All Big Gun Battlemech

[Challenger]

Question: Is the 'typical' secondary battery of medium lasers and SRMs etc carried by 'most' battlemechs actually useful, or should that weight be thrown into more long range, big hitting weaponry?


The all big gun battlemech is far from a new concept, there are more than a few in service (Awesome, Devastator, Enforcer, Hollander, Novacat Prime/Alpha...) mechs that rely primarily on a 'few' large guns to get the job done. But, I've always found them to underperform in lance on lance games. Inevitable the range shrinks and the fight is decided at close range where these mechs do not excel. 

IMHO, the majority of mechs belong to a different school of thought with a number of 'main weapons' backed up by a 'secondary battery' of short range weaponry. These are usually my go to mechs as they can fight effectively at most ranges and 'look after themselves' if deployed as singletons or pairs. For a long time I have held that this is the 'correct' way to design a mech and particularly in 3025, limited by single heat sinks, I'd stand by that statement.

However, reflecting on larger games I've played, Company or Battalion level, particularly those played with advanced weaponry, I'm wondering if that is still a safe assumption. I've noticed more games being decided by the medium range firefight, with the bigger guns playing a major role by demolishing enemy mechs before the short range weapons really come into play. In these battles it is questionable if the short range batteries were useful, or if they were dead weight that would have been better invested into more medium range firepower.

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the matter.

Challenger

[Daryk]

All it takes is to see one Enforcer literally disarmed to see the value of a real secondary battery.  Secondaries definitely matter more in 3025 play, as you're more likely to get in close before being erased.

[theagent]

It's a difficult question, as there really isn't one correct answer.

Technically, you could get away with a single "big weapon" (or even multiple "big weapons"), but it would depend on the weapon you selected.  The preference would be something with no Minimum Range, or at least not a very large minimum range.  If, for example, you selected PPC or Gauss, then you could probably live within the 2-3 hex Min Range issue they face.  OTOH, if you picked LRM, then that 6-hex Min range is looking very limited, unless you're staying pretty far back.

To be fair, though, it's only been since Alpha Strike came out that CGL really focused more on the idea of actual "lance formations".  I don't mean the "3 Mediums and 1 Heavy = Medium Lance" type, I mean the "lance role is determined by the role of the 'Mechs in the lance" type.  Despite so many fluff descriptions indicating that most 'Mechs were designed with something specific in mind, most of the time the scenarios or even the various RATs just gave you random 'Mechs to fill out your lance.  A Rifleman or Longbow is not really meant for the "line of battle", but all too often a bad RAT role might end up with your long-range-specific 'Mechs paired up with a couple of short-rangers...or you end up with a lance where you only have a bunch of short range units. 

I would suggest that if you're going to design a custom-build around the idea, consider the old standards when it comes to real-world tank & ship designs (or at least through WWII for the latter).  All of those designs had to balance speed, armor, and weaponry...especially the ships that were designed & built under the pre-WWII Washington Treaty.  If you're going to use 1 or 2 long-range weapons as your only weapons, you're either planning for it to be strictly a long-range fire support platform...or you make sure it goes as fast as possible & has max armor protection for its tonnage.  And I mean "as fast as possible".  Don't stick to 5/8 or 5/8/5 for a 55-ton design; if you're going "1 big gun" on it, shoot for 6/9/6 (or faster if you can swing an XL engine & Endo Steel).  If you've got a 100-ton design, pay the cost to make sure it goes 4/6 instead of 3/5, & consider putting all 4 jump jets on it.  You can even consider some "secondary" weapons, but I would limit it to maybe 2 MLs (or SLs/ESLs) at most.

[DevianID]

Ill answer from the POV of battle value.

So one of the sins is carrying more weapons then you can shoot.  Secondary batteries often make this mistake.  Like on the Marauder, the big gun approach means you only fire the 2nd PPC every other turn.  The medium lasers and half a PPC are wasted.  The warhammer D cuts lots of secondary weapons to get more armor and heat sinks for the main big guns, the twin PPCs, and its a better mech for it.

