with each side controlled by real people was a interesting work around to one of the biggest problems in game design- a competent AI for single player games.  Look at the state of the industry- most things are FPS or online play with very few offering any sort of decent single player narrative, partly because fighting a thinking human is still harder than most of the AIs.  Games are also expected to be open to allowing folks to tweak, make their own versions/mods, and all sorts of aftermarket options which reduce what the revenue could be . . . so why spend money developing a awesome new MC3 when you can pour that money into Call of Duty Retread #58?

Its why I have not bought a great many games in recent years . . . I think the last 3 games I have bought were . . . HBS, Solaris, and before those?  Sins of a Solar Empire . . . I do not exactly count the Total War title (Rome II?) I got as a gift b/c its in the same vein . . . and yes, it was a 'retread' with the latest tech.

[IntoTheRain]

Bought it during the steam sale.  As someone who only has a handful of games playing the tabletop, its about what I expected.  I finished off the campaign last night, and started Career mode today.

The Good:
* Company management.  This has been by far my favorite thing about the game.  The early game can be super tricky, and you really have to pick and choose your battles both in and out of missions.  A lucky crit can be a big deal if you aren't save scumming, and even a few random events can have major ramifications early.  Of course, as you get C-Bills this starts to fall off and you have a lot more freedom, especially once you start upgrading the ship for shorter turnaround between missions.

* The re-balanced weapons seem to be a step in the right direction, finally making the limited, exploding stuff better than energy boats.  Its not perfect, but I think I like it better than the TT values.  I heard a lot of mods move it closer to the TT, which I'm actually not looking forward to.

* The initiative system is a lot cleaner than the tabletop version.  Turn based or no, this gives lighter chassis some clear advantages over their heavier brethren.  On the other hand it *screws* the low end of the weight spectrum for each class, and there is basically no reason to take something like a Dragon if you have access to 55 tonners.



The Bad:
* The actual missions are a letdown.  When I bought the game, I was expecting a combat sim with a tiny bit of management as an afterthought.  As it turns out, the game plays like a management sim with the combat as an afterthought.  There are only a few maps, they all load in the same spot, and the mission variety is sorely lacking.  This has been by far my biggest complaint with the game. 

* Missions take a long time.  I've played very few turn based PC games in my time, but btech hasn't made much of a case for me to dig deeper.  In the spirit of the tabletop, pilots are crosseyed and have a seizure any time they pull the trigger.  Weapons go flying everywhere and draw battles out for incredible periods of time.  This makes you incredibly reliant on Called Shots to quickly finish enemies, as even highly skilled pilots can't seem to put their shots on target.  Of course, once you get a high morale score and called shot masteries on your pilots, it becomes shooting fish in a barrel.

* Difficulty scaling is wonky.  The game throws you to the wolves at the start of the game, with little information regarding things like mech facing, movement modifiers, called shots, etc.  I spent hours learning when things were good and why.  Even spent a fair amount of time online learning some of the mechanics.  But once you make it through the early game, the game becomes increasingly easy, and eventually you are rolling in money, mechs, and pilots.  The game needs something to make both the management and in missions harder when you reach the late game.

* The mechlab is too restrictive.  Yeah, yeah its 3025.  There is still a brutal lack of options for mechs besides weapons.  No engine modding means a lot of chassis just cannot be salvaged as useful units.  The fixed modules on certain chassis are even worse, making them vastly superior to other mechs on similar weights. 

I'm curious to see what the mods add to the game.  If they can fix some of the problems then I'll think I got my money's worth.

I would definitely prefer a real time version of the game.  Been playing Company of Heroes 2 lately and thought it might be a decent place to adapt Btech onto.

[MarauderD]

Bought it during the steam sale.  As someone who only has a handful of games playing the tabletop, its about what I expected.  I finished off the campaign last night, and started Career mode today.

The Good:
* Company management.  This has been by far my favorite thing about the game.  The early game can be super tricky, and you really have to pick and choose your battles both in and out of missions.  A lucky crit can be a big deal if you aren't save scumming, and even a few random events can have major ramifications early.  Of course, as you get C-Bills this starts to fall off and you have a lot more freedom, especially once you start upgrading the ship for shorter turnaround between missions.

* The re-balanced weapons seem to be a step in the right direction, finally making the limited, exploding stuff better than energy boats.  Its not perfect, but I think I like it better than the TT values.  I heard a lot of mods move it closer to the TT, which I'm actually not looking forward to.

* The initiative system is a lot cleaner than the tabletop version.  Turn based or no, this gives lighter chassis some clear advantages over their heavier brethren.  On the other hand it *screws* the low end of the weight spectrum for each class, and there is basically no reason to take something like a Dragon if you have access to 55 tonners.



The Bad:
* The actual missions are a letdown.  When I bought the game, I was expecting a combat sim with a tiny bit of management as an afterthought.  As it turns out, the game plays like a management sim with the combat as an afterthought.  There are only a few maps, they all load in the same spot, and the mission variety is sorely lacking.  This has been by far my biggest complaint with the game. 

* Missions take a long time.  I've played very few turn based PC games in my time, but btech hasn't made much of a case for me to dig deeper.  In the spirit of the tabletop, pilots are crosseyed and have a seizure any time they pull the trigger.  Weapons go flying everywhere and draw battles out for incredible periods of time.  This makes you incredibly reliant on Called Shots to quickly finish enemies, as even highly skilled pilots can't seem to put their shots on target.  Of course, once you get a high morale score and called shot masteries on your pilots, it becomes shooting fish in a barrel.

* Difficulty scaling is wonky.  The game throws you to the wolves at the start of the game, with little information regarding things like mech facing, movement modifiers, called shots, etc.  I spent hours learning when things were good and why.  Even spent a fair amount of time online learning some of the mechanics.  But once you make it through the early game, the game becomes increasingly easy, and eventually you are rolling in money, mechs, and pilots.  The game needs something to make both the management and in missions harder when you reach the late game.

* The mechlab is too restrictive.  Yeah, yeah its 3025.  There is still a brutal lack of options for mechs besides weapons.  No engine modding means a lot of chassis just cannot be salvaged as useful units.  The fixed modules on certain chassis are even worse, making them vastly superior to other mechs on similar weights. 

