Any Plans For BATTLETECH After 2019?

[Rubidium]

I'll be playing this game until the next great BattleTech game, so I can't imagine things changing unless BattleTech 2 is a thing.

Shoot, I still have only 80% of the achievements for the game done. Speaking of which, I find hidden achievements really annoying, and wish companies would just knock that off. I wonder if anyone has all of the hidden achieves.....

Hidden achievements are fine if they have a spoilery reason to be hidden (e.g. the ones for completing the various campaign missions; each of those tells a little about the story in its description, and thus would be spoilery if they were listed normally; likewise in e.g. RPGs where you can potentially recruit certain characters whose presence would reveal things about the plot). Otherwise they should be regular achievements.

Something like "Beta Strike" (killing an Orion with a headshot with an AC/20) is a weird achievement and meant to be an easter egg, but it doesn't really need to be hidden.

 

[Zakhodit]

Good 'Ol Mike McCain has been MIA for a while.

Which I believe is because he's super busy on a project right now. I'm also fairly confident that it's Battletech related. Hard to guess beyond that, but I'd say that 2020 will have plenty of Battletech for us. Either more DLC for the current game or maybe BT2 is closer than we think. (By "closer" I mean next, not necessarily *Soon*)

 

[mmurray821]

I would bet that the next major release is being talked about/planned. Something in the Fourth Succession war with bigger units would not be unwelcome.

 

[Ed Steele]

I think this would be interesting too. I think most of the things a campaign like this would need is in the game as is. The only thing I could see being a bit touchy is a Clan game without Omnimechs. I personally wouldn't mind since the game is covering an interesting part of BattleTech lore (one never explored in a PC game before), however I think some would feel "cheated" if their favorite Omnis were excluded. Many just wouldn't know that the Clans created Omnimechs (like the Timber Wolf) well passed their foundation.

I think that part of the idea would be the most difficult to work through.

They could set the campaign just after the Exodus before OMNIMECH technology was invented by Clan Coyote, and that would mean that we would start with either Star League MECHS or IIC MECHS. Also this would allow OMNIMECH tech to be end-game level rare just like LOSTECH is in the current game.

 

[Scoughman]

They could set the campaign just after the Exodus before OMNIMECH technology was invented by Clan Coyote, and that would mean that we would start with either Star League MECHS or IIC MECHS. Also this would allow OMNIMECH tech to be end-game level rare just like LOSTECH is in the current game.

I'd love to play a clan campaign pre-omnimechs, that period is really unexplored I think. However it would be a ton of work to write, specifically because there isn't much fiction set around that period, and we don't know what a former Star League/budding Clan culture would sound and feel like. At that point I don't think they had the same kind of brash, aggressive style and accenting (quiaff/neg, no contractions); that stuff kind of came out later as part of the breeding program.

I also agree with MeiSooHaityu, I think people would be pissed, and I think it'd be tough logistically to basically make two entirely different mechbays, one for IS mechs and one for omnis. Balance would be a nightmare too. That's why I think clans are better off in their own game where it's omnis only and you only fight other clans - that'd also be super interesting.

 

[Ed Steele]

I also agree with MeiSooHaityu, I think people would be pissed, and I think it'd be tough logistically to basically make two entirely different mechbays, one for IS mechs and one for omnis. Balance would be a nightmare too. That's why I think clans are better off in their own game where it's omnis only and you only fight other clans - that'd also be super interesting.

People should not be pissed, because this is BATTLETECH and not MECHWARRIOR, so it would be very simple to balance, since the BATTLETECH board / miniatures game already has systems in place to balance Clan Tech and forces, so it would be easy to enforce the rules in the PVE game. And BATTLETECH multiplayer would be very easy to balance too, since when a player creates a game they could choose the level of tech, or whether mixed tech would be allowed, tonnage limits and so on and so forth. So I think it would be very doable. Also as a Clan Warrior, you would be assigned missions and you would be able to choose your MECH based on your rank (higher ranks were able to chose first from the pool and the highest ranks or most significant Warriors could claim a MECH as their own and even customize it as they saw fit), so you would no really be managing your dropship until you were at least a Star Commander.

 

[Rubidium]

There's still plenty to do and see in the 3025-era. No need to rush ahead to Clans, or even 4th Succession War (and definitely no reason to change the unit size, which would require drastic overhauls of everything, to the point of almost requiring a new game).

