Where to get quality miniatures?

[Kartr_Kana]

Was introduced to BattleTech the board/war game by my father in law a couple of years ago. Not knowing any better I picked up some Von Luckners and a handful of 'Mechs at the local game store, all IWM pewter.

A few months later I moved a couple of hours away and my me FLGS had one person who played BattleTech, but no one had seen him in quite some time. War gaming is very popular up here despite the fact that there's no BattleTech players. WH40k is the big one followed by WarmaHorde, then WHFB. So I picked up a couple Space Marine squads and began budding my army.

I enjoy playing 40k, but I much prefer the BattleTech lore and anything else. So recently I started going back through the rules again so that maybe I could teach some of my war gaming buddies. Then I looked at my BattleTech models...

They're larger yet far less detailed, harder to assemble, more prone to breaking, all but zero optional poses or equipment, and a lot of the designs are atrocious 80s holdovers lacking even a modicum military bearing and not even a passing nod to realism.

Are there any plans to bring BattleTech miniatures into the 21st millennium? High quality plastic or "bones" like  WH40k, WHFB, WarmaHordes, CAV Strike or Heavy Gears Blitz. I'll point out that both CAV Strike and Heavy Gears Blitz are both crowd funding the conversion to plastic. Why couldn't IWM or CGL do the same for BattleTech? Modern materials, quality redesigns like the MWO 'Mechs, high res detail, an overall upgrading of the design aesthetic.

They could put a couple of different arm poses in, a couple different leg poses, the weapons to make any variant, and only one torso so it's not a multi mech pack. I'd happily pay $20-25 for something like that! I'd buy one every payday!

Or have they mentioned plans to do this and I just missed it?

[Dragon41673]

IWM is producing more mechs with better pose-ability, and the details are getting better depending on the mech & art available.

As far as the "where to get"...if you want to spend less than retail...go look for Aries Games & Miniatures. They offer up to 20% off on "in distribution" items as well as the normal Archive items.

[Stinger]

First off, I am going to preface this by the fact that I have recently done some CAD work for some new IWM online exclusive minis.  So most of this I know from experience.

Okay, so to answer your questions, no to plastic and yes to detail.

Given that your experience with the Mechs has been mainly the sculpts from the 80s, I can understand some of your disappointment.  Many of those models are downright bad compared to some of the new stuff. 

I am going to disagree with the fact that IWM models are fragile because pewter minis can be some of the strongest, it just depends on how much effort you put into them.  A properly pinned mech can be thrown against a wall and be fine.  As for detail, I cannot speak to 40k or Heavy Gear, but most of the CAV minis were made with the same processes as IWM minis before the bones conversions.  Much of that is the same. 

Next, if details gets any smaller on current minis, they will be practically unpaintable.  Yes, you need to account for the resolution of the 3D printers and/or the spincasting process, but  also there is a minimum size details need to be to make them worthwhile to include.  And IWM is right near that limit.

As for Mechs, there are many beautiful mechs out there.  Take a look at some of the recent releases:

Primitive Thunderbolt:


Black Knight:


Malice:


Dragon II:


And many, many, more. 

Mechs are becoming more poseable with the additions of multiple leg pieces and arm pieces, but it is also very easy to repose metal miniatures compared to plastics.  Heck, you can bend many pieces to get some of the aesthetic you want.

And finally, you are one of the few who would pay 20-25 for a single miniature.  I personally rather spend a little bit of extra time and pose it myself then drop an extra $10 a mini.  $100 a lance is far, far too much.  Then again, I have never played 40k.

Anyways, the quality of the minis coming from IWM have been just spectacular.  (P.S. Camospecs guys, thanks for having awesome painted examples!)

[Kartr_Kana]

I guess I'll have to learn how to pin my 'Mechs and get the tools to do it. The fact that the plastic minis form an epoxy bond creating a far stronger joint than super glued metal without any extra work is why I feel they're stronger.