I'm curious to see what the mods add to the game.  If they can fix some of the problems then I'll think I got my money's worth.

I would definitely prefer a real time version of the game.  Been playing Company of Heroes 2 lately and thought it might be a decent place to adapt Btech onto.

Question for you:  when you bought it on steam, did you get any of the DLC with it?  It wouldn't fix your valid complaints, but I'd say the game was about twice as enjoyable for me with all 3 of the DLC than without them.  The flashpoints and Mechs from the 3rd update are pretty fun and add a lot of depth and replayability in the career mode.

I believe the three DLC are Flashpoint, Urban Warfare, and Heavy Metal.  Just FYI.

Cheers,

mad

[Seer]

Whatever ends up happening, what I want to see is combined arms warfare. Infantry, aerospace, armor, etc. A campaign where you command at least a Company's worth of units over the long term, ideally a Battalion's worth. That way the player could feasibly take the field in their own 'Mech: at higher levels this doesn't happen. A Regiment or more could also turn it into Battletech: Hearts of Iron (no thanks). For something of this scale, a RTS system would make it too 'gamey'. A "WEGO" turn based system over the 'gentleman's warfare' "IGO-UGO" would be better from what I've seen of other wargames. That said, I understand there would be issues in implementing it, especially concerning melee and DFAs. But that hardly seems insurmountable. HBS actually investigated 'simultaneous' systems during the kickstarter back in 2016:

We have built and played the hell out of seven (7!) different approaches to turn order, from a completely linear XCOM-like system to a completely simultaneous action system with many variations in between...

Because so much happened so quickly, you often found yourself needing to dive into each 'Mech’s data after the action just to understand what happened in the previous round. As you can imagine, that wasn’t very fun. The other goal these prototypes failed at was actually the most important - they felt like you were commanding fighter planes, not BattleMechs. They didn’t feel like BattleTech.

I think the devs wanted the player to feel in control and give them every opportunity to completely understand what was happening, which is the opposite of what a commander experiences. Much is actually out of your control and down to the forces on the ground implementing your orders. I think HBS made the right choice for the scale of combat in their game, where you essentially micro-manage a lance of 'mechs, but for anything larger a 'simultaneous' system will be necessary, and that's what I want to see: a proper Battletech wargame on the computer.

[Nightlord01]

I think the devs wanted the player to feel in control and give them every opportunity to completely understand what was happening, which is the opposite of what a commander experiences. Much is actually out of your control and down to the forces on the ground implementing your orders. I think HBS made the right choice for the scale of combat in their game, where you essentially micro-manage a lance of 'mechs, but for anything larger a 'simultaneous' system will be necessary, and that's what I want to see: a proper Battletech wargame on the computer.

What, exactly, do you mean by simultaneous? Are you talking like the Battletech board game? Or are you talking real time? They are very different things, and while I think a real time game is the best proven contender, it would not feel at all like board game Battletech. As much as I enjoyed MechCommander and MechCommander 2, it felt more like Company of Heroes than Battletech on PC.

[Seer]

Simultaneous gameplay differs from real time or sequential gameplay in that you have no foreknowledge of your opponents moves. Both you and your opponent plan your moves and then the moves play out simultaneously. In real time you can obviously change moves on the fly, while in sequential (e.g. TT) play your opponent moves and you can then plan a counter-move. Simultaneous means once your orders have been given you're rendered an observer until the turn has ended, and the same for your opponent. Orders take as long as they take under the battlefield conditions, so orders can persist from turn to turn unless you intervene during another orders phase. Best example I can give you of it in action is a game called Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm (pick it up on sale; it's great).

I think this would work well for BT because unlike in TT play where there's a degree of confusion and chaos from the very small increments of time involved (10 seconds iirc) here the opposite is the case: the confusion and chaos comes from large stretches of time where commanders cannot issue new orders. It takes time for orders to be effectively relayed between different command levels -- from your command staff down to your junior officers. This can be impacted by electronic warfare and other conditions, like whether the chain of command has been disrupted by battlefield deaths. It makes for a less predicable experience.

[Nightlord01]

Simultaneous gameplay differs from real time or sequential gameplay in that you have no foreknowledge of your opponents moves. Both you and your opponent plan your moves and then the moves play out simultaneously. In real time you can obviously change moves on the fly, while in sequential (e.g. TT) play your opponent moves and you can then plan a counter-move. Simultaneous means once your orders have been given you're rendered an observer until the turn has ended, and the same for your opponent. Orders take as long as they take under the battlefield conditions, so orders can persist from turn to turn unless you intervene during another orders phase. Best example I can give you of it in action is a game called Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm (pick it up on sale; it's great).

I think this would work well for BT because unlike in TT play where there's a degree of confusion and chaos from the very small increments of time involved (10 seconds iirc) here the opposite is the case: the confusion and chaos comes from large stretches of time where commanders cannot issue new orders. It takes time for orders to be effectively relayed between different command levels -- from your command staff down to your junior officers. This can be impacted by electronic warfare and other conditions, like whether the chain of command has been disrupted by battlefield deaths. It makes for a less predicable experience.

Ahh now I see, so in essence an RTS is inherently a simultaneous experience, turn based need to work for it. I'm not the biggest fan of turn based games anymore, prefer real time now.

My personal favourite turn based game was Lords of the Realm 2, where each turn was simultaneous for players, you could march armies throughout the turn, including running away from much larger armies if you got them to move first. TBH it was the best bits of RTS and turn based put together, shame they faffed the third one.

[Sir Chaos]

Ahh now I see, so in essence an RTS is inherently a simultaneous experience, turn based need to work for it. I'm not the biggest fan of turn based games anymore, prefer real time now.

My personal favourite turn based game was Lords of the Realm 2, where each turn was simultaneous for players, you could march armies throughout the turn, including running away from much larger armies if you got them to move first. TBH it was the best bits of RTS and turn based put together, shame they faffed the third one.

Kind of. Imagine a real-time game where you cannot issue orders while the real-time part is running - but every 10 or 20 or whatever second, the game pauses and you can issue orders for the next 10-20 segment.

"Battlestar Galactica: Deadlock" works like this, for example.

