BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => Ground Combat => Topic started by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 07 December 2018, 01:27:37
-
There have been a lot of mechs over the years that have been less-than-optimized.
But sometimes, there's a mech that's built in a way that just leaves you saying "what were they smoking?" I'm interested in hearing what people think are some of the worst offenders.
A big one for me is the Cerberus. Eleven tons of armor doesn't come close to being sufficient, but that's compounded by wasting tonnage on a pair of rear-facing machine guns and two double heatsinks (giving it 24 heat dissipation on a mech that can only generate 19 on a standing alpha strike).
-
Because the Cerberus was designed to a Direct Fire support platform, the 11 tons of FF armor is adequate. I am not too worried about the 12 DHS, I'd rather not have to deal with heat and this design solves that. the rear dual MGs were usually replaced. Common one i did was c3 slave and a small laser. If you use the mech to take hits, you will be in trouble. Put it with an Atlas or Awesome, then it will work well.
-
I'm almost certain what they were thinking with the Cerberus was "What do you mean it looks too much like a Gunslinger? Fine, I'll change it."
Seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if the original authors of the two designs came up with basically the same thing and then got into an argument over who had to make theirs worse.
-
It's hard to beat the Peacekeeper. Way more weapons than its heat sinks can handle, and a SRM2 whose only purpose appears to be blowing up when you get into heavy fighting (since there's no practical use for it as a weapon.).
-
The SRM2 is not so much the problem IMO as is the three big heat makers and a lack of weapons to fine tune them so you can use the TSM properly. Going 5/8 with that weapons load on a mech that damage potential in a kick could be fun but its hard to manage that the 2.5t from the SRM2 & CASE would make easier (ERML, 2 ERSL, SL).
-
Because the Cerberus was designed to a Direct Fire support platform, the 11 tons of FF armor is adequate. I am not too worried about the 12 DHS, I'd rather not have to deal with heat and this design solves that. the rear dual MGs were usually replaced. Common one i did was c3 slave and a small laser. If you use the mech to take hits, you will be in trouble. Put it with an Atlas or Awesome, then it will work well.
The problem is that it came out as the same time as the Inner Sphere was seeing a bunch of new heavy cavalry mechs also being deployed. So just being able to stand off and snipe was not something it could guarantee. And that's without even considering the Clans, which it was allegedly built to fight. And the extra heatsinks are especially pointless if it's supposed to be used for fire support: if all it's going to be firing are the Gauss Rifles it can afford to take a dip in Inferno gel without gaining heat before the extra heatsinks are factored in. That right there is the definition of oversinked.
-
I'd nominate most of new-toy-syndrome 'Mechs.
Like, the Artemis IV upgrade for the Whitworth.
Or the Goliath upgrade with two tons of MG ammo. "Prototype rushed to production" works only for so far.
There are good ones around to be sure, but so many of them don't make sense neither out of universe, nor in-universe by any reasonable metric. This leaves irrational reasons, so figuring them out is basically impossible.
The Hellbringer comes to mind as well, though i suppose it can be justified by the fact that without endo-steel or ferro-fibrous, it is relatively easy to repair, and its nature allows for quick duels ("time-economical"), well suited for the Clans. But given that the Clans are perfectly capable of producing designs that are smart and effective, it is really baffling. Then again, i seem to recall that the design competed against even worse designs before it got selected for production...
The Hercules isn't too bad design overall, with its speed and primary armament, but its secondary weapons array is somewhat baffling. Small pulses in the rear? Yes, they're accurate but for anti-infantry use it would've made sense to locate them in the left arm, that way twisting torso would allow shooting more or less behind the 'Mech to keep infantry out of your back. The singular Streak launcher is also a bit dubious, something the field refit partially corrects by adding another Streak by removing the AMS and its ammo.
-
I'd nominate most of new-toy-syndrome 'Mechs.
Like, the Artemis IV upgrade for the Whitworth.
Or the Goliath upgrade with two tons of MG ammo. "Prototype rushed to production" works only for so far.
There are good ones around to be sure, but so many of them don't make sense neither out of universe, nor in-universe by any reasonable metric. This leaves irrational reasons, so figuring them out is basically impossible.
The Hellbringer comes to mind as well, though i suppose it can be justified by the fact that without endo-steel or ferro-fibrous, it is relatively easy to repair, and its nature allows for quick duels ("time-economical"), well suited for the Clans. But given that the Clans are perfectly capable of producing designs that are smart and effective, it is really baffling. Then again, i seem to recall that the design competed against even worse designs before it got selected for production...
The Hercules isn't too bad design overall, with its speed and primary armament, but its secondary weapons array is somewhat baffling. Small pulses in the rear? Yes, they're accurate but for anti-infantry use it would've made sense to locate them in the left arm, that way twisting torso would allow shooting more or less behind the 'Mech to keep infantry out of your back. The singular Streak launcher is also a bit dubious, something the field refit partially corrects by adding another Streak by removing the AMS and its ammo.
I'd argue there are some in-universe factors that we don't really see on the tabletop.
While it's easy for us to max out the armor on a custom design, I don't think it's supposed to be that simple for the engineers in the game world. While a 65 ton mech can carry a max of 13 tons of armor, I like to think that means squeezing every last possible bit of protection onto the frame. As in, you're probably making compromises in the design elsewhere.
If you think of a mech not just as a list of numbers, and instead as a complicated combat vehicle with thousands of moving parts, it makes more sense. I used to write out my mech designs on a piece of paper, and it looked something like this:
65T
-13.5T 260 engine
51.5T
-6.5T internal structure
45T
-6T gyro/cockpit
39T
-12T armor (192)
27T
And so on down the page. Like that, optimization is easy. But if you think about building it as in drawing up the technical diagrams, and figuring out where ammo feeds are going to be, etc, it suddenly gets a lot more complicated. While a particular design might be perfectly legal on the tabletop, that doesn't mean it's going to be easy to make it work in the universe. The Bushwhacker had notorious problems with engine and weapon placement, even though it was a standard 3025 design. I'd argue that certain under-armored mechs may have been designed with the intention of carrying more protection, but once the chassis was finished they found out that the placement of certain components prevented them from up-armoring the thing like they wanted. This sort of thing happens with real life military equipment, and you basically find out when it's too late to fix it.
And maybe the production model of the Hellbringer is just a nice budget heavy Omnimech. It's cheap to manufacture, fast enough to keep up with better designs, and carries a big punch. It uses a lot of the same parts as the Summoner, so you can keep your costs down even though it's relatively easy to damage. The logistical benefits of the mech outweigh the weaknesses in the design, so it's not really worth changing.
With the Hercules, there are a few mechs (like the Falcon) that put anti-infantry weapons in the rear. So there's some history there. Perhaps a favored tactic of anti-mech infantry is to stay hidden and then attack from behind? While the game rules allow you to torso-twist, it's possible that it's still not quite as effective as dedicated rear-mounted weaponry.
-
There have been a lot of mechs over the years that have been less-than-optimized.
But sometimes, there's a mech that's built in a way that just leaves you saying "what were they smoking?" I'm interested in hearing what people think are some of the worst offenders.
A big one for me is the Cerberus. Eleven tons of armor doesn't come close to being sufficient, but that's compounded by wasting tonnage on a pair of rear-facing machine guns and two double heatsinks (giving it 24 heat dissipation on a mech that can only generate 19 on a standing alpha strike).
The Cerberus seems like a design that probably started with a different weapon loadout. It probably started out as a mech carrying PPCs, where the designers thought they'd need the extra heat sinks. So they place orders for 380 XL engines with 12 internal double heat sinks, and then partway through it's like "oh hey, we can use Gauss Rifles instead". The design gets changed, but you've already got engines being produced. Just because a piece of technology was around before the design, that doesn't mean it was going to be available to every manufacturer. Maybe they hoped for Gauss Rifles but designed for PPCs to be on the safe side.
As far as the machine guns go, versatility is important. Not everything is high intensity combat. Sometimes your mech is on its own and it's important to be able to murder a couple of infantry platoons. It may be that was a requirement of the RFP for the design.
-
Or for the Cerb it could have simply been the -5M with a ERPPC instead of a 2nd Gauss Rifle and more armor & DHS was the original design but someone called during the procurement/set up for a double Gauss version to be the primary version produced.
-
No-Dachi 2KO.
Yes, it is a pulse beast. Yes it is a scary mech... but WHY OH WHY did they mount 2 ER Medium lasers pointing rear! Heck, they have the longest range on the mech, tied with the large pulse laser. But to the rear is never used. If someone is behind me I'll rotate and use the LPL, MPL, SPL in the arm, or hit them with my sword. Not two ER medium lasers.
-
The Cerberus seems like a design that probably started with a different weapon loadout. It probably started out as a mech carrying PPCs, where the designers thought they'd need the extra heat sinks. So they place orders for 380 XL engines with 12 internal double heat sinks, and then partway through it's like "oh hey, we can use Gauss Rifles instead". The design gets changed, but you've already got engines being produced. Just because a piece of technology was around before the design, that doesn't mean it was going to be available to every manufacturer. Maybe they hoped for Gauss Rifles but designed for PPCs to be on the safe side.
That only makes sense if the MR-V2 was a field refit. Or if the lead designer was the same guy who did the upgrade for the Draconis Combine's ASFs.
-
That only makes sense if the MR-V2 was a field refit. Or if the lead designer was the same guy who did the upgrade for the Draconis Combine's ASFs.
Not a field refit, a last minute change. Or last minute enough that they can’t undo certain design decisions they’d already made.
-
Not a field refit, a last minute change. Or last minute enough that they can’t undo certain design decisions they’d already made.
Yes . . . ordering & supply pipe lines
-
Not a field refit, a last minute change. Or last minute enough that they can’t undo certain design decisions they’d already made.
That would basically require a change that was made in-transit, though. If you've got the engines at the factory, you can remove the heatsinks at the same time you're installing the gauss rifles.
-
Run the Cerberus under Solaris VII dueling rules.
Suddenly those extra heat sinks and machine guns make a LOT more sense (admittedly I'd rather have the MGs facing forward on a 4/6 machine).
The armor sucks, but it's hardly the only long-range gunboat that follows the battlecruiser philosophy.
-
I think it's about time to stop appealing to an obscure box set that a large percentage of modern players have never even seen, much less used. Unless the Cerberus was actually designed for the Solaris rules (which it wasn't, unlike, say, the Juggernaut), its performance under those rules is irrelevant.
Hmm, maybe we need a corollary to Apollo's Law. The S7 Law: If you have to invoke the Solaris Box Set rules as proof that a mech isn't badly designed, you're admitting it's badly designed.
We can work on it.
-
I fail to understand the design ideas for the Axman AXM-2N, and especially not the Berserker BRZ-B3.
While the basic idea is simple to grasp-turning the two platforms into decent missile support units, especially in the case of the latter-the execution is terribly flawed by the design decisions of the machines themselves. I'd assume the design for both to either A; Attack with the LRMs while closing to hatchet range, or B; Rush forward and use the hatchet when an enemy gets into LRM minimum range. But for both models, that tonnage could be used for something far more valuable.
If anything, I'd say the abuse of the BRZ-B3 is the more egregious of the two. While putting twin LRM-15s on the Axman makes less sense, it at least has considerable backup weaponry considering the weight class, even if SRMs or extra laser packages would certainly make more sense over long-range missiles. But the Berserker only gets range out of the deal, losing out on damage and minimum ranges and the lack theorof when, perhaps worst of all, it would have the tonnage to at least mount a single AC/20 or Gauss Rifle. Or a big laser battery.
-
Hmm, maybe we need a corollary to Apollo's Law. The S7 Law: If you have to invoke the Solaris Box Set rules as proof that a mech isn't badly designed, you're admitting it's badly designed.
The question is not "is the design good or is it bad", the question is "does it make sense". The mere existence of the Solaris rules, however antiquated (and frankly broken) they might be, is sufficient proof that there are conditions in-universe where performance can be very different from what you get under standard rules. And under those conditions, machine guns on BattleMechs and "too many" heat sinks do indeed make a lot of sense.
All game rules are by their nature abstractions. TW rules have a particular set of abstractions that crap all over certain equipment (AC/2s and machine guns are clearly not terrible in-universe, otherwise they would be extinct; the fault must be in the rules) because the rules are designed for a particular kind of scenario and don't handle edge cases very well. TW doesn't support extra heat sink capacity allowing you to fire your medium lasers 25% more often, but that doesn't mean it's impossible in-universe, just that the rules weren't designed for that kind of edge case.
From an intradiagetic (aka Watsonian) perspective no unit is "designed" for a particular rules set. They're designed according to particular in-universe criteria which we as board game players are neither privy to nor restricted by. It's farcical to call any canon design good or bad without framing it in the context in which it belongs. There is more to judge a design by than performance under tabletop rules; if there weren't every faction would be exclusively deploying 5/8/7 pulse boats with max armor and piles of heat sinks. There is a huge difference between bad in the fiction and bad on the table.
Speaking extradiagetically, virtually all canon units are hobbled in some way to make them more interesting to play. Sometimes even just by assigning them to a faction that
doesn't have anything else good to team them up with.
In any case nothing with dual Gauss rifles and the ability to shoot them can be considered "bad", it's mediocre at worst!
-
I fail to understand the design ideas for the Axman AXM-2N, and especially not the Berserker BRZ-B3.
While the basic idea is simple to grasp-turning the two platforms into decent missile support units, especially in the case of the latter-the execution is terribly flawed by the design decisions of the machines themselves. I'd assume the design for both to either A; Attack with the LRMs while closing to hatchet range, or B; Rush forward and use the hatchet when an enemy gets into LRM minimum range. But for both models, that tonnage could be used for something far more valuable.
Consider two Axmen working together. The basic model has no ranged capability at all. An AXM-1N and AXM-2N working as a pair have an AC/20, 30 LRM tubes, two large pulse lasers, and two bigass hatchets. The 2N can support the 1N with ranged bombardment as they close and still has a fearsome surprise for anyone who decides to play "rush the missile boat". Once the battle is joined at close range the 2N is somewhat less effective but the enemy should be well softened-up from the early long-range salvos, and the 1N's autocannon will find them easy prey.
...unless someone is going to propose a "law" that says teamwork is just covering for weakness?
-
The shadow hawk. Cool imagery, really bad rules. Given that size wise he could have been said to have an AC10 instead of an AC5 (and make a lot more sense in that case), well, I think it is simply badly designed and never reviewed.
-
The shadow hawk. Cool imagery, really bad rules. Given that size wise he could have been said to have an AC10 instead of an AC5 (and make a lot more sense in that case), well, I think it is simply badly designed and never reviewed.
I do believe it was designed back when there was only one AC type, which would morph into the AC/5...
Ruger
-
I do believe it was designed back when there was only one AC type, which would morph into the AC/5...
Ruger
It was, just like the Wolverine, Rifleman, and Marauder.
-
So it makes no sense due to a lame revision. I keep up my "mech that makes no sense" candidate
-
AC/10s weighing 8 tons would be so much more attractive to folks i'm sure.
It was, just like the Wolverine, Rifleman, and Marauder.
-
The royal shadow hawk is a nod to the AC/5 complaint
-
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I don't get the Vulpes. It just runs so darn hot, 14 base heat from running an XXL with the ECM on and then main lines ER lasers with just 14 DHS. The fluff around it makes it seem like some sort of next-tier mech, but it's just not that good to me.
-
I think it's about time to stop appealing to an obscure box set that a large percentage of modern players have never even seen, much less used. Unless the Cerberus was actually designed for the Solaris rules (which it wasn't, unlike, say, the Juggernaut), its performance under those rules is irrelevant.
Hmm, maybe we need a corollary to Apollo's Law. The S7 Law: If you have to invoke the Solaris Box Set rules as proof that a mech isn't badly designed, you're admitting it's badly designed.
We can work on it.
But it explains a lot of the weirdness around TRO3050 and 3055.
For starters you have the chronic under armouring of 3025.
Then there is this obsession with using XL engines to boost speed. To me that points to a close range dueling environment. Under 3025 weapons and ranges were so weak physical combat was the expectation, and it is the name of the game in Solaris.
I suspect that there was a group of designers quite enamored with Solaris as the way of the future. Not an unreasonable assumption. It is a hyped up version of 3025 play. Unfortunately the rules didn't become general play and Clantech and growth of L2 encouraged armour and range based play.
So by 3058 you see everyone, Clan and IS, slowing down and adding guns and armour.
-
The shadow hawk. Cool imagery, really bad rules. Given that size wise he could have been said to have an AC10 instead of an AC5 (and make a lot more sense in that case), well, I think it is simply badly designed and never reviewed.
In a 3025 context the AC/5 isn't that bad. It has the same range as a PPC and only 5 points less damage at 1/10 the heat. A PPC by itself is going to eat all of your base 10 heat sinks and you'll need two more to be able to move without building heat. The AC/5 gets you most of the PPC's performance (mind you, the deadliest weapon in 3025 play is the one that does any damage to a 2 or 12 on the location table!) and doesn't penalize you for carrying secondary weapons.
It's double heat sinks what killed the AC/5.
-
Narc on an Archer, or any other LRM boat for that matter. By the time you can hit with IS-Narc, you can't hit with LRMs, and odds of being able to back off afterwards aren't great against most foes.
It makes sense on the stalker, as that's a brawler with LRM as something to do as it gets close. Kintaro has more SRM than LRM. Sorta works on an Orion, that's a general purpose mech that works as a brawler/spotter. The -5S Archer is a mess, the SRM are streaks that can't even use the Narc, and two tons of ammo for four tubes is four times what it needs in it's primary role.
-
The problem is that it came out as the same time as the Inner Sphere was seeing a bunch of new heavy cavalry mechs also being deployed. So just being able to stand off and snipe was not something it could guarantee. And that's without even considering the Clans, which it was allegedly built to fight. And the extra heatsinks are especially pointless if it's supposed to be used for fire support: if all it's going to be firing are the Gauss Rifles it can afford to take a dip in Inferno gel without gaining heat before the extra heatsinks are factored in. That right there is the definition of oversinked.
But your first post mentioned a "standing alpha strike", which I believe would change to 21 heat per turn if it was running. Since it was a clan invasion response mech, the idea of it sitting around and sniping wasn't likely considered, instead to have it constantly on the move while trying to snipe. That would make sense considering the clan's speed advantage against the I.S. The increased speed of I.S. designs post clan invasion isn't really an issue since they were simply trying to match the clans, meaning either way the Cerebus was not going to be facing mechs going the average speed of their 3025 variants.
The 2 rear facing MGs? Yeah, that's kinda odd. Its odd until someone makes a scenario that craps 20 platoons of infantry out of a building that your Gunslinger is standing next to and is trying to get away from. Not the most likely thing to happen in any game, but that would have helped a lot. Aside from that nonsense, the MGs and the extra sink would help against battlearmor....a bit. Its one of those things you wish you had when you need it.
-
...unless someone is going to propose a "law" that says teamwork is just covering for weakness?
I was assuming the question as posed was for that specific model of mech in a vacuum.
Either way, the things that do make up for that Axman model's bad decisions (Which, admittedly, aren't that bad now that I'm looking at the design more) don't even begin to absolve the LRM Berserker of its own issues.
-
Even ignoring the slow speed, putting the 3 Medium Lasers in the axe arm and the LPL in the off side is unforgivable.
-
But your first post mentioned a "standing alpha strike", which I believe would change to 21 heat per turn if it was running. Since it was a clan invasion response mech, the idea of it sitting around and sniping wasn't likely considered, instead to have it constantly on the move while trying to snipe. That would make sense considering the clan's speed advantage against the I.S. The increased speed of I.S. designs post clan invasion isn't really an issue since they were simply trying to match the clans, meaning either way the Cerebus was not going to be facing mechs going the average speed of their 3025 variants.
The 2 rear facing MGs? Yeah, that's kinda odd. Its odd until someone makes a scenario that craps 20 platoons of infantry out of a building that your Gunslinger is standing next to and is trying to get away from. Not the most likely thing to happen in any game, but that would have helped a lot. Aside from that nonsense, the MGs and the extra sink would help against battlearmor....a bit. Its one of those things you wish you had when you need it.
If a Cerberus is using its pulse lasers, it isn't sniping. If it's sniping, it generates 2 heat from its Gauss Rifles and maybe 1 more heat if its AMS goes off. Either way, being able to sink 24 heat when it an at most generate 21 is ridiculous: it could be excused on an omnimech with fixed heatsinks in the engine (so long as it made use of that capacity in other variants). It's completely silly on any Battlemech that isn't a field refit.
Getting away from the Cerb, the 3050 upgrade for the Trebuchet: another mech that uses LRMs, and they slapped a NARC on it.
-
I have less of a problem with oversinking because I think games ought to use environments that tinker with heat dissipation rates more often. If you suffer -25% to your dissipation, something that's normally ridiculous/oversinked actually has a strong incentive for use.
Plus, Plasma weapons. Maybe your opponent uses a lot of them.
-
Plasma weapons weren't a concern when the Cerberus was built. I prefer just designing the mech to make better use of bracket firing.
-
But Infernos were. And Compendium-era Infernos were rude, especially in the hands of hidden SRM infantry. 6 heat per turn that burned for 3 turns per missile that hit you.
-
The Cerberus is cool enough that an extra six heat a round for a few rounds isn't a huge liability. Let's remember that it's one of the most heat efficient mechs from 3055, next to such designs as the Grand Titan, which only had enough heat dissipation to handle half its close-range weaponry, or the Huron Warrior, which was still using single heatsinks with an ER Large Laser.
-
The Cerberus is cool enough that an extra six heat a round for a few rounds isn't a huge liability. Let's remember that it's one of the most heat efficient mechs from 3055, next to such designs as the Grand Titan, which only had enough heat dissipation to handle half its close-range weaponry, or the Huron Warrior, which was still using single heatsinks with an ER Large Laser.
Don't forget that at the time the Cerberus was published AMS generated a random amount of heat, not the 2 heat it does currently.
-
And the impact of high temperature on heat dissipation has been more of a big deal in the lore/fluff/previous editions than it is under TW.
Garrisons on worlds like Altair and Hesperus II are well served by oversinked designs in-universe.
-
Don't forget that at the time the Cerberus was published AMS generated a random amount of heat, not the 2 heat it does currently.
I think only the ammunition expenditure was random, except maybe in the very earliest incarnation (TRO2750?).
But we also house-ruled AMS to be able to attack multiple flights of missiles per turn back then, as a way of justifying its crazy ammo expenditure. Which could result in a lot of extra heat if you were dealing with missile-heavy opponents.
-
In a 3025 context the AC/5 isn't that bad. It has the same range as a PPC and only 5 points less damage at 1/10 the heat. A PPC by itself is going to eat all of your base 10 heat sinks and you'll need two more to be able to move without building heat. The AC/5 gets you most of the PPC's performance (mind you, the deadliest weapon in 3025 play is the one that does any damage to a 2 or 12 on the location table!) and doesn't penalize you for carrying secondary weapons.
It's double heat sinks what killed the AC/5.
AC-5s were always bad. You basically never run out of crits building in 3025 and an AC/5 is 2 tons per damage (8 tons of gun, 1 ton of ammo, 1 ton of heatsink) while the PPC is 1.7 tons per damage and 10 is a more advantageous damage grouping because it will break armor on some light mechs and always gets a crit check on a head hit. The LRM-10 is about 1.83 tons per damage (assuming 6 average damage, 4 heatsinks, and 2 tons of ammo) and the same weight in absolute terms. The large laser is 1.625 tons per damage. The AC-10 (with 2 tons ammo and 3 tons of heatsink) is 1.7 tons per point of damage. If you have more than 1 heatsink available from your engine everything but the AC-5 benefits more.
If you want to fight close to medium, the LL and AC-10 are just better. If you want to fight far, LRMs are just better. If you want to fight at exactly 6 hexes, PPCs are just better. And on a vehicle AC-5s manage to get worse. An AC-5 goes down to 1.8 damage per ton, still worse than the PPC, but the LRM-10 drops to 1.17 damage per ton and the AC-10 1.4 damage per ton.
Before the introduction of the PPC, AC-10, large laser, and LRMs was also before the development of BAR 10 armor. Against primitive armor a heavy rifle with 3 tons of ammo and 4 heatsinks (eg. on an ASF) is 1.67 tons per point of damage and on a non-heat-tracking vehicle it's 1.22 tons per damage.
The use cases for AC-5s center around flak and precision ammo and one of these is rare and the other nonexistent in the SHS era.
-
Don't forget that at the time the Cerberus was published AMS generated a random amount of heat, not the 2 heat it does currently.
I don't ever remember the AMS generating random heat. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the Rapid Fire rules for machine guns?
-
The following sources have the AMS producing one heat. the ammo expenditure and missiles destroyed are randomized.
