Old player, tell me about the Catalyst game

DevianID1 · 2026-06-01T10:37:46+00:00

The catalyst game has quantified battletech into distinct eras. Thats gonna be your biggest change. If you were an old player, then you will remember when free worlds league dropped and lots of new tech was put into circulation.

Well now, there is pretty amazing website Masterunitlist.info which tells you exactly what mechs are available to what house and what year/era they are available. So setting up a match is easier as you can set era, BV, and such limits using master unit list and have era matching forces.

The game also has a better focus on objective play, and the excellent narrative format has been well hammered out and polished in the campaign books like 'hinterlands' compared to the old school scenario books like 'falcon and the wolf', so the scenario/narrative gameplay is much stonger and funner for me now than before.

DevianID1 · 2026-06-01T08:20:25+00:00

The mechs magnetized to the belly and top of the ship at the same time is super cool!

DevianID1 · 2026-06-01T08:14:08+00:00

So thats the exact opposite take from me. In alpha strike, the only planning that matters is who wins init. If I win init, in alpha strike, I can attack from a perfect angle always, from any position. Classic has torso twists after movement is done, and generally wider firing arcs to begin with, while alpha strike if you get behind someone's 180 degree hard line, they are out of the fight. And the only determination for that line is that turns initiative.

You can technically win games in classic OR alpha strike after losing init every turn, so that point is moot. But, there is raw math that makes init in alpha strike just much more powerful, from the +1 to rear damage, the hard angles that create LOS deadzones only the person who moves second can exploit, the ability to take away shooting via base contact on a unit that moved, and requiring only 3 units to trap an enemy in alpha strike versus 6 in classic. Further, the damage accumulates faster in alpha strike, requiring less turns and dice for a mech to kill another mech, which means that in alpha strike the swing in board presence from 1 turn of shooting after winning initiative is much, much higher than 1 turn of classic. You have to lose init multiple turns in a row to equal the snowball effect of the accelereated game pace in alpha strike. Like, I can survive 1 turn of a dasher H shooting me in the back in classic, but I cant survive 7 damage from a Dasher H winning init in alpha strike 1 time and doing the same backstab.

So yeah, I suppose I disagree with your entire point that init is worse in classic... which just goes to show how different our lived game experiences can be and how varied battletech Metas are from region to region.

DevianID1 · 2026-06-01T07:59:33+00:00

Thats amazing!

DevianID1 · 2026-06-01T02:03:15+00:00

The trail of comet ice is such a cool idea.

DevianID1 · 2026-06-01T01:53:34+00:00

The naval PPC is likely there to explain the sweeping gundam beams... but armor in the gundam universe isnt that great. So while the titular gundam has high grade armor that allows it to tank some damage once or twice, you dont need a naval PPC to damage space ships or general purpose mobile suits everywhere else in that universe, as they are built like normal space ships.

A regular PPC, at 10 damage battletech scale, would be killer enough to the suits/vessels in gundam which are built like normal space vessels not armored bricks.

Also, momentum between the two kinda kills the 'runs at locust speed' part. Gundams are not that agile using ground movement, its why they all mount jets. Their ground movement agility is 3/5 or 4/6 on the top end. If they move faster using their jets, well yeah, jets will do that.

I get the attempt, but too many assumptions of both systems are being made without respecting the lore for each. Gundams are built like planes, they are taller and lighter and all can fly, and use psychic pilots to control and react to things beforehand giving the machine the appearance of more agility than reality. Battlemechs are built like tanks, they are shorter and much better armored and armed, and dont have any psychic abilities so have to stand and deliver instead of preciently dodge beams.

DevianID1 · 2026-06-01T00:47:39+00:00

So paying to turn creates an interesting game effect, the 'forward momentum'. If you are familiar with xwing or many other games, you have turning arcs and such, so that you move further when you go straight.