[Elmoth]

A great example of this kind of thing was the old space hulk game, where you had ,(iirc) a minute where you could pause the game to issue orders. It was an actual minute, so each time you paused the game to issue orders the clock was ticking. It put A LOT of pressure on you

[beachhead1985]

I backed early, expecting a sexier MegaMek (with which I would have been quite happy).  That's not what we got.  I played it through the campaign, and even tried to install the first patch, but that exceeded my computer's limits (upon which I based the decision to back the KS).  I don't even remember the last time I played at this point...  :-\

I really feel you.

I backed early as well and was sorely disappointed.

Honestly; I felt like they sold out unnecessarily. I think less energy on graphics on more on story and raw capability; like having more than a lance or so would have made for a better game. as it was; meh; not worth my time to just race to the heavies and assaults in order to weather *waves* of enemies.

[Nightlord01]

I really feel you.

I backed early as well and was sorely disappointed.

Honestly; I felt like they sold out unnecessarily. I think less energy on graphics on more on story and raw capability; like having more than a lance or so would have made for a better game. as it was; meh; not worth my time to just race to the heavies and assaults in order to weather *waves* of enemies.

I can't agree, HBSBT is wildly popular compared to CGLBT, and it's been better received than most of the other BT games in the last couple of decades. MegaMek is for players who want CGLBT on their PC, and were a beautified version released it would have limited success noting the availability of MegaMek itself and the limited appeal of CGLBT.

While HBSBT had a storyline that could best be described as 3015 meets Hollywood, it remains a 3015 storyline that neatly suits an idealised version of the Battletech Universe, it's actually better than MC2's storyline, which was frankly terrible, MCG had the best storyline out of the tactical BT games, hands down.

So I don't agree that HBSBT sold out unnecessarily, I think they just weren't aiming for the audience you think they were.

[MarauderD]

I can't agree, HBSBT is wildly popular compared to CGLBT, and it's been better received than most of the other BT games in the last couple of decades. MegaMek is for players who want CGLBT on their PC, and were a beautified version released it would have limited success noting the availability of MegaMek itself and the limited appeal of CGLBT.

While HBSBT had a storyline that could best be described as 3015 meets Hollywood, it remains a 3015 storyline that neatly suits an idealised version of the Battletech Universe, it's actually better than MC2's storyline, which was frankly terrible, MCG had the best storyline out of the tactical BT games, hands down.

So I don't agree that HBSBT sold out unnecessarily, I think they just weren't aiming for the audience you think they were.

Agree completely.  If you didn't enjoy HBS' BattleTech, I understand.  But it is an amazing game, which I thought was quite excellent.  The DLC rounded out the content, flashpoints, and Unseen mechs nicely.  Wiseman himself said he wanted to take the best part of BattleTech TT game and iterate on it, improving what could be improved in a turn based format.  I know the initiative system rubbed some folks wrong, but it was stated that HBS wasn't porting the boardgame over to be a beautiful MegaMek. 

It might not be for everyone, but as a backer for MWO, MW5, and HBS' BattleTech, the only one worth the money I spent is BattleTech.  Just my subjective opinion, I know.

[Colt Ward]

MC2's storyline was good I thought, it just had some of the usual format problems (if the FS & LA had that much gear, why were they not roflstomping the Cappie guerillas?)

IMO, MC & MW3 gave a plausible answer to some of that- and MW3 started you off with a upper end medium rather than the 'normal' weak unit.  Funny enough, MC2 did as well- you had 2 Bushie and that new Razorback.

You CAN play through with limited heavies & assaults . . . and even limiting your pilot improvements.  It is one way to increase the difficulty level, lol.


Btw, I had been working on a MC MegaMek campaign . . . lots of custom maps and trying to figure out how to work the AI . . . and assigning better mech selections (MC scenario has a Jagermech as oppo?  Get a Rifleman IIC 2).

[Sartris]

the drop limits on tonnage in MC pretty much guaranteed you weren't coming in ultra heavy. pretty sure i was still running mistique's raven and falcon's hunch iic well into the last operation. i think the warhawk you hijack in that late mission was one of the few assaults i used. too many missions where speed and timing matters to rely on the big slow assaults or too much to defend like that protect the barns mission early on when you can drop ten units.

if it weren't for development limitations, i totally agree there should be far more second line clan stuff. my favorite piece of weirdness though was how many vehicles the jags used. though it's probably good you were facing rommels instead of athenas  ;D

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, I will have to post my MC to MM/TT conversion list when I get home.  LOL, those Cs on the list will get a bit of a upgrade with the RecGuide retcon.

But yeah, I shifted the list to Drac salvage & Star League left overs while making the vehicles Clan police types- which makes them easier to kill.

[jasonf]

I've actually enjoyed HBS BT quite a bit, too. Heck, it's probably the main driver of getting me back into the sourcebooks and lore.

On the issues about missions and Mech size as you progress, I started playing around with some of the mods out there and found they did a decent job addressing them.

There's one called RougeTech that tries to bring as much CGLBT aspects into the game as possible. Lots of people seem to like it, though I found it a bit overkill for the PC version, especially when it came to the UI. There is another one called Commander's Edition that stays true to the HBS BT format but adds all the Mechs and planets.

I think both have added missions with max tonnages (at least in Career mode), which forces players to keep lighter Mech sizes in their stable. This helps quite a bit in making the missions more varied, especially later in the game.

 

[Nightlord01]

MC2's storyline was good I thought, it just had some of the usual format problems (if the FS & LA had that much gear, why were they not roflstomping the Cappie guerillas?)

IMO, MC & MW3 gave a plausible answer to some of that- and MW3 started you off with a upper end medium rather than the 'normal' weak unit.  Funny enough, MC2 did as well- you had 2 Bushie and that new Razorback.

You CAN play through with limited heavies & assaults . . . and even limiting your pilot improvements.  It is one way to increase the difficulty level, lol.


Btw, I had been working on a MC MegaMek campaign . . . lots of custom maps and trying to figure out how to work the AI . . . and assigning better mech selections (MC scenario has a Jagermech as oppo?  Get a Rifleman IIC 2).

MechCommander 2 storyline was your straight up Three Kings/Rambo storyline, in other words, straight out of Hollywood. So while HBSBT had a Hollywoodised Battletech story, MC2 had a Hollywood story with a veneer of Battletech. While it is a competent telling of the tale, it's not a Battletech story, which is why I consider it somewhat terrible.

