KickStarter BATTLETECH - turn-based mech combat from Harebrained Schemes

[Galdred]

In a tactical game, ANY tactical game, the enemy AI is the most important bit. Multiply so when you are doing something like tabletop war gaming with customisable units. You need to take into account as many generic instances of unit compositions as possible so that the AI you create will react properly to whatever the player brings. Instead, we often get situations where the AI blindly charges a company of Demolishers and King Crabs with his Archers and Catapults and call it a day.

That is not necessarily true. You can design an asymmetrical game that does not rely that much on AI. In the old X-COM for instance, alien AI was really basic (mostly shoot if you can, random walk if no one is in sight), but their better vision and superior weapons made them a lethal threat nevertheless.

 

[Trithne]

In a tactical game, ANY tactical game, the enemy AI is the most important bit. Multiply so when you are doing something like tabletop war gaming with customisable units. You need to take into account as many generic instances of unit compositions as possible so that the AI you create will react properly to whatever the player brings. Instead, we often get situations where the AI blindly charges a company of Demolishers and King Crabs with his Archers and Catapults and call it a day.

That is not necessarily true. You can design an asymmetrical game that does not rely that much on AI. In the old X-COM for instance, alien AI was really basic (mostly shoot if you can, random walk if no one is in sight), but their better vision and superior weapons made them a lethal threat nevertheless.

Absolutely this. Barring some Great Leap Forward, AI is never going to match a human when playing by the same rules. The solution is to design the game to support the AI. Give it advantages, and design the game to provide a believable frame for it to have those advantages.

That's not really what went wrong in BTech though, that was just them balancing the game for "Kiva can complete a mission with no losses"

 

[Cael]

In a tactical game, ANY tactical game, the enemy AI is the most important bit. Multiply so when you are doing something like tabletop war gaming with customisable units. You need to take into account as many generic instances of unit compositions as possible so that the AI you create will react properly to whatever the player brings. Instead, we often get situations where the AI blindly charges a company of Demolishers and King Crabs with his Archers and Catapults and call it a day.

That is not necessarily true. You can design an asymmetrical game that does not rely that much on AI. In the old X-COM for instance, alien AI was really basic (mostly shoot if you can, random walk if no one is in sight), but their better vision and superior weapons made them a lethal threat nevertheless.

That might be a bit difficult to do in something like the HBS game, unless you want the players to be facing down twice their number of 'mechs of one category heavier.

 

[Cael]

Absolutely this. Barring some Great Leap Forward, AI is never going to match a human when playing by the same rules. The solution is to design the game to support the AI. Give it advantages, and design the game to provide a believable frame for it to have those advantages.

That's not really what went wrong in BTech though, that was just them balancing the game for "Kiva can complete a mission with no losses"

True. The TT game is very reliant on the human ability to weigh up a dozen different factors at the same time and make a quick decision. A competent AI for something like that would be a massive endeavour.

However, there is bad AI and then there is "AI" that simulates the D'regs at dawn every single time...

 

[lightbane]

Particularly when that developer regularly admits to being 'bad' at the game and one of the weakest players in the studio

Wow, the gift just keeps giving...

It also explains a lot.

 

[Alpharius]

In a tactical game, ANY tactical game, the enemy AI is the most important bit. Multiply so when you are doing something like tabletop war gaming with customisable units. You need to take into account as many generic instances of unit compositions as possible so that the AI you create will react properly to whatever the player brings. Instead, we often get situations where the AI blindly charges a company of Demolishers and King Crabs with his Archers and Catapults and call it a day.

That is not necessarily true. You can design an asymmetrical game that does not rely that much on AI. In the old X-COM for instance, alien AI was really basic (mostly shoot if you can, random walk if no one is in sight), but their better vision and superior weapons made them a lethal threat nevertheless.

That might be a bit difficult to do in something like the HBS game, unless you want the players to be facing down twice their number of 'mechs of one category heavier.

Its actually quite common to be facing 8 enemy mechs at once instead of 4 at a time in procedurally generated missions. Not sure if its a bug or not, seems similar to XCOM pod activation thing. They still can't do much against a competent player though, due to standart loadouts being shit, armor debuff for the enemy and AI being retarded. Like i usually killed one or two AI mechs per turn, while they were very rarely able to get through the armor of even one my mechs during the whole mission.

Also hbs likes to throw a lot of trash mechs and light vehicles at the player in story missions.

*cough* Union class DropShip

6 times the firepower of an Atlas, with more than 6 times the armoured protection.

