I just got the game and Im really been joying it so would like to say thanks to the devs!
Secondly I'd love to know whether a BattleTech sequel is planned?
Secondly I'd love to know whether a BattleTech sequel is planned?
- 2
Will there be a BattleTech 2?
- Thread starter unmerged(520173)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think it's going to be released just after Half-Life 3, the issue being HL3 probably won't be released until very close to the heat death of the universe.
- 6
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Now, there is some talk of a 5-year pause on development, presumably begun in 2018 or 2019, which would result in development restarting in 2023 with likely release between 2024 and 2030...
... but we don't have anything concrete. In fact, we don't even have anything in-concrete, and if the company isn't even offering us rumours or empty promises ... it's dead.
... but we don't have anything concrete. In fact, we don't even have anything in-concrete, and if the company isn't even offering us rumours or empty promises ... it's dead.
- 1
Thanks for your reply...I must admit its not the news I was hoping for.
- 1
I think you're speaking for everybody here. <3
On a slightly less pessimistic note, there will be Battletech games in the future ... it's just much more likely to be action games than strategy. :/
- 2
For now, for now. Unless someone convinces Mitch to do MechCommander 3.
I can't play those realtime games — or rather, I can, but I die the first turn. For me, turnbased is the only way to play.
I hope if they do come out with another turnbased game they base it at least vaguely around the original BattleForce boardgame, even highly updated. I would love to be moving lances around the battlefield and commanding a battalion+.
- 2
I'm not much fond of them either. Sadly, action seems to be the only thing that happens these days. I mean, Kereminde seems to think MechCommander is strategy, not action. :/
MechCommander is real time tactics. A subset of the strategy genre.
What BT2 needs is not the abstracted combat of BattleForce but more concentration on roleplaying and story elements.
There's no point in having the entire map of the Inner Sphere available if every planet feels exactly the same.
Either curate a small subset of the whole map or figure out far more robust ways to procedurally generate planets while tying them into the story. And for that matter, it would be novel to procedurally generate story elements.
There's no point in having the entire map of the Inner Sphere available if every planet feels exactly the same.
Either curate a small subset of the whole map or figure out far more robust ways to procedurally generate planets while tying them into the story. And for that matter, it would be novel to procedurally generate story elements.
- 2
It's a RTS - "real time strategy", which is the same genre as stuff like StarCraft and WarCraft II & III. However, the speed of the "real time" is closer to Command and Conquer or other Westwood Studios games. It's much more forgiving, less 'twitch reflexes make a difference'. There is an element of active play as opposed to HBS' BattleTech where you can (and I have had to) walk away and have to deal with a minor emergency for half an hour before coming back to make your move. RTS games are filed under their own genre now, but are broadly placed under "strategy". (And because... it's BattleTech... MechCommander also has a significant luck element to it when it comes to salvaging enemy 'Mechs.)
This is in comparison to the MechWarrior and MechAssault franchises, which are absolutely full-blown action titles. I love MW5 but I have serious issues playing it because of this.
- 2
I'm less certain procedural generation is useful for story elements, but that's because I've seen the wacky things proc-gen has created in Minecraft.
Now... I agree we need a bit more in the roleplaying and story department, but I'm also concerned the effort needed to do it justice would be prohibitive. We can do it, modders can do it, because they're not beholden to release deadlines or listening to numbers of paying customers getting frisky over not getting their game RIGHT NOW. It's how a whole community might come up with a pool of possible plots or points to work from which are varied and can cover a lot of ground.
And as someone who does tabletop GMing, I can tell you... there's rarely as much actual work done before you players sit down at the table and we get rolling. (Pun intended,) A great deal, the best stories, are from something the bard did which was so crazy it worked... or that time you missed the cocky merc's Archer one hex away with all the weapons as though it was a phantom...
- 1
- 1
A guy on the internet who is a huge fan of tabletop BT told me that there are some issues with license. The studio that released Battetech the video game apparently lost the license and its flying somewhere in meta space.
So basically it seems like people who know these things say that there is practically 0 chance in the near future not only for Battletech but anything similar
I hope they are wrong
So basically it seems like people who know these things say that there is practically 0 chance in the near future not only for Battletech but anything similar
I hope they are wrong
I actually think what the game needs is more factions fighting for power. The core problem of BT is that the "universe" is static, and even though the gameplay is super fun, sooner or later you will get bored as there is very little overall varity. If they could break down all the major powers into sub factions, and there were relationships and things that the player could interact with, it would add so much more playtime to the game.
Sort of imagine if EU4 had only 10 different tags vs 300.
But i do think procedural generation could help with maps. There is a big variety of maps in BT, but after couple 100 hours, you will know each one by heart.
It would be great if the things you do could affect the universe. I'd love to back the Duchess of Andurien when she revolts against House Marik, or join a famous mercenary unit. Yes, in the current game you 'change the universe' by overthrowing a house that never existed prior to the game (wasn't canon) and reinstating another house that also had no prior existence, but since there's no way to fail, you're just following a storyline instead of shaping one. I like your EU analogy; my experience is with HOI, and in that you can change history.
I'm up over 1500 hours played now, and in the past hundred hours I've run across three maps I'd never seen before. Not to mention that the urban maps are so 'busy' that I'd never be able to remember whether I'd seen any particular one before, although some features on them do recur.