Contrast that against MC and MW3, where the story was part of a greater Battletech storyline that was playing out at the time it was released. Both of those games were published by Microprose (IIRC) and it was clear they were made with the same vision. Net result we got a Battletech storyline, told in the Battletech fashion, putting us in the seat of the action as it happened in universe. Pretty awesome, with a creative game engine that effectively forced you to take lighter mechs and victory conditions that supported this. The restrictions don't make much sense from an out of character perspective, something the literature for the game makes fun of.

I'd love a remastered edition, but that's never going to happen. :-(

[Colt Ward]

MechCommander 2 storyline was your straight up Three Kings/Rambo storyline, in other words, straight out of Hollywood. So while HBSBT had a Hollywoodised Battletech story, MC2 had a Hollywood story with a veneer of Battletech. While it is a competent telling of the tale, it's not a Battletech story, which is why I consider it somewhat terrible.

 . . . MC2 story was Operation Guerrero?  It was a story about mercs working the sides in a conflict- yes it reinforced the Davion white-hat syndrome.  The whole thing was not too different than what we get for some scenarios and fiction.  The mechanics still had you taking lights b/c they were the sensor platforms, like MC.  Story was pretty simple- the FedCom garrison hires you off IIRC Outreach to come hunt bandits . . . and then you find out they are Liao backed insurgents who are linked to the former Liao nobles of the planet.  Then the commander of the FedCom unit declares for Katherine and uses you to try to keep the Victor loyalists in line- because your paid troops are more reliable than the two thirds who follow the CO for Katherine.  Then we get the obligatory double cross due to shifting alliances.  And because of the placement of the world used, the independence movement actually takes . . . heck, IIRC BT even changes the name of the planet for a little bit.

But MC2 duplicated the limited drop weight/slots of MC- the Lyran single mech drop to raid the support areas for the Cho nobles, the Davion single mech drop for the prison break, and a few more.  The situation gets broken when you had the field recovery VTOL . . . start the battle with a pair of mechs, end it with a full company using your MFBs to repair everything as much as possible to cut between mission costs.  But that is part of the horrid mechanics Micro$haft put in the game- I think I already ranted further up topic about the AI.

The story is typical BT.

[Seer]

There's one called RougeTech that tries to bring as much CGLBT aspects into the game as possible. Lots of people seem to like it, though I found it a bit overkill for the PC version, especially when it came to the UI. There is another one called Commander's Edition that stays true to the HBS BT format but adds all the Mechs and planets.

I'm currently playing with Battletech Revised myself. You don't have the whole galaxy but you still have the same faction conflict system and a much better 'mechlab, amongst a lot of other improvements. Rougetech is a classic example of feature bloat but it's also kinda amazing they were able to do so much to the game and have it still work.

Of the most popular overhaul mods they kinda go like this in terms of features and complexity:
XAI BattleTech 3025 (the only one where you can do the campaign like normal)
Battletech Revised (campaign as flashpoints only, start with Argo)
BattleTech Extended 3025 Commander's Edition
BattleTech Advanced 3062
RougeTech

[elf25s]

am i rhe only one that enjoyed mechwarrior 3 story and how you get to command the lance? tbh mobile bases and ability to send your lance or individual unit to a way point was innovative for its time and it annoyed me that new game of mw5 did not bring that to the table...

[Maingunnery]

am i rhe only one that enjoyed mechwarrior 3 story and how you get to command the lance? tbh mobile bases and ability to send your lance or individual unit to a way point was innovative for its time and it annoyed me that new game of mw5 did not bring that to the table...

The command system was quite fun and should have been refined in the future, but the most exceptional thing that I remember of MW3 are the mission briefings, those were great.

[Colt Ward]

The briefings were the best, the recon flight data letting you see how the terrain was and the way points set up.

[Nightlord01]

. . . MC2 story was Operation Guerrero?  It was a story about mercs working the sides in a conflict- yes it reinforced the Davion white-hat syndrome.  The whole thing was not too different than what we get for some scenarios and fiction.  The mechanics still had you taking lights b/c they were the sensor platforms, like MC.  Story was pretty simple- the FedCom garrison hires you off IIRC Outreach to come hunt bandits . . . and then you find out they are Liao backed insurgents who are linked to the former Liao nobles of the planet.  Then the commander of the FedCom unit declares for Katherine and uses you to try to keep the Victor loyalists in line- because your paid troops are more reliable than the two thirds who follow the CO for Katherine.  Then we get the obligatory double cross due to shifting alliances.  And because of the placement of the world used, the independence movement actually takes . . . heck, IIRC BT even changes the name of the planet for a little bit.

But MC2 duplicated the limited drop weight/slots of MC- the Lyran single mech drop to raid the support areas for the Cho nobles, the Davion single mech drop for the prison break, and a few more.  The situation gets broken when you had the field recovery VTOL . . . start the battle with a pair of mechs, end it with a full company using your MFBs to repair everything as much as possible to cut between mission costs.  But that is part of the horrid mechanics Micro$haft put in the game- I think I already ranted further up topic about the AI.

The story is typical BT.

The fact that a Mercenary company, which largely only fights for money, assists a group that can't pay them to overthrow a dictatorship, the standard method of government in the entire universe, and a great house aids, and recognises independence of a planet that was theirs is not a Battletech ending, it's a Hollywood ending.

am i rhe only one that enjoyed mechwarrior 3 story and how you get to command the lance? tbh mobile bases and ability to send your lance or individual unit to a way point was innovative for its time and it annoyed me that new game of mw5 did not bring that to the table...

Not by a long shot, I wrote above that I loved the story of both MC and MW3, they were incredible in universe stories.

[Lorcan Nagle]

The fact that a Mercenary company, which largely only fights for money, assists a group that can't pay them to overthrow a dictatorship, the standard method of government in the entire universe, and a great house aids, and recognises independence of a planet that was theirs is not a Battletech ending, it's a Hollywood ending.

[Elmoth]

Well, the death legion really returns it to the previous ruling nobility and the Lyrans, not independence but I see your point

[Lorcan Nagle]

Well, the death legion really returns it to the previous ruling nobility and the Lyrans, not independence but I see your point

To be fair, there's a compelling argument to be made that the novels are basically in-universe movies, like how officially the visual and plot discrepancies between different Macross TV shows and movies are because they're historical dramas in-universe.

