On the fence!

[SolidSubstance]

Was looking forward to the game, the 3 reviews on steam at the moment is giving me a lukewarm feel. How does it compare to the first remake? I finish work in an hour and will see if I purchase day one or wait for more reviews.

Anyone have strong opinions of the game either way so far?

Thanks.

[Cutlass Jack]

Play the demo if you have doubts. I thought it felt better than the first remake personally.

I'm only on the fence deciding if I want to play it on PC or my PS5.

[Delete]

Better.
At sound part WAY BETTER. Mech doesn't sound like plastic electric cars anymore. And guns also sound more powerfull.

[MilkyGuy1]

It is a great game

[MjKorz]

It's a solid turn-based-tactics mech game. If you like the TBT genre, get it. The core gameplay is beyond solid and the rest I don't care about.

[REhorror]

Yeah the sound bits hit hard.

You also see Wanzer kneeling and reeling when they get dismembered.

[GamerXT]

Probably should play the first before this.

Although compared to FM 1, the gameplay is slightly more detailed and the graphics are better. Not sure if the story or music is better though.

[The nameless Gamer]

Don't get it. I was lucky enough to get it on GOG and get a refund. The demo is pretty misleading, not far into the game (in the missions AFTER the demo), you're fighting enemies which all have better Wanzers, the RNG is slightly skewed against you and you're always outnumbered. Also, there's practically no backpack room for repair items which you sorely need. On top of that, long-range missiles are useless for the player, as they have to advance and waste AP to use them, while the AI Wanzers are just sitting pretty most of the time. Oh, and ALL weapons except melee ones have ammo now so at least one melee weapon is always mandatory. The difficulty is pretty cheap.

[MjKorz]

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

not far into the game (in the missions AFTER the demo), you're fighting enemies which all have better Wanzers

The performance increments between wanzers and weapon systems within 1-2 tiers are minuscule so while you're technically correct, it's not an overwhelming difference.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

the RNG is slightly skewed against you

That's just personal, subjective bias talking, it all depends on how lucky you are.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

you're always outnumbered

Outnumbered in total units on the field? True. Outnumbered in any single engagement happening on the field? Not true. There will be many instances where you will outnumber enemy units in any given engagement and can dispose of them efficiently and with minimal damage taken through focus fire and debuffing their action points by parking more of your units next to theirs.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Also, there's practically no backpack room for repair items which you sorely need.

Repairs are a meme. Item-carrying backpacks are there to feed your ammunition hungry weapons such as autocannons, bazookas and missile launchers, but in other cases when you're not using such weapons it's better to equip power backpacks for more evasion and movement range in order to avoid taking damage in the first place and be able to position yourself better and surround enemy targets.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

On top of that, long-range missiles are useless for the player, as they have to advance and waste AP to use them, while the AI Wanzers are just sitting pretty most of the time.

Missiles have a range of 5 while most enemies in this game have a movement range of 2-4. Missiles allow you to initiate the engagement with an enemy from outside the range they can cover in 1 round. This especially works well against tanks that move at a range of 2. Missiles are also a means of dealing damage without the risk of counterattack which is a big deal in a game where mechs are very squishy, ESPECIALLY when attack-chaining combat skills start getting involved. Sometimes, softening a dangerous enemy (like a melee attacker) with missile fire before engaging it in short range can make a huge difference and save you multiple repair item worth of damage taken.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

at least one melee weapon is always mandatory.

Not true. Regular ranged weapons with a range of 1 have 9 rounds. You can equip two or even 3 (one shoulder mounted) of such weapons on a single mech. 18 ranged attacks per mech is usually enough. So far I've encountered precisely one mission where ammunition was a concern - the truck escort mission, which is why I equipped item-carrying backpacks on my short range units and gave them an ammo item for extra 9 attacks. You don't really NEED melee attacks in this game at all, though they are definitely nice to have just for their concentrated damage.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

The difficulty is pretty cheap.

