Venom
Sergeant Major
Reged: 06/17/06
Posts: 274
|
Best and Worst TROs
#132759 - 06/21/06 05:23 PM (63.241.182.3)
|
|
|
Which TRo do you think had the best 'mechs and which had the worst? Think Clan and IS.
Mine would be 3050 revised for worst IS and 3058 for best IS.
Best Clan would be 3050 and worst would have to be 3055, even though there were some gems.
|
Toontje
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: Best and Worst TROs
[Re: Venom]
#132768 - 06/22/06 03:09 AM (84.24.165.226)
|
|
|
3055 and 3058 did go too much with the player designed mechs power level. Selecting the most powerfull units might be fun, but winning a battle with crap on your side, is more fun. (IMHO)
--------------------
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6324
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Best and Worst TROs
[Re: Venom]
#132778 - 06/22/06 08:25 AM (24.243.176.24)
|
|
|
TRO 3067 as the worst for art and mech design.
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
Re: Best and Worst TROs
[Re: Venom]
#132781 - 06/22/06 11:10 AM (147.160.136.10)
|
|
|
TR:3025 (unrevised) and TR:3026 (unrevised) remain my favorites.
Least favorite would be some of the "middle" TROs: 3055, 3058, or 3060. I'd probably pick 3055 (unrevised) as my very least favorite.
--------------------
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
LordChaos
Lieutenant
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 481
Loc: MN
|
Re: Best and Worst TROs
[Re: Cray]
#132797 - 06/22/06 03:55 PM (66.188.192.41)
|
|
|
Gotta agree. TRO:3025 (unrevised) was the very best of the mech TROs.
--------------------
Real mechwariors pilot IS mechs.
|
Toontje
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: Best and Worst TROs
[Re: LordChaos]
#132798 - 06/22/06 04:01 PM (84.24.165.226)
|
|
|
It'ss the fluffy description I tell you!
--------------------
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6324
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Best and Worst TROs
[Re: Toontje]
#132812 - 06/22/06 09:06 PM (24.243.176.24)
|
|
|
That and the art work and the fact that read like a book not just some stats and a picture. The mechs had character and depth and thought seemed to go into the fluff.
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Venom
Sergeant Major
Reged: 06/17/06
Posts: 274
|
Re: Best and Worst TROs
[Re: Karagin]
#132816 - 06/22/06 09:54 PM (63.241.182.3)
|
|
|
I never realy thought about it in context of fluff. My origional inquiry was into the 'mechs the TRO contained. But this is an interesting aside.
The reason that I enjoyed the fluff in 3025 were the notable pilot bios. That realy gave it depth. I suppose that the difference between the new TROs and 3025 was time frame. There is not a 'mech design younger than 300 years old in 3025. That leaves a lot of time for great war stories and pilots to become noteable. In their defense, the newer TROs are a showcase of new 'mech construction. Many of the 'mechs are being just deployed as the TRO is being printed. Not much time to develop a combat history or notable pilots. But I must agree. I want more in capabilities than a cookie-cutter run down of the armament. I can see that stuff on the next page, thanks.
The art is another thing I had not considered. The 'mechs in TRO3060 and 3067 look so angry and aggressive. Some just plain look stupid(isn't it the Yeoman that is two missle racks with legs?). The designs in 3025 looked like they were built with no concern for looks. They were utilitarian things. The only exceptions being the Death's Heads on the Banshee and Atlas. 3058 had some good ones, but it had some stinkers too.
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
Re: Best and Worst TROs
[Re: Venom]
#132830 - 06/23/06 07:16 AM (147.160.136.10)
|
|
|
Quote:
There is not a 'mech design younger than 300 years old in 3025.
Nitpick: The Hatchetman was less than 10 years old in TRO3025.
In the revised TRO3025, the Merlin was also a 31st Century machine.
And if you mean "in the 3025 era" vs "TRO3025," then there were several new machines in the works: Cataphract, Merlin, Hatchetman, and Raven (off the top of my head).
Quote:
The art is another thing I had not considered. The 'mechs in TRO3060 and 3067 look so angry and aggressive. Some just plain look stupid(isn't it the Yeoman that is two missle racks with legs?).
The original art in TR:3055 drove me nuts. Mechs like the Komodo were just fugly. Though, IMO, the problem started with the TR:3050 Clan mechs. TR:3025 really set a standard for 'mech appearances, and it was almost immediately thrown away.
--------------------
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Venom
Sergeant Major
Reged: 06/17/06
Posts: 274
|
Re: Best and Worst TROs
[Re: Cray]
#132871 - 06/23/06 04:59 PM (63.241.182.3)
|
|
|
I did mean TRO:3025. And I forgot about the Hatchetman. Good point.
The drawing in 3055 did suck. It looked like it was done by a third grader with a ruler. And no eraser with all the pointless lines coming off them.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
