How to bring BATTLETECH to the next level?

[Paendragon]

Battletech is already a good game one can enjoy for many hours (thank you HBS!). I have recently finished my second play-through with mods and was thinking about what was missing.


One of the most common criticisms you encounter with current Battletech from players in Steam Reviews, from streamers, online magazines - and one I am agreeing personally to as well - is that Battletech is still, generally speaking, a game where you bring your four heaviest Mechs to battle, walk towards the enemy and stomp them. Or put differently: The game does not give you many big tactical choices that win the day. Instead, you get a myriad of small ones.


Sure, there is terrain, there is ammo, there is heat management, there is different weapon ranges there is mobility, there is facing, your load out etc. However, in the big scheme of things you end up with four of your beefiest Mechs with maybe a Hopper in between for gaining LOS and drawing fire. It will rarely feel like you won the battle because you had a better lance composition, or because you outmaneuvered the enemy or you had the better strategy in the course of the mission or your pilots had a higher quality (which they have on top of all things at the end of the game).


You can`t just build a lance of eight 50to Mediums to fight the four 100to Assaults.


You can`t use a hand full of cheap tanks to block the path of the enemy lance and flank them with lighter and faster Mechs.


You can`t place a minefield or call an airstrike in the advancing path of the enemy reinforcements.


You do not have interlinked objectives like having to capture and hold one point with one lance and at the same time push for another objective in a set amount of time with a different lance or fail the whole mission. There is no need for this kind of complex mission design. It is always do A then do B then do C. Search & Destroy.


I guess most of you are already seeing where this goes. I believe that in order to make Battletech a truly excellent game, we do not only need more of the same in a different garn (though that is always a nice touch). One should expand the game in dramatic and meaningful ways that take full advantage of the systems in place and make it tactically more interesting from the perspective of a commander.


- Transform the 4-Mech-limit to a real tonnage limit.

- Introduce playable tanks and infantry and strategic tools like artillery fire.

- Expand the lance limit up to a Company of 16 vehicles.

- Increase the size of maps (simply unlock more space of the current maps?) to open up more tactical possibilities.

- Expand the flashpoint concept to a multi-lance, multi-objective, multi-mission customizable editor so the community can get creative and we can put the whole power of our mercenary company into the field when necessary.

- Factor in pilots abilities. A lance of rooks should be cheaper to deploy then a lance of your best pilots.

- Open the game up for multiplayer (Solaris expansion?)


I think in the past HBS has spoken out against expanding the scope of combat like this because they want to stay focused on the lance level tactical combat and keep it to the 30-minute frame for one mission.


However, I say this has proven too one-dimensional for many people. Why fight this point when clearly there is demand for this in the community?


Sure, you could say loading times will be long; turns will take 15 minutes instead of one minute; the already challenged AI would totally crap out. Low spec PCs would melt. Idk.


Still, I think I would take it. Just for having the chance to play this game on the next level. It feels like the lance limitation & gameplay is but the tutorial on a greater scheme of gameplay.


Maybe all/some of this needs to go into the specs for Battletech 2.


What are other players thinking?


Completely happy with the current plans? Or do you think there are opportunities lost with the limit to one lance and the fixed 400to setup? Did the DLC (Flashpoint) alleviate the Assault onslaught S&D syndrome?

 

[ThatGuyMontag]

Well..to use your 2nd best mechs as well as train a couple of pilots instead of always bringing your best crew for instance.

Oh, so you mean have a run that's going well enough that you can afford the redundancy? I mentioned that.

I myself would gladly spend some more time on a mission feeling like a big battle instead of having 2-3 small skirmishes in the same time...

The campaign missions show that it's perfectly possible to have pitched battled with 4 'mechs. Hell, some of my best memories are pitched battles caused by sandbox missions: holding off a lance of heavy reinforcements with a Jagermech sniper when they appeared on my right flank; having to cat-and-mouse my way out of a convoy ambush gone horribly wrong; accidentally triggering combat with my LRM stalker and desperately mopping up the OpFor before they could link up with reinforcements.

