They take a 17 year old game (MechCommander) do some pretty amazing things to it, then break it. Why on earth does it take so much hardware to play this? This seems to be the formula for games. Do a fabulous job making it look good but destroy all hopes with shoddy mechanics programming. I am so glad i didn't get this. I feel sorry for those duped into thinking it was going to be the wonderful game it was played out to be.

I am glad DOSbox still plays MechCommander. There's even mods out for it.

I agree that mechcommander is more technical than this. For a turn based strategy I was hoping to have more units than 20 in mechcommander 2, or 12 in mechcommader. Hell, theres more pieces to play with in fallout 2 when you got the full team.

Mechcommander 2 on dosbox? I run it on windows 7.

You'd think that a game called "Battletech" would offer you to have combined arms at your disposal but the only combined arms you have is pronouns.

I got 12 hours recorded on GoG Galaxy, plus what ever I did oflline on my laptop, probably another 6ish hours. I am loving the game so far. I find the game challenging and a lot of fun, very deep game.

So no duping at all, it really is a wonderful game. /shrug

You forgot the white hate.

Yeah I was thinking of getting this. Still thinking about it, though the more I play my mate's on his machine, the less likely that is, because I always end up thinking "Is this it?".

I shouldn't be surprised that HBS once again limited us to a max of four units to control - but whereas this made some sense in Shadowrun due to the context, it makes pretty much no sense here.

I was hoping this would be the turn-based version of Crescent Hawk's Revenge, if not Crescent Hawk's Inception. The former had you controlling multiple lances, including vehicles sometimes. Can't recall how customizable mechs were in that though. The latter was a proper RPG, and while your party size maxed out at 4, you could squish anyone foolish enough to walk around on foot (something sorely missing from the current game).

Surely they could have aimed at 2 4-mech lances for us to control at some point? Occasionally giving us some crappy vehicles - even on a per-mission basis - would have made more sense.

Also the mission design is all over the place. I've seen reinforcements come in before I even get anywhere near the objective (so how are they reinforcements, if they're the first thing I find? Surely that's just "enemy units"). Not to mention that the scripting sometimes sucks really badly - e.g. nothing happens for the trip from the convoy start point to the destination (which is often, strangely enough, within 2 turns travel - wow big distance), but as soon as you touch it BAM! Suddenly some units materialise in a predetermined spot, sometimes right on top of you.

I'm hoping that in 6-12 months they fix this up. Either that or the modders do it for them.

They explained in one of thier videos why only 1 lance. Had a lot to do with the game tracking every part of a mech which are all hit locations, having different stats, different weapons, ammo, upgrade parts. Of course the enemy also has the same tracking done on it. Make 2 to 4 lances and that is a lot more tracking especially when you have to increase the number of enemy lances as well.

It also Had some what to do with pacing. Controlling 2 to 4 lances in a turn based game would leave you waiting aong time while the enemy is taking its turn.

Reinforcements coming in early is a bug they admitted to on the official forums. So no doubt they'll get that fixed.

Why should players care about their crappy excuses? I can have multiple squads in og X-Com or JA2. Even Mechwarrior 4 mercs lets you have 2 lances. HBS being bad at their job isn't an excuse.

^^^ Exactly this. Handling "that many" hit locations shouldn't be an issue - one could easily multiply the units by 10 and it shouldn't make a difference calculation-wise. The old X-Com games managed it, as did JA2 - and both of those had more complicated mechanics. So a game with much simpler mechanics (in the vein of nuXCOM) shouldn't have an issue.

Most of the current delays are actually set like that on purpose - there's a reddit thread explaining how to adjust movement speed and delays for example, which speeds up the game tremendously. It's bizarre that there aren't in-game options for this - almost as bizarre as to why it was set to be so slow in the first place (they had beta testers, surely they've had feedback?).

I'm sure they'll fix issues such as delays and crashes etc. in due time - but the lack of units to control is something that will probably require mods to fix (assuming its possible, which it should be).

Hope you guys get refunds since you seem to hate the game. Been having a blast myself. Put in 63 hours and says I am 28% done with the game. Guess I didnt come into the game with any expectations and I am just trying to have fun with the game that is and not the game it "might" have been.
Maybe since I am older than most gamers I have learned to not keep building up my expectations for a mind shattering game and just accept the game for what it is. This game is fun and if you dont find it so then this game and those like it are something you should stay away from it seems

I agree, the game is pretty much what I expected it to be. Turn based, slower, fairly decent detail. I am just having fun with it, and taking itr as it is. It is fairly stable, runs well on my laptop, and the only real complaint I have is trying move around the navigation map. Doesn't scroll around like I thought it should, but I am probably missing something.

That isn't a crappy excuse, it s a legitimate reason. Also there is a huge difference in what is being tracked in xcom vs what is in Battletech on a per unit basis, with Battlech being far higher. You also seemed to forget about the pacing, having more than 4 which means more count for enemies as well would ruin the pacing

Clearly the game is not for you, you want a different game. What you want I feelbwouid ruin this game, would be bad decision on the developers part.

Yes, I bet adding options for faster animations, larger squads and combined arms would ruin this gem. What a joke.

Yes larger squads would ruin the game, it would ruin the flow of the game. Faster animations would ruin immersion cause then the mechs wouldn't feel like big hulking mechs, they would feel like humans in costumes.

Also watch this for their explanation about 4
https://youtu.be/dw95G1hnLGc?t=21m3s

If the core game mechanics on the battlefield were properly fleshed out and the game was properly balanced then I would have no problem at all spending a decent amount of time in the mech bay and couple of hours on the battlefield per mission. As you said to Scrub, this may not be the game that I was looking for. If any studio who should have knocked a game like this out of the park it would/should be HSB. I for one think they came well below of what they could have.

I've been mulling it over about the game while playing and since I've stopped. I have not seen a game that has felt so fragmented as this one before. Ok, maybe not like the mega blocks like Start Citizen is but Battletech comes across like a jumbled puzzle that was put together by several teams of varying background and knowledge with only a team or maybe two really caring about what the IP/Lore is about.