Now, units like the battlemaster have 1 sniping gun to keep people honest at range, and then a 'main gun' of medium lasers and SRMs.  If you are using the PPC, you are losing value on all those mediums.  So a better option would be to drop the PPC for more heat sinks and short range guns.  Another SRM6 plus 4 heat sinks for example, would give 20 heat with 22 disapation, and would be a stronger unit.  You lose the poke damage of the PPC, but the PPC isnt the point.

Like, imagine the hunchback 4p with it's 8 medium lasers.  Now imagine dropping 2 lasers and some heat sinks for an LRM10.  Its just a worse unit now.  Sure, it can poke with that LRM10, but splitting its focus to make it less specialized and more general in application means if you need to throw a disco party at close range, its not as good.  If you want LRMs, take LRMs, and when you need short range damage, take short range damage.

The caveat to the big gun approach is not fighting in formation.  When you find yourself isolated, having a specialized weapon type makes you vulnerable to type mismatches.  So if you play a lot of RPG or campaign battletech, things like an AC2 backup get a lot better, so you can do things like track tanks and nosedive planes on your hero unit.  But in a straight up skirmish on 2 mapsheets, you dont need redundancy you need to win this 1 battle versus an evenly matched opponent, so you cant afford to waste points on guns you arnt gonna shoot.

[Sabelkatten]

All-big-long-range-guns are quite workable as long as you have a realistic plan for dealing with people who get in your face.

All-short-range-guns needs a fast platform, very restricted terrain, or a very cooperative opponent. The Hunchback looks great until you have to fight an opponent that refuses to close and is fast enough to do so.

[Daryk]

If your opponent refuses to close your Hunchback, they're giving you a high degree of battlefield control.

[Challenger]

All it takes is to see one Enforcer literally disarmed to see the value of a real secondary battery.  Secondaries definitely matter more in 3025 play, as you're more likely to get in close before being erased.

Perhaps an argument for torso mounted weaponry, but I see your point. That said, given the rest of the damage that mech is likely to have taken before it lost both arms, would we really still consider it battle worthy? Would the secondaries still be adding value if the mech is probably already looking to withdraw anyway?

Despite so many fluff descriptions indicating that most 'Mechs were designed with something specific in mind, most of the time the scenarios or even the various RATs just gave you random 'Mechs to fill out your lance.  A Rifleman or Longbow is not really meant for the "line of battle", but all too often a bad RAT role might end up with your long-range-specific 'Mechs paired up with a couple of short-rangers...or you end up with a lance where you only have a bunch of short range units. 

I have a sneaking suspicion that the RAT made a lot more sense in 3025 than in 3067. In the old scavengertech days of make-do and mend if the only heavy mech you had was a Rifleman then it was better than no heavy mech at all.

I would suggest that if you're going to design a custom-build around the idea, consider the old standards when it comes to real-world tank & ship designs (or at least through WWII for the latter).  All of those designs had to balance speed, armor, and weaponry...especially the ships that were designed & built under the pre-WWII Washington Treaty.  If you're going to use 1 or 2 long-range weapons as your only weapons, you're either planning for it to be strictly a long-range fire support platform...or you make sure it goes as fast as possible & has max armor protection for its tonnage.  And I mean "as fast as possible".  Don't stick to 5/8 or 5/8/5 for a 55-ton design; if you're going "1 big gun" on it, shoot for 6/9/6 (or faster if you can swing an XL engine & Endo Steel).  If you've got a 100-ton design, pay the cost to make sure it goes 4/6 instead of 3/5, & consider putting all 4 jump jets on it.  You can even consider some "secondary" weapons, but I would limit it to maybe 2 MLs (or SLs/ESLs) at most.

