BATTLETECH: A new fan TRO

[Nightgaun7]

Heads up any BattleTech fans lurking here;


I'm the lead on a team producing Built for War, a fan TRO that will feature new art by Matt Plog and Anthony Scroggins for over a hundred units. The TRO is still in development, but we're announcing it now so people can check it out and give us feedback. We'll be releasing a preview TRO on April 30th.

Our blog (http://builtforwar.blogspot.com) has details, updates, and advance previews.

Built for War will be free to download when completed. We're seeking contributions, but we're not making any money off the project and all contributions go to paying the artists.

Hope you like what you see.

[Kislath]

Cool, but what is a TRO?

[Alent]

Cool, but what is a TRO?

Technical Readout, they're the manuals with new mechs.

In D&D land we call them splatbooks.

[Erloas]

While I love Battletech, I'm not sure I see the point. And from the looks of the one 'Mech they have a preview for I'm not sure there will be anything really interesting to see.

I've always preferred to play canon 'Mech designs because they are built with character rather than max stats. They have in-universe reasons for making the choices they do and I think the game is better for it. They don't have to take things into consideration like how much something costs, or that outside the table top they would actually see a lot more aerial units, tanks, and infantry.

Not that there is anything wrong with playing the game in a min-max style but I think it looses a lot of character when you do.

I'm also not really sure what they are claiming when they say they've playtested all of the units extensively, since they are using core weapon and equipment and using the standard BV system, all they are really saying is that they've verified the system CGL created, and I guess that they haven't specifically tried to break it. Other than hiring artists and writing bit of fluff they haven't actually created anything that any normal player can't do with a bit of time with HeavyMetal or SSW. And while the art might be amazing (previews so far seem pretty standard) that is only worth so much when there is no matching model to go with it.
But mostly I guess it is the fact that BattleTech is not really in need of more 'Mech designs, if anything it is already one of the most overcrowded areas of the game.

If we need anything it would be to take all/many of the supplemental rules in Tactical Operations and Strategic Operations and build scenarios and "continuous/campaign play" rules that make it easier to run games that are more than one-off war-game fights. Much of what is needed is in those books but actually putting it together in a usable way is a lot of work. Like finding a good income and fight/salvage rewards that will keep things going without getting the players swimming in gear/c-bills and not having attrition take them to nothing in one or two bad fights.

[Nightgaun7]

Well as the guy leading the project, let me break this down and answer as best I can:


...from the looks of the one 'Mech they have a preview for I'm not sure there will be anything really interesting to see.

There are actually seven units with art shown right now, if you mean the looks. If you mean the stats for the Thane, then it's one of a hundred units. Most people that have seen it so far have thought it looked like a sweet ride.



I've always preferred to play canon 'Mech designs because they are built with character rather than max stats...Not that there is anything wrong with playing the game in a min-max style but I think it looses a lot of character when you do.

We've worked hard to make sure that our designs are are justified in what they use. For example, the Thane is strongly based on the Rasalhague Dominion's production capability and political situation in 3103. It's not strictly optimal, moving 4/6 at 90 tons when 95 would be better, but a 90-tonner fits more neatly into the Ghost Bear touman of the period thanks to the existing lineup of Bruin, Viking IIC, Kodiak, etc.

We do have a broad array of optimization levels, because different people like different things and we want to have something for everyone.



I'm also not really sure what they are claiming when they say they've playtested all of the units extensively, since they are using core weapon and equipment and using the standard BV system, all they are really saying is that they've verified the system CGL created, and I guess that they haven't specifically tried to break it.

Well, we mean that we've made sure that a mech doesn't have an issue like the canon Stalker II, which has no arms, hardened armor, a torso cockpit, and a trait that makes it harder for it to stand up. The designer admitted he didn't check to see how the hardened armor and torso cockpit interacted, nor did he recall that you make a PSR for taking 20+ damage in a turn. So the badass assault mech actually just falls over and flops around.

We playtested everything, so when [I]our mech falls over and flops around, rest assured, it's deliberate :smalltongue:



If we need anything it would be to take all/many of the supplemental rules in Tactical Operations and Strategic Operations and build scenarios and "continuous/campaign play" rules that make it easier to run games that are more than one-off war-game fights...

Myself and one of the other people can't do that, by way of having NDA's and associated agreements with CGL. A lot of that info is out there however. Check the bg.battletech.com forum for a whole load of people who can help you with that.

[Kislath]

I used to play a lot back in the 1990's. I made a bunch of new mechs and systems, and put them together in what I called Battletech 3070.

I'm guessing I missed some things since then. The lore is up in the 3100's now?

[Erloas]

I used to play a lot back in the 1990's. I made a bunch of new mechs and systems, and put them together in what I called Battletech 3070.

I'm guessing I missed some things since then. The lore is up in the 3100's now?

If I remember correctly they develop in a sort of pattern. The core of the team will set up broad strokes of where the universe is going and some of the major events. Then they'll pass that information down to other teams and authors and the likes. Those groups will fill in the details and flesh out the stories in those areas, write new TROs, source books, scenarios, and novels.

The broad definition of the Eras can be found here (non-official wiki). (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/BattleTech_eras)

I know the Jihad had been the focus last time I was looking into things more closely (been a few years). Looking at the newest releases from CCG it looks like they've moved quite a bit past that.

And I could be wrong here, but I believe before CGL got the license for BT Hasbro (I think) had tried to expand the game and made a line of Clix style 'Mechs and its own system very similar to the HeroClix line. They had advanced the timeline up to the Dark Ages to do that, and had a lot of books released for that setting. I think everything released at that time had the MechWarrior name rather than Battletech. But they never really connected the classic battletech setting and the Dark Age setting they had used. Since then CGL has went back and filled in the time between the Clan Invasion and the Dark Age. Which includes the Civil War and Jihad Eras. It was ComStar's Jihad that brought about the Dark Ages.
I think it has now been split, and there are two parts to the Dark Ages, with Republic being the stuff that Clix/Hasbro did and the later part being where CGL is working on now. I'm not sure if CGL did much with the Clix's part of the Dark Ages or just worked up to it then jumped to the next stage.

Here is a timeline of the major events (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Timeline)

[Kislath]

Yikes. I have missed some stuff!

[Nightgaun7]

We said we'd release a preview of our fan TRO project, Built for War, on April 30th, and here it is.

https://www.mediafire.com/?8yfdymaxs40a5js

Check out our blog at builtforwar.blogspot.com (http://builtforwar.blogspot.com) for more info

NOTE: A couple of people have had minor issues with the text; if you see any, such as blurry text, please let us know. The more info we have, the easier a time we'll have figuring out what's causing it and how to fix it.

Contact us at [email protected]