The new Dlc content...

[Jade_Rook]

Some ideas for quirks that I would like to see:

Quickdraw: increased stability and ignore terrain penalties to movement
Firestarter: +1 internal ammo on flamers
Awesome: -10% weapon heat (if it can be restricted to energy weapons I would)
Atlas: 10% damage reduction
Cicada: increased sensor range? I'd like them to have something, but they don't have anything that stands out

 

[Kereminde]

Cicada: increased sensor range? I'd like them to have something, but they don't have anything that stands out

+X View Distance

 

[BARBOSA (Aries)]

I´m already hoping for an up-armored Annihilator with 4 UAC/5 and JJs as the new mech of my A-Team.

 

[44th MAC|Bonsai]

I´m already hoping for an up-armored Annihilator with 4 UAC/5 and JJs as the new mech of my A-Team.

"I just need 1 more Bullshark so I can rip out the improved UACs for my Anni" ;D

 

[Prussian Havoc]

 

[iknowjack123]

I just hopped back into this game after about a year off and I don't understand how combined arms has not been implemented yet. I'm not some hardcore Battletech fan like some of you guys here (no disrespect), but isn't this supposed to be a combined arms kind of game? The intro and various pictures I've seen associated with Battletech sure seem to indicate that, yet HBS hasn't added any of this to the base game.

- Why is infantry not a part of the game? They could hold objectives, fight over buildings that need to be captured instead of destroyed, and secure defensive emplacements like pillboxes. By themselves they not be a huge threat to mechs, but they could laser them so something like artillery/airstrikes could strike them down. Mechs would also be forced to change armaments to deal with them effectively.

- Why are aircraft absent from the game? I'm not expecting to be able to control them directly, but it would sure change up the tactics in the current game if you could set points for airstrikes or have them fight for air superiority.

- Why is artillery non existent? HBS managed to implement it in a few campaign missions, but nothing has been done to try and add this feature to regular missions. The Long Tom is actually already a model in the game, but the devs. just seemed to have forgotten to try and make it functional.

- And finally why haven't they given players the ability to field vehicles? This game has a ton of them, but they are solely restricted to the AI.

Other things like the incredibly cramped maps, restriction to just 1 lance, and vanilla skill tree have never been really expanded on either.

Everyone seems to make a big deal about the flashpoints, but those just add a few twists to the same procedural missions we've all played a 1000 times. Some flavor text here and there, maybe a few restrictions like a weight limit or having to do back-to-back missions, but they are essentially the same missions over and over again (with few exceptions).

Another thing that confuses me is the fact that modders (working entirely for free and on their own time) have implemented entirely new mechanics like morale and even forest fires, but HBS is still running with the same vanilla scheme. I would love to see more environmental destruction. Things like damaging ice enough to have enemies fall through it or destroying the edge of a cliff causing a unit to fall down and take damage. How about destroying a building and having it fall, potentially taking out units with it and blocking off a road or portion of the map? Yet again, nothing like this has even attempted to be implemented.

I'm not going to say they've just sat around for a year not doing anything, but what they have added has really been kind of underwhelming. There is no way anyone could sincerely argue that the two dlcs released so far rival the cost of the base game in terms of content at launch yet HBS/Paradox is charging people like they have. This game has so much potential, but HBS seems to have just been content with shoving out a handful of flashpoints, a few mechs/vehicles, and maybe a new environment every few months and calling it a day.

I don't know, I keep waiting around for some big expansion to really change things up, but time is almost out (are there even any plans after the 1st season pass?) and I've pretty much lost hope that any of these things ever get added in.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

@iknowjack123, HBS has been working on another game too. We know next to nothing about it... though I hope it is an Operational-level “take” on BattleTech’s Fourth Succession Wat. : )

 

[Jade_Rook]

The "modders can do it, why can't the devs?" thing came up in the last stream. The answer was that modders can do things that the devs can't. Modders don't have to worry about things like budgets, quality control, or customer support. Radical changes to the core gameplay are actually a bad idea for expansions, but are much more feasible for modders.

As for the whole combined arms thing, I think it comes down to just being incredibly hard to implement and balance.

The simplest combined arms would be player controlled vehicles... why would I even WANT that? The four unit deployment limit isn't going to change any time soon. The entire game, every mission, is built and balanced around the player controlling four units. Why would I ever drop a vehicle instead of a mech? The devs have done a lot to make mechs the focus of the battlefield, the big impressive and most powerful units. Vehicles can bring some serious firepower, but even the heaviest vehicles are incredibly squishy compared to mechs. I don't want to bring a Demolisher which can die to a single melee attack when I can bring a Highlander or King Crab and have more firepower and vastly superior durability.

Artillery, they are included in the campaign because they work well in scripted missions. In a procedural mission, I'm not even sure how I would get them to an effective state. We are getting the Thumper and mech mortar as equipment in the expansion, but they don't function like off board artillery.

