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.

[The nameless Gamer]

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.

My main issue with the game is how often enemies seem to reliably damage your Wanzers' arms. This is where repairing is of essential importance, because even IF I can engage smaller groups of Wanzers with my slightly bigger one, each next engagement I enter is with damaged arms. And a Wanzer without both arms is dead weight. In pretty much every mission from the start to the one where I'm escorting the truck as well as three training missions in the mansion, I've had at least two and often 3 Wanzers end up without arms.

All in all, with the shields working on an RNG-basis instead of a reliable damage mitigator as it was in FM1, the game is way too much about save-scumming and getting good RNG-rolls. I was honestly expecting difficulty to be close to the U.C.S. campaign of Front Mission 1.

[REhorror]

I'm checking the reviews and it seems some people are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about the difficulty.

I'm glad Forever didn't decide to tone it down, we need more hard games where the RNG is skewered against the player, too many muh easy AND fair games nowadays.

For people who think it's too hard, play on Easy modo! We won't judge!

[MjKorz]

Originally posted by REhorror:

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.

That's because you're dishonest and biased.

Battletech has over FM:

- Mech weight classes: results in drastic differences in mobility and firepower, far greater than any differences achievable in FM games.

- Separation of armor and internal structure: results in being able to knock out internal components before the part is destroyed.

- Directional armor: outmaneuvering the target and hitting them in the back actually means something, because the back armor is usually paper thin.

- Directional attacks: attacking the enemy from one side means you can't hit the components on the other side, thus allowing mechs to effectively protect damaged parts by smart rotation and positioning.

- Loadouts are limited by weight, hardpoints and weapon volume: represented as critical slots, not just weight and hardpoints like in FM.

- Far greater number of hardpoints per mech on average: results in greater possible build variety.

- Stability damage.

- Heat management.

- Ammo explosions.

- Jump jet DFA attacks.

And when Clan omnimechs come into play, you can even swap bodyparts like you do in FM games.

[Master Grade Ringo Starr]

Originally posted by REhorror:

Originally posted by MjKorz:

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

A thread slinging crap at BattleTech in relation to Front Mission is especially hilarious when it is very distinct that BattleTech (the tabletop game) released in Japan just a few years earlier and very much influenced Front Mission's combat system. Both (as in BT and FM) also share the same core influence, a TV show called Fang of The Sun: Dougram.

Outside that, BT definitely is a deeper game. Terrain and ambient environmental effects play a much larger role. Sure you can't swap out limbs or whatever, but the amount you do to a single mech is much greater than in Front Mission which mostly boils down to picking limbs with better DF and HP, then picking weapons that do more damage that your current loadout that fit whatever skill set that character has. Its pretty straightforward. I'd actually agree wholehearted with you if you exclusively meant MechCommander. Because that game has an extremely neutered MechLab. But trying to compare with something like HBS BattleTech is absurd. Especially if you want to bring Tabletop rules into the equation.

This is coming from someone who was a fan of Front Mission a solid 10 years before I was into BattleTech.

Mechanics introduced in FM4+5 give the game a substantial amount of more depth, but lets not kid ourselves here.


As for the topic beforehand. The game isn't "Cheap" in difficulty, its almost exactly (if not actually, a bit toned down) to its original PSX version. Starting any FM can be tough but it gets substantially easier once you understand the tactics at hand (which to be fair, absolutely does change game-to-game)

[REhorror]

I'm just gonna respond to both of you in quick successions.

For Mech Commander, more on 2nd, is all about the heaviest mech and then the longest range gun for better kitting.

When I play HSB Battletech, all I care about is getting the heaviest mechs possible (again), and the straightest shooting gun, that way I can snipe the legs and then torso and basically be swimming with parts. Sure, there's a lot of stat involved, but you only need to care about the core stats and the strategy required nor the difficulty aren't high.

I'm definitely not impressed considering the amount of things and doodads you can put into a Wanzer.

