Register Register

Author Topic: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?  (Read 1875 times)

Reaved

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« on: 28 July 2021, 17:03:28 »
Pretty much what the title says. Are the benefits to weapon arc, the extra location, etc worth the cost in tonnage to fit and adequately protect a turret? Or can a tank with exclusively hull mounted weaponry achieve the same or more as its turreted competition?

AlphaMirage

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1607
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #1 on: 28 July 2021, 17:14:49 »
Depends on role. A more dynamic tank meant to engage foes on the move requires a turret to keep their guns on target. Fire support or defensive ones can mount their weapons in front without to much consequence.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #2 on: 28 July 2021, 18:00:50 »
Yeah it totally depends on the role and position. For example, non-trailer artillery enjoy really no advantage for having an artillery on the turret.

But it is sure that frontline units are always have the benefit for having a turret, unless it have no weapon at all. It can be a trade off for fire support units for they may forgo turret for having more weaponry, but even for them having a turret gives the better angle and it allows them to react against more situations, or even allow to shoot without to-hit penalty for move.

Also, for the line units, turret is a must. Unless it is purely designed for the transport and have no weapons at all, or you are the weird guy and crazy enough to use the vehicular jump jet - in this case, it does't really needs for a turret same as mechs with jump jets and you better put all the weapons on your front.

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9967
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #3 on: 28 July 2021, 18:02:35 »
LRM Carrier = YES

SRM Carrier = No  (At least not for long)

The ability to flip turret to ANY facing makes backstabbers VERY cautious to get inside weapons if they are smart.

Myself, I might not stick LRM racks in the turret on some customs, or, small lasers/MGs designed for point defense around the hull from swarms or crit soaking, but, your typical Beamers, Cannons, & SRMs are all good for the turret.


3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Sartris

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15339
  • Semi-Sentient MUL Roomba
    • Master Unit List
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #4 on: 28 July 2021, 18:11:28 »
I’ve never been in a game and thought to myself “man this tank would be so much better without a turret.” Conversely I always want one where it isn’t when I lose initiative and take a bunch of unanswered motive hits

Game size has a lot to do with it too. If you’re only putting down 6-12 units per side, you don’t have the numbers to plan for defense in depth and overlapping fields of fire.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #5 on: 28 July 2021, 18:16:27 »
Also note that, while +10% weight is quite annoying to pay, but its overall weight is not so noticeable. For example, most ground armors are doesn't have more than 20 tons worth of weapons, and it only costs full 2 tons if you put them on a turret. But on a turret or not TOTALLY changes the performance. So unless you try a houserule, generally does not have a turret is simply making an inferior version and it is not worth to consider unless it's an artillery.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #6 on: 28 July 2021, 18:25:36 »
By the way, will we get a reaction this time? Or it is simply wasted as it were?

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21113
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #7 on: 28 July 2021, 18:28:05 »
Don't forget the ton or two (or more) of armor you need to add...

Sartris

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15339
  • Semi-Sentient MUL Roomba
    • Master Unit List
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #8 on: 28 July 2021, 18:47:09 »
If I lost more tanks to breached armor I’d take that into consideration. Usually they either get bricked first or are too light for the moved armor to matter much

garhkal

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5608
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #9 on: 29 July 2021, 01:18:24 »
Depends on role. A more dynamic tank meant to engage foes on the move requires a turret to keep their guns on target. Fire support or defensive ones can mount their weapons in front without to much consequence.

It also depends on range.  The further away you keep your vehicle, the easier it becomes to keep enemies in your 'front arc', where as the closer you get, the harder that becomes, to where turrets are beneficial..

ADD in motive crits taking our your wheels/tracks/hover skirt, and you NEED that turret then, to not be more than a sitting pillbox..

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.

DevianID

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 452
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #10 on: 29 July 2021, 02:49:55 »
So there are many circumstances that impact the value of a turret.  If you play by forced withdrawal rules, an immobilized tank is destroyed, which reduces the value of a turret because you can never afford to show side/rear armor on any heavy tank, lowering the value of 360 firing weapons.  If you play with ammo explosions causing aoe damage (a favorite tac ops rule of mine) then turrets have an ammo crit, lowering the value of turret tanks in dense formations.

Fast tanks tend to have the mobility to turn to face enemies, so they get less use of a turret than slow tanks; if your tanks fight to the death when immobilized (no forced withdrawal rules) you want a turret.

