Current Release Mech List?

[Exemplar Voss]

This, very much this. I have never liked the idea of hardpoints, and if this sort of thing happens too often I'm going to be very disappointed. I can only imagine that if I have 2/3 parts for a tdr-5s, and 2/3 parts for a tdr-5se I'm going to scream bloody murder since they are the SAME chassis, but only a bit of mechlab time away from each other. I have never liked any sort of customization hardpoint limits.
I know exactly WHY they were introduced, but in all probability it's not going to be that much of a problem in a turn based game like this.
In a first person simulator like the MechWarrior series of games where you can make a laser boat, and focus all those on one point, Yeah that can be a little overpowered. You are only measuring a real life persons skill there, as opposed to an in game pilots skill.
But I want full customization (with engine swaps at a time and c-bill cost of course).
Here's to BT2 and hope that they see to reason.

Going to disagree with you. A lot of the limitations are to keep the feel of the game close to the baseline game and TRO3025. But it also affects balance concerns, and this certainly applies a lot to turn based games. Being able to just run roughshod over content can really throw off the pacing in the single player portion of the game and of course abusive builds are certainly a problem in the multiplayer skirmish mode.

In fact, I think it applies far more to this game than the old single player MechWarrior games, where you're often effectively playing solo with fairly useless lancemates, or none at all. Going 'one vs. lots' with no repair or resupply isn't a setting conceit, so those games really needed the ability to cheese out a mech. This game doesn't.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

BattleMechs have identity.

HBS respects that.

Locked Engines, Hardpoints, the introduction of Support Hardpoints (a genius Firewall against Gunbaggery), 3-piece VARIANT Salvage, limited Hardpoint inflation, BattleMech Type-specific Melee Damage and probably even more ~ ALL combine to keep and define BATTLETECH BattleMech Core Identity... and I like that. : )

Well done HBS... keep up the GOOD work. :bow:

 

[KhazadDhum]

You say tomato, I say tom a to.
Core identity aside, the base game had full customization ,engine swaps included. The need for hard points is irrelevant for multiplayer by simply using the stock only option. And in single player? Who cares? If I make my mechs perfect with no excess heat, and laserboats, and can waltz through the campaign, then I'm only hurting myself. I also think that with the salvage mechanic it's going to be difficult to get enough of any one particular weapon to make too many "boats" of a specialized type, but again.....who cares? Does my wanting to fully customize a mech in any way shape or form affect your enjoyment of the game? Nope. So why limit everyone because you don't like mechs feeling that they've lost their core identity. So what? That's how it was written many years ago, and all the fluff about variants comes about from field modifications, and some people doing complete redesigns in a proper mech bay when they get back from a deployment.

This again comes about from the idea that if I have a couple of parts from IDENTICAL chassis that are simply minor variants of each other, and I can't make one salvage chassis because of a variant difference then I know I and others will not only be disappointed, but angered by what is to us an arbitrary decision.

 

[Chaon]

You say tomato, I say tom a to.
Core identity aside, the base game had full customization ,engine swaps included. The need for hard points is irrelevant for multiplayer by simply using the stock only option. And in single player? Who cares? If I make my mechs perfect with no excess heat, and laserboats, and can waltz through the campaign, then I'm only hurting myself. I also think that with the salvage mechanic it's going to be difficult to get enough of any one particular weapon to make too many "boats" of a specialized type, but again.....who cares? Does my wanting to fully customize a mech in any way shape or form affect your enjoyment of the game? Nope. So why limit everyone because you don't like mechs feeling that they've lost their core identity. So what? That's how it was written many years ago, and all the fluff about variants comes about from field modifications, and some people doing complete redesigns in a proper mech bay when they get back from a deployment.

This again comes about from the idea that if I have a couple of parts from IDENTICAL chassis that are simply minor variants of each other, and I can't make one salvage chassis because of a variant difference then I know I and others will not only be disappointed, but angered by what is to us an arbitrary decision.

Sorry but each variant has it's different power cable runs, cooling system runs, and hardpoint positioning. It's like saying that your 1970's era Ford Falcon XA is just the same as my XH. They are the Ford Falcons with just slight differences so I can take the two chassis and make a Falcon XA out of them. You can't.