[Colt Ward]

The fact that a Mercenary company, which largely only fights for money, assists a group that can't pay them to overthrow a dictatorship, the standard method of government in the entire universe, and a great house aids, and recognises independence of a planet that was theirs is not a Battletech ending, it's a Hollywood ending.

Also, the comments were "can't pay you much" but at that point, with the Lyran commander betraying you and being trapped on world . . . well, it was just gravy.  In addition, a contract like that would offer very generous salvage rights- your pay is going to mostly be in what you can haul off the battlefield.  AFAIK, while the Davion side was working with the guerillas, the FedSuns did not actually recognize their independence . . . or IF the Major did, its not the same as coming from New Avalon.

And the GDL are not the only ones-

Crescent Hawks landed to help rebels on WoB held Ruchbah
Burton's Brigade supporting Count McNally on Hall
and those not mega-units in FM Mercs can be found taking that marginal contract vs Blakists or the Clans

[Nightlord01]

Also, the comments were "can't pay you much" but at that point, with the Lyran commander betraying you and being trapped on world . . . well, it was just gravy.  In addition, a contract like that would offer very generous salvage rights- your pay is going to mostly be in what you can haul off the battlefield.  AFAIK, while the Davion side was working with the guerillas, the FedSuns did not actually recognize their independence . . . or IF the Major did, its not the same as coming from New Avalon.

And the GDL are not the only ones-

Crescent Hawks landed to help rebels on WoB held Ruchbah
Burton's Brigade supporting Count McNally on Hall
and those not mega-units in FM Mercs can be found taking that marginal contract vs Blakists or the Clans

All valid points, but yes, that major did indeed sign up the FC to recognising the independence, it was in a Jihad SB, IIRC where they defined Liberty *blurgh* falling and finally losing it's independence.

As for pointing out a novel, not a scenario, it was a scenario that was mentioned and that I specifically asked for, apparently it happened several times, I'm waiting to know which ones. This is not just sematics, novels, while entertaining, were all over the shop with tone. They are the Battletech equivalent of a block buster movie. Many things happen in the novels that are effectively impossible in game just because it's cool.

As for that specific novel, it had other features that kept the atmosphere more than just painted on. The GDL novels epitomised the Mad Max feel of the universe, true scavenger tech.

I'll concede that I'm somewhat biased in this, and I'm perfectly cool with people liking the storyline, I just only get a Hollywood feel from it.

[Colt Ward]

GDL did it later again as part of a set up.  Burton's Brigade was FM Mercs (R) and the novel about the Stealthy Tigers.  Chaos March SB is full of mercs signing up with independence movements- as part of the Chaos March.  Sarna Supremacy IIRC had some mercs that jumped with them.

[Nightlord01]

GDL did it later again as part of a set up.  Burton's Brigade was FM Mercs (R) and the novel about the Stealthy Tigers.  Chaos March SB is full of mercs signing up with independence movements- as part of the Chaos March.  Sarna Supremacy IIRC had some mercs that jumped with them.

Under consideration here, I think I'm going to bow out, we've gotten way off topic, might be time to move on. :-)

[Colt Ward]

Nah, just pointing out MC2 was a trope that BT had visited plenty . . . I mean it was literally the trope manifest.

Which DOES IMO raise a interesting point b/c it was a well worn rut- which is why I said MC's storyline was really good and gave you a plausible reason to start so light/easy.

Does MW5's new story travel the same rut?  And how do you create a story for a campaign that is not a race to assault for turret warfare?

[Nightlord01]

Nah, just pointing out MC2 was a trope that BT had visited plenty . . . I mean it was literally the trope manifest.

Which DOES IMO raise a interesting point b/c it was a well worn rut- which is why I said MC's storyline was really good and gave you a plausible reason to start so light/easy.

Does MW5's new story travel the same rut?  And how do you create a story for a campaign that is not a race to assault for turret warfare?

It's a good point. :-)

I think you could achieve a good mix through a variety of methods, drop tonnages, mission types that require speed without fire power like recon/smash and grab/objective destruction. There's plenty of available options, but is it what the majority of the MW playerbase would want? This is the pertinent question, from my own experience, most of the players only want to go heavier and heavier. It may well be that PGI and HBS are just giving the playerbase what they want. As we've seen just from this thread, we all want different things, making broad market appeal for a game like Battletech is a fine art.

If they were going to keep things quick, I'd like any mech heavier than a medium to be rare as hens teeth, and assaults to be pretty much absent from the game. No more acquiring assault mechs on backwater periphery planets.

Come to think of it, you could have a kind of rumour mill in game, with odd rumours of caches and the like discovered in random places, just to add that little bit of anticipation.

[MarauderD]

Mw5 is indeed race to assault mechs.  And a lot of grind and repetitive drops at that.

[elf25s]

Mw5 is indeed race to assault mechs.  And a lot of grind and repetitive drops at that.

i waited for it 2 years...just so i can give up after 20 hours...because of repetition mw3 may had sucked graphic wise but story and mechanics was way better

[S2pidiT]

i waited for it 2 years...just so i can give up after 20 hours...because of repetition mw3 may had sucked graphic wise but story and mechanics was way better

I've been thinking about buying it when it comes to Steam, only because it's a BattleTech game... I've read that there are some good mods for it, though that shouldn't be a selling point of the game...

I may have to play MechAssault 1/2 again, given my BT video game library currently consists of that, HBS BT, and MegaMek.

I'd love it if the older BT games got a remaster, or at least an official "we made it work as-is on Win10 and released it" version. I'd buy...