I'll post some of my Space Marines tonight to show you what I mean by detail. However even the re seen Battle Master and Archer I have lack the same level of detail and the vees are even more lackluster. And honestly I prefer vees to 'Mechs, weird I know :P

Also I don't mean finer detail, I mean higher res, more pronounced. Things like more equipment hanging off (like spare track link on tanks), muzzle brakes or flash hiders on cannons, etc. Some of those you posted have more detail or more prominent detail and I like that, the Malice and Black Knight especially.

I'd be willing to pay an extra $10 to get all the bits to make any variant and I'd probably magnetize them so I could change variants or even create custom variants on the fly. Terran War of Aggression today? TDR-5S. Dark Age tomorrow? TDR-9SE. WYSIWYG both days? Check!

Thanks for the replies, I'll give my minis another shot, but I still say plastic is much much better.

[JPArbiter]

there are over 3500 different battlemechs including variants.  WYSIWYG down the specific variations will be... ambitious

[Kartr_Kana]

there are over 3500 different battlemechs including variants.  WYSIWYG down the specific variations will be... ambitious

How many base chassis? There's your arms, legs, torso and head, then all you need is bits to make the variants. How hard it is is entirely based on how many base chassis there are.

[Darzoni]

How many base chassis? There's your arms, legs, torso and head, then all you need is bits to make the variants. How hard it is is entirely based on how many base chassis there are.

Hundreds, IIRC.  IWM also does not keep all the BT minis they have molds for available; they had to archive a bunch of molds because of space concerns.  There's also some units (mostly non-Mech models, I think) that have never had models.

[Kartr_Kana]

Ok so here are two Space Marines that I've painted, the more plain one was one of the first 10 miniatures I ever got to a "finished" state. The one with all the crazy detail was the 11th miniature I'd ever painted past a base coat. The Archer is there to provide scale and contrast the differences, it also represents the state of all my IWM minis.

All three side by side:


All three back:


Arm and gun v Arm 1:


Arm and gun v Arm 2:


Maybe I'm just crazy, but it seems like there's so many more interesting things going on with smaller Space Marine models than the larger 'Mech, model wise. There's little boxes and armored wires, cut outs, interesting shapes, etc. The Archer has a few joints and some lines cut in it, but it's primarily big boxes without anything really interesting on them.

I don't know I just feel like the 'Mechs could be done better with more interesting and more functional (seeming) "greebles" instead of boxes with little lines etched in, attached to other boxes with little lines etched in, attached to tubes. The main thing it's got going for it is a more dynamic pose.

[Col.Hengist]

One more thing to consider. 4th and warhammer fantas and all the games from that company ... yea, that company is in the business of selling miniatures.  It's only reason to come out with new codex especially is so they can make more minis to sell

 Battletech can be played with bottle caps and salt shakers. Catalyst is here to sell you a game. IWM is a tiny company in a garage that got the old molds from fast and is doing their best to give us quality minies that look like the art in the books.

 Really, before you complain maybe you should look into what's going on. I'm just glad we have the new minies and except for a few I really like them.

I never understood the complaint about the old mechs looking cartoony. They came from cartoons and from cartoons I loved. I think they look bad ass, even the walking toilet bowl ( Jenner ).

[worktroll]

There's also a different aesthetic involved. W40K is providing  a larger-than-life, intensely detailed (in most cases) gothic-in-space setting, and that's fine. BattleTech is providing a more industrial, walking-tank setting. For a further instance, Robotech is delivering a mecha setting with more fluidly moving 'Mecha with jumps, leaps and planes-with-feet, and that's fine too.

So if you're only interested in the comparison of detail in minis, yes, BT will be considerably different, and unlikely to supply your hypothetical needs.

Also, scale matters. On a "heroic 28mm" figure there's plenty of room for the sort of details in robes, equipment, nuts & bolts etc. These would, if made large enough to be visible, in some cases look silly on BT figures at 1/285, or somewhere between 3mm/4mm scale.

