RPGWatch Feature - Battletech Review

Its kind of like understanding the rules for D&D or Pathfinder. The ruleset is complex with lots of nuances. Its way too much for a proper tutorial, and I can see it being a barrier for getting into the game.
Grrr, why I have to support a game for which I get some hate against? Ha well.

In my opinion pathfinder is a lot more complex overall for the set of rules and special cases, also there's so many specificity and so many rules not quoted in detail in the game.

I agree that optimize mech refit and setup a party and use the tactics adapted to the whole, is very difficult. Firstly because everything is new, it evoked me no combat systems I had played before. Secondly because there's many balances problems to manage, and you can easily end in a poor refit.

In fact it's not that complex for the rules base, a lot more simple than pathfinder, just more uncommon.

Not the rules but some base to help:
- If I remember well, at first you can as well use the default refit, none are the most optimized refit, but good enough to make the deal.
- Rush the campaign is really for very good players or players with a large experience of the game or the board game. It means that you need do secondary missions.
- For secondary random missions, you need learn decipher a bit the hints to evaluate the mission difficulty, no way I can remember any detail, but it's really there in mission description, type of mission, rewards, and comment of the "advisor".
- For campaign missions, don't bother if you can't beat it at first try, it's quite standard because of their design.
- There's no need to roleplay the big guy and force yourself play it like permadeath, there's saves, use them.
- For rewards many players will explain you that salvage is better than money, don't listen them. This is true in general for more experienced players, this is true a lot because hardcore players are a lot about collecting mechs and rare equipment. But as a newbie to the game it's better ensure your company doesn't get bankrupt, and then few salvage and more money is a safer choice.
- Sometime a combat is going to be win, but one of your meach is going to be destroyed and eventually pilot kill. You can eject a pilot from his mech and save both.

That's it, for sure there are the rules, but until you start really bother with refits, there isn't that many.

EDIT:
This newbie guide seems fair, not really to read before to play anything, but when you start wonder what you are doing wrong:
https://www.gamecrate.com/battletech-guide-understanding-combat/19088

Or this steam user guide:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1365402907
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
At some point I admit that Tactical RPG are often borderline and still tagged RPG. Eventually the problem isn't that basic.

Yet it is not. It must be very different in some ways not to be tagged RPGs.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Yet it is not. It must be very different in some ways not to be tagged RPGs.
I'll read it as a non sarcasm post.

When it's about tags reasons can as well be money, "woo xcom sold a lot let say our game is tactical xom like, so no RPG". Or historical, "Yamamoto: Hey, story, characters, combats on a grid, clearly a tactical RPG".

Who ever tagged JA2 firstly as a tactical RPG? What would have happen if it's been done in Japan?
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Grrr, why I have to support a game for which I get some hate against? Ha well.

In my opinion pathfinder is a lot more complex overall for the set of rules and special cases, also there's so many specificity and so many rules not quoted in detail in the game.

I agree that optimize mech refit and setup a party and use the tactics adapted to the whole, is very difficult. Firstly because everything is new, it evoked me no combat systems I had played before. Secondly because there's many balances problems to manage, and you can easily end in a poor refit.

In fact it's not that complex for the rules base, a lot more simple than pathfinder, just more uncommon.

Not the rules but some base to help:
- If I remember well, at first you can as well use the default refit, none are the most optimized refit, but good enough to make the deal.
- Rush the campaign is really for very good players or players with a large experience of the game or the board game. It means that you need do secondary missions.
- For secondary random missions, you need learn decipher a bit the hints to evaluate the mission difficulty, no way I can remember any detail, but it's really there in mission description, type of mission, rewards, and comment of the "advisor".
- For campaign missions, don't bother if you can't beat it at first try, it's quite standard because of their design.
- There's no need to roleplay the big guy and force yourself play it like permadeath, there's saves, use them.
- For rewards many players will explain you that salvage is better than money, don't listen them. This is true in general for more experienced players, this is true a lot because hardcore players are a lot about collecting mechs and rare equipment. But as a newbie to the game it's better ensure your company doesn't get bankrupt, and then few salvage and more money is a safer choice.
- Sometime a combat is going to be win, but one of your meach is going to be destroyed and eventually pilot kill. You can eject a pilot from his mech and save both.

That's it, for sure there are the rules, but until you start really bother with refits, there isn't that many.