[Jim1701]

I backed the HBS Kickstarter and I have 862.5 hours in HBS Battletech and I still think it's awesome fun. I'm currently playing the campaign again.  I haven't done it since the all the DLC came out so I thought I'd give it another go.  Is it the same as TT Battletech?  Nope.  Do I still like TT Battletech?  Hell yes.  I just don't see how the one affects the other.  My only real criticism is that they went a little overboard with the power creep though I give them props for doing it by turning TT "crap" weapons into weapons of doom.  I almost giggled the first time I unleashed quad UAC-5's on an enemy heavy and just shredded it.   :thumbsup:

Still hope to see a sequel from them in a few years.   :drool:

[MarauderD]

I backed the HBS Kickstarter and I have 862.5 hours in HBS Battletech and I still think it's awesome fun. I'm currently playing the campaign again.  I haven't done it since the all the DLC came out so I thought I'd give it another go.  Is it the same as TT Battletech?  Nope.  Do I still like TT Battletech?  Hell yes.  I just don't see how the one affects the other.  My only real criticism is that they went a little overboard with the power creep though I give them props for doing it by turning TT "crap" weapons into weapons of doom.  I almost giggled the first time I unleashed quad UAC-5's on an enemy heavy and just shredded it.   :thumbsup:

Still hope to see a sequel from them in a few years.   :drool:

Power Creep?  My Mad-3R with 3 Ultra AC/2 and 4 ER Medium lasers that headshots every other time it fires?  Nawwwwww.   ;D

[Jim1701]

Even with all the new fangled weapons my favorite mech is still the Grasshopper with 6-7 ML and 6SL loadout.   :)

[Aotrs Commander]

On the one hand MechCommander 2 is one of my favourites, as it is in the very rare category of games period I have played through more than twice.



On the other hand, I have done precious little since June BUT play HBS BT (It's not like I could do anything else) and it has now exceeded all other logged time in games on steam - 541 hours (bypassing Crusader Kings II, which is 450 hours on but a single playthrough not yet completed...) And my previous play through on about 1.2 before the first expansions clocked in about only 138 of those.

After a career run (and all the new toys from the three expansions), I installed BattleTech Advanced 3062 - which has a lot more toys (though no +++ gear) and is pretty close to TT in the mech bay, down to engine swapping. (I'd be playing it right now, actually, but the lastest release broke a fair few things, and I had such a bad mission last time I have left it alone for a few days until they get it back into shape.)

[elf25s]

so far my bt bug itch had been scratched and got satisfied with a mod for hbs battletech with rouge tech with newest update i came across 2 types of lams non official urbie lam and stinger lam...as for power armor clanner toads which btw tore my trebbie apart in 2 rounds and few gnats that were not in original game....now if the game went rts i would be in heaven ohh one particular thing i enjoy is false info on some missions at random just because you got 1 skull mission it is a 1 skull mission..

[Metallgewitter]

What I would like to see would be an FPS in the Battletech universe like being part of DEST and then climb on Battlemechs to disbale them. Or perhaps something more akin to Battlefield. You know huge battles with everything the BT universe has to offer: Mechs, tanks, fighters, VTOL, infantry. Though that seems to be most unlikely because the balance would probably be all over the place

[Adastra]

What I would like to see would be an FPS in the Battletech universe like being part of DEST and then climb on Battlemechs to disbale them. Or perhaps something more akin to Battlefield. You know huge battles with everything the BT universe has to offer: Mechs, tanks, fighters, VTOL, infantry. Though that seems to be most unlikely because the balance would probably be all over the place

I think to some extent the Mechassault games were kinda like that. The one I'm thinking about took place among the clans, and you had access to battlearmor that could hijack mechs and such.

EDIT: Okay Mechassault 2: Lone Wolf is what I was thinking of. It's an old game, so chances are its multiplayer is stone dead, but it definitely seemed to be along the lines of what you described. You had tanks, mechs, battlearmor, though I don't think VTOLs are available.

In terms of games that aren't completely dead, there's Mechwarrior: Living Legends, which is a standalone crysis mod that also had combined arms warfare. Battle armor, VTOLs, hovercraft APCs, Long Toms, the works. Some dedicated people are still working on it, and the multiplayer isn't completely barren.

[elf25s]

What I would like to see would be an FPS in the Battletech universe like being part of DEST and then climb on Battlemechs to disbale them. Or perhaps something more akin to Battlefield. You know huge battles with everything the BT universe has to offer: Mechs, tanks, fighters, VTOL, infantry. Though that seems to be most unlikely because the balance would probably be all over the place

there is a mod for that itch its called battlech legends for crysis and can be found on moddb

[MacDanMc]

I have no problem sticking with the older games until something quality comes out. Of course, there are a lot of differences between old games and new games. First of all, it's the graphics. The old games were popular but they did not have as good graphics as newer games. Also, they have different kinds of animation. Old games have very pixelized graphics but the new games have very smooth graphics. One of my favorite games at the moment is Battlefield 6. I love everything about it. You can get a cd key if you want to have the game but you don't have enough money to buy the game and enjoy it at your home.

[garhkal]

Would folks be interested in a Btech like game, based say on the Command and Conquor like games??

[Daryk]

Who wouldn't be?  ???

[rjhancock]

Who wouldn't be?  ???

A non-believer that must be shunned.

[elf25s]

Would folks be interested in a Btech like game, based say on the Command and Conquor like games??

ummm missed the boat? mechcommander 1 and 2?
if interested try modb and do search there

[Maingunnery]

ummm missed the boat? mechcommander 1 and 2?
if interested try modb and do search there

Think Mechcommander 1, but add:
- Engineer vehicle to modify terrain
- DS/SC/VTOLs delivering cargo pods
- Engineer vehicle consuming cargo pods to place structures.

[Kerfuffin(925)]

Think Mechcommander 1, but add:
- Engineer vehicle to modify terrain
- DS/SC/VTOLs delivering cargo pods
- Engineer vehicle consuming cargo pods to place structures.

So mech commander meets Dawn of War?

[Middcore]

OP seems to be long gone but boy this is a weird thread to read. "1700's gentleman's warfare"... are we supposed to know what this term means, since it keeps getting used?  ??? Can't tell if the complaint is that HBS BT is turn-based instead of real-time or what. Meanwhile HBS had other people mad at them because the game wasn't a perfectly faithful replication of the tabletop, like MegaMek with better graphics.

[MoleMan]

It was funny that this thread was made pretty soon after 2 BT games that were the first in around 20 years or so :D

[Maingunnery]

So mech commander meets Dawn of War?

Sorry I have never heard of Dawn of War before, let alone played it.

[elf25s]

Think Mechcommander 1, but add:
- Engineer vehicle to modify terrain
- DS/SC/VTOLs delivering cargo pods
- Engineer vehicle consuming cargo pods to place structures.

mods i will say it mods they already exist

[Maingunnery]

mods i will say it mods they already exist

Any recommendations?