Reaved

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #11 on: 29 July 2021, 08:31:59 »
By the way, will we get a reaction this time? Or it is simply wasted as it were?
Hi PLLP! I always read the replies with avid interest as the community always does a great job of discussing the topic and raising interesting points. Sadly, as I don't play very much I don't feel confident in voicing my opinion. Or, rather, I feel very confident that my opinion is often under-informed!  ;D

I will raise one thing in relation to the topic though. I'm a keen reader of all of the '...of the Week' articles (a big thank you to everyone who has contributed to those) and it was one of those that started me thinking about this topic. One of the posters raised the point that, with tank criticals being what they are, they always tried to keep the front facing...well, facing front. If that approach rings true (that a side-on tank is a tank in trouble), does that change people's opinion about hull-mounted weaponry?

Is pillboxing inevitable? Is it best to plan for being pillboxed? What does that say about investment in mobility?

And, a final question, does adding a location and spreading the same quantity of armour more thinly, add (more locations to spread damage around) or subtract (thinner armour) from the survival of a tank?

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9967
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #12 on: 29 July 2021, 09:32:05 »
I will raise one thing in relation to the topic though. I'm a keen reader of all of the '...of the Week' articles (a big thank you to everyone who has contributed to those) and it was one of those that started me thinking about this topic. One of the posters raised the point that, with tank criticals being what they are, they always tried to keep the front facing...well, facing front. If that approach rings true (that a side-on tank is a tank in trouble), does that change people's opinion about hull-mounted weaponry?

Is pillboxing inevitable? Is it best to plan for being pillboxed? What does that say about investment in mobility?

And, a final question, does adding a location and spreading the same quantity of armour more thinly, add (more locations to spread damage around) or subtract (thinner armour) from the survival of a tank?

Hull Weapons are generally best used in 2 ways.
A - Long Range guns facing Front.   Easier to keep the LRMs facing the target v/s when they are in MG Range.
B - Side/Rear weapons are for CLOSE range targets & soaking crits.  SL's & MG's mostly to deal w/ a mech trying to jump behind for the Kick or infantry popping out of buildings.  And a SL is a small price to pay to keep a crit from floating down to something nastier.

Played smart, vehicles can avoid pillboxing for your typical game length. 
You just can't run them up into melee with a bunch of mechs.
Keep them at range  (LRM Carriers)  or have them hide most the time & only come out for speedy back shots from semi concealed positions (Fast Hovers)

Location v/s thickness is, IMHO, a wash, or close to it.
You add 3? locations to the to hit table so that is like 17% less shots the location will take.
In turn your adding a 5th Location so its 25% Less Armor in that location  (On Average)
Its not perfectly even but its close enough to be mostly a wash & the tactical use of a turret when the enemy DOES close just can't be ignored.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2546
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #13 on: 29 July 2021, 09:36:48 »
I tend to use fast tanks with TAG and or Recon Cameras so a Turret is value added . Generally anthing 30 + tons ir is not a bad idea . Anyrhing less tonnage adding a location may not work to your advantage armorwise.

Combat vehicles are attrition units fast hover particularly.  Pegasus Scouts  are real tough to use correctly if the enemy formation lends itself to it's configuration at all.

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9967
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #14 on: 29 July 2021, 09:44:11 »
I thought I'd add this list of GOOD v/s BAD ways to use turret weapons or NOT use them.......opinions my vary.
Using TRO3039 from memory.
Check them out to get ideas.


GOOD
Behemoth
Demolisher
VonLuckner
LRM Carrier
Maxim
Drillson
Hunter
J.Edgar
Savannah Master


BAD
SRM Carrier
Manticore
Hetzer
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Sartris

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15339
  • Semi-Sentient MUL Roomba
    • Master Unit List
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #15 on: 29 July 2021, 09:58:05 »
Pillboxing is just part of playing with vehicles. trying to get too cute with avoiding fire stands a good chance of being ineffective from missing a ton of shots. keeping your TMMs up helps, but remember that a side motive hit on a hovercraft is +5 - you're parking on 7s. Some vehicles have the range to play that game like Alacorns but a lot of tanks are designed to get in there like pattons, rommels, and von luckners. Even something like a Glory or Manteuffel Prime is going to have to get within ten hexes to be effective. A smart opponent will try to park your deadliest vehicles and move the fight out of their range or line of sight.

