"Is BattleTech a Poorly Written Game?" Topic

Oh, I think the field battle was still going on 12 hours after the start, but that's a different discussion.

Funny enough, I probably had the best lance out there (2-4 pilot and a targeting computer in a Warhammer means that I had decent chances to hit, no matter what the target did).

I think the biggest problem with the rules is that you need to figure the modifiers for every shot individually, and resolve every shot individually, then resolve damage in clusters if you're using missiles. That's a lot of rolling, which slows down the game (the head-shot thing doesn't help).

HGBlitz, for all its issues in command and control, is a much faster system to resolve shooting.

QUOTE:
"Introdicing the Clans was ALWAYS the plan for the game creators. They made no secret of it. Gamers are such finicky creatures. They never let a good game or system get in the way of a good grudge."

Then they should have done a better job of integrating them when they finally intoduced them. As it was, they drove away a lot of players that I know of.

IMO they should have brought them back with a tech level *just* barely above the IS and started a major arms race/tech hunt on both sides that would have involved everyone rather than the mass scale invasion and overpowering tech that they had.

Yea, we're finicky, we get ticked when someone takes a flawed but playable game and makes it a haven for the truly cheesy.

Maybe it's gotten better… but I quit when the clans showed up.

My big problem with the clans (in terms of their story value) is that most of them sound like they were made up by some guy who was told (just after he came back from lunch) to come up with fifteen more clan names/themes before 5:00pm or prepare to stay late. It's a real shame that Clans Thunder Turtle, Action Ostrich, and Bazooka Zebra didn't make the cut.

I am also not fond of the silly borrowed pastiche "clans" lingo like seyla, zellbrigen, touman, quiaff, etc.

Oh well. I guess it's hard to crap out a well rounded culture in just three hundred years.

Let's face it, when FASA first started Battletech it was they wanted to cash in on the giant robot thing that was just starting up after Robotech first showed up. Their game worked fairly well at first, but since then there have been plenty of games since then that can do the same game only faster and better, CAV and Heavy Gear to name a few. But those games are combined arms games, Battletech is made solely to sell mechs. It's probably not an exaggeration to say there are more mech types in the game now, than there are conventional vehicles.

Sargon, Battletech may have evolved into a selling tool. But originally in the mid-1980s when it was called battledroids and then battletech, the range of mechs had not even been released. We played it at my store for over a year using the paper counters that came with the game.

They do have a wide range of aircraft and vehicles in addition to the mechs, so this does not support your 'selling mech only' concept. They one are that you are correct is the lack of basic infantry. they never really expanded those choices to even all of the original 5 houses. I do likethe later release of troops in power armor. these have been very useful for many projects.

Nowadays, my feelings towards Battletech are that it works best within a RPG campaign setting, and that the players should only use Inner Sphere level one tech. I want to keep Clan tech, and Word of Blake Jihad stuff as OPFOR, which can be played on a rota by the players in the campaign.

For me, this allows the games to become co-operative affairs for the players, and reduces the acquisition of better tech, as only the bad guys have the better tech. There again I'm a pretty hard games master.

I still enjoy the occasional game of btech, like some of the earlier postings here, I agree it is "old-skool" gaming. They have some fundamental basics correct like the weighting of the dice mechanism but it is tired and dated compared to modern games.

I do still enjoy the odd game but it is crying out for a bit of re-vamp perhaps reducing the reliance on tables and reducing the damage box levels somehow to create a faster play session.

I also find combined arms a bit odd. A very large tank could suffer a critical and be stationary for the rest of the game. It is that strange differential between a lucky headshot or the very slow grind through a damage grid. Mechs and tanks either go pop or take a long time to grind down.

I have had many 3am finishes where we were struggling to finish a medium size game with 20 mechs on the table.

So I propose that it needs a core rule refresh with lighter rules that speed up play. I think it could benefit from a more interesting adaptions in technology and skill that allow players to pull off "dramatic movie like moves". Perhaps a points or turn based feats that use different bolt on technology or pilot skill to pull special moves that provide an advantage in the battle but not overpowered. An example could be that your pilot is "jump trained" and gets a bonus to attack or an extra hex of movement if you make jump based attacks.

This sort of flavour or Mech bonding with pilots would allow for some interesting play that added depth and character. At the same time reducing armour profiles and internal damage locations would speed up play but a lot of work would be needed to balance weapon damage and the extra amour provided by big mechs.

So I think it is still playable in its current form but slow and dated. It needs some serious effort and playtesting to take it forward which will no doubt meet a lot of resistance from the very large community of happy players.

I am still very keen on the genre and the btech universe so I hope it does get some attention.

Some of my game photos and mech paint jobs here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/inrepose/collections/72157623629142611/

I played Battletech RAVENOUSLY as a youngster. I discovered it in 1986 at the impressionable age of 14. I first bought the CityTech game, the boxed set with the Stalker crashing through the building on the back, and soon owned every book and expansion available.

I created the 3rd Fanclub in the nation, called Phantom Blue Assault Group, and am still bitter that there is a chick rock band of the same name :) I met good, lasting friends through the game, and played it for over 10 years. I played Mechwarrior, the video games, campaigns, you name it, I did it.

I am now much, much older, and work part time in the FLGS to support my gaming habit. I am very impressed by the quality of Catalyst's products, and have even been tempted a few times to buy the rulebooks again.

However, the thing that ultimately led me to quit was not the Clans (oh, I loved that story line and new tech!), but as mentioned, the "Ablative Armor" theory, and the fact that, "Seriously, I cant shoot straight?". WAY too much randomness for me, and I see it still exists.

DFA worked for me COUNTLESS times…and I fell victim to it as well, but heck, a PPC at 21 hexes hitting a head shot, getting the crit, and rolling a 3 worked just as well. THAT happened quite often as well!

Thw quality of the sculpts of the mechs bores me, to be honest (I play Epic: Armageddon and the precision in 6mm just hasnt translated over to Battletech it seems). I played Heavy Gear when it first came out as well, and really loved that game, but Blitz has left me wanting. So, I play no mech games other than Titans in Epic :)

I eyed Wardogs, but dont like to buy sight-unseen, so have never ventured in that direction.

Kealios

ps I played the Battletech TCG for years, with the user name "Phantom Blue" on the forums, and that was seriously my favorite card game EVER. I regret selling my thousands of dollars worth of cards on Ebay a few years back, but I just didnt have any opponents left!

I did not read all of the above, meaning this could be redundant.

the game is not badly written, in fact the writing style of it is quite good, even in the german translation.

the game is old, which means its mechanics are clunky, which means it is a badly designed game – if we apply todays standards, which is unfair.

i also believe there was a design system based on credits, not tonnage.

RudyNelson's comment is quite old now but Battletech started as a pure mech game, the addition of other units came much later. And yes, the infantry unit in the game are very lacking. Thinking about that the Citytech expansion introduce some infantry units and later came exo-armor infantry, but I haven't seen much of jump infantry troops lately.

Not badly written, just simply written. Although the physics behind the science of the game are badly invented, as has been already addressed. It's only badly designed if you're looking for a game that doesn't involve a lot of number crunching. That's Battletech's strongest point, the mech and vehicles can be designed up easily. The value system isn't that much more math. Take another mech game like Mekton Zeta and it's some heavy math skills to create any vehicle and it's variants.