Quote Originally Posted by mughi3 View Post
I suggest this video-


The short
multi-role, multi-environment, minimal manpower.(and yes mechs use the rule of cool)

Yes tanks are cheaper to produce and are effective which is why many of the periphery states rely heavily on them, however they are also manpower heavy. the involvement of training entire tank crews VS a single mechwarrior for the same or better combat platform becomes an issue.
What's the abbreviation? TL;DW

Look, I get the core conceit behind the thing, my point is that the battlefield performance simply isn't there. I also disagree that its harder to train conscript tank crews than elite mech pilots.

I feel the mechs should have been more of a dominating force, effectively invulnerable to conventional munitions. While their damage system was...interesting, the concept wasn't realistic. Armor either holds or fails, but it doesn't erode in a predictable fashion. As one of my friends pointed out, using the system, you could disable the frontal armor of an M-1 Abrams simply by firing 100 machineguns at it.

That always got under my skin.

Well yes it equals GW in depth of lore. other than a few minor changes the core rules have been effectively the same for over 30 years. the added touch of putting out an entire book of optional rules is also a nice option, without invalidating anything in the player bases collections.
Yes, and despite the fact that I can't get into it, I do have a fondness for the game and even built an army so I could play along with my friends who were really into it.

The storylines are far more interesting than any of GW's stuff largely because the Battletech universe has actual, relatable people, not cartoonish buffoon orks fighting cartoonish bellowing Chaos Marines with caricatures of the Spanish Inquisition running around.

GW built a fun gaming environment, but Battletech had an actual setting.