htmlord
06/07/04 04:09 AM
216.65.170.12
|
Ok, you read the title, has anyone played it? I haven't dug into the nitty gritty of the numbers and such too much yet, but is it fun and balanced? Does it need heavy tweaking? And finally, is it worth investing a decent amount of time compiling info from various Field Manuals to get a game started?
Special Note : I'm interested in a post 3039 War/pre-Clan setting How does the game stack up?
|
Toontje
06/07/04 02:03 PM
82.73.138.10
|
I've read it but the strategic part is not terribly well writen, the book is good but the strategic part is not really consistent or easilly readable, could be english not being my mothers tongue. The game itself looks good, but I say use a GM, if only for the intelligence/sabotage part.
I still didn't figure out how tech is obtained in the first place using research tho.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
htmlord
06/08/04 02:16 AM
216.65.161.115
|
Well, after doing some reasonable study of the rules, I think they need to be completely revamped. The current ones are just waiting to be munchkinized, if you ask me. Thanks for the input, Toontje.. and I agree.. they aren't very readable, either.
|
Cray
06/08/04 07:42 AM
147.160.136.10
|
For the strategic rules of Combat Ops...
Do either of you have any particular examples of badly-worded sections in the strategic game? Most of the revisions done to AT2 in AT2R were rewordings of badly written passages, so a list of problem areas in Combat Ops would be helpful for the writers.
Also, what strategic game rules stand out as potentially munchy?
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.
|
htmlord
06/11/04 10:47 AM
216.65.163.165
|
As to the section(s) which are poorly written, the entire section on interests is hard to follow. Mind you, I figured it out, but it took me a few read throughs and examples and such. The rules tend to bounce from ultra-specific (Forces are built down to the company level, damage is meted out by % of force) to exceptionally vague (actions of uncontrolled personalities, rebellious worlds, spheres of interest and control of the various interests, which worlds you are conquering). I think it needs an overall rewrite to clean up and make more playable, personnally. When I have a bit of time, I'll get some example passages typed up.
About the munchie rules, anytime you differentiate between the abilites of different companies of units, munchieness happens. For instance, here is part of the units table:
Unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rating - - - - RP Cost
Light IS Mech Company (3025) - - - - - - - - - - 40 Ground - 0.5
Medium IS Mech Company (3025)- - - - - - - - - 60 Ground - 1
Heavy IS Mech Company (3025)- - - - - - - - - - 70 Ground - 2
Assault IS Mech Company (3025) - - - - - - - - - 90 Ground - 2.5
Light IS Mech Company (3050-3067) - - - - - - - 60 Ground - 1
Medium IS Mech Company (3050-3067)- - - - - - 100 Ground- 2
Heavy IS Mech Company (3050-3067)-- - - - - - 120 Ground- 3
Assault IS Mech Company (3050-3067)- - - - - - 140 Ground- 4.5
Do you see what I mean about possible munch? The munchkin army would be pure 3025 Light Mechs on the ground with 3025 Light Aerofighters in support. (they cost .3 for 30 Air Points, the best Aero ratio) There is no drawback to this approach, either. All transport, supply, and leadership costs are based on the ratings, not on the number of companies involved. As I said before, the rules need an overhaul before being used.
htmLord
|