Author Topic: Mech design decisions that make no sense  (Read 142919 times)

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10397
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #300 on: 05 April 2019, 13:57:05 »
Its semantics . . . I can say the UAC/5, LB-5X and RAC/5 all follow downstream . . . and of course the LAC/5.

If you're rating the LAC/5 and RAC/5 the same as the AC/5 I think you're playing a different game than I. Sartris already brought up the LB-5.
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #301 on: 05 April 2019, 13:59:00 »
look at it this way -

put dual AC/5s on a gargoyle prime

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #302 on: 05 April 2019, 14:18:08 »
The AC/5 is an awkward middle ground in many ways - it does everything okay, but nothing well. It's not great at AA, anti-mech, anti-vehicle, or anything else. Specialty ammo ought to be what saves it, but even there it's no better than an LRM overall. The MegaMek campaign server I used to play on gave precision ammo to AC/2 and AC/5(but not AC/10 or AC/20), which at least made it playable as a 3025-era bug-squasher, but in any era where you can use precision ammo within canon it's still outclassed by other options. The only real sweet spot is playing with planetary environments that murder your heat sinks, I think. I could ramble over in Fan Rules about how to improve it(and I have), but that's not terribly relevant to canon play.

That said, the variant AC/5s are all much better. The LB-5X is decent at flak (though the LB-10X still out-classes it for IS play, because the designers messed around with the progressions of mass vs range vs damage between LB-X AC models), the Light AC/5 is pretty decent(especially since it keeps the specialty ammunition), and the RAC/5 is sort of like an IS HAG. The Ultra-5 isn't my favourite, but the stats aren't bad there either. All are reasonable and playable. But to make the stock AC/5 better, it'd need to have a gigantic amount of versatility, and the tabletop rules don't allow for that very well.

As headcanon, consider an AC/5 that doesn't need to carry its ammo in full-ton lots(or one of those crazy many-AC tanks with enough guns and ammo to pack all the specialty options). A bit of every sort of specialty ammo hanging out in your ammo bins lets you deal fairly effectively with infantry, ASF, bug mechs, and light battle armor, and still do okay against mechs and tanks. And it works well on hot planets too. That might justify it sticking around, even in SLDF days.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #303 on: 05 April 2019, 14:48:04 »
The AC/5 is an awkward middle ground in many ways - it does everything okay, but nothing well. It's not great at AA, anti-mech, anti-vehicle, or anything else. Specialty ammo ought to be what saves it, but even there it's no better than an LRM overall. The MegaMek campaign server I used to play on gave precision ammo to AC/2 and AC/5(but not AC/10 or AC/20), which at least made it playable as a 3025-era bug-squasher, but in any era where you can use precision ammo within canon it's still outclassed by other options. The only real sweet spot is playing with planetary environments that murder your heat sinks, I think. I could ramble over in Fan Rules about how to improve it(and I have), but that's not terribly relevant to canon play.

Huh?  Its a 5pt Pulse that hits at 18 instead of the measly 10 of the Large Pulse.

The point that the Ultra, RAC, LBX and Light are all descendants of the AC/5 is that they all throw out 5 pt clusters.  So just like that rocket example, the primitive rocket will still kill just as dead as the Katyusha or HiMARS DPICM round, its just a improvement of the technique.

Look the USAA has talked about replacing the M2 for the last few decades . . . its a weapon in use since 1933.  The B-52 is on track to have a service life over 100 years.  I could outfit a platoon with Henry repeaters and Colt revolvers from the USCW and they would still be deadly.  We have not had any real revolutionary changes in weapons rather incremental changes that improve the system but does not make projectile or ballistic weapons in general obsolete.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #304 on: 05 April 2019, 15:16:41 »
Huh?  Its a 5pt Pulse that hits at 18 instead of the measly 10 of the Large Pulse.

Sure, but by the time precision ammo comes along, you have alternatives. If you want good range and THN bonuses, a LB-10X with two tons of ammo, one DHS, and a targeting computer is 17 tons. Two AC/5s with two tons of precision ammo and one of standard(for the same 20 shots each) and a DHS is 20 tons. Both have the same range, the same damage potential, and the same -2 to hit bonus if they want it. But the LB-10X can package its damage in ways that are usually more effective - the cluster rounds crit-seek better and hurt hovers far more than AC/5 precision rounds, it can do a 10-damage cluster if it wants to, and it's got -1 to hit on its standard rounds(and a -2 on non-moving targets, too). For three tons less. Never mind the extraordinary cheese of the Clan LPL, which can do the same 10 damage and -2 to hit on a mere 11 tons.

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #305 on: 05 April 2019, 15:23:06 »
Except an LB can't use a TC...

Unless I'm missing errata somewhere...

TT
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #306 on: 05 April 2019, 15:26:20 »
Except an LB can't use a TC...

Unless I'm missing errata somewhere...

