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, the thread is about how to "take BT to the next level". I have expressed pretty clearly all the way through that the one thing I'm opposed to is minor tweaks to numbers or a move towards spreadsheeting except as a last resort because to my eyes that is bad design for a game like this: mechanics like ECM are the things which are going to make the game better.

Which is why I'm challenging you: find a mechanic. Doesn't have to be good, mine weren't, it just has to do something structural that might make a change that's as interesting as the one we're getting with EWAR later today.

In that context a strategic layer makes a lot of sense. It addresses the demand for multi-lance deployments through concurrent deployment in a way that makes more sense of the current limitations of the game. It also allows the devs to design deployments with specific types of chassis in mind without penalising normal play in the way finding a tonnage restricted mission can sometimes feel if you don't keep 'mechs of the appropriate tonnage. It even adds interesting choices to deployments: do I scout in this direction or reinforce this point; can I leave this point undefended or can I turn it into an ambush for the 'mechs I know are coming. It also provides a mechanism for adding in combined arms without necessarily having to include them in the Argo screen or in every deployment, which makes balancing them a lot simpler: clear the airfield and you can get air support; defend this ridge and you get artillery and so on.

Hell, configurable morale abilities according to what you do on the strategic layer would be pretty damn interesting. Deploy a mobile HQ and you get access to Precision Shot, a Drone Repair Bay gives you Vigilance. Air support and artillery fire could cost morale making the choice about when to use morale abilities harder.

The idea that we could then extend this down into the tactical layer adds more potential. Imagine being able to choose your drop point and extraction point before starting a mission? Wouldn't add more than a couple of minutes to a deployment but those are potentially interesting questions. Drop points that have speed and weight restrictions on the other hand would add options for ambushes or even advance scouting: I for one would love to know where the OpFor is as early as possible so I can design my response. That layer would be even *more* interesting in a multiplayer game because drop points would add a kind of chess/poker layer where you're trying to read your opponent, what you think they'd do with their lance and how best to counter: trigger the trap, deny the ambush or ambush the ambushers for instance.

Come on dude, let's push that envelope rather than getting stuck focusing on small tweaks.

 

[whymakemedothis]

I have expressed pretty clearly all the way through that the one thing I'm opposed to is minor tweaks to numbers or a move towards spreadsheeting except as a last resort because to my eyes that is bad design for a game like this: mechanics like ECM are the things which are going to make the game better.

See this is where our problem is because I don't see the latter excluding the former. My view is that number tweaks are not bad design but rather go hand in hand with major new mechanics as part of good design.

As to expanding the strategic game I'd rather see changes integrated into the existing one rather than adding new ones.

Come on dude, let's push that envelope rather than getting stuck focusing on small tweaks.

If I'm to follow you down the rabbit hole I'll expand on the espionage mechanic I mentioned in my previous post.

We can start with a flashpoint which at it's completion rewards the player with a new smaller, stealthier drop ship. This drop ship can deploy a lance of mechs but has a carrying capacity of 190 tons to encourage more diverse lance composition while also providing a static target when designing the missions. Now I'm not conversant in Battletech lore so I don't know if such a ship exists but if one doesn't one can always be made up. Once the player has this ship they can then use it to send a team to infiltrate a system. When the Argo arrives in that system we are then presented with a list of espionage contracts. We can only complete one of them and each has it's own unique reward. After either taking one of the contracts or passing on the opportunity we then continue as we do now. To start with I'd have the following contract types and rewards.

• Destroy Communications Array(destroy base) - all contracts in the system will have one fewer reinforcement lances
• Kill Commander(assassinate) - all contracts will be one skull lower while rewards are unaffected(ie. you can take a five skull contract but only face a four skull OPFOR)
• Capture Techs(capture base) - on all contracts in this system opposition mechs will start with half armour
• Steal Payroll(recovery) - all OPFOR mechs will be piloted by rookie pilots
• Attack Ammo Supplies(destroy convoy) - on contracts in this system all OPFOR will start with half ammo
• Jail Break(escort) - on all missions players lance will be supported by a squad of partisan vehicles

The rewards will expire when the player leaves the system. Some of these rewards may be too powerful and you could play around the edges as to whether or not the rewards should apply to all contracts or just the first one or two and how long a team needs to infiltrate a system so as to prevent the player from being able to do this on every system. But you get the general idea. This expands the strategic game with out having to add another layer between the Argo and tactical battles.