A guy on the internet who is a huge fan of tabletop BT told me that there are some issues with license. The studio that released Battetech the video game apparently lost the license and its flying somewhere in meta space.
So basically it seems like people who know these things say that there is practically 0 chance in the near future not only for Battletech but anything similar
I hope they are wrong
"Lost" isn't entirely correct from what I recall. Harebrained Schemes "didn't renew" is more correct, because if they had no plans to develop another game soon then paying for the license would be throwing money away.
To put the detail out there: Any video game needs to license the rights from Microsoft, who managed to acquire them. Much like Activision was the company making MechWarrior games until PGI did MW5. The asking price for the license might have been too high, or maybe the renewal wasn't on the table because the license was limited in the first place... or maybe HBS really had no plans to do "BT2" so soon and made that choice. We do not know, and it is not a necessity for them to keep us in the loop for such negotiations. Given the lead-time for game development, I'd say maybe three to four years even if HBS still had the license...
I am sorry, but there's likely no BattleTech game from HBS coming out any time in the next five years. This does not mean another studio isn't going to make a game.
If HB commits to BT2, then they are no longer free to shop around for franchises or create their own. That improves the bargaining situation for MS. And frankly, they are the last company to need an extra ace...
There is also the problem that HB BT has a lot of problems. It lags a lot, the AI is mediocre, missions run awkwardly. I get the sense that unity is a trade-off; creating games is much easier, faster and cheaper, but that comes at the cost of performance. Improving AI and mission-flow is not impacted by that, of course ... but they are stuff that is very difficult to do right in the first place, and even harder to fix later.
The pre-existing franchise also limits what HB can do: They have to leave every major faction exactly as they found it, they can at most introduce one or two new 'mechs, most of the technology is given before-hand (kudos to HB for daring to rebalance some things, even if they got it partly wrong). And BT tech is really imbalanced. I mean, there is really no way to balance double HS and XL engines versus standard.
So, would _you_ continue developing a mediocre product with little room for creativity, or try to create your own world? Blizzard created their own world for Warcraft instead of using GW's, just as GW earlier created their own instead of using Tolkien's.
I am as sad as all of you for us not getting HB-BT 2, for all the flaws it would have, and even more so since the next game will likely be some kind of action*, but I'm too old to pull wool over peoples' eyes: Signs point to no.
*: If using a mouse, having no lag and a stable internet gives you a benefit over using a PS controller, having 3 FpS and an overloaded WiFi, then it's an action game. It might also have strategic elements, but if you can loose from not having lightning-fast reflexes, it is all about action, not strategic thinking.
There is also the problem that HB BT has a lot of problems. It lags a lot, the AI is mediocre, missions run awkwardly. I get the sense that unity is a trade-off; creating games is much easier, faster and cheaper, but that comes at the cost of performance. Improving AI and mission-flow is not impacted by that, of course ... but they are stuff that is very difficult to do right in the first place, and even harder to fix later.
The pre-existing franchise also limits what HB can do: They have to leave every major faction exactly as they found it, they can at most introduce one or two new 'mechs, most of the technology is given before-hand (kudos to HB for daring to rebalance some things, even if they got it partly wrong). And BT tech is really imbalanced. I mean, there is really no way to balance double HS and XL engines versus standard.
So, would _you_ continue developing a mediocre product with little room for creativity, or try to create your own world? Blizzard created their own world for Warcraft instead of using GW's, just as GW earlier created their own instead of using Tolkien's.
I am as sad as all of you for us not getting HB-BT 2, for all the flaws it would have, and even more so since the next game will likely be some kind of action*, but I'm too old to pull wool over peoples' eyes: Signs point to no.
*: If using a mouse, having no lag and a stable internet gives you a benefit over using a PS controller, having 3 FpS and an overloaded WiFi, then it's an action game. It might also have strategic elements, but if you can loose from not having lightning-fast reflexes, it is all about action, not strategic thinking.
Having no lag, using a mouse and an stable internet connection may give you an advantage when playing Chess or Go online against another person, and I don't think anyone would say they're action games. You go from the extreme of an unlimited time scenario to the other extreme where reflexes are everything. Most games are in between.
And also you make, imo, incorrect statements. You can have a game where you might lose due to having worse reflexes than the opponent, but that doesn't neccessarily mean it's all about action. You may find you win in a follow up game against the same person due to realizing his game plan very soon. The fact superior reflexes may help you doesn't neccessarily mean they're the only thing that matters.
- 1
*sigh* The disadvantage of slow speed in chess or HB-BT is negligble, especially in classic chess; one of the signs they're strategy, not action. I mean, put Magnus Carlsen on PS-controller versus a 2500 on mouse and Magnus should get, say, 6.0 out of 8.
In Call of Duty, Counterstrike and Warcraft III, provided both players are reasonably competent, slow speed will cost you the game more often than not; one of the signs tey're action games. I mean, pit the world's #1 CS team on controllers against #100 on mice and #100 wins.
Now, if I recall correctly, MechCommander 2 was single-player-only, but it still is very heavy on the action. Sure, you can loose in the strategic parts, but it still relies on very fast mouce-clicking and keyboard-strokes, not on deep thinking.