[Jaasrg]

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

I was honestly expecting difficulty to be close to the U.C.S. campaign of Front Mission 1.

USN side was meant to be harder?
I played through it on DS and sure the first few missions were a bit touch and go, but then there's just casually the best MG in shop and the lower amount of pilots meant xp was never a problem.

[MjKorz]

Originally posted by REhorror:

I'm just gonna respond to both of you in quick successions.

For Mech Commander, more on 2nd, is all about the heaviest mech and then the longest range gun for better kitting.

When I play HSB Battletech, all I care about is getting the heaviest mechs possible (again), and the straightest shooting gun, that way I can snipe the legs and then torso and basically be swimming with parts. Sure, there's a lot of stat involved, but you only need to care about the core stats and the strategy required nor the difficulty aren't high.

I'm definitely not impressed considering the amount of things and doodads you can put into a Wanzer.

What you've described is your way of playing, which is legit and there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not the only way to play. If you ignore game mechanics, it doesn't mean they're not there and that the mechanical depth does not exist: you just choose not to interact with them. I, on the other hand, love mech loadouts with huge stability damage potential, bristling with weapons such as LBX and SRMs, weapons that will topple targets over before killing them more often than not. Mechanical depth creates tactical depth which creates gameplay variety and that's a definite advantage.

[The nameless Gamer]

Originally posted by Girlboss Anarcho-Syndicalism:

As for the topic beforehand. The game isn't "Cheap" in difficulty, its almost exactly (if not actually, a bit toned down) to its original PSX version. Starting any FM can be tough but it gets substantially easier once you understand the tactics at hand (which to be fair, absolutely does change game-to-game)

What kind of tactics can help if your Wanzers enter an engagement with their arms being held together by duct tape? How do you avoid damage to vital modules if 3 modules out of 4 are crucial? How to reliably avoid damage if the guard mechanic is plagued by RNG? Leaving Battletech aside, Front Mission 1 has PERFECTLY WORKING SHIELDS which you can use to increase the odds of your Wanzers not getting blown to bits or being turned to armless dead weight.

[Master Grade Ringo Starr]

Originally posted by REhorror:

I'm just gonna respond to both of you in quick successions.

For Mech Commander, more on 2nd, is all about the heaviest mech and then the longest range gun for better kitting.

When I play HSB Battletech, all I care about is getting the heaviest mechs possible (again), and the straightest shooting gun, that way I can snipe the legs and then torso and basically be swimming with parts. Sure, there's a lot of stat involved, but you only need to care about the core stats and the strategy required nor the difficulty aren't high.

I'm definitely not impressed considering the amount of things and doodads you can put into a Wanzer.

I'll agree with you on the tonnage part. Sadly, the video games are not as on par as the tabletop game in terms of full customization, nor the utility of lighter chassis (without mods that is to make HBS more like the tabletop game).

[REhorror]

Originally posted by MjKorz:

Originally posted by REhorror:

I'm just gonna respond to both of you in quick successions.

For Mech Commander, more on 2nd, is all about the heaviest mech and then the longest range gun for better kitting.

When I play HSB Battletech, all I care about is getting the heaviest mechs possible (again), and the straightest shooting gun, that way I can snipe the legs and then torso and basically be swimming with parts. Sure, there's a lot of stat involved, but you only need to care about the core stats and the strategy required nor the difficulty aren't high.

I'm definitely not impressed considering the amount of things and doodads you can put into a Wanzer.

What you've described is your way of playing, which is legit and there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not the only way to play. If you ignore game mechanics, it doesn't mean they're not there and that the mechanical depth does not exist: you just choose not to interact with them. I, on the other hand, love mech loadouts with huge stability damage potential, bristling with weapons such as LBX and SRMs, weapons that will topple targets over before killing them more often than not. Mechanical depth creates tactical depth which creates gameplay variety and that's a definite advantage.

There's definitely a point if the game mechanics are GOOD if the players can straight out ignore them.