 

[ThatGuyMontag]

If I'm to follow you down the rabbit hole I'll expand on the espionage mechanic I mentioned in my previous post...

See, that's more like it. A bit more fun to discuss as well.

I'm no expert on the lore here, though it looks as though stealth tech was used on dropships, it was just rare (@Packrat care to chime in?) A spy dropship would make a nice defensive target in a reskinned Attack and Defend mission though. Having a tonnage budget also seems the most interesting way to add that as a mechanic, especially as the tech would fluff it pretty well. Count me an in principle fan of the idea.

I also think the espionage mission is a neat mechanic to add and probably comparatively simple to implement, depending on how easy it is to say, get an event to trigger a mission for example. That sounds a lot like causing tags to have in-mission effects though (outside of high/low spirits) which means I have *no* clue how easy it would be to implement. I do think that having pilot tags come into play during missions will be an important milestone going forward anyway.

So yeah, that'd be an interesting addition.

 

[DocDesastro]

I remember having seen seismic mines (looked it up: Vibrobombs) or detectors. Mechs exceeding a certain tonnage would set them off so a light one could walk over a mine while a 60ton mech would blow up in a AoE attack or would be targeted like with a sensor lock while in range of the seismic detector thus vulnerable for long range fire. This MIGHT encourage taking other units with you.

They are a very cheap, conventional 'stay out!' sign for assault mechs and found around installations or at suitable locations where you will be ambushed.

 

[unclecid]

I remember having seen seismic mines or detectors. Mechs exceeding a certain tonnage would set them off so a light one could walk over a mine while a 60ton mech would blow up in a AoE attack or would be targeted like with a sensor lock while in range of the seismic detector thus vulnerable for long range fire. This MIGHT encourage taking other units with you.

vibromines.....nasty...but fun

 

[Ravenholme]

I remember having seen seismic mines (looked it up: Vibrobombs) or detectors. Mechs exceeding a certain tonnage would set them off so a light one could walk over a mine while a 60ton mech would blow up in a AoE attack or would be targeted like with a sensor lock while in range of the seismic detector thus vulnerable for long range fire. This MIGHT encourage taking other units with you.

You know, it probably isn't fluff accurate but I see a good potential way to synergise that with one of the new mechanics. For example, if an ECM dome would 'jam' Mines/Detectors in its radius, allowing mechs that would otherwise trigger it to pass over it just fine, without triggering the detonation or detection. Of course, that might swing the pendulum back against using Light Mechs depending on how common ECM suites are and how easily we can mount them on other mechs. But it could make Lights (or at least the Raven) an essential pick for missions where they are present, to pathfind for your other mechs.

 

[DocDesastro]

This is totally fluff as some of the mines use BAP mechanisms to detect their prey. Also, light mechs finding and clearing out minefields are quite a good thing.

 

[Packrat]

I'm no expert on the lore here, though it looks as though stealth tech was used on dropships, it was just rare (@Packrat care to chime in?) A spy dropship would make a nice defensive target in a reskinned Attack and Defend mission though.

Dropships were used for spying, yes. There aren't many dedicated models in the lore (the extinct Pueblo is the only one that comes to mind), but an intelligence agency could buy standard cargo ships like the Mule or Buccaneer, add some cameras and other devices, staff them with their own people, and send them into other nations posing as civilian transports. I'm unaware of any canonical examples of such, but I don't see any reason it couldn't be done, and it seems so obvious that I'd be surprised if there was anything in the lore indicating this wasn't happening.

As for stealth tech, I can't think of any offhand that applies to spaceships. Spy ships just try to blend in with civilian traffic and hide in plain sight.

 

[EmptyPepsiCan]

Now imagine a flashpoint where the first mission parameters make you want to use your recon lance, the second the striker/brawler lance, and the third your heavy hitters.

It's still doable without leaving the lance drop limit, we just need mission parameters that encourage different 'Mech types.

I'm not sure it's doable via mission parameters. I think it would require a Long War 2 style infiltration mechanic for recon and a simulated simultaneous drop mechanic for the rest.

The recon drop would be an away mission, just like in LW2. I think it should work more or less like this:

The player receives a major contract with a clear final objective, but a lot of latitude on how to get there. The target has a preset selection of map tiles, facilities, and defenders. The player's intel is limited to vague statements like "heavily garrisoned." For more information the player will need to drop a recon lance and give them time to gather more information on the enemy force composition and deployment.