TRO: 2750 (pg 13)
BTC (pg 143)
BTC: RoW (pg 151)
BMR (pg 115)
BMRr (pg 173)
-
I don't ever remember the AMS generating random heat. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the Rapid Fire rules for machine guns?
I would assume confusion with the old Laser AMS rules.
-
Like, the Artemis IV upgrade for the Whitworth.
Or the Goliath upgrade with two tons of MG ammo. "Prototype rushed to production" works only for so far.
The Hellbringer comes to mind as well, though i suppose it can be justified by the fact that without endo-steel or ferro-fibrous, it is relatively easy to repair, and its nature allows for quick duels ("time-economical"), well suited for the Clans. But given that the Clans are perfectly capable of producing designs that are smart and effective, it is really baffling. Then again, i seem to recall that the design competed against even worse designs before it got selected for production...
The Hercules isn't too bad design overall, with its speed and primary armament, but its secondary weapons array is somewhat baffling. Small pulses in the rear? Yes, they're accurate but for anti-infantry use it would've made sense to locate them in the left arm, that way twisting torso would allow shooting more or less behind the 'Mech to keep infantry out of your back. The singular Streak launcher is also a bit dubious, something the field refit partially corrects by adding another Streak by removing the AMS and its ammo.
I don't put those all in the same category really.
I mean, the Whitworth isn't anybody's idea of a close assault boat at 4/6/4 & 40 tons.
So while I wouldn't do it, I can see where the concept of going to Artemis to improve Fire Support made some small sense.
The Hellbringer is another one where the chassis isn't what I hate (though it certainly isn't GOOD) but its the pod configurations that kill me.
2 ERPPCs & 3 ERMLs is fine, but you needed 16 DHS to really make those brackets work. Not 13. The A-Pods instead of just more MGs.
Single Streak Hercules is a bit lame when a single ML & HS would get the same job done. But it doesn't ruin the design & can be excused I suppose.
But then that Goliath w/ 2 tons of MG ammo shows up & THAT one stands out as something that just can't be excused.
Really, 2 Tons of MG ammo? The PIRANHA doesn't even need 2 tons of MG ammo. I don't honestly care what you do w/ that extra ton, but ANYTHING would have been an improvement over a 2nd ton of MG ammo. /boggle. There really is no excuse for that one. Its not sub-optimal, its just some designer intentionally being a jackass IMHO.
Honestly its the kind of thing that should have been errata'd the way they fixed the DHS issue on the Clint, Pixie-3M, Blackjack & Scorpion from 3050.
-
AC-5s were always bad. You basically never run out of crits building in 3025 and an AC/5 is 2 tons per damage (8 tons of gun, 1 ton of ammo, 1 ton of heatsink) while the PPC is 1.7 tons per damage and 10 is a more advantageous damage grouping because it will break armor on some light mechs and always gets a crit check on a head hit. The LRM-10 is about 1.83 tons per damage (assuming 6 average damage, 4 heatsinks, and 2 tons of ammo) and the same weight in absolute terms. The large laser is 1.625 tons per damage. The AC-10 (with 2 tons ammo and 3 tons of heatsink) is 1.7 tons per point of damage. If you have more than 1 heatsink available from your engine everything but the AC-5 benefits more.
If you want to fight close to medium, the LL and AC-10 are just better. If you want to fight far, LRMs are just better. If you want to fight at exactly 6 hexes, PPCs are just better. And on a vehicle AC-5s manage to get worse. An AC-5 goes down to 1.8 damage per ton, still worse than the PPC, but the LRM-10 drops to 1.17 damage per ton and the AC-10 1.4 damage per ton.
Before the introduction of the PPC, AC-10, large laser, and LRMs was also before the development of BAR 10 armor. Against primitive armor a heavy rifle with 3 tons of ammo and 4 heatsinks (eg. on an ASF) is 1.67 tons per point of damage and on a non-heat-tracking vehicle it's 1.22 tons per damage.
The use cases for AC-5s center around flak and precision ammo and one of these is rare and the other nonexistent in the SHS era.
Damage-per-ton doesn't really mean all that much. The outcome of BT games comes down to dice randomness far more often than a slight statistical disparity between units unless you make the fights utterly one-sided. Especially in 3025. A PPC may be 17% more efficient but that's basically within the margin of error for a lance-on-lance encounter.
The AC/5 is underpowered, but it isn't grossly so. Any difference that only shows up over large sample sizes is too minor to be trifled with in a game like BT where balance is essentially by gentleman's agreement.
I've lost plenty of matches, to all manner of absurd things, but never one that I could blame on an AC/5.
-
I mean, the Whitworth isn't anybody's idea of a close assault boat at 4/6/4 & 40 tons.
So while I wouldn't do it, I can see where the concept of going to Artemis to improve Fire Support made some small sense.
Statistically, Artemis isn't worth its weight until you have something like 3 tons of ammo already, or you're considering using it to downsize an LRM-20 to an LRM-15.
Really the problem with Artemis though is that you have to have line-of-sight to use it. IMO missile support units should be doing as little direct fire as possible.
-
An Artemis system that reduced the penalties of Indirect Fire would be fantastic. But it would also eliminate the last thing that NARC has going for it.
-
An Artemis system that reduced the penalties of Indirect Fire would be fantastic. But it would also eliminate the last thing that NARC has going for it.
You got that wrong. Eliminating indirect penalties isn't something Narc had going for it, it was something given to it long after the fact so it would have something going for it.
-
I wish they'd made semi-guided LRMs able to lock on to Narc as though the target had been TAG'd. It'd make Narc actually worthwhile to use and I'd much rather eliminate the TMM than get a minor bonus on the missile table.
SGLRM might actually be too powerful as they have no hard counters (short of destroying the TAG-carrying unit). But damn, do I love them. No IDF or TMM penalties. They become my default ammo as soon as they're technologically available.
-
Well, I consider a 100% damage increase comparing an AC10 or PPC over an AC5 quite a change there, not some minor tweak :)
My main concern is aesthetics. I look at the thing on the shoulder of a Shadow Hawk. Then I think how a mirror fight would go when one of them scores a direct hit on the enemyu or 2 in the middle of the torso. the target should be disabled given the size of that thing. Then I look at the stats and it simply makes no sense. Rules make no sense.
Then I look at the rules ignoring the artwork. Rules STILL make no sense at all. Neither for the weapon itself nor the oversinked and undergunned mech design. The Shadow Hawk is just plain bad in all the fields except if you take aesthetics alone, where it rules.
-
I wish they'd made semi-guided LRMs able to lock on to Narc as though the target had been TAG'd. It'd make Narc actually worthwhile to use and I'd much rather eliminate the TMM than get a minor bonus on the missile table.
SGLRM might actually be too powerful as they have no hard counters (short of destroying the TAG-carrying unit). But damn, do I love them. No IDF or TMM penalties. They become my default ammo as soon as they're technologically available.
One problem - if you look at the back of TM, you'll note that every unit with TAG adds 23 BPV (IIRC) to its value for every ton of SG-LRM in the force. That adds up fast in larger forces.
-
As an FWL player I can vouch that it does indeed add up prohibitively fast. If you don’t play with bv, (much more accurate) bombs away!
-
I think we're speaking past each other on some of this.
Certain mech designs are not optimal on the tabletop. We all know that. But that doesn't mean an inefficient design makes no sense. I think that gets driven home when you look at other rule sets, or if you think about whatever in-universe justifications may exist. To me, the "mech that makes no sense" has to be more than something inefficient -- it's got to be a total head-scratcher where you can't come up with any kind of explanation as to why they would do that.
The Goliath 3M is one of those where I'm at a loss as to why they'd give it an extra ton of machine gun ammo, but only have a single ton of gauss rifle ammo. There are a few possibilities I see, none of them particularly good. 1) Comstar got the stats reversed. Oops. 2) The design was meant as a testbed for the new weapon, and what we see in the TRO is more a "proof of concept" than anything else. 3) Some problem popped up in the design process that they couldn't resolve. Adding in an XL engine and a brand new gun might have done some odd things to the internal layout that they didn't anticipate.
Unless you don't expect to actually fight other mechs, I don't see why you'd consciously choose to allocate the ammo that way. Now maybe the Goliath is used for anti-insurgency work, and it's supposed to stomp around shooting at everything that moves. If you really only need the gauss to take out the occasional light tank, that might be enough. A 15 point hit is enough to kill a Scorpion tank from the side in one shot. So the 3M could function as a low intensity warfare specialist, where you don't really expect to see it take on Battle Value balanced opponents in any serious way. It could also be good at assaulting an entrenched position, blasting apart a bunker or fortified wall as it approaches, and then standing there and gunning down large numbers of infantry. Still, if that's the case I don't know why you'd bother to upgrade it over the PPC version.
-
The SRM-4 OS on the Quickdraw has to be my pet peeve: 2.5 tons for something that will only get used ONCE in a battle, if at all, and won't do all much even in the event that it does hit. For a half-ton more, they could have made it something useful, or else replaced it with a single SRM-2 and a ton of ammo and at least made it semi-useful, even though far from optimal. Machineguns and a half-ton of ammo would have been an improvement, seriously.
-
Well, I consider a 100% damage increase comparing an AC10 or PPC over an AC5 quite a change there, not some minor tweak :)
My main concern is aesthetics. I look at the thing on the shoulder of a Shadow Hawk. Then I think how a mirror fight would go when one of them scores a direct hit on the enemyu or 2 in the middle of the torso. the target should be disabled given the size of that thing. Then I look at the stats and it simply makes no sense. Rules make no sense.
Then I look at the rules ignoring the artwork. Rules STILL make no sense at all. Neither for the weapon itself nor the oversinked and undergunned mech design. The Shadow Hawk is just plain bad in all the fields except if you take aesthetics alone, where it rules.
The Shadow Hawk is a great mech, but it's not ultra efficient in the standard game rules. It is flexible, however.
Classic Battletech works best with lance vs lance battles, on 2-4 mapsheets. In one on one fights, the initiative system can be really streaky and luck plays a really big role. With company vs company and higher, it gets really bogged down and takes forever to play. There's a certain level of abstraction in Classic Battletech, and we need to keep in mind that it doesn't 100% represent how the mechs would actually work on the battlefield. Just because a mech doesn't hit the exact right break points in normal Battletech, doesn't mean it isn't a good mech.
Solaris VII rules show us that mechs can be pushed beyond their Battletech limit. You can jam down on those "fire" buttons and blaze away until your weapons melt down. If that's a tactic people actually use in the Inner Sphere, then over-sinking a design can make sense. It's just built with the knowledge that people don't pay attention to the manufacturer's suggested use.
Alpha Strike and Battleforce (and I'm going to show my ignorance here, because I've played neither) show the game world from a more removed perspective. Marking off individual armor dots isn't as important, and neither is tracking heat or counting movement mods. A mech that falls on the wrong side of a line in Battletech (like the Marauder that fires 2 PPCs and walks and gains 5 heat) no longer suffers from those same drawbacks.
--
Even in Classic Battletech, the Shadow Hawk seems pretty useful to me. It's never going to be the star of the show, but it can always contribute. It can carry just about every type of variant ammo. Facing a lot of infantry? Load your AC-5 with flechette rounds and your LRM-5 with fragmentation ammo. Now you're mowing through platoons, even in cover. The enemy has a lot of conventional fighters? Flak ammo for your AC gives you some protection. Need some mobile cover to launch your assault? Smoke rounds for the LRM-5 can block line of sight. Lots of vehicles swarming around? Load that SRM-2 with inferno ammo and off you go.
In basic mech vs mech combat, the Shadow Hawk is not particularly impressive. It doesn't suck, in fact it compares okay with the Griffin and the Wolverine. But it's easy to see how you could make it more effective. Where it really comes into its own is in the capabilities it would add to a military unit. It really is a jack of all trades, master of none.
-
Unless you don't expect to actually fight other mechs, I don't see why you'd consciously choose to allocate the ammo that way. Now maybe the Goliath is used for anti-insurgency work, and it's supposed to stomp around shooting at everything that moves. If you really only need the gauss to take out the occasional light tank, that might be enough. A 15 point hit is enough to kill a Scorpion tank from the side in one shot. So the 3M could function as a low intensity warfare specialist, where you don't really expect to see it take on Battle Value balanced opponents in any serious way. It could also be good at assaulting an entrenched position, blasting apart a bunker or fortified wall as it approaches, and then standing there and gunning down large numbers of infantry. Still, if that's the case I don't know why you'd bother to upgrade it over the PPC version.
That is exactly how the Crab Gunner, the Goliath's inspiration in Fang of the Sun Dougram, was used. Obsolete cannon fodder against other mecha but lethal against poorly-equipped insurgent forces.
The SRM-4 OS on the Quickdraw has to be my pet peeve: 2.5 tons for something that will only get used ONCE in a battle, if at all, and won't do all much even in the event that it does hit. For a half-ton more, they could have made it something useful, or else replaced it with a single SRM-2 and a ton of ammo and at least made it semi-useful, even though far from optimal. Machineguns and a half-ton of ammo would have been an improvement, seriously.
OS launchers have always been a cruel joke. Every design that carries one can easily find another half-ton for a single ammo bin. How hard would it have been to make OS launchers weigh, say, 1/5 of the self-loading versions? Light enough to give them some use but heavy enough to discourage carrying them exclusively.
Oh well, at least nowadays we have Rocket Launchers to retcon in place of the silly OS missile systems.
-
I've always head-canoned the OS launchers as a crappy field refit of an existing missile launcher. Like your mech suffered a critical hit to the SRM, and when you tried to repair it your tech screwed up his repair roll. Or maybe you were missing some parts and the ammo feed is beyond repair. The launcher itself still works, so you just leave it in there and load it up with one volley of missiles.
That's no excuse for the 3050 Quickdraw though, or any other mech that intentionally installs a one-shot weapon from the beginning.
-
I accept the OS SSRM-4 on the Daishi C: the mech is completely crit-packed and would have required extensive reworking for a different weapon. But that's about it as far as mechs go.
By far the worst One Shot launchers go to the War Dog: there is absolutely no excuse for using two One Shots when you could have used two standard launchers and a ton of ammo for the same tonnage. And speaking of the War Dog, it absolutely didn't need 5 tons of Gauss ammo. An extra ton of armor or another laser would have been so much better.
-
I've always worked from the assumption that the one shot launchers (and the wardog in particular) were a product of corporate bureaucracy. The advertising guys wanted to market their mech as having short range missile capabilities without any of the risk of ammo explosions. :D
At best the improved one shot launchers should have been the standard version. The writers even acknowledged this with the humorous fluff text in the Battlemech Manual.
“After decades of research, we have finally discovered muzzleloading LRMs"
-
OS Launchers are kinda wonky due to meta.
On one hand, they were always best as a weapon for fast hit and run units... the kinds of things that shouldn't be sticking around for more than one attack run anyway even if they survive the initial attack... primarily conventional fighters but also certain styles of VTOLs and hovers.
On the other, this kind of hit and run firepower has a plausible role for a Mech in the context of the decline of the Succession Wars... you'd WANT one shot weapons on your scouts so as to encourage them to not stick around for slugfests when mechs are so hard to replace. The rub for OS weapons is Rocket Launchers are what you should be using, but the real-world introduction date for RLs makes it awkward to retcon-in such variants canonically, and they'd displace OS Launchers if you did.
-
On the other, this kind of hit and run firepower has a plausible role in the context of the decline of the Succession Wars... you'd WANT one shot weapons on your scouts so as to encourage them to not stick around for slugfests when mechs are so hard to replace. The rub for OS weapons is Rocket Launchers are what you should be using, but the real-world introduction date for RLs makes it awkward to retcon-in such variants canonically, and they'd displace OS Launchers if you did.
Humorous aside, primitive rocket launchers are available in all eras, including the succession wars. It's only the perfected Marian version that's limited to after 3064.
Of course, in addition to the to-hit penalty they also take a minor cluster hit penalty, so their utility is somewhat under question.
-
I accept the OS SSRM-4 on the Daishi C: the mech is completely crit-packed and would have required extensive reworking for a different weapon. But that's about it as far as mechs go.
By far the worst One Shot launchers go to the War Dog: there is absolutely no excuse for using two One Shots when you could have used two standard launchers and a ton of ammo for the same tonnage. And speaking of the War Dog, it absolutely didn't need 5 tons of Gauss ammo. An extra ton of armor or another laser would have been so much better.
I'm fine with the War Dog's gauss ammo supply. I think it's actually one of the more realistic things. A lot of mechs are built for tabletop performance -- they have enough ammo for one game of Battletech. The War Dog has enough for multiple engagements before reloading. Not only that, but it can afford to take shots at high to-hit numbers. That extra ton of gauss ammo is far more useful than another medium laser, because it means 8 more rounds of firing that 15 point weapon.
-
Humorous aside, primitive rocket launchers are available in all eras, including the succession wars. It's only the perfected Marian version that's limited to after 3064.
Of course, in addition to the to-hit penalty they also take a minor cluster hit penalty, so their utility is somewhat under question.
They may be available in 3025 now, but they weren't available to 3025 in 1987.
-
Damage-per-ton doesn't really mean all that much. The outcome of BT games comes down to dice randomness far more often than a slight statistical disparity between units unless you make the fights utterly one-sided. Especially in 3025. A PPC may be 17% more efficient but that's basically within the margin of error for a lance-on-lance encounter.
The AC/5 is underpowered, but it isn't grossly so. Any difference that only shows up over large sample sizes is too minor to be trifled with in a game like BT where balance is essentially by gentleman's agreement.
I've lost plenty of matches, to all manner of absurd things, but never one that I could blame on an AC/5.
Small statistical advantages become enormous when you're building thousands of mechs to serve for centuries. The Shadow Hawk served for over two centuries before being replaced with an improved version in Royal Command. It continued to be used by regular SLDF formations. Add on all of the other designs that should never have been fit with AC-5s and the stupid stacks up ever higher.
Remember, in 2550 there was not a shortage of energy weapons or LRMs. Those were the days when you could just offer to buy something and the manufacturer could just take out a loan (probably government backed if it was to supply a military contract) to build another factory if they couldn't produce enough already. In that environment the AC-5 should have gone the way of the tank rifles. If you plot armor the AC-5 to the lostech era when factories are irreplaceable from there its survival until the Helm Renaissance can be justified, but they should never have survived the Star League.
Anything from the Star League or Terran Hegemony post-2460 should be using something else. Certainly anything that tracks heat. By 2550 designing a new mech or vehicle with an AC-5 makes no sense. They've been obsolete for ninety years. That would be like invading Afghanistan with tanks mounting the same gun as the Mark IV.
-
They may be available in 3025 now, but they weren't available to 3025 in 1987.
Neither were standard rocket launchers, or standard one shot missile packs for that matter. What's your point? The retcon Tai Dai Cultist was mentioning has already been made, awkward or not.
-
They may be available in 3025 now, but they weren't available to 3025 in 1987.
Sad thing is we will not see any new RS with the prototype RLs on any 3025 designs . . . even in cases where it could make sense. Love to get a PXH with no MGs or LL, just another ML or two and fill the rest with RL10PP. Ideal for visiting a Stalker.
-
*snip*
The rub for OS weapons is Rocket Launchers are what you should be using, but the real-world introduction date for RLs makes it awkward to retcon-in such variants canonically, and they'd displace OS Launchers if you did.
If you make that change, the question becomes "what OS launchers"?
*snip*
That would be like invading Afghanistan with tanks mounting the same gun as the Mark IV.
Sadly, that would have worked about as well as doing it with modern tanks.
-
Sad thing is we will not see any new RS with the prototype RLs on any 3025 designs . . . even in cases where it could make sense. Love to get a PXH with no MGs or LL, just another ML or two and fill the rest with RL10PP. Ideal for visiting a Stalker.
Says who? We eventually ended up with a Blazer armed Zeus, a communications equipment packing Cataphract, an Ultralight Flea, and a fuel cell and light rifle equipped J. Edgar among others after that stuff was codified in Tactical Operations, and the only reason prototype rocket launchers are so widely available is that the authors kept back-dating them by slapping them on earlier and earlier designs (first in operation klondike, then reunification war, then finally all the way back to Primitives 1).
-
If you make that change, the question becomes "what OS launchers"?
Even more humorous aside: the prototype rocket launcher is actually the only one shot missile type canonically available during most of the succession wars. The standard one shot launchers are actually lostech.
Ancient Star League secrets. ;D
-
Heh... I like the cut of your jib... but you already knew that... ;D
-
The Goliath 3M is one of those where I'm at a loss as to why they'd give it an extra ton of machine gun ammo, but only have a single ton of gauss rifle ammo.
Unless you don't expect to actually fight other mechs, I don't see why you'd consciously choose to allocate the ammo that way. Now maybe the Goliath is used for anti-insurgency work, and it's supposed to stomp around shooting at everything that moves. If you really only need the gauss to take out the occasional light tank, that might be enough. A 15 point hit is enough to kill a Scorpion tank from the side in one shot. So the 3M could function as a low intensity warfare specialist, where you don't really expect to see it take on Battle Value balanced opponents in any serious way. It could also be good at assaulting an entrenched position, blasting apart a bunker or fortified wall as it approaches, and then standing there and gunning down large numbers of infantry. Still, if that's the case I don't know why you'd bother to upgrade it over the PPC version.
At 200 shots per ton. Even an AI specialist doesn't need 2 tons. There literally is NO excuse for using that ton as MG ammo.
I'm not even saying it HAD to be for Gauss (though that would be logical).
LRM ammo, Armor, Artemis, a Medium Laser. But more MG ammo???? Indefensible IMHO.
-
They may be available in 3025 now, but they weren't available to 3025 in 1987.
Neither were standard rocket launchers, or standard one shot missile packs for that matter. What's your point? The retcon Tai Dai Cultist was mentioning has already been made, awkward or not.
Well, the retcons largely haven't been made. My point you're alluding to is if they were, they (probably) wouldn't be using the OS tech... which is why I said OS tech on mechs was made wonky by meta.
-
The SRM-4 OS on the Quickdraw has to be my pet peeve: 2.5 tons for something that will only get used ONCE in a battle, if at all, and won't do all much even in the event that it does hit. For a half-ton more, they could have made it something useful, or else replaced it with a single SRM-2 and a ton of ammo and at least made it semi-useful, even though far from optimal. Machineguns and a half-ton of ammo would have been an improvement, seriously.
That is another one that is inexcusable.
I'm not even going to complain about putting on a OS launcher on a unit.
Sometimes there is a reason for it.
The DireWolf mentioned below is a valid use of one.
Add a small laser to the damn thing but don't gimp the already questionable close range loadout!
I mean, you add CASE but then remove 1 of the 2 tons of ammo. /BOGGLE!?!?!?!
I don't care for the Hunchback-5M, but that is another one where I can at least try to wrap my head around the decision.
Give it CASE, good. Give it AI ability with SPL, good.
I'm not sure I'd have sacrificed the AC20 Ammo to do that by any means. But I can see where someone might say the 5Ms were going to Urban defense units close to resupply & no enemy unit will survive 5 shots from an AC20 anyway.
Not that I agree, but I can at least TRY to understand the reasons for such bad decisions.
The Goliath & Quickdraw not so much. And really the Hunchie should go in there too but it has 3 improvements for 1 mistake so I'm cutting it a tiny bit of slack.
-
Small statistical advantages become enormous when you're building thousands of mechs to serve for centuries. The Shadow Hawk served for over two centuries before being replaced with an improved version in Royal Command. It continued to be used by regular SLDF formations. Add on all of the other designs that should never have been fit with AC-5s and the stupid stacks up ever higher.
Remember, in 2550 there was not a shortage of energy weapons or LRMs. Those were the days when you could just offer to buy something and the manufacturer could just take out a loan (probably government backed if it was to supply a military contract) to build another factory if they couldn't produce enough already. In that environment the AC-5 should have gone the way of the tank rifles. If you plot armor the AC-5 to the lostech era when factories are irreplaceable from there its survival until the Helm Renaissance can be justified, but they should never have survived the Star League.
Anything from the Star League or Terran Hegemony post-2460 should be using something else. Certainly anything that tracks heat. By 2550 designing a new mech or vehicle with an AC-5 makes no sense. They've been obsolete for ninety years. That would be like invading Afghanistan with tanks mounting the same gun as the Mark IV.
There is no way to make energy weapons or LRMs fire Flak ammo however.
Sometimes ACs have a use.
-
The standard one shot launchers are actually lostech.
Ancient Star League secrets. ;D
They are?????
Where is this from?
-
the authors kept back-dating them by slapping them on earlier and earlier designs (first in operation klondike, then reunification war, then finally all the way back to Primitives 1).
Hmm, Now I'm pondering what units I feel would make good Prototype-RL units.
I think some of the actual RL Marion refits in the late 60's would work as 3025 too.
