People, the old classic 'Mechs aren't gone! In order to avoid the legal problems mentioned before, FanPro (now Catalyst Game Labs) decided to have the 'Mechs visually modified enough that they wouldn't risk getting sued anymore. Those old 'Mechs were thus redrawn, recast, and, in the game itself, upgraded with new technology. The result was a Technical Readout named Project Phoenix:
It's out of print, but availabe in PDF. And if you just want to look at the stats, go to Chaos March (Technical Readouts - Inner Sphere - Mechs section)
Has anyone played around with MegaMek? Its a free online program for playing Battletech. It plays exactly like table top (same rules), allowing you to play with anyone anywhere, and even save games and come back to them later. As far as I know it has every type of Infantry, Mech, Vehicle, and Aerospace fighter from every TRO and the ability to add more of them.
I think with Megamek it'd probably be possible to play Battletech in the PBP forums here on Enworld using Megamek for the battles.
Here's the actual story of what happened to the "unseen" mechs, taken from the Phoenix Upgrade record sheets file:
Quote:
Let’s talk about some ancient history to lay a solid framework of how things developed and to provide proper context for current events.
In 1983, Jordan Weisman saw a series of plastic model giant robots at a toy fair. At that time Jordan was co-owner of a game company called FASA Corporation, which was producing games based on various TV and movie properties, as well as publishing game aids for other successful game properties. These robots (soon to be known as “mecha” to American audiences) came from a variety of Japanese animated series, but Jordan instantly knew that giant robots would shortly be very big in the United States. He subsequently licensed those giant robot images from that model
toy manufacturer, to use the images in a game. FASA published the box set game BattleDroids in 1984, with the name changed to BattleTech upon publication of a second-edition box set in 1985. While those first licensed images formed the bedrock visuals for the initial game, BattleTech quickly began creating original images. In 1986, FASA published Technical Readout:
3025, which included twenty-four licensed images, along with sixty-four original illustrations...
With the convergence of these factors—and with a MechWarrior 2 computer game already in development (which would become a top seller soon after its 1995 debut and which remains on most “top 10 best games of all time” lists)—work began on an animated series in 1993, with thirteen episodes airing in 1994. During that time, FASA Corporation approached Playmates US to produce an accompanying toy line, but they expressed no interest. FASA then approached Tyco, which released a line of BattleTech toys simultaneously with the animated series.
At this point, FASA became aware of a new toy under development by Playmates US that they felt was based directly on an original image created by FASA. Copyright/Trademark law demands that the copyright holder vigorously pursue any apparent violations (or risk losing the copyright/trademark), and so FASA sued Playmates US over this alleged copyright infringement.
After a long, protracted court battle, FASA both won and lost its court case. An interesting, relatively unknown bit of copyright/trademark law says that anyone can slap a trademark on a name or product when they publish it. However, the trademark doesn’t really mean anything until the holder is dragged into court and the judge makes a final ruling one way or another; in other words, most copyright/trademarks are about intimidating companies
from making such infringements. FASA won in one respect: the judge unequivocally stated that FASA owned much of the imagery of the BattleTech universe, in particular the ’Mech image that had caused the case in the first place. Unfortunately, the judge felt that because FASA dealt in the gaming market and the Playmates US toy fell into a different market, FASA failed to prove that Playmates US infringed directly on FASA’s business. Therefore, FASA received no monetary settlement.
In the midst of that case, FASA realized that the original images licensed for the publication of BattleDroids in 1984—images still very much a part of the game universe—left the company open to legal action from other companies currently using those same images. Understandably now legal-shy—having lost years and millions to the lawsuit—FASA decided to remove those images from
any in-print products, and to discontinue the use of those images in the future. While the images were discontinued, their names, their game
statistics and so on—everything but their images—were wholly owned by FASA Corporation. This left FASA with two options. The first involved redrawing all the images to make them unique enough not to cause any legal problems. However, one of the biggest draws of the BattleTech universe (outside of giant robots blowing stuff up on alien worlds, fighting for far future star empires) is its continuity: it represents twenty plus years of artists and writers weaving together a living, breathing, dynamic universe, with each
sourcebook and story building on the events of the past. FASA believed that tossing aside visual continuity would do far more harm than good, and so chose the second option: to simply discontinue the use of the problem images.
