Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

KickStarter BATTLETECH - turn-based mech combat from Harebrained Schemes

Old Hans

Arcane
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
1,443
What would the positive thing be by making your maps like that?
by making them how they are in the game right now? There is no upside. I probably have more tactical fights playing Battle Brothers
probably? Battle Brothers is a much better turn based battle simulator. I really wish some would have been able to take Battletech to the next level in terms of turn based combat. I fear that this game is the nail in the coffin for the brand.

I'm tempted to buy the DLCs and see if they make the game feel like Battletech, but I don't want to reward Harebrained for shitting on the franchise just like Piranha did with the Mechwarrior franchise..
I think they shot themselves in the foot by limiting the player to only a lance of 4 & the really boring pilot skill system doesnt help much.
 

Van-d-all

Erudite
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,557
Location
Standin' pretty. In this dust that was a city.
yes, trannies are to blame for the horrible performance too, but unity is this century's flash, it's bad and those who use it should feel bad.
Unity might be garbage, but it gives people a platform they wouldn't make a game without, so in the end I'd rather have a janky Battletech game, than no game at all.

I'm tempted to buy the DLCs and see if they make the game feel like Battletech, but I don't want to reward Harebrained for shitting on the franchise just like Piranha did with the Mechwarrior franchise..
Pricing on those DLCs is fucking atrocious. They charge $20 and give almost nothing. When Heavy Metal goes -50%, then maybe it'll be worth to buy the DLC bundle with a cumulative discount. Maybe.

I think they shot themselves in the foot by limiting the player to only a lance of 4 & the really boring pilot skill system doesnt help much.
Limiting number of units is a general dumbing trend in TBS nowadays. They try to appeal to casuals that lack the attention span to manage more. Look at nuXcom.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
8,819
Location
Italy
no battletech game at all might mean that one day someone is going to use the license.
a shit battletech game today means "people don't buy battletech, i blame the name because the game is not shit at all, not at all, i even paid journos to say so. let's not have another one ever".
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Limiting number of units is a general dumbing trend in TBS nowadays. They try to appeal to casuals that lack the attention span to manage more. Look at nuXcom.
It isn't a dumbing trend intended to cater to anyone. It's a dumbing trend in programmers, who are unable to optimize systems such that they don't choke and die with more units in play. You see this across all games, or even the SAME game, where the number of units has steadily shrunk in games, or even the SAME game, as the programmers pile more badly written crap onto an engine, and as a result, the number of units available in an instance of map falls.
 

Nathaniel3W

Rockwell Studios
Patron
Developer
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
1,226
Location
Washington, DC
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming!
I read complaints like this so often, it makes me wonder why people keep making small-scale tactics games that don't give a good reason for staying small-scale. (And full disclosure: I want you all to buy my game.)

If you're going to limit the number of units you can take to battle, you need to have a good reason to keep your B-squad around. That's what Battletech fails at. It would make sense if it took time for a mech to get repaired, so you would bring a weaker mech to fill out the lance until the better mech is repaired. But because engineering fixes only one mech at a time, you start cluttering your repair queue with your crappy mechs. And eventually you learn to use only your good mechs, and wait for repairs. There's not even a good trade-off for using lighter mechs.

I was annoyed at Battletech for not letting me deploy multiple lances. They could at least have let me buy another shuttle and send lances on multi-day missions, and we could still stick to the 4-mech lance battles.

Small battles and useless reserve units. It's the same reason I wished for a bigger Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre. In Tactics Ogre, I would tame another dragon and feel great, and then I would remember I would never bring the dragons into battle because they were weaker than my mains. Twenty years later, HBS is still making the same weak design choices that make your B-squad useless. In Battletech, I build a new mech from salvage, and unless it's heavier than what I'm already using, I immediately sell it. There's really no use in keeping it around. In FFT, you could at least send your crappy guys on tavern missions and they'd get a few gil and XP for it.