The Locust, Stinger, Commando, & Firestarter would translate over well.
The Karnov gunship model would still be an amazing strike & retreat unit.
The J.Edgar screams to use RL's for the SRMs. Possibly the Pegasus too.
The Lightning would be nice too.
Really anything light & fast.
And of course external use on fighters.
-
They are?????
Where is this from?
Interstellar operations codified it by listing them as extinct in 2800 and rediscovered in 3030. But the narrative was already in place, with one shot launchers being explicitly introduced as star league technology in TRO 2750 and not appearing on a non-star league mech until TRO 3050.
Though, all joking aside, I'm betting it's less "we don't know how" and more "we don't know why".
Okay, maybe not all joking aside. It's still pretty funny. "Hey, if the Star League did it, they had to be on to something, right?"
-
It doesn't rank up there with the Goliath MG ammo, but I really felt the mixing of SRM launchers on the Commando in 3050 was a bit odd.
Something like 3-4 Streak-2s fed by 1 ton of ammo & a single MPL in the LA would have been a bit more logical.
-
Perhaps if the Goliath were expected to encounter lots and lots of infantry, in relatively small sized units. Like a regiment of infantry, broken down into squads. That would be 100+ squads, and let's say they're hiding somewhere in a town or a forest or something. The Goliath may have to go in and root them out, one at a time.
Let's say the infantry don't attack in the conventional sense that we're used to in the board game. Instead it's more like an RPG, where the GM tells the player "Okay, another hour goes by. You think this village is clear. Make a sensor systems roll." "I rolled a 9." "Alright, as you pass by this adobe hut, your sensors key in on a weapons cache inside. You detect some sort of movement as well. There are a half dozen people inside that building." "Okay, I light them up with both machine guns. I'll fire for about 30 seconds straight to make sure I got everybody."
It could work in a more narrative style of play, where you aren't just trading damage with enemy units. It's the ED-209 method of urban pacification.
-
That would be a very odd use for an extremely rare assault mech.
-
That would be a very odd use for an extremely rare assault mech.
Maybe that's why it's rare. :)
But really I think that's what a lot of garrison duty is. I'm thinking of videos I've seen on YouTube of military action in the Middle East. There's a lot of "somebody's shooting at us from way over there." And then they shoot back for a while with a machine gun before saying "did we get him?" "I dunno, but nobody is shooting at us now."
Now personally I like Battletech better as cinematic combat, and I'm on record above as thinking that the Goliath decision is a real head-scratcher. But I can't resist playing devil's advocate.
-
At 200 shots per ton. Even an AI specialist doesn't need 2 tons. There literally is NO excuse for using that ton as MG ammo.
I'm not even saying it HAD to be for Gauss (though that would be logical).
LRM ammo, Armor, Artemis, a Medium Laser. But more MG ammo???? Indefensible IMHO.
What? You're saying your two machine guns can't burn through 34/58K rounds(if by weight/fire rate) in a standard game lasting all of 2-3 minutes in game time? ;D
-
What? You're saying your two machine guns can't burn through 34/58K rounds(if by weight/fire rate) in a standard game lasting all of 2-3 minutes in game time? ;D
If you enter the Konami code and jam the trigger super hard, you can quadruple your rate of fire
I thought I could get through a ton with a piranha but the thing usually dies first
-
Maybe that's why it's rare. :)
But really I think that's what a lot of garrison duty is. I'm thinking of videos I've seen on YouTube of military action in the Middle East. There's a lot of "somebody's shooting at us from way over there." And then they shoot back for a while with a machine gun before saying "did we get him?" "I dunno, but nobody is shooting at us now."
Now personally I like Battletech better as cinematic combat, and I'm on record above as thinking that the Goliath decision is a real head-scratcher. But I can't resist playing devil's advocate.
For counter-insurgency, wouldn't you want an assault 'Mech for a show of force? Guerrillas might feel like they had a chance against a few Stingers and Locusts, but an 80-ton monster trashing their villages might be demoralizing enough that some of them would surrender outright.
Then there's the fact that quads are unpopular with pilots in-universe. A Goliath isn't exactly an in-demand ride and it's a weak frontline combatant, may as well dispatch it to besiege the Dirtball-Cong.
-
The Goliath 3M is one of those where I'm at a loss as to why they'd give it an extra ton of machine gun ammo, but only have a single ton of gauss rifle ammo.
I believe it only got one ton because they were working with the 15 shots/ton rule initially from TRO 2750 and it wasn't corrected before TRO 3050 went off to print.
-
My print of 2750 says 10 shots per ton. There's an even more secret star league version of the gauss that carried 15 shots? What else was Comstar hiding from us?!?
I believe it only got one ton because they were working with the 15 shots/ton rule initially from TRO 2750 and it wasn't corrected before TRO 3050 went off to print.
-
Was it 10? I'm no Roosterboy these days...
Whatever it was, that's probably one of the culprits.
-
Ten is better than eight, but that still feels pretty light on ammo given the sheer number of mechs in 3050 that only pack a single ton for their GR. I can see it for some of the Clan mechs since they're not supposed to be for large-scale battles anyway, but not the Inner Sphere machines.
-
ammo is 10 per ton (pg 7)
-
There is no way to make energy weapons or LRMs fire Flak ammo however.
Sometimes ACs have a use.
Yes, sometimes ACs have a use. No one argues that AC-20s are useless. Some people argue against the AC-2 or AC-10, but I am not one of them.
The thing about firing flak from an AC-5 is that the AC-2 is now in the running because it's lighter and can still force a PSR. And if you're worrying about opponents who are going to make most of their PSRs you run smack into the AC-10. The AC-5 still finds itself in a sad middle ground.
The AC-10 isn't as likely to force a PSR as twin AC-5s, but if those twin AC-5s are on a Jaegermech you run into the diminishing returns of massed guns for forcing PSRs because you're already putting two flak shots in the air from the AC-2s and the more accurate you are the more the returns on more guns for PSRs diminish. The AA tracking quirk kind of antisynergizes with the armaments of a lot of things that have it.
-
That's why the Jagermech has an LRM-15 variant that retains the AC/2s...
-
You know, looking at the 3M Goliath, it actually makes a little more sense if it was also a testbed for rapid fire machine guns.
The superfluous heat sinks and all that extra machine gun ammo work really well for using the machine guns in rapid fire mode (as described in tactical operations and battlemech manual). In such a mode each machine gun is expending around 9 to 12 shots each time it's fired, and is throwing in an extra variable heat spike that the Goliath would actually be able to ride out with limited loss of utility.
It's still not a "great" idea. There's so many better things you could be doing with that mass, but it feels like something you'd see in the "new toy" obsessed inner sphere.
Of course this does nothing to help the original writer, since that rule didn't exist when they made it, but it retroactively helps the poor mech make a little more sense. ;D
-
That's why the Jagermech has an LRM-15 variant that retains the AC/2s...
The Jagermech A's supposed rarity always irked me. It's flat-out better than the JM6-S in pretty much every way other than Davion AC spam, and it's not like LRM-15s were hard to make and salvage.
I guess that makes it retroactively a design decision that doesn't make sense? One in the sense of 'Why didn't they make more of these' than 'Why did they do this'?
-
You know, looking at the 3M Goliath, it actually makes a little more sense if it was also a testbed for rapid fire machine guns.
The superfluous heat sinks and all that extra machine gun ammo work really well for using the machine guns in rapid fire mode (as described in tactical operations and battlemech manual). In such a mode each machine gun is expending around 9 to 12 shots each time it's fired, and is throwing in an extra variable heat spike that the Goliath would actually be able to ride out with limited loss of utility.
It's still not a "great" idea. There's so many better things you could be doing with that mass, but it feels like something you'd see in the "new toy" obsessed inner sphere.
Of course this does nothing to help the original writer, since that rule didn't exist when they made it, but it retroactively helps the poor mech make a little more sense. ;D
It makes one wonder if TPTB at the time were considering some sort of alternate mg ammo(Long range, heavier damage, incendiary etc.) but they decided against it.
On the other hand it may simply be a designer wanting to guarantee Empire strikes Back type explosions :).
-
The Jagermech A's supposed rarity always irked me. It's flat-out better than the JM6-S in pretty much every way other than Davion AC spam, and it's not like LRM-15s were hard to make and salvage.
I guess that makes it retroactively a design decision that doesn't make sense? One in the sense of 'Why didn't they make more of these' than 'Why did they do this'?
Hate to say it, but again, Solaris VII rules to the rescue. LRMs take 3 Solaris turns to reload, AC/5s just 1. With the JagerMech primarily being an anti-aircraft 'Mech, that is not only a lot of flak ammo to put down range, but a lot of lawn dart rolls to throw at a fighter. LRMs versus autocannons may have looked better "on paper" (which is the perspective we see in standard rules play) but in practice (RPG/S7 play) things worked out differently.
Obviously the S7 ruleset hadn't been published when TRO3025 debuted, but autocannons have always been fluffed as "rapid fire" weapons so the dueling rules coming out a few years later just makes clear the designers' intent was always that we aren't seeing ACs at their maximum possible rate of fire in standard tabletop play.
-
Hate to say it, but again, Solaris VII rules to the rescue. LRMs take 3 Solaris turns to reload, AC/5s just 1. With the JagerMech primarily being an anti-aircraft 'Mech, that is not only a lot of flak ammo to put down range, but a lot of lawn dart rolls to throw at a fighter. LRMs versus autocannons may have looked better "on paper" (which is the perspective we see in standard rules play) but in practice (RPG/S7 play) things worked out differently.
Good thing I really don't care in the slightest about S7 rules, because I don't use them, and good thing you conveniently ignored everything else that makes the JM6-A better than the JM6-S. Mostly improved armor, IDF capability, competition with the Catapult in terms of a strict fire support role, and overall long range.
Edit; I'm well aware that choosing the JM6-A over the JM6-S is basically trading six shots at 5 damage under three turns, for 15-30 damage in one turn out of three; But the other benefits should more than make up the difference. And it still retains the Autocannon 2s, still allowing you to plink at aircraft with flak.
-
Good thing I really don't care in the slightest about S7 rules, and good thing you conveniently ignored everything else that makes the JM6-A better than the JM6-S/
What, the slightly better armor (128 vs 96 on a 65-tonner is just a thicker grade of cardboard) and less than half the ammo endurance, reduced heat efficiency, unreliable damage, and giant minimum range? That stuff that makes it overwhelmingly superior?
-
What, the slightly better armor (128 vs 96 on a 65-tonner is just a thicker grade of cardboard) and less than half the ammo endurance, reduced heat efficiency, unreliable damage, and giant minimum range? That stuff that makes it overwhelmingly superior?
Yes. Under standard tabletop rules, that still makes it better.
Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was overwhelmingly superior. Just better.
-
I agree that the JM6-A is better than the JM6-S. But not so much better that it would drive the other extinct. Given that around 3/4 of every ton of LRMs finds its way into the dirt compared with about half of every ton of AC rounds, it's very nearly a wash.
The biggest benefit is IDF capability, which it coincidentally now needs because it lacks the heat sinks to fire on the move. The 6-S can at least keep pace with the battle without pausing its attacks even if it needs to stay in the back, in the woods with its minimal armor.
Had they equipped it with LRM-20s and removed the AC/2s, making room for adequate ammo, heat sinks, and armor, we'd be arguing about why it didn't displace the Catapult instead.
-
I agree that the JM6-A is better than the JM6-S. But not so much better that it would drive the other extinct. Given that around 3/4 of every ton of LRMs finds its way into the dirt compared with about half of every ton of AC rounds, it's very nearly a wash.
Oh, you thought that was what I meant? Sorry.
I meant that it was a travesty that only two production runs were ever made, and that the idea was never looked into more. Not that it should drive the S to extinction.
-
Oh, you thought that was what I meant? Sorry.
I meant that it was a travesty that only two production runs were ever made, and that the idea was never looked into more. Not that it should drive the S to extinction.
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. There are a lot of good ideas in the lore that get briefly touched on and are permitted to slowly evaporate with no good explanation for the abandonment.
One other reason keeping the ACs might be favorable over a missile conversion: AC ammo is tech rating B while LRM ammo is tech rating C, even though the weapons themselves are both tech C. So in a Succession Wars context, there are going to be a lot more planets capable of producing AC rounds than LRM rounds, and that greatly simplifies the logistics pipeline. LRMs are going to have to be shipped from the relatively intact core worlds of your interstellar empire, while the bombed-out, dirt-farming hellhole that is Mudball VI can churn out its own cannon shells to supply the local militia.
Disregard. The ammo is listed that way in Megamek Lab but I can't find support for it in the Tech Manual errata.
-
Longbow -14C
Looks good until you look at the heat load and the sinks. It can only use 2/3 of the MML unless it wants to gain heat, and can quite literally blow itself up firing everything in what should be the short range bracket.
Then they made a variant. It reduces the heat load a bit, but not enough. How something that should have been a dead end survived to produce an offspring...
The fact that the -14C follows the excellent -12C and -13C just make it more repulsive. Did somebody make their sister's kid the head of the redesign team?
-
The fact that the -14C follows the excellent -12C and -13C just make it more repulsive. Did somebody make their sister's kid the head of the redesign team?
I dunno, I don't think it's as bad as you're saying. Compare it with the -13C.
The missile output, to remain heat neutral, drops from 42 missiles to 36 missiles...which isn't a huge difference. Sure, you lose the ArtIV, but that's something a bit inconsequential in my eyes considering the era it exists in, the amount of ECM around, and how often I use them indirectly or with alternate munitions. You also lose some speed, but gain some armor instead.
On the upside, if the -14C loses an arm or gets a TAC on a launcher, it can keep the same rate of fire up without any problems - so I'd argue that the -14C has better battlefield endurance. It also works better with alternate ammo types, which is a definite plus for an MML boat. And if someone stumbles into your short range and you have the numbers, you can use all of the MMLs to up the pain levels - once again, giving you more flexibility.
So yeah, it's not perfect, but I can definitely understand the logic behind it.
-
Best rationale I can think of for the LGB-14C is it can put at least two launchers into every firing arc without having to move. Light 'Mech sneaks up behind it? Flip arms, 36 SRMs to the face. Enemy pincer maneuver? You can fire two MML-9s each at targets on opposite sides.
It's not the way I would design it, but I can see what they might be thinking.
Honestly the biggest sin it commits is an XL engine plus a body packed full of ammo. One lucky TAC and you're walking back to the DropShip.
(The design works a LOT better with MML-7s and a light engine. Swap the ERMLs for a SNPPC and one SPL to munch hostile PBI, add half a ton of armor to the torso, reduce the ammo load to 8 tons (moving the leg ammo to the arms) and fit a couple A-pods to the legs as party favors. Two more double heat sinks can then fit into the torso. Could fit TAG instead of the A-pods to self-designate for SGLRM. Problem is, you need an engine swap, so that's a depot-level refit at minimum.)
-
Honestly the biggest sin it commits is an XL engine plus a body packed full of ammo. One lucky TAC and you're walking back to the DropShip.
Inappropriate use of XL engines is another common nonsense design decision. I can see why the Clans use them so much with their dueling culture and only having two crits in each side torso. The IS, though, really shouldn't be using them on trooper or assault mechs. Especially not on anything that is both slow and stores explodey bits in the side torso. It's nice that CASE lets the pilot safely eject, but if they'd not put an overpriced extralight engine next to a bomb CASE would have let the pilot walk off the field.
I can buy some dumb decisions trying to copy the Clans in the early invasion, but the Star League lostech designs don't have that excuse.
Back to ragging on AC-5s, the classic MAD-3R Marauder in particular egregiously makes no sense. It has to fire its PPCs in a 2-1 pattern for 15 average damage sent downrange. Add the AC-5 for 20. If it had enough heatsinks the PPCs alone could put out 20 damage a turn and it wouldn't peak at +5 heat for a movement penalty just from firing the longer range guns. The needed heatsinks would weigh less than the AC-5 and don't require explosive ammunition.
-
Inappropriate use of XL engines is another common nonsense design decision. I can see why the Clans use them so much with their dueling culture and only having two crits in each side torso. The IS, though, really shouldn't be using them on trooper or assault mechs. Especially not on anything that is both slow and stores explodey bits in the side torso. It's nice that CASE lets the pilot safely eject, but if they'd not put an overpriced extralight engine next to a bomb CASE would have let the pilot walk off the field.
I can buy some dumb decisions trying to copy the Clans in the early invasion, but the Star League lostech designs don't have that excuse.
That depends on the assault mech. The Thunderhawk, for example, gains enough in firepower that the XL engine is worth it.
What doesn't make sense are the 3050 mechs that got "upgraded" to XL engines while leaving single heatsinks- the Imp and Atlas being prime offenders. Especially since both of them were given new weapon loadouts that dramatically increased their heat production.
And that ties in with the Draconis Combine's insanely oversinked ASFs.
-
Star League era XLFE designs make sense in a cruelly harsh, planned obsolescence sort of way...
Not only do manufacturers get to charge more for XL mechs, they die more easily so you get to sell more of them! The SLDF was a rich enough customer for those economic tactics...
-
and yet more are used than ever - upwards of 60% of mech designs and variants produced after 3080 have XL engines while only about 15% use LFEs
-
Back to ragging on AC-5s, the classic MAD-3R Marauder in particular egregiously makes no sense. It has to fire its PPCs in a 2-1 pattern for 15 average damage sent downrange. Add the AC-5 for 20. If it had enough heatsinks the PPCs alone could put out 20 damage a turn and it wouldn't peak at +5 heat for a movement penalty just from firing the longer range guns. The needed heatsinks would weigh less than the AC-5 and don't require explosive ammunition.
Hence the Marauder 3D- no explosions, more heat sinks, and a 'cooler' weapon.
What XLs do you say that about? I mean one I complain about having a XL is the Caeser 3R . . . too thin-skinned for the XL to face the Clans IMO, a cERLL/cERPPC/GR is going to come close to punching through that side torso armor. Worse is the side torso having a Gauss Rifle & XL- or good if you are the Clanner. The speed being 4/6 just invites any cavalry design to punch it out and it would be ground under the advance of Clan heavies and assault of similar speed.
-
Forget the Clans, the Caesar is too thin-skinned to face other IS heavy mechs. Every time I've faced one, it's died due to side torso destruction.
-
Lol, I was trying to be nice since it was "supposed" to face the Clans.
-
Lol, I was trying to be nice since it was "supposed" to face the Clans.
while we're on ill-suited for its intended mission, how about the Fireball? A toad hunter that puts out a max of six damage per turn.
-
while we're on ill-suited for its intended mission, how about the Fireball? A toad hunter that puts out a max of six damage per turn.
It makes more sense when you imagine how far can a Toad be kicked with a Fireball's running start...
-
It makes more sense when you imagine how far can a Toad be kicked with a Fireball's running start...
Why is this not a tacops rule oh my god
-
Lol, I was trying to be nice since it was "supposed" to face the Clans.
except it was under design, per the fluff, in the 3040's as part of the development of Davion model Cataphracts. so it was meant to fight the CapCon and Combine, it just happened to come out right in time to fight the clans.
armor wise the Cataphract and the Caesar are pretty similar, so any flaws there were largely inherited from its ancestor. and the Cataphract was fairly decent for the succession wars battlefields. it was just the doctrinal changes caused by the needs of the clan front that made its armor too fragile.
Back to ragging on AC-5s, the classic MAD-3R Marauder in particular egregiously makes no sense. It has to fire its PPCs in a 2-1 pattern for 15 average damage sent downrange. Add the AC-5 for 20. If it had enough heatsinks the PPCs alone could put out 20 damage a turn and it wouldn't peak at +5 heat for a movement penalty just from firing the longer range guns. The needed heatsinks would weigh less than the AC-5 and don't require explosive ammunition.
i'm pretty sure the MAD-1R had an AC in setting as a way to give it versatility. you are right it is largely redundant with the twin PPC's. but only if it is being used as an antimech weapon.
but in star league times, when they fielded whole companies of the same model, that AC would be very handy in that it could load Flak ammo for anti-aircraft/anti-VTOL use.
plus the Marauder MAD-1R came out in 2612, the PPC in 2460. it could be that there was still enough institutional memory of early less reliable PPC's that they wanted a backup just in case. especially since the mackie 6S, which was equipped with a Prototype PPC and came out in 2439, would still have been what many of the mech unit commanders were using earlier in their careers.
-
Hence the Marauder 3D- no explosions, more heat sinks, and a 'cooler' weapon.
It's better, but it's still very silly to mount a large laser that's only useful if you lose an arm or are inside minimum PPC range.
What XLs do you say that about? I mean one I complain about having a XL is the Caeser 3R . . . too thin-skinned for the XL to face the Clans IMO, a cERLL/cERPPC/GR is going to come close to punching through that side torso armor. Worse is the side torso having a Gauss Rifle & XL- or good if you are the Clanner. The speed being 4/6 just invites any cavalry design to punch it out and it would be ground under the advance of Clan heavies and assault of similar speed.
Remember, the IS still has an easier time getting mechwarriors than mechs in the Clan Invasion era and in-universe nations and mercenaries are buying mechs for C-bills not BV2. It's also the era the price tables were written for. Take let's say a Rakshasa. Remove all the weapons along one side and enough heatsinks that you only have half a heatsink wasted on a running alpha strike. Switch the engine to a standard. Drop the weight to 65 tons (the lowest weight that supports its 206 points of armor). You can now afford 2 Semirakshasa for the price of one Rakshasa. They have the same firepower, twice as much armor, and can be in two places at once. They also each are 1.5 tons underweight.
Or take the NSR-9J. Drop the ERPPC and four now redundant heatsinks. Add three tons of gauss ammo to make up for losing your ammoless weapon. Swap to a standard engine. You lose a quarter of your firepower and a bit more than half of your price tag. Alternately, switch one gauss rifle for a second ERPPC and trade two of your seven tons of gauss ammo for two DHS. You lose only a sixth of your long range firepower but half your headcapping and still cut your price by a bit more than half.
There's a point where downsizing a mech that's too fast for its weight starts to create mechs completely incapable of their role, but it's when you're looking at mechs faster than most XL heavies, and XLFEs on stuff that isn't going faster than would be reasonable using SFEs are just silly.
i'm pretty sure the MAD-1R had an AC in setting as a way to give it versatility. you are right it is largely redundant with the twin PPC's. but only if it is being used as an antimech weapon.
but in star league times, when they fielded whole companies of the same model, that AC would be very handy in that it could load Flak ammo for anti-aircraft/anti-VTOL use.
plus the Marauder MAD-1R came out in 2612, the PPC in 2460. it could be that there was still enough institutional memory of early less reliable PPC's that they wanted a backup just in case. especially since the mackie 6S, which was equipped with a Prototype PPC and came out in 2439, would still have been what many of the mech unit commanders were using earlier in their careers.
Except the MAD-3R only has one ammo bin. Also, in-universe AC-2s existed when it was designed. With an AC-2 it could have enough heatsinks for a 3-3-2 firing pattern like the Warhammer. If you're just carrying one autocannon for flak it should be an AC-2 until the LB-2X is invented. If they didn't trust PPCs they would not have been willing to mount two on the same mech because a 75 ton mech toting just an AC-5 and two ML because the other guns are downchecked is a joke by any standard.
-
C:-)
Hey guys, official moderator hat on.
This is an awesome topic and we want you guys to keep discussing, but we also want to remind you that the Fan Designs section is a thing. If people start to stray too far into the designs realm, we will have to start pruning.
And with that... carry on, dear friends.
-
That depends on the assault mech. The Thunderhawk, for example, gains enough in firepower that the XL engine is worth it.
What doesn't make sense are the 3050 mechs that got "upgraded" to XL engines while leaving single heatsinks- the Imp and Atlas being prime offenders. Especially since both of them were given new weapon loadouts that dramatically increased their heat production.
And that ties in with the Draconis Combine's insanely oversinked ASFs.
XL engines, ER energy weapons, and Double HS all have their re-intro dates spread out across the decade. The Atlas-K does solve the number one gripe of 3025 Atlas drivers: insufficient ranged firepower. Designers in-universe didn't just get a whole pile of new toys and the rules to use them one day, like it was LosTech Christmas or something.
One day the R&D guys come to the 'Mech design board with a new lighter engine, which nobody had field experience with to know it was an expensive deathtrap--all they saw was more room for weapons.
The prototype starts looking like a better AS7-RS (one that doesn't need to downgrade the other weapons) which in 3034 would have been pretty scary. Then the designers get their hands on ER lasers and the first reports start coming back on prototype Gauss rifles and anti-missile systems. Those get fast-tracked for the Atlas upgrade project because their utility is obvious.