(Plus vees are the red-headed stepchildren of the game anyway ;) )

Lastly, I suspect your photo is subject to selection bias. Having some Archer minis myself, I know there's more detail than visible in the shot. Your mini appears to have a fairly heavy grey paint layer, which is obscuring much of the available detail. If you painted  & lighted the SPace Marines in a similar grey overcoat, there might be less difference than you imagine ...







(Not my photos. Check out www.camospecs.com to see what the good BT painters get up to.)

TL:DR version - you may need to try slightly different techniques, but your W40K painting skills are capable of delivering more than an unflattering grey prime. I would look forward to seeing what you could do, if you felt inclined to do so.

W.

[cavingjan]

Looking through the list, there are about 600 unique mech chassis. That does not include any variants. And that is probably low since they isn't including primitives and the project phoenix mechs that are radically different. There are another 400 vehicles in the game too.

[Kartr_Kana]

 Really, before you complain maybe you should look into what's going on. I'm just glad we have the new minies and except for a few I really like them.

I never understood the complaint about the old mechs looking cartoony. They came from cartoons and from cartoons I loved. I think they look bad ass, even the walking toilet bowl ( Jenner ).

I understand what's going on, I also understand that there's several other small companies crowd funding the conversion to plastic. I also understand that MWO set a new standard for the "realistic" and militaristic look for 'Mechs. Yeah they really screwed the pooch in a lot of ways, but have you seen their JagerMech!?

Why do people complain about cartoon '80s style 'Mechs? Because we're not in the '80s any more, we have standards now. The BattleTech universe takes itself seriously, why shouldn't we take the vehicles, 'Mechs included, seriously?

[Kartr_Kana]

There's also a different aesthetic involved. W40K is providing  a larger-than-life, intensely detailed (in most cases) gothic-in-space setting, and that's fine. BattleTech is providing a more industrial, walking-tank setting. For a further instance, Robotech is delivering a mecha setting with more fluidly moving 'Mecha with jumps, leaps and planes-with-feet, and that's fine too.

So if you're only interested in the comparison of detail in minis, yes, BT will be considerably different, and unlikely to supply your hypothetical needs.

I completely understand they have different aesthetics, but I'd like to see more industrial on the 'Mechs and tanks. Things like muzzle brakes, hatches, ejection ports for shell casings, other details you'd expect to see on industrial equipment.

Those Archers you linked have very nice paint jobs, but what are those things around the back of the ankle? Where does the rocket exhaust vent from? Where's the pilots hatch? Could there be an armored cable running from the lower arm to the laser? That's what I want to see, greebles that appear to actually do something and are identifiable.

Also, scale matters. On a "heroic 28mm" figure there's plenty of room for the sort of details in robes, equipment, nuts & bolts etc. These would, if made large enough to be visible, in some cases look silly on BT figures at 1/285, or somewhere between 3mm/4mm scale.

lol I'm not expecting the BA or infantry models to be identifiable at all. They're to small for any kind of detail. The 'Mechs and vees on the other hand are definitely large enough to support heater detail. The plasma pistol is roughly the same size as the lower arm and had a lot more going on. Even with the overly thick primer coat there's only a few random lines cut in the lower arm of the Archer.

There's plenty of room to put an access hatch in for techs, a mounting bracket for the laser, an armored power cable running from the back of the hand down to the laser, etc. Visible interesting items with fairly obvious function.

(Plus vees are the red-headed stepchildren of the game anyway ;) )

So true, and it's really disappointing, bit that's a different rant for a different forum :P

Lastly, I suspect your photo is subject to selection bias. Having some Archer minis myself, I know there's more detail than visible in the shot. Your mini appears to have a fairly heavy grey paint layer, which is obscuring much of the available detail. If you painted  & lighted the SPace Marines in a similar grey overcoat, there might be less difference than you imagine ...

All my 'Mechs look like that, in my inexperience I probably primed it too thick. However that's another advantage of good plastic, you don't necessarily have to prime it. Neither of those Space Marines was primed before I started painting.

I should have posted a bolter to show how ejection ports and muzzle brakes and other interesting greebles can be done.