This decision allowed players to keep using the game statistics and names of those designs in their own games and at conventions, but the images in question would no longer be featured in published products. (Among the BattleTech community, these images would become known as the “Unseen.”)
-- Randall N. Bills
-- Managing Director
The "Unseen" are:
From Crusher Joe
* Locust
From Macross
* VF-1 Valkyrie
-> Stinger
-> Wasp
-> Valkyrie
-> Phoenix Hawk - VF-1S with FAST Packs
-> Crusader - Armored VF-1A
* Zentraedi "Regult" Tactical Battle Pod
-> Ostroc
-> Ostsol
-> Ostscout
* MBR-07-Mk II Spartan Main Battle Robot
-> Archer
* MBR-04-Mk VI Tomahawk Main Battle Robot
-> Warhammer
* MBR-04-Mk X Defender Anti-Aircraft Defense Robot
-> Rifleman
* SDR-04-Mk XII Phalanx Space Defense Robot
-> Longbow
* Zentraedi "Glaug" Officer's Battle Pod
-> Marauder
-> Marauder II
There are a lot of little gems of game design in battletech. There's also a huge morass of seven hour games that aren't even that big. I'm just not an "all day game" wargamer like the cardboard-counter guys and, apparently, people who play battletech..
As much as I love Battletech...yes it can drag. It isnt really meant to play larger then lance on lance (4 vs 4), and anything larger then that can really bog down play, even with people who have most of the charts memorised. (Guilty)
I'm planning to introduce some people at the FLGS to CBT, but I'm going to keep it to a Solaris VII type deal with everyone getting 1 mech in a fight. Easier to keep track of that way.
The other alternative? In the new Strategic Ops guide, they introduced a new version of Battleforce. While means for large scale fights, there's a variant you can use for 'quick play' battletech based around individual mechs rather then complete units.
I have always been a fan of Battletech fiction. I collected all the books and even the Battletech comic. I stopped once they transisitioned to the new plot after advancing the timeline. I've thought about buying the new novels just to see if they are any good. I read the first 3 and I like the one by Stackpole and the one by Coleman since they reminded me of the older novels. For whatever reason though it just wasn't the same so I stopped.
I loved playing the game despite it's longish nature. You rolled to hit for each weapon, rolled location for each weapon, then if it was missile (really rockets), you rolled to see how many hit and where each missile/rocket group hit. Fortunately, the damage was always a set amount. I never tried Aerotech, but I did buy Battlespace (space navy box set) which I never played due to its complexity. It was 2d but had momentum rules.
I tried various editions of Mechwarrior but never really liked them. The third edition had you spending an hour making a hero with an extensive back story complete with friends and enemies. And then he got killed in the first non-mech fight you were in. I briefly tried (and failed) to create a d20 Modern conversion that would convert d20 skills to the Battletech skills. Basically when you were out of your mech, you were playing d20 modern. Then when you started fighting in your mech you were playing battletech again.
I still see people playing the game at stores each weekend and in conventions. Its simplicity draws people in along with the fact that big robots are just cool. I think it could be improved with more streamlined play and a better rpg system that is integrated with the strategy game and not tacked on. At the same time you would want the rpg to be optional for those that just want to blow stuff up. Of course that may be an impossible contradiction to resolve.
__________________ Respect the narrative! Tame the plot!
As much as I love Battletech...yes it can drag. It isnt really meant to play larger then lance on lance (4 vs 4), and anything larger then that can really bog down play, even with people who have most of the charts memorised. (Guilty)
I'm planning to introduce some people at the FLGS to CBT, but I'm going to keep it to a Solaris VII type deal with everyone getting 1 mech in a fight. Easier to keep track of that way.