Double heatsinks had been prototyped a decade earlier during the battle of Hoff (remember Freezers?) and that version hadn't exactly been revolutionary. Conventional wisdom was the Atlas chassis already had plenty of heat dissipation (which for 3025 is true, it's hard to overheat a D model if you show any kind of restraint) and any Kurita pilot who complained about the heat was going to be told he lacks discipline.
DHS would have been a low priority (and judging from the spread of designs that are in TRO3050, the Fedcom had the edge in DHS development) compared to building the logistics pipeline for getting the new machines into the field. A lance of flawed assault 'Mechs is still better than a single machine with all the bugs worked out.
The fighters are harder to defend (since they all come out long after the AT2 design changes that eliminated the heat from thrust points rule), but it should be noted that they're all fairly simple upgrade kits. They swap the sinks in-place without tinkering with anything. Moving around a few tons here and there is a much bigger deal for a fighter than it is for a 'Mech. Aircraft don't have gyros and they're very sensitive to balance changes.
The current rules are really far too gentle on ASFs with regard to heat. They get babied on movement heat despite working their fusion reactors much harder than 'Mechs and their radiators magically work as efficiently in vacuum as they do in air. It's not so much that the Kurita fighter upgrades are oversinked as everything else should be badly undersinked.
But the whole of aerotech desperately needs to be nuked from orbit and rebooted, designs and all. It has never been a good companion to BT and it's a terrible representation of space combat--either the realistic kind or the starwarsy action kind.
-
...
But the whole of aerotech desperately needs to be nuked from orbit and rebooted, designs and all. It has never been a good companion to BT and it's a terrible representation of space combat--either the realistic kind or the starwarsy action kind.
Total tangent... but back in my High School days (daze?) we ditched the entire Aerospace rules and used Star Fleet Battles in its place. There's a philosophical match for each Great House:
Davion uses Federation units because of course they do.
Kurita is the Klingon Empire because of course.
Liao is Romulans because that's the sneaky faction
Marik is the ISC because that's the awkward coalition of disparate components faction
And Steiner are the Lyrans because you can't not have Steiner be the Lyrans.
-
OK, 5 pages in and nobody has mentioned the single biggest design sin in all of BattleTech?
The MAD-5A Marauder II.
"Let's put the CASE in the torso the ammo isn't in!" ???
-
One day the R&D guys come to the 'Mech design board with a new lighter engine, which nobody had field experience with to know it was an expensive deathtrap--all they saw was more room for weapons.
Which is fine if they are being used on the single world your 'cheap' SFE are built on. But the bottleneck of military campaigns is interstellar transport- which is why you take mechs over vehicles and BA over infantry, the firepower vs support requirements. Additionally, while we play deathmatches combat would have units that took damage enough to place their XL in danger would/should have long ago been pulled back.
-
OK, 5 pages in and nobody has mentioned the single biggest design sin in all of BattleTech?
The MAD-5A Marauder II.
"Let's put the CASE in the torso the ammo isn't in!" ???
i knew enough mechanical engineers in college to understand how this happens
-
I only had a brief stint with contract compliance in military procurement, but I can totally also see how it could happen.
-
Thought that got fixed like the MAD-5S?
-
The sheet in 3085: Project Phoenix still has it in the RT
-
The Warhawk B. There are so many issues with this mech caused by the number of fixed heat sinks that limit what you can pile on the chassis. This configuration simply makes to many choices that don't take advantage of what it should be good at which is stacking weapons with high heat ratings. A Gauss is a good weapon, but when you have 20 DHS fixed you might as well put two ER PPCs on there. Granted they probably wanted to do something more original because of the fact 2 other configurations featured at least 2 ER PPCs, but if it isn't broke, don't try and fix it.
I also get it that they wanted to do something with NARC, even if its somewhat misguided with Clan tech, but 5 tons of SRM ammo for 2 SRM-6 launchers is a waste, even will alternate munitions load outs. Against an IS opponent that weapon load out looks okay, but against any Clan opponent that load out looks like it would have problem competing with something 20 tons less.
-
That might be the point, given the Clans dueling habits: yeah, I'm bringing a Masakari, but it's a terrible Masakari.
-
Thought that got fixed like the MAD-5S?
According to the fluff, the CASE is supposed to be on the wrong side on the Marauder II. It was speculated (in universe) that the 5A was a quick refit from another model and they never moved the CASE.
I think, but cannot point to any specific evidence, that the 5C was the original Marauder II upgrade, but they swapped from the ultra autocannon to the LB10X at the last minute (and... I don't know, decided to build the 5C later for some reason?). The 5A and 5C actually have a lot in common.
-
I'm convinced the Dragoons had a version with Clan CASE in the LT and the 5A we see is a "monkey" version.
I could also swear I remember a Marauder II variant from the old printing of RS-3050 that had only energy weapons and CASE in both side torsos.
-
That might be the point, given the Clans dueling habits: yeah, I'm bringing a Masakari, but it's a terrible Masakari.
Makes sense from a Bidding standpoint, too.
Your bid includes a Masakari Prime? Mine is the same, except I'll use the -B instead. My bid is lower; I win the honor of commanding our forces in the Trial.
-
I'm convinced the Dragoons had a version with Clan CASE in the LT and the 5A we see is a "monkey" version.
They do! It's called the Marauder II C (not to be confused with the Marauder IIC, or the Marauder II MAD-5C ;D )
It's basically a 5A variant Marauder II, except using clan technology. Only problem is that they didn't put it into service until 3066.
-
Warhawk B can make a certain amount of sense when you consider that several planets in the Kerensky Cluster are broiling hot.
You get challenged to a Trial, a configuration like that lets you select a dueling site that will keep the challenger on the edge of shutdown while you merrily plink away with your ammo-based weapons. And to be an even bigger jerk, you can pack a ton of Infernos in there and dump them on your opponent early in the fight.
They do! It's called the Marauder II C (not to be confused with the Marauder IIC, or the Marauder II MAD-5C ;D )
It's basically a 5A variant Marauder II, except using clan technology. Only problem is that they didn't put it into service until 3066.
Or they didn't reveal that they were using it. Dragoons have always been shifty and being author darlings they even got to outsmart ComStar on spy-vs-spy stuff.
-
Or they didn't reveal that they were using it. Dragoons have always been shifty and being author darlings they even got to outsmart ComStar on spy-vs-spy stuff.
I wouldn't be surprised if the mech existed as a refit before it became an official production design. Doubtless the Dragoons were happy to refit the machines of their best warriors with clan technology.
-
And it was known that they were refitting some of their other mechs with Clantech, like the Gallowglas.
-
Except the MAD-3R only has one ammo bin. Also, in-universe AC-2s existed when it was designed. With an AC-2 it could have enough heatsinks for a 3-3-2 firing pattern like the Warhammer. If you're just carrying one autocannon for flak it should be an AC-2 until the LB-2X is invented. If they didn't trust PPCs they would not have been willing to mount two on the same mech because a 75 ton mech toting just an AC-5 and two ML because the other guns are downchecked is a joke by any standard.
the 1/2/3R's do only have a single bin, but that wouldn't prevent the use of special ammo. it just means they'd have to go all in.
and an AC5 is superior to an AC2 for anti-aircraft work when you consider that most of the fighters in service at the time could be thresholded by a 5 point hit, and all but the heaviest could be thresholded by a 3 point flak hit. a 2 point standard hit or a 1 point flak hit from an AC2 is always going to just chip away armor, but the AC5 has a pretty good chance of actually doing some crits. giving it twice the chances to hurt a fighter (the pilot check for the hit, and the chance to degrade the fighter's performance with internal systems damage)
if you can't fit a full LB10X, an AC5 is your next best bet. probably why the RFL-3N Rifleman used paired AC5's instead of AC2's as well.
-
[should've read the rest of the thread first, nothing to see here…]
-
Not strictly a 'Mech design, but the laser refit Mechbuster is a head-scratcher to me. Energy weapons and conventional fighters go together like fish and bicycles--completely antithetical to the "one pass, haul ass" mantra that will keep them alive.
I guess it does gain you the ability to strafe, but I've never found the strafing rules to make much sense or to be terribly appealing.
The only serious reason to consider it is it reduces turnaround times between sorties because there's no ammo to reload--but this goes out the window once you factor in having to load bombs. With the turbine engine, small gas tank, and lack of VSTOL it's hardly useful as a raider even without ammo considerations.
Worse, in the time period energy weapons are harder to come by than ballistics and 'Mech forces will get first pick, so spare parts will be more of a headache.
-
AT1 strafing rules were a lot nicer to the fighters.
-
AT1 strafing rules were a lot nicer to the fighters.
I had to look that up just to be sure. A 3-hex wide strip drawn across the entire mapsheet, Jesus.
AT1 space hexes were also 6500km across which made the canon acceleration value of a thrust point mathematically impossible. And here I think the current rules are a dumpster-fire...
-
AT1 space hexes were also 6500km across which made the canon acceleration value of a thrust point mathematically impossible.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yq_RinPOC8M/Unm7NeRo4mI/AAAAAAAALjQ/BBuWZwI1Hq0/s1600/tumblr_lm76btxQ5j1qbuylio1_500.gif)
-
I had to look that up just to be sure. A 3-hex wide strip drawn across the entire mapsheet, Jesus.
AT1 space hexes were also 6500km across which made the canon acceleration value of a thrust point mathematically impossible. And here I think the current rules are a dumpster-fire...
Nah, it's just some 2.6 million Gs... ::)
Agreed in every other, thought! :D
-
I had to look that up just to be sure. A 3-hex wide strip drawn across the entire mapsheet, Jesus.
AT1 space hexes were also 6500km across which made the canon acceleration value of a thrust point mathematically impossible. And here I think the current rules are a dumpster-fire...
The current incarnation is still impossible when using strategic thrust. Even pure matter/anti-matter annihilation won't generate enough energy for that ridiculously small fuel consumption.
-
ASFs are powered by dark energy.
-
They're powered by the most powerful thing in the BTU: Writer's Fiat.
-
Powerful energy indeed!!!
-
I thought they ran on the souls of dead catgirls.
-
That's dark energy.
-
I thought they ran on the souls of dead catgirls.
Catgirls are only sacrificed when people ask uncomfortable questions about the feasibility of various universe features
-
the 1/2/3R's do only have a single bin, but that wouldn't prevent the use of special ammo. it just means they'd have to go all in.
and an AC5 is superior to an AC2 for anti-aircraft work when you consider that most of the fighters in service at the time could be thresholded by a 5 point hit, and all but the heaviest could be thresholded by a 3 point flak hit. a 2 point standard hit or a 1 point flak hit from an AC2 is always going to just chip away armor, but the AC5 has a pretty good chance of actually doing some crits. giving it twice the chances to hurt a fighter (the pilot check for the hit, and the chance to degrade the fighter's performance with internal systems damage)
if you can't fit a full LB10X, an AC5 is your next best bet. probably why the RFL-3N Rifleman used paired AC5's instead of AC2's as well.
In the Marauder example, using flak ammo with only one bin means sacrificing 25% of firepower against everything else. Using an AC-2 only sacrifices 17% because it allows more heatsinks. The SLDF has ASF as its first defense against hostile ASF, and if needed all those PPCs can also fire anti-air. Saying that general purpose mechs need flak guns to hit aircraft is equivalent to saying that general purpose mechs need pulse lasers to hit other mechs. Using the PPCs means lacking a -2 modifier, not being unable to shoot up at all.
-
Warhawk B can make a certain amount of sense when you consider that several planets in the Kerensky Cluster are broiling hot.
I somehow doubt that was a major concern when it was designed. The Smoke Jaguars territory didn't consist of an abundance of area that the planetary temperature would need to concern themselves with large heat spikes that would in turn degrade the opponent ability to fight due to environmental heat due to normal or below average heat disbursement.
-
No, but the Jaguars liked raiding their neighbors. They really didn't design a lot of mechs with defense in mind.
-
And the B configuration may not have been devised by the Jaguars.
OmniMech loadouts don't have to be developed at the factory, they can simply be improvised in the field (it's downright bizarre that specific omni configs appear on faction RATs, kind of defeats the purpose).
-
Omnis can have crazy configurations without much in the way of an explanation, because you can change them so quickly. It isn't expected to be permanent in any way, so it really doesn't matter what they're carrying beyond the immediate needs of the mission.
I think the most likely reason for such a configuration would be that each Cluster carries a certain number of spare parts, but not enough to give each mech in the unit every optimal configuration. You go in asking for your normal weapons loadout, and the techs are like "I'm sorry, but the Star Colonel decided he wanted us to mount eight PPCs on his Daishi today. We have... (looks through inventory list) a Gauss Rifle, if you want that. And some medium lasers. And some SRMs. How does that sound?"
As mechs suffer damage, and your supply of spares runs low, some mechs are going to end up with sub-optimal configurations. In fact I think it would be strange if they didn't have some head-scratchers. The fact that the Inner Sphere identifies this particular setup as a recurring pattern (enough to call it "alternate B") may mean that it served some specific battlefield role, or that it wasn't that uncommon to start seeing shortages of PPCs and large pulse lasers.
-
It occurs to me that the Masakari B would also be useful if you were, say, fighting the Hell's Horses and were therefore expecting a lot of vehicles and Elementals.
-
Lol, and did not mind fighting in the fire.
Which is interesting, the Clans have several designs that are almost made for fighting in fires- Gargoyle Prime, Warhawk B, and a few others. Often times the way the configs are balanced between Energy & Missile/Ballistic and carrying the DHS to bracket or fire most weapons (looking at Dire Wolf W & Stormcrow B/D/I) they can in game rules play fight through forests better than IS mechs. Which makes the Ghost Bear's situation for the forest fire on Tukayyid a bit of a headscratcher.
-
Yeah, the rules for fire have always been a lot less fearsome than fiction made it out to be. And the Bears have a lot of mechs that are very high on heat dissipation.
-
It occurs to me that the Masakari B would also be useful if you were, say, fighting the Hell's Horses and were therefore expecting a lot of vehicles and Elementals.
It would be very similar to the Gargoyle prime in that it is probably what the design would be best at. The difference here is that the presence of a gauss rifle makes the Warhawk undergunned and excessively supplied with ammo for it's secondary weapon when compared to the horribly tundergunned Gargoyle prime. For anti tank and anti battle armour for the revival era and before the Warhawk A would be far better at that task. Just because he has a single head capper doesn't make it sensible.
-
They're powered by the most powerful thing in the BTU: Writer's Fiat.
Clearly you aren't familiar with the pay scale of the gaming industry.
BT authors have Writer's Kia, not Fiat.
-
Clearly you aren't familiar with the pay scale of the gaming industry.
BT authors have Writer's Kia, not Fiat.
"He has a Ford Fiesta-priced influence on the BTU" -Randall, probably
-
And the B configuration may not have been devised by the Jaguars.
OmniMech loadouts don't have to be developed at the factory, they can simply be improvised in the field (it's downright bizarre that specific omni configs appear on faction RATs, kind of defeats the purpose).
I honestly had assumed that they were preferred load-outs, either because of that clan's culture, or due to those configs being seen often in their forces.
Having said that, the parts available issue does make sense too.
-
I've always wondered why there wasn't a Marik Large Laser Warhammer variant until the 7M came along in '49.
Supposedly, a PPC shortage forced them to use LL's on all their mechs, including the Flea -aka Trooper, Marauder and Awesome... ( MAD-3M, AWE-8R and -8T respectfully ).
TT
-
You'd think they'd have taken the PPCs off Warhammers to retain them for Awesomes.
-
I believe FWL on had one or two factories producing PPCs full time, but they couldn't keep up with demands, stock pile only went to those of Prestige units or sold for almost TWICE the value... if they were ever sold... I did know, somewhere, that they paid highly for any salvaged ones found... one of the TROs or novel... can't remember. I do know they were strapped for them...
Which is why they wanted Steiner tech badly... I think it was the original Banshee-3S write up... could be wrong.
TT
-
I know there was something about that in the original TRO 3025.
-
There was a bit about keeping Shreks around as mobile blood banks for the PPCs in the Awesome entry.
-
The Shogun.
The fluff states that it was originally conceived as a close quarters Mech, and from the look of it they got as far as slapping on the SRM-6's and the Jump Jets and then decided that what a close quarters mech really needed was a battery of two LRM-15's and, for a primary weapon, an ERPPC, resulting in a weird hybrid assault mech that really wants to be at long range but is equipped for CQB manoeuvring and severely undersinked, meaning it cannot fire the ERPPC more than twice in a row before having to stop and cool off, less so if it also fires the LRM's as well. Ironically the lowtech Succession Wars era variant is actually better as it 'downgrades' the ERPPC to a regular PPC, thus eliminating some of the heat issues.
Combine the high heat issues with the heavy reliance on ammunition and you have a recipe for disaster (assuming its low ammunition tolerances last long enough)
-
Well, the Shogun 2H from Operation Klondike is apparently the original version and it's superior at close-range fighting due to double heatsinks and replacing the SRM 6s with 4 SSRM 2s as well as a medium laser and a medium pulse laser. Still not a fantastic in-fighter, but the way the Star League fielded mechs in companies it would have worked pretty well.
-
According to fluff it was also supposed to be an urban fighter. That makes the lrms make sense for indirect.
-
The Shogun.
But...but...it's a jumping Stalker!!!
Ruger
-
There have been a lot of mechs over the years that have been less-than-optimized.
But sometimes, there's a mech that's built in a way that just leaves you saying "what were they smoking?" I'm interested in hearing what people think are some of the worst offenders.
A big one for me is the Cerberus. Eleven tons of armor doesn't come close to being sufficient, but that's compounded by wasting tonnage on a pair of rear-facing machine guns and two double heatsinks (giving it 24 heat dissipation on a mech that can only generate 19 on a standing alpha strike).
Any Canon mech that carries a weapon, such as a ML or such, in the same arm it has the hatchet!
Narc on an Archer, or any other LRM boat for that matter. By the time you can hit with IS-Narc, you can't hit with LRMs, and odds of being able to back off afterwards aren't great against most foes.
It makes sense on the stalker, as that's a brawler with LRM as something to do as it gets close. Kintaro has more SRM than LRM. Sorta works on an Orion, that's a general purpose mech that works as a brawler/spotter. The -5S Archer is a mess, the SRM are streaks that can't even use the Narc, and two tons of ammo for four tubes is four times what it needs in it's primary role.
That's a good call.
But then that Goliath w/ 2 tons of MG ammo shows up & THAT one stands out as something that just can't be excused.
Really, 2 Tons of MG ammo? The PIRANHA doesn't even need 2 tons of MG ammo. I don't honestly care what you do w/ that extra ton, but ANYTHING would have been an improvement over a 2nd ton of MG ammo. /boggle. There really is no excuse for that one. Its not sub-optimal, its just some designer intentionally being a jackass IMHO.
Honestly its the kind of thing that should have been errata'd the way they fixed the DHS issue on the Clint, Pixie-3M, Blackjack & Scorpion from 3050.
Unless a mech has 20 machine guns on it, 1 ton of ammo is MORE than adequate... Let alone 2.
OK, 5 pages in and nobody has mentioned the single biggest design sin in all of BattleTech?
The MAD-5A Marauder II.
"Let's put the CASE in the torso the ammo isn't in!" ???
I've always assumed that was a willful misprint, that the exes decided was too funny to correct.
Another of my pet peeves.. Putting on a single SRM-2 streak, with a full ton of ammo.
If you are gonna do that, at LEAST put 3 of the blighters on...
-
Any Canon mech that carries a weapon, such as a ML or such, in the same arm it has the hatchet!
I'm willing to accept that if it's just one laser to protect the mech from having an exploitable blind spot, but when it's a mech like the Axman with 3, you're completely right.
-
this looks like a job for the fist fire spa
-
I'm just gonna point out that, if you really wanted to turn an IS missile boat into a brawler, all you needed to do was hot load the missiles.
The Shogun can deal quite a hammering when you do so at SRM range, and the ERPPC, while probably going to cook off the ammo enables it to close to melee ranges and use said SRM racks.
It's a unique case, where you can pretty easily turn it into a brawler if the tech sets it up right, and that's largely without modifying any of the base configuration.
-
TacOps optional rules; I'd be cussed out if I tried to pull that at my regular table.
-
TacOps optional rules; I'd be cussed out if I tried to pull that at my regular table.
As I mentioned in a previous post in a different discussion. All optional rules are mandatory for our group!
-
As I mentioned in a previous post in a different discussion. All optional rules are mandatory for our group!
There is also probably a good portion of people in this thread that weren't part of that differentthread that know that you play with all optional rules. I'm glad you've given us a heads up. While there is no real science behind this statement, it's a fairly safe bet that most in this thread aren't playing all of the optional rules.
That all being said, hot loading LRMs have quite a bit of downside that in an advanced rule setting I'd not want to hot load my LRMs in a mech. Hot loading in a tank is another matter entirely, but we aren't talking about tanks.
-
There is also probably a good portion of people in this thread that weren't part of that differentthread that know that you play with all optional rules. I'm glad you've given us a heads up. While there is no real science behind this statement, it's a fairly safe bet that most in this thread aren't playing all of the optional rules.
That all being said, hot loading LRMs have quite a bit of downside that in an advanced rule setting I'd not want to hot load my LRMs in a mech. Hot loading in a tank is another matter entirely, but we aren't talking about tanks.
True, I'm just making a guess as to why things are as they are. Same as others have mentioned before with the Solaris IIV ruleset.
I have a habit of by default including TacOps rules, because I feel it rounds out the game better and it's all canonical (except for the 4 shot engine explosion rules, and ammo explosion acting as though it was a artillery explosion). Granted, I'm fairly sure that no tournament actually uses TacOps in their games, for less headaches of the GM.
People pick and choose optional rules, Hot Loading the LRM is one rule that seems to make sense for general play though. The major downsides to overcome the minimum range seems fair to me to be a standard rule.
-
People pick and choose optional rules, Hot Loading the LRM is one rule that seems to make sense for general play though. The major downsides to overcome the minimum range seems fair to me to be a standard rule.
So you DO Hot Load your Kraken 3?
TT
-
Hot-loaded LRMs are an optional rule, and given the dangers associated with them they're not a common choice in-universe. I don't think any mech was ever designed with using hot-loaded missiles.
-
MLO4H~
It was meant as a joke...
Kraken 3 is Bane 3, a clan mech using massed LRMs as it's primary weapon...
TT
-
Coming back to the shogun, the LRM-15's still make no real sense. In all honesty it would be better off losing the ERPPC and downgrading the 15's to 10's to add in a Large Laser or two and a few Medium Pulse Lasers. And maybe an extra heatsink or two. As it is its not even a good fire support platform, I would rather have an Awesome 8R or T in stead as they are effective bombard units and do not suffer from the major heat issues of the Shogun.
-
Coming back to the shogun, the LRM-15's still make no real sense. In all honesty it would be better off losing the ERPPC and downgrading the 15's to 10's to add in a Large Laser or two and a few Medium Pulse Lasers. And maybe an extra heatsink or two. As it is its not even a good fire support platform, I would rather have an Awesome 8R or T in stead as they are effective bombard units and do not suffer from the major heat issues of the Shogun.
It is a jumping Stalker...use it as such. While the ER PPC model doesn't make much sense, the standard PPC model works perfectly well at this...you get a little warm when firing both LRM's and the PPC, or the SRM's and PPC, so you drop one for the round afterwards. Your pattern would be 3 weapons, then 2 weapons, then 3 weapons, then...and so on...
If you jump, your modifier is likely high, so just use the PPC, unless you have a good enough chance with the missiles...
Ruger
-
Even then it is underwhelming, with a rather poor damage output when compared to similar units in that weight bracket. The overall damage output is just too low to really justify the loadout of the Shogun. Though I agree on the standard PPC version (its the one that I use) it is still hot running and still lacks any real damage output. If it went fully into the brawler build I could see it working well but as it is it is just too indecisive about what it wants to be and so ends up being a weird hybrid of a support platform and a brawler/close in urban fighter that really wants to stand off for the majority of its loadout but also wants to be in close to make the most of having those JJ's and SRM's.
-
MLO4H~
It was meant as a joke...
Kraken 3 is Bane 3, a clan mech using massed LRMs as it's primary weapon...
TT
Yes, and Clan LRMs don't have a minimum range to begin with so they wouldn't be hot-loaded. I wasn't replying specifically to you, but to the discussion on hot-loaded LRMS in general.
-
But the whole of aerotech desperately needs to be nuked from orbit and rebooted, designs and all. It has never been a good companion to BT and it's a terrible representation of space combat--either the realistic kind or the starwarsy action kind.
This is probably the most questionable design decision mentioned so far in the thread: the design philosophy behind the Aerotech rules. As said, nuking them from orbit and starting over from scratch seems to be the best answer. Many 'Mech design decisions are "questionable"; the equivalent Aerotech boondoggles are incomprehensible, and can only be rationally explained by easy access to recreational chemistry. A one-winged fighter plane? Seriously?