Derp. Scratch my last.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #307 on: 05 April 2019, 15:49:34 »
just the slug gets TC benefits. though an LB firing cluster at a VTOL gets -3 so who needs a TC you stupid flyboys  ;D

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #308 on: 05 April 2019, 17:39:21 »
*snip*
As headcanon, consider an AC/5 that doesn't need to carry its ammo in full-ton lots(or one of those crazy many-AC tanks with enough guns and ammo to pack all the specialty options). A bit of every sort of specialty ammo hanging out in your ammo bins lets you deal fairly effectively with infantry, ASF, bug mechs, and light battle armor, and still do okay against mechs and tanks. And it works well on hot planets too. That might justify it sticking around, even in SLDF days.
No headcanon required... Fractional Accounting does exactly this.  The only drawback is the extra crits needed...

Orin J.

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2785
  • I am to feared! Aw, come on guys...
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #309 on: 06 April 2019, 13:26:28 »
The AC/5 is an awkward middle ground in many ways - it does everything okay, but nothing well. It's not great at AA, anti-mech, anti-vehicle, or anything else. Specialty ammo ought to be what saves it, but even there it's no better than an LRM overall.

but it does it cheaply and well enough to still serve on the battlefield of "today". not every force is armed with the best tech, just the best affordable tech.
The Grey Death Legion? Dead? Gotcha, wake me when it's back.....
--------------------------
Every once in a while things make sense.


Don't let these moments alarm you. They pass.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #310 on: 06 April 2019, 13:52:58 »
Introtech will never completely go away in the forward setting unless it is straight up obsoleted by fiat. We have periphery nations in 3150 acting like its 3040

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #311 on: 06 April 2019, 16:49:10 »
Sometimes you don't need to fight top of the line Clan gear.  Sometimes you just need something to keep the locals in line.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #312 on: 06 April 2019, 17:22:35 »
Sometimes you don't need to fight top of the line Clan gear.  Sometimes you just need something to keep the locals in line.

Being in the "Rimward" part of the Inner Sphere will reduce your chances of seeing Clan gear rather considerably.  Andurien, Victoria, Altair, and the nearby Periphery States are far less likely to be engaged by Clans, and so will only see them from transferred units or merchants who've traveled REALLY far and bypassed a lot of buyers along the way.

Also consider that quantity contains a quality on its own as well.  A few dozen AC/5 carriers sitting on a ridge can hammer a unit flat pretty well.  Admittedly, that's usually a job for LRM Carriers, but missiles require guidance systems...
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #313 on: 08 April 2019, 15:01:18 »
But we're told that they don't use guidance systems, just a targeting pattern from the units computer...

TT
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #314 on: 08 April 2019, 18:57:08 »
But we're told that they don't use guidance systems, just a targeting pattern from the units computer...

TT

But they still have to follow that pattern.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Orin J.

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2785
  • I am to feared! Aw, come on guys...
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #315 on: 08 April 2019, 19:15:55 »
But we're told that they don't use guidance systems, just a targeting pattern from the units computer...

TT

...wait, how's that work? i coulda swore they used a guidance package.  ??? guess i learn i'm wrong about something new every day.

The Grey Death Legion? Dead? Gotcha, wake me when it's back.....
--------------------------
Every once in a while things make sense.


Don't let these moments alarm you. They pass.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #316 on: 08 April 2019, 19:22:19 »
Aren't MRMs modified LRMs that had their guidance systems removed?
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2421
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #317 on: 09 April 2019, 10:40:12 »
The cost of AC/5 ammo is trivial in comparison to LRMs.  If you're looking for a way to defend a site against possible but unlikely incursions by anything tougher than a modified truck or a bottom-of-the-barrel Industrial 'Mech, packing an AC/5 is a much more affordable alternative in the long term, and you won't spend a small fortune on ammo each month just for target practice.

I see nothing wrong with putting AC/5s on garrison or security units, or on cheap vehicles.  They're even acceptable "general purpose" weapons on some militia or support 'Mechs, due to their versatility with special ammo.  Putting them on front-line Battlemechs becomes highly questionable, especially after 3050, after which there are better alternatives for practically every possible application.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #318 on: 09 April 2019, 12:07:51 »
Aren't MRMs modified LRMs that had their guidance systems removed?

techmanual fluffs the missiles themselves as having the guidance systems removed, implying this isn't the norm. i'll have to double-check older sources like BMR and MaxTech (iirc they were experimental in the unrevised version)


You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #319 on: 09 April 2019, 12:36:41 »
techmanual fluffs the missiles themselves as having the guidance systems removed, implying this isn't the norm. i'll have to double-check older sources like BMR and MaxTech (iirc they were experimental in the unrevised version)

Weren't MRMs debued in Field Manual: Draconis Combine?  I'm pretty sure I saw the line there.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #320 on: 09 April 2019, 12:47:06 »
probably. there were a few pieces of tech in FM:DC but the only one i can remember is the sword.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

RoundTop

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1372
  • In Takashi We Trust
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #321 on: 09 April 2019, 12:53:18 »
Weren't MRMs debued in Field Manual: Draconis Combine?  I'm pretty sure I saw the line there.
Yes, MRMs, TSM, Swords, No-Dachi, Akuma, Kage BattleArmor, Raiden BattleArmor (I <3 that book)

MRMs were less guided than LRMs (thus the +1 to hit), but using a smaller missile body to fit more per launcher.