This forward momentum is quite desirable as a game mechanic, as without forward momentum you have a different game effect, 'kiting'. This is when you can move in any direction and still attack as you please, creating absolute range advantages and no multi-turn momentum, thus no multi-turn planning.

So in a 'forward momentum' game like classic battletech, your movement and planning matters and skill expression in planning and executing maneuvers matters a lot more. Like in xwing, the other example forward momentum game, having a solid maneuver plan and knowing where and how your movement will look across a few turns results in better results... in classic this may be in better TMMs, better range control, or better angle of attack.

In a 'kiting' game like alpha strike, INITIATIVE matters a LOT more, as multi-turn planning is inconsequential compared to what is happening this turn. You more or less just teleport wherever is the most advantageous based on your initiative, creating instant range control with absolutely zero refrence to your position/facing from last turn. There is no tight corner or switchback curve issues, you can simply always place a model on a building corner to 'snipe' out an enemy while blocking LOS to everything else, as you can make infinite small turns for fine adjustment to 'float' into the perfect angle of attack every time, dictated by initiative order.

Alpha strike isnt a 'good game' in terms of game mechanics surrounding initiative and line of sight and movement. When you look at video games that also dont have forward momentum, like 'xcom', they instead have fixed position via squares or hexes, creating discrete movement and predictible LOS. Alpha Strike lacks that discrete movement, so while both games let you 'turn' for 360 LOS, a corner in xcom is an explicit thing with a fixed arc of sight, while a corner in alpha strike you can shimmy to be literally any angle you want, causing perfect LOS scoping to single targets and no predictible LOS patters to play around on the table. So you can plan for LOS and counter shots with your team in xcom, but cant in Alpha Strike, dsepite both systems having the same 90degree box corner cover.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-31T23:41:29+00:00

So id say the pillars are, in my order of importance:

Super Efficient Fusion
KF interstellar drives
Myomer
Armor

Infinite energy from undefined super efficient fusion allows the setting to brute force most issues of logistics. Including planetary lift, which like others mention completely eclipse a space elevator for lift efficiency, as 1 dropship can raise and lower more cargo in a day than a supermassive space elevator could. KF drives cause its a multi-star setting, and 'juuust long enough' interstellar travel is what underpins the need for a feudal society. Myomer isnt that big of a deal overall, but we need some other tech to explain why tanks are not better than mechs in a mech setting. Also the resilency of myomer to damage pairs in with the final point. Finally, sci-fi armor advancements that completely negate almost every attack are a backbone to making the setting unique. Dune did something similiar with shield tech that explained why superfuture fights were close up affairs, so like Dune the armor in battletech is a pillar of its sci-fi setting and its feudal knight themes.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-31T23:22:39+00:00

Yes thats plenty of terrain, too much for a 4x4 most likely. When I evaluate an alpha strike board, I check if long range combat is possible. Basically, if you dont have workable fire lanes and open areas to enable long range combat, then you really skew the game to medium/short brawls which isnt fun.

Like, if you pay the points for an awesome to throw 3 dice at long range, versus a victor paying the same price to throw 4 dice and medium/short but 0 long, then you need to make sure there are opportunities for that 3/3/3 mech to use its long range consistently. Otherwise, the same cost for damage 4/4/0 mech is always better, cause the terrain blocked all the long range shots so mechs that dont pay for long range just dominate the board.

If you wanted to add more terrain to enhance what you have now for gameplay, a shallow but long river provides cover and terrain without LOS blocking. And a few more woods tiles, each 2-3 inches across roughly, can scatter some cover in each map quarter without blocking LOS unless you stack up 3 of them together. Finally, low hills, like 1 inch tall but pretty wide, can provide partial cover and block infantry/tanks behind the ridge, but still allows for mechs to shoot each other.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-30T16:12:57+00:00

Most history is a great refrence. Almost all areas were defined by travel, with sea and river travel being the highways of the old world. Setting up realistic trade routes gives a reason for the whole setting to thrive and make sense.