Add in the added time and decreased difficulty of multi-lance drops (and the fact that you're spending your complexity budget on adding another lance as opposed to say new unit and pilot mechanics) and it's not clear what we'll be gaining for the time, effort and opportunity cost of developing a second lance mechanic. I'd far rather get more ambitious design like ECM/Active Probe.

 

[Havamal]

The more the unit count grows, the more focus fire makes individual units trivial. This makes offense less complex, and defense more difficult for the average player.
The more units the player controls the more opposition that will be required to put against it.

It requires an entirely different game to resolve.

Ymmv

 

[Zeusbunnyears]

The more the unit count grows, the more focus fire makes individual units trivial. This makes offense less complex, and defense more difficult for the average player.
The more units the player controls the more opposition that will be required to put against it.

It requires an entirely different game to resolve.

Ymmv

Offense is already trivial, focus fire and kit the Ai to the moon and back. Defense is quite easy with kiting and jump jets, not as it used to be with bulwark, or as hard when headshots ran rampant. It will add interesting decisions like flanking with a second lance...maybe even using those light and medium mechs you keep leaving in a dusty corner. Or possibly screening with lights to spot for your redunculous LRM boats (you know who you are ). As it stands trying to flank with one mech is near impossible as the AI will spawn in a full assault lance or something silly in its side arc or rear arc.

Your comment about adding more opposition highlights what people have wrong with this game, and I think you did it unintentionally as it proves the point. There is no difficulty with this game without forcing artificial constraints (all those mode sliders at the beginning of a new campaign) which are ultimately grind-y and boring. More opposition mechs =/= harder, it just means the AI has to compensate by throwing more and bigger mechs at you to delay the inevitable.

Add stress tests and auto punch out. Make assault mechs rare and few between, even in 5 star missions (are you really facing off against in-lore body guard house units without getting a price in your head?). Make the AI focus down not just the least armored/closest unit in your lance, but the biggest threat. Force actions on your unit that cause instant battles that you don’t have time to prepare for...like getting a bounty on your head. Bring in other assets like tanks and aircraft. Add fighting withdrawal and last ditch defense missions. I’m sure there are a million other ideas out there that don’t revolve around go to this planet and stand in these squares, or lead the opposition on a merry dance.

 

[Havamal]

Offense is already trivial, focus fire and kit the Ai to the moon and back. Defense is quite easy with kiting and jump jets, not as it used to be with bulwark, or as hard when headshots ran rampant. It will add interesting decisions like flanking with a second lance...maybe even using those light and medium mechs you keep leaving in a dusty corner. Or possibly screening with lights to spot for your redunculous LRM boats (you know who you are ). As it stands trying to flank with one mech is near impossible as the AI will spawn in a full assault lance or something silly in its side arc or rear arc.

Your comment about adding more opposition highlights what people have wrong with this game, and I think you did it unintentionally as it proves the point. There is no difficulty with this game without forcing artificial constraints (all those mode sliders at the beginning of a new campaign) which are ultimately grind-y and boring. More opposition mechs =/= harder, it just means the AI has to compensate by throwing more and bigger mechs at you to delay the inevitable.

Add stress tests and auto punch out. Make assault mechs rare and few between, even in 5 star missions (are you really facing off against in-lore body guard house units without getting a price in your head?). Make the AI focus down not just the least armored/closest unit in your lance, but the biggest threat. Force actions on your unit that cause instant battles that you don’t have time to prepare for...like getting a bounty on your head. Bring in other assets like tanks and aircraft. Add fighting withdrawal and last ditch defense missions. I’m sure there are a million other ideas out there that don’t revolve around go to this planet and stand in these squares, or lead the opposition on a merry dance.

The list of such things and more that are required to totally reconfigure the existing game to accommodate larger than lance play is longer than my arm, the realities of delivering it equate to an entirely new game, and the arguments for it ultimately amount to preference which is as fair as any other suggestion I suppose but "because I want it" is far from an imperative and is (on this topic when it's manifested on the forum) in my experience leading to too much downplaying the challenges and exaggerating the necessity, and ignores all the reasons the devs have shared where the reason they went with Lance level from the beginning instead of some other configuration.
Ultimately you're asking for a different game. One contingent on other multiple feature additions and balance changes to even make it mechanically work as noted in your own quoted text. Not for a small change to an existing one, or else you'd have probably already seen mods do it. Which they haven't.