-
Even then it is underwhelming, with a rather poor damage output when compared to similar units in that weight bracket.
Depends on the era in which a model was created vs when it's being used...but I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that...
Ruger
-
This is probably the most questionable design decision mentioned so far in the thread: the design philosophy behind the Aerotech rules. As said, nuking them from orbit and starting over from scratch seems to be the best answer. Many 'Mech design decisions are "questionable"; the equivalent Aerotech boondoggles are incomprehensible, and can only be rationally explained by easy access to recreational chemistry. A one-winged fighter plane? Seriously?
I mean, if you only plan on using the "one wing" in space... it can work. If you plan on actually touching an atmosphere with it... it ain't gonna happen.
-
Lifting bodies totally work! ;)
-
I mean, if you only plan on using the "one wing" in space... it can work. If you plan on actually touching an atmosphere with it... it ain't gonna happen.
Meh, with the fusion output the flying bricks work just as fine as the Corsairs.
-
the power of imagination mitigates your silly physics
-
the power of imagination mitigates your silly physics
I prefer Adam Savage's saying:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
Ruger
-
I mean, if you only plan on using the "one wing" in space... it can work. If you plan on actually touching an atmosphere with it... it ain't gonna happen.
Yes, it can work, if you apply enough energy to the equation to make wings irrelevant....in which case, why have any wings at all? One wing makes no sense.
Then you have an Ostsol variant that packs a third LL. I believe the base model has about enough heat sinks that it can fire both LLs and only build heat for movement (or one point for the weapons), or else throw in the MLs and get a bit hot. Changing the 2xML to a 3rd LL makes no sense, because the penalties for using that third LL will severely limit you on the next turn, and the 8 additional damage output at 10-15 hexes at a painful overheat price hardly warrants giving up 10 points of damage at 9 hexes or less for less overheat, which can be used IN PLACE OF one of the two LLs to continue pouring on damage at closer range after building heat on the previous round of fire. I forget what else it has to give up to afford that third big gun that it doesn't have the heatsinks to fire, but it seemed like a reliable way of gimping an otherwise good 'Mech.
-
Yes, it can work, if you apply enough energy to the equation to make wings irrelevant....in which case, why have any wings at all? One wing makes no sense.
Then you have an Ostsol variant that packs a third LL. I believe the base model has about enough heat sinks that it can fire both LLs and only build heat for movement (or one point for the weapons), or else throw in the MLs and get a bit hot. Changing the 2xML to a 3rd LL makes no sense, because the penalties for using that third LL will severely limit you on the next turn, and the 8 additional damage output at 10-15 hexes at a painful overheat price hardly warrants giving up 10 points of damage at 9 hexes or less for less overheat, which can be used IN PLACE OF one of the two LLs to continue pouring on damage at closer range after building heat on the previous round of fire. I forget what else it has to give up to afford that third big gun that it doesn't have the heatsinks to fire, but it seemed like a reliable way of gimping an otherwise good 'Mech.
Got a reference on that? Sarna doesn't show a variant with 3 LLs. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Ostsol
MasterUnitList shows only the same 10 versions, so no discrepancy there.
-
i think he meant the ostroc 3C. it has x3 LL and 15 SHS
-
i think he meant the ostroc 3C. it has x3 LL and 15 SHS
Thanks.
That said, it is an LL replacing 2mlas and SRM4. So heat wise it is neutral. It just doesn't allow for fine tuning the heat. Not the best idea, but if some of those heat sinks are in the legs and you can get into water, it would work.
-
Gaining heat isn't the biggest sin in the world. I don't think it's a great design, but it's not that bad.
-
Gaining heat isn't the biggest sin in the world. I don't think it's a great design, but it's not that bad.
+9 heat firing all three and standing still. Not bad if you have TSM :)
-
Meh, with the fusion output the flying bricks work just as fine as the Corsairs.
Given enough power-to-weight ratio, even a doghouse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTnnXhcmSgY) or a lawnmover (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNWfqVWC2KI) will fly...
-
It was the principle of how the F4 operated, after all.
-
The Bombadier's secondary armament still makes no sense to me. You have 5/8 movement with dual LRM 20s. You should be fast or faster then most counter battery mechs or vehicles. 1 SRM 4 isn't going to dissuade anything lighter then 25 tons, especially if the enemy has fast moving hovercraft or VTOLs
It's even worse as the years go on with new Clan and IS light and medium mechs such as the Talos or the Davion 3050 Centurion.
Rip out the SRM-4 and the anti-missile system, and take a lesson from your uncle Archer. Add 5 medium lasers and a small when you run into the inevitable rush of close range units instead. Thunders would be a good option as well.
-
i think he meant the ostroc 3C. it has x3 LL and 15 SHS
Thanks, that's clearly the 'Mech I was remembering, but it's been a decade or so since I looked at the record sheet for it: 3 LLs and 15 heatsinks (I wasn't sure if it had 15 or 16, but clearly that's about right for 2xLLs plus one or two secondary weapons, NOT for 3xLL). Taking it one step further, with the SRMs gone, is it still an Ostroc, rather than having been converted into an Ostsol?
-
Thanks, that's clearly the 'Mech I was remembering, but it's been a decade or so since I looked at the record sheet for it: 3 LLs and 15 heatsinks (I wasn't sure if it had 15 or 16, but clearly that's about right for 2xLLs plus one or two secondary weapons, NOT for 3xLL). Taking it one step further, with the SRMs gone, is it still an Ostroc, rather than having been converted into an Ostsol?
Is the WSP-1K a Wasp or Stinger?
-
Is the WSP-1K a Wasp or Stinger?
yes?
-
Is the WSP-1K a Wasp or Stinger?
yes?
No, a Stinger has more firepower. :)
and the 1K has 17% more armor [3.5t vs 3.0t]
-
Gaining heat isn't the biggest sin in the world. I don't think it's a great design, but it's not that bad.
The 80s were just different. Mechs were a lot less optimized. With the Unseen designed as WYSIWYG there was less armor around. Wacky experiments could and did work.
In this case it is 3 big scary 8 point hits that can strip a Mech open and reach 20 points for the pilot roll. You wear heat but you can still move away at a reasonable pace for a 3025 heavy with no ammo to overheat.
So yeah it works in context. These days the construction options are a lot more refined even without considering the damage bump from DHS etc. We still get wacky experiments but they feel very different.
-
yes?
No, a Stinger has more firepower. :)
and the 1K has 17% more armor [3.5t vs 3.0t]
Bugs all squash the same to me
-
The Bombadier's secondary armament still makes no sense to me. You have 5/8 movement with dual LRM 20s. You should be fast or faster then most counter battery mechs or vehicles. 1 SRM 4 isn't going to dissuade anything lighter then 25 tons, especially if the enemy has fast moving hovercraft or VTOLs
It's even worse as the years go on with new Clan and IS light and medium mechs such as the Talos or the Davion 3050 Centurion.
Rip out the SRM-4 and the anti-missile system, and take a lesson from your uncle Archer. Add 5 medium lasers and a small when you run into the inevitable rush of close range units instead. Thunders would be a good option as well.
You're 5/8 and 65 tons. Don't bother with secondary weapons, anything that can catch you is going to feel the hurt in melee.
-
The Bombadier's secondary armament still makes no sense to me. You have 5/8 movement with dual LRM 20s. You should be fast or faster then most counter battery mechs or vehicles. 1 SRM 4 isn't going to dissuade anything lighter then 25 tons, especially if the enemy has fast moving hovercraft or VTOLs
It's even worse as the years go on with new Clan and IS light and medium mechs such as the Talos or the Davion 3050 Centurion.
Rip out the SRM-4 and the anti-missile system, and take a lesson from your uncle Archer. Add 5 medium lasers and a small when you run into the inevitable rush of close range units instead. Thunders would be a good option as well.
Heavens no, I'd mount more ammo for the LRMs before fitting a bunch of lasers. The point of the Bombardier is that it's an Inner Sphere missile support heavy that can keep up with a heavy cavalry lance and in that respect it's pretty much unique, but only six turns of fire makes me sad...
-
I'd split the difference and get 2 medium lasers and 2 more tons of LRM ammo.
-
The one argument I can see for the SRM launcher is Frag SRMs, because the major threat to a lance of missile support 'Mechs should be infantry ambush. The SRM is at least useful in that regard, whereas lasers only help against threats you should be running away from to get outside LRM minimum range.
-
I'd load up on Infernos to disturb my enemies from pursuing me too closely...
And I'll also would shoot my LRMs ripple style, meaning one per turn u til a number is good then double tap! Unless it's a firemission of Thunder rounds...
TT
-
I'd load up on Infernos to disturb my enemies from pursuing me too closely...
And I'll also would shoot my LRMs ripple style, meaning one per turn u til a number is good then double tap! Unless it's a firemission of Thunder rounds...
TT
You have one ton per launcher. You cannot *afford* to take Thunder rounds.
-
The one argument I can see for the SRM launcher is Frag SRMs, because the major threat to a lance of missile support 'Mechs should be infantry ambush. The SRM is at least useful in that regard, whereas lasers only help against threats you should be running away from to get outside LRM minimum range.
Frag SRMs aren't good enough to justify the launcher. Normal SRMs do damage/5 to infantry and Frag SRMs double that. That's only 4 damage. They're a reasonable anti-infantry tool if you're already using SRMs as an anti-mech or anti-vehicle weapon and just have to add a ton of ammo, but if you intend to run from everything but infantry you'd be better served by anything on the burst fire table.
-
Frag SRMs aren't good enough to justify the launcher. Normal SRMs do damage/5 to infantry and Frag SRMs double that. That's only 4 damage. They're a reasonable anti-infantry tool if you're already using SRMs as an anti-mech or anti-vehicle weapon and just have to add a ton of ammo, but if you intend to run from everything but infantry you'd be better served by anything on the burst fire table.
That's a problem with a rules change nerfing equipment that had no need to be nerfed. BMR-era Frag SRMs did 4 damage each to infantry which made them a credible deterrent.
-
That also provided a legitimate reason to chose frag missiles over Infernos besides "for some bizarre reason, I don't want to set this thing on fire."
-
You have one ton per launcher. You cannot *afford* to take Thunder rounds.
Your thinking inside the box... If I wanted to only carry a single ton of (3) Thunder rounds and a single standard LRM.... I can lay down 3 turns of standard if I double shoot or ripple fire for 6, and I can still do a fire solution in a minefield if I want one.
TT
-
The thing is, if you're ripple firing you have more launchers than you need which points back to the design making no sense. You could drop one LRM-20 and only lose a reserve capacity you might use one round in five and have 10 tons to do something else with, or you could have two LRM-15 and enough ammo to fire both of them over a typical engagement and have 3 or 4 tons to play with.
-
I know right?
I have a soft spot for a pair of Archer-2S... adding a Warhammer-6D and a Painback!
Oh good times....
But in reality there should more canon variances than listed.
TT
-
Anyone mention TRO3050 Hunchback yet?
-
You mean the -5M?
It kinda sucks... but at least we get CASE for it...
TT
-
How about the stock Banshee? Why the Star Leauge didn't follow Steiner's idea for refitting it into the 3S I still never know. Or the Dasher II? A 360 XL with MASC would have been a better choice then a 400 XL for payload. As for the Hunchback-5M, that was sloppy work just like the Quickdraw or the 3050 Steinr Stalker. A better version for long range firepower and general trooper status would have been to remove 3 heat sinks, use up 2 tons for a Gauss Rifle and another ton of ammo, switch the remaining AC 20 ammo for another ton of ammo (making 16 shots), and add another medium laser.
-
The Gauss-back was top heavy in canon...
But otherwise was a good idea...
TT
-
How about the stock Banshee? Why the Star Leauge didn't follow Steiner's idea for refitting it into the 3S I still never know.
The 3S didn't come out until 3026. (So sayeth Sarna.)
-
not existing *is* a good excuse for failing to follow up
The Gauss-back was top heavy in canon...
But otherwise was a good idea...
yeah, it seems like a natural 3048-3052 first gen upgrade. by 3068 they apparently fixed the issue when 5SG was rolled out
-
Actually, it's a Draconis 3039 prototype for a new type of Helm Gauss that was captured from FedCom forces... excellent range and damage but poor weight to recoil effect...
I'd say the Gyro wasn't calibrated correctly... since it was a field job and all, jury-rigged.
TT
-
The gladiator omnimech, and the tinfoil protecting the front side torsos relative to every other location.
Maybe they were planning on using elementals are battlefield-replaceable armor? Seems a bit hard on the toads though.
Every other aspect of the mech save cost is great, but I can't forgive the vulnerable side torsos.
-
not existing *is* a good excuse for failing to follow up
yeah, it seems like a natural 3048-3052 first gen upgrade. by 3068 they apparently fixed the issue when 5SG was rolled out
The 5SG was a unique design.
-
Huh so it is. Shame as it’s a really good design
-
You mean the -5M?
It kinda sucks... but at least we get CASE for it...
TT
I'm willing to give a pass to the 3050 upgrades. It was brand new technology to the Inner Sphere, and they really didn't know how the stuff worked. There are a lot of "bad" designs in that book, but it makes sense that they'd have bad designs.
Plus I don't think all the technology was available to every manufacturer. Just because you get access to CASE doesn't mean you've got access to Endo Steel. Your company might get a shipment of ER PPCs but that doesn't mean you can get your hands on any Double Heat Sinks. People made do with what they had, and a lot of times I don't think they understood the performance envelopes (i.e., game stats) of the equipment they were installing.
With the CASE, I imagine that it was sold as a way to save a mech from an ammo explosion. Miracle technology, of course you'd want it. The fact that it has appreciable weight, enough to affect what equipment the mech can carry, probably wasn't mentioned. It takes up a crit slot too, and in real world terms that probably means that the internal space the Hunchback had allocated for ammo (xxx cubic feet) was reduced. To get back up to 2 tons of ammo, you might have to redesign the entire torso layout. Design in-universe is probably harder than it is for us, where we can just say "drop the small laser", they don't necessarily have that option.
-
I believe it was the armor that got suffered. You want CASE, sure lose half a ton...
Most Pilots wouldn't want to lose a weapon even as simple as a small laser.
TT
-
I'm willing to give a pass to the 3050 upgrades. It was brand new technology to the Inner Sphere, and they really didn't know how the stuff worked. There are a lot of "bad" designs in that book, but it makes sense that they'd have bad designs.
Plus I don't think all the technology was available to every manufacturer. Just because you get access to CASE doesn't mean you've got access to Endo Steel. Your company might get a shipment of ER PPCs but that doesn't mean you can get your hands on any Double Heat Sinks. People made do with what they had, and a lot of times I don't think they understood the performance envelopes (i.e., game stats) of the equipment they were installing.
With the CASE, I imagine that it was sold as a way to save a mech from an ammo explosion. Miracle technology, of course you'd want it. The fact that it has appreciable weight, enough to affect what equipment the mech can carry, probably wasn't mentioned. It takes up a crit slot too, and in real world terms that probably means that the internal space the Hunchback had allocated for ammo (xxx cubic feet) was reduced. To get back up to 2 tons of ammo, you might have to redesign the entire torso layout. Design in-universe is probably harder than it is for us, where we can just say "drop the small laser", they don't necessarily have that option.
i agree, though i would like to see the original 3050 variants pushed up to 3035-3045 and a second run of refined designs between 3048-3055 like we got with the XTROs and TRO prototypes
-
I think we basically saw that with the various upgrade designs that popped up in FASA's Record Sheet: Upgrades, TRO: Project Phoenix, and TRO: 3050 Upgrade. Rather than just do a few bugfixes, manufacturers waited a couple years and released new versions of the mechs that were upgraded with newer tech.
-
3056-3062ish, sure but it makes little sense to me to have these weapons systems listed as common (ie available to most everyone) by 3040-3045 and zero production models debuting before 3047.
the re-intro dates for a lot of helm systems are set in the mid to late 3030s so ~3040 prototype awkwardness (aka the original tro 3050 batch) could easily be pushed forward five to ten years with room for designs far more useful against the initial clan onslaught.
-
3056-3062ish, sure but it makes little sense to me to have these weapons systems listed as common (ie available to most everyone) by 3040-3045 and zero production models debuting before 3047.
the re-intro dates for a lot of helm systems are set in the mid to late 3030s so ~3040 prototype awkwardness (aka the original tro 3050 batch) could easily be pushed forward five to ten years with room for designs far more useful against the initial clan onslaught.
That's just a relic of real world publication dates, and what is basically an incomplete retcon of tech reintroduction.
Lethal Heritage, the first book in the Clan saga, was published a few months before TRO 2750 and about 7 or 8 months before TRO 3050. The novel had the Clans hit an Inner Sphere that had recovered zero advanced technology. Every unit was using standard 3025 tech, because that's all that existed at that time in the real world. While Star League tech was supposed to be more advanced, nobody had ever published what it was supposed to be able to do.
For several years in real world time, the new tech intro dates were right around 3050. Experimental tech was shoved into production to meet the Clan onslaught. Much later, the decision was made to backdate a lot of the tech intro times, so that the process appeared more gradual. That's why you've got the conflict in when certain pieces of equipment became available.
-
yes, i know why it is like it is.
i'm saying finish the retcon and make 3050 IS more playable
-
yes, i know why it is like it is.
i'm saying finish the retcon and make 3050 IS more playable
Its plenty playable . . . I have a binary vs your battalion & supports.
-
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/312/563/05d.jpg)
-
I back of the head slap you both!
I challenge you with a complete Level II Choir! I'm all cybered up and ready to steamroll you over... >:D
TT
-
Didn’t know the word’s super weapons included a time machine
-
That's just a relic of real world publication dates, and what is basically an incomplete retcon of tech reintroduction.
Lethal Heritage, the first book in the Clan saga, was published a few months before TRO 2750 and about 7 or 8 months before TRO 3050. The novel had the Clans hit an Inner Sphere that had recovered zero advanced technology. Every unit was using standard 3025 tech, because that's all that existed at that time in the real world. While Star League tech was supposed to be more advanced, nobody had ever published what it was supposed to be able to do.
For several years in real world time, the new tech intro dates were right around 3050. Experimental tech was shoved into production to meet the Clan onslaught. Much later, the decision was made to backdate a lot of the tech intro times, so that the process appeared more gradual. That's why you've got the conflict in when certain pieces of equipment became available.
And it's hardly the only bit of conflict that exists from the time: there are multiple instances of the Dire Wolf (the warship that was being used as the flagship for the invasion) being referred to as a dropship, for example.
-
It was still a bit fuzzy in the original TRO 3050. The Combine was supposed to have fully mature Hatamotos for the war of 3039, and they captured the plans for both the upgraded Jagermech and the upgraded Victor during the same war. (TRO 3050 upgrade confirms the upgraded victor part, but changes the jagermech to House Davion handing over the plans during the clan war).
Even the Blood of Kerensky trilogy doesn't really support the idea of these new designs suddenly springing into being. They started appearing fairly early into the clan invasion, which means the development time and testing had already been done. You don't go from first principles on weapons and systems you haven't understood in centuries to full production in six months. Roughly ten years from the first field tests to full production isn't particularly unreasonable.
In some respects all the later stuff did was clean up the mess left by prior books. The only thing we're really left to worry about is victor being amazed by clan heat sinks, which would still be pretty amazing even compared to inner sphere models. Especially if you're a mech pilot and not an engineer.
-
Victor gave off an impression that he might not have been inclined to keep track of new things in reports he got sent, too.
-
And it's hardly the only bit of conflict that exists from the time: there are multiple instances of the Dire Wolf (the warship that was being used as the flagship for the invasion) being referred to as a dropship, for example.
I don't recall that. I recall that Khelan thought it was a massive dropship like a Behemoth because it was under "gravity" and and the elevator ride was oddly long. He probably wasn't even aware that a jumpship could exist that could generate that "gravity" like a dropship could. Warships had been gone from the Inner Sphere consciousness and lexicon for some time at this point that the idea would be like someone here waking up on the Enterprise, Galactica, or Stargate's F-304.
-
Throughout the trilogy it's labeled a dropship. It's never once referred to as a warship, even in the internal thoughts of people who should know better.
-
That's just a relic of real world publication dates, and what is basically an incomplete retcon of tech reintroduction.
Lethal Heritage, the first book in the Clan saga, was published a few months before TRO 2750 and about 7 or 8 months before TRO 3050. The novel had the Clans hit an Inner Sphere that had recovered zero advanced technology. Every unit was using standard 3025 tech, because that's all that existed at that time in the real world. While Star League tech was supposed to be more advanced, nobody had ever published what it was supposed to be able to do.
For several years in real world time, the new tech intro dates were right around 3050. Experimental tech was shoved into production to meet the Clan onslaught. Much later, the decision was made to backdate a lot of the tech intro times, so that the process appeared more gradual. That's why you've got the conflict in when certain pieces of equipment became available.
I'm going to disagree here.
Pretty sure that the 20 Year Update predates those 3 & it mentions the IS advancing from "Freezers" to true DHS in the early 40's as well as unlocking the Helm Core back at the NAIS in the 4th SW & we get TRO:2750 in universe in 3048.
Again, having a couple production runs from 3048 to 3050 when production runs back then were around a dozen mechs a year isn't going to give you crap for refitting the entire AFFC.
Those few cool toys that were in production were all being horded by the Dav Guards or Royal Guards and those units were not sitting out on the Periphery/FRR border where we see Victor.
-
Laughs in nuclear fire
-
I believe it was the armor that got suffered. You want CASE, sure lose half a ton...
Most Pilots wouldn't want to lose a weapon even as simple as a small laser.
TT
If offered the chance of survivable ammo explosions -- and if we're going by fluff, un-CASEd ammo explosions very frequently are lethal, even with autoeject systems enabled -- or keeping my least effective weapon system, I'd think I'd choose survivability.
On the table, you're right though. Losing the LT means fighting with one medium laser, so it isn't really good sense to have only CASE on a Hunch at the cost of ammo, unless you're in a campaign.
-
Again, having a couple production runs from 3048 to 3050 when production runs back then were around a dozen mechs a year isn't going to give you crap for refitting the entire AFFC.
Not so sure about the size of production runs by the end of the 3040s. After all, three hundred Dabokus in 3036-3039 were described as a "short test-run" by a single production line (TRO3039 p. 234).
-
When you figure . . . I think? that each House is given around 100 mech regiments for the national forces (exclude the small FRR & SIC), and give them the normal organization of a regiment being three battalions of 36 mechs. It does not take into account that a few have battalions with four companies, some regiments have four battalions or a regiment has a command company or double company. But three battalions of 36 mechs gives you a national force of 10,800 mechs per house, does not include mercenaries, noble guards, corp sec, or planetary militia for wealthy/important planets (though militia may also include noble guard) but those forces are not going to be in the weight class or repair that national forces will maintain. It also does not include the academy training battalions- not talking about NAIS or Sun Zhang cadre, but more like the Nagelring training mechs like the one Phelan took to go looking for avalanche victims.
So that 300 Dabokus for the DCMS over three years? The production run was under 1% annually of the book strength of the House's national forces while they were rebuilding from the 4SW and Dragoon brawl. I would be willing to bet that not all of them ended up in DCMS hands either.
-
also the clan invasion scenarios i would run benefiting from finishing the job wouldn't care. if the numbers mattered at all they'd be codified.
-
also the clan invasion scenarios i would run benefiting from finishing the job wouldn't care. if the numbers mattered at all they'd be codified.
I agree Sartis, in fact I posited in the Apollo article that it was a replacement for Archers and other missile fire support heavies & assaults that were stripped from units not heading to the Clan front to bulk out the regiments going to face the Wolves & Falcons. It would also make sense for all the upgrade kits to head that direction as well as any of the advanced designs that could be spared to bulk the deploying units without stripping them too far. Question is, do you give a warrior piloting the family Marauder 3R in the 9th FedCom & headed to Twycross the Marauder 5D that the FS has assigned to Mechwarrior Joe Bob of the 1st Robinson Rangers? While the weapons are mostly the same, the DHS and jump jets alter the mech's tactical profile.
Yeah, some of the Tukayyid scenarios get really interesting with random ComStar forces using the 'new' (lol, TRO3055 & '58) Star League designs and Royals. Playing in forests and canyons when the Clan force is running into Pillagers, Emperors, Shootists, Royal Black Knights, Royal Sentinels and Royal Von Luckners can really hammer a Clan force- especially since I have played them using MM's double blind option.
Hmm, for all that discussion about 'advanced' designs in the Invasion- didn't ComStar have the SL stuff in the novel?
-
So that 300 Dabokus for the DCMS over three years? The production run was under 1% annually of the book strength of the House's national forces while they were rebuilding from the 4SW and Dragoon brawl. I would be willing to bet that not all of them ended up in DCMS hands either.