Either ways, I care about more a simple but difficult game, than a game that offers a bunch of options but ultimately easy I guess. For me the former is narrow but deep, and the latter is wide but shallow.

But again, I kind of have a hateboner for Battletech community because muh realism I guess I'm biased.

[MjKorz]

Originally posted by Girlboss Anarcho-Syndicalism:

I'll agree with you on the tonnage part. Sadly, the video games are not as on par as the tabletop game in terms of full customization, nor the utility of lighter chassis (without mods that is to make HBS more like the tabletop game).

The full utility of lighter classes is obtained in Mechwarrior games, games where going fast actually gives you a massive advantage, depending on the engagement situation and mission objectives. MWO in particular is notorious for making lighter mechs far more useful than they are in tabletop.

[REhorror]

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

Originally posted by Girlboss Anarcho-Syndicalism:

As for the topic beforehand. The game isn't "Cheap" in difficulty, its almost exactly (if not actually, a bit toned down) to its original PSX version. Starting any FM can be tough but it gets substantially easier once you understand the tactics at hand (which to be fair, absolutely does change game-to-game)

What kind of tactics can help if your Wanzers enter an engagement with their arms being held together by duct tape? How do you avoid damage to vital modules if 3 modules out of 4 are crucial? How to reliably avoid damage if the guard mechanic is plagued by RNG? Leaving Battletech aside, Front Mission 1 has PERFECTLY WORKING SHIELDS which you can use to increase the odds of your Wanzers not getting blown to bits or being turned to armless dead weight.

You can buy stronger arms and better shield, and of course, grind your pilots so they have better skills and proc better block chance.

This is a SRPG, RNG is the name of the game, and savescumming is an intended feature.

Or you can play on Easy modo.

[The nameless Gamer]

Originally posted by Jaasrg:

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

I was honestly expecting difficulty to be close to the U.C.S. campaign of Front Mission 1.

USN side was meant to be harder?
I played through it on DS and sure the first few missions were a bit touch and go, but then there's just casually the best MG in shop and the lower amount of pilots meant xp was never a problem.

The U.C.S. side's first half are missions where you are outnumbered and outgunned (enemies have more Wanzers than you and they have higher level stats). Second half is, much like the O.C.U. campaign, reverse difficulty. Once you unlock the Speed skill paired with the FV-24 (I think that's what the minigun is called), it's Wanzer deletion time. Until then however, you're stuck fighting missile-packing Wanzers who also punch pretty heftily with weaker and fewer units (mitigated with consumables and the RIFT backpack).

[REhorror]

Originally posted by MjKorz:

Originally posted by Girlboss Anarcho-Syndicalism:

I'll agree with you on the tonnage part. Sadly, the video games are not as on par as the tabletop game in terms of full customization, nor the utility of lighter chassis (without mods that is to make HBS more like the tabletop game).

The full utility of lighter classes is obtained in Mechwarrior games, games where going fast actually gives you a massive advantage, depending on the engagement situation and mission objectives. MWO in particular is notorious for making lighter mechs far more useful than they are in tabletop.

Because Mechwarrior games are real time action games, speed always matter more than health and armor in these games. Kinda like Armored Core.

[The nameless Gamer]

Originally posted by REhorror:

Originally posted by The nameless Commander:

What kind of tactics can help if your Wanzers enter an engagement with their arms being held together by duct tape? How do you avoid damage to vital modules if 3 modules out of 4 are crucial? How to reliably avoid damage if the guard mechanic is plagued by RNG? Leaving Battletech aside, Front Mission 1 has PERFECTLY WORKING SHIELDS which you can use to increase the odds of your Wanzers not getting blown to bits or being turned to armless dead weight.

You can buy stronger arms and better shield, and of course, grind your pilots so they have better skills and proc better block chance.

This is a SRPG, RNG is the name of the game, and savescumming is an intended feature.

Or you can play on Easy modo.

Or I can play HBS' Battletech, where tactics matter more than RNG.