I'd say you have problems taking one out even with a full lance of ASSAULT 'mechs in a REAL turn-based BTech game.

It doesn't shoot back for some reason not mentioned in the game. In fact i don't remember any dropships shooting back during the game so i guess HBS decided that putting weapons on dropships would be too much work.

Also LOL at

balancing the game for "Kiva can complete a mission with no losses"

this is just inconceivable retardation.

 

[Silva]

So, is it shit?

 

[Black]

It's shit. Double shit if you're a BT fan.

 

[Silva]

Nope that is not a woman. That is the reason why you cannot no longer depend on games, shows and movies to see the real women. But there are plenty of them on the streets, clubs, concerts. Just stop being a lazy geek.

No worries bro, I'm fine.

Spoiler

Who is the woman?

 

[Country_Gravy]

Someone who doesn't wear a wife-beater to a photo shoot?

quick edit because drunk: but I bet she has better nipples.

 

[PanteraNera]

Who is the woman?

Helena, Bavarian girl, born 1987, mother of my second child.

Someone who doesn't wear a wife-beater to a photo shoot?

Well to be fair, usually I was bare-chested on photos.

quick edit because drunk: but I bet she has better nipples.

She has

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Who is the woman?

Which one is it? Both of them have long hair.

 

[PanteraNera]

Which one is it? Both of them have long hair.

Pfffft and that from a so called "barbarian"

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Which one is it? Both of them have long hair.

Pfffft and that from a so called "barbarian"

And neither of you are have braids that mark the number of skulls you have taken. How'm I supposed to tell you apart?

 

[PanteraNera]

And neither of you are have braids that mark the number of skulls you have taken. How'm I supposed to tell you apart?

here you go:

Spoiler

 

[Alienman]

This took an interesting turn.

 

[Cael]

So, is it shit?

It is so shit, it's coprolite.

 

[Beastro]

I was about to highlight that. Given the fact that it is ALWAYS the players that come up with off the wall stunts and exploits that makes things into cakewalks, why is it that developers still believe that they are the ones who are supposedly the master at the games they make? All they do is end up creating a game that a three year old can win blindfolded.

I don't see why any developer could think that way.

You have thousands to possibly hundreds of thousands or millions of people playing a game over the course of it's history, it is enevitable people will be able to out think you and relatively tiny team you've got.

 

[Beastro]

LRMs were kind of the odd exception there in PPCCommander because a single LRM unit was surprisingly weight efficient.


I would say that considerations like abundance of weak points, massive profile, and sinking in almost all surfaces are bigger problems than the whole stability problem in regards to IRL considerations. Though the stability does kick in when you consider that due to being vertical you couldn't slap a tank gun on it because it'd knock itself on its ass when firing (if the gun didn't just tear itself loose from the arm/armpit/shoulder/whatever generic location).

The issue with sinking into almost all terrain is how the hell do you get them out?

RL with tanks it's effectively another tank in that recovery vehicles are almost always a MTB chassis reused. I can't see the same being done with a mech, and I'm hardly a BT vet by any means, but I don't recall ever seeing something like recovery vehicles in the fluff with load outs always being wargame ones - all combat and almost no logistics or support that tag along.

 

[Cael]

LRMs were kind of the odd exception there in PPCCommander because a single LRM unit was surprisingly weight efficient.


I would say that considerations like abundance of weak points, massive profile, and sinking in almost all surfaces are bigger problems than the whole stability problem in regards to IRL considerations. Though the stability does kick in when you consider that due to being vertical you couldn't slap a tank gun on it because it'd knock itself on its ass when firing (if the gun didn't just tear itself loose from the arm/armpit/shoulder/whatever generic location).

The issue with sinking into almost all terrain is how the hell do you get them out?

RL with tanks it's effectively another tank in that recovery vehicles are almost always a MTB chassis reused. I can't see the same being done with a mech, and I'm hardly a BT vet by any means, but I don't recall ever seeing something like recovery vehicles in the fluff with load outs always being wargame ones - all combat and almost no logistics or support that tag along.

There are support vehicles that can do the job that modern day combat engineering teams do. They are just not usually talked about because they don't have things that make other things go BOOM!

 

[Cael]

I was about to highlight that. Given the fact that it is ALWAYS the players that come up with off the wall stunts and exploits that makes things into cakewalks, why is it that developers still believe that they are the ones who are supposedly the master at the games they make? All they do is end up creating a game that a three year old can win blindfolded.

I don't see why any developer could think that way.

You have thousands to possibly hundreds of thousands or millions of people playing a game over the course of it's history, it is enevitable people will be able to out think you and relatively tiny team you've got.