That's an interesting way to look at it, almost a modification of the old battlecruiser idea that superior speed would allowed you to pick the range that best suited you to fight.

I was wondering if there was an alternative in borrowing the old Lyran 'crushing weight of fire' approach to combat. Don't worry to much about being able to decide the range, but focus on developing enough firepower to win the fight in the medium range bracket before the enemy can close and force a short range melee.

I'm not necessarily suggesting abandoning manoeuvrability (Being an avowed medium mech specialist) rather focusing a mechs design on features that improve its medium range firepower (i.e. large guns, armour and heat sinks) at the expense of any short range 'secondary' weapons.

So one of the sins is carrying more weapons then you can shoot.  Secondary batteries often make this mistake.  Like on the Marauder, the big gun approach means you only fire the 2nd PPC every other turn.  The medium lasers and half a PPC are wasted.  The warhammer D cuts lots of secondary weapons to get more armour and heat sinks for the main big guns, the twin PPCs, and its a better mech for it.

This is very much the sort of thing I'm thinking of.

Normally I much prefer the 6K for its flexibility, but as the size of the battle increases the more I find the extra 4 tons of armour on the 6D more valuable. The medium/small lasers and SRM 6 don't add value in a medium range fight, but the extra armour does.

Challenger

[theagent]

All-big-long-range-guns are quite workable as long as you have a realistic plan for dealing with people who get in your face.

All-short-range-guns needs a fast platform, very restricted terrain, or a very cooperative opponent. The Hunchback looks great until you have to fight an opponent that refuses to close and is fast enough to do so.

And especially if it runs into one of the other 3025-era "I can only punch out to 9 hexes" designs...the Victor.  AC/20 & twin MLs doesn't seem so scary when your opponent has more armor, the same AC/20, adds an SRM-4, & can jump...

[Arkansas Warrior]

Just pick big guns that don’t lose effectiveness at short range.  As in so many things, the Hellstar is your gold standard.  Long range? 3-4 15 point hits.  Medium range? 3-4 15 point hits.  Short range? [/size]3-4 15 point hits.  That’s also why the AWS-9Ma is the best Awesome (well, also the Command Console). The Supernova is another example.  Darn those clanners and their excellent long ranged entry weapons.

[Starfury]

It also depends on your tech base. Clan ER Medium Lasers and Streak SRMs along with their pulse and regular SRM cousins are incredibly efficient, especially when mounted en masse. For example, look at the Blood Kite. It's essentially a Stalker IIC with 3 LRM-15s, 3 SRM 4s, and three ER Large Lasers. Or the Grendel Prime.

 For older designs the medium laser/low heat autocannon spam is quite powerful, especially when combined with one or two big guns.  This lessens as newer technologies come along, but as the Komodo shows, the humble medium laser is still painful in large quantities.

[Dapper Apples]

Call me unlucky, but I'd rather roll more to-hit dice with multiple small guns over one or two big guns.  Too many times I've seen a Pack Hunter or Hollander roll its one whole 2d6 and just not do anything for half or even all of the turns.  Hunchback 4P with 8 lasers?  I'll roll two dozen dice hunting for 12s even, even with poor odds I might get two lasers to connect.

The only issue is, it's easier to survive barrages of 6 lasers than one AC/20, turn over turn.

Big gun wise, an Awesome is probably my standard.  Three guns means at least one will land each turn, and an Awesome totally has the heat capacity to fire them liberally on poor odds, esp. if it can park in the backline unimpeded.

Missiles also benefit from larger racks, generally the higher-count cluster tables are more generous even on poor rolling.  LRM 5s, even in high counts, feel like a waste of rolls just to pluck for 3.

[Starfury]

Also more hits means more chance for crits....

[BATTLEMASTER]

I'm fine with all-big gun designs.  The Awesome and Thunderhawk are classics but might be a little inflexible.  But that's what supporting units are for.  I think the ideal all-big gun design would use at least two LBX-AC/10s with both slug and shot ammo.

