Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sensei]

In their own words, they're concerned about giving the player too many things to look at and do each turn. Thus, the four-mech lance, and an unwillingness to give the player control of extra units like tanks or infantry. They did state also that they would test those, though, and include them if they are fun. Obviously this is no Hearts of Iron, but I'd be surprised if they didn't make individual mechs complex enough to be compelling.

[Kanil]

-Non-mech vehicles, but likely NPC-only

That would be such a cockslap to the face.

In all fairness as much as I love vehicles, and as viable as they are. They are incredibly risky death traps.

So? They're cheap and useful. Relevant to a mercenary on a budget. You can get a mediocre UrbanMech or a mediocre Po which is cheaper, faster, better armored, and carries more ammo.

[Neonivek]

Getting the most out of vehicles requires you to really know how to play... They are cheaper, but in a 4 mech lance that isn't too much of a benefit.

As for Infantry, I'd be surprised if they let you use those. Don't get me wrong they are neat any everything... But a bit excessive.

As for Tanks... Extra units? Did the game have smaller vehicle units that didn't even count as a vehicle? like Mechanized Infantry? Or Small tanks?

So? They're cheap and useful. Relevant to a mercenary on a budget. You can get a mediocre UrbanMech or a mediocre Po which is cheaper, faster, better armored, and carries more ammo.

You know in spite often being used in games as a "You get Light mechs until you build to stronger ones" this is NEVER the actual case in BattleTech simply because lighter mechs are not intended for missions on their own where they will see any reasonable amount of combat. A 4-Light Mech lance are scouts or fast reinforcement for a larger battle.

UrbanMech mind you isn't mediocre it is super specialized. It REALLY isn't meant to be used outside its native environment.

[Kanil]

Getting the most out of vehicles requires you to really know how to play...

Which I do...

They are cheaper, but in a 4 mech lance that isn't too much of a benefit.

So? I mean, it's still a benefit, it's an option, and if they're going through the work of modelling and programming the damn things into the game, it's kinda silly to not let the players use them.

[Sensei]

As for Tanks... Extra units? Did the game have smaller vehicle units that didn't even count as a vehicle? like Mechanized Infantry? Or Small tanks?

Yeah, in Battletech, squads of infantry as well as mechanized infantry (trucks, motorcycles, and some sci-fi vehicles analogous to those in function) occupied one hex, moved and attacked as a single unit would, and could even occupy the same hex as a friendly or enemy mech. There were in fact a series rules governing "stacking", putting multiple units into the same square. I think the rule was something like up to 1 mech and 2 infantry, or 1 mech and 1 vehicle and 1 infantry, or 2 vehicles and one infantry. You couldn't normally move into a square that would violate stacking, but if you did by accident (skidding or being pushed) you could fall over and crush your own units.

Getting the most out of vehicles requires you to really know how to play...

Which I do...

They are cheaper, but in a 4 mech lance that isn't too much of a benefit.

So? I mean, it's still a benefit, it's an option, and if they're going through the work of modelling and programming the damn things into the game, it's kinda silly to not let the players use them.

For better or for worse, it looks at the moment like they're planning to design the game's entire interface around players controlling a limited number of mechs, rather than large quantities of tanks or whatever. That will probably extend to the design and scale of maps and encounters as well. At any rate it is (to the disappointment of many, perhaps) not attempting to be a translation of the Battletech tabletop game or Megamek with a sleek interface and 3D models, but a purpose-built PC tactics game of a modest scale.

[Neonivek]

The issue to me about including deployable infantry on your side is tone. You really are leading thousands of people to their death for what is just a mild advantage (and since clans aren't in... There are no elements). That and honestly Infantry to me are much better on defense then attack, put them into some thick woods and watch Mechs flounder trying to kill them.

As for Vehicles, I apologize Kanil. I only meant I understand why vehicles might be excluded. Don't get me wrong I LOVE vehicles, heck I love Quads... and I will be disappointed if I get none of these.

Mind you I mean... the Vehicles that have like tons...

[Sensei]

The issue to me about including deployable infantry on your side is tone. You really are leading thousands of people to their death for what is just a mild advantage (and since clans aren't in... There are no elements). That and honestly Infantry to me are much better on defense then attack, put them into some thick woods and watch Mechs flounder trying to kill them.

I guess it just depends, then, whether that tone is preserved if you can't directly order the infantry? At any rate, they certainly love using artwork that contrasts tiny soldiers to huge mechs, and in the stream at least they rattle on about how important the story and background world is, even though the game itself is mostly you ordering your big, stompy mechs around.

[Neonivek]

The issue to me about including deployable infantry on your side is tone. You really are leading thousands of people to their death for what is just a mild advantage (and since clans aren't in... There are no elements). That and honestly Infantry to me are much better on defense then attack, put them into some thick woods and watch Mechs flounder trying to kill them.