Airstrikes are in a similar position. Actually making them balanced and enjoyable sounds like a nightmare.

Infantry... there have been several proposals thrown around about how to implement them, but none of them have really struck me as something which would really enhance the game. It is throwing more units in, which is going to slow down the game, and the only advantage which infantry have is that they are fairly annoying for mechs to kill. They aren't a huge threat, they don't do much damage, they just don't die unless you shoot them with the right guns.

The only reason I can see to include combined arms is for completeness. They exist in tabletop and have a purpose in tabletop... but it isn't going to be easy to fit them in here. I hope the devs can find a way, but they aren't that high on my priority list right now. This is just my opinion and I expect to be in the minority on this. You are free to disagree with me and I welcome ideas on how combined arms could be implemented in an enjoyable way (may be more appropriate in a separate thread).

 

[Kereminde]

As for the whole combined arms thing, I think it comes down to just being incredibly hard to implement and balance.

If you want to know how bad? Pick up the actual Classic BattleTech (henceforth I call it "CBT" for short) books, and start looking into how effective Infantry actually are on the same battlefield as 'Mechs. Vehicles similarly suffer, and always will, because the rules are designed to hobble them. Aerospace I haven't looked into - but their interactions with BattleMech combat can be summed up with "turkey shoot" or "lawn-darting after taking an AC round" from what I understand.

Combined arms is a fantastic goal, and it's a great idea. CBT tends to skirt and play with over and over again trying to both make it viable and not overshadow 'Mechs. In 3025, however, and even up until powered Battle Armor is actually a thing . . . infantry are either just a pointless book-keeping exercise or prone to wrecking a 'Mech without much risk - depending on how they're used. Therein lies the balance issue with HBS' game.

 

[Jade_Rook]

If you want to know how bad? Pick up the actual Classic BattleTech (henceforth I call it "CBT" for short) books, and start looking into how effective Infantry actually are on the same battlefield as 'Mechs. Vehicles similarly suffer, and always will, because the rules are designed to hobble them. Aerospace I haven't looked into - but their interactions with BattleMech combat can be summed up with "turkey shoot" or "lawn-darting after taking an AC round" from what I understand.

Combined arms is a fantastic goal, and it's a great idea. CBT tends to skirt and play with over and over again trying to both make it viable and not overshadow 'Mechs. In 3025, however, and even up until powered Battle Armor is actually a thing . . . infantry are either just a pointless book-keeping exercise or prone to wrecking a 'Mech without much risk - depending on how they're used. Therein lies the balance issue with HBS' game.

I regularly play with aerospace and vehicles in a CBT campaign. Aero tends to be glass cannons. They deal huge amounts of damage until a mech actually pays attention to them. Then they get shot down really quickly. Vehicles can be useful, but tend to be more fragile than mechs because of mobility kills and limited hit locations. I like how HBS has implemented vehicles in this game, but they aren't something I have an interest in fielding.

I have occasionally played with infantry and they were either quickly mowed down when they are in the open and we have the right weapons (machine guns and small pulses) or they are sand pits that sit around not doing much when we don't have the right weapons. They can do some damage... but not a lot. Including them in this game would be hard to balance.

 

[Kereminde]

I regularly play with aerospace and vehicles in a CBT campaign. Aero tends to be glass cannons. They deal huge amounts of damage until a mech actually pays attention to them. Then they get shot down really quickly. Vehicles can be useful, but tend to be more fragile than mechs because of mobility kills and limited hit locations. I like how HBS has implemented vehicles in this game, but they aren't something I have an interest in fielding.

I have occasionally played with infantry and they were either quickly mowed down when they are in the open and we have the right weapons (machine guns and small pulses) or they are sand pits that sit around not doing much when we don't have the right weapons. They can do some damage... but not a lot. Including them in this game would be hard to balance.

Here's the thing - I use vehicles in my tabletop campaign and the introduction of such things as the LRM/SRM Carriers and Schrek? That really changed the landscape. (Even more when you started seeing Saladins as cheap, mobile, and scary ways to get that AC/20 in behind someone.) But they're hobbled by the way vehicle crit/motive hits are made. They're so dirt-cheap compared to 'Mechs of similar caliber, the balance is in how simple they can be to remove from the field. (Compare and contrast BV2 values for the AWS-8Q Awesome and Schrek PPC Carrier, or how many missile tubes you can cram on a 60 ton vehicle chassis. Now realize they're all one AC/2 shot to the flank away from being ended.)

I love Priam Company's duo of Condor Hover Tanks, except when they take a shot in the side and - whoops, motive kill. Or seeing a Demolisher take a motive kill and now there's a dual-AC/20 pillbox with a 9-hex radius of "nope" sitting there for the OpFor to exploit. (Note well - CBT does not get the simple answer of "melee does double damage" HBS uses; you gotta chew through all that Demolisher armor or hit the ammo with a critical!) My brother fields missile carriers and protects them with his Heavies like a good combined arms use - darn things are hazardous to try to take out, because he'll lose them but whatever takes the bait is going to die.