It's higher than your average TBT game, but not "cheap".

[The nameless Gamer]

Originally posted by MjKorz:

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

not far into the game (in the missions AFTER the demo), you're fighting enemies which all have better Wanzers

The performance increments between wanzers and weapon systems within 1-2 tiers are minuscule so while you're technically correct, it's not an overwhelming difference.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

the RNG is slightly skewed against you

That's just personal, subjective bias talking, it all depends on how lucky you are.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

you're always outnumbered

Outnumbered in total units on the field? True. Outnumbered in any single engagement happening on the field? Not true. There will be many instances where you will outnumber enemy units in any given engagement and can dispose of them efficiently and with minimal damage taken through focus fire and debuffing their action points by parking more of your units next to theirs.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Also, there's practically no backpack room for repair items which you sorely need.

Repairs are a meme. Item-carrying backpacks are there to feed your ammunition hungry weapons such as autocannons, bazookas and missile launchers, but in other cases when you're not using such weapons it's better to equip power backpacks for more evasion and movement range in order to avoid taking damage in the first place and be able to position yourself better and surround enemy targets.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

On top of that, long-range missiles are useless for the player, as they have to advance and waste AP to use them, while the AI Wanzers are just sitting pretty most of the time.

Missiles have a range of 5 while most enemies in this game have a movement range of 2-4. Missiles allow you to initiate the engagement with an enemy from outside the range they can cover in 1 round. This especially works well against tanks that move at a range of 2. Missiles are also a means of dealing damage without the risk of counterattack which is a big deal in a game where mechs are very squishy, ESPECIALLY when attack-chaining combat skills start getting involved. Sometimes, softening a dangerous enemy (like a melee attacker) with missile fire before engaging it in short range can make a huge difference and save you multiple repair item worth of damage taken.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

at least one melee weapon is always mandatory.

Not true. Regular ranged weapons with a range of 1 have 9 rounds. You can equip two or even 3 (one shoulder mounted) of such weapons on a single mech. 18 ranged attacks per mech is usually enough. So far I've encountered precisely one mission where ammunition was a concern - the truck escort mission, which is why I equipped item-carrying backpacks on my short range units and gave them an ammo item for extra 9 attacks. You don't really NEED melee attacks in this game at all, though they are definitely nice to have just for their concentrated damage.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

The difficulty is pretty cheap.

It's higher than your average TBT game, but not "cheap".

It's a lot cheaper than "Battletech". The few missions after the demo content I DID complete all felt like contracts from the Capellan federation do in BT (for context: Capellans ALWAYS lie about enemy numbers and you should count each contract as at least one "Skull" more difficult than the MRB-rating shows). The U.C.S. Campaign in the first FM was decently challenging. It gave you the tools needed to fight high numbers of Wanzers with better stats (such as the RIFT backpack, which allowed for field repairs). Front Mission 2 gives ENEMIES repair units which can patch them up. Oh, and there's also no way of knowing which Wanzer resists which damage type without SERIOUS memorization. On top of being cheap, the game is needlessly complex and artificially extending play time.

Edit: Also, how do shields in FM 2 even work? At least in FM 1, you know that if you select the shield, your unit will GUARD and mitigate the damage it can, while here I experienced units just straight up taking a hit without guarding with the shield DESPITE me selecting that option.

[REhorror]

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Originally posted by MjKorz:

The performance increments between wanzers and weapon systems within 1-2 tiers are minuscule so while you're technically correct, it's not an overwhelming difference.


That's just personal, subjective bias talking, it all depends on how lucky you are.


Outnumbered in total units on the field? True. Outnumbered in any single engagement happening on the field? Not true. There will be many instances where you will outnumber enemy units in any given engagement and can dispose of them efficiently and with minimal damage taken through focus fire and debuffing their action points by parking more of your units next to theirs.