Same type of thing here in Battletech. You take those three piles of salvage of the TDR-5S you collected and your techs can rebuild that model of chassis. And no other.

As for the CBT having full customisation, well this is not CBT. It's close but the devs decided to give limitations to customisation. First, no engine swaps. Second mechs have four types of hardpoints to deal with, so no gunbagging or Laserboating.

They wanted us to have a challenging game. Not one where you just customise your mechs a certain way and then waltz through the campaign. They wanted you to feel like this was a real mercenary company living from payday to payday and always on the edge of folding.

 

[KhazadDhum]

Oh? Please explain to me the difference between a tdr5s, and a 5se. I don't have any references in front of me since I'm at work, but the 5se drops the lrm15 to a 10, adds jumpjets, and drops the machine guns. So please tell me how that is a different chassis? Same kind of power feeds and cabling for the weapons, and making a few holes for the jjs. Seems like they're actually the same dang chassis to me. They don't really have a different "identity" either other then it sacrifices some firepower for maneuverability.
But because they're different variants, I need 6 pieces now to be able to salvage 2 mechs when I can take one chassis and convert it to the other in the mechlab.
Seems counterintuitive to me.

 

[Fairborne]

Oh? Please explain to me the difference between a tdr5s, and a 5se. I don't have any references in front of me since I'm at work, but the 5se drops the lrm15 to a 10, adds jumpjets, and drops the machine guns. So please tell me how that is a different chassis? Same kind of power feeds and cabling for the weapons, and making a few holes for the jjs. Seems like they're actually the same dang chassis to me. They don't really have a different "identity" either other then it sacrifices some firepower for maneuverability.
But because they're different variants, I need 6 pieces now to be able to salvage 2 mechs when I can take one chassis and convert it to the other in the mechlab.
Seems counterintuitive to me.

While I agree with this re: Thunderbolt, it is the exception to the rule. For the Thunderbolt (and maybe ONLY the Thunderbolt) the variant chassis are redundant as if you add two additional support hard points, for a total of four, you can make both variants from the main chassis.

 

[Amechwarrior]

While I agree with this re: Thunderbolt, it is the exception to the rule. For the Thunderbolt (and maybe ONLY the Thunderbolt) the variant chassis are redundant as if you add two additional support hard points, for a total of four, you can make both variants from the main chassis.

Nope, there are quite a number of 'Mechs w/ variants that wouldn't need more hardpoints or anything different in the chassisdef file to make it unique from another variant. Take a look at the CPLT-A1 variant, drops lasers for ammo and armor. Other include FS9's, UM-R60/R60L, PNT-9R/8Z, JR7-D/F, CDA-2A/2B, TBT-5N/5J/5S, CN9-A/AH, DRG-1N/1C, ON1-V/VA, AWS-8T/8R, BLR-1G/1D, Stalkers, HGN-733/733C and AS7-D/RS. This isn't an exception to the rule.

In our beta roster, we have the LCT-1S/1M and VTR-9B/9S who only differ in either SRM/LRMs and armor levels. We are likely to see one or two extra hardpoints on these kinds of very close variants to differentiate them from each other, but we don't have enough info yet to see how the devs are handling near twin variants. I'd love all the variants in SP for OPFOR variety, but then salvaging a VTR-9B vs 9S might get a but frustrating multiplied by 10 different 'Mechs each with two very close variants.

 

[Havamal]

I understand the thinking here, but at this point acquisition through salvage and purchase is probably balanced around this rarity and thus all is as it should be.

"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value." Thomas Paine

 

[Fairborne]

Nope, there are quite a number of 'Mechs w/ variants that wouldn't need more hardpoints or anything different in the chassisdef file to make it unique from another variant. Take a look at the CPLT-A1 variant, drops lasers for ammo and armor. Other include FS9's, UM-R60/R60L, PNT-9R/8Z, JR7-D/F, CDA-2A/2B, TBT-5N/5J/5S, CN9-A/AH, DRG-1N/1C, ON1-V/VA, AWS-8T/8R, BLR-1G/1D, Stalkers, HGN-733/733C and AS7-D/RS. This isn't an exception to the rule.

