Grargar: No idea who owns Mechwarrior 3, maybe Atari, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

svmariscal: Is it a long shoot to hope this might eventually bring along all other Mechwarrior classic titles? Does this mean they also have the rights for anything Battletech PC related? or is this issue more complicated than that?

Rusty_Gunn: while tanks are the closest we have to an actual analogue to a battlemech there are some differences. HBS seems fairly certain that they will have melee combat (something from the boardgame that was hardly if ever replicated in any of the video games) like punching or "death from above" ie using jumpjets to get above an enemy and use your own mech as a bomb.

while the the year is 3025 the 200 years of near constant warfare has pretty much beaten the explored galaxy "the Inner Sphere" stupid so bio enhancements (don't think this tech is known) & exo-skeletons if they exist should be a great rarity.

Brasas: From a ludological historical perspective the interesting element was the thematic incorporation of heat as an action limiting factor. Modern warfare is very instantaneous, compare air combat with missiles at range from WW1 and WW2 dogfights. Batlletech might have been the first wargame system (in the sense you used the term) where the action point limitations made sense. These constraints both simplified systems and broadened the strategic depth (by making each decision more meaningful in itself rather than having meaning emerge as average of many decisions). Everything you do costs heat, so there is no instantaneous "I win" button, it's a naturally compensating system - the bigger and more powerful you are, the more heat you generate. Usually the tradeoff is between firepower and mobility of course, but that's precisely what modern technology breaks.

I could make a case for leadership systems being functionally similar and originated earlier, yet those always fell in some uncanny valley I think. Likely because of their origin in the period when complexity for the sake of complexity (rather for hyper simulationist goals) was all the rage. And now I think of it they are opposed to each other, leadership systems are usually a positive feedback loop, rather than a negative one. Better leader = more power (less ludological constraint), whereas better mech = more heat (more constraint). Hmmm and better leader is similar to the more experience loop in RPG's as well... whatever, I could go on for hours I think.

Theme is key also in how the sci fi setting was merged with an almost feudal setting. I'm actually quite sure that was intentional design as the parallels with medieval armored knights are very very apparent. And it worked since it made the setting very familiar and easy to jump in. Anyway those aspects to me were the meat that lead to Battletech's cult like status, on top of the giant robot bones.

Gnostic: Gameplay wise, it can be a bunch of human super solider with a robot skin?

bad_fur_day1: I thought "Made over one million dollars in 24 hours" was hilarious.

Gamers are so not interested in giant robots at all.

Klumpen0815: I have always seen mechs rather as tanks on a pibedal movement system instead of chains.
The old mech simulators were all quite good and the heat management was fun.
Robots are an entirely different matter.

Gnostic: So, in another words, Story, name, and environment differentiate a mecha game.

Gameplay wise, it can be a bunch of human super solider with a robot skin?

MrGOTIME: I never really got into the Mech Commander games...did either of them have any sort of open campaign?