|
apostateCourier posted:What about NOT Clan Intelligence for the team name to go with Bethany Cochrane? I like this.
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
This LP brings back so many memories. Played the poo poo out of this game as a kid, and I'm already feeling the old hatred of the Awesome mech boiling. Hated those things, because I was a kid too dumb to dodge PPC fire.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Not as funny when the automatics are firing at you for protesting. It's really quite interesting how close the comically over the top Draconis Combine is to actual present day China. Even more ironic considering the Draconis Combine is based on Imperial Japan as I understand it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
3c. I remember the Crab being a pretty good mech for early in the game, and you can't go wrong keeping it for a lancemate after you grow out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:(Pretty sure I always turned on infinite ammo and invincibility as a kid) This is the correct way to play this game as a kid. Or even to just sit back, relax, and blow poo poo up. I remember being a fan of the Hunchback as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
goatface posted:How does it manage things like fully racked Catapults? It crashes, based on my memories of loading a certain 100 ton mech with nothing but LRM racks and group-firing them all at once. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
I keep thinking that MechWarrior could be a drat good turn based strategy game, too. X-COM's reboot proved that turn based squad level strategy can still be good and this setting looks like a good one for mission-based strategy where you can only bring so much tonnage on each mission and have to configure your lance and pilots.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Shoeless posted:That honestly sounds like it would work in the tabletop game. The TT doesn't have rules for tonnage limits and actually doesn't even have rules for missions in the core books, excepting a small section hidden away in Total Warfare that's mostly about agreeing on BV and choosing forces rather than providing objectives and scenario rules, but you could definitely do it as long as you and the opponent worked it out. I would love to see it in electronic format though, which also helps with the issue of the 'player' force is generally expected/hoped to win, which can be wearing on a player who plays Op4 time and time again. With a computer opponent, there's none of that. The thought about tonnage occurs to me in-universe as a logistical restriction: you can only fit so much into the dropship/your supply train, so you have to decide what forces to field, perhaps with a maximum limit on how many tons can be allocated to one mech or vehicle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Panboy posted:Also MW2 Tonnage is all that matters so Get that Zeus, Unless you want to save for an Atlas. Which I cant actually recall if its in this game or not. It is. IIRC it's even on the box art.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:I remember how the Atlas is obtained. I'm looking forward to it immensely. I remember being distinctly unimpressed with the Atlas, honestly. I like being able to beat a snail in a race, thanks, which the Atlas can't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
As I recall, the Mauler was my endgame mech of choice in this game when I wasn't using a certain one that you can get near the end of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
There's always the Annihilator, which is also in this game if the Atlas doesn't suit your 100-ton taste.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Shoeless posted:To be fair, I'd take an Awesome over an Atlas almost any day of the week in Battletech. Unless it's super close quarters/urban combat, the range advantage of the Awesome combined with its zombie-like refusal to just freaking die generally lets it outlast an Atlas despite being 20 tons lighter. Awesomes are in this game, and they are a pain in the rear.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Don't PPCs fill the long-range high-damage niche in general and don't worry about ammo?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
This is the mission that taught me to hate PPCs in general and Awesomes in particular. If you're a dumb kid who can't figure out how to dodge PPC fire, that Awesome has an excellent chance of killing you clean and fast. Especially if, say, you're in a Cicada because you thought it looked neat.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Why do mechs even bother with exposed cockpits? You'd think railguns/gauss rifles that could kill the pilot at extreme range would be an issue, and one that could be solved with an armored cockpit and a virtual interface/HUD for the pilot.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Shinarato posted:No wonder they can't reprogram them worth poo poo. Get a better operating system. The undying creed of the Word of
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Pilots are vastly more replaceable than engines. Cheaper, too. Still neatly takes the mech out of the fight if you build a fortification designed to simply shoot the pilot through the glaring weakness of the cockpit windows. Mission-kills the mech, and potentially leaves it in salvageable condition. That being said, it's another case of sense getting in the way of giant stompy robots shooting each other.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Magni posted:That glaring weakness is a very small target on a presumably moving Mech - the phrase "simply shoot the pilot" runs into the classic problem that "simple" does not necessarily mean "easy". Same story as with tanks generally having a lot less armor in the rear. Fair enough. I know railguns of various types are a thing in this setting, and it struck me as the ideal weapon for a pinpoint-accurate fortification with near-zero travel time that could headshot mech after mech with computer targeting, but I suppose that would take all the fun out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Samuel posted:I really don't like the failure runs, as I like reading the story of the intrepid merc changing the innersphere through merciless blasting more. The first campaign set failure runs were funny. Pissing off the Draconis Combine never gets old.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
I actually don't like the Atlas, as best I remember from this game.  It's slow as poo poo and always seemed to get weathered down faster than it should.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:BattleTech planets are the best. You know the first planet we find capable of sustaining human life is going to be named "Darth Vader" or "Cybertron" or "Thundera" My favorite: Here. That's the name of the planet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 01:41
|
|
)
)
|
Psion posted:as if anyone in any sci-fi franchise ever - ever - does something as pedestrian as "look out the window" To be fair, these are Clanners. It's not difficult to imagine some lunatic future-bushido thing telling them not to engage.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
BattleTech feels like a setting that could do well with presenting different eras that have different mechs, equipment, and potentially rules to show changing technology and tactics. Say: Star League, Succession Wars, and Clan Invasion.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 01:15
|
|