Also keep in mind that the fight will quickly come to you. Vehicles require +2 MP to change levels so even a decent number of small hills will greatly restrict your mobility. You might plan to keep range but the things you're shooting at may get other ideas. being able to move at max speed and keep your guns on target is no small thing when forced to reposition.

Getting immobilized isn't a guarantee but it's easy enough to do where you have to gameplan for the possibility. And it's not binary - you can simply get slowed down enough to become a big, glowing target.

B - Side/Rear weapons are for CLOSE range targets & soaking crits.  SL's & MG's mostly to deal w/ a mech trying to jump behind for the Kick or infantry popping out of buildings.  And a SL is a small price to pay to keep a crit from floating down to something nastier.

Crew stunned on loop

I tend to use fast tanks with TAG and or Recon Cameras so a Turret is value added

Remember that TAG happens before torso twist / turret rotation so unless you had your turret pointed that way already you can't use this to your advantage.

SRM Carrier

No turret. The light SRM carrier has one but not the OG

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21113
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #16 on: 29 July 2021, 16:34:03 »
You're absolutely right about TAG, but I think Recon Cameras do their thing during weapons fire phase.

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9967
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #17 on: 30 July 2021, 01:30:27 »
No turret. The light SRM carrier has one but not the OG 

Correct, you'll notice its in the BAD column for NOT having one.   Same as the Hetzer.

As I said above, these are GOOD/BAD examples of how to build or NOT build w/ Turrets.

For Example:
SRM & Hetzer really needed a Turret to be better at their Jobs.
Manticore has one but did it kind of badly in the LRM v/s ML placement locations.
Savannah Master has no turret but is listed in the GOOD list because its Fast as hell & can keep its nose on target & using up 1/2 ton would be VERY bad for its already limited armor.

Behemoth is one of the finest examples of how to build something with weapons In/Out of a Turret.
AC10s & SRM6s in the turret to hunt anything that gets close with enough firepower to kill it.
LRMs in the front to lob at far targets & SRM2's & MGs scattered all over the hull to help against swarms & soak crits.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #18 on: 30 July 2021, 02:16:20 »
Hi PLLP! I always read the replies with avid interest as the community always does a great job of discussing the topic and raising interesting points. Sadly, as I don't play very much I don't feel confident in voicing my opinion. Or, rather, I feel very confident that my opinion is often under-informed!  ;D

I will raise one thing in relation to the topic though. I'm a keen reader of all of the '...of the Week' articles (a big thank you to everyone who has contributed to those) and it was one of those that started me thinking about this topic. One of the posters raised the point that, with tank criticals being what they are, they always tried to keep the front facing...well, facing front. If that approach rings true (that a side-on tank is a tank in trouble), does that change people's opinion about hull-mounted weaponry?

Is pillboxing inevitable? Is it best to plan for being pillboxed? What does that say about investment in mobility?

And, a final question, does adding a location and spreading the same quantity of armour more thinly, add (more locations to spread damage around) or subtract (thinner armour) from the survival of a tank?

Oh, then it was actually worth enough!

As the other already pointed out, if you want to have a fire support tank it is fine to not have a turret - it can have most targets without turn much. And you will expect that it's not so good at tanking in the line either.

Also, you need to consider that front is expected to be most well guarded location for tanks are advance toward. So whatever it has a turret or not, front side is the toughest section of a tank after all.

Since tank is susceptible for motive damage, I have seen many advices that make the tanks too durable end up with got stuck before it is blown off. But it depend on the style - if the vehicle is not expected to survive for few turns anyways, then it is not that required to worry about that. But if it is a 100 tons tracked vehicle that is plated with 19 tons of heavy ferro-fibrous armor, you must be miss a turret for it is unlikely that it would be dead too fast or before lost its track.

Spread the armor is also depend on the situation. If your total armor points is too low, you better put most armors on a location(usually front) for you may survive if it hits a location, or you will be dead anyways. For moderated or well protected vehicles, you can leave the rear weak(for if you point your front you are unlikely to expose your back, although you need at least some degree of protection for possible ambushers or backstabbers) but spread the armor through the every other locations is not a bad idea because losing ANY location destroys the tank outright unlike the mech. Some mechs can forgo the protection for the arms and still functional, but losing a side means your tank is just dead. Still, you better put slightly more armors on the front for it has the highest chance to be struck.