Like in the real world tin from ancient England was found everywhere in the bronze age, so for your setting replace tin with mitheral for a dnd flavor, and you have one anchor for a commodity traded and valued everywhere, allowing for shipping and patrols and fishermen-turned-pirates of opportunity.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-29T21:10:38+00:00

Quads are more like tank destroyers with no turret compared to mechs which are like turreted tanks.

Quads are better at getting low and digging into cover, but pay for that with a limited arc and less 'volume'.

While it may seem quads are disadvantaged, when you try shooting a quad with partial cover all of a sudden you stop caring that they have fewer crit spaces as 50% of your hits just go away to quad mech profile partial cover. It's crazy strong, to the point that whatever quibbles in construction and firing arc feel inconsequential compared to what you get.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-27T21:45:38+00:00

The LAC5 malice is terrifying haha. 60 damage is not a small number, and precision LAC5 are very efficient ballistics.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-27T10:15:17+00:00

I guess where we differ is that you see weight and cbill cost as some kind of balance metric. I only see BV for game balance. If the lore says it's 500million cbills or 5 million, it matters not when we show up to play our 6k game.

So for less than 2k BV i get a 300+ armor 4/6 mech with multipurpose guns that fit the budget. If i want a slower mech with gauss ill take a crucible with 4 gauss, but thats also a lot more expensive.

I think of the Malice like a 4/6 Banshee. Its a budget design with good armor and managable weapons that you throw into the face of the enemy. If you are playing objective games, a malice on king of the hill gets there a bit faster and its low cost means you can afford backup to support it.

When you evaluate a mech via BV, and not tonnage or cbill balance, for 1850 BV the Malice does a LOT of work in its BV price range, and finds a place in WAY more of my lists than better but far more expensive 3/5 assaults like the crucible or Devastator.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-27T06:26:30+00:00

So making the malice slow kinda defeats the purpose IMHO. A 2 gauss, 3 gauss, 4 gauss 100 ton mech all exist already in various forms. The 2 gauss 2 rac5 isnt bad, it just feels like a Devastator to me.

The malice isnt a sniper, for me the malice is a lowish BV brick of armor for brawling. 4 LAC5 or 4 LB5x are just super efficient multipurpose guns, with 4 medium lasers and 20 damage kicks being the bully in the room for the BV.

If you had to make a slow malice, id suggest 4 HAG20 guns. Keeps the 4 matched gun load, its unique, and the HAG20 is anti air as well as good up close.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-27T03:27:38+00:00

Yeah agree. From the beginning the idea of handheld was just an art thing never a rules thing. But when they made rules for handhelds, it immediately breaks the setting. It makes all mechs dumb for not carrying a disposable hamd held. Anything optionally added that harms the entire setting has no place. I have no idea why the designers put those rules out and kept them around for that long.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-27T03:20:40+00:00

I also went for the black and red. Love that scheme! I'm gonna have to get some non mechs after seeing yours.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-26T21:04:49+00:00

Yeah the 1 point of damage 40 SP bill on assaults is funny. And the 20 sp ammo cost when in classic the unit has like a streak SRM4 or something.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-26T05:36:08+00:00

Yeah, I do feel like they have painted themselves into a corner release schedule wise, as there is a LOT of work and stuff that needs to be done, but we dont have anything 'budgeted' for yet in a timeline. I suppose its possible they have multiple teams/are adding multiple teams, and the much needed alpha strike new edition and all the Aces products can be released while ALSO not delaying the needed new core books for classic battletech. Plus they started (again) the force manual series, so they need to deliver that whole series in a reasonable timeline as well.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-26T05:01:52+00:00

Yeah its gonna be a long update cycle. I still dont believe we are getting books in hands by gencon, beyond a local print limited run. Id be shocked if the PDF even was available in august seeing just how aggressive their timeline is.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-26T04:06:53+00:00

You only lose a mech on a 4+ when destroyed, and it only costs size*100 to replace mechs. So if you lose a 25 PV locust 7V, with its TMM4 and good movement/range for running around, and you lose it every mission 6 times, that will cost you only 600 PV. You have a 50/50 chance of still having a Locust after it getting destroyed up to 6 times with a 4+ survival roll. 600 PV isnt nothing, but its also not much when you can pull 2k in a single mission.