 

[MeiSooHaityu]

I also agree with MeiSooHaityu, I think people would be pissed, and I think it'd be tough logistically to basically make two entirely different mechbays, one for IS mechs and one for omnis. Balance would be a nightmare too. That's why I think clans are better off in their own game where it's omnis only and you only fight other clans - that'd also be super interesting.

I don't know if people would be mad, but some would definitely would be confused. Many people's exposure to the Clans is through the invasion and therefore Clans for them would be synonymous with Omnitech. Even if the scenario takes place in Clan space before the invention of the Omnimech, there may be some that would still not understand their exclusion. They would hear Clan and instantly envision a Timber Wolf.

This is not to say that a foundation of the Clans wouldn't be worth exploring, just that it would have to be promoted and handled carefully. A lot of promotional artwork with IS SLDF mechs and clear terminology that it is the birth or founding of the Clans. Just something to make it clear that this is what the Clans looked like before we knew them as Clans.

 

[MeiSooHaityu]

There's still plenty to do and see in the 3025-era. No need to rush ahead to Clans, or even 4th Succession War (and definitely no reason to change the unit size, which would require drastic overhauls of everything, to the point of almost requiring a new game).

I agree. There is a lot to work with before 3050.

I also think Lance Combat is the ideal for the game, however I know that opinion is a bit more contended.

 

[smurfopax]

Lance Combat is the issue i have with every tactical Battletech game.
In the Mech Commander games you could only start with a single lance, but could upgrade to i think 12 Mechs or more with salvaged stuff while doing the missions. That was fun because more mechs but the balancing was awful, when you did it right you had so much tonnage after the first fight that you could play the rest of the mission blind folded.
Battletech is the same, it's a great copy of the boardgame. But you are restricted to 4 Mechs, somehow doesn't feel right. I always wanted to use a company sized forced to do all this nice stuff they do in the books with small unit tactics.

 

[PauloBrito]

The problem for company command - 12 mechs each side or more if you count allies (both side), third parties, turrets, etc - is that takes a lot of time to play a single mission. Unless something is radically changed. I also liked to have more but i understand the limitations.

 

[smurfopax]

The problem for company command - 12 mechs each side or more if you count allies (both side), third parties, turrets, etc - is that takes a lot of time to play a single mission. Unless something is radically changed. I also liked to have more but i understand the limitations.

Yeah but that's a non issue, you could just keep it behind a DLC. So if people are ready to invest the amount of time for this they buy the DLC, if not they just don't buy the DLC.

 

[Panzer-Killer]

Lance Combat is the issue i have with every tactical Battletech game.
In the Mech Commander games you could only start with a single lance, but could upgrade to i think 12 Mechs or more with salvaged stuff while doing the missions. That was fun because more mechs but the balancing was awful, when you did it right you had so much tonnage after the first fight that you could play the rest of the mission blind folded.
Battletech is the same, it's a great copy of the boardgame. But you are restricted to 4 Mechs, somehow doesn't feel right. I always wanted to use a company sized forced to do all this nice stuff they do in the books with small unit tactics.

I'm not a Battletech expert, and I have only a very general knowledge of the IP but, IIRC Battletech TT rulesets had all been envisioned for lance-sized fighting engagements, not company-sized ones, isn't it? Then, the they devised a different (simplified) Battle Value points Mech-building ruleset, with simplified fighting rules, called Alpha Strike, for running battles at company level or higher. According to these information (if they're indeed correct), it'd seem that lance-size was indeed the engagement level originally intended for BattleTech TT too...

 

[MeiSooHaityu]

Another issue with company sized combat (12 mechs) is that either you or the AI can focus down a single mech with potentially 3x more firepower than currently possible. A mech might be able to survive 3~4 mechs shooting at it, but potentially 11~12 mechs all taking shots at a single target? That might be rather difficult.

The limiting nature of Lance combat basically helps survivability of individual units.

 

[smurfopax]

I'm not a Battletech expert, and I have only a very general knowledge of the IP but, IIRC Battletech TT rulesets had all been envisioned for lance-sized fighting engagements, not company-sized ones, isn't it? Then, the they devised a different (simplified) Battle Value points Mech-building ruleset, with simplified fighting rules, called Alpha Strike, for running battles at company level or higher. According to these information (if they're indeed correct), it'd seem that lance-size was indeed the engagement level originally intended for BattleTech TT too...

