| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
 Posted: 21-Jun-2004 14:04 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
  |
|
I've played Heroclix, which is pretty much the same thing. It's really simplified. I can't speak for Clickytech, but I didn't like Heroclix too much.
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Ruger
Lyran Alliance
Hauptmann General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1930
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 17:08 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-21 11:10, Kiris65 wrote:
Well, but isn't an overhaul what Wizkids is trying to do brining on Mechwarrior - Dark Age?
Not familiar with their game system, has anybody played it?
|
|
No, that is not the purpose of MWDA...that is more akin to a combination of BattleTech with BattleForce...
That game is NOT meant to replace BattleTech...
Ruger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ruger
Lyran Alliance
Hauptmann General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1930
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 17:11 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
>>Increased flexibility for infantry. Mostly, they come across as cannon fodder.>>
Have you tried the new infantry construction rules from Combat Operations?
Ruger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ruger
Lyran Alliance
Hauptmann General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1930
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 17:14 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
I've been in a campaign where we did at least 2 or 3 sessions where one side had at least 12 'Mechs and the other around 24...it only took about maybe 3 or 4 hours...
All it takes is to plan your moves in advance, and think on the fly... 
Ruger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 17:21 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
I agree there should be some changes to take into account the newer tech levels and a smoother game flow when dealing with larger units.
However, I think the AC's are fine. The AC/2 only does two damage, yes. It also does that two damage out to a range of 24 hexes or 720 meters, about 3/4 of a km. The AC/5 only does 5 damage, a medium laser does the same for way less weight. Yes it does, however, the AC/5 does the 5 damage out to 18 hexes. So does the PPC but it does twice the damage. Yes, but the PPC does 10 heat and the medium laser does 3 heat, the AC/5 only does 1 heat.
The close in weapon's ranges are okay, if you are going to double their range then they start to infringe on the middle range weapons ranges, medium lasers for instance. You going to increase their range next to balance the weapon selection?
Increasing the size of the hexes makes things seem more realistic, not if you have the same size minis that I do. A mini laying down is nearly two hexes long, that would make it 200 meters tall. Also if you increased the size of the hex then you have to totally revamp the stacking rules. If a hex is 100 meters across then I could get 10 mechs to lay down in one hex. So I could therefore stack up to ten mechs and/or twenty vehicles in one hex. I beleive BattleForce covers it on this size of opperations. And is you want to hit at a couple kilometers away, use artillery. Yes standard non artillery weapons of today can hit that far and some instances farther, however, those weapons would be completely ineffective against the armor that was invented whent the battlemechs were introduced and since improved. The weapons that are now able to damage this armor have evolved into the weapons we use today.
Pulse lasers are there to balance the ER lasers. ER have same tonnage but the increased range comes at the expense or a substancial increase in heat, the pulse laser have an increase in damage and accuracy but suffer from slightly more heat, heavier weight, and in the case of the inner sphere versions, a shorter range.
I agree with the need for a change in some aspects. I also think that the very base of the system is still viable even with the latest TRO's and tech levels.
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 17:23 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
I agree Wanello, it would be nice to speed up large scale operations without using the BattleForce rules. I have done battion against reinforced battion battles and they have lasted for 3-4 weekends playing almost all of saterday and sunday.
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6042
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 17:49 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-21 17:14, Ruger wrote:
All it takes is to plan your moves in advance, and think on the fly...
|
|
Ding ding ding! There lies the problem. Many people can't think in advance. I try to and usually when I move I make my move either immediately or within 10 seconds (most of the time right away). Too many people play the game and don't concentrate on the map. So when it's their turn to move, they need to survey everything as if they were seeing it for the first time.
We started implementing a time-limit at the con this past year, and most people made it in. Once they heard that 10 second call, they moved quickly. I've played with people though that look for over a minute when it's there turn! That's why the game takes so long. Let's look at some quick numbers of 12v12.
I have 12 mechs and move them all at an average time of 10 seconds (longer than my usual, but easier to calculate). That totals 2 minutes per turn to move.
My enemy moves his in 30 seconds (the average I see too much of with players, and this is being generous on the short site). That totals 6 minutes per turn for his 'mechs. Over the course of 10 turns, that's an extra 40 minutes for movement alone over my time.
And people who move slow generally are lethargic with their fire resolution. I'm willing to bet chihawk and myself could do a 4v4 in well under 2 hours if we really wanted to.
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
    
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 17:59 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Me and Oafman have a hard time getting even a one-on-one over within an hour. Since we don't play often we find ourselves telling old war stories from when we used to play alot. You can tell it's going to be a long turn when you hear the inevitable, "Hey, that reminds of when...." 
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 20:16 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
I agree with your ideas, but I think Battletech needs changes that are more fundamental than that. As a whole the game is too slow or pushes for smaller forces than what many would like to play. Also the weapon systems are highly redundant, making for limited tactical options. I also think the way it handles electronic warfare is crappy. The solution is not, IMO, to add rules to the rules we already have, but to release a new stream-lined set of rules that are more flexible and more realistic.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 21:16 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
Just as long as they aren't too complicated. In my experience, when a gaming system tries to include rules for more realistic gameplay it makes it over-complicated and/or too cumbersome to play easily.
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 22:16 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-21 21:16, Seraph wrote:
Just as long as they aren't too complicated. In my experience, when a gaming system tries to include rules for more realistic gameplay it makes it over-complicated and/or too cumbersome to play easily.
|
|
Realistic gameplay does not have to be overly complicated. My idea of realism in gameplay is to have rules that support realistic tactical decisions, i.e. sniping, formations, hit & run, land-holding, etc. This would naturally come about by rules that model, at least vaguely, how things work in real life. Now of course you would have to cut corners and leave out detail for the sake of gameplay, but that doesn't mean you have to make the gameplay absurd like MWDA.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 22:56 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
My last point really is the one which most radically changes the game. Systemic change can certainly be a good thing; Battletech is over 20 years old at this point, so it's naturally a little clunky. Slowing the 'mechs down significantly, without changing the effective range of the weapons (in hexes or inches) changes the tactical picture entirely. Fields of fire suddenly matter a lot more. Rough terrain becomes a lot more constricting. It's pretty easy to get hung up on some hills, exposed to enemy LRM barrages the whole time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 23:00 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
The record sheets take up a lot of time too. That's the one nice thing about clicky-tech, no record sheets. I could see a simplified record sheet working well, especially if you could fit at least a lance onto any one sheet.
Lances should be forced to move as units as well; unit cohesion counts for absolutely nothing in battletech.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 23:08 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
I do like that idea, especially since all the speed demons that are in the game can really bog it down.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Motown Scrapper
Clan Ice Hellions
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 24-Jul-2003 00:00
Posts: 2074
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 23:29 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
Sounds to me like you have problems dealing with movement over large areas I could not disagree with you more about speed.It makes you think especially since most speed demons are comparatively fragile so positioning is important...I like a little more to my game besides just walking your Mech into the middle of the field and just pounding away I like a challenge.I like to have to think and use real strategy I know that for some people thinking is a painful experience ...But I like to use my brain (Of course some of you may be lacking in that area)
_________________
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have-Rush Limbaugh www.rushlimbaugh.com
Force of nature
Still crazy after all these years
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