1) The player decides which mechs and mechwarriors to send on the recon mission, as well as the length of the mission. It would be balanced so that longer missions yield more specific information on enemy force composition and deployment, but also increase the risk of detection. That risk would be mitigated by sending the right mechs (recon mechs) and mechwarriors (Piloting/Tactics?). Steiner scout lances would be much more likely to be detected nd attacked than sneaky Locusts and Spiders.

However, in order to keep the choices interesting, there would also be a few potential random missions that the player could encounter, such as:

Assassinate - for example, "The recon lance has detected the enemy battalion command lance moving between companies. Killing the battalion commander would be a major blow to the enemy. Should we attack?"

Smash and Grab - "The recon lance has found an enemy convoy/supply depot. Radio chatter says that there are some high quality mech components, but they're defended by a company of tanks and missile carriers. Should we attack?" (This mission could require mechs with hands.)

Target destruction - "The recon lance has learned that enemy Leopard class dropship had to make an emergency landing near their position. The reports say that its weapons are offline, but it's guarded by a lance of medium and heavy mechs. Commander, if we can kill that dropship it will hamper the enemy's ability to redeploy their forces for the rest of the campaign. Should we attack?

And so forth...

The goal is to put the player in a position where tradeoffs are mandatory. Dropping 3 Spiders and a Raven would nearly guarantee excellent intel and a trouble-free extraction, but the lack of firepower could make it impractical to take advantage of targets of opportunity. Thus the player needs to balance the need for fast mechs and great pilots with the need for firepower and sharpshooters.

For the rest of the perfect world, check out Mojo Amok's Graphical Mock-Up of Multi-Mission Contracts. He did a phenomenal job laying out how a multi-lance, simultaneous drop mechanic could work and why it would be excellent.

 

[Paendragon]

With the release of UW I decided to wait a bit before resurrecting this thread to see if the new DLC and its new mechanics would make a radical change to the existing game-play experience and/or provided any answer to the question of the thread.

So far I haven`t seen any indication that the Raven/ECM will lead to a greater viability of lights/mediums in the end game or fundamentally change combat tactics. The DLC also does not affect he strategic game play.

So going back I will try to roughly summarize a few thoughts and suggestions that have been brought up.

RPG LAYER
Re-working the RPG elements of the game could lead to fundamentally different game-play experience and open up new battle tactics and keep light and medium Mechs viable in the end game as well. To that end we would need to leave the limited pilot development behind and make it more complex/deep/meaningful

- More variety in morale abilities
- Quirks and flaws effecting Mech types, ideally also making Lights/Mediums more viable.
- Make MW backgrounds count for something
- Introduce an exhaustion mechanic
- Introduce a panic mechanic

GALAXY/SANDBOX LAYER
By improving the strategic game-play one could impact the overall game in various ways primarily improving the feel of playing a Mercenary company. This should ideally go beyond simple sliders that prolong the game on the time scale and increase the need to "grind".

- Economic overhaul. Heavy Mechs should be harder and more expensive to maintain then lighter Mechs.
- Make random events more meaningful. They should have a real impact on the game in the long term.
- Argo-Upgrades should be re-designed to provide more meaningful choices and impacting strategic game play more profoundly
- Make the map more dynamic by simulating wars between houses the player can affect by his actions.
- Implement galaxy wide news and events and a clear timeline to improve immersion.
- Skulls (difficulty) should not relate to pay-out. There should be low skull missions that are also challenging and offering bigger pay-outs.
- Add Solaris VII and a Gladiator/Arena system, with ladders, 1v1 & 4v4 battles etc. Also supporting MP.

STRATEGIC LAYER
By adding strategic layer before missions as have been suggested in the past with detailed mock-ups - similar to the Flashpoints - one could open up new mission design/concepts.

- Multi-Lance deployments
- Espionage type missions
- More missions catered towards Lights and Mediums
- Decisions affecting tactical combat as well as overall mission results
- Implement tools like airstrikes, minefields, field repair kits etc.

TACTICAL LAYER
In order to get away from the pure one-lance/skirmish focus, introduce missions/flashpoints/game concepts for combined arms and multi-lance deployments. Increase the size of the battlefield. Introduce missions that add more complexity to battles with multiple missions goals that have to be accomplished simultaneously.

