BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Game Systems => Ground Combat => Topic started by: ravensword on 27 January 2011, 00:33:09

Title: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: ravensword on 27 January 2011, 00:33:09
If you've got the manufacturing capability for both, are primitive BattleMechs or armed IndustrialMechs more combat-effective?

You pay through the nose for structure on IndustrialMechs, but for the engine on primitive BattleMechs.  You don't have to pay for ejection seats or environmental sealing on the BattleMechs.  Both get a +2 modifier on critical rolls.

So if you've got the option, which would you choose?
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: WarMonkey on 27 January 2011, 01:27:36
Primitives.........they are still real mechs, not weed-wackers trying to be real mechs!  :P
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Deadborder on 27 January 2011, 06:07:45
Primatives. The advantages are many - no double weight intenral strucutre, normal-grade fire control and coming with little comforts like ejection seats.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Moonsword on 27 January 2011, 08:14:18
Depends on the exact model under comparison.  Even paying for the extras, there are times not dealing with the engine difference balances things out in favor of the IndustrialMech.

However, I'd prefer not to deal with either one and churn out modern (or at least SW) combat vehicles if I can't get my hands on a real 'Mech.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Lanceman on 27 January 2011, 08:21:36
If we are talking about defense of a world or interstellar nation, then I'd certainly go with Primitive BattleMechs.  While certainly nowhere near effective as their modern analogues, they are still designed specifically for the purpose of combat operations.  In game terms, there might only be a little difference between Primitives and Industrials, but I suspect that in the "real life" of the in-game universe it goes much further, and as such it would be easier to integrate Primitive machines into your already extant fighting force.

If we are talking about a situation where you have a factory that's just sitting around producing nothing, and you find it has these basic `Mech manufacturing capabilities then I would lean more towards producing Industrial `Mechs in order to shore up the economy of my planet/power.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Ferrit on 27 January 2011, 08:56:14
In addition to all the points already raised I'd add that I suspect that the Primitives would be much eaiser to upgrade to less primitive tech than Industrials. Gives a better foundation for the long term.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: nckestrel on 27 January 2011, 09:04:46
Industrials.
Heavy Industrial Armor = Standard BattleMech Armor.
Advanced Fire Control = Standard BattleMech Cockpit.
Ejection Seats are for losers! :)
more importantly, industrials are standard rules level, primitives are obscure rule book.

Though to be serious, it might depend on tonnage.  light/medium units might get hit less on engine, so primitive is more effective.  heavy (at least faster heavies) and assaults, the engine size hurts.  I haven't look to see where that might actually break.  But you can't have a 4/6, 100 ton primitive (would be a non-existent 480 engine?), so I know an industrial is better in that one case :).
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Moonsword on 27 January 2011, 09:17:58
In addition to all the points already raised I'd add that I suspect that the Primitives would be much eaiser to upgrade to less primitive tech than Industrials. Gives a better foundation for the long term.

Yes, but the refit is going to be a major pain in the neck since you have to replace, at minimum, the cockpit, the armor, and the engine.  It's definitely doable, but it's on par with any other major refit along those lines.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 27 January 2011, 09:54:30
I'd go with the Primitive.
A primitive Battlemech is STILL a Battlemech.
An Industrial isnt really meant for combat at all.

Would you rather drive an M4 Sherman tank into battle, or a pickup truck with recoiless rifles strapped to it?
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Moonsword on 27 January 2011, 09:55:22
Would you rather drive a Vedette into battle or a 200 ton dump truck going backwards with three AC/20s pointed at the enemy?
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Martius on 27 January 2011, 10:34:33
Would you rather drive a Vedette into battle or a 200 ton dump truck going backwards with three AC/20s pointed at the enemy?

Vedette.

The 3 AC20 will earn me a lot of attention of the kind a dump truck will not survive  :D.

Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 27 January 2011, 11:41:51
Would you rather drive a Vedette into battle or a 200 ton dump truck going backwards with three AC/20s pointed at the enemy?
Vedette.  Range and the speed to keep the range.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Moonsword on 27 January 2011, 12:37:56
Vedette.  Range and the speed to keep the range.

Just putting the question into context.  There's a dump truck like that in this game.  And I lean toward the Vedette myself, honestly, but there's a certain crazy awesome appeal to that Brunel.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: nckestrel on 27 January 2011, 12:51:06
I'd go with the Primitive.
A primitive Battlemech is STILL a Battlemech.
An Industrial isnt really meant for combat at all.

Would you rather drive an M4 Sherman tank into battle, or a pickup truck with recoiless rifles strapped to it?

industrial mechs include dedicated security mechs.  It's not all loader mechs and forestry mechs.  i'd take a modern SWAT teams' equipment over world war I infantry.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Minemech on 27 January 2011, 13:43:21
 I am going to have to side with Industrials for asformentioned reasons. The First Colossal mech was an indi.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Stormlion1 on 27 January 2011, 13:51:23
Primitive, if I survive piloting one for a while I'd have something to brag about.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: cray on 27 January 2011, 14:43:41
Primatives. The advantages are many - no double weight intenral strucutre, normal-grade fire control and coming with little comforts like ejection seats.

For these rules-based reasons, I'd go with Primitive BattleMechs. There's also the point that WorkMechs are more vulnerable to internal damage than a Primitive BattleMech, suffering more crits.

The WW1 gear-vs-SWAT gear comparison is interesting, but the battlefield performance differences between WorkMechs and Primitive BattleMechs is such that I don't think the analogy is applicable (and even the most Primitive of BattleMechs, the Mackie, was noted for having exceptional technology in some ways, like its sensors). And there's the fluff issue that WorkMechs do represent even more primitive gear than Primitive BattleMechs - WorkMechs are 100 years older than BattleMechs.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Cidwm on 02 February 2011, 15:38:36
I'm going with the Primitives. They are designed for battle.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 02 February 2011, 16:12:03
Quasit, all the way.
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: Paint it Pink on 03 February 2011, 09:30:57
Sorry to be contrary, but have both.

Primitives say these mechs are low tech.

Industrials say these mechs are field expedient refits.

What message are you saying? Seriously, BT is all about the background, so what is the story?
Title: Re: Primitives or Industrials?
Post by: JPArbiter on 03 February 2011, 16:51:32
considering most "primitive" battlemechs were built in retrofitted industrial mech facilities, I say why not both?  Spend a quarter producing military hardware and the rest of the fiscal year producing civilian products.  Focus on a quality design like the Battleaxe, Dervish, or Ostwar and you gotyourself a buy in bulk winner.