TL:DR version - you may need to try slightly different techniques, but your W40K painting skills are capable of delivering more than an unflattering grey prime. I would look forward to seeing what you could do, if you felt inclined to do so.

W.

Thanks for your vote of confidence. Going to get some paint thinner and soak my BattleTech minis this weekend. I'll start them back up, use what I've learned this summer. I think my biggest problem is going to be coming up with an interesting scheme I can live with. From personal experience I don't think military vehicles should have gaudy paint jobs, flat tan/Olive drab or a camo scheme with some discreet unit/national identifiers is the way it's supposed to be done.

[TheDean]

I guess I'll have to learn how to pin my 'Mechs and get the tools to do it. The fact that the plastic minis form an epoxy bond creating a far stronger joint than super glued metal without any extra work is why I feel they're stronger.

Also I don't mean finer detail, I mean higher res, more pronounced. Things like more equipment hanging off (like spare track link on tanks), muzzle brakes or flash hiders on cannons, etc. Some of those you posted have more detail or more prominent detail and I like that, the Malice and Black Knight especially.

I'd be willing to pay an extra $10 to get all the bits to make any variant and I'd probably magnetize them so I could change variants or even create custom variants on the fly. Terran War of Aggression today? TDR-5S. Dark Age tomorrow? TDR-9SE. WYSIWYG both days? Check!

Thanks for the replies, I'll give my minis another shot, but I still say plastic is much much better.

Always pin your metal models, always.

Personally I hate "character" details like stowage and Jerry-cans, I would spend a massive about of time cutting and shaving them all of my Epic 40K minis back in the day.

I agree 100% that some options would be very nice with models that would benefit from it. While there is a scrap yard (think bits order from GW way back when they cared about there customers) it's not typically for newer models.

Plastic can be better, and it can be worse. It has it's applications, it's far from an absolute.[/li][/list]

[Saint]

It really boils down to personal taste. Both have great detail, but different aesthetics. Your average Troopers are pretty generic and plain ( they should be they are grunts) , officers normally get extra bits to make them standout, and Characters get a insane amount of bits to make them really standout . Bt mechs are the main line war machines so in it's setting characters usually have custom paint jobs and variants but the mechs will look basically the same.

Consider mechs the equivalent of leman Russ, Rhino, Land Raider, etc.... You can get them with different weapons configurations but they look almost the same as the base model.

Most of the mech type units in 40k achieve a lot of their detail from exposed actuators, gears , ammo feeds , banners/ribbons and wiring . Mechs look a little silly when that is done (because of scale).

Finally when you compare Epic 40k to Battletech you will see that Battletech has a lot more detail until you get too the large titans.

I love both games and have played both for well over 20years, and one reason is because they have a different look.

[ActionButler]

I think this raises some good points, but also highlights serious differences in opinion.

Battletech does have the much better in-game universe (in this cartographer's humble opinion), but the actual game has always been much more difficult to get into compared to its contemporaries.  Miniatures are more expensive (...sort of), offer fewer (easy) customization options, have less detail, and generally require more work to get tabletop-ready.  I could head over to my FLGS after work ten times, buy a box of space marines and a lance of IWM mechs each time, and the marines would be assembled and painted faster than the mechs every time.  The marines would be easier to repose or add bits of kibble to, and they would be still be more uniform-looking than my mechs unless I bought four of the same mech every time. 

All that being said, though, for the dedicated player, BTech offers just as much as 40K.  If you put the time and planning into it.  Want cheaper minis?  CGL is just now starting to ship high-quality plastic lance sets.  Want a more uniform, military-looking fighting force?  Limit yourself.  There is nothing stopping you from fielding a Davion lance of four of Enforcers or four Centurions; or building a Kuritan company out of just Jenners, Panthers, and Dragons; or using the original, Invasion-era clan omnis (which did, btw, solve the issue of every mech being entirely unique - I never understood why they didn't work from a series of common templates and chassis).  Want to emphasize combined arms forces?  Build an armor company and have your friends do the same (another of my big quibbles with BTech is the fact that there are SO MANY mechs and SO FEW tanks/VTOLS/Infantry.  From a realistic perspective, the ratios simply aren't right.)  Want your mechs to be more customized?  Your're in luck, because this game is now more customizable than it as ever been with IWM offering individual parts for sale (also, the IWM people are super-friendly and really easy to work with).  It still takes time, though.  You will have to work longer and harder for customized pieces in BTech than you will in 40K. 