[BATTLEMASTER]

Sorry, hit wrong button.

[Challenger]

Call me unlucky, but I'd rather roll more to-hit dice with multiple small guns over one or two big guns.  Too many times I've seen a Pack Hunter or Hollander roll its one whole 2d6 and just not do anything for half or even all of the turns.  Hunchback 4P with 8 lasers?  I'll roll two dozen dice hunting for 12s even, even with poor odds I might get two lasers to connect.

Yep, seen this myself and is one of the reasons I've usually leaned towards medium laser spam for my short range firepower. However....

The only issue is, it's easier to survive barrages of 6 lasers than one AC/20, turn over turn.

I've also seen this. Whilst still a matter of luck to get the same spot twice, two AC20 hits can easily cripple/mission kill an Assault Mech that otherwise has alot of armour remaining. 12 medium laser hits may be 150% of the damage, but will almost certainly scatter themselves around a mech without inflicted critical damage to anything heavier than a Vindicator.

An interesting observation, if your going to go down the big gun route, you need to ensure your hitting. Number of weaponry is one approach, the other is to seriously invest in 'fire control', Targeting Computers, C3, better gunners etc.

There is a reason I still fear the Clan Large Pulse Laser over any other weapon.

Also more hits means more chance for crits....

A fair point, and one I've certainly agreed with in the past. Most of my custom designs have a SRM6 on the shoulder for a reason. I do wonder in the era of the Clan/Heavy PPC, Gauss Rifle and Ultra/LB-X 20 if that requirement to crit seek is still so necessary. Do you need to crit seek if your plan is to just blow through the whole section in 2-3 hit?

Starfury makes an interesting point regarding the tech base, not least because the 1ton Clan ER Medium Laser is functionally all but an IS Large Laser!. That said, when I've been playing Clan players, it isn't the short range guns that have been giving me kittens, it the big 10/15 point damage punches they can routinely laydown at range....how much that is BV altering the playing field I wouldn't like to say.

Challenger

[Demiurge]

I think this is an interesting question.

The analogy that springs to mind are the "all big gun" battleship designs that proliferated after the construction of HMS Dreadnought.  Overnight, or at least in terms of naval construction overnight, everyone switched to a unified, homogeneous armament.

I can think of several reasons this doesn't exactly work well for battlemechs.

The fluff text on weapons brands and suppliers suggests that relatively few battlemech producers are vertically integrated, and interplanetary supplies can be disrupted or tenuous at times.  IIRC there are explicit references to new models of mech being made with a slightly different weapons load as a substitute standard as well.  Getting consistent supplies of all one type of weapon might be hard, at least for some factories.

The next reason is that in a battleship vs battleship fight, a gun that's too small will do actual nothing and just bounce off of the turret or citadel armor.  Battlemech armor apparently doesn't work like that, so the secondary guns aren't relegated to swatting at smaller threats like battle armor and infantry; they are a useful additive component of volleys directed at other battlemechs.

The third reason is that mechs move fairly quickly relative to their weapons ranges.  A hypothetical early 20th century battleship that deleted the guns in favor of giant, devastating amounts of torpedoes would have to spend a lot of time trying to close with enemy battleships and would eat a lot of gun volleys to the face before it got within torpedo range.  There aren't that many viable construction combinations that leave a mech with a big enough gun to decisively put down enemies in a similar weight class, but also keep the range open.  Think of a Hollander; its gun reaches to 22 hexes and it moves 5/8.  Most things in its weight class move much faster than that and have two layers of tin cans for armor to the Hollander's one.  Anything that gets close to the Hollander can crumple it fairly easily, and if it's a light mech that's closing at 6/9 or heaven forfend that it's a medium-weight light mech hunter like a Black Lanner coming in at 7/11, then the Hollander is going to have, what, maybe four turns to get lucky and hit the enemy in something vital?  Plus the enemy doesn't have to be stupid; depending on the terrain they might be able to break line of sight (which is a thing that doesn't happen hardly at all in battleship combat) and avoid getting bonked for several of the turns when they're closing distance.