EDIT:
This newbie guide seems fair, not really to read before to play anything, but when you start wonder what you are doing wrong:
https://www.gamecrate.com/battletech-guide-understanding-combat/19088

Or this steam user guide:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1365402907

Thanks for the links to the guides. I think the Pathfinder ruleset is just as complex as the Battletech one, but vastly more familiar. There are a ton of rpgs that use a simplified version of Dungeon and Dragon rules and so key concepts will be familiar to anyone who has started with anything from a Final Fantasy game to something like Diablo. Battletech has certain concepts like heat and evasion through movement, or exploding ammunition from internal damage, which will be new to many players. For example, Battletech players know never to have ammunition alone in a location, because criticals are rolled out on the components located in a particular area. Have 4 components in your arm means 25% chance that the ammo will be hit on a crit, having just ammo leads to 100% chance of an ammo explosion doing internal damage. This is just one example of a rule implemented in the game correctly, but which any non tabletop player won't know or easily find out without looking it up somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
2,717
Location
Vienna, Austria
Battletech system implemented into this game was not complex, not even close to what Pathfinder has. It was too simple, that is why the game is boring.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
The line obviously blurs at some point. Early strategy games had units. They might become veteran after winning a battle, but that was pretty much it for progression.

The came games like Heroes of Might and Magic, X-Com, Jagged Alliance and Final Fantasy Tactics, where you played a series of conflicts like in a strategy game, but you suddenly had units with a variety of stats like you would find on an rpg character, the units would improve attributes and gain skills, carry equipment, and there would be some kind of story. Many people called these strategy rpgs or tactical rpgs (depending sometimes on how much global strategy elements were in the game).

Now of days so many games have rpg elements, and there are few classical rpgs. But at the time when a game like X-Com came out it was pretty unusual that units in a strategy game had rpg like abilities. I think that's where these labels come from and lots of people who like rpgs (like me) also like these types of games. I don't think its coincidence that a lot of players on this site played Battletech.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
2,717
Location
Vienna, Austria
@forgottenlor

I can't argue about that as every game nowadays has RPG mechanics. Seems it's a checkbox that you must include some type of leveling, stats, and other aspects of RPGs.

Developers found it enriches different genres.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,185
Location
Spudlandia
@forgottenlor

I can't argue about that as every game nowadays has RPG mechanics. Seems it's a checkbox that you most include some type of leveling, stats, and other aspects of RPGs.

Developers found it enriches different genres.

Or sells games. I think it is the result of World of Warcraft becoming a mass phenomenon. We'll see if it proves to be lasting or if its just a fad.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
2,717
Location
Vienna, Austria
Battletech system implemented into this game was not complex, not even close to what Pathfinder has. It was too simple, that is why the game is boring.
Lol, so I suppose you know rather well the board game to argue it's been simplified by the video game.

That's why I can't bear this game, I'm not saying all players of the board games would be so negative, but so expeditious and with a superior attitude, too many.

Perhaps I didn't get major aspects of the game, but I'd say that anybody whining it's too easy should first never use any enhanced parts that obviously break the mechs original design.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
The line obviously blurs at some point. Early strategy games had units. They might become veteran after winning a battle, but that was pretty much it for progression.

The came games like Heroes of Might and Magic, X-Com, Jagged Alliance and Final Fantasy Tactics, where you played a series of conflicts like in a strategy game, but you suddenly had units with a variety of stats like you would find on an rpg character, the units would improve attributes and gain skills, carry equipment, and there would be some kind of story. Many people called these strategy rpgs or tactical rpgs (depending sometimes on how much global strategy elements were in the game).
I don't have a very exhaustive perspective because there are periods I skipped play video games at all. But I don't remember at all that HoMM3 (I played a lot including mods) ever been tagged RPG neither tactic nor strategy.

I can't say for X-Com but for later releases, I never noticed them tagged RPG.

Jagged Alliance is a different affair, if JA1 is no RPG, JA2 is very obviously a full RPG with everything, and even more than many RPG. Exploration, global map, local maps, main story and secondary stories, quests, many NPC, some key choices, characters to develop and equip, items to find, shops, party, perhaps more. The problem, in my opinion, is JA2 is mainly great for the combats, equipment, mercenary team management. For RPG aspects, it's developed, but it's a minimal part of the fun.

And for Final Fantasy Tactics I'm even chocked you put it with the others. What's sure, is it's always been tagged Tactic RPG, and its name is coming from this traditional genre in Japan, a genre not at all traditional in the occident.