[Daryk]

*snip*
Meanwhile HBS had other people mad at them because the game wasn't a perfectly faithful replication of the tabletop, like MegaMek with better graphics.

I resemble that remark!  ::)

[elf25s]

Any recommendations?

had you looked on moddb or nexusmods?
for mechcommander 2 i loved wolfman x mods but they are rare and hard to find

[Maingunnery]

had you looked on moddb or nexusmods?
for mechcommander 2 i loved wolfman x mods but they are rare and hard to find

So the specific mods do not exist yet.

[elf25s]

So the specific mods do not exist yet.

look for them there are few dozen but if you do not look you dont find them

[Maingunnery]

look for them there are few dozen but if you do not look you dont find them

Have looked, nothing found that fits the description.

[elf25s]

Have looked, nothing found that fits the description.

if yo do not find it there look in places other than those 2 i had a huge library all teh links to fan oages that used to do mods but over the years i guess i earesed it
nut now nd then i still look around and find them
current best mod for battletech game is rogue tech for battletech

[Sir Chaos]

if yo do not find it there look in places other than those 2 i had a huge library all teh links to fan oages that used to do mods but over the years i guess i earesed it
nut now nd then i still look around and find them
current best mod for battletech game is rogue tech for battletech

I´m not sure if you´ve noticed it yet, but the internet is really freaking big, so telling someone to "look elsewhere" isn´t particularly helpful advice.

[mvp7]

OP seems to be long gone but boy this is a weird thread to read. "1700's gentleman's warfare"... are we supposed to know what this term means, since it keeps getting used?  ??? Can't tell if the complaint is that HBS BT is turn-based instead of real-time or what. Meanwhile HBS had other people mad at them because the game wasn't a perfectly faithful replication of the tabletop, like MegaMek with better graphics.

I think the issue some have with the implementation of turns in HBS game is that it combines movement, shooting and melee into a single phase. Compared to the "simultaneous" phases of tabletop, the HBS turns shift the balance towards big alphas that can remove an opponent before it can fire back. Multi-range weapon bracketing and multi-range weapon load-outs in general become less important as you effectively always get to decide where you move to take your shot regardless of initiative. The tabletop BT's simultaneous phase gameplay is arguably closer to real time combat than turn based gameplay.

I don't know what exactly the OP means by 1700's gentleman's warfare. There were never any practical, not to mention formal "turn based" characteristics in the warfare of that or any other era. It could refer to the pistol duels of late 1700's (which is not warfare though) where the dueling was extremely formal. Ironically it could be argued that BT boardgame is actually closer to dueling than the HBS game because both duelists always fire their weapons at the same time ;D (though I do get what the OP means).

---

HBS style "normal" turn based gameplay in video games is usually referred to as I-Go-You-Go (Chess, XCOM, Civilization etc). BT tabletop style simultaneous phase-based turns are very rare in digital form as they make the gameplay slower and harder to grasp, especially for multiplayer (MegaMek, some digitized niche wargames). A comparable approach that's more common for video games is We-Go where both sides plan their actions for a turn/period of time and the actions are then resolved simultaneously (Phantom Brigade, Combat Mission, Frozen Synapse etc). It's essentially "real time" gameplay cut into short segments and it's really what those phase-based wargames and BattleTech tabletop really aim to portray.

Personally I really like good We-Go and would love to see someone make a BattleTech game like that. The upcoming Phantom Brigade is closest thing to that that I know of (though it's big robots are much more Mecha than a Mech).

[elf25s]

I´m not sure if you´ve noticed it yet, but the internet is really freaking big, so telling someone to "look elsewhere" isn´t particularly helpful advice.

i know but if you use your google fu you should be able to find at least something in abut 30 min or so
i had a library of mod links and lost it and to date did feel no need to re build it. and i started that after cresents hawk.
btw try using other search engines than google you will be surprised how they are optimized and which ones do direct you to places tha google does not. take a few hours it will be worth it...while back found mechwarrior 3 depository of mods and full missions and it had sub section for mechwarrior 2
and no i dont have the link since i lost my library because one time i did not follow my own rule of backing up every thing and then backing up my back ups and backing up those too

[Daryk]

mvp7: I believe the 1700s reference was to Kriegsspiel.

elf25s: 30 minutes of Google-fu?  HOURS of other search engines??  ???

[Nightlord01]

i know but if you use your google fu you should be able to find at least something in abut 30 min or so
i had a library of mod links and lost it and to date did feel no need to re build it. and i started that after cresents hawk.
btw try using other search engines than google you will be surprised how they are optimized and which ones do direct you to places tha google does not. take a few hours it will be worth it...while back found mechwarrior 3 depository of mods and full missions and it had sub section for mechwarrior 2
and no i dont have the link since i lost my library because one time i did not follow my own rule of backing up every thing and then backing up my back ups and backing up those too

I had a large library of links for various Battletech and Games Mod sites, checked recently and pretty much none of them are still active. The only ones that are are the more generic sites like ModDB which literally anyone can find.

It's not so much that people's google-fu is weak, it's that a lot of the old fan sites have gone the way of the dodo and aren't coming back. Never forget that most of these games are more than fifteen years old now. Sites like Dropship Command etc are just gone now, so a lot of the old mods are now vapour-ware.

[Apocal]

OP seems to be long gone but boy this is a weird thread to read. "1700's gentleman's warfare"... are we supposed to know what this term means, since it keeps getting used?

mvp7: I believe the 1700s reference was to Kriegsspiel.

A reference to the initiative phase system where you take a full set of actions (movement+firing) instead of the TT BT way of sequential movement then simultaneous fire. He kept bringing it up in other threads, like this one:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/computerconsole-games/anyone-working-on-the-gentleman-s-warfare-fix/msg1516770/#msg1516770

As for the OP, I doubt we're gonna see another one (I thought HBSTech was pretty good) for a few years. Everyone with BT on the brain is either opting-out or already has something out there with no public plans for another development in this IP.

[SamyMraz]

I think the main issue some people have with the HBS Battletech game is that it's turn-based instead of real-time. Personally, I don't mind turn-based games at all, but I can see how some people might find them boring.