:shrug:

Your comment about adding more opposition highlights what people have wrong with this game, and I think you did it unintentionally as it proves the point. There is no difficulty with this game without forcing artificial constraints (all those mode sliders at the beginning of a new campaign) which are ultimately grind-y and boring. More opposition mechs =/= harder, it just means the AI has to compensate by throwing more and bigger mechs at you to delay the inevitable.

Nope.
You'll note that I actually very specifically wrote "more difficult for the average player". That's a relevant and key difference rather discussing general difficulty.

 

[Paendragon]

I'm honestly not sure why people have got this big thing about having two lance drops. In principle all it does is increase the length of a drop, literally by adding a layer of makework, all while cutting drop difficulties, what with the player's ability to focus fire through LOS and initiative, which really would lead to an increase in grind. And no, increasing the number of enemies won't fix this because that will end up just being another way in which the grind is magnified.

The reason I have put this forward is simple: Look at the comments on Steam. Look at how this topic is brought up again and again on the forums. And look at how many people feel that in the end of the day all missions end up like a tavern brawl? It exists, because there is a part of the community who think it is cool/fun and wishes for BT to implement it. In my admittedly limited view it is not a small and vocal minorities wish but a significant portion of people that see the potential.

And I respectfully disagree with all those who claim, adding two lances won`t add anything that you do not have right now. I think that is a false claim for two reasons:

1) Two lances will open up new mission design options. Now you can only afford to design missions that have consecutive mission goals. Or all mission goals can be handled in consecutive order, or are in truth linked to the original mission goal. Now, with two lances you can design parallel mission goals that have to be achieved simultaneously. That makes a big difference I would say.

2) Two lances (combined with a varying tonnage!) mean I have more tactical options to employ in a mission. With one lance I can only field an artillery heavy lance, or a brawler-focused lance, or a mobile flanking lance (Rock/Paper/Scissors). With two lances I can do multiple things at the same time. I can have an artillery lance AND a blocking brawler lance. Or I could decide to field eight light/mediums or go with 4 assaults. That alone makes a huge tactical difference.

Just "simulating all these tactical options with 4 Mechs is not the same to me.

Random example: Four artillery Mechs wreck an Assault Mech in one or two turns. With a mixed lance you have no need to hunt down the one artillery Mech right from the start of combat. Its dmg is to spread to make a difference early on in the fight. But in order to counter that massive firepower coming from a full lance of artillery Mechs you would be forced to have fast and hard hitting flankers that can run past the brawlers and tackle the helpless LRM boats at close range.

___

I would grudgingly understand and accept if the Devs would say: technically not possible/not enough dev power to implement/analysis showed no feasible ROI etc.

I think I read somewhere that it was not part of their vision for the game (Design goal of 30 minute missions.) but not sure where.

At the very least I would hope to have the framework in the game for multiple lances so it can be modded. That could be a compromise maybe?

 

[Havamal]

And look at how many people feel that in the end of the day all missions end up like a tavern brawl?

More units does not solve that, in fact it probably exacerbates it due to increased focus fire.

The reason I have put this forward is simple: Look at the comments on Steam. Look at how this topic is brought up again and again on the forums.

Imho this is of dubious relevance. Best to just make ones personal suggestion based on one's own preference.
I also see plenty of suggestions on steam that rtwp games should have been turn based, or that a 3rd person game should be 1st person, ect. Nor is it statistically sufficient quantities to infer from.
Let's please just share our own suggestions and let the Dev's do the rest.

I think I read somewhere that it was not part of their vision for the game (Design goal of 30 minute missions.) but not sure where.

Correct, and more.

At the very least I would hope to have the framework in the game for multiple lances so it can be modded. That could be a compromise maybe?

Doubtful.

Devs ordinary make the game theyre making, not the game modders are making.



That said, the Dev's have commented on these topics many times.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was eventually some form of player unit inflation, but that would be down the road imho for all the reasons posted above.
I know waiting isn't any kind of fun when excited about something, but I do believe that's the boat such a request is currently in. For good reason, though that's probably little consolation.