I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8462
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #19 on: 01 August 2021, 20:20:09 »
It's more armor and another hit location to spread out the damage.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

500 is the number of Warships Now. 500 looks like it will stay for a long time.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #20 on: 01 August 2021, 22:30:12 »
Well, was more locations gives more free armor points? I remember that it's all the same. Although if you have enough armor point to make sure that each locations are not breached by a single hit, you better have more locations for it will make you survive longer.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6158
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #21 on: 01 August 2021, 23:09:15 »
Pretty much what the title says. Are the benefits to weapon arc, the extra location, etc worth the cost in tonnage to fit and adequately protect a turret? Or can a tank with exclusively hull mounted weaponry achieve the same or more as its turreted competition?
that's a big, wide, general category.  Sometimes it's not worth it, sometimes it is.  IN more general terms, the slower your tank goes, the more valuable a turret is.

But it's a relative value.  The rules heavily favor pillboxing your tanks as an active strategy.  Roll up, park, and let the motive systems take most of your damage because your armor is heavier and the criticals will definitely favor hits to motive systems-but this doesn't work very well on most vehicles over about a 3/5 move, and doesn't work at all for anything built on a hover chassis or with speed as a key element of the design.

Since the term 'tank' reaches all the way from 200 ton superheavies down to 5 ton hovers, one size doesn't fit all situations or designs.  There are few who'd say, for example, that a Savannahmaster is an ineffective platform, but by the same token, there are a lot of people who swear by units like the Behemoth or Alacorn or Mars, vehicles that really demonstrate how to optimize a pillboxing strategy with vehicles.

Notably, the optimum pillbox vehicles tend to have turrets.

when you get into the true mid-range (Po, Manticore, Rommel/Patton and so on) pillboxing is still a very effective STRATEGY for using that kind of tank, but it won't work well with things like Hetzers, Saladins, or anything lightweight.  In that 'gray area' between the heaviest and the lightest, you have to rely on what the 'graces' are for a given vehicle-what it's made to do.

and in some cases, 'fixed forward and moving' is perfectly okay-but not great.

Typically, fire-support designs intended to park can be either turreted or not, but the turrets DO provide a benefit-because when you pillbox, you're not going to be making facing changes or climbing hills after you've parked, and if you're using hull-down, a turret's easier to do it with, giving you a wider field of fire (at least, until they crit the turret ring and lock you.)

so it largely depends on what you're using vehicles for, what they're built to be used for, and what your strategy is.

moment of game history now;  Back before Total Warfare, during the BMR days, pillboxing was a suicidal strategy because anything that could hit you with an inferno could kill your tank, and there were a lot fewer rolls between the firing of an enemy weapon, and some form of 'your tank is destroyed'.

At that time, the Assault tanks like the Alacorn, Behemoth, Von Luckner and so on were overvalued suicide machines that couldn't match a TMM with their own gunnery very well (flank for 2 penalty, moved only 1 defense modifier)  This made using those vehicles less effective than using tanks that could match their TMM at cruise with a cruising gunnery-and if you wanted to use mainly vehicles, you learned to keep your units in motion because being easy to  hit meant being easy to kill.

AFTER the publication of Total Warfare, Pillboxing became a viable option, and with it, most of your assault class tanks were no longer hyperexpensive (in BV) white-elephants...provided you're willing to embrace pillboxing as a strategy.  They're not intended to keep advancing or moving, they're intended to be parked, and left in place.
« Last Edit: 01 August 2021, 23:15:19 by Cannonshop »
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9967
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #22 on: 02 August 2021, 13:43:35 »
most of your assault class tanks were no longer hyperexpensive (in BV) white-elephants...
While I agree with 90% of your post, this line here I feel the need to dispute a bit.    ;)

IIRC the BV1 & BV2 of Assault Tanks went UP by a LOT.

The above mentioned Alacorn is a good example I think where I used to be able to field about 2 of them v/s 1 ThunderHawk but now its more like 4v3 in terms of BV, IIRC.   (I don't have it w/ me but vaguely I recall it going from like 1300 to 1900?)