It isn't a dumbing trend intended to cater to anyone. It's a dumbing trend in programmers, who are unable to optimize systems such that they don't choke and die with more units in play. You see this across all games, or even the SAME game, where the number of units has steadily shrunk in games, or even the SAME game, as the programmers pile more badly written crap onto an engine, and as a result, the number of units available in an instance of map falls.

I think most programmers would gladly optimize the game, given the chance, to allow for bigger battles. If it is indeed a technical hurdle, and not a design decision, then I would have to believe that anyone who can program would be able to put the player in charge of more than four units. I'm a lone developer with no budget, and I could do it. Surely HBS could too. I'm suspecting the 4-mech limit is a design decision to keep the battles difficult, to make you feel like a hero for defeating a larger enemy force, and to keep the battles short.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
If you're going to limit the number of units you can take to battle, you need to have a good reason to keep your B-squad around.
This is especially pernicious with RPG XP systems, because the B-Squad will get consistently outlevelled and thus become useless.

I think most programmers would gladly optimize the game, given the chance, to allow for bigger battles. If it is indeed a technical hurdle, and not a design decision, then I would have to believe that anyone who can program would be able to put the player in charge of more than four units. I'm a lone developer with no budget, and I could do it. Surely HBS could too. I'm suspecting the 4-mech limit is a design decision to keep the battles difficult, to make you feel like a hero for defeating a larger enemy force, and to keep the battles short.
I'd believe that were true if I didn't see it happening across the spectrum. It even happens in a SINGLE game. Take, for instance, the current game I'm in: There are some old 20-man missions designed and made during the early days of the game, some 8-10 years back. Today, if you put together a team to play those, the SAME mission, in the SAME game, the game will choke on its own shit. Yet those missions USED to be playable on a 10 year old computer, 10 years ago, while today, that same computer cannot even run the game without dying on the damn load screen, because coding has gotten THAT much shittier despite there being moar computar than 10 years back.

In fact, an upcoming game by the same company, on the same engine, has apparently had to cut its maximum standard party size from 5 to 3 because of this.
 

Chaosdwarft

Learned
Patron
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
272
Location
Old outpost in the middle of Iberia
I have been having the same argument in the Xcom forums. Why do I have to limit the number of soldiers I control. If I have the manpower I should be able to field more units, giving more tactical options. But no you have to be Nelson+Hannibal+Caesar+[insert famous general] to defeat the opponent because they can't be half arsed to optimize their code. They say it is a design decision I call that bullshit. :decline:
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
I read complaints like this so often, it makes me wonder why people keep making small-scale tactics games that don't give a good reason for staying small-scale. (And full disclosure: I want you all to buy my game.)

If you're going to limit the number of units you can take to battle, you need to have a good reason to keep your B-squad around. That's what Battletech fails at. It would make sense if it took time for a mech to get repaired, so you would bring a weaker mech to fill out the lance until the better mech is repaired. But because engineering fixes only one mech at a time, you start cluttering your repair queue with your crappy mechs. And eventually you learn to use only your good mechs, and wait for repairs. There's not even a good trade-off for using lighter mechs.

I was annoyed at Battletech for not letting me deploy multiple lances. They could at least have let me buy another shuttle and send lances on multi-day missions, and we could still stick to the 4-mech lance battles.

Small battles and useless reserve units. It's the same reason I wished for a bigger Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre. In Tactics Ogre, I would tame another dragon and feel great, and then I would remember I would never bring the dragons into battle because they were weaker than my mains. Twenty years later, HBS is still making the same weak design choices that make your B-squad useless. In Battletech, I build a new mech from salvage, and unless it's heavier than what I'm already using, I immediately sell it. There's really no use in keeping it around. In FFT, you could at least send your crappy guys on tavern missions and they'd get a few gil and XP for it.

It isn't a dumbing trend intended to cater to anyone. It's a dumbing trend in programmers, who are unable to optimize systems such that they don't choke and die with more units in play. You see this across all games, or even the SAME game, where the number of units has steadily shrunk in games, or even the SAME game, as the programmers pile more badly written crap onto an engine, and as a result, the number of units available in an instance of map falls.