At the end of the day, it all comes down to personal preference.  I hate the 40K universe, but love the minis.  On the other hand, I love the Battletech universe and love the minis - in spite of their issues. 

[cavingjan]

I'm guessing you are looking for things like the Cygnus

http://camospecs.com/Miniature.asp?ID=6915

and the Blade

http://www.camospecs.com/Miniature.asp?ID=6227

or the Crimson Hawk

http://www.camospecs.com/Miniature.asp?ID=7094

They tend not to be a very popular design aesthetic for battletech.

[Col.Hengist]

I understand what's going on, I also understand that there's several other small companies crowd funding the conversion to plastic. I also understand that MWO set a new standard for the "realistic" and militaristic look for 'Mechs. Yeah they really screwed the pooch in a lot of ways, but have you seen their JagerMech!?

Why do people complain about cartoon '80s style 'Mechs? Because we're not in the '80s any more, we have standards now. The BattleTech universe takes itself seriously, why shouldn't we take the vehicles, 'Mechs included, seriously?

 When it's taken too seriously that's when the fun stops.

Iwm does crowd funding. They did it for the WoB LMS's and I have given money to several campaigns to have sculpts made, going so far as to personally fund the svartalfa.

 Plastics are great, look at the new box set. Iwm just isn't set up for it and really the customer base isn't there to fund the entire shift to plastics.

 Also, yes the MWO stuff looks great. The problem is that they are 2 totally separate companies. Catalyst doesn't want the same problems there was with the unseens so it won't happen.

[klarg1]

I understand what's going on, I also understand that there's several other small companies crowd funding the conversion to plastic. I also understand that MWO set a new standard for the "realistic" and militaristic look for 'Mechs. Yeah they really screwed the pooch in a lot of ways, but have you seen their JagerMech!?

Why do people complain about cartoon '80s style 'Mechs? Because we're not in the '80s any more, we have standards now. The BattleTech universe takes itself seriously, why shouldn't we take the vehicles, 'Mechs included, seriously?

I should really stay out of this, because the constant refrain of "old aesthetic = bad" is one of my hot buttons, but I have to ask:

Are you seriously holding up 40k as a model of realism and military bearing? 40k has a very definite design aesthetic, and it is a good one, but it is not within shouting distance of "practical".

The whole thing is quite subjective. For non-armored troops (Esp. in Fantasy Battle) GW has a fairly cartoonish look, with way oversized weapons, helmets and hands. If you wanted super-realistic fantasy minis, I would send you to Darksword or Thunderbolt Mountain. They don't have wargames, but they sculpt much more realistic figures.

Note that I am refraining from words like "better" and "worse" (although I do have opinions on the matter.) GW's style is objectively less realistic, at least for humans. That is not automatically bad. Like I said, they have a look, and they stick with it.

For 10mm scale, Hawk Wargames makes miniatures that are scaled and designed with an eye towards real-world military hardware. Do you like their look? It's nothing like either Battletech or GW.

Heavy gear brings in yet another look for sci-fi mecha, and Infinity has a third, both with varying degrees of realism.

My point?

I represent nobody but myself, but my tastes do not align with yours. That's OK, but please don't wander in and tell me that I am objectively wrong to like things that I like.

I have said many times before: Catalyst seems to be actively trying to support some variety to broaden their appeal, and I like that. They still can't cover everything.



Edited to Add: Have you checked out Mechafront Miniatures? They offer another line of 6mm and 15mm mecha that follow yet another aesthetic, and feature standardized, swappable parts.