But I won't deny that JA2 is more a complete RPG than FFT.
Now of days so many games have rpg elements, and there are few classical rpgs. But at the time when a game like X-Com came out it was pretty unusual that units in a strategy game had rpg like abilities. I think that's where these labels come from and lots of people who like rpgs (like me) also like these types of games. I don't think its coincidence that a lot of players on this site played Battletech.
Is really that many RPG players played it, I don't see a Skyrim/The Witcher 3 player naturally inclined to play it.

I suspect there is a confusion here, because it's perhaps a RPG player population, more interested in turn based than is the global RPG population. And turn based isn't to to explore a world or talk with NPC, but to play party combats turn based.

And what has Battletech, turn based combats, I suspect it's the only link with players wandering at RPGWatch, not RPG.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
The ruleset is complex with lots of nuances. Its way too much for a proper tutorial, and I can see it being a barrier for getting into the game.
So you don't think Harebrained should be doing Star Fleet Battles next? ;)
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,238
Location
Kansas City
Thanks for the links to the guides. I think the Pathfinder ruleset is just as complex as the Battletech one, but vastly more familiar. There are a ton of rpgs that use a simplified version of Dungeon and Dragon rules and so key concepts will be familiar to anyone who has started with anything from a Final Fantasy game to something like Diablo. Battletech has certain concepts like heat and evasion through movement, or exploding ammunition from internal damage, which will be new to many players.
This is uncommon mechanism, it's not that complex. It starts be more complex when you start try optimize refit because of the balances linked and that the choices depend of the mech roles, tactic used and so on. But you don't need perfect refit and you can ignore plenty rules and play the game anyway.

I suspect that you know too well Pathfinder to realize the number of rules uncommon in this class or that skill that RPG players never seen anywhere. Myself I just gave up bother.

Eventually in Pathfinder it's the number of rules and special cases that is difficult, when in Battletech it's possible that there are multiple rules more complex by themselves. But for those you need bother with, it's not so complex I think.
For example, Battletech players know never to have ammunition alone in a location, because criticals are rolled out on the components located in a particular area. Have 4 components in your arm means 25% chance that the ammo will be hit on a crit, having just ammo leads to 100% chance of an ammo explosion doing internal damage. This is just one example of a rule implemented in the game correctly, but which any non tabletop player won't know or easily find out without looking it up somewhere.
Well isn't it more complicate than that? Chance to hit the part, part exposition, that it requires first destroy fully the external protection of the part, and so on.

Anyway it's a refit rule and if refit is really complex, you still can have a lot of fun with it, without doing perfect refit, not even ever bother with this rule you quoted.

I don't think that the number of rules to really know to play the single player game is that high, and I'm pretty sure you can fully ignore this one.

Where you want to go? That the the game single player requires years of expertise more than Pathfinder? I can say you that my save right before final of pathfinder, easiest difficulty, I gave up beat it a second time to see then end once more.

I hadn't this feeling that Battletech was requiring a very high expertise for the single player. As I wrote, there's no need to rush the campaign, the random missions are a lot of fun, for me it's from far the best part of the game with the refits, and the campaign is so so. Too bad that the mercenary team sim is so few developed.

At end it's among the most fun and diversified party combats I have played. And I felt Final Fantasy Tactics a lot more complicated.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
So you don't think Harebrained should be doing Star Fleet Battles next? ;)
I think that what he is ignoring is that you can play the single player game without ever bother with many rules.

It's not confirmed by some player arguing they felt it too complex, but there's three aspects:
- To be efficient enough you need learn some rules, not that many, but some will be hard to discover without some help. That's a problem but ask a few question on a forum won't kill you.
- You can ignore a lot of rules and be efficient enough.
- You can play as much you want mercenary missions, and it's the best fun of the game, certainly not the campaign. Which means there's a lot of fun to have without mastering anything.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Lol, so I suppose you know rather well the board game to argue it's been simplified by the video game.

That's why I can't bear this game, I'm not saying all players of the board games would be so negative, but so expeditious and with a superior attitude, too many.

Perhaps I didn't get major aspects of the game, but I'd say that anybody whining it's too easy should first never use any enhanced parts that obviously break the mechs original design.
No, I didn't say that. I said that what we got in the game is a very simple game with simple mechanics compared to something like Pathfinder.

I never played Battletech boardgame and I don't know the rules. I don't care, I only care what the game brought us and it was not much.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
No, I didn't say that. I said that what we got in the game is a very simple game with simple mechanics compared to something like Pathfinder.

I never played Battletech boardgame and I don't know the rules. I don't care, I only care what the game brought us and it was not much.
Ooops, sorry for the deliberate aggressiveness from a miss reading.