So that survivability & pillboxing strategy does cost you a bit more BV now.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Sartris

  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15339
  • Semi-Sentient MUL Roomba
    • Master Unit List
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #23 on: 02 August 2021, 13:47:55 »
Yup. I really started playing combined arms right before BV2 came into force. Had to make big adjustments to overall strategy. I remember running the numbers and the average mech went up something like 15-18% while many tanks saw a much bigger jump

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6108
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #24 on: 02 August 2021, 17:19:54 »

I think that not using a turret is a weight saving measure with a big tactical cost.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Fan XTRO: The Society

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21113
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #25 on: 02 August 2021, 17:34:28 »
As others have said, the tactical cost varies depending on tonnage, motive type, and intended mission.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #26 on: 02 August 2021, 18:50:34 »
Also the weight saving doesn't gives you much weight actually, unless what you want is something like Di Morgan Gauss variant(4.5 tons for put three gauss rifles on a turret). For the very light vehicle even a full ton may counts, but such light vehicles are tend to be move fast(thus need for a turret) or got dead so quickly, or both.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6158
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #27 on: 02 August 2021, 21:18:49 »
While I agree with 90% of your post, this line here I feel the need to dispute a bit.    ;)

IIRC the BV1 & BV2 of Assault Tanks went UP by a LOT.

The above mentioned Alacorn is a good example I think where I used to be able to field about 2 of them v/s 1 ThunderHawk but now its more like 4v3 in terms of BV, IIRC.   (I don't have it w/ me but vaguely I recall it going from like 1300 to 1900?)

So that survivability & pillboxing strategy does cost you a bit more BV now.

The difference is that pre TW/BV2, those designs (Alacorn, etc.) were highly vulnerable to units of far lower weight and bv-anything with an SRM rack could and most often did kill them in one or two turns.  (a Bug Mech with an SRM-2 could kill one easily while being very difficult to hit, an H-7 of the very-very-stock variety was a threat to a whole lance, little hovertanks with an sRM could render them scrap in a single round without beating through the armor or even hitting a crit and so on.)  This made them extremely over valued under the old system-they weren't good for offense and weren't going to last long on defense.

NOW, those assault tanks are STILL not good on offense, but they don't have to be-they've got a defensive role that makes them often MORE of a threat than an equivalent 'mech-provided you park and don't move again, since assault tanks don't have that 'fifteen points here and you're dead' problem with headshots, and the insta-kill crit location is buried under a swamp of 'motive crit', so they have a specific advantage there (even with a turret, you're still laying fewer locations for the same armor weight) since an opponent has to batter THROUGH that armor weight to get a kill on a stationary tank.

This makes the BV2 a lot more accurate-in conditions where assault tanks are actually useful, which is not in the assault, so much as in repelling the assault and fighting from a static position.

Thus, going from an exercise in wasting c-bills/BV trying to match the 'bigger is necessarily better' mentality of many 'mech players under BMR and BV1, to having a role they excel at and are able to pose a significant threat in with BV2 and TW.

At the time, I didn't agree with this decision, but with time it's become far less of an argument, as the old tactics with less weighty and expensive designs still work, it's just that now those units have a functional role they're good for, where they didn't have a true role prior (at least, against half-awake players they didn't.)

The BV jump, in other words, is justified in the case of your 2/3 and 3/5 weight tanks, which is a net positive, since that's what the developers like to design for heavy tanks.

In the OLD paradigm, 4/6 was about as slow as you could go and still have something marginally useful, under the TW/BV2 paradigm, that drops to 'it doesn't even need to move'.  The BV increase therefore makes loads of sense, see?
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2341
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #28 on: 03 August 2021, 09:56:06 »
The movement of Assault-class tanks is now mainly used for getting the tank into position in the first place.  After that, it can sit there all game.  The opposing side can attempt to prevent it from ever reaching that position, however, using fast hovers with a ship-load of SRMs to "park" the monster somewhere it doesn't have a clear line of sight or is otherwise useless.  I'll gladly risk a Harasser, Pegasus, or J.Edgar to immobilize a Shrek, Burke, or Alacorn near the far edge of the map or in a gulley somewhere.

Once immobilized, you can clear out its supporting team members, then send a fast unit to race up at high TMMs, stand on the turret, and just keep stomping until it's dead.  If it's a Hetzer or SRM Carrier, I'll use that fast hover to flank it, immobilize it, and run away, allowing any unit to approach from outside its weapon arc and kill it with impunity.
« Last Edit: 03 August 2021, 10:00:55 by Kovax »

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 23534
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Is the benefit of a turret on a tank worth the cost?
« Reply #29 on: 03 August 2021, 13:49:21 »
Yes
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

 

Register