Scheduled Releases?

[cryblsaj]

I created a thread for this topic under the 'What Should Mongoose Publish Next' area of the forums, but I thought that I should reiterate the question here under the Armageddon 2089 area: Why are there no new scheduled releases for Armageddon 2089? I don't want to get excited about the game and get a campaign going only to find out that the only new material for the system will be through the 'Signs and Portents' magazine. Can Mongoose at least let us know that there are products being worked on, and that the system is not just in limbo?

 

[bubbalin]

I think that the supplements to date are what were planned for the line. After that, I tihnk there was supposed to be a wait and see how successful this is first before we publish anything else.

I think they plan comics, novels and minis to improve brand recognition, then the RPG itself sounds like it's up for a revision.

Note that I have no association with Mongoose, that's just the tone I seem to gather from reading these boards...

 

[MongooseMatt]

That is pretty much it. What we want to know now is what you guys think of the game, what you think of the setting and then we want to take a good long while in development making the game and setting better.

I believe A2089, in its present incarnation, has been taken pretty much as far as it can go in terms of development (being an RPG, of course, there are always new stories to tell!). I have identified some problems with A2089 (partly to do with its complexity, but mostly with presentation) but I want to know what you chaps think before we make any move to enhance, tweak or even (gasp!) replace A2089.

So, over to you!

 

[Götterfunke]

Hi, Matthew!

I`m a little bit shocked by your last post. I thought that novels and a miniatures game were a fixed idea. And I was very curious to see this new miniatures game (I`ve posted some ideas).....and I`m sure that making such a game in the A:2089 scenerio will be a great success.

To the RPG I want to say that your conclusions were right - this game suffered from complexity (just the RPG hardcoregamer are playing this game, because of its tons of rules and the need of two rulebooks!!! A.2089 and the D&D rulebook) and presentation. Just take the Armoured company sourcebook - Blassic battletech would publish such a book with just a fraction of rules and with much more illustrated tanks, hovers, walkers etc. - the mainstream consumer is not interested in tons of tables and stats.....he is interested to see and feel a future world! Armoured company and High Frontier are just for RPG-freaks and they won`t help you to increase your commercial success.

With a miniatures game you will be able to make a new start....and for me, the A2089 universe is worth to make a new start. So what are my expectations for this new game:
1.) Great background - new treaties, revolutions, war....
2.) New warmeks(which will be recognized by everyone as 2089 warmeks-multi-legs w.m.multi-persons w.m.etc.), new factories (f.e. Nordic league,Russia,Korea,Israel), new weapons.....look at my posts
3.) Don`t loose yourself in complex rules - f.e. Dark Age is - for the first look an easy game, but step by step you will discouver the strategical deepness

So I hope Icould help you a little bit
Have a nice day

 

[malechi]

Dude... easy on the RPG Freaks stuff eh? Some of us like the fact that you can detail the mechs to our own liking. I'd hardly call myself a "hardcoregamer" but if there's something I can't abide its the setting creep inherant in Technical Readout Splatbooks. As for what Classic Battletech would do with Armoured Companies, thats irrelevant really. This game ISN'T CBT and never shall be. As a sometime player of CBT in the past and current player of A:2089 I can say I enjoy A:2089 so much more. What I fail to understand is why so many d20 players/fans insist on a bajillion sourcebooks to dictate their play? Isn't this a game of imagination? So the players want to feel as if they're right there in the future, what better way than to use the guidelines given and create the future for yourself. Its quite painfully obvious that the future hasn't happened yet so whatever pans out is up for creative grabs.

In addition I agree with Mongoose's decision to halt production at this point and see how things pan out. In today's d20 market it would be foolish to continue churning out books considering Armageddon:2089 hasn't really taken the mech gaming world by storm such as a game like Spycraft has. In addition Mongoose seem to be shifting gears in other areas/licenses to boot, trimming the fat can only ensure a leaner, meaner gaming company IMHO which means better d20 products for you the customer

Jason (Not a freak).

 

[LoneStranger]

Actually with the modules it helps expand the universe, besides who says gamers have all the time in the world to come up with all the fluff about a system. Also not every GM is good at coming up with a coherent background that makes sense.