I wouldn't say it's so basic, balance, heat, different types of shot and their effects on parts, exposition, height, and more, biome, terrains, more.

Well it seems you didn't enjoy because it was too basic, ok, myself I found a lot of fun and tactical diversity in combats, and a lot more fun to experiment in refit than in RPG party building. That said, to compare to Pathfinder and party building, I give up optimize this too much in PK, so I can't say the comparison is fair.

But for combats tactical value, Pathfinder and its RTwP is very very far to Battletech in any aspects from depth to diversity, in fact PK is good for the meta level, not for tactics during combats.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Ooops, sorry for the deliberate aggressiveness from a miss reading.

I wouldn't say it's so basic, balance, heat, different types of shot and their effects on parts, exposition, height, and more, biome, terrains, more.

Well it seems you didn't enjoy because it was too basic, ok, myself I found a lot of fun and tactical diversity in combats, and a lot more fun to experiment in refit than in RPG party building. That said, to compare to Pathfinder and party building, I give up optimize this too much in PK, so I can't say the comparison is fair.

But for combats tactical value, Pathfinder and its RTwP is very very far to Battletech in any aspects from depth to diversity, in fact PK is good for the meta level, not for tactics during combats.
Yes there are different stats during combat but they don't change the tactics. It is always put a mech with bulwark pilot somewhere to tank shot while your non bulwark mechs move around between two forest areas and fire their long range/missile weapons.
You focus on one guy until you can kill him or put him on the floor. You use all your weapons without overheating.
Rinse and repeat. Every mission, every mission type I did it this way. It worked vs any kind of enemy. Only thought needed is actually in the meta level, in the mech bay where you prepare your mechs. This was the most fun part of the game.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
Yes there are different stats during combat but they don't change the tactics. It is always put a mech with bulwark pilot somewhere to tank shot while your non bulwark mechs move around between two forest areas and fire their long range/missile weapons.
You focus on one guy until you can kill him or put him on the floor. You use all your weapons without overheating.
Rinse and repeat. Every mission, every mission type I did it this way. It worked vs any kind of enemy. Only thought needed is actually in the meta level, in the mech bay where you prepare your mechs. This was the most fun part of the game.
There's perhaps an OP hole breaking the fun, abuse of missiles. I remind have read a bit about that.

In defend the base missions, intercept convoy missions, and escort convoy missions, I don't remind such boredom kill from long range was that easy. Moreover for non missile long range, you pay a hard price of damage power. Even for kill the mech missions, I have huge doubt it works that well when the mech to kill is solid and fast.

Anyway when you quoted you had an OP hole approach, you couldn't try something different to have fun in playing the game?

It's a sort of behavior I don't understand, you bore yourself and can't get out of it. I understand it even less because in almost all games like that there will be boredom op holes allowing rinse and repeat in almost all combats. You should better stop play combats games.

My experience is hugely different and with a ton more tactics that this, including a lot of mobility positioning tactics requiring to adapt precisely to enemies reactions and setup.

So I suppose you rushed the campaign, but is really you experienced more the mercenary missions more than a few try and get bored? I'm quite surprised you played many and all was boredom basic.

EDIT: Height, range, terrains, exposition from orientation, stability, attack from back, more, there's so many possibilities to exploit, end with some systematic static long range blast is a big waste.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Guess every game is an RPG nowadays then by that logic.:lol:

Not really. I mean, there are certain characteristics associated with RPGs. The more of the characteristics a game has, the closer it is to being an RPG. How the elements are implemented within the game makes a big difference too.

Games can encompass more than one genre. No, BattleTech isn't a full blown RPG by any stretch of the imagination. It is mainly a strategy game. But it does have some RPG characteristics that may make it more appealing to RPG fans. You play a character as part of a story. You have (limited) interaction with other characters, and (limited) ability to make decisions that have consequences (both to the story and to other characters). Your character (via the mechs) has stats which progress throughout the game.

I'd say it is about 85% strategy game and 15% RPG.

Lets call it an ARPG.

I definitely don't consider BattleTech to be an ARPG. A 100% turn-based game doesn't meet the "action" part of it, and there aren't enough RPG elements to meet the "RPG" part of it. (Although I personally consider BattleTech to be more of an RPG than something like Diablo).

Anyway lost all interest in this game as the new mechwarrior game looks better.

I'll probably end up buying this one too. It IS possible to enjoy more than one mech game, after all. :p
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
518
Back
Top Bottom