Anyone working on the gentleman's warfare fix?

[jackpot4]

I was curious if anyone has heard of someone is working to fix HBStech and advance it past the 1700s to simultaneous combat like Battletech has been for 35 years?  I bought the reduced priced DLC in hopes the game had improved since I played it the month it was released.  Well, needless to say, it's still the same old gentleman's warfare.  Really wish someone could mimic the quality of MW4 Mercs (19 year old game) where even though it was an FPS you had everyone fighting.  You didn't have to wait until the enemy unit hosed down one of your mechs with all of theirs before firing back.  These are basic gameplay elements long established and they still chose gentleman's warfare.........  I'd say that was number 1 of the two reasons I refused to back the kickstarter.

Just as feedback, I cannot believe they funded multiplayer... All the wasted resources, on top of this being the reason they chose to revert to gentleman's warfare in the first place.  I have not seen more than 2 games listed since the couple weeks after it was released. 

But yes, if there if there is word that someone like the roguetech creators are looking to fix this (IMO) terrible decision of gentleman's warfare, I would love to hear it.

[Nightlord01]

Get used to disappointment.

The game was made as a turn based you-go-I-go format, it's in the engine and only a total rewrite is going to overcome that, at which point you aren't using modded Battletech, but your own game. What you ask is effectively impossible.

I don't mind the format, tbh, it's a bit of a furphy to bring up MW4, which was always an FPS in a mech skin, vs Battletech, which is a turn based strategy game. Apples and oranges there, a better comparison would be Mechcommander 2, which is at least a real time tactical game.

[Jim1701]

Fixing implies that it's broken which it isn't. 

[Daryk]

Some people regard it that way.  I backed the KS before they moved so far from the table top rules, and stuck with it in the vain hope they'd at least try to come back.  No such luck.  At least I was able to play it a bit before the first patch came out.  That removed my ability to see the map at all.

[Stormforge]

I have been able to get it very close to TT using mods for piloting, gunnery, and weapon stats. Including being able to run and shoot, instead of sprint, and TT movement mods that don't disappear from being shot at. Enough to enjoy it for me at least. Like stated above I have not seen anything for simultaneous phases, though it is possible to mod all units to the same phase instead of the current weight based phases.

[jackpot4]

Just because something functions doesn't mean it works.  It was designed as a 1700s style, turn-based, gentleman's warfare style game because of the multiplayer, even if they didn't expressly say it, the reasoning ALWAYS came back to multiplayer.  Now, seeing multiplayer was and is a total flop, I hope they consider releasing content to allow us to play Battletech, instead of this HBStech game.  I've been disappointed since before its release and continue to be.  But, my love for Battletech outweighs the poor decisions of HBS because in the end, no matter what they do, they won't change Battletech. 

Just inquiring, I hope someone releases a fix to this shortsighted design.

[Caedis Animus]

Just because something functions doesn't mean it works.  It was designed as a 1700s style, turn-based, gentleman's warfare style game because of the multiplayer, even if they didn't expressly say it, the reasoning ALWAYS came back to multiplayer.  Now, seeing multiplayer was and is a total flop, I hope they consider releasing content to allow us to play Battletech, instead of this HBStech game.  I've been disappointed since before its release and continue to be.  But, my love for Battletech outweighs the poor decisions of HBS because in the end, no matter what they do, they won't change Battletech. 

Just inquiring, I hope someone releases a fix to this shortsighted design.

I'd say it works just fine. I think the problem's a foot from the screen, in fact.

But if you are dying for a more 'Battletech' style game, try 3025 extended and a few other mods that change the way turns work. If those don't help you, I'm frankly not super sure on what will. And for what it's worth, this game was designed for campaign first, and multiplayer was literally the last backer goal.

[Colt Ward]

MechCommander Gold is for sale to work with up to date systems, I think that is the fix you seek.

[Luciora]

This is a dead horse post.  I believe it almost got a previous thread shut down.

[Jim1701]

Just because something functions doesn't mean it works.  It was designed as a 1700s style, turn-based, gentleman's warfare style game because of the multiplayer, even if they didn't expressly say it, the reasoning ALWAYS came back to multiplayer.  Now, seeing multiplayer was and is a total flop, I hope they consider releasing content to allow us to play Battletech, instead of this HBStech game.  I've been disappointed since before its release and continue to be.  But, my love for Battletech outweighs the poor decisions of HBS because in the end, no matter what they do, they won't change Battletech. 

Just inquiring, I hope someone releases a fix to this shortsighted design.

This game was designed from the very beginning to be first an online skirmish game.  They were very upfront about this from the moment the kickstarter started.  A lot of the initial single player stuff was the result of stretch goals.  They were also very upfront from the beginning about the fact this wasn't going to be a straight port simulator of the TT game.  I'm sorry you were disappointed but none of this information was secret.  If you were unaware of this before buying the game it wasn't the fault of HBS. 

