Author Topic: IS XL engine vulnerability  (Read 4014 times)

Robroy

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1064
  • Not named, but not gone. Maybe.
IS XL engine vulnerability
« on: 23 August 2017, 07:15:06 »
Is it really the problem some make it out to be? I did an experiment with MegaMek where I ran two identical mechs against each other. The only difference was the engines and speed (4/6 and 5/8) the difference in engine weight was a half ton.

 While the XL engine mech almost always died of engine destruction, the results were out of 12 matches it was 6&6.

Anyone else try this?

Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Way (Tao) to survival or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed"-Sun Tzu

"Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence"-Sun Tzu

Hptm. Streiger

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • 3d artist, spread sheet warrior, KTF
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #1 on: 23 August 2017, 07:37:24 »
in a 1o1 you might not "see" the issue.
Try a bigger battle. XL are very vulnerable when flanking - a single Clan Heavy might be able to destroy a IS Medium or even a IS Heavy when he is able to limit the damage mostly to one side.
However - in your case you did use the XL for more speed - so the vulnerability was reduced by higher to hit mods

Some Mechs like Falconer are "XL" proof when I'm allowed to use that MWO term in TT. Others like Devastator or Wardog not so much.

Just a quick test two devastator (4 -> XL but 4/6 movement and 5- STD but 3/5 movement) fighting 2 Devastator 2 - both devastator 2 were destroyed by XL destruction, while the STD fusion mech was shot to pieces but survived (the 4 generated higher to hit numbers so the MegaMek Bot didn't fire on it)





« Last Edit: 23 August 2017, 08:15:43 by Hptm. Streiger »

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #2 on: 23 August 2017, 11:09:14 »
My own personal rule of thumb is that IS XL is okay if you can get through the average center torso as quick as they get through your side torso.

There is a lot of ways to make it okay, and just as many to make it not okay. Sometimes I will do it in a not okay way on purpose, because every design needs a flaw.

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6959
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #3 on: 23 August 2017, 12:03:59 »
Deployment has a very big effect. A slow XL mech can do fine as a dedicated long-range platform, a city fighter is almost always better off with a SFE no matter how much the XLFE saves.

Another often overlooked point is that light mechs are much more likely to loose a side torso early than heavier mechs. So even if an XLFE would buy your light mech a lot of speed it might be better with a LFE.

Robroy

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1064
  • Not named, but not gone. Maybe.
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #4 on: 23 August 2017, 12:32:32 »
Thanks for the responses, gave me more to think about. I was running 70 ton mechs, I will try lance on lance in each weight class.

As far as speed difference, the heavier mechs have less modifier differences, I didn't think it would effect the results much. The lighter mechs, well I will see.

Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Way (Tao) to survival or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed"-Sun Tzu

"Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence"-Sun Tzu

garhkal

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6642
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #5 on: 23 August 2017, 15:50:03 »
Deployment has a very big effect. A slow XL mech can do fine as a dedicated long-range platform, a city fighter is almost always better off with a SFE no matter how much the XLFE saves.

Another often overlooked point is that light mechs are much more likely to loose a side torso early than heavier mechs. So even if an XLFE would buy your light mech a lot of speed it might be better with a LFE.

Very true.  An ISXL engine has major issues what with 12 slots now to crit the 3 engine hits before being shut down, vice 6 of the SFE..  So if you can get better weaponry to compensate s you can core enemies easier/faster/further out, than you would have, fuller armor or better speed, its a trade off for whether its worth it or not..  if you don't get 2 of the 3 (better weapons/more speed/better armor) out of it, imo it was a worthless trade..

It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #6 on: 23 August 2017, 16:39:11 »
Also, if in an era that has it developed, the availability of the Light engine can also put a damper on the value of an XL engine. You can often get enough of a boost from the light engine to make anything you get from an XL not worth it (not all the time though).

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13286
  • I said don't look!
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #7 on: 23 August 2017, 21:21:10 »
Another thought to consider.

Salvage.  Any engine that takes 3 hits makes the mech mounting it a mission kill.  Since the XLE and LFE put engine critical slots in the side torsos it makes it much easier to salvage a relatively intact mech where a SFE equipped mech is a lot more likely to be a shot to piece wreck before it stops.

garhkal

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6642
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #8 on: 24 August 2017, 00:20:08 »
 }:)
Also, if in an era that has it developed, the availability of the Light engine can also put a damper on the value of an XL engine. You can often get enough of a boost from the light engine to make anything you get from an XL not worth it (not all the time though).

That mostly depends on the engine rating.  A 400Light won't get you anywhere near the weight saving of an XL.  BUT a 250 comes close.
It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #9 on: 24 August 2017, 00:41:26 »
A 400Light won't get you anywhere near the weight saving of an XL.  BUT a 250 comes close.

No it won't but it will give enough of a boost in performance that the further upgrade to XL isn't worth it (in most cases). It doesn't need to get equal with it, it only needs to become dangerous enough that the XL's side torso weakness isn't worth it, and Light engines do that pretty well.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2962
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #10 on: 25 August 2017, 16:18:36 »
Cryhavoc 101 is correct about Light Fusion Engine's utility but a little pre- mature about ERA . The LFE comes ouf2ft of trying to reverse engineer Clan XL fusion engines so they become available in the 3060s the ERA you pay the least price in firepower for it is the Dark Age . I made a Dark Age Dragonfire (8F ) ? Mixed tech with a Clan Gauss Rifle , 2 ER MEDIUM lasers , an LB 10 X , and a light PPC with Angel ECM . The Clan Gauss saves 3 tons an the replacement of an ER Large laser for a light PPC saves 2 tons the replacement of 2 medium pulse lasers with ER medium lasers save another 2 tons . This allowed to upgrade the 4F model to Dark Age tech . I even had the tonnage and Critical space to install CASE II in every section that explodes. The down side with it that you have to sacrifice a med laser for a C3 slave .The common practice of stock Inner Sphere units with a single Clan tech primary weapon helps me gain tonnage . Light Engines cost less than XL engines so my Dark Age model costs less than the 3058-3062 canon models with XL engines    c
« Last Edit: 25 August 2017, 17:53:18 by Col Toda »

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5853
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #11 on: 17 September 2017, 21:49:02 »
There is a big drawback to XLs that I took into consideration when I designed a character ride (upgraded vintage Warhammer): Environments. 

As a merc, he could be expected to be fighting in water or space, and current advanced rules always had breach rolls in those environments.  Considering I was starting him out with IS L2 equipment to chose from, the IS XL was just plain out if I wanted him to keep fighting past a breach.

 
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #12 on: 18 September 2017, 14:57:48 »
I just use them on the little speedy guys that would die in one hit anyhow to make them fast enough to be unhittable. You can make a 25 tonner go 12/18.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

pheonixstorm

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5548
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #13 on: 01 October 2017, 22:37:58 »
Artillery doesn't care how fast you are. Nor do bombs or landmines.

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 622
Re: IS XL engine vulnerability
« Reply #14 on: 02 October 2017, 20:43:19 »
Artillery doesn't care how fast you are. Nor do bombs or landmines.
there is no perfect solution to everything.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.