The other alternative? In the new Strategic Ops guide, they introduced a new version of Battleforce. While means for large scale fights, there's a variant you can use for 'quick play' battletech based around individual mechs rather then complete units.
What I'd really like is if battletech was... 4e-ized. If a new edition was released that preserved the mechanics in concept, but demolished them in specific.
The initiative system was ahead of its time, the idea of having multiple weapon loadouts that you could fire at your discretion but with heat as a limiting factor, the idea of ablative armor under which lies the actual components of your mech, the idea of "critseeking," and the idea of maneuvering for backshots and for hitting from angles where you were more likely to strike areas that had already lost their armor- those are all great concepts.
I'm just absolutely convinced that those concepts could be preserved while also drastically reducing the playtime of the game by removing busy work.
I don't think it will ever happen. The fans would revolt. But I wish it would happen. Battletech is my favorite mech game, in concept. Just not in execution.
Let's face it: it's the busy work that makes the game fun. People (like me) who play BattleTech enjoy rolling for the individual hit locations of each weapon...
We played two games yesterday using the Sword and Dragon campaign book; the first game was 4 vs 4 mechs that lasted about 13 rounds and 4 hours (4 players). The second game was 8 vs 6 mechs that lasted about 8 rounds and 3 hours (the 8 mechs had to escape off the map).
Yeah, they took quite a bit of time, though I think they could be a lot faster if some of the players were quicker at moving their mechs.
What I'd really like is if battletech was... 4e-ized. If a new edition was released that preserved the mechanics in concept, but demolished them in specific.
The initiative system was ahead of its time, the idea of having multiple weapon loadouts that you could fire at your discretion but with heat as a limiting factor, the idea of ablative armor under which lies the actual components of your mech, the idea of "critseeking," and the idea of maneuvering for backshots and for hitting from angles where you were more likely to strike areas that had already lost their armor- those are all great concepts.
I'm just absolutely convinced that those concepts could be preserved while also drastically reducing the playtime of the game by removing busy work.
I don't think it will ever happen. The fans would revolt. But I wish it would happen. Battletech is my favorite mech game, in concept. Just not in execution.
See... Federation Commander did that for Star Fleet Battles but not in a 4E way. FedCom streamlined SFB but didn't change the basics.
I think that BattleTech could be successfully FedCommed. But 4Eed... no, when you take something with such a cadre of brand loyalty and turn the fundamentals on their head, you'll end up with a revolt on your hands.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
See... Federation Commander did that for Star Fleet Battles but not in a 4E way. FedCom streamlined SFB but didn't change the basics.
I think that BattleTech could be successfully FedCommed. But 4Eed... no, when you take something with such a cadre of brand loyalty and turn the fundamentals on their head, you'll end up with a revolt on your hands.
I know. Its why I think that battletech is dying. Sooner or later some fancy state-of-the-art european anime/comic hybrid mech based wargame will come along and provide competition. It will play in two hours, benefit from modern sculpting and molding technology, and have a strongly enforced design aesthetic that makes it an absolute beauty on the table. See, eg, Infinity, Anima Tactics, Helldorado, Alkemy, and old school Rackham.
Meanwhile battletech will continue plugging along with the license owned by one company and rented out to another with the rights to produce the miniatures sub-let one step further, with core rules decades old, a 10+ hour playing time, no design standards imposed on the sculptors, and with miniatures that even today are not produced remotely to scale with one another.
Battletech will retain its loyal fans, but the new blood is going to be harder and harder to get the older the community grows, and the more miniature gaming changes. Its much like the trap that games workshop is in, except that Games Workshop is enormous and can wield the might of an existing player base and convention system to attract new players in a way that battletech cannot.
I know. Its why I think that battletech is dying. Sooner or later some fancy state-of-the-art european anime/comic hybrid mech based wargame will come along and provide competition. It will play in two hours, benefit from modern sculpting and molding technology, and have a strongly enforced design aesthetic that makes it an absolute beauty on the table. See, eg, Infinity, Anima Tactics, Helldorado, Alkemy, and old school Rackham.
