Starting Battletech

[SonoftheMountain]

I am starting to get into Battletech. As in understand it you can get the damage grids for the various Mechs in the technical readout books. Is there a list somewhere that says what Mechsnare in which books? I have the 25th Anniversary box set and I just picked up my first metal Mech, a Rifleman. Which book would that be in?

Thanks

[iamfanboy]

Well, uh.

Battletech is... unwieldy in that regard.

Technical Readouts are presented as 'in-universe' information texts on military technology; they include the raw stats and history on at least 40-50 'Mechs at least.

The actual GAME sheets are in the Record Sheet books - and while they are bereft of any in-game information, the Record Sheet books will have sheets for almost any variant of the 'Mech currently available; for example, there are 4 different versions of the Rifleman in the Succession Wars era, two more in the Clan Invasion era, five more once you get up to the Jihad, and post-Jihad they added two more variants!

The model you have is probably a RFL-8D, with two Rotary Autocannon/5s (the awesome gatling-looking guns); that's in TRO: Project Phoenix, and... bloody hell, they recently disappeared the .pdf for the Record Sheets: Project Phoenix - they folded it into a new publication that hasn't been released yet.

*eyeroll* They sure don't make it easy for new players. That's one of my major complaints.... which is why I went so wholeheartedly to Quickstrike Battletech... but that's another thread.


But if you're playing in the 3025-era (the Succession Wars), where the Introductory Boxed Set record sheets are set, then the RAC/5 hadn't been invented in-universe yet (along with a few other toys it carries); in that case you'd need the record sheets from 3039 unabridged.

Gimme a few minutes (maybe half an hour) and I'll PM you copies of the relevant sheets as jpgs.

[iamfanboy]

ok, fine, I can't attach files via PM, so here are the old-school record sheets for the RFL-3C and -3N, the two versions of the 'Mech 'current' with the other 'Mechs in the Introductory Boxed Set.

Of the two, I recommend using the -3C; while it has a slightly lower damage curve, it makes up for that in heat-friendliness and better armor. The -3N is... well... a lemon IMHO. You can tear up with it, but the paper-thin armor and high heat curve require both a real pro player AND an opponent who decides to ignore it instead of spending a turn or two blowing nine kinds of hell out of it.

One of the nicest things about the Battletech game is that you can design your OWN versions of 'Mechs, either variants or whole new ones; for example, I have a Rifleman variant I'm quite fond of that replaces the AC/5s with AC/2s (making it a better AA platform) while increasing its armor and heatsinks (so it's more durable!)

[Castiel]

The -3N is... well... a lemon IMHO.

Could be worse - it could be a 3025 JagerMech!

[Col. Dash]

The TROs are great reads. You will need either blank sheets and fill them out yourself based on the TROs or the actual books with sheets in them and go make copies and/or get them laminated and use dry erase markers for reusability. Pick an era. Figure out what era your local group plays in and use that or if making a gaming group, pick an era and stick with it awhile. The older eras 3025 and even up to 3055(not much of a tech gap between 3050 and 3055 IMO) tend to be slower games with mechs beating on each other more since weapons tend to not autokill or kill as quickly as they do in later eras. I have only payed a few games post 3055 and can say I definately prefer the earlier eras. I think the mechs have more character and are built more balanced. Only one group I have ever played in has allowed home built mechs and I quickly learned why none of my other groups allowed it and I agree whole heartedly with that rule.

[lbecks]

3025 is really simple and I find I enjoy playing in that era a lot.

[Bloodknight]

I don't know if I'd really vouch for the 3C over the 3N, the 3C is even more vulnerable than the 3N thanks to the weak rear armor and one side torso with nothing but 2 tons of ammo inside.

My personal favorite RFL in 3025 is the RFL-4D, though.

[Ronin_eX]

Well the easiest way to track down the book a known 'mech shows up in is using Catalyst's Master Unit List. Type in the name of the 'mech and it will give you a list of variants and the books they appear in.

Most every boxed set 'mech (and your Rifleman) will be in Technical Readout 3039 which is a good buy for beginners who bought the set. Be sure to pick up Record Sheets 3039 Unabridged (pdf only document that contains all variants of all the 'mechs featured in the TRO, great for printing) or Record Sheets 3039 (print product or pdf). The TRO gives you the basic design and all of the fluff, the Record Sheets give you the, well, record sheets.

Sarna.net is also a good place to look up information on different mechs. My usual method is to look up a mech on Sarna to see what the variants are, double check source and BV cost on the Master Unit List, the go in to my collection of record sheets to print the sucker off.