Repairs are a meme. Item-carrying backpacks are there to feed your ammunition hungry weapons such as autocannons, bazookas and missile launchers, but in other cases when you're not using such weapons it's better to equip power backpacks for more evasion and movement range in order to avoid taking damage in the first place and be able to position yourself better and surround enemy targets.


Missiles have a range of 5 while most enemies in this game have a movement range of 2-4. Missiles allow you to initiate the engagement with an enemy from outside the range they can cover in 1 round. This especially works well against tanks that move at a range of 2. Missiles are also a means of dealing damage without the risk of counterattack which is a big deal in a game where mechs are very squishy, ESPECIALLY when attack-chaining combat skills start getting involved. Sometimes, softening a dangerous enemy (like a melee attacker) with missile fire before engaging it in short range can make a huge difference and save you multiple repair item worth of damage taken.


Not true. Regular ranged weapons with a range of 1 have 9 rounds. You can equip two or even 3 (one shoulder mounted) of such weapons on a single mech. 18 ranged attacks per mech is usually enough. So far I've encountered precisely one mission where ammunition was a concern - the truck escort mission, which is why I equipped item-carrying backpacks on my short range units and gave them an ammo item for extra 9 attacks. You don't really NEED melee attacks in this game at all, though they are definitely nice to have just for their concentrated damage.


It's higher than your average TBT game, but not "cheap".

It's a lot cheaper than "Battletech". The few missions after the demo content I DID complete all felt like contracts from the Capellan federation do in BT (for context: Capellans ALWAYS lie about enemy numbers and you should count each contract as at least one "Skull" more difficult than the MRB-rating shows). The U.C.S. Campaign in the first FM was decently challenging. It gave you the tools needed to fight high numbers of Wanzers with better stats (such as the RIFT backpack, which allowed for field repairs). Front Mission 2 gives ENEMIES repair units which can patch them up. Oh, and there's also no way of knowing which Wanzer resists which damage type without SERIOUS memorization. On top of being cheap, the game is needlessly complex and artificially extending play time.

Edit: Also, how do shields in FM 2 even work? At least in FM 1, you know that if you select the shield, your unit will GUARD and mitigate the damage it can, while here I experienced units just straight up taking a hit without guarding with the shield DESPITE me selecting that option.

Battletech is like baybee-Front Mission, let's not bring it up.

Also, shield works on chance now, even if you choose shield, you can miss with the shield in protection.

[The nameless Gamer]

Originally posted by REhorror:

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

It's a lot cheaper than "Battletech". The few missions after the demo content I DID complete all felt like contracts from the Capellan federation do in BT (for context: Capellans ALWAYS lie about enemy numbers and you should count each contract as at least one "Skull" more difficult than the MRB-rating shows). The U.C.S. Campaign in the first FM was decently challenging. It gave you the tools needed to fight high numbers of Wanzers with better stats (such as the RIFT backpack, which allowed for field repairs). Front Mission 2 gives ENEMIES repair units which can patch them up. Oh, and there's also no way of knowing which Wanzer resists which damage type without SERIOUS memorization. On top of being cheap, the game is needlessly complex and artificially extending play time.

Edit: Also, how do shields in FM 2 even work? At least in FM 1, you know that if you select the shield, your unit will GUARD and mitigate the damage it can, while here I experienced units just straight up taking a hit without guarding with the shield DESPITE me selecting that option.

Battletech is like baybee-Front Mission, let's not bring it up.

Also, shield works on chance now, even if you choose shield, you can miss with the shield in protection.

Whatever you say. I'm not wasting time with an elitist. Good thing I was able to get away from a game I am not the audience for without losses. I hope the handful of sods enjoying cheaply designed games will have fun.

[REhorror]

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Originally posted by REhorror:

Battletech is like baybee-Front Mission, let's not bring it up.

Also, shield works on chance now, even if you choose shield, you can miss with the shield in protection.