I think most programmers would gladly optimize the game, given the chance, to allow for bigger battles. If it is indeed a technical hurdle, and not a design decision, then I would have to believe that anyone who can program would be able to put the player in charge of more than four units. I'm a lone developer with no budget, and I could do it. Surely HBS could too. I'm suspecting the 4-mech limit is a design decision to keep the battles difficult, to make you feel like a hero for defeating a larger enemy force, and to keep the battles short.
NW4 had you regularly killing dozens of 'mechs on a single map. And on maps far larger than the HBS crap. It is just rank incompetence that makes HBS fail at doing so.
 

Nathaniel3W

Rockwell Studios
Patron
Developer
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
1,226
Location
Washington, DC
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming!
...In fact, an upcoming game by the same company, on the same engine, has apparently had to cut its maximum standard party size from 5 to 3 because of this.

Which one? Can a party of 3 even still be called a tactics game?

I have been having the same argument in the Xcom forums. Why do I have to limit the number of soldiers I control. If I have the manpower I should be able to field more units, giving more tactical options. But no you have to be Nelson+Hannibal+Caesar+[insert famous general] to defeat the opponent because they can't be half arsed to optimize their code. They say it is a design decision I call that bullshit. :decline:

I accept the small party size in XCom (at least, in Enemy Unknown, the only one I've played) because the Skyranger looks like it's only big enough to accommodate one squad. It would be more realistic if you had the option to build multiple Skyrangers, and then you could deploy multiple squads simultaneously--when you get to the point in the game where you're no longer scraping by to get just one squad in fighting shape. But then that would undermine the design decision where you have to choose which countries you save and which you have to abandon.
 

lightbane

Arcane
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
10,158
(And full disclosure: I want you all to buy my game.)

Finish the game already then. Isn't it still in Early Access?

Twenty years later, HBS is still making the same weak design choices that make your B-squad useless.

Because they're incompetent morons more worried about shoving politics than a good gameplay. Or plot. Or graphics. Or...

m a lone developer with no budget, and I could do it.

The main difference is: You're not a danger-hair dev with no experience in the setting you wish to create, no coding skills, no imagination, that identifies xirself as a special snowflake, look positively ugly IRL and demand respect from anyone, and then call bigot and racist to anyone that makes the slightest criticisms toward your product, right? :P
 

Dickie

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
4,235
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I was annoyed at Battletech for not letting me deploy multiple lances. They could at least have let me buy another shuttle and send lances on multi-day missions, and we could still stick to the 4-mech lance battles.
I was wondering why they didn't make missions take time for the career version where you're trying to get as many points as possible in 1200 days. If missions took up mechs and pilots for a day, you'd be running your B, C, and D teams to get as many missions knocked out in a day as you can. It'd be more interesting trying to decide if I wanna bring all four supermechs on one mission or split them up, at least.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
(And full disclosure: I want you all to buy my game.)

Finish the game already then. Isn't it still in Early Access?

Twenty years later, HBS is still making the same weak design choices that make your B-squad useless.

Because they're incompetent morons more worried about shoving politics than a good gameplay. Or plot. Or graphics. Or...

m a lone developer with no budget, and I could do it.

The main difference is: You're not a danger-hair dev with no experience in the setting you wish to create, no coding skills, no imagination, that identifies xirself as a special snowflake, look positively ugly IRL and demand respect from anyone, and then call bigot and racist to anyone that makes the slightest criticisms toward your product, right? :P
Don't forget buy off moderators of games websites with blowjobs and tranny buttsex.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
a design decision nobody asked for.
I'd rather have a limit to how many soldiers I can field on a mission than no limit at all.
Though that limit could be a lot higher than what we currently see in many games.

Because no limit at all will simply turn any game into "get moar soldiers ASAP". And then by end of the game you'd have to micromanage 50-100 (or more) soldiers and... yeah, no thanks. The battle times alone (especially in TB games) would be a nightmare.
 