 

[Draco Argentum]

We could still use a watercraft supplement.

 

[Purkle-chan]

To the RPG I want to say that your conclusions were right - this game suffered from complexity (just the RPG hardcoregamer are playing this game, because of its tons of rules and the need of two rulebooks!!! A.2089 and the D&D rulebook)

By that logic, almost every other D20 based game out there should be suffering form the same fate. Heck, D&D itself should be suffering, as the GM has to carry three books about most of the time. But this isn't the case with some systems, so it cna't be that big a factor.

Its a shame to see the game put on hold for a while, but its certainly understandable from a few points of view. Hopefully, anything that's published in future will help matters.

 

[Götterfunke]

Hi everybody!

Thank you for the answers of my post, but the question was: What do you think of the game and the setting! What will be the future of A2089 and where are the problems of A2089.

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

Hi everybody!

Thank you for the answers of my post, but the question was: What do you think of the game and the setting! What will be the future of A2089 and where are the problems of A2089.

Needs better integration between infantry and AFVs/WarMeks in the combat system. Not to make it a wargame, though certainly easy enough w/o detracting from the RPG aspect, but if the setting has a heavy emphasis on the war and combat we should have the tools for full integration of all (or most) of the aspects.

Sourcebooks covering regions would be good, perhapes on a continental basis. Maybe with a bit more discussion on regional militaries instead of the Armored Companies 'Rules of the Road' (terribly disappointing section).

 

[bubbalin]

That is pretty much it...

Woohoo, I'm prescient.

 

[August]

'Rules of the Road' was a disappointing section? Odd; that's something I recieve a lot of positive feedback on. I'm sorry you did not like it, but as far as entry-level combat tactics go, it seemed to do its job just fine.

-A

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

'Rules of the Road' was a disappointing section? Odd; that's something I recieve a lot of positive feedback on. I'm sorry you did not like it, but as far as entry-level combat tactics go, it seemed to do its job just fine.

-A

No, I was actually referring to pgs 88-92, 'The Armored World of 2089'. Instead of talking about the role and use of AFVs in those regions, most of each entry seemed more aimed at 'will the cops pull you over for driving an APC in town'. Struck me as far too much space with far too little useful info...or far too much useless info.

As for armor tactics overview,...mixed. I'm a paratrooper and light infantry type by trade, but have dealt with my armored and mechanized counterparts before and have studied some armored tactics. Some of the listed tactics would have actual tankers blanching as some like Crushing Fist and Rogue Pattern are realisticly recipes for fratricide. Also, the tactics only really talk about the three distinictions seperately and in a vacuum, not working as a combined arms unit as would be typical. Suppression Charge is an example. Indeed, it would be very dangerous and almost criminally negligent for a commander to roll APCs right into the teeth of a prepared defense. Course any mechanized infantry CO with enough sense will look to have attached MBTs along with mortars to suppress the target. But this is not mentioned and can lead to readers actually developing bad tactics.

Distinctions are also very strange. APCs for example. No mention of Infantry Fighting Vehicles and their differences from an APC. LAVs...really a seperate class, at least as referred to today. HAVs...seem to be the experiments by some nations (Israel and Russia noteably) into heavy APCs, but no mention of that historical lineage or why the trend was developed.

But I digress...this is supposed to be what gets published next. While Mr. Roberts for Rulemasters did give a somewhat fix to the omission of carried infantry on AFVs, it's still done more as a best guess. Maybe something to bridge Armored Companies with Soldier's Companion so we actually can run mechanized infantry as well as how infantry units can be properly modelled in on the WarMek/AFV -scaled battles.

 

[August]

*nods* I can certainly see how you might have those opinions. Strangely, they all worked just fine in multiple playtests, which is why they made it into the book. Maybe the tactics work all right when at the tabeltop level. Just another example of why I would never want any real life commander using tactical advice from ANY roleplaying game, much less one of ours.

As for throwing around words like useless and pointless, maybe you should attach an 'in my oinion' to the end of them to dull their points. The book has been working fine for a lot of people; I am just sorry you dislike it so greatly.

Take care,
-August

 

[Lane Shutt]

Heck, D&D itself should be suffering, as the GM has to carry three books about most of the time. But this isn't the case with some systems, so it cna't be that big a factor.