:bow:

 

[Amechwarrior]

The reason I have put this forward is simple: Look at the comments on Steam. Look at how this topic is brought up again and again on the forums. And look at how many people feel that in the end of the day all missions end up like a tavern brawl? It exists, because there is a part of the community who think it is cool/fun and wishes for BT to implement it. In my admittedly limited view it is not a small and vocal minorities wish but a significant portion of people that see the potential.

And I respectfully disagree with all those who claim, adding two lances won`t add anything that you do not have right now. I think that is a false claim for two reasons:

1) Two lances will open up new mission design options. Now you can only afford to design missions that have consecutive mission goals. Or all mission goals can be handled in consecutive order, or are in truth linked to the original mission goal. Now, with two lances you can design parallel mission goals that have to be achieved simultaneously. That makes a big difference I would say.

2) Two lances (combined with a varying tonnage!) mean I have more tactical options to employ in a mission. With one lance I can only field an artillery heavy lance, or a brawler-focused lance, or a mobile flanking lance (Rock/Paper/Scissors). With two lances I can do multiple things at the same time. I can have an artillery lance AND a blocking brawler lance. Or I could decide to field eight light/mediums or go with 4 assaults. That alone makes a huge tactical difference.

Just "simulating all these tactical options with 4 Mechs is not the same to me.

Random example: Four artillery Mechs wreck an Assault Mech in one or two turns. With a mixed lance you have no need to hunt down the one artillery Mech right from the start of combat. Its dmg is to spread to make a difference early on in the fight. But in order to counter that massive firepower coming from a full lance of artillery Mechs you would be forced to have fast and hard hitting flankers that can run past the brawlers and tackle the helpless LRM boats at close range.

___

I would grudgingly understand and accept if the Devs would say: technically not possible/not enough dev power to implement/analysis showed no feasible ROI etc.

I think I read somewhere that it was not part of their vision for the game (Design goal of 30 minute missions.) but not sure where.

At the very least I would hope to have the framework in the game for multiple lances so it can be modded. That could be a compromise maybe?

Downside is all contracts need a multi-layered simultaneous objective setup or it just becomes an even bigger "Kite AI to LoS disadvantage, focus fire, next" which is the main problem from increasing the unit count on both sides. The Attack/Defend and Target Acquisition would be the kinds of missions we would need to prevent just balling up 6 or 8 of our units to insta-gib any full armored 100t opponent in one turn. We have players that already do this now with just four units.

This would be something for BT 2 or larger, not as easy to just up-jump the current game with some special contracts. In the end, to make dual Lances not just one giant ball, you need to design two fights at once to force a split. It's far easier to just start with two separate battles and work toward more units once you have established the game in the first installation.

 

[Paendragon]

The campaign missions show that it's perfectly possible to have pitched battled with 4 'mechs. Hell, some of my best memories are pitched battles caused by sandbox missions: holding off a lance of heavy reinforcements with a Jagermech sniper when they appeared on my right flank; having to cat-and-mouse my way out of a convoy ambush gone horribly wrong; accidentally triggering combat with my LRM stalker and desperately mopping up the OpFor before they could link up with reinforcements.

Add in the added time and decreased difficulty of multi-lance drops (and the fact that you're spending your complexity budget on adding another lance as opposed to say new unit and pilot mechanics) and it's not clear what we'll be gaining for the time, effort and opportunity cost of developing a second lance mechanic. I'd far rather get more ambitious design like ECM/Active Probe.

I totally get this. I think at average in my campaigns I had maybe a hand full of such missions. But in the majority of cases post campaign/end game just landed my elite assault squad and destroyed everything.

When I want some added challenge, I would go in underweight with one or another arbitrary reason. For example to fielding an all Kuritan lance (Panther, Dragon, Jägermech, Catapult K2) in a 5 skull etc. When I felt like light/meds I would go for 2-3 skulls (paying 3x of the contract earnings just getting there).

As to the second argument: That is actually what I would like to know. If that is the case, there is nothing to do but to hope for BT2. But maybe its just: We don't see the fun in it and it does not fit our design philosophy for BT.

I hope the ECM mechanics are going to be the game changer. We will see.