Whatever you say. I'm not wasting time with an elitist. Good thing I was able to get away from a game I am not the audience for without losses. I hope the handful of sods enjoying cheaply designed games will have fun.

LOL what? OK commander.

[Jaasrg]

Originally posted by REhorror:

Battletech is like baybee-Front Mission, let's not bring it up.

I uh... huh?

[MjKorz]

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

It's a lot cheaper than "Battletech".

It has a rougher start due to very limited initial customization, but after the initial 3 missions the difficulty takes a massive nosedive as you unlock more options to build and customize your mechs.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Front Mission 2 gives ENEMIES repair units which can patch them up.

This is a complete non-issue, because proper focus fire and general squishiness of mechs in the game allows you to burst down anything before it even gets a chance to be repaired. Enemy repair units in this game are just free kills. And even if they do manage to repair something, they repair one part which usually makes very little to no difference as long as you're focusing fire which usually results in mechs getting sandblasted all over.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Oh, and there's also no way of knowing which Wanzer resists which damage type without SERIOUS memorization.

When you attack an enemy, you can see their armor type in brackets, for example (P). This means that as long as your mech is carrying a diversified weapons loadout (e.g. machinegun + flamer or melee + machinegun), you can always use the damage type not covered by the target's armor. Unless it's (N) armor, of course. There is zero need to memorize anything during regular missions, you only need to remember opponent loadouts in the arena, but you can just have a test fight against them to find out.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Edit: Also, how do shields in FM 2 even work?

It has a certain chance to proc, both when guarding actively and when you're not trying to guard at all (passive proc during other actions). It's never guaranteed. Also, from my experience, shields can reduce damage from incoming attacks to the arms even when no guard action is performed: sometimes burst weapon damage to the shield-bearing arms will be randomly reduced to 1-2 points without any guard animations.

Originally posted by REhorror:

Battletech is like baybee-Front Mission, let's not bring it up.

Battletech is far more complex both in terms of combat mechanics and mech build/customization depth. This doesn't make FM games bad, I enjoy both greatly.

[REhorror]

Originally posted by MjKorz:

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

It's a lot cheaper than "Battletech".

It has a rougher start due to very limited initial customization, but after the initial 3 missions the difficulty takes a massive nosedive as you unlock more options to build and customize your mechs.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Front Mission 2 gives ENEMIES repair units which can patch them up.

This is a complete non-issue, because proper focus fire and general squishiness of mechs in the game allows you to burst down anything before it even gets a chance to be repaired. Enemy repair units in this game are just free kills. And even if they do manage to repair something, they repair one part which usually makes very little to no difference as long as you're focusing fire which usually results in mechs getting sandblasted all over.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Oh, and there's also no way of knowing which Wanzer resists which damage type without SERIOUS memorization.

When you attack an enemy, you can see their armor type in brackets, for example (P). This means that as long as your mech is carrying a diversified weapons loadout (e.g. machinegun + flamer or melee + machinegun), you can always use the damage type not covered by the target's armor. Unless it's (N) armor, of course. There is zero need to memorize anything during regular missions, you only need to remember opponent loadouts in the arena, but you can just have a test fight against them to find out.

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Edit: Also, how do shields in FM 2 even work?

It has a certain chance to proc, both when guarding actively and when you're not trying to guard at all (passive proc during other actions). It's never guaranteed. Also, from my experience, shields can reduce damage from incoming attacks to the arms even when no guard action is performed: sometimes burst weapon damage to the shield-bearing arms will be randomly reduced to 1-2 points without any guard animations.

Originally posted by REhorror:

Battletech is like baybee-Front Mission, let's not bring it up.

Battletech is far more complex both in terms of combat mechanics and mech build/customization depth. This doesn't make FM games bad, I enjoy both greatly.

I play the PC Mech Commander games and Battletech game and I disagree greatly.

You can't even change the Mech designs like giving them tank treads.