The fourth reason is related to the third.  Not only are secondary weapons additive in the damage they apply, the rules have been fairly consistent in making lighter weight weapons more efficient in terms of damage inflicted per ton.  Except for autocannons of course, because autocannons suck.  If you're comfortable sacrificing the big chunks of damage for a bunch of small little bites, which is admittedly a significant tradeoff since the big bites tend to inflict crits and rend limbs off, you usually get more damage output with a bunch of medium-sized weapons than a concentrated handful of big ones.

[Challenger]

A fair analysis and I don't disagree with your points. There is one I think you might have overlooked however.

The abandonment of the 6'' Secondary Battery by HMS Dreadnought was not because they could not hurt a battleship, (Hits to the bridge and other exposed structures etc could certainly hurt a ship's ability to fight and was a key feature of pre-dreadnought doctrine) it was because their fire was not felt to be effective at the ranges the battleships were now expected to engage at. (A small different, but important to my argument.)

Translated to Battletech, consider the Warhammer 6K.

Its PPCs are effective out to 12 hexes, its secondary weaponry out to 6 hexes. (assuming most long range fire is pot luck at best)

If the fight can be decided before the units close to 6 hexes, then I would argue that the secondary weapons are wasted tonnage that would have been better spent improving the units ability to fight at 12-7 hexes.

I don't think that is achievable in a lance-lance fight.....but I've certainly seen companies or binaries capable of generating enough firepower to force a decision at medium range or at least make the short range bracket so suicidal that both sides avoid closing until one side has a decided advantage.

Challenger

[Demiurge]

A fair analysis and I don't disagree with your points. There is one I think you might have overlooked however.

The abandonment of the 6'' Secondary Battery by HMS Dreadnought was not because they could not hurt a battleship, (Hits to the bridge and other exposed structures etc could certainly hurt a ship's ability to fight and was a key feature of pre-dreadnought doctrine) it was because their fire was not felt to be effective at the ranges the battleships were now expected to engage at. (A small different, but important to my argument.)

Translated to Battletech, consider the Warhammer 6K.

Its PPCs are effective out to 12 hexes, its secondary weaponry out to 6 hexes. (assuming most long range fire is pot luck at best)

If the fight can be decided before the units close to 6 hexes, then I would argue that the secondary weapons are wasted tonnage that would have been better spent improving the units ability to fight at 12-7 hexes.

I don't think that is achievable in a lance-lance fight.....but I've certainly seen companies or binaries capable of generating enough firepower to force a decision at medium range or at least make the short range bracket so suicidal that both sides avoid closing until one side has a decided advantage.

Challenger

Interesting point about companies and binaries and concentration of firepower, I hadn't thought of that.  This situation would get even nastier with C3 equipment thrown in.

Maybe most mechs are doctrinally required to be able to fight in small numbers, and thus are required to carry lots of secondary/tertiary weaponry that isn't all that useful in large scale fights with other mechs?

Oddly, the more short-range optimized clan mechs start to show up after the abandonment of zell.

[DevianID]

The periphery campaign in 3048-49 showed the clans that the IS would withdraw into a city to hold versus the clans, so all the close in/city fighter configs (c or d usually, plus S) start appearing 3050+.  They are often the best short range brawlers the clan has.

[Challenger]

Interesting point about companies and binaries and concentration of firepower, I hadn't thought of that.  This situation would get even nastier with C3 equipment thrown in.

Way back in the BV1 days, I experimented with two lances of C3 fitted Alacorns supported by appropriate spotters etc. Turns out the combined the fire of 24 C3 guided Gauss Rifles was more than adequate to delete an assault mech a turn at 22 hexes. Not without its obvious weaknesses, but we decided it was 'unfun' for pick up games as an unprepared player tended to have parts of their force simply deleted before they realised what was happening.