 

[Jade_Rook]

Running 2 brawlers, 1 fire support, and 1 flanker is absolutely viable. It is a mix that I often run. Sometimes I swap the flanker for a second fire support or melee specialist, depending on the mission and what I have ready. I don't need a second lance to run flankers with brawlers holding the enemy's attention.

Both of the expansion mission types (Target Acquisition and Attack/Defend) are intended to force the player to pursue multiple objectives simultaneously. The devs are actively working on increasing the variety and tactical depth of the game. It just isn't as simple as adding a second lance.

To some degree I think it is just too easy to run nothing but short range brawlers. I would like to see range more important, but I expect that is a personal preference more suitable for modding.

 

[Zeusbunnyears]

The list of such things and more that are required to totally reconfigure the existing game to accommodate larger than lance play is longer than my arm, the realities of delivering it equate to an entirely new game, and the arguments for it ultimately amount to preference which is as fair as any other suggestion I suppose but "because I want it" is far from an imperative and is (on this topic when it's manifested on the forum) in my experience leading to too much downplaying the challenges and exaggerating the necessity, and ignores all the reasons the devs have shared where the reason they went with Lance level from the beginning instead of some other configuration.
Ultimately you're asking for a different game. One contingent on other multiple feature additions and balance changes to even make it mechanically work as noted in your own quoted text. Not for a small change to an existing one, or else you'd have probably already seen mods do it. Which they haven't.

:shrug:


Nope.
You'll note that I actually very specifically wrote "more difficult for the average player". That's a relevant and key difference rather discussing general difficulty.

Good lord dude, that is one hell of a run on sentence just to say, “the devs don’t want to make more than one lance” and “you totally gave more reasons than ‘I want it,’ but I’m going to say you had no other reasons than I want it.”

I’m quite sure the devs have the time and ability to do it - see what they spoke about the urban environments requiring attention to fundamentally change the game without causing optimization crashes. But they’d rather add more planets and mech variants...which mods have and can already do. Then they act like it worth paying a DLC for.

As for the second part - what the hell is an average player at this point? Most if not all players i’ve spoken to in this forum or outside have beaten the game six ways to sunday and know how the game functions. I understand not everyone has as much time as me to waste on video games, but begging to player incompetence at this point is just silliness.

Multiple lances plays to a longer game where you have decisions on how to approach scenarios by utilizing flanking, spotting, and screening. Maybe the limitation is you only have one dropship...understandable but why can’t it do a second run and bring reinforcements or have you link up with them? What if reinforcements are a second phase of the game where you can afford another dropship or have the experience to land multiple lances and coordinate? Again, these are all more reasons than wElL i WaNt It, it adds dimension and strategy to the game.

 

[Paendragon]

Downside is all contracts need a multi-layered simultaneous objective setup or it just becomes an even bigger "Kite AI to LoS disadvantage, focus fire, next" which is the main problem from increasing the unit count on both sides. The Attack/Defend and Target Acquisition would be the kinds of missions we would need to prevent just balling up 6 or 8 of our units to insta-gib any full armored 100t opponent in one turn. We have players that already do this now with just four units.

This would be something for BT 2 or larger, not as easy to just up-jump the current game with some special contracts. In the end, to make dual Lances not just one giant ball, you need to design two fights at once to force a split. It's far easier to just start with two separate battles and work toward more units once you have established the game in the first installation.

Yes, battles would be more pitched and dangerous with so much firepower on the battlefield. To dampen the impact of lost Mechs due to focus fire, you could employ something like the panic system for pilots to have a chance to bail out before dying in the ruins of their Mech. The missions should be designed for multiple lance setups and there should be a weight limit, so you can't field 8 assaults. And it would need a overhaul of the AI to prioritize and focus fire differently. Good players will destroy the AI anytime anyways. But you could also combine it with multiplayer and all of the sudden you get very interesting pvp options (Solaris VII DLC?)

If there should be considerations for BT2 I would really love to see the support for multiple lances. One can dream.

In any case, I glad for all the feedback given on that topic. It is interesting to look at it from various angles. It certainly is not a trivial change.

 

[Timaeus]

As for the second part - what the hell is an average player at this point?

Not ones that visit this, or any other particular forum on the regular for one.

