Since some players are asking questions, I have a challenge for growing players

[Minemech]

 Since players have been asking questions about tactics and strategies, I think I will throw out a test for those who are interested. There are two mechs that in some ways look very similar, yet are very different. I am thinking of the GRF-1N Griffin and the HOP-4B Hoplite. Both are solid when properly employed, but not every player will properly employ them. I challenge players to explain the differences in their uses, where there is overlap, and to present examples of units of varying sizes properly deploying them. I want those willing to take this challenge to explain how these mechs play a role in force building, which is foundational to further gameplay. I am not asking you to explain every angle possible, but rather to apply the mechs to your style. Speak about each of the mechs, the role it plays in your force, and why it plays that role. Explain why one might be inept, and the other work well in said role(s).

 Experienced players, feel free to provide guidance at a helpful pace.

[Azakael]

My initial glance at both, is that they are both obviously snipers, what with their weaponry being all minimum range.

In that particular role, the Griffin should be a mobile sniper. It doesn't have the sinks to pour fire in a turn-by-turn alpha strike. It will overheat eventually. It also lacks the armor that the Hoplite has, so it really should avoid drawing fire, except when you can control the modifiers. What it has over the 4B, however, is mobility and speed. I would try to use that advantage to flank and harass my opponent's force. I'd also likely use the Griffin in an offensive situation, where speed would be more useful.

The Hoplite on the other hand, I see as a "heavy medium." With max armor, and heat sinks for days, it has the ability to work as a anchor point to sit and pound on an approaching enemy. Given the slower speeds, I'd move it into a position I don't expect to need to give up quickly. Certainly a 'Mech I'd use in a defensive situation.

That's my quick initial assessment. Whether or not I actually pull off using them in what I'd consider "right" still to be seen. XD

[jackpot4]

The speed makes all the difference for me.  If picking between the two I'm going with the Griffin.  It would do some sniping, then close to a good medium range, giving it enough room to back away the 5 hexes walking.  I would make sure, in a lance, to have at least 1 or 2 actual brawlers like a Battlemaster/Javelin and the 4th mech be an actual sniper. 

[Phobos101]

Hoplite for fire support, Griffin as a mobile harasser.

[bobthecoward]

Trick question, the hoplite is a woman.

[maxcarrion]

The Griffin is faster and has a fistful of JJ - it cannot fire all it's weapons without building heat
The Hoplite has 5 more LRM tubes and a lot more armour/heatsinks.

They both have solid long/mid range weapons, no close range secondaries and are mid weight

The Griffin is a good skirmisher - quick and mobile, the JJ can make it very hard to hit and the long range weapons can allow it to plink away in an asymmetric fight tying up superior forces from being able to respond elsewhere or do a little damage while taking less in return

The Hoplite is much more suited to wading into midrange and hitting with streams of effective fire in a much more direct manner

Both can provide reasonably static long range supporting fire but the Hoplite can keep firing, moving and receiving return fire longer while the Griffin can make itself a very hard target and play keep away more effectively

[Trailblazer]

Most obvious difference is the heat sinks, which make the Hop more of a stand-up fighter.

But I'd say the most important difference is that the GRF can give both itself and its enemies +3 TH by jumping. This means you will often want to jump and shoot as an evasive maneuver with the GRF, while the Hoplite will want to use it's jets to get into a good firing position and then stay put.

[Minemech]

  I am happy that many of you have noted that the Hoplite is better at maintaining a volume of fire, while both mechs lack a volume of firepower. They sacrifice defensive the weaponry that makes heavies all so terrifying. As players have noted, the mechs do this to different ends. The Hoplite maintains the primary firepower of a heavy (Think an Orion), with the inability to add the defensive firepower that makes many heavies so formidable at closer ranges. One iconic feature of heavier designs in tech 1, is often the firepower of the lighter design, with the heat sinks to indulge. The Hoplite is a team player. Its armor is at a fair level for some heavies. In contrast, Griffin uses mobility to cause problems, but that same mobility forces players to learn to ride the heat scale (Not a bad thing). Griffins do often end up in static positions due to tactical considerations, and that mech's fair armor. They are also sometimes used to cover retreats (They can get there, but lack the firepower to turn a situation around. They may dissuade some mechs from acting on the circumstance, like a Commando). When used correctly, both mechs are quite handy.

  An important difference is that the Hoplite is far more likely to force at least 20 points of damage. It will also end up in the open in games, because momentum will become key. Whether that is the right choice, or not is contextual. If a player has a chance to gain momentum, they have to weigh it against their tempo. Players also sometimes forget that a Hoplite can kick, or charge, just like I have seen armless Griffins turn to brawling. Part of seeing the whole map is knowing what any given piece is capable of. 

  Knowing how a mech can work is foundational to force building, but so is experimentation in units. What types of units would you deploy a Hoplite with in a force? How about a Griffin? Terms like Sniper, Skirmisher, ad hoc Skirmisher, and Missile boat have their limitations. I do not tend to use these terms, with the exceptions of skirmisher (Due to historic context) and Missile boat. I noticed one player designed a force for a lance on lance game. How would this differ for a company force? Why do you use that lance design?

[Paladin1]

Now for a real twist, who can tell what the design specifications of the DV-6M Dervish and the TBT-5N Trebuchet are and their respective roles on the battlefield?

This is another of those classic design differences, like the one that Minemech just pointed out, that most new players don't utilize correctly.