[mdauben]

I completely understand they have different aesthetics, but I'd like to see more industrial on the 'Mechs and tanks. Things like muzzle brakes, hatches, ejection ports for shell casings, other details you'd expect to see on industrial equipment.

You do see that on some mechs and vees, and not on others.  It has a lot to do with the artist and sculptor who worked on that particular unit.  That is something that I do like about WH40K over BattleTech.  They have a much more consistent look across an army.  For example, Eldar Guardians and Aspect Warriors and Farsaeers all look different, but its obvious they all belong in the same army.  You don't get that in BattleTech, even within mechs associated with a specific faction. 

There's plenty of room to put an access hatch in for techs, a mounting bracket for the laser, an armored power cable running from the back of the hand down to the laser, etc. Visible interesting items with fairly obvious function.

Here, we start to get into design aestetics and personal taste.  Adding exposed cables, ammo feeds, joint actuators etc. adds to the... visual interest of the model, but I find them annoying and unreasistic.  In real life, that stuff would all be inside the armor, not hanging outside waiting to be shot off.   ::)

So true, and it's really disappointing, bit that's a different rant for a different forum :P

There are some good looking (IMO at least) vehicles in the BT line.  True, some of the older sculpts do look a bit plain and dated, but there is some newer stuff that is great.  There is also some newer stuff that looks laughable (again IMO at least), so you take the good with the bad.  One good thing is, that 1.285 scale is pretty common, and there are a number of other manufactuers making SF tanks and combat vehicles which you can use in your BT games, as proxies or as original designs.

In the end, I like a lot of GW's minis (even if I don't play their games anymore), but I like a lot of IWM's minis, and Reaper's and Palladium's and Dream Pod 9's.  They are all verry different, but there's room for them all.

[Col.Hengist]

That WWII game has really cool looking vehicles. That's a place to look too.

[worktroll]

Without inflicting a wall of quotes ... imagine if I dropped into a W40K forum and started asking why the figures had such caricaturized equipment, or massive folds of robes which would be impractical in a real-world battlefield? I'm not suggesting you're not entitled to hold your opinions - at all, exactly the opposite - but remember the people here are tending to come from one direction. Having an alternate direction is fine, but doesn't invalidate anyone else's.

Second, I tend to prime my plastics - if nothing else, it gives me control over where the colours go from there. Just like design aesthetics, painting styles differ too. I used to paint Tamiya WW2 figs so I know of the "paint from the inside out" style; I don't use that on 'Mecha. I tend to prime, base, add camo, then detail the metallic joints etc, then add contrast where I want to.

And then camo - another sea of opinions! The extremes of that spectrum seem to be "realistic war machines are able to hide", to "There's little point trying to hide a 10m walking robot that spits hot air and fusion neutrinos" ;) I don't mind a nice parade scheme, and tend to the "enhanced realism" approach for camo - eg. real war machines wouldn't have metallic joints, heat sinks or gun barrels, or contrast colours - but minis look boring to me if not "tarted up" a little. So camo with bare metallics, warning stripes etc is good for me.

(And final point - I personally don't like many of the MWO designs. But that's me. I keep looking at them and something deep inside keeps screaming "SHELL TRAPS!" The kitbasher in me also finds them amazingly busy designs. But it's all good.)

W.

[Azakael]

(And final point - I personally don't like many of the MWO designs. But that's me. I keep looking at them and something deep inside keeps screaming "SHELL TRAPS!" The kitbasher in me also finds them amazingly busy designs. But it's all good.)

Funny you say that... I say the same thing when I look at a traditional 'Mech with a head on a neck. Commando, Quickdraw, Panther - being the first ones to come to mind. And the biggest sin in my book? Turned heads. For some reason, it just doesn't grokk with me.

That said, I own four commandos, two old pointing to the right with turned heads and two standing looking forward. *sigh* And four or five panthers... and... Heh.

As for the OP's post.
All subjective. I love GW's imagery for what it is. I love Battletech's imagery for what it is.