I personally enjoy late-era games (post 3050 tech levels) myself. Once the IS pick up dual heat sinks, advanced material/engines and gauss weaponry a lot of interesting design choices open up. I tend to find a lot of 3025 designs are very hit-or-miss, especially the assault category. The limited nature of SW-era games means that optimal designs really stand out against the lemons. With the additional options later eras tend to have a wider variance of good mechs because things like CASE allow you to do things that would be suicidal using SW-era tech. The newer TROs (Catalyst published ones, especially 3085 and Prototypes) also have some of the best art ever made for Battletech (and I hope they let Iglesias, who is doing the MW:O art, take all of his updated 3025 designs and do a 3025 reboot book). Their current stable of artists are the strongest group they've had in a while whether they are revamping old designs or doing completely new ones.

[Corsair117]

Sarna.net and the MUL that ronin_ex linked are good places to figure out where the mechs first show up, for record sheets there are a few design programs floating around that you can use to make and print your own sheets.

Heavy Metal Pro is the official program but the current version is obsolete and I wouldn't recommend purchasing it right now, the new version is being worked on but has been delayed several times and we have no idea when it'll be out. That said I purchased all the different programs (one each for mech, vehicles, aerospace, and battle armor) and found it a good program and will purchase the new one whenever it gets released.

The current favorite, as far as I can tell at least, is Solaris Skunk Werks which is a free program and is up to date with the current rules, the only issue I have with it is it's only for mechs so if you want any of the other unit types you'll need to find the Record sheets somewhere else though if you only play mechs that's a moot point.

[simonr1978]

The TROs are great reads. You will need either blank sheets and fill them out yourself based on the TROs or the actual books with sheets in them and go make copies and/or get them laminated and use dry erase markers for reusability.....

Only one group I have ever played in has allowed home built mechs and I quickly learned why none of my other groups allowed it and I agree whole heartedly with that rule.

Whilst the TROs are a good read I'd agree you can't reliably use them to duplicate the record sheets since although it'll tell you how many Critical Slots in any given location are taken up by equipment it doesn't tell you precisely how it's laid out on the record sheet. You could end up with a Critical hit diagram looking quite different from the proper one. Not necessarily a massive issue if everyone's using the same sheets, but worth pointing out.

Laminating is similarly a relatively expensive way to go. A4 clear punched pockets and a marker pen of some sort will do the trick just as well and are both cheaper and interchangable.

My old group used to allow custom mechs and after a few teathing troubles we had pretty few problems. We used to insist that a Custom sheet had to be accompanied by a Custom model (That cut down on their use quite a bit) and that a Custom mech sheet had to be checked and signed off by two of the other more experienced members (We did catch a lot of quite elementary mistakes that way). In all honesty if you're playing 3025 especially most of the mechs you're likely to dream up are probably more or less already out there anyway. The same is broadly true of other eras too to a greater or lesser degree unless you're looking to make really wierd and wacky combinations (EG a 100 tonner with twin rear mounted AC-20s. A bit of a one trick pony I'll admit, but it was worth it for the look on the Phoenixhawk player's face as he jumped into my rear arc hoping for an easy kill!)

I don't know if I'd really vouch for the 3C over the 3N, the 3C is even more vulnerable than the 3N thanks to the weak rear armor and one side torso with nothing but 2 tons of ammo inside.

My personal favorite RFL in 3025 is the RFL-4D, though.

I'm quite unusual in that I always got on alright with the -3N and in my old gaming group I think I was it's only defender. I think part of the problem was that most people just didn't use it right, prefering to charge in close rather than keep their distance and it worked in my favour that my opponents used to generally underestimate and ignore it in favour of more threatening mechs. It's not a great mech to be fair, but it does get a worse press than it deserves I think.

I agree about the -3C, I used them a few times and found them to be quite prone to exploding and as it's 3025 there's no CASE to save you, plus after only as little as 10 turns firing you're down to just 2 medium lasers, so you can't generally afford to take riskier shots with your ACs.

Could be worse - it could be a 3025 JagerMech!

I'll see your JM6-S Jagermech and raise you a CGR-1A1 Charger. IMO probably the most poorly thought out mech at least of the 3025 era if not all of them.

[Bloodknight]

I was never too convinced by the -4D though, whilst the -3N isn't good at handling its heat the -4D is even worse and can't even fire off an arm a turn standing without generating heat.

Depends on if you're using the variant as listed in the TRO 3025 or the one from the record sheets. The official record sheet model has 15 heat sinks and thus a reliable fire pattern of walk, 2 large, walk, 2 large, walk PPC without losing speed. Of course you could also fire 2 PPC, but that puts you at -1MP instantly. It's a great support unit, but well underestimated, yeah.

CGR-1A1 Charger

In the online campaign league I play in (www.mekwars.org, new campaign cycle starts in about 3 weeks, currently there are roughly 300 players registered: http://banshee.mekwars.org/output/ELORanking.php), they're very much in high demand, especially by the high ranking players (we can hardly steal enough from the Combine ^^). We mostly play 3025 lance vs lance games on 3x3 mapsheets and the CGR1A1 is below 1000 BV. It performs admirably between 4K and 6K BV because at the low levels it can catch most medium 4/6 moving trooper mechs easily and cause serious damage and at the higher level it's still tough enough to eat a lot of hits and the heavies can't run away from it. The 5 small lasers are just bonus. The only thing I begrudge that design for is the missing 2nd hand which means that it can't use tree clubs. It's basically a huge non-jumping Ostscout, and those are very sought after as well, they're awesome leg takers at low bvs.