 

[Jolly Joker]

For one thing, if the human player gets double the lances, the AI would have to get AT LEAST double the lances as well. And the more mechs/vehicles/turrets there are, the higher the probability for the player to actually lose mechs.
For another, if you actually WANT to lose mechs, as some kind of prove that the game is difficult enough for you, you can early on take on multiple skull missions.

This game is not the only game out there, where the human players "learn" the game, get the pattern of how the AI works and what missions have in store, act accordingly and "solve" the game for themselves. As with all games of this kind, the way to deal with it is to adjust the game parameters to your ABILITY (and not necessarily to your liking). If you beat the game easily on maximum difficulty - well done, but then the game's life is through for you.

What does NOT work, is making the game AS SUCH more difficult to offer a better challenge, because that would definitely mean that the game becomes too difficult for people who buy the game at a later stage. That stuff is usually done by DLC/expansions.

 

[DocDesastro]

I guess one could differentiate here. A 4-mech game is a 'skirmish' and nothing more in the greater scheme of things. A multi-lance operation with integrated support is a 'battle'.
Military operations range from low-unit level operations like covert insertion or sabotage to medium scale operations like destroying certain bigger assets or neutralize certain forces at a given location to large-scale operations like planetary invasions or something like the 'Battle of Tukkayid'.

The game forces us to do skirmishes only with meeting medium-scaled OpFor because the AI is [insert apt description]. So what if I just do not want to play skirmishes anymore but partake in a battle with multiple assets on both sides with high-risk/high-pay that what is the solution? Being told 'play megamek' or 'this is the wrong game for you - go back to mechcommander 2'? Seriously?

The game can obviously handle more than 8 entities per time given. The UI might not be ready for it but that is all. Under the hood the AI can cope with more than 4+ units on a single side. And I agree with the last part. If the game is more difficult - and mind: difficulty is very individual - it is better as it offers a real challenge.
The result of this must be then: let the player be able to do as much as he/she/it wants - just make the correct choices in the game setup. If you are, however overburdened with setting check marks, then this won't help you as well. And taking part in battles and putting your assets to danger of being destroyed in a grander scale military action - this is the stuff 4-5 skull missions are made of. What is the alternative? A game where you play somewhat reasonable and cannot lose unless you do really stupid stuff because of this? Then we move from 'challenging game' to 'occupational therapy' in my book.

We can at least conclude that it is a game after all and the only reason I play the game is having fun. What is so hard to accept that the game is NOT fun in its current state for some of us? And we ask is 'make it more fun for us by doing X'.
Wouldn't it be better to implement optional mechanisms to have players individualize their game to their palate? Currently, most difficulty setting only make the game last longer but do not raise difficulty, so mostly meaningless. The player has to do that himself somewhat by playing with obscure houserules or cannot to it because the game does not let him.
If I could enable things like bickering pilots, opting out pilots, larger operations together with 4+ lances enabled, pilot morale, enhanced mech lab - all these things optional - many would be happy.

 

[ThatGuyMontag]

Running 2 brawlers, 1 fire support, and 1 flanker is absolutely viable. It is a mix that I often run. Sometimes I swap the flanker for a second fire support or melee specialist, depending on the mission and what I have ready. I don't need a second lance to run flankers with brawlers holding the enemy's attention.

Both of the expansion mission types (Target Acquisition and Attack/Defend) are intended to force the player to pursue multiple objectives simultaneously. The devs are actively working on increasing the variety and tactical depth of the game. It just isn't as simple as adding a second lance.

To some degree I think it is just too easy to run nothing but short range brawlers. I would like to see range more important, but I expect that is a personal preference more suitable for modding.

Sniping is definitely doable. I tend to run two brawlers and two fire support, with the benefit of fire-support being the flexibility of usually having multishot and the range to hit any target.

Once you have access to range finders you can build a proper sniper-spotter using AC10s and Llas and can easily run all sniper lances. They can be pretty damn effective, letting you gang up on enemies without them even having the option of getting into range. The main downside is that you are almost always firing at enemies that are braced so you don't usually get to knock them down and ammo is potentially a problem in longer engagements.