I guess it just depends, then, whether that tone is preserved if you can't directly order the infantry? At any rate, they certainly love using artwork that contrasts tiny soldiers to huge mechs, and in the stream at least they rattle on about how important the story and background world is, even though the game itself is mostly you ordering your big, stompy mechs around.

Ok I will admit flat out... that including infantry for the sake of scale is a great idea.

Also I am going to assume Turrets (as in... the building kind) are going to be in the game.

[Kanil]

For better or for worse, it looks at the moment like they're planning to design the game's entire interface around players controlling a limited number of mechs, rather than large quantities of tanks or whatever.

I'm not talking about a large number of vehicles though, I'm talking about replacing a 'mech in my lance with a tank. Not talking about hordes of infantry (which I do feel is a bit out of place for a mercenary unit) I'm talking about swapping a Hunchback for a Demolisher, y'know? Just grabbing a tank that has an interesting role and using it to provide me with more options. Still 4 units, just 3 mechs and 1 tank.

I guess if the game's mechanics are so far removed from TT that vehicles go from niche to outright worthless (as is the case in MechWarrior/Commander) then I can see not allowing the players to use what are basically NPC fodder... but I guess I sort of expect the game to be somewhat like TT?

[Neonivek]

I am reminded a lot on Front Mission where in all honesty... Vehicles were better then Wanzers (their word for Mechs).

I guess if the game's mechanics are so far removed from TT that vehicles go from niche to outright worthless (as is the case in MechWarrior/Commander) then I can see not allowing the players to use what are basically NPC fodder... but I guess I sort of expect the game to be somewhat like TT?

The HUGE issue is their instant death mechanic. Otherwise, honestly... vehicles aren't different from Mechs almost at all outside of swapping out a few mechanics for others.

Quads are the ones that I am the most perplexed by their "we have no idea if they will be in the game" given that the ONLY difference between Quads and Bipeds are movement mechanics.

[Taricus]

There are instant death mechanics for vehicles? I mean, I can see there's a couple of critical hit results that total the entire unit, but you'd have to get pretty lucky to do that in one hit.

[Neonivek]

There are instant death mechanics for vehicles? I mean, I can see there's a couple of critical hit results that total the entire unit, but you'd have to get pretty lucky to do that in one hit.

Vehicles have the largest collection of critical points that kill and cripple it and are a LOT less capable of losing any of their body parts then a mech is. Any critical hit a vehicle gets is a nail biting experience where you hope your vehicle doesn't suddenly explode, your pilot dies (in the multiple sections that can kill your pilot), your wheels stop working... and what have you.

Basically all vehicles are moving death traps.

It is in fact the one mechanic that limits how viable vehicles are. Otherwise they would be quite capable of being a standard unit to take on missions rather then one you have to balance.

Vehicles, outside of mass production, because they are fragile deathtraps (even if you have a 100-ton one) are in essence super specialized... and if you aren't doing what they are best at 100% of the time, then you are wasting them. unlike most mechs which are somewhat versatile.

[NullForceOmega]

Yes, vehicles can be demolished fairly quickly with penetrating hits, but must I remind people of the Ontos and the Demolisher?  100 ton tanks with enough firepower to gut a mech every turn?

Edit: Survivability is not a vehicle's weakness, mobility is.  Ground vehicles suffer huge mobility penalties when travelling through rough terrain. and can take damage when trying to move faster than cruising speed.  They can have more armor per location than any mech that ever existed, can mount unholy weaponry, and don't worry about heat the same way mechs do.

[Neonivek]

But when you see a vehicle move 30 spaces in a turn... There is a compromise there. (this is just on land vehicles). In many ways mobility CAN be a vehicles greatest strength...

The 100-ton tanks for example are not for attack, at least not in the front lines they might assist. They, like Quads, are meant to retreat while blowing the enemy up... and there is nothing better at doing it.

Or rather mobility isn't a vehicle's weakness... Versatility is.

And while having more armor then mechs might seem like an advantage... Their internals is what gets them, it always ends up meaning they have effectively less armor. The 100-ton vehicle will pretty much always insta-die before it is ever legitimately destroyed.

[NullForceOmega]

Honestly, vehicles are incredibly versatile, but each one is purpose built, and rely on diversity for maximum effectiveness.  You can't really field an all tank force (unless they're Ontos and Demolishers, I've seen veteran players tremble when confronted with those tanks) and expect to win, you have to have tanks, hovers, maybe some FAVs, then you can start dealing serious damage.  If you're post clans you can throw some power armor out there too, and then mechs look a lot less threatening.

Also, when your forward plating has as much armor as the entire main body of an Atlas, you really don't worry about crits very much.