An extreme example maybe. But, 12 modern heavy mechs or 10 omnimechs could achieving similar levels of firepower.

Challenger

[Demiurge]

Way back in the BV1 days, I experimented with two lances of C3 fitted Alacorns supported by appropriate spotters etc. Turns out the combined the fire of 24 C3 guided Gauss Rifles was more than adequate to delete an assault mech a turn at 22 hexes. Not without its obvious weaknesses, but we decided it was 'unfun' for pick up games as an unprepared player tended to have parts of their force simply deleted before they realised what was happening.

An extreme example maybe. But, 12 modern heavy mechs or 10 omnimechs could achieving similar levels of firepower.

Challenger

It's probably meaningful then that there aren't any big guns which outshoot the gauss rifle and clan ER-PPC without caveats.  The heavy large laser is shorter ranged and less accurate or explodey, and only hits slightly harder.  The ER-PPC with capacitor has half the effective rate of fire.  Heavy gauss rifles make you fall down.  Class-20 autocannons are myopically short ranged.  RACs and HAGs are LRMs in disguise that spread their damage out into 5 point clusters.

Concentrated long range firepower is at a premium.

[Daryk]

Don't forget LTACs... :)

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Maybe the firepower and the numbers of combatant would be the factor. As our real history, both factors changed the meta of the war. Especially for the recent century, for our race have an unusual meta of eschew melee combat, something that never had before... or maybe after the dawn of stones, thrown spears and bows. After all, the body of human race is generally inferior to the other animals, but they are good at long march and throwing stuffs than the other animals in combat and hunting.

[garhkal]

Also more hits means more chance for crits....

That's why i Prefer massed LRM-5s, over one or two LRM-20s..

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Although the sum of expected damage would be all the same but massed LRM-5 have far better chance to deal at least some damage while a single LRM-20 is all or nothing, and the nature of LRM ensures that it does not punch through one parts armor anyways. Also 4 LRM-5s are lighter than a LRM-20, and for battlemechs it's more stable while a LRM-20 could be disabled as soon as it have one critical.

Still, the damage per each part could be up to 5 for LRM-20, but for LRM-5s it's hard to have a full 5 damage on a part and is usually around 3. But 5 points is not so high enough to punch through the armor either.

[DevianID]

The LRM20 has a vastly greater chance to cause 20 damage then 4 (or 5) LRM5s.  Also the LRM20 is more heat efficient, but that's whatever.  So while the average damage of 5 LRM5s is greater then 1 LRM20, because of knockdowns small numbers of big guns are very far ahead in causing PSRs, with the large advantages that come with that.

[garhkal]

Plus 4 LRM-20s, sharing 2 tons of ammo, gives each 12 rounds of fire, for 10 tons, compared to you needing 12 tons for the LRM-20.

[Lagrange]

LRM-5s are also good for penetrating AMS compared to an LRM-20.

I particularly like the Streak-5.  Comparing with a clan ERSL and assuming you hit half the time, it does the same damage and uses similar crits (1 + 1 from expected heat  + 0.5 from expected ammo vs 1+2 from expected heat).  The primary tradeoff is 3.5x the range (21 to 6) vs twice weight (2 tons + 0.5 tons from 1 expected heat + 0.5 tons from expected ammo to 0.5 tons + 1 ton from expected heat). 

[Charistoph]

LRM-5s are also good for penetrating AMS compared to an LRM-20.

Especially in multiples!  I've never thought about using them that way, honestly.  Probably because I don't run in to enough AMS on the field.  Which is surprising considering that I usually have at least one missile boat on the table (and ATMs or MMLs if possible, which REALLY don't like AMS).

[garhkal]

I think the MOST I've ever seen of ams on the field, 5 player match, 400tons a side battle, where one player had 3 units with AMS, and two others each had 2 mechs with AMS.