[MarauderD]

But yes, if there if there is word that someone like the roguetech creators are looking to fix this (IMO) terrible decision of gentleman's warfare, I would love to hear it.

I follow all the mods, and I don't think anyone is trying to fix what you find to be broken.  I'm sorry you don't like the game.

The turn structure was created to give light and medium mechs at least some advantages.  It did change some fundamentals of how the game is played, I agree with you there. 

I also remember very clearly during the kickstarter that they said they would make the best version of BattleTech translated to a turn based video game they could. Devs clearly stated that it wouldn't be a straight port of BT rules.  They wanted to make AutoCannons less gutless/worthless, improve the gameplay of lights and mediums, and a few other goals. 

Now, again, it is completely up for debate whether their changes are good or not.  I love playing HBS' BattleTech, because it scratches an itch that MegaMek can't. 

That being said, I still play MegaMek from time to time because TT BattleTech is still a fun game.

Best,

Mad

[Daryk]

They did come clean about not porting the TT game long before release, but NOT "from the beginning" (i.e., when I backed them).

[Sartris]

Another reason why I generally only back campaigns near completion.

By the by MC1 gold works on modern windows systems fine if you have the disc lying around. Just copy the cd to your HDD and launch from the desktop. You can even edit the config to run in windowed mode

[Daryk]

Good advice, on both accounts!  :thumbsup:

[jackpot4]

I have the MechCommander 2 disk but it has been around the block a bit, my PC can't even read it.....  I was just hoping at this point someone would bring a game set in the future out of the 1700s hahaha.  Still to this day light mechs are far more effective on the TT than they are in HBStech.  If they make a sequel, with Multiplayer dead a month after release and to this day, they know to switch to the rules of Battletech instead of work with the same HBStech rules.  We will just have to wait and see.

[Nightlord01]

I have the MechCommander 2 disk but it has been around the block a bit, my PC can't even read it.....  I was just hoping at this point someone would bring a game set in the future out of the 1700s hahaha.  Still to this day light mechs are far more effective on the TT than they are in HBStech.  If they make a sequel, with Multiplayer dead a month after release and to this day, they know to switch to the rules of Battletech instead of work with the same HBStech rules.  We will just have to wait and see.

If the game is popular enough to make a sequel, why the hell would they change the fundamental game mechanics? There's a massive commercial risk to this with no data to support the idea that switching to RTS will have the game selling better.

I say this as a massive fan of the Mechcommander series of games, if HBS decided to release MC3, I'd be the first to sign up.

[Colt Ward]

I have the MechCommander 2 disk but it has been around the block a bit, my PC can't even read it.....  I was just hoping at this point someone would bring a game set in the future out of the 1700s hahaha.  Still to this day light mechs are far more effective on the TT than they are in HBStech.  If they make a sequel, with Multiplayer dead a month after release and to this day, they know to switch to the rules of Battletech instead of work with the same HBStech rules.  We will just have to wait and see.

How?  We constantly have table top topics about how to make lights useful for TT games, how they suck, why not take a vehicle for X, etc.  So I am not sure where you get lights being more useful on table top than HBS.  For one thing, with the right pilot (like say Ace skill) allows that pilot to move effectively twice in a row with stacked evasion- delay until your target has moved in its turn, close & fire, then as a light you get to move first so fire again and then move away.

Honestly, the whole '1700s' line of BS you try to conflate is annoying.  Its the same sort of mechanic BattleTech has in AeroTech where different classes move before other classes.  I do not know how it looks at your table, but b/c of phases all my machines are standing still shooting at each other when we get to the fire phase . . . just like the HBS individual action phases.

Not sure why you thought it would be a direct port of TT like MM, since MM is already out there and free . . . MM's open numbers to me would have indicated what sort of commercial success (or failure) that would be.  I did not get in HBS until the end after all the crap from MWO (hey, its going to be this campaign that we advance a 1 to 1 timeline- here come the Clans!) which is also part of the reason I am not putting any money up for MW5 until much later.

[Firesprocket]

If they make a sequel, with Multiplayer dead a month after release and to this day, they know to switch to the rules of Battletech instead of work with the same HBStech rules. 

Honestly multiplayer, while backed with cash, was DOA.  You could do that with MM, no reason to reinvent the wheel.

[William J. Pennington]

I bought the reduced priced DLC in hopes the game had improved since I played it the month it was released.  Well, needless to say, it's still the same old gentleman's warfare.

So you bought it, just hoping they'd completely revised the basic rules and functioning of the game, without maybe bothering to read if they'd done that. Because tha's not just a minor, unnoticed patch. If they'd done that, you would have known it before buying the DLC.

Anyway, you thought they'd tick off the majority of their customers just to make you happy?

It was never intended to be a TT simulator, and its alternating turn nature was stated from the start, and they are never going to change that. Just accept it and move on.

[Daryk]

Not quite from the start, but certainly before the Kickstarter ended.