Meanwhile battletech will continue plugging along with the license owned by one company and rented out to another with the rights to produce the miniatures sub-let one step further, with core rules decades old, a 10+ hour playing time, no design standards imposed on the sculptors, and with miniatures that even today are not produced remotely to scale with one another.
Battletech will retain its loyal fans, but the new blood is going to be harder and harder to get the older the community grows, and the more miniature gaming changes. Its much like the trap that games workshop is in, except that Games Workshop is enormous and can wield the might of an existing player base and convention system to attract new players in a way that battletech cannot.
The point of my invocation of Federation Commander was to show an example of an old school wargame that can have the rules simplified and tightened up without having to change anything fundamental about the game. BattleTech doesn't need to compete with the latest anime. It just needs to do the same thing it has always done... only faster.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
Reading this thread made me unbox my Technical Readouts and run through them again. Great fun, great fun... but some gosh darn awful art in a lot of cases (pretty much all of TR 2750), and FASA... while it was fun, you made so many bad mech designs (Cicada, Hussar, Hollander, and JagerMech I, II, and III, I'm lookin at you)!
Speaking of Battletech innovation, did anyone play the ProtoMech rules that came out in Technical Readout 3060? I'm not sure what they were trying to accomplish with them as it's an idea that appeared to go nowwhere fast. Was it something they thought would be the new way of doing things (with mechs the size of heavy gears), or was it simply brought out in the fiction and thus added to the rules?
Reading this thread made me unbox my Technical Readouts and run through them again. Great fun, great fun... but some gosh darn awful art in a lot of cases (pretty much all of TR 2750), and FASA... while it was fun, you made so many bad mech designs (Cicada, Hussar, Hollander, and JagerMech I, II, and III, I'm lookin at you)!
I dunno... that's more of the ol' 3025 charm to me. Military designs are rarely "perfect"... they have to work with what they've got. Maybe one Mech was designed on a world that has a good heavy equipment industry, so it's big and mounts a large autocannon, but it's slow as heck because they suck at building transmissions, and so on.
The Sherman was a great tank in WWII not because it had a good gun (it didn't) or good armor (it really didn't). It was a great tank because it was easy to drive, easy to repair and possible to produce in ridiculous numbers. In fact, they were so easy to repair that we could often repair and recrew a tank that had been knocked out and send it back to the front (you just had to give the insides a new coat of white paint to cover up all the blood of the previous unfortunates). That's a war-winner right there. As opposed to any number of ponderous German wonder tanks that had faulty transmissions and/or were so heavy that if one threw a tread it had to be abandoned and burned because there was no way to get it back to a depot... and were so difficult to produce that you couldn't have very many of them. Sometimes you can be better on paper but worse on the field.
A real ace makes do with what he has. The vaunted Michael Wittman had to put in plenty of time in a Sturmgeschutz before he ended up with his Tiger.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
I dunno... that's more of the ol' 3025 charm to me. Military designs are rarely "perfect"... they have to work with what they've got. Maybe one Mech was designed on a world that has a good heavy equipment industry, so it's big and mounts a large autocannon, but it's slow as heck because they suck at building transmissions, and so on.
The Sherman was a great tank in WWII not because it had a good gun (it didn't) or good armor (it really didn't). It was a great tank because it was easy to drive, easy to repair and possible to produce in ridiculous numbers. In fact, they were so easy to repair that we could often repair and recrew a tank that had been knocked out and send it back to the front (you just had to give the insides a new coat of white paint to cover up all the blood of the previous unfortunates). That's a war-winner right there. As opposed to any number of ponderous German wonder tanks that had faulty transmissions and/or were so heavy that if one threw a tread it had to be abandoned and burned because there was no way to get it back to a depot... and were so difficult to produce that you couldn't have very many of them. Sometimes you can be better on paper but worse on the field.
A real ace makes do with what he has. The vaunted Michael Wittman had to put in plenty of time in a Sturmgeschutz before he ended up with his Tiger.