Arrogance, generally. Kevin is a prime example.

 

[Spark Mandriller]

I can't see the same being done with a mech, and I'm hardly a BT vet by any means, but I don't recall ever seeing something like recovery vehicles in the fluff with load outs always being wargame ones - all combat and almost no logistics or support that tag along.

There's actually a variety of non combat mechs if you look in the right places, and that includes salvage and recovery ones. There are even some civilian ones like logging mechs or crop harvesting mechs or animal herding mechs. People in Battletech use mechs for everything.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

There's even a mention of AgriMechs (farm/etc related IndustrialMechs) in the game in one event. Yang is pretty stoked about them.

LRMs were kind of the odd exception there in PPCCommander because a single LRM unit was surprisingly weight efficient.


I would say that considerations like abundance of weak points, massive profile, and sinking in almost all surfaces are bigger problems than the whole stability problem in regards to IRL considerations. Though the stability does kick in when you consider that due to being vertical you couldn't slap a tank gun on it because it'd knock itself on its ass when firing (if the gun didn't just tear itself loose from the arm/armpit/shoulder/whatever generic location).

The issue with sinking into almost all terrain is how the hell do you get them out?

RL with tanks it's effectively another tank in that recovery vehicles are almost always a MTB chassis reused. I can't see the same being done with a mech, and I'm hardly a BT vet by any means, but I don't recall ever seeing something like recovery vehicles in the fluff with load outs always being wargame ones - all combat and almost no logistics or support that tag along.

Well in case of a bipedal 'mech the problem is also that it couldn't even move anywhere because it could navigate in no terrain at all except surfaces specifically made to withstand their walking.

As for support and logistics, they are around and rather improbably sized, and in their game apperances their ability is best termed "fukken magic" in the MFBs in MechWarrior 3 and 4.

Actually the most notable thing that never seems to be around is airpower, even if they technically exist in the BattleTech universe they're practically invisible in actual presence; this game is actually a good example since air units are mentioned ONCE. Though the reason is kind of obvious because logically the BattleMech is useless in its own setting if one accounts for aerospace fighters (then again it's already completely useless when one thinks of all the possible conventional vehicles, such as the currently infamous missile carriers).

 

[mwnn85]

The game doesn't seem to develop into anything more than what the player experiences in the first few hours of play.
Reminds me of Freelancer combined with a sub par tactical game (which just happens to feature MechWarriors)

There's one or two story missions which are slightly more interesting than the usual randomised fodder - but otherwise it's just the illusion of choice.
Grinding for parts is becoming very tedious already.
The Argo is nothing more than a big cash sink - why do I have to watch it fly to each planet over and over?
The difficulty curve amounts to spawning twice as many enemy units as what the player can field; they're not exactly the brightest sparks in the room either.
The four unit limit just doesn't allow for much variety.
Other than heat generation and blocking LOS, terrain doesn't really come into play either; I've never seem a Mech trip over or get stuck in swamp for example.
Plus it's a technical mess.

All things considered a pretty lacklustre effort.
I enjoyed Shadowrun: Dragonfall for what it was. (I probably should play through Hong Kong as well)
At least Julian Gollop seems to be cooking up something decent.

 

[Cael]

Actually the most notable thing that never seems to be around is airpower, even if they technically exist in the BattleTech universe they're practically invisible in actual presence; this game is actually a good example since air units are mentioned ONCE. Though the reason is kind of obvious because logically the BattleMech is useless in its own setting if one accounts for aerospace fighters (then again it's already completely useless when one thinks of all the possible conventional vehicles, such as the currently infamous missile carriers).

You haven't played any BTech game, have you?

In TT, there are entire books and sets of rules dedicated to Aerospace Fighters, DropShips and Warships.

As early as Crescent Hawk's Inception, there was mention of how a DropShip held off the Kuritans while you grabbed the SL cache right at the end, IIRC.

In Crescent Hawk's Revenge, Aerospace Fighters can be used to strafe entire sections of the map. Offscreen artillery can be used to drop random bombs on designated spots on the map. Both you and the enemy had them.

In MechCommander, Aerospace Spotters figured prominently in several missions. Aerospace Fighter bombing runs were part of your support tab.

In MechCommander 2, Aerospace Fighter strikes were used against you.

In MechWarrior 2- Mercenaries, you can have an Aerospace Fighter as part of your unit.

In MechWarrior 4- Mercenaries, Aerospace Fighters were used against you and if you are not skilled enough, they can wreck your face.