All true. But all people i know off always played bigger battles, sure it was a time consuming slog but we had fun. You needed bigger maps, 4 of the Hex maps together were perfect, but you didn't need more area on the table then you need for a Warhammer 40000 game. Maybe it's just my pink sunglasses, it's min. 15 years since i played a BT Tabletop game, but i remember the big battles in a good way. I think the biggest one we ever did was Battalion sized and took us 2 days to finish.

 

[Jamey]

My thoughts on this are:

1. Flashpoints are designed to lower the cost of adding story content to BATTLETECH, laying the groundwork for longer term development
2. Mitch has said that the Unseen are coming to BATTLETECH
   
3. The urban biome included engine optimizations and dynamic building generation

That all says to me that there are long term plans for BATTLETECH.


I'd be very happy if BATTLETECH kept getting more content (I'm quite happy with both Flashpoint and Urban Warfare) and HBS also started development on a larger scale game in the Battletech universe. That would be pretty much ideal for me.

 

[Panzer-Killer]

Yeah but that's a non issue, you could just keep it behind a DLC. So if people are ready to invest the amount of time for this they buy the DLC, if not they just don't buy the DLC.

Yes but this would generate two kind of issues anyway according to the current state of the art of HBS' Battletech, a standard mission with 8 to 12 Mechs' OpFor against our own 4-Mech-strong lance tend to need 30-40 minutes in order to be completed

Another issue with company sized combat (12 mechs) is that either you or the AI can focus down a single mech with potentially 3x more firepower than currently possible. A mech might be able to survive 3~4 mechs shooting at it, but potentially 11~12 mechs all taking shots at a single target? That might be rather difficult.

The limiting nature of Lance combat basically helps survivability of individual units.

I completely agree. Moreover, in such a case, we'd also need to account for fighting a battalion-sized OpFor, given that if our single lance nowadays regularly fights against company sized OpFor, if we escalate the level of battle into deploying a full 'Mech company then we 'd certainly fight against two to three enemy companies, escalating the mission's estimated duration from the current 30-40 minutes to 90-120 minutes - three times as much! without even taking into account the potential for forgetting to move and fire all our own deployed 'Mechs as, in my personal experience, the more items or factors you have to adjudicate, use, move and so on, the more chances there are of unwittingly forget to do something which we actually wanted or needed to.

 

[smurfopax]

Yes but this would generate two kind of issues anyway according to the current state of the art of HBS' Battletech, a standard mission with 8 to 12 Mechs' OpFor against our own 4-Mech-strong lance tend to need 30-40 minutes in order to be completed


I completely agree. Moreover, in such a case, we'd also need to account for fighting a battalion-sized OpFor, given that if our single lance nowadays regularly fights against company sized OpFor, if we escalate the level of battle into deploying a full 'Mech company then we 'd certainly fight against two to three enemy companies, escalating the mission's estimated duration from the current 30-40 minutes to 90-120 minutes - three times as much! without even taking into account the potential for forgetting to move and fire all our own deployed 'Mechs as, in my personal experience, the more items or factors you have to adjudicate, use, move and so on, the more chances there are of unwittingly forget to do something which we actually wanted or needed to.

Yeah but 1,5h - 2h isn't really ssooo much, we actually have Flashpoints that also take you as long. The Davion Faction Flashpoint is 3 Missions in a row so we are already looking at this kind of mission time, only difference it's 3 different battles that you have to play one after the other. At least in Ironman mode there is no difference timewise, because you can't just save whenever you want. And there are i think 2 or 3 more Flashpoints were you need to do the missions in a row.
As i said, i don't see the time problem as a issue at all. It will only be an issue if you force people to do this, if it stays optional i don't see any problems.

Sure i also think the game is in a absolut sweet spot with 4 controllable mechs, but i would love to controll more of them. Just to be more flexible would be nice.
For example you could say Max drop weight 400 tonnes, so you could just take 4 Atlas but it would be nice to have the option to bring 16 Commandos instead . So you could add more mechs without a big change of the standard mission types.

Also the focus fire problem isn't really a problem. When more Mechs can focus a single one it will die faster, that's true. But when you can bring the triple amount of Mechs you could afford to loose 3 times more ^^. Nothing would change to now, the AI already does Focus Fire and it isn't a issue because you can as Player can Focus Fire better.
Sure for Multiplayer it will be a much bigger Issue, but when i look at the Steam Achievments there shouldn't be to many Multiplayer guys out there.