Are you kidding? most players I know show up with three books. I've seen several DMs who bring a stack of books 8-10 inches thick.

No, I was actually referring to pgs 88-92, 'The Armored World of 2089'. Instead of talking about the role and use of AFVs in those regions, most of each entry seemed more aimed at 'will the cops pull you over for driving an APC in town'. Struck me as far too much space with far too little useful info...or far too much useless info.

I liked that section. Mercenaries in 2089 are unlikely to spend weeks negotiating with countries they are operating in, unlike present national armies. Those five pages are good for several sub plots and encounters for any company that travels.

As for armor tactics overview,...mixed. ... Some of the listed tactics would have actually tankers blanching as some like Crushing Fist and Rogue Pattern are realisticly recipes for fratricide. ... can lead to readers actually developing bad tactics.

Most gamers have no military experience, they would not know good tactics from bad. Since the game master is probably using the same bad tactics it does not matter. Friendly fire is also not a problem in A:2089, not only is IFF common but few game masters will take full advantage of the fog of war.

But I digress...this is supposed to be what gets published next. While Mr. Roberts for Rulemasters did give a somewhat fix to the omission of carried infantry on AFVs, it's still done more as a best guess.

Was this posted? Must have missed it.


What does A:2089 need?

Fix some of the unrealistic mechanics. Get rid of the race car MBTs and hovering C-130 aircraft. As a play tester I'm partly to blame. I looked at technical details but overlooked the speed modifiers table since Warmeks were the focus and unaffected by the table.

The world of 2089 is a great setting, why not expand the non military aspect and bring in some concepts from OGL books. The OGL Horror book has a great idea with the Organization stats and abilities. Some groups are unlikely to play a Mek company or fighter squadron, OTOH they would jump on game where they played spies or fought against a mega corp which rivaled government authority.

Water craft would be a logical supplement.

City or regional guide books. Rather than campaign books like Kazakhstan a series depicting the physical and social character of a region.
ex. Southern England would have maps from pre separation to late 2089 showing combat zones and the devastation to the country. Major military forces, key people and what remains of the social structure would also be described. It's likely that some civilian groups are striving to resolve the fight, either influencing public opinion or undermining enemy morale.

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

No, I was actually referring to pgs 88-92, 'The Armored World of 2089'. Instead of talking about the role and use of AFVs in those regions, most of each entry seemed more aimed at 'will the cops pull you over for driving an APC in town'. Struck me as far too much space with far too little useful info...or far too much useless info.

I liked that section. Mercenaries in 2089 are unlikely to spend weeks negotiating with countries they are operating in, unlike present national armies. Those five pages are good for several sub plots and encounters for any company that travels.

It's called a Status of Forces Agreement (SOTA) and common as dirt. I'd rather know what I'd be facing as a troop in-country and not what the cops may think of an AFV out of a the blue. Any force serving in a country will already have agreements worked out or know to tell the local law to 'pound sand'. Utterly useless. Next question...

As for armor tactics overview,...mixed. ... Some of the listed tactics would have actually tankers blanching as some like Crushing Fist and Rogue Pattern are realisticly recipes for fratricide. ... can lead to readers actually developing bad tactics.

Most gamers have no military experience, they would not know good tactics from bad. Since the game master is probably using the same bad tactics it does not matter. Friendly fire is also not a problem in A:2089, not only is IFF common but few game masters will take full advantage of the fog of war.

And stated before, if you're gonna have a game that has a core focused on war, then Bloody well get it right. And woe be to any of these gamers that wanna use such tactics and get in games I or my peers are GM'ing as they'll be racking up 'Blue on Blue' casualties like no one's business if if my 27 years playing is any judge. One should, and certainly the the author at least, should be able to find a basic primer of armor tactics online.

But I digress...this is supposed to be what gets published next. While Mr. Roberts for Rulemasters did give a somewhat fix to the omission of carried infantry on AFVs, it's still done more as a best guess.

Was this posted? Must have missed it.

Not as far as I know. Just in my mailbox. Doesn't justify the oversight though. Message me if you want it. Still need to analyze it though as it seems to have been done on the fly.

What does A:2089 need?