I just compared the established canon test-run of 300 Dabokus with the claim that production runs were around a dozen 'mechs in 3048-3050.
When a single line can churn out ~100 'mechs of a new design p.a., it's hard to imagine that all the other lines were stuck in their 3025 capacities.
-
I'd say that half of those lines are being upgraded, another third offline do to repairs from last war and the rest operating @ or near 50% overcapacity to handle the slack.
TT
-
Production Run does not mean a single 'line' but instead how many are produced total at one go before paused or retooled. Consider WWII with Shermans . . . ten different factories (or lines) building the tanks all to the same specs and all with interchangeable parts. But production would halt for a bit to incorporate a re-design or upgrade which is why we get the different versions of the Sherman as the war went on- particularly after they had unit testing (cause grunts break stuff in ways designers never imagine) and combat testing/experience. So (just pulling numbers out the arse) the USAA orders Shermans, faucet is turned on!, and starts production . . . . and stops production of that 4A version after 600 tanks from those 10 factories b/c someone introduced a improvement in the engine that increased the life span of the oil filters, primarily desert environments b/c of operations in N Africa. Thus a new production run of the 4A1 which means the production run of the 4A is done, no more ever made! The the engine maker does something to the engine and gets another 50-75 HP, new production run of the 4A2! Meanwhile combat testing says the Sherman needs a better gun and the pointy heads finally delivered so that 4A2 production run gets cut short, just 110 tanks and the start of a new production run, the 4B starts!
For a canon example, NFP rebuilt their Warhammer line on Tematagi to make -7Ms and was producing 16 a month after the first month which was considered a impressive set of numbers. Along with quality control, its how NFP beat Ronin to license the -8D model in the FWL. They started production Nov 1 '67 and shut down that spring on the production run of the -7Ms to retool to the newly licensed -8D model after just a few months- thus ends the production run of -7Ms on Tematagi. The production run of -8Ds started in the spring of '69 . . . though the factory was obliterated in March, so who knows if/how many of that run was made. Btw, it means the -7M was built at a rate of 192 for the year from that factory.
We also hear about major & minor factories, with I think the definition being a major factory is 5 or 6 lines- sometimes producing the same thing while other times each producing different mechs. DefHes on Hesperus? Major factory with a lot of lines even in 3025 though still not producing what it was during the Star League.
-
Quote from TRO3039:
A short test-run of 300 was produced before the line was closed down and retooled.
So those 300 seem to be from a single production line, not several or even multiple factories.
All I'm arguing is that we shouldn't automatically assume production runs to be about a dozen 'mechs anymore in the late fourties/early fifties when there are examples of test runs in the hundreds a decade earlier.
-
Throughout the trilogy it's labeled a dropship. It's never once referred to as a warship, even in the internal thoughts of people who should know better.
I recall them discussing things while on a dropship, but never referring to the Dire Wolf itself as a dropship, aside from Phelan's early internal assumptions. Even when the Rasalhague fighters were attacking it and they hit the bridge of the jumpship and blew the Khan off the bridge.
While I admit to having not read them for some time, I do note those irregularities, and was aware of the differences when I read it the first time. Yes, I had Battlespace and TRO 3057 before I read any of the Kerensky Trilogy, so such would have stood out and stuck in my craw.
-
Quote from TRO3039:So those 300 seem to be from a single production line, not several or even multiple factories.
All I'm arguing is that we shouldn't automatically assume production runs to be about a dozen 'mechs anymore in the late fourties/early fifties when there are examples of test runs in the hundreds a decade earlier.
Its not that the test or production run is dozens- though a test run would be, you only build a few prototypes- but that the new technology would not saturate the old units. I gave generic numbers, but think of that . . . 100 regiments which would mean that each one would get 3 of the 'new mech' on average which assumes that all of them went to the national forces without any finding their way into private hands. It means to maintain that average none were lost to pirates, raids or became a hanger queen immediately. A Highlander and Dobuku are both damaged, which one do you pick as the hanger queen?
-
Yes, from one line. However there are multiple lines, at multiple factories in each major realm. When production output post-Helm can be increased so much that a single production line can deliver ~100 new design assault 'mechs per year by the end of the thirties (almost as much as the famed automated Valkyrie light 'mech plant could do in 3025), the yearly output of all the lines of a Successor State combined should easily reach high three or even low four digit numbers by the early fifties. That would mean a yearly influx of ~10% new construction by 3050 in the DC's case.
-
Except the constant state of war and the slow down in all the lines (ERML, ES, FF, etc) that feed that . . . and a production run, which is from all sources when listed like that, is not a single factory line. A production run is like my example of the Sherman- 10 factories!- produced that tank to meet the Allied demand, so each model had a production run which included production from all the factories producing that model.
-
Minor point... it's "hangar queen", not "hanger queen". I just couldn't take it anymore... :P
-
Except the constant state of war and the slow down in all the lines (ERML, ES, FF, etc) that feed that . . . and a production run, which is from all sources when listed like that, is not a single factory line. A production run is like my example of the Sherman- 10 factories!- produced that tank to meet the Allied demand, so each model had a production run which included production from all the factories producing that model.
TRO3039 disagrees:
A short test-run of 300 was produced before the line was closed down and retooled.
(Emphasis mine)
the line - singular. We have no indication at all that the Daboku was ever produced anywhere else than at New Samarkand.
-
No one should put any stock in the production numbers that have been printed, in any book, ever.
The writers certainly don't.
Production goes at the speed of plot.
As for the Hunchback 5M, it's actually a great design. The 5 rounds ensures the Hunchy won't fight too long (a common problem) and a well-informed enemy might stop shooting it once it's down to 1 or 2 rounds remaining. Yes, there's some tonnage wasted on heatsinks, but whatever. Certainly not a heinous crime, and it gives people a reason to *not* shoot you with infernos.
And from a meta perspective it's great since it's so easy to improve upon.
-
As for the Hunchback 5M, it's actually a great design. The 5 rounds ensures the Hunchy won't fight too long (a common problem) and a well-informed enemy might stop shooting it once it's down to 1 or 2 rounds remaining. Yes, there's some tonnage wasted on heatsinks, but whatever. Certainly not a heinous crime, and it gives people a reason to *not* shoot you with infernos.
And having so little ammo limits any possibility of catastrophic explosions especially thanks to the super cool profile created by its enormous double heat sinkage which is handy if it goes walking on the sun or has to fight an enemy while standing in lava.
You sir should run for office!
Respectfully I disagree, I was able to EndoSteel the structure, strip up the excess heat sinks, and use the old Magna 250 Fusion Engine from the TBT-5N Trebuchet to incorporate 10 Double Heat Sinks all within the power plant while increasing its speed now 5/8. This helps this venerable trooper deliver its short range weapon payload the old reliable AC/20 now equipped with ten shots for twice the effectiveness of the initial improved model. Not only does a CASE protect the pilot but nine and half tons of ferro-fibrous armor offers maximum defense against any oncoming enemy fire. Finally three Medium Lasers supplement the massive autocannon nicely and we still can't overheat (18 max).
There you have it a fine Level 2 3050 upgrade that stays true to its design principles and creates a formidable platform in any setting.
And from a meta perspective it's great since it's so easy to improve upon.
Yup I can see my campaign working out fine... ;)
-
And having so little ammo limits any possibility of catastrophic explosions especially thanks to the super cool profile created by its enormous double heat sinkage
Exactly, which is useful since infernoes are a thing.
I dont remember the last time a hunchback I ran lasted long enough to fire all 10 shots.
You sir should run for office!
Thankew!
Respectfully I disagree, I was able to EndoSteel the structure, strip up the excess heat sinks, and use the old Magna 250 Fusion Engine from the TBT-5N Trebuchet to incorporate 10 Double Heat Sinks all within the power plant while increasing its speed now 5/8. This helps this venerable trooper deliver its short range weapon payload the old reliable AC/20 now equipped with ten shots for twice the effectiveness of the initial improved model. Not only does a CASE protect the pilot but nine and half tons of ferro-fibrous armor offers maximum defense against any oncoming enemy fire. Finally three Medium Lasers supplement the massive autocannon nicely and we still can't overheat (18 max).
That is a better config, but an internal structure and engine swap are the most conplex and expensive modifications you can do, so goes well beyond an easy 3050 upgrade.
-
That is a better config, but an internal structure and engine swap are the most conplex and expensive modifications you can do, so goes well beyond an easy 3050 upgrade.
True dat, I had to fluff my arse of for that my friend but it was worth it. ;)
Actually the EndoSteel was what I would describe as a reach on my model but I was really proud of my discovery of the Magna 250 from the Trebuchet which it was manufactured right along side of.
-
Do the difference between artwork and record sheet fit into this category?
(Tempest, Thunderbolt, Shootist, Banshee)
-
Do the difference between artwork and record sheet fit into this category?
(Tempest, Thunderbolt, Shootist, Banshee)
No, art is the lowest level of canon.
-
In order to qualify, it would have to be artwork that was massively off compared to the mech. Beyond even "weapon pods don't match the record sheet locations" and into "confusing an Orion with a Stalker."
-
Common dont make sense designs are artifact of previous rules like any mech with 3+ tons of Anti missile systems . Others are mentality such as Clan batchal bidding process so having 1 ton of ammo for an LB 10 X or ATM launchers are not completely brainn dead just mostly so . That is the rationale for Some of the head scratching what were they thinking designs . You are not the first nor the last to notice this . So long as committees are involved it is inevitable.
-
Yeah, but there are many designs that don't make sense under any ruleset.
-
Some mechs make sense under one set of rules, but not another. The Werewolf is a Solaris VII design, made specifically for that game. It is a 40 ton mech with 16 DHS. Its weapons can produce a maximum of 12 heat (and then up to 4 from jumping). Why??? Because Solaris VII allowed you to fire up to 4 times per turn.
Some mechs make sense under one set of rules, but not really in the fiction. The Charger is designed to charge. It's actually pretty effective on the tabletop in 3025 play. But it doesn't make sense to build in the story because it only carries a handful of small lasers. Physical attacks should be a lot more rare in the fiction than they are in the game. Nobody would build a mech like that.
Some mechs make sense in the background, but not in the game rules. Duke Jones' company got the contract to produce this new mech, so it is equipped with all the Jones Industrial parts that they can cram on it, even if that means carrying around three AC-5s.
Some mechs make sense for real life reasons, but not in the fiction. A new TRO comes out and they want to put the latest technology on the mechs. You gotta have a reason to buy the book, after all. So we need an assault mech carrying the new Improved Pulse MRM launcher. Or they've got this artwork and they gotta make something fit.
-
And that's why the discussion has been focused on designs that never made sense under any version of the rules and don't succeed at their stated purpose and not just oddities like the Daishi A's 3 tons of AMS ammo, since under the original AMS rules that made sense.
By contrast, the excessively thin armor on the Cerberus and rear-mounted machine guns didn't make sense at the time and still don't now.
-
And that's why the discussion has been focused on designs that never made sense under any version of the rules and don't succeed at their stated purpose and not just oddities like the Daishi A's 3 tons of AMS ammo, since under the original AMS rules that made sense.
By contrast, the excessively thin armor on the Cerberus and rear-mounted machine guns didn't make sense at the time and still don't now.
???
I don't have my TROs with me, but Megamek lists the Cerberus as having 15 center rear and 10 side rear. That's not too bad. That's the same as the 3025 Atlas (actually 1 pt more in the center), which is a tough SOB.
Basically with a mech like that, you expect that you'll keep the big enemies in front of you. But you might get an infantry unit or something ambush you from behind, and you need something to take care of them.
-
Some mechs make sense under one set of rules, but not really in the fiction. The Charger is designed to charge. It's actually pretty effective on the tabletop in 3025 play. But it doesn't make sense to build in the story because it only carries a handful of small lasers. Physical attacks should be a lot more rare in the fiction than they are in the game. Nobody would build a mech like that.
I thought the in-universe reason for the Charger being built like that was specifically so that the pilot was dissuaded from attacking other, heavier forces with it. The fact it could use the extra throw weight to beat down the odd Panther or something was just a bonus.
As to why the choice wasn't, say, two medium lasers or giving it a second hand actuator, is more fitting to the topic at hand.
-
???
I don't have my TROs with me, but Megamek lists the Cerberus as having 15 center rear and 10 side rear. That's not too bad. That's the same as the 3025 Atlas (actually 1 pt more in the center), which is a tough SOB.
Basically with a mech like that, you expect that you'll keep the big enemies in front of you. But you might get an infantry unit or something ambush you from behind, and you need something to take care of them.
It's got thin armor everywhere else. The mech is criminally unarmored: it's got 19 on the arms and legs- if anything, the mech devotes too much armor to the rear while neglecting the front. The mech was allegedly built to fight the Clans and the MGs were supposedly to fend off Elementals.
-
The fact it could use the extra throw weight to beat down the odd Panther or something was just a bonus.
Panther: Hah! I have found you, sneaky scout!
Charger: :blank:
Panther: Oh. Crap.
Charger: Yeah.
-
On the other hand, you have the embarrassing situations where the Charger is in hilly terrain and gets killed by a Stinger with its mighty medium laser.
-
Well, technically the Charger is not designed to charge, it was designed as a super sized scout. Its a recon Mech, which does sort of make the small lasers make sense.... Until you realise those could have been Medium's instead. Once you get later variants it does get better, but the early ones are utterly daft.
-
Well, technically the Charger is not designed to charge, it was designed as a super sized scout. Its a recon Mech, which does sort of make the small lasers make sense.... Until you realise those could have been Medium's instead. Once you get later variants it does get better, but the early ones are utterly daft.
The issue is mostly "why use a small when I can use a medium" on pretty much everything. The only point where that changed was when Pulse Lasers were "mainstream", and even then you only use the small to face infantry.
The newer models did improve a lot, mostly due to the fact that you've got room to do so, though in a lot of cases you've got to slow the 'Mech down quite a lot, until XL becomes viable as an engine, or you strip off a lot of armor.
-
It's got thin armor everywhere else. The mech is criminally unarmored: it's got 19 on the arms and legs- if anything, the mech devotes too much armor to the rear while neglecting the front. The mech was allegedly built to fight the Clans and the MGs were supposedly to fend off Elementals.
Ah, misread your post. Yeah, machine guns don't do crap to Elementals. I'd say maybe it's a case of designers still not being used to the new technology, or understanding the post-Clan battlefield. It's pretty thin, even for a 3025 assault. However, when you remember it's got 4/6 movement, it's possible the designers were thinking of it as a heavier Warhammer. It's better protected than that design, with better firepower. Yeah it has XL, but again, it's part of the first wave of new mech designs.
-
The mech was allegedly built to fight the Clans and the MGs were supposedly to fend off Elementals.
That happened with naval ships when they built all sorts of stuff to stop torpedoes...that didn't actually do anything to stop torpedoes.
-
machine guns don't do crap to Elementals.
a little known flaw in the elemental phenotype. if you tickle them with a bullet in just they right spot they die of uncontrollable laughter
It's pretty thin, even for a 3025 assault
Hellbringer: suicidal armor
Cerberus: hold my beer
personally i only run the -5M
-
That happened with naval ships when they built all sorts of stuff to stop torpedoes...that didn't actually do anything to stop torpedoes.
Did they continue installing such systems on ships after watching battlefield footage of the torpedoes going right through the "anti-torpedo" defenses while giving the camera a hand signal commonly seen on the New Jersey Turnpike?
-
Did they continue installing such systems on ships after watching battlefield footage of the torpedoes going right through the "anti-torpedo" defenses while giving the camera a hand signal commonly seen on the New Jersey Turnpike?
Yup, sometimes decades after they were found obsolete.
-
What is so hard to understand . For some the point of building an expensive war machine is to get graft and employ constituents to have a tight combat machine up front means the whole process of graft and corruption cannot be revisted as soon as possible . Boondoggles happen in the real world . Satirical movies outlining them like " Pentagon Wars " are few and far between because it is too true . It is a miracle that Battletech does not have even more than those outlined in this post . Most CC designs are tight is a completely worthless design would have consequences ranging from loss of Citizenship , prison , public exucution or secret ritual sacrifice . Everwhere else it is bussiness as usual . For the Clans poor design results in loss of status within and without your caste . It would be very strange if the game had Zero bad designs it would lack realism or any understanding of the political animals inhabiting any universe .
-
i mean clearly the engineers should have punched the numbers into SSW first
-
If there's a major factory in your district that produces AC/5 class autocannons, you're probably going to vote in favor of that new design with twin AC/5s, as opposed to the "distinguished gentleman with the stupid idea" across the aisle who wants to put in dual LLs on account of a factory in his own district producing those. The military has called for a PPC-equipped design, but that doesn't have any support from the parliament or ruling council, so the military will just have to figure out how to use what they're given instead.
Real world examples include the US Army listing 12 military bases for possible closure back in the 1990s, which it claimed served absolutely no strategic purpose. All 12 were in the districts of influential congressmen, and ultimately only 4 bases were closed, NONE of them from the list. Politics and profit are far more powerful motivating factors than effectiveness when it comes to military hardware, which many of the original BT designs reflect. Yes, they DO make sense, but not necessarily from a purely military perspective, and especially not when you're comparing specialist units of various types to "line" units for their suitability at front-line combat in close quarters.
"The design was a major success, despite its significant flaws, as the senator who submitted the bill for its purchase in quantity by the House Military was re-elected."
-
The problem is decisions that truly makes no sense. Nobody puts black powder guns on a modern military unit, even if they would be very good for somebody.
-
The problem is decisions that truly makes no sense. Nobody puts black powder guns on a modern military unit, even if they would be very good for somebody.
Sure, but what unit in Battletech can we definitely say is the equivalent?
-
you can build bow-equipped infantry platoons ;D
-
you can build bow-equipped infantry platoons ;D
Can those actually damage BattleMechs? If so, how many do you need? Like, is it something only the Marian Hegemony would be able to do?
-
The problem is decisions that truly makes no sense. Nobody puts black powder guns on a modern military unit, even if they would be very good for somebody.
Well, the thing is that in real life even bad designs (typically) gradually get better but at the cost of coalescing (or homogenizing) around a few key design parameters that actually matter. That's a bad thing for having a wide variety of well-differentiated mechs though. Just look at the relative diversity of AFV design concepts of early WW2 compared to the post-war decade and then compared to nowadays, where something like four basic models constitute something like 70% of all actively serving MBTs in the world (IIRC).
And veteran players of TT tend to not like min-maxed designs, which is pretty much what happens over the service life of military equipment, so even "bad" units typically get better -- in a few cases much better -- as they get upgraded, rather than just as bad but in a different way.
-
Can those actually damage BattleMechs? If so, how many do you need? Like, is it
technically speaking they can, but you can't put enough troops in a platoon to get to 1 damage
if you use a .04 damage/trooper weapon like a Blade (Archaic Sword) you can do 1 damage until falling below 15 troopers
-
The problem is decisions that truly makes no sense. Nobody puts black powder guns on a modern military unit, even if they would be very good for somebody.
Not as a gun perhaps, but a black powder landmine or claymore would still work . . . though not be as effective and have other problems.
Besides, we are not talking about a propellant difference.
You are more like saying . . .
(http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/katyusha-rocket.jpg)
Nobody uses unguided rockets any more!
ahem-
(https://media.defense.gov/2016/Nov/02/2001662526/600/400/0/161025-A-EU843-150.JPG)
-
Not as a gun perhaps, but a black powder landmine or claymore would still work . . . though not be as effective and have other problems.
Besides, we are not talking about a propellant difference.
You are more like saying . . .
(http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/katyusha-rocket.jpg)
Nobody uses unguided rockets any more!
ahem-
(https://media.defense.gov/2016/Nov/02/2001662526/600/400/0/161025-A-EU843-150.JPG)
The difference is in military effectiveness. The unguided rockets of the Ming Dynasty couldn't hold a candle to the Katyusha, which doesn't even compare to a Uragan, Smersh or Tornado nowadays. The unguided bit is technically true, but missing the point about relative battlefield effectiveness. You could say an AC/5 (for one easy example) is more like a Katyusha than a Ming-era rocket launcher in terms of how good it is, but you can't say it is anything acceptable compared to post-Clan invasion tech. It isn't even really good compared with other introtech options.
-
I dare say you don't see a flood of AC/5s in post-invasion designs.
-
Its semantics . . . I can say the UAC/5, LB-5X and RAC/5 all follow downstream . . . and of course the LAC/5.
-
the AC/5 is indeed being phased out. it's appeared on a paltry 24 units that debuted 3050 or later and only four times after the 3060s
9 3050s dropship upgades
2 Mule PWS variants (3068)
1 Superheavy WiGE (Ryu)
1 workmech mod (Uni)
6 Mechs
5 vehicles
only the Mongrel (3092) and Scapha F hovertank mount them after the jihad.
But what about the LAC/5! Not much more popular - 48 units, though you see it much more frequently after 3079 than the standard model. that's not saying much though - the light ppc is far more popular - ~150 designs utilize it and it didn't appear until 3067.
Its semantics . . . I can say the UAC/5, LB-5X and RAC/5 all follow downstream . . . and of course the LAC/5.
it's not - the LB-5 is a far more viable AA gun and vehicle bricker. they're different weapon systems.
-
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.
-
look at it this way -
put dual AC/5s on a gargoyle prime
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Except an LB can't use a TC...
Unless I'm missing errata somewhere...
TT
-
Except an LB can't use a TC...
Unless I'm missing errata somewhere...
Derp. Scratch my last.
-
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
-
*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...
-
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.
-
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
-
Sometimes you don't need to fight top of the line Clan gear. Sometimes you just need something to keep the locals in line.
-
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...
-
But we're told that they don't use guidance systems, just a targeting pattern from the units computer...
TT
-
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.
-
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.
-
Aren't MRMs modified LRMs that had their guidance systems removed?
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
probably. there were a few pieces of tech in FM:DC but the only one i can remember is the sword.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
MRMs work exponentially better as part of a C3 system.
-
MRMs work exponentially better as part of a C3 system.
Which does track with them being a DCMS innovation.
-
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.
-
That dumb Kurita Atlas mech with 2 rear facing medium pulse lasers
-
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.
-
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!
-
Yeah single heat sinks too. The BV of atlas is too high for me to lose 2 medium lasers from the start until some one gets behind the atlas.
-
The AS7-K is a Sniper, it doesn't fight well MPL range anyway. And the reason it has them is because it's an upgrade of the AS7-D, which also had rear-mounted medium lasers.
-
Yeah single heat sinks too. The BV of atlas is too high for me to lose 2 medium lasers from the start until some one gets behind the atlas.
If Battle Value is your only concern, then 90% of the units in the game won't make sense.
-
And yet it works
In other made up stats 90% of players who don’t like bv are mad that it doesn’t value elements of the game the same way they do
-
AS7-K? The bad thing isn't the MPLs, it's the 30 LR weapon heat
It's ment to ripple fire those missiles until a good number shows up... then BLAM!
TT
-
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!
that is right up there on the WTF? scale.
All the -7 needs is just 2 more heat sinks. Then it can use both lasers, run and not take mobility penalty.
-
If Battle Value is your only concern, then 90% of the units in the game won't make sense.
And yet it works
In other made up stats 90% of players who don’t like bv are mad that it doesn’t value elements of the game the same way they do
To me, as a relatively new player, BV actually makes a lot more units viable simply because their completely crap performance is negated by being able to field a lot of them or stuff them in the nooks and crannies better, more expensive units leave behind.
Anyway, whoever put together the Hellbringer configs wasn't thinking too clearly. Obviously 2x PPCs are always going to have utility, but almost every configuration is undersinked, yet retains a huge amount of overall pod tonnage. Why not focus this mechs around low-heat ballistics and utility servicing? It would make perfect sense leading a headhunter star, with ECM (presumably EWAR capabilities to hone in on the headquarters), Active Probe to defeat camouflage or other deception efforts and a targeting computer in case it does come down to a one on one duel between the star commander and his target.
All that pod space and not a single Ultra 20 configuration? No LB-X 5 boating? Not at all?
The Beta config comes somewhat close, but then misses the mark by giving only eight shots for the Gauss rifle but a rather optimistic fifteen for the dual SRM6s. Some people might say the Hellbringer is a duellist and I can sorta see it... but why the active probe or A-pods on the Prime config in that case? Dual ERPPCs, great! On 13 DHS? Not so great, since now its a 2-1-2-1 firing pattern even standing stock-still.
I don't mind the glass cannon builds and think it is great thematically for the Clans to have a glass cannon heavy mech... but the Hellbringer isn't really it, since the "cannon" part is a bit terrible.
-
FASA was all about giving mechs weird, blatantly unoptimized configurations back in the day.
-
A lot of DA mechs aren't much better.
-
That's because many of them were designed for the clicky game and BT stats had to be derived from what little was known about them and their physical appearances.