In our beta roster, we have the LCT-1S/1M and VTR-9B/9S who only differ in either SRM/LRMs and armor levels. We are likely to see one or two extra hardpoints on these kinds of very close variants to differentiate them from each other, but we don't have enough info yet to see how the devs are handling near twin variants. I'd love all the variants in SP for OPFOR variety, but then salvaging a VTR-9B vs 9S might get a but frustrating multiplied by 10 different 'Mechs each with two very close variants.

Yeah, I looked a bit more closely at the variants @Cyttorak001 listed as being in the beta mechfiles after posting that and realized how off I was. Add two missile hardpoints to the base locust and you can make all 3 and most of the 'replace AC with PPC/LL' variants just add an energy with the ballistic and maybe a few other hard points elsewhere... The main outlier to just adding a few hard points to the original chassis to get all the variants is the multiple Swaybacks.

 

[Barracooda]

It's been awhile... but I read somewhere about a gyro from one Marauder MAD-3R that would not fit into a different Marauder MAD-3R, and the reason behind this illustrates my point. The factories that created the 2 individual Marauder MAD-3R were hundreds of light years apart and hundreds of years apart. Yes I know its just a game and the very soon to be released version does not go to these extremes. Nor will the game have rear firing weapon systems. (A personal peeve) But I think they have done a great version. LRMs in the old TT version were simply a liability as you had to stand your mech still in order to have any chance at hitting that Phoenix Hawk That jumped 6 hexes and landed in Heavy Woods with 1 light woods hex between my Archer and it. So +3 to hit for the jump, +1 to hit for the light woods and +2 for the heavy woods. (Total +6) if I'm at medium range That's 6+ to hit with a die roll modifier of +6. So as long as I didn't move I needed 12s On my 2 die 6 to hit the Phoenix Hawk. In Table Top LRM ammo was just an explosion waiting to happen. In the beta LRMs now have real tactical advantage. As do MG and small lasers and even Flamers (Though I Did enjoy setting forests alight) It's a different game. I hope to enjoy it for what it is.

 

[Havamal]

It's been awhile... but I read somewhere about a gyro from one Marauder MAD-3R that would not fit into a different Marauder MAD-3R, and the reason behind this illustrates my point. The factories that created the 2 individual Marauder MAD-3R were hundreds of light years apart and hundreds of years apart. Yes I know its just a game and the very soon to be released version does not go to these extremes. Nor will the game have rear firing weapon systems. (A personal peeve) But I think they have done a great version. LRMs in the old TT version were simply a liability as you had to stand your mech still in order to have any chance at hitting that Phoenix Hawk That jumped 6 hexes and landed in Heavy Woods with 1 light woods hex between my Archer and it. So +3 to hit for the jump, +1 to hit for the light woods and +2 for the heavy woods. (Total +6) if I'm at medium range That's 6+ to hit with a die roll modifier of +6. So as long as I didn't move I needed 12s On my 2 die 6 to hit the Phoenix Hawk. In Table Top LRM ammo was just an explosion waiting to happen. In the beta LRMs now have real tactical advantage. As do MG and small lasers and even Flamers (Though I Did enjoy setting forests alight) It's a different game. I hope to enjoy it for what it is.

Despite the fact that I used to use that to my advantage in my Phoenix Hawk, I'm still inclined to agree.

 

[KhazadDhum]

So yeah, not exactly a rare occurrence, and even with things as they are I am certainly going to enjoy the HELL out of this game. I for one probably wouldn't even make any specialist mechs that would lose their "identity" anyways, but... the option should be there. Even if I did want to make a laser boat, it's got tradeoffs in that I'd have to put in a lot more heatsinks to make it viable. Also since we're not able to aim per say, and we're leaving it up to the RNG to determine hit locations, having a dozen medium lasers on an assault mech isn't going to be as effective as some worry about since those would probably have to be medium lasers, and would spread that damage out some, the opposing mech can hit with an AC20 and tear out great chunks of armor while you'd have to whittle away, and hope luck was on your side with hit locations.
I can sympathize with those who want hard points, I really can, but I think in the single player game it doesn't matter one whit.
Plus all the love supports that we can actually do whatever we like, as long as we have the time and c-bills to modify how we want including engine swaps.