- Transform the deployment limit from a 400t / 4 Mech limit to a 400t / (6/8/12/X) vehicle limit.
- Make tanks available to players as vehicles.
- Trans-morph battlefields to offer more cover and more tactical positioning options. (the city biome is promising)
- Add commander abilities like calling in airstrikes or deploying mine fields, emp strikes
- Exploding Mech cores should do splash dmg to Mechs that are too close.
- Add more environmental hazards that can be used to affect the battlefield.

ISSUES
Some changes might not be realized in Battletech and might be stuff for a "Battletech 2" should it ever be developed. Limiting factors are:

- HBS financial resources and limited amount of developers/staff.
- Crap Game Engine (Unity): is cheap and easy to work with, but is technically not really suited for AAA products. We see this in the sluggish performance of the game and the immense resource hunger despite outdated graphics.
- Varying opinion on what is necessary to improve the game.
- AI limitations. AI might need massive attention to improve the game experience. Otherwise it could be even more challenged a sit already is.

So for BT it makes sense to focus in changes that are a) seemingly easy to implement and b) can be achieved in a DLC. Also I guess HBS needs to analyse what the community wants/needs most on one hand and helps make the game more attractive to new customers on the other hand.

Which changes do you all think would deliver the best "bang for the buck"?

 

[Shrike]

I would be curious to find out which version of Unity Battletech is using. As in theory updating to the latest version would improve the appalling performance in cityscapes, potentially improve cpu performance and allow some of the ideas you mentioned.

 

[Timaeus]

I would be curious to find out which version of Unity Battletech is using. As in theory updating to the latest version would improve the appalling performance in cityscapes, potentially improve cpu performance and allow some of the ideas you mentioned.

Unity 5.6.6f2 so a version some time after 8th of May 2018.

 

[Bladewinder]

Mine greatest gripe is that I cannot replay flashpoints. Yeah it is a seen once seen it all thingie, but what if I want to try a different outcome or do something different.
Why not use a random name generator to change up a few names and be done.

I don't mind XD.

 

[Paendragon]

Unity 5.6.6f2 so a version some time after 8th of May 2018.

Well, to my limited google-induced knowledge on the topic that would mean that the game engine's performance is already improved over Unity 4 and supporting multi-threading etc. Which would be kind of sad, looking at the current performance of the build in relation to the GFX.

 

[Paendragon]

Mine greatest gripe is that I cannot replay flashpoints. Yeah it is a seen once seen it all thingie, but what if I want to try a different outcome or do something different.
Why not use a random name generator to change up a few names and be done.

I don't mind XD.

Seems to be a relative low hanging fruit, indeed.

 

[ThatGuyMontag]

Mine greatest gripe is that I cannot replay flashpoints. Yeah it is a seen once seen it all thingie, but what if I want to try a different outcome or do something different.
Why not use a random name generator to change up a few names and be done.

I don't mind XD.

Well... you *can* do flashpoints more than once. You can do them multiple times in fact, over and over again. Starting again is one of the most straightforward joys in the game and makes so many thing just... better.

 

[DocDesastro]

I agree to most stuff you have written but one. Exploding cores? No thanks - these are fusion ones. Once the magnetic field holding the plasma turns off that stuff goes 'poof' and is gone. No need for hollywood-style special effects or blowing up my melee mech after punching some gut.

 

[Paendragon]

I agree to most stuff you have written but one. Exploding cores? No thanks - these are fusion ones. Once the magnetic field holding the plasma turns off that stuff goes 'poof' and is gone. No need for hollywood-style special effects or blowing up my melee mech after punching some gut.

Ah, you are right. It might be doable if the explosion comes with a delay of a turn, but indeed, it would be unpractical. I wonder though, why the novels always described the destruction of a fusion core like a miniature super nova xD.

 

[DocDesastro]

Stackpoling? I cannot rightfully remember, but didn't he make a story with a mech going boom like this?

 

[Timaeus]

Stackpoling? I cannot rightfully remember, but didn't he make a story with a mech going boom like this?

Stackpole made several books where 'mechs when boom with the engine being destroyed. It is rightfully called out as not possible with a fusion engine in the TT rules, but because rule of cool, they also wrote a non-canon optional stackpole engine rule where they can explode.