Infantry . . . as I've said before here, they're crazy. Trying to build an infantry unit is an exercise in spreadsheet work, a load of math, and it's all for something which arguably is going to die soon as a Flamer is pointed at them. In the open they're just a speed bump as they don't move fast enough if they're tough targets . . . but in urban environments? Don't take your 'Mech into a city where there's infantry in there with Anti-Mech weapons and you don't know where they are. It ends about as well as rounding a corner and seeing a HBK-4G Hunchback waving at you.

 

[KnightCole]

I had the most mediocre cookie the other day. That was truly sad.

On the Jager/Rifleman topic, I will say that from a gameplay standpoint, the JM6-A is my favorite in TT. In BATTLETECH, I’m not sure which I’ll prefer if I’m customizing.

On that note, I’m thinking about the Rifleman II. That would be a fun prize for a flashpoint.

Mediocre Cookies? Yeah, same. Got some store bought peanut butter and MnM cookies from Meijer and they were hard as a rock, even after soaking it in milk. Not satisfying when its like biting into a rock.

 

[samz812]

Today, and with the new dlc will we have the the same game as 1 year and a half ago...

Flashpoint Dlc:
-Add Flashpoints
-3 Mechs
-New Type of mission
-New Biome

Urban Warfare Dlc:
-1 New Map (with horrible performance)
-2 new sistem weapon
-2 Mechs
-New "events" just text
-3 tank for the enemies.
-New Type of mission.

Heavy Metal Dlc:
-8 Mechs
-8 Weapons
-1 Mini campaing.

....

you forgot to add in " no less than 50 new contracts "

 

[Prussian Havoc]

you forgot to add in " no less than 50 new contracts "

50 new contracts (some of them linked/trigger by each) plus a multi-FLASHPOINT mini-Campaign...

...looks like we’ll be getting a whole lot of Story-based Content! : )

 

[Kranng]

I feel like the Rifleman and Jagermech should have a 1v1 to fight it out and see which mech is the king of the long barrel arm/long range fire support battlefield.

Don't forget the Blackjack!!!

 

[ronhatch]

IMO, the core problem with combined arms is that the rules of BattleTech have always been skewed towards making 'Mechs superior in every way to anything else on the battlefield. The fun of playing with combined arms revolves around having to make tradeoffs when you choose your units. Without that, having player-controlled combined arms becomes a lot of coding for very little benefit.

 

[Helldritch]

Mmmm... I have the choice of fielding an Awesome or a demolisher, which one will I take? The Awesome will absorb the demolisher's attacks a few times while the demolisher will be... well demolished? In a few strikes from the Awesome. A Mech is simply much better in the field. And what would be the fun. If you look closely, our infantries are already assumed in our missions like get this work of art, scientists, payroll or whatever else might comes to mind. I prefer combined arms (and artillery) in scripted form. That will leave me with the fun thing that BT is all about. Commanding my Mech lance wherever I want to.

 

[Curuno]

I regularly play with aerospace and vehicles in a CBT campaign. Aero tends to be glass cannons. They deal huge amounts of damage until a mech actually pays attention to them. Then they get shot down really quickly. Vehicles can be useful, but tend to be more fragile than mechs because of mobility kills and limited hit locations. I like how HBS has implemented vehicles in this game, but they aren't something I have an interest in fielding.

I have occasionally played with infantry and they were either quickly mowed down when they are in the open and we have the right weapons (machine guns and small pulses) or they are sand pits that sit around not doing much when we don't have the right weapons. They can do some damage... but not a lot. Including them in this game would be hard to balance.

I'd love to have infantry less for combat effective value and more set dressing. While it'd be nice to give some MG/Flamer based mechs feel a little more useful as pest control, having people on the ground would make the urban maps in particular feel more lived in.

That said, i'm sure it would be a ridiculous amount of effort to implement for a "oh hey that looks neat" visual.

 

[Kereminde]

I'd love to have infantry less for combat effective value and more set dressing. While it'd be nice to give some MG/Flamer based mechs feel a little more useful as pest control, having people on the ground would make the urban maps in particular feel more lived in.

That said, i'm sure it would be a ridiculous amount of effort to implement for a "oh hey that looks neat" visual.

If standard foot platoons were a hazard in maps like Urban or Lowlands? (You know, where you'd expect to find them...) I'd be intrigued. But, well, the best ideas I can come up with are basically functioning as 'mobile weapons emplacements' which aren't dangerous except to already-damaged 'Mechs . . . and could be avoided once noticed.

 

[Nichino]

Some infantry could also have Inferno SRMs or even some invented weaponry that reduces a mech's movement or forces a knockdown or whatever... plus you could make it so the mech had to be super close before getting a visual on them (making it hard to take them out from a distance without at least exposing 1 mech, or all your mechs for people that cluster their forces).