True enough, but this is a game, not real life. Players should not make sub-optimal choices for the sake of pseudo-realism. If the designers want to add in such factors, they need to do so in a way that makes the choice meaningful to the player.
Silent Death did this very well, in my opinion. Many of the fighters included in the game were clearly lousy designs, but they were also much cheaper than better designs, or had other useful features. Players could make a conscious choice - take the fighter that's undergunned, but more reliable; take the fighter that's prone to breakdowns, but I can get twice as many; take the fighter that's best at everything, but I'll be badly outnumbered by my opponent; take the fighter that has great short-term firepower, but runs out of ammo quickly. All of those are reasonable choices that are built into the game, and add to gameplay.
Battletech primarily uses weight as the deciding factor, so when choosing mechs, taking a lousy mech of the same weight as a great mech just doesn't make sense - there's no reasonable reward for doing so.
Technically battletech uses BV as the deciding factor. The problem is, BV doesn't work. It doesn't account for synergy, just for DPS versus heat sinkage.
Technically battletech uses BV as the deciding factor. The problem is, BV doesn't work. It doesn't account for synergy, just for DPS versus heat sinkage.
In my defense, my version of the game is from 1985, before they used BV (battle value?) There were component cost charts, but we never used them in balancing forces.
I wonder - do the current BV values really work, even mech to mech? In other words, if you design an effective mech, will the BV be higher than that of a lousy mech with the same weight? I don't expect the rules to get things like synergy right - that's too subjective - but I hope they are at least close when comparing one mech to another.
They mostly work. There are two major problems, in my opinion.
First, they don't effectively account for weapon synergy within a single mech.
Second, you can sometimes reduce the BV of a mech by adding more weapons. Because BV is pro rated, ie, because they add up the BV of your weapons and then reduce by a certain amount based on how well you can cool those weapons, you can sometimes add weapons you don't care about that generate a lot of heat and take up very little space, in order to bring the overall heat index up as high as possible. Then, in game, you simply do not fire those weapons- they existed purely to minimize your BV cost. This even happens in published mechs, although to be fair published mechs rarely gain more than pocket change in BV advantage by adding redundant weapons.
Does that make sense?
Basically, if you cool 10 heat, and you have 10 heat of weapons, and you add 20 heat of really crappy weapons to your mech giving you a total of 30 heat, you may have a lower BV than you did when you had only 10 heat worth of weapons. Then, in game, you just ignore the 20 heat of junk, and play with the original 10.
Basically, if you cool 10 heat, and you have 10 heat of weapons, and you add 20 heat of really crappy weapons to your mech giving you a total of 30 heat, you may have a lower BV than you did when you had only 10 heat worth of weapons. Then, in game, you just ignore the 20 heat of junk, and play with the original 10.
Interesting. I suppose you 'pay' for it by the wasted tonnage required for those 'junk heat' weapons, but as you say, it could be manipulated.
We never used BV, just asked the question, "Is this mech a good match for other examples of its weight class?"
As an example, if you have a Thunderbolt, I would want to use another 65 tonner to make it a fair game. Same if you used a Catapult, or a Crusader. If you used a Quickdraw, I'd be willing to pilot a 60 ton machine and not feel I'm sacrificing advantages to you.
However, if you pilot a JaggerMech, I'd feel like I was cheating if I used anything better than a Vindicator. Heck, I'd even consider a Panther a fight with the odds still in my favour. If --at the same tech level-- I'm willing to fight at a 20-30 ton dissadvantage... then I think the design is so bad I have to ask why it's in a Technical Readout I paid money for.
Last edited by Loincloth of Armour; 9th February 2009 at 01:50 AM..
Reason: repitition and repitition
Within the confines of the Sword and Dragon campaign we're currently playing, they do make some sort of sense, and they make a great opponent for those crappy planet militias our elite forces are going up against.
We played two games on Friday; the first (4 vs 4 mechs in very heavy woods) took us 4 hours (about 13 rounds); the second (6 vs 8 mechs in open ground and a pursuit scenario) took about 3 hours (about 8 rounds).
!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