The way I always thought of it was like this:

SRM = 1 part thrust, 2 parts warhead
LRM = 2 parts thrust, 1 part warhead
MRM = 1 part thrust, 1 part warhead, smaller casing, harder to hit
Rocket Launcher = 0.5 part thrust, 1 part warhead, smaller casing, no loading hardware or linkages.

This shows when you add things like Artemis IV and Apollo FCS. They add targeting data and guidance (in the case of MRMs, you lose the +1 to hit, but slightly less missiles hit)
No-Dachi has a counter-argument. Nothing further? Ok.
Demo team agent #772

AdmiralObvious

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #322 on: 09 April 2019, 13:57:45 »
This shows when you add things like Artemis IV and Apollo FCS. They add targeting data and guidance (in the case of MRMs, you lose the +1 to hit, but slightly less missiles hit)
I tend to think of the Apollo and the Artemis a bit differently. The Artemis is a guidance package that has to be installed into the missiles to be functional, and they are effectively laser beam riders instead of what they normally use for guidance, hence the fact that they only improve the cluster roll, since the pilot can still totally whiff if they don't acquire a lock.

The Apollo on the other hand is an actual fire control system. I tend to think of it like the Firing Computer that you normally use for Direct Fire guns and lasers, except lighter. The missiles are still unguided, but I like to think of the Apollo staggering the missile fire, and maybe even slightly reorienting the missile tubes to more effectively hit the target. Otherwise, it's probably just a single wall of missiles going the same direction.

grimlock1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #323 on: 10 April 2019, 10:39:58 »
I tend to think of the Apollo and the Artemis a bit differently. The Artemis is a guidance package that has to be installed into the missiles to be functional, and they are effectively laser beam riders instead of what they normally use for guidance, hence the fact that they only improve the cluster roll, since the pilot can still totally whiff if they don't acquire a lock.

The Apollo on the other hand is an actual fire control system. I tend to think of it like the Firing Computer that you normally use for Direct Fire guns and lasers, except lighter. The missiles are still unguided, but I like to think of the Apollo staggering the missile fire, and maybe even slightly reorienting the missile tubes to more effectively hit the target. Otherwise, it's probably just a single wall of missiles going the same direction.
I just smile and nod when it comes to how Apollo works.  I'll use it, but I don't want to think about it.  Otherwise I start asking questions like, "if a 1 ton/1 crit Apollo can adjust/align/aim craptacular MRMs better, why can't it work for a PPC?"

As to MRMs, I like where FASA was going with the idea.  The +1 TH hurts, but when it does connect, whoa nelly!  The 15 hex max range was good too, a nice middling value between LRMs and SRMs.  But the range bands were just punishing.
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #324 on: 10 April 2019, 11:29:08 »
MRMs work exponentially better as part of a C3 system.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

grimlock1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #325 on: 10 April 2019, 16:07:15 »
MRMs work exponentially better as part of a C3 system.
Which does track with them being a DCMS innovation.
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Orin J.

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2785
  • I am to feared! Aw, come on guys...
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #326 on: 12 April 2019, 23:20:38 »
I just smile and nod when it comes to how Apollo works.  I'll use it, but I don't want to think about it.  Otherwise I start asking questions like, "if a 1 ton/1 crit Apollo can adjust/align/aim craptacular MRMs better, why can't it work for a PPC?"

I thought the whole issue was that the MRM systems took most of fire controls out in the holy name of "MORE TUBES!" so the apollo system was just tacking a basic FCS back into place like literally anything north of rocker launchers have.
The Grey Death Legion? Dead? Gotcha, wake me when it's back.....
--------------------------
Every once in a while things make sense.


Don't let these moments alarm you. They pass.

Corky

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #327 on: 13 April 2019, 07:57:22 »
That dumb Kurita Atlas mech with 2 rear facing medium pulse lasers

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #328 on: 13 April 2019, 08:56:04 »
That dumb Kurita Atlas mech with 2 rear facing medium pulse lasers

That's not so bad.  It's supposed to give you good protection against backstabbers.

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #329 on: 13 April 2019, 09:19:27 »
That dumb Kurita Atlas mech with 2 rear facing medium pulse lasers
AS7-K? The bad thing isn't the MPLs, it's the 30 LR weapon heat on 20 SHS...

Now the Steiner Atlas with 2 MLs and SSRM2s, that's dumb!