An injured mechwarrior or a mech that's lost a limb can be out of
circulation for a couple of in-game weeks, which is hard to take in the
context of a campaign that requires you to be frugal and to protect your
resources for the core battles.
For a tabletop strategy as revered as BattleTech, it's remarkable
that it's taken this long - close to 35 years, by crikey - for a
dedicated turn-based video game to emerge. Okay, sure, Westwood's early
brace of proto-Dune strategy RPGs came pretty close to transposing the
heraldry of wargaming's premier trouser-tank battle system, but it's
unfortunate that in the years since, BattleTech has become synonymous
with - and subordinate to - the MechWarrior first-person action
simulations of the 90s. For strategy fans to have been denied an
authentic BattleTech experience for so long is almost as tragic as Robot
Jox's continued obscurity relative to the success of Pacific Rim.
Still, although it was deemed necessary that some patient fans put
their hands in their pockets first, the fact that we now have BattleTech
on PC adds weight to the old adage that good things come to those who
wait. For a game that has had to make up for lost time and maintain a
level of faithfulness, all while attempting to impose some authority on
modern genre champions like the XCOM series, developer Harebrained
Schemes has more than enough reason to be proud. This BattleTech is as
authentic a recreation of the tabletop classic as you could hope for.
Not that this slavishly follows the rules first laid down in 1984;
more that it remains true to the spirit of the source material.
Admittedly it's been decades since I laid eyes on one of FASA's old
Technical Readouts, thus I'd be hard pressed to judge the game's
adherence to scripture. However, the essence of BattleTech's
techno-feudal aesthetic, together with allowing players to dive into its
expansive lore to a depth that suits them, is largely what makes this
interactive edition a success.
The presentation isn't flashy, but it sets the tone perfectly. And
while the dialogue isn't fully voiced - and in fact is noticeably
lacking in one or two dramatic non-deliveries - the characterisation and
writing is taut and strong, with barely a word wasted throughout. I
realise I might be damning the game with faint praise, it being of a
genre that should be judged first and foremost on the strength of its
gameplay and turn-based systems, but the accessibility of the background
material, the character design, the dialogue in service to a plot to
enact vengeance for a deposed queen, are perhaps my favourite BattleTech
elements - although how much of that is down to low expectations
brought about by Warhammer 40K fatigue is unknown.
Let's talk about BattleTech's gameplay and systems, which as you
might have expected takes a great deal of inspiration from contemporary
XCOM, with just enough in the way of "beer and pretzels" wargame hexery -
as typified by Panzer General and its ilk - to feel suitably distinct
rather than revolutionary.
As BattleTech vets will know, in any encounter players command a
lance of four mechs, with twinkle-toed light mechs doing their scouting
first and the lumbering assault mechs ending each turn. None of them are
particularly manoeuvrable machines, so there's no ducking behind the
cover of a space Waitrose or anything like that. You simply select where
to move your units, choosing a direction to face and then select your
weapons and a target depending on what the likeliness of a scoring a hit
is. Pretty standard stuff, I think you'll agree.
BattleTech gets interesting when the lasers start lighting up the
map. Damage is randomly distributed across various leg and torso
sections, but the aim is to bring down the enemy either by taking out
their legs, or the central torso (cockpit) area. To that end a
mechwarrior's ability to focus fire once enough morale has been
accumulated can be devastating, but it's the need to manage heat and
stability levels that defines BattleTech's venerable combat system. Heat
builds up as mechs fire their weapons, which if not vented in time can,
at best, limit offensive output. Stability meanwhile is a side-effect
of being hit, typically by missiles: Tumble to the ground after a
repeated pummelling and pilot injuries will occur, as well your mech
being open to targeted critical attacks.
Being able to field more mechs per encounter, deploy
countermeasures and use off-field support would have been welcome
evolutions to the formula, as would some implementation of friendly fire
and a few more mechwarrior abilities; for as much as heat and stability
help distinguish BattleTech's brand of turn-based combat from the
competition, the breadth of tactics required to ensure victory are a
little narrow.
Since concentrated firepower is king, players will want to deploy
the heaviest mechs they can, keeping them in a tight formation in order
to focus fire. It doesn't hurt to have a light mech unloading the odd
salvo into an enemy's flank from time to time, but for the most part
you'll be needing to keep your squad of techno-pants within a half a
dozen hexes of one another, while trying to keep the approach of enemy
units as staggered as possible. Do that and you can't really go wrong.
The reason you'll not want to deviate too much from the above
strategy is because it's supremely efficient, and efficiency is
fundamental to minimising risk. As the leader of a mercenary outfit,
choosing missions is a trade off between maximising income in terms of
money and resources, versus the cost in time and money to replace
damaged mechs and injured crew. There are bills to pay, which means you
have to keep the mission money coming in, and while losing a mechanical
arm and a leg now and again isn't going to put a massive dent in your
income, but if you lose mech parts regularly, expensive reinforcements
and repairs will slow down your rate of income by postposing missions
past another end-of-the-month assault on your bank balance.
Aside from the battles playing out in much the same way, across
maps that are more diverse in their colour schemes than they are in
terms of distinguishing features, BattleTech's issues and annoyances are
fairly inconsequential and easily patched. The poorest feature is also
the most superficial: the in-game camera work, which isn't nearly as
dynamic as the options screen wants us to believe. Yes, there are plenty
of sliders for how often the camera might kick in for any given action,
but the panning and zoom is frequently out of sorts and while the
current selection of drunken camera operator views are better than
turning the action sequences off altogether, the framing is so off that
half of what you expect to see is either out of shot or obscured by
scenery.
In any case, BattleTech's deficiencies are more than offset by its
triumphs. Take its crew development - as with its XCOM HQ equivalent,
aboard your ship you'll want to balance the books while increasing your
stock of weapons and equipment. Your bridge crew are considerably more
engaging than XCOM research officers and staff, and more integrated in
the storyline, which is less an arms race and more a battle for survival
in a world that, with its great houses and clans, could pass as the
PG-rated sci-fi equivalent of Game of Thrones. Meanwhile your
mechwarriors, as with XCOM's soldiers, start off as disposable grunts
that through investment in abilities and equipment become characters you
can't help but feel attached to - in spite of the lack of customisation
options.
Perhaps BattleTech's worst crime is that, while it borrows many
ideas from XCOM and augments them within its own deftly-weaved
backstory, at the fundamental level - on the field of battle - it can't
quite match XCOM's arms race-driven unit diversity or mission variety.
That said, when it comes to having iconic suits of sci-fi armour
balanced across wind-swept hillsides and firing laser beams into the
night, it's almost impossible not to enjoy the spectacle of mechanical
strides fighting at the scale and in the time signature they were
originally designed to operate in.
0 Comments