-
Anything that uses the tonnage for a Gauss Rifle and then only
carries a single ton of ammo. Especially if that's combined with thin armor
and an XL Engine in the same location .
-
To me, as a relatively new player, BV actually makes a lot more units viable simply because their completely crap performance is negated by being able to field a lot of them or stuff them in the nooks and crannies better, more expensive units leave behind.
Anyway, whoever put together the Hellbringer configs wasn't thinking too clearly. Obviously 2x PPCs are always going to have utility, but almost every configuration is undersinked, yet retains a huge amount of overall pod tonnage. Why not focus this mechs around low-heat ballistics and utility servicing? It would make perfect sense leading a headhunter star, with ECM (presumably EWAR capabilities to hone in on the headquarters), Active Probe to defeat camouflage or other deception efforts and a targeting computer in case it does come down to a one on one duel between the star commander and his target.
All that pod space and not a single Ultra 20 configuration? No LB-X 5 boating? Not at all?
The Beta config comes somewhat close, but then misses the mark by giving only eight shots for the Gauss rifle but a rather optimistic fifteen for the dual SRM6s. Some people might say the Hellbringer is a duellist and I can sorta see it... but why the active probe or A-pods on the Prime config in that case? Dual ERPPCs, great! On 13 DHS? Not so great, since now its a 2-1-2-1 firing pattern even standing stock-still.
I don't mind the glass cannon builds and think it is great thematically for the Clans to have a glass cannon heavy mech... but the Hellbringer isn't really it, since the "cannon" part is a bit terrible.
Units can make sense in different ways. Sometimes they started with some artwork, and tried to make the mech stats fit the picture. That makes sense -- they weren't trying to make it super efficient, they were trying to match a picture.
Other times, mechs were supposed to demonstrate a new technology. "Wouldn't it have been better to use something else here?" But the purpose was to use the Light Gauss Rifle or something. It makes sense, when you consider why they built it.
Game efficiency is only one purpose, and often it wasn't really in the designers' minds.
-
Anything that uses the tonnage for a Gauss Rifle and then only
carries a single ton of ammo. Especially if that's combined with thin armor
and an XL Engine in the same location .
Actually, thats a decent time to only give it one ton. Increases the chances the mech will disengage once the ammo runs out. Especially if you use the rule that lets you shut down the GR once the ammo runs out.
-
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!
AS7-S?
It uses double heat sinks. It ain't ideal 'Mech, but DHS make it kind of a OK upgrade to AS7-D.
(I prefer the AS7-K though.)
-
make all atlases derivatives of the Samsonov custom and call it a day
-
Still, the strangest are the ones that mount CASE for Gauss and Plasma ammo, and the rest of the ammo was either on the wrong side or energy-based.
-
FASA was all about giving mechs weird, blatantly unoptimized configurations back in the day.
But they also gave us some real gems. Timber Wolf, Elementals, Wolfhound.
-
Oh, sure they did.
But even the Mad Cat has some bizarre stuff going on. When was the last time you saw anyone voluntarily use a Mad Cat B or C?
-
Timber Wolf C? I use it a lot . . . its a lower BV Prime with more missile endurance.
-
Actually, thats a decent time to only give it one ton. Increases the chances the mech will disengage once the ammo runs out. Especially if you use the rule that lets you shut down the GR once the ammo runs out.
In a real-world sense, yes. In a BattleTech sense, no. Battle Value incorrectly applies full BV to a weapon, even if it has 0 ammunition available or is under-fed. So a Heavy Gauss Rifle with 4 shots is the same BV as one with 16 shots. Those two are NOT equally useful in a game, yet the numbers say they are.
-
In a real-world sense, yes. In a BattleTech sense, no. Battle Value incorrectly applies full BV to a weapon, even if it has 0 ammunition available or is under-fed. So a Heavy Gauss Rifle with 4 shots is the same BV as one with 16 shots. Those two are NOT equally useful in a game, yet the numbers say they are.
Not exactly, the BC of a HGR with 16 shots is ~33% higher than than one with 4 shots.
Of course, as far as I know, it's also just 50% higher than the one with ZERO shots...
-
Not exactly, the BC of a HGR with 16 shots is ~33% higher than than one with 4 shots.
Of course, as far as I know, it's also just 50% higher than the one with ZERO shots...
That's a math problem, for sure. One I wish could be addressed at some point.
-
Oh, sure they did.
But even the Mad Cat has some bizarre stuff going on. When was the last time you saw anyone voluntarily use a Mad Cat B or C?
I think the biggest :facepalm: in the Timby's original offerings was the 2 rear facing streak 6's on the D. That might have been FASA trying to be clever, or it might have been FASA nerfing it once they realized it would eat EVERYTHING in the IS alive. But, big picture, the Timby was max armored heavy that moved faster than a lot of IS mediums. Take away the Clan tech for a minute and look at the Rakshasa. Its still, a fast, tough, flexible machine.
Timber Wolf C? I use it a lot . . . its a lower BV Prime with more missile endurance.
Good point. TRO 3025 taught us that ballistics are the primary weapon. And with CASE'd arms, there's not even much worry about loosing the mech to an ammo crit on that AC/5
-
It has no CASE in the arms- that's a CASE II refinement.
-
hmm?
(http://puu.sh/Df6O7/18ac171087.png)
-
Maybe I am wrong, but I thought basic CASE was only for the torsos- on a Clan mech ammo blowing in a arm would wreck into that side torso but be stopped from transferring to CT. For a IS mech it would have to mount that CASE in the side torso b/c unlike Clan mechs it does not come automatic. CASE II can be mounted in arms, and limits the damage to the point the location survives.
-
Clan CASE can go in every location. Inner sphere CASE is limited to the torso.
-
All Clan 'Mechs have a Head Case. :P
-
Units built with a Clan internal structure (except for ProtoMechs) are presumed to incorporate CASE automatically in all locations that store ammunition or explosive equipment (such as Gauss rifles), unless otherwise specified.
-
Well, woo hoo . . . tell how long its been since I designed a Clan mech, lol.
-
Idle question: If you have CASE around all the explody bits, is there any reason to have auto-eject enabled?
The only thing I can think of is that if you auto eject on the first ammo explosion, if that explosion sets off other ammo bins, the pilot avoids multiple counts of feedback damage. On the other hand, barring XXL or IS XL engines, you will be abandoning a serviceable mech.
-
Units can make sense in different ways. Sometimes they started with some artwork, and tried to make the mech stats fit the picture. That makes sense -- they weren't trying to make it super efficient, they were trying to match a picture.
Other times, mechs were supposed to demonstrate a new technology. "Wouldn't it have been better to use something else here?" But the purpose was to use the Light Gauss Rifle or something. It makes sense, when you consider why they built it.
I don't disagree with this in general but neither of these apply to my example of the Hellbringer. FASA clearly didn't care all that much about matching configuration to the artwork when it came to the original sixteen omnis. The Summoner has two triple racks of some kind of missile (perhaps they were thinking of ATM-style "one-size, every range" for Clan launchers?). The original Stormcrow art showing a rack of missiles in the CT while the Stormcrow's Prime configuration has no missiles at all. The PPC arm of the Summoner is shared by the Timberwolf -- or the ERML/ERLL arm of the Timberwolf is shared by the Summoner. And so on.
As for demonstrating new tech, that goes further to explain things, but I don't know why the Clans were given A-pods when most of their serious fighting was done against BA-equipped forces. Outside the scope of the thread I suppose.
Anyway, just to reiterate, I don't disagree overall, I just think it doesn't explain the Hellbringer and especially not its variants.
-
Idle question: If you have CASE around all the explody bits, is there any reason to have auto-eject enabled?
The only thing I can think of is that if you auto eject on the first ammo explosion, if that explosion sets off other ammo bins, the pilot avoids multiple counts of feedback damage. On the other hand, barring XXL or IS XL engines, you will be abandoning a serviceable mech.
rules-wise, no. heck, i usually disable it on IS mechs with SFE or LFE and CASE.
-
I think the biggest :facepalm: in the Timby's original offerings was the 2 rear facing streak 6's on the D. That might have been FASA trying to be clever, or it might have been FASA nerfing it once they realized it would eat EVERYTHING in the IS alive.
It was already nerfed by having only fifteen heatsinks though. Paired with dual ERPPCs, if the two streaks actually hit, you went straight into hit penalty overheat, maybe more if you'd been running that turn. Now, that might be worth it, but in general, it was usually a one PPC machine. OK, so it's a big Nova, fair enough, I can dig it.
But why the three tons of Streak ammo? Eleven turns if you hit with every Streak, every turn. Probably more like 25-40 at usual hit rates and the dearth of rearward (or forward, due to range) firing opportunities.
-
three tons of streak ammo says "i'm having way too much fun out here and don't want to have to go home early"
-
Idle question: If you have CASE around all the explody bits, is there any reason to have auto-eject enabled?
The only thing I can think of is that if you auto eject on the first ammo explosion, if that explosion sets off other ammo bins, the pilot avoids multiple counts of feedback damage. On the other hand, barring XXL or IS XL engines, you will be abandoning a serviceable mech.
Depends on how much you want your pilots to survive, and on how interested the enemy is at shooting at ejected pilots. Suffering only a single ammo explosion is usually survivable, 2 ammo explosions is usually a dead pilot, 3+ is a guaranteed kill. So if you have a mech with a significant risk of multiple ammo explosions you'd better auto-eject or you'll probably need a new pilot after every hard battle.
-
It was already nerfed by having only fifteen heatsinks though. Paired with dual ERPPCs, if the two streaks actually hit, you went straight into hit penalty overheat, maybe more if you'd been running that turn. Now, that might be worth it, but in general, it was usually a one PPC machine. OK, so it's a big Nova, fair enough, I can dig it.
Nah, its firing pattern was- run to the point the next turn you can walk to ERPPC range
walk closer, fire both ERPPCs
walk closer, fire both ERPPCs (+2)
walk backwards, fire both ERPPCs (+3)
run closer, fire a ERPPC and both Streaks, maybe one at something behind you (heat zero)
But yeah, honestly I would have preferred it dump a ton of ammo for another DHS- not sure if it had the crits though since I am away from HMP/MM.
-
But yeah, honestly I would have preferred it dump a ton of ammo for another DHS- not sure if it had the crits though since I am away from HMP/MM.
In game rule terms, I'd rather have an ECM or even a ton of cargo, generally - if you've done 360 damage from your secondary weapons alone on a heavy, the fight should probably be over, and cargo can't explode. But in fluff terms, three ammo bins for four launchers is probably one for each forward launcher and a shared one for the rears, which sounds like a fairly logical engineering decision.
-
I don't disagree with this in general but neither of these apply to my example of the Hellbringer. FASA clearly didn't care all that much about matching configuration to the artwork when it came to the original sixteen omnis. The Summoner has two triple racks of some kind of missile (perhaps they were thinking of ATM-style "one-size, every range" for Clan launchers?). The original Stormcrow art showing a rack of missiles in the CT while the Stormcrow's Prime configuration has no missiles at all. The PPC arm of the Summoner is shared by the Timberwolf -- or the ERML/ERLL arm of the Timberwolf is shared by the Summoner. And so on.
As for demonstrating new tech, that goes further to explain things, but I don't know why the Clans were given A-pods when most of their serious fighting was done against BA-equipped forces. Outside the scope of the thread I suppose.
Anyway, just to reiterate, I don't disagree overall, I just think it doesn't explain the Hellbringer and especially not its variants.
My guess (and I think I said it earlier in this thread) is that the Loki is supposed to be a better Warhammer. As in, players who just purchased the Tech Readout are supposed to look at it and be amazed at the kind of crazy stuff the Clans can field.
The base Warhammer is a 70 ton mech that moves 4/6, has 18 heat sinks, carries 2 PPCs, an SRM-6, 2 Medium Lasers, 2 Small Lasers, and 2 Machine Guns.
The Loki Prime is a 65 ton mech that moves 5/8, has 26 heat sinks (13 double), carries 2 better PPCs, a better SRM-6, 3 better Medium Lasers, 2 Machine Guns, an anti-missile system, cool sensor abilities, a Targeting Computer, and these weird anti-infantry defense thingies.
It's way better than the Warhammer, which up to that point had been one of the standard bearers for a great heavy mech. The Loki beats its brains out in almost every way. The only thing the Warhammer has that's clearly better is that the Loki has less armor. That's not a small thing, but you'd still pick a Loki every single time.
So, if you're designing it from scratch, think "better Warhammer", and "we have to put all the new tech on at least one of the mech designs" (i.e., somebody gets stuck with A-Pods), and "we can't put all the good new tech on any one design". And then the Loki makes perfect sense. You gotta spread the good new tech around, and you gotta put the crappy new tech on a couple mechs somewhere.
The Loki was also named because of the weird, freaky weapon choices. TRO 3050 notes it carries "an utterly mad weapons configuration". So story-wise it's something that left the Inner Sphere mechwarriors scratching their heads about. Regarding the alternate configs, I don't think the A is that bad. It's a long range machine meant for brief engagements. The B is confusing, and personally I'd want a lot more than 8 shots of Gauss Rifle ammo. But if you think maybe it's designed for lower intensity battles it makes more sense. Like maybe they've only got so many Streak 6s, and so if you've been assigned to go take out a tank company, well you get what you get.
Actually I think equipment scarcity is something that doesn't get addressed enough. Some of these alternate configs might be a matter of filling up tonnage with the equipment you've got left over.
-
In game rule terms, I'd rather have an ECM or even a ton of cargo, generally - if you've done 360 damage from your secondary weapons alone on a heavy, the fight should probably be over, and cargo can't explode. But in fluff terms, three ammo bins for four launchers is probably one for each forward launcher and a shared one for the rears, which sounds like a fairly logical engineering decision.
I am in favor of designs that let you fire your two longest range weapons and run with no heat build up. All in favor of bracket firing mechs, which is why I explained the pattern of the D as I suggested.
Scarcity for the Clans does not really count for what should have been Homeworld configs- I get it, its the reason the Garg Prime gets that 'Prime' designation. The original configs would not have been maximum 'arm everything' using whatever pods were left over after months of fighting. The Hellbringer B and I think the Summoner A that have a second ton of SRM ammo for a single launcher rather than give that Guass Rifle two tons. I really wish that would have gotten corrected like the BJ-2s SHS, the MAD-5S CASE in the wrong location and a few others.
-
I believe it was the armor that got suffered. You want CASE, sure lose half a ton...
Most Pilots wouldn't want to lose a weapon even as simple as a small laser.
TT
IMO that would depend on the pilot..
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.
IMO it would also depend on the weight of the mech you are thinking of putting one on. Yes a garrison mech may get away with it, but if say that mech is a light, having 8+ tons tied up for just one weapon, that deals a paltry 5 points of damage, to Me is a waste.
That's not so bad. It's supposed to give you good protection against backstabbers.
And since many backstabbers are small jumpers, having that -2 to hit, helps out greatly!
-
Yeah, a pair of MPLs will keep that Fire Moth H, Phantom H, Piranha, Phantom C (ERSL config), and others out of the back arc. Instead I will go hunt up a Fafnir or other mech that offers a explosion reward for poking them in the back.
-
I am in favor of designs that let you fire your two longest range weapons and run with no heat build up. All in favor of bracket firing mechs, which is why I explained the pattern of the D as I suggested.
I agree with Colt. Anything that can't fire any given bracket on a run without hitting +5 on the heat scale, makes my teeth itch.
While it's possible that the Timby D was conceived from birth as some kind of 360 degree whirling dervish, I would still bet a steak dinner that it's first draft had all streaks forward and 16 DHS.
That means it can run and fire PPCs all day long until it makes a hole in something. Then it's quad streak 6s for 24 possible locations rolls, and throw in a PPC just because this isn't Marquis of Queensbury rules. On a run, that will put you at +1, assuming all the streaks lock on. Keep that up for 4 rounds and the other fellow will probably be hating life. Sooner or later, one of those streaks is going to miss, and you're back to 0 heat.
-
I seem to remember there being a site showing „1st draft“ versions of the original Omnimechs considered too powerful/streamlined?
-
Has there ever been any acknowledgement by any iterations of TPTB that the Mk I omnis were real?
-
I seem to remember there being a site showing „1st draft“ versions of the original Omnimechs considered too powerful/streamlined?
Yeah, Deathshadow... Deathstalker, or some such handle. So far as I know, nobody even remotely official has acknowledged them as anything but fan work. On the other hand, I had a friend who was at a couple 'cons in the 80's and met some devs there. He relayed stories, filtered through 30 years of nostalgia, of internal play testing with a 65 ton Crusader LAM. The devs decided that was just a bit OP. He also said the devs implied that they dialed some of the Clan mechs down a bit.
But this is all apocrypha.
-
I seem to remember there being a site showing „1st draft“ versions of the original Omnimechs considered too powerful/streamlined?
It's one of those legends like the "Original' Comstar Sourcebook or the Berenstein Bears. It's something people insist they remember, but nobody can produce any evidence off.
Has there ever been any acknowledgement by any iterations of TPTB that the Mk I omnis were real?
At one point the powers that be said they'd find a way to incorporate them if anybody could find actual proof. Though that was a while ago.
-
At one point the powers that be said they'd find a way to incorporate them if anybody could find actual proof. Though that was a while ago.
*looks up from the plans of a Heavy Clan ERPPC which does 20 damage* Oh?
-
Yeah, Deathshadow... Deathstalker, or some such handle. So far as I know, nobody even remotely official has acknowledged them as anything but fan work. On the other hand, I had a friend who was at a couple 'cons in the 80's and met some devs there. He relayed stories, filtered through 30 years of nostalgia, of internal play testing with a 65 ton Crusader LAM. The devs decided that was just a bit OP. He also said the devs implied that they dialed some of the Clan mechs down a bit.
But this is all apocrypha.
any or all of that is possible. the play-testing process probably had a lot of adjustments and cuts like in any other game. whether there was a complete folder of original clan designs that got "adjusted for balance" is anyone's guess and probably won't ever be answered in any official capacity beyond possibly "[Employee X that left FASA in 1993] once told me...". I'm sure if you got the original designers around a table they'd have some fun stories from the early 80s when they were designing battledroids and the ideas that had that weren't workable or completely broken.
It's one of those legends like the "Original' Comstar Sourcebook or the Berenstein Bears. It's something people insist they remember, but nobody can produce any evidence off.
At one point the powers that be said they'd find a way to incorporate them if anybody could find actual proof. Though that was a while ago.
I've definitely been to the website that purported the designs as something designed but never used by FASA, though i don't recall any attempt at forwarding concrete proof that they were genuine.
*looks up from the plans of a Heavy Clan ERPPC which does 20 damage* Oh?
one of the many what if's i've considered is what a second generation of clan upgrades would look like (and be ready to go for revival). the result was that the IS should basically just quit and cry.
-
*looks up from the plans of a Heavy Clan ERPPC which does 20 damage* Oh?
meh. Call me when you get a Clan pulse PPC running. >:D
-
I've definitely been to the website that purported the designs as something designed but never used by FASA, though i don't recall any attempt at forwarding concrete proof that they were genuine.
The problem was apparently that everybody who said they saw them claimed that they'd only seen them in stuff in other people's possession, or in stuff that they once had, but since either got rid of or lost. So even the folks who believed they were real couldn't produce any evidence.
-
I just had a friend in Japan share a picture of their child that just started school wearing the yellow hat and the ransel pack. I had to refrain from commenting asking what missiles were in the pack (Gundam Build Fighters) and what caliber cannon (Azur Lane / Kancolle) they were carrying.
-
It's one of those legends like the "Original' Comstar Sourcebook or the Berenstein Bears. It's something people insist they remember, but nobody can produce any evidence off.
Sorry, I don't mean to derail the thread, but...what???
I got the Comstar Sourcebook as soon as it came out. So, what did I miss?
-
Sorry, I don't mean to derail the thread, but...what???
I got the Comstar Sourcebook as soon as it came out. So, what did I miss?
It is alleged by some that there was a 3025 ComStar book in the style of the house books but the only evidence is people saying they saw it at cons. It’s not the ComStar book based in the 3050s (aka the one that actually exists)
-
Sorry, I don't mean to derail the thread, but...what???
I got the Comstar Sourcebook as soon as it came out. So, what did I miss?
You didn't. ;D There was a claim floating around here a few years back that Fasa had released a Comstar Sourcebook back in the eighties as a companion book to the old House books. A couple people even insisted they'd seen the book in stores (with a similar cover to the old house books) but didn't buy it.
BUT there was never any record of the book actually existing, no copies of it ever produced, or indication that it was ever considered. The only evidence that could be turned up was an unused product number from back in the day.
-
Thanks. I had not heard that rumor, and was confused as I bought mine back in the early nineties.
-
meh. Call me when you get a Clan pulse PPC running. >:D
How's about a clan ER pulse PPC!
-
Just as long as there are no wasp-filled Gauss rounds.
-
Yeah, a pair of MPLs will keep that Fire Moth H, Phantom H, Piranha, Phantom C (ERSL config), and others out of the back arc. Instead I will go hunt up a Fafnir or other mech that offers a explosion reward for poking them in the back.
Fafnir can arm flip.
admittedly I'd rather have one MPL than the 2 ER Medium for back-scratching purposes, but it isn't defenceless.
-
The problem was apparently that everybody who said they saw them claimed that they'd only seen them in stuff in other people's possession, or in stuff that they once had, but since either got rid of or lost. So even the folks who believed they were real couldn't produce any evidence.
They aren't. I have an early draft at home and it doesn't have any significant changes. The biggest change I've seen in a draft from the FASA days to final print was that the Thunderhawk initially had DHS.
-
Fafnir can arm flip.
admittedly I'd rather have one MPL than the 2 ER Medium for back-scratching purposes, but it isn't defenceless.
Sure, never said it was defenseless . . . but I would rather face a pair of ERMLs from 1 hex away when using a Phantom H. Especially when I punch through the back armor, if I get a crit its going to hit HGR and explode. Its a bigger pay off than going after the Atlas which has a few crit spaces with ammo in the torso. Torso gauss rifles and backstabbers go together like peanut butter & jelly.
-
They aren't. I have an early draft at home and it doesn't have any significant changes. The biggest change I've seen in a draft from the FASA days to final print was that the Thunderhawk initially had DHS.
Now there's something I wish they'd kept.
-
They aren't. I have an early draft at home and it doesn't have any significant changes. The biggest change I've seen in a draft from the FASA days to final print was that the Thunderhawk initially had DHS.
We CANNOT allow that monstrosity to fire the medium lasers without overheating! Think of the children!
-
Sure, never said it was defenseless . . . but I would rather face a pair of ERMLs from 1 hex away when using a Phantom H. Especially when I punch through the back armor, if I get a crit its going to hit HGR and explode. Its a bigger pay off than going after the Atlas which has a few crit spaces with ammo in the torso. Torso gauss rifles and backstabbers go together like peanut butter & jelly.
Or toothpaste and orange juice, depending on which unit is yours.
-
Still, the strangest are the ones that mount CASE for Gauss and Plasma ammo, and the rest of the ammo was either on the wrong side or energy-based.
Well, CASE for Gauss ammo may be for the gun if it is in the corresponding arm. The Gauss explosion damage might transfer to center torso, so minimizing engine damage is good idea (even worse, head damage if torsos are badly damaged).
It is also possible that the CASE exists in case the Gauss rifle needs to be replaced with conventional ballistic weapon in the field. Might be overplanning, but then again salvage and field customization are time honored traditions within BattleTech.
As for plasma ammo, the only plasma designs with CASE that i remember are field-refits. Eg CPLT-C6, which is a field refit made from C5s, by pulling the Arrow IV and slapping a couple of Plasma rifles there. Do remember that CASE requires factory-level refit, but Arrow IV to PRs isn't.
So, it is there for sake of fluff. I approve such things, even if it leads "nonsense".
-
The real headscratcher about the Catapult C6 is why it mounts six tons of PR ammo.
-
On the Marauder with the CASE in the torso side with the LB X I always imagined that in WD duty they would replace it in the Field with a clan Gauss and suddenly CASE was in the right position ;-)
-
The real headscratcher about the Catapult C6 is why it mounts six tons of PR ammo.
Capellan anti-insurgency operations.
-
The real headscratcher about the Catapult C6 is why it mounts six tons of PR ammo.
"Let's see how much of this plastic stuff we can fit in!"
At least it ain't running out anytime soon, one can fire at anything anytime they want. Also good for torching everything, and i mean literally everything.
-
The real headscratcher about the Catapult C6 is why it mounts six tons of PR ammo.
Endurance . . . or it carries spare mags for its buddies, like the ammo bearer for a heavy MG.
-
"Let's see how much of this plastic stuff we can fit in!"
At least it ain't running out anytime soon, one can fire at anything anytime they want. Also good for torching everything, and i mean literally everything.