[massey]

Am I the only one who saw the question about growing players, and thought "an iron womb works well for that"?

[RoundTop]

Now for a real twist, who can tell what the design specifications of the DV-6M Dervish and the TBT-5N Trebuchet are and their respective roles on the battlefield?

This is another of those classic design differences, like the one that Minemech just pointed out, that most new players don't utilize correctly.

The trebuchet is a fire support design. It is mean to support a medium lance with indirect or direct fire from range, preferrably when still so it doesn't overheat. It has 3 medium lasers to handle foes who get too close.

The Dervish is a general support design. Jack-of-all-trades. It is meant to support a hunter-killer lance. As such, it is highly mobile with its Jump Jets, and mounts a bit more close range firepower (mlas+srm2 in each arm). Also, since they are arm mounted, they have better arcs.  Yes, the dual LRM10 is less firepower, but it is also less heat, and more ammo.

So in mixed terrain, the dervish is a great pick, especially when combined with some other jumpers. In open terrain, the trebuchet will hit harder at range.

[Paladin1]

Actually, that's incorrect.  Both designs are considered Fire Support,  the difference is what type of unit they are supporting.

The Trebuchet has identical LRM Firepower compared to the Dervish, it's just delivered 50% faster due to the larger LRM racks.  The secondary weapons give an additional clue as to the design's intended roles.

The Trebuchet, with it's larger missile racks, lack of jump jets, and reliance upon the ubiquitous medium laser as it's secondary weapons, is designed as Fire Support design in  Line Company, where it's ability to empty it's magazines quickly into an oncoming force is preferred over endurance, especially considering the fact that the expected targets of the Trebuchet are going to rely more on armor than speed to stay alive.  In that case, volume of ordnance delivered on target is more important than endurance.

The Dervish, on the other hand, is designed to fill the role of Fire Support in a Cavalry or Reconnaissance unit, where a running battle is not only common, but expected and so endurance is the name of the game.  Even the secondary weapons speak to this, as SRM racks are some of the most lethal anti-vehicle weaponsin the game, especially when combined with Inferno rounds.

Given that light Mechs and light to medium vehicles are the most common armored opponents that a Cavalry or Reconnaissance unit will likely face, the choice of LRM-10s makes sense as well, as most of those targets rely more upon speed and not being hit to survive, rather than armor.  This means that the Dervish can take more questionable shots than the Trebuchet and still produce similar results due to average expected armor levels of enemies encountered.

So same role, different unit, see?

[Gigastrike]

I feel like I'd take the Griffin-1N every day of the week.  Equivalent firepower, even sustained.  Faster movement on both land and air.  Longer range.  Less ammo dependency.  Only a ton less armor, which can be offset by longer range and less ammo to explode, and minimum range weapons, which can be offset by controlling distance. 

The Hoplite is just a horribly inefficient design.  There is no reason why it needs as many heat sinks as is has.  It could have carried some extra close range weaponry to make it a superior brawler in addition to being a mid-range fire support mech, but it doesn't do that.  The Hunchback just ends up being exactly what it should have been.

I'm sure the Hoplite is fine if you use it in a fire support role, but it isn't better than the Griffin in any real way, and lacks flexibility.  I could use the Griffin as a sniper, I could use it as a flanker.  Match it with a Jenner and a couple bugs and it can lead a recon lance because it has the speed to keep up.

[Minemech]

 

I feel like I'd take the Griffin-1N every day of the week.  Equivalent firepower, even sustained.  Faster movement on both land and air.  Longer range.  Less ammo dependency.  Only a ton less armor, which can be offset by longer range and less ammo to explode, and minimum range weapons, which can be offset by controlling distance. 

The Hoplite is just a horribly inefficient design.  There is no reason why it needs as many heat sinks as is has.  It could have carried some extra close range weaponry to make it a superior brawler in addition to being a mid-range fire support mech, but it doesn't do that.  The Hunchback just ends up being exactly what it should have been.

I'm sure the Hoplite is fine if you use it in a fire support role, but it isn't better than the Griffin in any real way, and lacks flexibility.  I could use the Griffin as a sniper, I could use it as a flanker.  Match it with a Jenner and a couple bugs and it can lead a recon lance because it has the speed to keep up.

An immediate thought:

 The Griffin has appropriate armor for its mass, and possibly its role. The Hoplite has near the maximum it can hold. Sure it is not quite a Bombardier, or a Thunderbolt, but they are capable of carrying more armor. The difference between the Griffin and the Hoplite in armor is more than a single ton. Likewise, the Griffin aims for an edge in mobility--the speed is required to enable the mobility. That mobility also enables higher evasion, and easier placement, at the cost of its own risk of missed shots.

 They both should have the same mass of ammo, but the Griffin more shots.

 Some mechs are able to do more with less, if you truly feel this is what the Griffin is doing, try to make such an argument in the Griffins favor. Simply put, you will have to accept that the armor edge provided the Hoplite is real, even if you think the Griffin mitigates such an issue through better design. However, you should explain the Hoplite's edge properly to better compare, and contrast the two. You believe the Griffin is more versatile, but I ask, is the Hoplite is trying to be versatile, or is it is effective at what it is made to do?

Feel free to ask others for advice if you need to better flesh out what you are trying to argue, there are plenty of other players on these forums who may even disagree with you, but would probably help you craft your argument.  Keep in mind that the Hoplite was not made for 1v1.