 

[KhazadDhum]

Just out of curiosity since I don't own a copy of alpha strike, or the latest books concerning BT ( I still use mechwarrior 2nd edition for example) what are the current rules in the TT boardgame concerning modifications to mechs? Do they use any sort of hardpoint system?
And yes I know this isn't a 100% recreation of TT, but why is it that for all the video games this came about?

 

[Havamal]

Just out of curiosity since I don't own a copy of alpha strike, or the latest books concerning BT ( I still use mechwarrior 2nd edition for example) what are the current rules in the TT boardgame concerning modifications to mechs? Do they use any sort of hardpoint system?
And yes I know this isn't a 100% recreation of TT, but why is it that for all the video games this came about?

Dont know. 80% of what I think I know about AS comes from watching "Ouchies batreps" on youtube.

 

[Packrat]

And yes I know this isn't a 100% recreation of TT, but why is it that for all the video games this came about?

There are no hardpoints in TT. What there are, are different levels of customization that require access to increasingly sophisticated facilities, from stuff that can be done with basically no help besides something to lift components to the correct height, up to refits that can only be done in a mech factory.

Hardpoints originated in MW4, and served the purpose of giving omnimechs a function that standard battlemechs did not. People liked how they made mechs of the same weight class play different from each other -- whether you chose an Awesome or Victor mattered-- so they stuck around in subsequent games.

 

[Havamal]

There are no hardpoints in TT. What there are, are different levels of customization that require access to increasingly sophisticated facilities, from stuff that can be done with basically no help besides something to lift components to the correct height, up to refits that can only be done in a mech factory.

Hardpoints originated in MW4, and served the purpose of giving omnimechs a function that standard battlemechs did not. People liked how they made mechs of the same weight class play different from each other -- whether you chose an Awesome or Victor mattered-- so they stuck around in subsequent games.

^this.

I should have read that question more carefully
Hardpoints are a video game mechanic not a TT one.

 

[KhazadDhum]

Oh I know precisely why they came about, and allowing a mech to fully customize does not an omnitech make. The whole idea of omnitechnology is so that they could change out in the field any loadout to another mission specific loadout. The IS could do the same, but only with a decent mechbay, a LOT of money, and a buttload of time. The omnimechs could do in a few hours what it would take weeks and even months to do in the IS. So again it's a matter of prefference there as to how you want to kit out your mech, if you have the time and money to do so.
Still doesn't change the fact that if I wanted to make a gun or laser boat, it wouldn't detract from your enjoyment one iota if I do so in my single player game.
Another factor is that a laser boat would be impossible to win with in certain environments....i.e. space. Even putting in a LOT more heatsinks will do next to nothing on no atmosphere.
So it would be unwise to make anything like that.
Seems like to me that the environment is going to prevent a lot of those Specialist builds already.
Granted it's all a moot point now, but hopefully in the future they can revisit the idea, and get rid of hardpoint as they make little sense in the lore.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

HBS is walking an exquisitely fine line between encouraging modification while preserving the core identity of BattleMech Variants.

I quite like that.

I would not soon want to see HBS swing to either extreme ~ full customization or no customization.

 

[KhazadDhum]

That's where I beg to differ. What is a variant anyways? A modified from stock mech. Usually they're created from field modifications that someone decided was better for them. So if they could do it, why can't we? Because someone will destroy core mech identities? Variants generally already do that, and hardpoints can completely change a mechs reason for being by simply swapping all lrms for srms. But they're miss hardpoints, so it's legal.
I know I for one want broader customization because I'd like a bit more flexibility than some arbitrary magical force that prevents my techs from cutting and welding.
I've said what I wanted to say and that's just how I feel about it.

 

[Samskara]

HBS is walking an exquisitely fine line between encouraging modification while preserving the core identity of BattleMech Variants.

I quite like that.

I would not soon want to see HBS swing to either extreme ~ full customization or no customization.

I agree, I feel like based off of what we have seen and been told that they are hitting the sweet spot for me.