[iamfanboy]

Only one group I have ever played in has allowed home built mechs and I quickly learned why none of my other groups allowed it and I agree whole heartedly with that rule.

The strength of Battletech IS its design system; groups I've been with that don't allow at least some flexibility in this regard always seem to be cutting off their nose to spite their face...

Plus, I LOVE using lot of different minis, and some of my favorite designs are 'retroteching' newer 'Mechs that appeared in later TROS but that I want to use in the Succession Wars era - which is my favorite too, btw. I love my 3025 Anubis with 2x LRM-5s, 2x MLs that moves 7/11...hell, matches the mini better too!

I heartily disagree that all the 'Mech designs that could possibly exist are out there; however, all the MUNCHKIN designs one could want are definitely available. The Thunderhawk, Alacorn, Hellstar, Timber Wolf, Stormcrow, Pilager... TRO 3058 was especially lousy with them because that was before the IS got access to the heavier versions of Clantech stuff which allowed more variety in unit creation.


Gods, I shoulda pointed out Solaris Skunkwerks in the first place. I've been needing to re-download it anyway. *cruises on over there*

[Bloodknight]

The strength of Battletech IS its design system; groups I've been with that don't allow at least some flexibility in this regard always seem to be cutting off their nose to spite their face...

You definitely have to keep an eye out for the munchkins, though. I once "repodded" a Stormcrow with a Gauss Rifle and 5 Medium pulse lasers, that was not nice.

[simonr1978]

I didn't say all, I said most of them were already out there, more or less. So while you might not find an exact match for your own homegrown design, unless you're coming up with something really odd-ball the chances are that there's a mech out there somewhere among the thousand-ish mechs and variants that's a pretty close match. Especially in 3025 when the pool of different weapons and equipment are pretty limited in comparison to the 3050+ and 2750 eras.

There's not every possible combination of weapons/tonnage/equipment/armour by a long shot, but in my experience when it comes to custom mechs, broadly speaking the likelihood is that there's probably something pre-existing that'll be quite close to your design. Heavier and later mechs will probably be wider of the mark.

Depends on if you're using the variant as listed in the TRO 3025 or the one from the record sheets. The official record sheet model has 15 heat sinks and thus a reliable fire pattern of walk, 2 large, walk, 2 large, walk PPC without losing speed. Of course you could also fire 2 PPC, but that puts you at -1MP instantly. It's a great support unit, but well underestimated, yeah.

Yeah, I realised I was wide of the mark after I typed that and editted my comment. I'll blame it on being tired.

In the online campaign league I play in (www.mekwars.org, new campaign cycle starts in about 3 weeks, currently there are roughly 300 players registered: http://banshee.mekwars.org/output/ELORanking.php), they're very much in high demand, especially by the high ranking players (we can hardly steal enough from the Combine ^^). We mostly play 3025 lance vs lance games on 3x3 mapsheets and the CGR1A1 is below 1000 BV. It performs admirably between 4K and 6K BV because at the low levels it can catch most medium 4/6 moving trooper mechs easily and cause serious damage and at the higher level it's still tough enough to eat a lot of hits and the heavies can't run away from it. The 5 small lasers are just bonus. The only thing I begrudge that design for is the missing 2nd hand which means that it can't use tree clubs. It's basically a huge non-jumping Ostscout, and those are very sought after as well, they're awesome leg takers at low bvs.

For a fairly close match in BV you can get a PHX-1 Phoenixhawk which is faster, more manouevrable, can outrange the Charger by up to 5 times and is not too far short in armour whilst coming it at a bit over half the tonnage. OK it's not as tough when you go through to the internal structure but it can jump out of trouble and range at will and all it's got to do is keep the Charger at 3+ hexes and it'll be very difficult to impossible to hit. I just don't think the CGR-1A1 stands much of a chance on the battlefield at all, even against slower moving mediums and lights. The few times I used one, it was shot to pieces long before it could achieve anything more usefull than being PPC and Laser Bait.

[Bloodknight]

I probably can't convince you of the CGR's tactical value here, but if you know how to use megamek, I'd like to play a 4 vs 4 game around 5000 BV with you in which I'd use a CGR1a1. Just an invitation, might change your or my view of the unit in exchange for an hour of your life ^^.

That said, the pixie fills a different tactical role and has its own set of weaknesses, mostly the weak heat management, having 2/3 of its firepower in the right arm alone and the weak head. .

[simonr1978]

I just might take you up on that offer.

Unfortunately (Or fortunately, overtime means extra money) I'm working this weekend and now wont have a night off till March 3rd at the earliest. I'll probablytry and PM you at a later point.

[Bloodknight]

Cool thing, I can host. PM me when you have the time