 

[Amechwarrior]

Yeah but 1,5h - 2h isn't really ssooo much, we actually have Flashpoints that also take you as long. The Davion Faction Flashpoint is 3 Missions in a row so we are already looking at this kind of mission time, only difference it's 3 different battles that you have to play one after the other. At least in Ironman mode there is no difference timewise, because you can't just save whenever you want. And there are i think 2 or 3 more Flashpoints were you need to do the missions in a row.
As i said, i don't see the time problem as a issue at all. It will only be an issue if you force people to do this, if it stays optional i don't see any problems.

Sure i also think the game is in a absolut sweet spot with 4 controllable mechs, but i would love to controll more of them. Just to be more flexible would be nice.
For example you could say Max drop weight 400 tonnes, so you could just take 4 Atlas but it would be nice to have the option to bring 16 Commandos instead . So you could add more mechs without a big change of the standard mission types.

Also the focus fire problem isn't really a problem. When more Mechs can focus a single one it will die faster, that's true. But when you can bring the triple amount of Mechs you could afford to loose 3 times more ^^. Nothing would change to now, the AI already does Focus Fire and it isn't a issue because you can as Player can Focus Fire better.
Sure for Multiplayer it will be a much bigger Issue, but when i look at the Steam Achievments there shouldn't be to many Multiplayer guys out there.

I'm going to address two issues, one the loss of units from increases in number of shooters in the field and two, the time issue.

1. HBS wanted us to care about individual 'Mechs and our pilots. Going in expecting to lose 1/3rd of our forces in the first couple rounds when enemy numbers are highest goes directly against that.

2. I play with my modded AI and other difficulty increasing mods. I've posted elsewhere about how this changes my play. In general, matches take longer (I'm not adding units to the field, or increasing skull levels beyond Hard OPFOR, just making them smarter) and in a normal 2h play session I can get about 2 missions completed. Stock I can get 4 or 5 in the same time.

This affects my career progression in far more ways than just "one battle takes longer" in that my sim game progression is slowed to a crawl. It takes me multiple sessions to clear 1 planet in career due to this slower rate of contract completion. This also means my advancement in pilots and 'Mechs slows to a crawl as I'm only accruing XP and salvage at half the amount vs stock.

This leads to feeling like I'm not making any meaningful gains in the short term vs stock play. I'm dropping with the same pilots and units for weeks as I clear out a world's 7 or so contracts two at a time.

This is how everyone would have to play with just scaling up the this current game to company size. It would be multiplied many times over if I also had to constantly repair my units. With 12 v 12+ you get focused and be forced to repair every contract and deal with the added pilot management due to the injuries.

Frankly, company sized engagements with the current rules lead to an even more plodding and slow game as advancement over time slows to nothing.

I'd love to see that occasionally, maybe as FP endcap missions or other very special, limited opportunities to drop everything as kind of an "end boss" mission. But to redo these numbers of units as an average contract just won't be as fun for the bulk of the players as a lot of posters think it would be.

 

[smurfopax]

1. I will answer with 2.
2. But company sized engagement shouldn't be just 2 big blobs slugging it out. You can prevent this by mission design. Just for example, imagine a spawn point and 2 primary mission goals maybe with a timer. Number 1 is a base that you can reach with heavys and assaults, protected by turrets and mechs so you will need firepower. Number 2 is a something you can't reach with any assault in time, not as heavy protected as target one but you can only bring Lights or Mediums with a certain speed if you want to fullfill the mission goal. So you won't see this big dreaded Slugfest were you loose 1/3 of your mechs in the first few rounds.

.....
Frankly, company sized engagements with the current rules lead to an even more plodding and slow game as advancement over time slows to nothing.

I'd love to see that occasionally, maybe as FP endcap missions or other very special, limited opportunities to drop everything as kind of an "end boss" mission. But to redo these numbers of units as an average contract just won't be as fun for the bulk of the players as a lot of posters think it would be.

Yeah or just as optional Missions like the Attack and Defense ones. I don't like them so i just don't play them. It isn't like you need to do every Mission the Game offers to you. It's no problem at all to just pick the ones you like and completly ignore the others, that's what i do already and it works without any problems.

Why should it be different with another new mission type?