It's all out there and despite it's age is still a better product than anything PGI has ever made.
Why encourage someone to waste $40 on shit? Just because the coat of paint on it may say "MechWarrior" doesn't mean it's worth his time.
I mean, my views on its shittiness may be colored by the low, low price I paid. *cough*
Same.
Yeah, I totally forgot about that. When I saw MW5 on sale, my first thought was - how the fuck did this come out in 2019, and I'm only JUST NOW hearing about it?!
That's an artifact of the procedural mission generation. There's only a limited amount of vehicles in that spawn pool so they don't restrict them based on the environment.
Sure, but it wouldn't have been rocket surgery to code it in a way that prevents hovercraft and VTOLs from spawning on airless maps in the first place.
Yeah, while you can run 'Mechs on airless/low-g environments it's not good because of the environmental sealing issues (among other things). IIRC, one of the tabletop books actually cautions against doing it a lot because you have to modify a number of things (like heat dissipation) and it's just a pain in the ass.
Issues of game design, I'm guessing. From what I gathered playing a bunch of instant action missions, most missions have parameters for how many "harrassment"-class vehicles to spawn. Fast, fragile units, basically. It just so happens they don't actually work in airless environments, fluff-wise. So the designers had the choice of either keeping missions consistent across environments and break physics in a way a lot of people wouldn't really notice, or risk airless missions being balanced differently (either easier due to the lack of harrassers, or harder due to having to increase the numbers of other units).
Hard disagree on that one. BT is a hard-scifi setting and VTOLs and Hovercraft zipping around in a vacuum would be a major fuckup even in a soft-scifi setting. It's not just a tiny oversight, that only a scifi nerd can spot (like the orbital mechanics in "Gravity" being off), it's something so nonsensical on such a basic level, anyone with half a brain can tell it's utter idiocy.
It's all about different priorities. It's MechWarrior, it's not the canon BattleTech, and I don't fucking care about it. I don't care that there are VTOLs and hovers in space missions because I don't want space missions at all in that game. You see my point? Either way, I guess I didn't say it's stupid. Well, it is stupid. It's a physics break and it's silly. But I was giving a likely reason why they did it, whether I approved of it or not.
You're going up against a merc unit you already beat to shit once before and in lieu of 'Mechs they bought a bunch of CV's to try and make good on losses. Radio chick even mentions as much.
I'd believe that explanation if those weren't literally just APCs. Like, they could have stayed within Quickscell's catalogue and bought more Bulldogs with the money. Even a Scorpion tank with the blistering firepower of a single AC/5 would be more useful than an APC's twin machineguns, for less than the price of three APCs.
Bulldogs aren't even in MW4. The vehicles you see in MW4 are Vedettes, Demolisher IIs, Harassers, Myrmidons and some VTOLs like Peregrines, Nightshades and Nightwinds. MW3 had Bulldogs, Strikers, Harassers, APCs and maybe some choppers.
I actually had to look it up because I distinctly remembered Bulldogs back when I was playing that game. I thought I had mistaken them for Vedettes, but apparently yes they were in the game.