[Daryk]

It's what I explained upthread... Look up "Kriegspiel"...  :)

[JAMES_PRYDE]

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/computerconsole-games/mechcommander-legacies-a-discussion-of-ideas/

Mechcommander "3" "Like"

The mod / semi total conversion we are working on is aimed at combining the best elements of Mechcommander and Command and Conquer (Generals: Zero Hour)

https://www.moddb.com/mods/mechcommander-zerohour

[MoleMan]

I literally just finished a replay of Zero hour, so much fun! Can't wait to give that a go!

[Apocal]

It's been a while since the last one, right? As for the "1700's gentleman's warfare" thing, I have no idea what that means either. Maybe it's some inside joke that I'm not in on?

He is referring to HBStech using sequential rather than simultaneous firing resolution. First I move, then you move. It is silly, because BT turns include sequential movement (the way most people play), and misplaced, given that simultaneous firing resolution has equally clear realism "misses" tied up into its fundamental nature. Namely, the complete inability to counter so-called "suicide bombers" -- expendable units that exist entirely to deliver massive damage attacks -- except by way of metagaming... such as literal gentleman's agreements to simply not do that stuff to each other.

edit: From another thread

Simultaneous combat is the most advanced gameplay of any board game I have ever seen.  A ruleset created in 1985 with minimal changes over 35 years provides the most in depth, balanced, fun, and fair system of board game combat ever seen.  Modern games to this day try the old gentleman's warfare system over and over with different variants and all of them wind up with a chaotic mess or unbalanced gameplay where units die before even being able to shoot back

[Caedis Animus]

He is referring to HBStech using sequential rather than simultaneous firing resolution. First I move, then you move. It is silly, because BT turns include sequential movement (the way most people play), and misplaced, given that simultaneous firing resolution has equally clear realism "misses" tied up into its fundamental nature. Namely, the complete inability to counter so-called "suicide bombers" -- expendable units that exist entirely to deliver massive damage attacks -- except by way of metagaming... such as literal gentleman's agreements to simply not do that stuff to each other.

edit: From another thread

HBS Battletech's combat was honestly outdone by Phantom Brigade purely due to using a simultaneous turn system that allows for action interrupting. A combo of the two would be clunky but cool.

[NeasMacha]

The Battletech universe is ripe for more gaming adventures, and fans like us are eagerly waiting for another solid Battletech video game. It's been a bit of a wait, but good things often take time to come together. In the meantime, we can find solace in other epic games like CS2 that keep our gaming spirits high.

[garhkal]

What would a command and conquer like battle tech game look like i wonder.

[JAMES_PRYDE]

For what it's worth, I am slowly working on the "Mechcommander 3" front, a mod for Zero Hour: Generals, more details and further customization of the three factions (Clan, IS and ComStar, with their own feel and philosophy) RTS combining Mechcommander features with Command and Conquer, more realistic, not just base build and "tank spam"

https://www.moddb.com/mods/mechcommander-zerohour

A modification for "Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour" that hopes and aims to bring RTS Base Building & Command of Units, ranging from Infantry, Tanks, Aerospace, Battlemechs and more from the "Battletech Universe" while still retaining modern elements of Command & Conquer, to create a new warfare style for the Mod (as opposed to the traditional "Force Overwhelm" tactic aka Tank Spamming) This Mod / Semi-Total Conversion will see games where expanding your base is expensive, both in supplies and logistics, hence the need to plan, strategize and protect your Conquest Plans / Infrastructure whilst capturing key districts (Tech Elements) that will allow better map control to enhance your war engine and its endgame. In essence more realistic and akin to the readings of the Battletech Novels of Campaigns and the core inspiration for this mod, "Mechcommander"

[elf25s]

What would a command and conquer like battle tech game look like i wonder.

mod had been done for c7c generals sadly ai was not implemented as i recall

[JAMES_PRYDE]

mod had been done for c7c generals sadly ai was not implemented as i recall

Yeah I know "The Cappelean Solution", I tried contacting them, even got a few replies, but basically they said that all the major gfx and programing guys were long gone

I was advised in mod discord groups to just start a brand new project of my own. I am trying to create something different, a step up in the mod design, like I put in my description (see above) I have had some input from people here too, that I am going to incorporate. This project is a labor of love, and being a one man team, it will take time, but by Elizabeth Hazen it will get done

[Demiurge]

I can understand the OP's reservations about non-simultaneous turn resolution, but they are being short-sighted in assuming that just importing the CBT simultaneous turn resolution rules would fix everything.

CBT has the problem that it does not scale well beyond a certain point.  Even if you have a computer taking care of the housekeeping ala Megamek, you will quickly run into the problem that the initiative system is clunky for very large battles.  "Initiative sinks" are barely worth using in the typical small-scale games most people run.  But they become increasingly worthwhile as the scale goes up to the point where each player is juggling a very long list of units and moving them is just tiresome, but an enormous amount of the strategy is in gaming the movement and firing order rules.

CBT isn't the worst game in this regard; for an example of a wargame that completely falls apart with large-scale battles look at second edition WH40K, where the melee rules are written so ambiguously that there is actually not a correct way to resolve very large scrums because the rules writers literally just didn't think of that.

[Apocal]

I can understand the OP's reservations about non-simultaneous turn resolution, but they are being short-sighted in assuming that just importing the CBT simultaneous turn resolution rules would fix everything.

CBT has the problem that it does not scale well beyond a certain point.  Even if you have a computer taking care of the housekeeping ala Megamek, you will quickly run into the problem that the initiative system is clunky for very large battles.  "Initiative sinks" are barely worth using in the typical small-scale games most people run.  But they become increasingly worthwhile as the scale goes up to the point where each player is juggling a very long list of units and moving them is just tiresome, but an enormous amount of the strategy is in gaming the movement and firing order rules.

CBT isn't the worst game in this regard; for an example of a wargame that completely falls apart with large-scale battles look at second edition WH40K, where the melee rules are written so ambiguously that there is actually not a correct way to resolve very large scrums because the rules writers literally just didn't think of that.

Scale wouldn't be an issue since OP wanted it for HBStech, which rarely went above two lances for enemies and never went above a lance (except via modding) for the player, or similar.

I agree with you though. At the point you're putting complete companies against each other, init tricks increasingly become the game. It is relatively easy to make yourself unhittable on most maps with a modest movement, assuming you're moving after the other guy.