I agree with previous posters that exposed weapon cables is a "Really Bad Idea" I have 4-15 tons of armor, there's no reason my weapon cables and ammo feeds should be exposed. Panel lines to show that there are indeed, access points for repairs and reloading ammo *is* the greeblies I need. (AND NO RIVETS. Well... okay, my Brotherhood of Fianna lance is going to have some 'makeshift' armor riveted into place, but that fits the Succession War-esque Pentagon Powers...)

[klarg1]

I agree with previous posters that exposed weapon cables is a "Really Bad Idea" I have 4-15 tons of armor, there's no reason my weapon cables and ammo feeds should be exposed. Panel lines to show that there are indeed, access points for repairs and reloading ammo *is* the greeblies I need. (AND NO RIVETS. Well... okay, my Brotherhood of Fianna lance is going to have some 'makeshift' armor riveted into place, but that fits the Succession War-esque Pentagon Powers...)

Well, yes. As you say, real 21st century tanks tend not to have a whole lot of greeblies, and for good reason.

It all goes back to what each person likes.  O0

[Wikkid]

Greeblies also know as shot traps.

[Kartr_Kana]

Wow, so many posts!  :o Not going to quote everything or everyone because I'd be here all day  #P

First I'd like to say that I am absolutely 100% not claiming that 40k minis are more realistic/practical or that style is what I want to see in BTech. I brought up 40k because their models have bolder and easier to identify details. When I look at a Space Marine there's all sorts of interesting and easily identifiable details, the bolter has ejection ports, mag releases, what's probably a safety, etc. Compared to that 'Mechs tend to be very plain.

I don't know how many of you have heard of Star Citizen (https://robertsspaceindustries.com), it's a PC video game that's currently in development. A year ago they started a competition for fans to design a space ship for the game. The judges would review and critique designs every week giving great feedback and occasionally eliminating a design from the competition. One thing that came up a lot was "shape language," and how if a design has a very simple silhouette, it then needs to have interesting details to keep the eye interested and moving. If a design has a very interesting and dynamic silhouette it's details need to be more simple to allow the eye to rest. A good example is the X-wing  vs the Y-wing, the X-wing has a very interesting silhouette so it's details tend to be muted and most of the ship is smooth. The Y-wing on the other hand has an extremely simple and basic silhouette, but most of the panels are ripped off and reveal all sorts of piping and other equipment, it's large number of details complement and balance the simple silhouette.

To me that's the problem with a lot of the 'Mechs, their details aren't prominent or interesting enough to impact the overall shape language. Whereas a lot of the 40k stuff balances that very well, though of course some of the 40k stuff goes in the other direction with too much detail on an already interesting silhouette.

And again I'm not trying to come in here and trash the stylistic choices of the BattleTech universe as overall I really like BTechs style (except the 80's stuff  >:D). I'd just like to see better shape language, bolden up some details so that you get a nice balance between the silhouette and details, add in some functionalish bits. Not to change the style, but to highlight it.

Yes I do feel that many of the old designs are horrible aesthetically, the ones in the original TRO3025 have some especially egregious designs, Firestarter and Enforcer leap to mind instantly. How are those joints supposed to move? There's not discernible joint lines, or areas for myomer to extend through! Of course it's not just old designs that can be horrible, a lot of the computer generated Dark Age stuff is worse! Random pieces of equipment and weaponry stuck on at random like Lego's, with zero thought as to how they would interact or take a hit!

Personally I don't care whether a setting uses cartoon, photo realistic, or a larger than life aesthetic. Granted I much prefer photo realistic, and I'd rather have larger than life (40k) than cartoonish, but there are only two things that I really want: consistency and plausibility. Consistency, if you're going to create a setting pick a style and then stick with it, don't jump around at random. Plausibility, take some time when you're designing something to ensure it has at least the appearance of working and isn't just a random mashing of parts that looks like one good shot would knock it apart. Example the Condor:

Old Condor looks halfway plausible:

New Condor doesn't even look like it'd work, let alone well:

[Failure16]

Regarding shot traps...well, nowadays that is not really an issue given how modern armor and weaponry works.  It really isn't 1940 anymore and the concept is largely muted.