 

[stjobe]

As some of you may know, I was a Legendary Founder for MWO. From closed beta onwards the matches were 8 v 8, but was increased to 12 v 12 later. 8 v 8 was a completely different beast than 12 v 12 - for one, a single player could really make a difference in 8 v 8, but in 12 v 12 it got much, much harder to do so. In 8 v 8, you survived much longer than you ever did in 12 v 12 purely due to that extra lance making focus-fire so much more deadly.

For me, 8 v 8 was a lot more fun than 12 v 12 - individual player skill was so much more important there.

I haven't played since they introduced 4 v 4, but I imagine that individual player skill is even more important there.

The parallel of course being that an increase of our drop weight/numbers in this game would also diminish the value of each individual asset.

 

[ThatGuyMontag]

I guess one could differentiate here. A 4-mech game is a 'skirmish' and nothing more in the greater scheme of things.

Setting the terms of the debate so they're in your favour doesn't help anything. The distinction between a skirmish and a pitched battle is pretty clear and isn't about how big the conflict is, it's about the level of commitment: a fight between a locust reinforced with tanks against infantry, armor and turrets often represents the culmination of full scale war on a periphery world, the final big push and a battle to mark in the histories, but would be a skirmish for any of the powers.

In that context, until relatively late game a lance of your best 'mechs and pilots represents the full commitment of the military resources of a mercenary lance, we're more on the "Periphery World" scale of things compared to the "Great Power" side. Asking what you're asking means asking for a change in the scale of the game: great in principle (there's a thread of people talking up their hopes of a 4X/Grand Strategy Battletech game which I for one hope is coming) but it's completely outside of the scope of *this* game.

 

[DocDesastro]

Which in turn is true for every military operation. In a 4-soldier team every soldier and his abilities counts. With a whole company involved (we are talking about 150 soldiers), the single soldier's impact is diminished of course. The difference: while I send a 4-soldier team on covert ops or small scale missions, I send a company into battle and do not expect every soldier to come back unharmed or even alive - because it is a battle. Skirmishes as we do them have the trend to overpower the enemy into submission with zero losses - which is doable on that scale. In greater operations this is done by attrition to troops and morale. Your choices still have a meaning because a good commander leads more of his soldiers back home unharmed - but he cannot prevent all damage to them. So for the players wanting the feeling of how it feels to fight aside the say: 3rd Marik Militia fighting back elements of the say Draconis 1st Genyosha on the field of battle with artillery going down and whole lances coming as reserves - well let them I say. Missions of this type pay exceptionally well and are of high risk to all involved. Kind of 'all-in' for a merc. Succeed and be rich or get your behinds handed to you.

Just to add to previous post: No, I disagree: If I have 8 mechs in my mech bay with pilots ready and only can send 4 this is not my full commitment to the conflict. I only sent a friction of my force. Even in the early game it is very easy to have a 5th or 6th light mech that is just collecting dust.

 

[Jolly Joker]

I think, it's pretty easy to see that adding more mechs to the equation will need a different game: no matter how big the opposition is, if you go into a mission with a maximum of 4 Mechs and all 4 Mechs survive somewhat mauled but alive, things just seem okay. Difficult mission, you might have lost a mech, even a pilot, but didn't.
If you play a mission with 8 Mechs against strong opposition and all 8 Mechs survive, things become a lot less believable or difficult. In other words, the more mechs there are on the battlefield, the more BLOODY things have to become to make some sense. Going into a mission, losing 1 Mech only (and 1 pilot as well) would probably be a good thing.

Then there is the Initiative thing. The more mechs there are on the battlefield, the more mechs will have an opportunity to fire at one specific mech, before that Mech can react again. Any halfway decent AI will topple a Mech, if there is the chance, and hit a mech lying prone, possibly killing it.

You also have a chance to field, say SIX LRM boats and two Laserboats with Sensor-Lock Pilots, so all focus strategies are amplified. That in turn means, the AI must also make use of them and focus fire, because otherwise things get real cheesy.

Adding a 2nd lance would need a completely revised game - you couldn't just add stuff.

 

[unclecid]

more mechs being fielded by player to me means more mixed weight lances being able to do their intended jobs and doing it much later into a playthru.