Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Erm... I'd rather bring only three mechs with extra tonnage instead of bothering with a useless fourth, TYVM. I don't know about the original BattleTech, but in this game you need those extra armor plates for your mechs to survive.
Short of this, nice explanation.
It reminded me of those old-day mindset when you tinkered your Mechs together by yourself (at least in your fantasy).
You often forget those things with all the games we have now.
Don't know how many hours i've spent with pen&paper, not only in D&D and Shadowrun but also on Battletech sheets.
And yep...preferences count. X mech might be better on paper, but someone might hate the view out of the cockpit, or the main weapon type, or anything else, and just prefer something "less powerful" but that they're better at using. Cheers!
Also, good on you for mentioning player preference for 'mech chassis. It's not as measurable as the hard numbers on the 'mechs themselves, but I've found that a player who is comfortable in statistically suboptimal setup can outperform themselves in one that is uncomfortable but optimized. To a point, at least.