Fix some of the unrealistic mechanics. Get rid of the race car MBTs and hovering C-130 aircraft. As a play tester I'm partly to blame. I looked at technical details but overlooked the speed modifiers table since Warmeks were the focus and unaffected by the table.

C'mon Lane. How different is this from my wanting to get the tactics and doctrine right? They are just a rationale and grounded in reality as what you are asking for above.

 

[malechi]

While I appreciate a certain level of "realism" in A:2089 or any military based game and I do also check out a little bit of real-world info on the use and formation of mixed units I'm still grounded by an often left by the wayside fact... It's a Game!

With that in mind, getting hyper-critical of the rules for not matching the near-limitless real-world applications of military hardware, scenarios, FF, early 21st century rules of engagement, tactics etc seems a little pointless to me. Sure for gun-fondlers in the real world it might give them a sense of pride to know that in their weekend game they exhibit tactics that would make their commanders proud, but for the average joe/joelle they're just happy knowing that they've managed to blow up some enemy tokomaks and come out of it with a few scratches, earnt themselves some serious Euro's and had a good time eating cheetos and drinking soda.

To answer the original post and posit some possible expansion scenarios I'm thinking firstly the mini's game (after Starship Troopers and the Fantasy mini game is produced)..after that who knows.. So far all the posited suggestions seem a little I don't know, pointless IMHO... Regional expansions? More mek manufacturers? More mek designs? More adventures?

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

While I appreciate a certain level of "realism" in A:2089 or any military based game and I do also check out a little bit of real-world info on the use and formation of mixed units I'm still grounded by an often left by the wayside fact... It's a Game!

With that in mind, getting hyper-critical of the rules for not matching the near-limitless real-world applications of military hardware, scenarios, FF, early 21st century rules of engagement, tactics etc seems a little pointless to me. Sure for gun-fondlers in the real world it might give them a sense of pride to know that in their weekend game they exhibit tactics that would make their commanders proud, but for the average joe/joelle they're just happy knowing that they've managed to blow up some enemy tokomaks and come out of it with a few scratches, earnt themselves some serious Euro's and had a good time eating cheetos and drinking soda.

To answer the original post and posit some possible expansion scenarios I'm thinking firstly the mini's game (after Starship Troopers and the Fantasy mini game is produced)..after that who knows.. So far all the posited suggestions seem a little I don't know, pointless IMHO... Regional expansions? More mek manufacturers? More mek designs? More adventures?

Don't really appreciate being called a 'gun-fondler'. I've served as a soldier for 15 years with distinction and honor and saved more lives by not shooting then pulling trigger. And done a few of the later without regret. Yes, this is open forum but you make commentary like that in public and I have to answer.

These oversights in A: 2089 Armored Companies are far from minor. As I stated before, if the game is going to focus on a military subject then there should be some obligation to get it right.

If you all want to argue over other points in a game over the nuances of illusion or chaos magic or etc., then don't raise some 'it's a game' flag over those of us who actually know about honest military doctrine. 'ell, I could have been a Hell'uva lot more critical and had your eyes bleeding,...but as you said, 'it's just a game'. These are basic issues of contention and easily addressed and not requiring the author to spend a year at Command and General Staff College.

Sorry if it goes outside your comfort zone, but tired of watching RPG'er argue over 'how many mages can dance on the head of a pin', yet when someone with real world experience, especially in military affairs, brings up a point they get the lazy, ignorant handwave of 'it's just a game'.

 

[August]

This is starting to become adversarial. Let's take it back a notch and either close this thread down to start another or get back to the topic at hand. K?

No one here is questioning your soldier's integrity or exactly what "obliged obligation" is supposed to mean, and I am sure 'gun-fondler' was not meant to disparage you. We need to keep this topic about the game and products it needs. Let's all play nice, all right?

-August

 

[malechi]

Sorry if you perceived gun fondler as offensive. Its more of a catchall phrase for professions involving firearms that tends to get thrown around here at home. No question regarding your professional integrity was ever raised in my post. As for your points, as the man says, lets stick to the topic at hand I guess. As for ignorant, lets not make too many assumptions eh? It only makes for a nice mirror effect...

any further crystal balling from the crowd here as to the future books possible?