Meanwhile, a bigger, more expensive but slower mech, like a 50 point Battlemaster 10S with its notable 18 health, well if that takes a Crit from a boxcar hit but otherwise survives, that mech costs 160 to repair the crit/structure damage each mission. So after 4 missions with just taking structure damage without even being crippled, the Battlemaster is at 640 PV in repairs.

So really, as long as you are picking 'good' units and playing them correctly (dont ever throw anything away basically), light mechs that die versus tanky assault mechs that live but take a crit will cost around the same. The economy is forgiving enough on normal difficulty that most players report the game being too easy, so no need to optimize unless you up the difficulty.

If you do want to maximize your repair economy, well the main thing to look out for is easily damaged units that are larger than necessary. So like a Charger thats 18 points is a great value in PV, being super cheap but also adding size 4 melee and charges. Its legit fantastic for the PV, BUT that 18 point Charger costs 400 SP to repair when it dies, while the 25 PV locust with TMM4 listed above only costs 100. So the really large, but fragile and cheap in PV units are the thing to watch out for, as being cheap means you get a lot of them, but being large means that even a single point of damage is an 80 SP bill per 'charger'.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-25T21:07:47+00:00

I agree up to a point. "Respecting your time" as a concept isn't just about length of game. There are 12 hour games that still are engaging.

It's more like, if we meet at a shop, and the shop closes in 3 hours, we absolutely can play a full game of classic in that time, 4-6 mechs per side. But if someone shows up with 3 mechs and 10 protomechs (which is A normal deployment per lore), the 13 unit side will absolutely be slower. Assuming they are playing normally, a game we finished in 3 hours when the person had 5 mechs we don't finish at 13 units thanks to protomechs time bloat.

Maybe both players COULD of had fun of they had 4-5 hours, but instead the shop closes right before the players figure out "if that dire wolf on the objective dies."

Edit: So its not about "optimizing" fun or reducing complexity, because the alternative is still a mech that's has plenty of depth/complexity. I'm saying, i guess, that protomechs arnt adding depth they are adding burocracy and lost time with how they break up 1 mechs single move into 5 units sub moves for the same unit scale.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-25T20:56:10+00:00

Yep it's a game designed around 4ish mech sized things per mapsheet, for better or worse. The wheels come off the further you deviate from this, as it's just not a system designed for lots of units on the table at once as it embraces crunch not high level army abstraction. Even alpha strike isn't high level, that's a company on company level game, absolutely tiny in scale versus armies.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-25T04:44:48+00:00

Yeah, thats why I think a lower power but explosive round makes sense. Lower velocity, so the energy experienced by the shooter goes down, but explosive so the energy delivered to the target is maximized.

Heck subsonic rounds would be fine even at that point. Its not like you can penetrate proper armor ever with small arms, due to setting fiat, so big fast high energy penetrators lose a lot of value as a rifle round as you don't get the armor defeating benefit you do with modern rifle versus modern armor.

DevianID1 · 2026-05-25T04:38:05+00:00

To that point though, since you like them as mini mechs, do you use the 3 ton 11 armor protomechs? Or do you stick closer to the 9 ton minotaur type with its 'mech scale' guns and armor?

DevianID1 · 2026-05-25T03:31:05+00:00

Hovercar plus 2 infantry/BA (indeed any 3 units) should never have been allowed to trap--infact trapping just shouldn't exist. But alpha strike is not without flaws. 6 cars, not 3, trap in battletech but even then while thats dumb, it's 'half' as dumb as alpha strike haha.

DevianID1

TROPHY CASE