Van-d-all

Erudite
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,557
Location
Standin' pretty. In this dust that was a city.
I'd rather have a limit to how many soldiers I can field on a mission than no limit at all.
Though that limit could be a lot higher than what we currently see in many games.
Limits like that should have a reason. Direct one like craft capacity in XCom. Or indirect one like economy of having to pay the upkeep for unnecessary units, that simply makes deploying so many of them unprofitable.
 

Nathaniel3W

Rockwell Studios
Patron
Developer
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
1,226
Location
Washington, DC
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming!
Mount & Blade handled that better than any game I can think of. The graphics were primitive 12 years ago when it was released and the graphics are comically awful today. But their army-building mechanics were rock solid and no one has done it better since:

You have a hard cap on your army size determined by your leadership and fame. You have a soft cap on your army size with how much you have to pay them each week. Having a small army means you can move faster, so you can catch small bandit armies and run from large noble armies. Having a bigger army means you move slower, so you have a hard time catching (and therefore making money from) bandits and raiders and the like.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
891
Location
Canuckistan
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
The problem with the limit is that mech power correlates to tonnage. By making the number of mechs absolute you are pretty much forced into using the highest tonnage. A tonnage limit really is all they need to do to fix the game.
 

SerratedBiz

Arcane
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
4,143
M&B did good, but in a Mercenaries game you can (should) afford for a little more complexity.

You don't field 3 Atlas to go take down a handful of light mechs, not because it would be overkill but because it'd be too expensive and would directly cut into your profits. An imposed tonnage limit is the inferred consequence of this fact.

Employers post contracts and the reward for them should correlate with the equipment necessary to complete the mission, and it should be up to the player to gauge whether they would rather field heavier mechs in order to make things safer, or run with decreased costs in order to maximize profits.

The implication is that heavier mechs are not necessarily the best for every mission, so that 85-100 tonners aren't eventually the only mechs you'll ever need, but that having a diversity of options to choose from will enable you to optimize your overhead depending on the mission.

I think the original Mercenaries had something like this in the form of tonnage limits. In any case, I would think a Mercenaries game would place a larger emphasis on the economic aspect.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
8,819
Location
Italy
or maybe make lighter mechs effective at their roles, but that'd require some serious mechanics reworking instead of just a couple of numbers shufflings.
 
Self-Ejected

underground nymph

I care not!
Patron
Joined
Jun 9, 2019
Messages
1,252
Strap Yourselves In
Can anybody enlighten me which overhaul mod is currently the best to enjoy the up to date game? I remember only Roguetech, but as far as I understand there’s at least one more publicly acclaimed mod called Advanced 3062. What are the main differences between them, are they both utilize all available DLCs?
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2018
Messages
999
Can anybody enlighten me which overhaul mod is currently the best to enjoy the up to date game? I remember only Roguetech, but as far as I understand there’s at least one more publicly acclaimed mod called Advanced 3062. What are the main differences between them, are they both utilize all available DLCs?

I would highly recommend Battletech Extended 3025 - Commander's Edition

It features dynamic wars between the great houses influenced by your contract results, the entire inner sphere, more mechs and a lot of other features designed to extend and enrich the career mode and make it more open ended. The massive problem with RT is that it just pushes you to a weird point in BT lore, gives everyone and their mother expectationally overpowered and lore breaking lostech weapons and in general is just not very well balanced or feature rich compared to any of the overhauls. It's also the least stable.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
or maybe make lighter mechs effective at their roles, but that'd require some serious mechanics reworking instead of just a couple of numbers shufflings.
Agreed, the core problem is fundamental to the entire IP. Tonnage correlating directly with power is a huge problem and it's something that should be serious reworked.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
8,819
Location
Italy
i liked how multiplayer battletech 3025 (ea shall never suffer enough) managed it: light mechs were small, shorter than a tree, trees blocked radar signals and there were *lots* of trees, and damage values were very close to the tabletop, thus an unchecked panther was as scary as it should have been.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom