Battletech is back!!!

[Gusington]

Thanks for posting. Those are some great shots. I pray for a solid campaign.

[MetalDog]

I do as well.  Not sure I have the time to invest in a Clan, but, younger me would have been on this like stink on doo-doo.

[JudgeDredd]

For some unknown reason, ,y machine is having trouble loading those images. All I get is the initial text blurb with the blank image boxes only containing the captions.

However, I didn't really need them - this is going to be a day one buy for me.

Thanks for posting 

[Nefaro]

For some unknown reason, ,y machine is having trouble loading those images. All I get is the initial text blurb with the blank image boxes only containing the captions.

However, I didn't really need them - this is going to be a day one buy for me.

Thanks for posting 

They're porn shots.  Battletech porn.

You need to get an adult to turn off the parental controls, JD.

[JudgeDredd]

 :DD

[bayonetbrant]

they're .bmp files, so they take a little while to render.  click on each individually and they'll load a little quicker in their own windows/tabs

[Yskonyn]

Played my first game!  :clap:  \m/

Graphics are gorgeous and the battle effects are awesome. Finally a BT game where melee is animated nicely!
The spirit of the BT tabletop is captured quite well. To hit chances are calculated and things like terrain, movement speed and range matter.
It runs very well and even though the gameplay is limited to lance vs lance against the AI at the moment, you do have a choice of different lance loadouts and a handful of maps.

I can see myself have several hours of fun with this!

[Jarhead0331]

I enjoyed my first skirmish too, but I can't say that it felt very tactical or strategic. It was more like, find the enemy, close to contact and bang away to see who is left standing. Detection, maneuver, etc. didn't really seem to make a difference.

[Yskonyn]

Yes it does. Speed and cover do matter. Facing does as well.
I just think you don't fully grasp it yet. :)

[Jarhead0331]

Yes it does. Speed and cover do matter. Facing does as well.
I just think you don't fully grasp it yet. :)

I grasp it just fine. That's presumptuous and insulting for you to say.

It just didn't seem deep. Yeah, I noticed indications when my mechs were in cover, and I notice that I could set facing when moving. I just didn't see deeper features like EMCON, countermeasures, concealment, ballistics, armor facing, being modeled and things like holding the high ground didn't seem to make a major perceivable difference.

I've only played one skirmish, so those initial impressions are subject to change, but please, don't patronize me.  ;D

[RyanE]

Detection always seemed a siginificant factor in BT.  Like not running hot to minimize detection or using countermeasures.  Do you think those will be modeled?

[HoodedHorseJoe]

From what I remember, a mech's armour is weaker at the back, so flanking is an encouraged strategy and so your mech's facing at the end of movement can be important.

Holding the high-ground only seems to effect Line of Sight at the moment, however if you have a smaller mech on top as a 'Spotter', and another mech hidden behind cover with missiles, it can attack an enemy on the other side thanks to LOS-sharing, I think? Might need to double check that one.

In the current build of the game, the main tactics/strategy stem from managing your resources in terms of Heat generation,making best use of terrain in terms of cover from forests, full cover to block LoS, and then flanking or knocking enemies off their feet. Holding back mech actions (their answer to reaction fire) is also a useful tactical tool I've found.

Given the implied customisation options for mechs though, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to bring in some of those features that you mentioned Jar, especially counter-measures for missiles.

'Stealth' only really makes sense for the smaller mechs IMO, but would be cool to see small mech builds that use the concealment tactics like EMCON and camouflage.

[Gusington]

There are precisely 2 billion Battletech products available for purchase on Amazon.

[JasonPratt]

One subtle tactical point, nicely modeled in the Mechwarrior games (MWOnline being current) is that weapon placement can make a big difference. Putting them on the arms can be a little more flexible about aiming, but the left arm weapon will be partly blocked by the body if you turn rightward too far and vice versa. Also, arms can be shot off. Putting weapons low is always worse than putting them high (whether on the arms or on the chest -- no small head weps anymore), because you're probably going to have your shots blocked by any terrain you're masking behind. Arm'd weps can have that problem, too: edging around from behind cover to take a shot, but being unable to because your weapon is still behind the cover. Weapons high on top of (better than in) the left or right chest are most ideal. (Center chest is good, too, but tends to be low, being mounted under the head.)

All that is to mention that while it would be great to see this modeled in the tabletop port, I'm not expecting it, due to the limitations of the format. But, since I'm mentioning it: is there any evidence it's modeled?  :dreamer:


Also, I'm worried that flanking doesn't sound properly modeled? -- back armor and the effects of arm-armor ought to be easy enough to simulate in this format.... (Actually, side-shots in Battletech tend to be worse, although safer than front shots! Because the target profile is narrower, and you've got what amounts to shields, the arms and their armor, that have to be punched through before getting to the core damage. A major tactic in MW for those who can swing it, so to speak, is to rotate the torso with the strongest arm toward the enemy between shots, if possible. While still maneuvering, if possible!)

[Yskonyn]

Yes it does. Speed and cover do matter. Facing does as well.
I just think you don't fully grasp it yet. :)

I grasp it just fine. That's presumptuous and insulting for you to say.

Aparently one smiley wasn't enough. I didn't mean to be patronizing at all. It was a harmless jab. 
My apologies.