But as far as greeblies go, take a look at any recent tanks from about 2000 onwards.  Like the M1A2 SEP, the Merkava Mark IV, Black Panther K2 and any and all retrofitted Russian designs (or even older western ones, such as the 1980s-era Blazer M60/48s).  Talk about a drybrusher's delight; greeblies indeed!

[mdauben]

Yes I do feel that many of the old designs are horrible aesthetically, the ones in the original TRO3025 have some especially egregious designs, Firestarter and Enforcer leap to mind instantly.

I can understand where you are coming from, but you will get some argument on this!  I for example started playing back in the 80s and I still love some of the old designs (although admittely the Firestarter was never one of my favorites!).  Many of those old designs were taken from various anime sources (the original Maurauder, a personal favorite, came from the Macross/Robotech cartoons).  The original artists were less concerned with realism and believabilty and more interested in drawing a cool looking giant robot.  That may also explain the relative lack of fine detail on those designs, as it would be too hard to animate with too much detail. 

Of course it's not just old designs that can be horrible, a lot of the computer generated Dark Age stuff is worse! Random pieces of equipment and weaponry stuck on at random like Lego's, with zero thought as to how they would interact or take a hit!

You'll get no argument from me on this one!  There are very few designs that came out of the Mechwarrior/Dark Age/Clicktech period that I liked.  There are others in the later TROs that I found so "unrealistic" as to be laughable looking, too.  Luckily there are lots of other designs I like, so I can just ignore the ones I don't.

Consistency, if you're going to create a setting pick a style and then stick with it, don't jump around at random. Plausibility, take some time when you're designing something to ensure it has at least the appearance of working and isn't just a random mashing of parts that looks like one good shot would knock it apart.

This, unfortunatly, is a ship that has long since sailed.  Among mecha games, this is something that I think they did well in Heavy Gear.  The designs look consistent in style, especially within a faction.  BattleTech was never like that, though. Its always been a hodge-podge of designs from different sources and from different artists.   You could argue that this is a reflection of the fact that  that divergence and variety has become its own form of style.   Reaper's CAV designs are I think similar to BT in their variety, and of course the Robotech stuff by it's nature tends to vary becuase it came from so many different sources (in case you are not familiar with it, Robotech was an American cartoon created by mixing together three different and totally unrelated Japanese anime series). 

Trying to impose some sort of common design aestetic on BattleTech at this point would involve redesigning hundreds and hundreds of mechs and vehicles.  For good or bad, its just not going to happen at this point. 

[Kartr_Kana]

I don't think all of the old designs are horrible, and going through the TRO just now I think part of my dislike stems from the fact that the pictures look more like early concept sketches and so it's often hard to see how the joints move at first glance. My ire towards many of the old 3025 designs is fading, though I still can't stand anything that actually carries a weapon in it's hand and I still want to see modern industrial re-designs similar to what MWO has done (not necessarily those exact ones).

I don't necessarily mean consistency as in all Davion designs must look alike. I actually like the diversity of the 'Mech designs as I feel it helps underscore the fact that the designs come from all over the timeline, from a dozen primary cultures and probably hundreds of sub cultures. I'm talking consistency in the details, do we use some sort of weird flex joint like a dryer vent, or do we use a hinge style joint? Autocannons have muzzle brakes (lets face it an unstable platform like a 'Mech is going to need to minimize felt recoil), gauss rifles are more angular/hexagonal than autocannons, lasers are square with a round focusing lens. Little things that let you pick out equipment quickly and reflect the same underlying technology. It's probably too late for even that, but a guy can dream :P

I'm probably just overreacting and this discourse is helping me calm down, though I still have some hangups with pewter. I'm actually looking forward to pulling my lance of 'Mechs and handful of Vees from the paint stripper so I can start priming and painting them.

[Greywind]

I have never been a fan of the exposed linkages. Either ammo feeds or power cables. In my mind they make the weapon more vulnerable. Either to combat damage or pilot stupidity.