Well, it is a Jihad design, so I guess I can approve of wanting to kill the Wobbies with fire.
-
I really need to find the .wav file from the original Privateer to put on my phone that applies . . . 'Burn in Righteous Fire!' . . . any time I see a Wobbie running a Plasma Rifle design I hear that in my head.
-
Just as long as there are no wasp-filled Gauss rounds.
What about glue filled SRMs?
Or some sort of....spaceship drive using a moving counterweight. It might make a sound like "bop!"
-
What about glue filled SRMs?
Or some sort of....spaceship drive using a moving counterweight. It might make a sound like "bop!"
**TRIGGERED**
-
Waaaandering back to the original topic, I wish to nominate the humble Stinger.
Specifically those Stingers being built alongside the Wasp during the succession wars. The fluff tells us (and the listed design quirks affirm) that the Wasp is simply a better chassis over all. It doesn't have the tiny cockpit, it's easy to handle, easy to maintain, and even has the whole extended torso twist.
Sure, the Stinger has machine guns the Wasp lacks, but converting a Wasp to a Stinger's armament hardly seems an unreachable goal. Especially for the smaller states that so heavily depend on them (both are a staple of all three of the periphery states) it seems unnecessarily resource intensive to build both designs when streamlining down to a single common chassis (with and without machine guns as needed) would be a better option. Especially when battlemech production is so scarce.
-
You mean like the Wasp 1K?
Waaaandering back to the original topic, I wish to nominate the humble Stinger.
Specifically those Stingers being built alongside the Wasp during the succession wars. The fluff tells us (and the listed design quirks affirm) that the Wasp is simply a better chassis over all. It doesn't have the tiny cockpit, it's easy to handle, easy to maintain, and even has the whole extended torso twist.
Sure, the Stinger has machine guns the Wasp lacks, but converting a Wasp to a Stinger's armament hardly seems an unreachable goal. Especially for the smaller states that so heavily depend on them (both are a staple of all three of the periphery states) it seems unnecessarily resource intensive to build both designs when streamlining down to a single common chassis (with and without machine guns as needed) would be a better option. Especially when battlemech production is so scarce.
-
Waaaandering back to the original topic, I wish to nominate the humble Stinger.
Specifically those Stingers being built alongside the Wasp during the succession wars. The fluff tells us (and the listed design quirks affirm) that the Wasp is simply a better chassis over all. It doesn't have the tiny cockpit, it's easy to handle, easy to maintain, and even has the whole extended torso twist.
Sure, the Stinger has machine guns the Wasp lacks, but converting a Wasp to a Stinger's armament hardly seems an unreachable goal. Especially for the smaller states that so heavily depend on them (both are a staple of all three of the periphery states) it seems unnecessarily resource intensive to build both designs when streamlining down to a single common chassis (with and without machine guns as needed) would be a better option. Especially when battlemech production is so scarce.
That's a bit like asking why the Toyota Corolla exists when the Honda Civic is out there. Competing manufacturers trying to reach the same market. The Star League clearly had no qualms about producing multiple equipment models for the same role.
And in the LosTech era, BattleMech production scarcity is exactly the reason to keep both chassis around. You might have to deal with a shortage of Wasp parts that doesn't affect the Stinger and vice-versa. Building Wasp structures might require processing of a peculiar cobalt-tantalum alloy that your Stinger factories lack the infrastructure for. You could change the design spec, but that might take years of testing before it was battle-ready.
They don't have the ability to simply reconfigure the factories at-will to match their ideal procurement strategies. Part of the charm of the LosTech era is having to go to war with the army of thieves and whores you have on hand (literally, in the case of DCMS chain gangs).
-
You know what's amusing? That the Wasp, a Hegemony original, wasn't upgraded to Royal standards but the Stinger was ;D
-
Keep in mind I'm not asking for everybody to get a stalker's combat computer or an Ostscout's sensor system here. ;D I simply find it hard to believe that the Wasp's superior ergonomics and roomier cockpit would be difficult to replicate.
(I'm also aware of the inherent minefield of trying to argue which design quirks would be easily replicated and the kind of nightmare it would be for the devs if people started demanding such things were fully codified. It was just an idle thought)
You mean like the Wasp 1K?
Kind of, but on a larger scale.
-
I would assume the Stinger's designers skimped on some things. I mean, if you make the cockpit smaller, it doesn't use so much materials, and is cheaper...
-
It's a Quickscell mech?
-
It's a Quickscell mech?
Originally Earthwerks, but evidently built with same principle.
EDIT I'll note that the Stinger's popular because it is cheap, it can do recon, and it functions reasonably as training 'Mech. There's always demand for such, enough that there's space for at least two nigh-identical 'Mechs.
-
I would assume the Stinger's designers skimped on some things. I mean, if you make the cockpit smaller, it doesn't use so much materials, and is cheaper...
Theoretically speaking, smaller head, therefore less likely to take a headshot. And a 50/50 chance that an incoming round hits the (relatively) well-protected torso versus the exposed head.
Nevermind that on a 20-tonner you can easily have more head armor than anything else <_<
-
Though the Stinger doesn't.
-
I always took the "small cockpit" to mean that it had bad ergonomics, not necessarily that it was actually smaller. Stuff just wasn't quite in the right place -- you bang your head when getting in, whack your knee against a hard corner, the ejection lever is in a weird spot, etc.
Things like that are routinely ignored by the people who make the purchasing decisions. The actual interior volume of the cockpit might be the same as the Wasp, but somehow things just aren't quite right.
-
I always took the "small cockpit" to mean that it had bad ergonomics, not necessarily that it was actually smaller. Stuff just wasn't quite in the right place -- you bang your head when getting in, whack your knee against a hard corner, the ejection lever is in a weird spot, etc.
Reminds me of something that was said about the F-35 and its large helmet, that the helmet gets in way when trying to look behind or so.
I would assume bad ergonomics might mean outdated controls. Like, a big difference between late Soviet and Western fighters was that the West focused a lot on ergonomics, making it easier to focus on flying. Soviet fighters may have been as good, but old-style controls (good for conversion training from older models) didn't allow true capabilities to be be exploited.
Here's the funny thing. The original WSP-1 has "hard to pilot", the later Wasps don't. Suppose one reason was that upgraded Wasps upgraded the controls... while the Stinger more or less copied the old layout while making things just a bit more cramped. OK, "hard to pilot" and "cramped cockpit" aren't strictly identical quirks, but the effect is more or less the same.
-
Reminds me of something that was said about the F-35 and its large helmet, that the helmet gets in way when trying to look behind or so.
I would assume bad ergonomics might mean outdated controls. Like, a big difference between late Soviet and Western fighters was that the West focused a lot on ergonomics, making it easier to focus on flying. Soviet fighters may have been as good, but old-style controls (good for conversion training from older models) didn't allow true capabilities to be be exploited.
Here's the funny thing. The original WSP-1 has "hard to pilot", the later Wasps don't. Suppose one reason was that upgraded Wasps upgraded the controls... while the Stinger more or less copied the old layout while making things just a bit more cramped. OK, "hard to pilot" and "cramped cockpit" aren't strictly identical quirks, but the effect is more or less the same.
Ergonomic improvements were a bit of a double edge sword in the F-16. The reclined seat let pilots pull a bit more G, but unless you had the head rest dialed in right, it quickly lead to neck and shoulder complaints.
-
So to undermine my original statement, I double checked the stinger's list of quirks in Battlemech Manual and found out it has the rugged quirk. So while the Wasp is easier to maintain, the Stinger can go longer without maintenance.
So there's that reason to keep it in service.
-
Ah, the AK-47 vs. M-16 argument.
-
The M-16 is "easy to maintain" vice "rugged"? I mean, I buy that AK's don't need maintenance as often, but I'm not so sure maintenance is actually any easier on the M-16 (having disassembled and cleaned a few). Parts that small are that small...
-
The M-16 is "easy to maintain" vice "rugged"? I mean, I buy that AK's don't need maintenance as often, but I'm not so sure maintenance is actually any easier on the M-16 (having disassembled and cleaned a few). Parts that small are that small...
Doesn't all the heat from the direct impingement system cause wear issues? Slowly undoing the heat treat or something? For those of you with grain of salt, I saw this in a video about the HK 416 and the person who said it had "HK" written on their shirt. So we KNOW he has every reason to give the M-16 a fair shake.
-
Guys, Battletech.
-
as long as it's not another 10000 post discussion about real world tanks
-
I always took the "small cockpit" to mean that it had bad ergonomics, not necessarily that it was actually smaller. Stuff just wasn't quite in the right place -- you bang your head when getting in, whack your knee against a hard corner, the ejection lever is in a weird spot, etc.
Things like that are routinely ignored by the people who make the purchasing decisions. The actual interior volume of the cockpit might be the same as the Wasp, but somehow things just aren't quite right.
I have a vague recollection that the fluff said it's so cramped the pilot can't actually leave the cockpit without help (which admittedly could just be a badly-placed entry). Let me find my copy … yup, the pilot "literally has to squeeze into the pilot seat and often cannot leave without help from their tech". (Translation approximate.)
ETA: Found the direct quote in HMP data files' copy of the TRO3025 description: "On (sic?) of the biggest complaints of Stinger pilots is the cramped cockpit space. Many times, a pilot must literally squeeze himself into the control seat, and then often cannot get out again without help from his Tech. Stinger pilots are the reverse of the knights of feudal Earth who could not mount their steeds without help from their squires because of the weight of their armor."
-
"Why is there a bank of targeting relays where the pilot's legs go?"
"We figure they can just wedge them in there and this makes them easier to maintain than having to disassemble half the cockpit"
"How does he get out like that, i don't think he's got any way to pull his legs out!"
"We're designing a cockpit for piloting a battlemech sir, extraction is another team."
-
having several friends in college who are engineers of various stripes, i do not doubt the legitimacy of this conversation.
-
"Why is there a bank of targeting relays where the pilot's legs go?"
"We figure they can just wedge them in there and this makes them easier to maintain than having to disassemble half the cockpit"
"How does he get out like that, i don't think he's got any way to pull his legs out!"
"We're designing a cockpit for piloting a battlemech sir, extraction is another team."
So basically UK tank designers between the Wars.
-
Reminds me of something that was said about the F-35 and its large helmet, that the helmet gets in way when trying to look behind or so.
I would assume bad ergonomics might mean outdated controls. Like, a big difference between late Soviet and Western fighters was that the West focused a lot on ergonomics, making it easier to focus on flying. Soviet fighters may have been as good, but old-style controls (good for conversion training from older models) didn't allow true capabilities to be be exploited.
Here's the funny thing. The original WSP-1 has "hard to pilot", the later Wasps don't. Suppose one reason was that upgraded Wasps upgraded the controls... while the Stinger more or less copied the old layout while making things just a bit more cramped. OK, "hard to pilot" and "cramped cockpit" aren't strictly identical quirks, but the effect is more or less the same.
The original Wasp's gyro couldn't maintain stability while jump resulting in wrecked mechs and injured warriors. That's why the hard to pilot quirk. Once they stopped using prototype jump jets that quirk went away.
I have a vague recollection that the fluff said it's so cramped the pilot can't actually leave the cockpit without help (which admittedly could just be a badly-placed entry). Let me find my copy … yup, the pilot "literally has to squeeze into the pilot seat and often cannot leave without help from their tech". (Translation approximate.)
Where does it say that?
I know the fluff entry in TRO3025 for the Assassin says that its one of the most cramped cockpits in the IS and can be uncomfortable and even deadly to be in for any length of time.
There's also the entry for Emory's Grand Dragon in SB:Sword and Dragon. It says that the modifications included a lot of displays on the cockpit floor. Because of that Emory had to contort himself to get in and out and that it was unbarable to be in for any length of time and caused him back problems
-
The original Wasp's gyro couldn't maintain stability while jump resulting in wrecked mechs and injured warriors. That's why the hard to pilot quirk. Once they stopped using prototype jump jets that quirk went away.
Don't ruin my theory :D
-
Doesn't all the heat from the direct impingement system cause wear issues? Slowly undoing the heat treat or something? For those of you with grain of salt, I saw this in a video about the HK 416 and the person who said it had "HK" written on their shirt. So we KNOW he has every reason to give the M-16 a fair shake.
Okay, so, the M16 suffered from a lot of problems. The one you are referring to here is the gas system that puts hot gasses into direct contact with the head, said gasses being corrosive which caused a breakdown of the mechanism over time.
There is also the issues with jamming, double feeding, unreliable mechanism, magazines not being able to take a full load, poor handling, etc, but those are other problems.
-
Where does it say that?
tro 3025 pg 12
-
Thanks :)
-
Doesn't all the heat from the direct impingement system cause wear issues? Slowly undoing the heat treat or something? For those of you with grain of salt, I saw this in a video about the HK 416 and the person who said it had "HK" written on their shirt. So we KNOW he has every reason to give the M-16 a fair shake.
No direct impingment system does not cause "wear issues".
-
Okay, so, the M16 suffered from a lot of problems. The one you are referring to here is the gas system that puts hot gasses into direct contact with the head, said gasses being corrosive which caused a breakdown of the mechanism over time.
There is also the issues with jamming, double feeding, unreliable mechanism, magazines not being able to take a full load, poor handling, etc, but those are other problems.
The gasses were not hot and corrosive and they did not cause the breakdown of mechanism over time.
-
This is not the place to be discussing issues with the M-16. If you want to have that discussion, please take it to Off Topic.
-
Well, CASE for Gauss ammo may be for the gun if it is in the corresponding arm. The Gauss explosion damage might transfer to center torso, so minimizing engine damage is good idea (even worse, head damage if torsos are badly damaged).
It is also possible that the CASE exists in case the Gauss rifle needs to be replaced with conventional ballistic weapon in the field. Might be overplanning, but then again salvage and field customization are time honored traditions within BattleTech.
Most Mechs armed with Gauss Rifles would have a hard time transferring explosion damage from the arm to the center torso.
As for plasma ammo, the only plasma designs with CASE that i remember are field-refits. Eg CPLT-C6, which is a field refit made from C5s, by pulling the Arrow IV and slapping a couple of Plasma rifles there. Do remember that CASE requires factory-level refit, but Arrow IV to PRs isn't.
So, it is there for sake of fluff. I approve such things, even if it leads "nonsense".
Retrofitting does make some sense, but keeping it would only make sense in a field refit, not a new line.
No, in most cases, they were, "there's ammo here, let's put CASE here for safety."
-
I dunno... as an internal explosion, it goes right from IS to IS. With heavy Mechs having ~15 points, if the arm was already heavily damaged it's possible. Not to mention ammo bins or other explosive components in the torso.
I think it would be a good house rule to make XL/light/etc. engines easier to repair from explosions in a CASE'd location.
-
Most Mechs armed with Gauss Rifles would have a hard time transferring explosion damage from the arm to the center torso.
Retrofitting does make some sense, but keeping it would only make sense in a field refit, not a new line.
No, in most cases, they were, "there's ammo here, let's put CASE here for safety."
we've all been around enough engineers, designers, etc to realize that the CASE was actually put there for when exploding Gauss ammo was developed. It was just never developed.
-
Alternate Gauss ammo? Is the gun not deadly enough for you?
Maybe a narc-gauss round?
-
I wasn't saying I was the one going to design the alternate ammo. I just know how designers work "we'll leave this port available for when the software can support it"
Or like the AC vents on my old Plymouth. It had the vents, even though an AC was never installed.
-
(raises hand) guilty
-
You need the CASE for when the angry wasps get out, duh.
-
we've all been around enough engineers, designers, etc to realize that the CASE was actually put there for when exploding Gauss ammo was developed. It was just never developed.
Alternate Gauss ammo? Is the gun not deadly enough for you?
Maybe a narc-gauss round?
Funny thing about the original SB Gauss is that the weapon ammo used to explode when hit, which never made any sense to begin with, but there is your rationale for CASE (no a great one though).
-
You need the CASE for when the angry wasps get out, duh.
;D
-
they might have put it in for simpler logisitcs for a non-gauss model that was in the works and then....oh look the demand is WAY lower than we thought, scrap it. xp
there's been plenty of examples of 'mechs hitting the market with more than one weapons package from the get go and some people might not want to work gauss rifles into their inventory chain.
-
Alternate Gauss ammo? Is the gun not deadly enough for you?
Maybe a narc-gauss round?
Two words: Cluster munitions
-
Two words: Cluster munitions
The reason they don't exist as an alternate munition is that would entirely eliminate the use of an LB 20 and make the Lb 5 extremely inefficient.
-
The reason they don't exist as an alternate munition is that would entirely eliminate the use of an LB 20 and make the Lb 5 extremely inefficient.
It'd make the regular Gauss ammo obsolete as well. Two percent chance of a headcap is lovely, but a combined 40+% chance of a head hit or TAC every round with the range to put it anywhere on the map is a nightmare.
-
The reason they don't exist as an alternate munition is that would entirely eliminate the use of an LB 20 and make the Lb 5 extremely inefficient.
Um . . . Silver Bullet Gauss?
-
The reason they don't exist as an alternate munition is that would entirely eliminate the use of an LB 20 and make the Lb 5 extremely inefficient.
Not quite. Range and damage are considerably different between the Gauss and the 20, and weight is a HUGE difference between the 5 and the Gauss.
That being said, Gauss cluster would be a... quick counter to the HAG, conceptually. The hard part is determining the point to begin spreading from the barrel, in universe-wise.
-
Um . . . Silver Bullet Gauss?
That's a different weapon, not an alternate ammo type.
-
Silver Bullet Gauss should've been resurrected as a Light Gauss variant IMO.
-
Davey Crockett Gauss? :o :o
-
Davey Crockett Gauss? :o :o
Tactical-Scale Mass Drivers?
-
Davey Crockett Gauss? :o :o
Oh, if only...
-
So does CASE still protect in the event of a Tac Nuke explosion in your ammo bin? I don't see any rule that says it wouldn't. :D
-
So does CASE still protect in the event of a Tac Nuke explosion in your ammo bin? I don't see any rule that says it wouldn't. :D
Technically, in the sense that nukes don't explode when subjected to an ammo critical hit. :P
-
Not quite. Range and damage are considerably different between the Gauss and the 20, and weight is a HUGE difference between the 5 and the Gauss.
Correct, which is why if Silver Bullet Gauss was simply an alternate munition rather than its own weapon it would make the LB-5x and LB-20X obsolete. You'd have weapons, unless you reworked it too, that would weight relatively the same amount, have half the range (roughly), and only had a chance to produce an additional 5 separate points of cluster. 2 LB-5X would weigh a single ton more and put out less clusters with a similar range profile. The only benefit being 2 chances to hit. This most likely why it is its own weapon type rather than an alternate munition.
Silver Bullet Gauss should've been resurrected as a Light Gauss variant IMO.
It would make it more viable and appealing. Something tells me though it might make it too good. In any event we should probably go back to discussing mech designs that make sense rather than hypothetical gauss rounds, broken arrows, or Metal Gear Rex.
-
So does CASE still protect in the event of a Tac Nuke explosion in your ammo bin? I don't see any rule that says it wouldn't. :D
CASE still works with MG ammo explosions, which are near-enough the same thing in BT.
-
My feelings about this...
If every design was optimized the game would be boring and designs would start ending up the same. An in universe explanation? Check the fluff. You may not like it, but there is a reason for the design choice, even if it is terrible. Humans make mistakes and sometimes don't realize it until it's too late. You're stuck with what you got and you make it work.
In my opinion, BattleTech has never really been about the 'meta' that games like MechWarrior Online and the BattleTech PC game has pushed over the years.
-
As was already discussed in this thread, there's a big difference between designs that aren't optimized and designs that seem to have been actively sabotaged during the development process.
-
As was already discussed in this thread, there's a big difference between designs that aren't optimized and designs that seem to have been actively sabotaged during the development process.
That could be a reason as well: The Maskirovka or ISF inserted a deep cover agent into Defiance Industries as a designer who made poor decisions.
-
If every design was optimized the game would be boring and designs would start ending up the same.
I remember Herb and Gunslinger were working on CAV and they got exasperated on having to portray every CAV as the best every at everything. Having everything be the best of the best gets monotonous.
-
That could be a reason as well: The Maskirovka or ISF inserted a deep cover agent into Defiance Industries as a designer who made poor decisions.
(https://i.imgflip.com/2zvxno.jpg)
-
In my opinion, BattleTech has never really been about the 'meta' that games like MechWarrior Online and the BattleTech PC game has pushed over the years.
What HBS meta? It comes closest to the actual game . . . repairs take time, parts and money. You have to have the parts on hand to make repairs, I had built a VND-1SIC to fight ahead of the classic -1R but it had the LL arm blown off. No spare LL in storage, early in a Career game, but I did have a PPC . . . so I had to spend the money & time repairing the mech and shifting it back to a -1R layout. Still no salvaged Large Lasers or any in the markets I have visited- but I do have a single spare PPC for the pair of Vindicators. Any changes are limited (cannot salvage a HBK-4G and make it a -4P) because the hard point system.
-
What HBS meta? It comes closest to the actual game . . . repairs take time, parts and money. You have to have the parts on hand to make repairs, I had built a VND-1SIC to fight ahead of the classic -1R but it had the LL arm blown off. No spare LL in storage, early in a Career game, but I did have a PPC . . . so I had to spend the money & time repairing the mech and shifting it back to a -1R layout. Still no salvaged Large Lasers or any in the markets I have visited- but I do have a single spare PPC for the pair of Vindicators. Any changes are limited (cannot salvage a HBK-4G and make it a -4P) because the hard point system.
HBS meta is basically spam as much assault 'mechs in their best config during the end game. HBS made me hate the King Crab, which is apparently in surplus in the Periphery. The hardpoint system doesn't do much to prevent people from finding the best weapons config per design. See how MWO even did this for their trial variants, stock configurations are almost impossible to play. The MWO community is always finding ways to get the highest DPS possible. At least in HBS you can run a game with stock designs, but even then, the meta pushes you to get heavier and heavier in your stock 'mech choices. I've seen some really cheap and munchy lighter designs, too. Mostly Firestarter builds.
-
Have you played it recently? I know Flashpoint changed some things so you have to take faster machines to achieve the objective, and the opposition you face is a reflection of the skulls on the planet and what you land with for the mission. I took my original campaign, which had a mix of assaults & heavies, to dump some down for meds . . . last 3 or 4 skull mission I took a Highlander, Catapult, Grasshopper and Wolverine while facing a mix of vehicles supporting heavy and mediums mechs.
I am also started playing through the campaign again before Flashpoint came out and the only assault I will take will be Kamea's Atlas at the end. So far I am getting through with mostly meds and a single heavy I have salvaged.
HBS accurately reflects campaign play in BT . . . if you can get the parts, money and have the time/facilities any mechwarrior is going to make their machine the most effective, for them, it can be. Look at some of the 3025 customs we have been given as part of campaign play.
And MWO's online community behavior should come as no surprise to anyone who has ever heard of online play- its why there are pages out there about 'cookie cutter' designs.
-
In my opinion, BattleTech has never really been about the 'meta' that games like MechWarrior Online and the BattleTech PC game has pushed over the years.
BT runs on anti-meta. The more a design sucks the more fun it is to play with.
-
The game does an awful job depicting common mechs in a periphery setting (ANOTHER orion colped with a pair of King Crabs?). But you can play it with stock mechs no problem. I am ending my first run with stock mechs and it is cool to do so. I penalized myself with taling minimum salvage most of the time (I am swimming in cbills, though) and no +X stuff. I play mediums (and the highlander) and I am doing fine.
I plan on running the campaign with the original unmodified mechs after this.
-
BT runs on anti-meta. The more a design sucks the more fun it is to play with.
To a point. If you plotted suckage versus fun, fun would initially be high. That's where your Timber Wolves and Griffins would live. Then as suckage increased, fun would decrease to a global minima. Here are you Panther -10K and pre-errata Blackjack -2's. Then as suckage continues to increase, the fun comes back. These are the weirdos that seem to worm their way into our hearts. Urbies, Chargers, Banshees, even Quickdraws.
-
The quickdraw is actually a fine mech in alpha strike. Took me a while to figure out why people thought it was horrible.
-
I may have posted something like this before (it's a long thread by this point), but there are a lot of ways a design can make sense. For a design to make "no" sense, none of them can apply.
--A design can make sense in terms of the board game. A PPC will virtually always be better than an AC-5, with very rare exception. So to make sense in the board game, you should replace all AC-5s with PPCs.
--A design can make sense in terms of a different board game. Alpha Strike and Battleforce play differently than standard Battletech. Sometimes what sucks in one game may be good in another.
--A design can make sense under a previous version of the rules. Why so much AMS ammo? Because that's how it worked back then, but now they changed the rules and it doesn't work that way anymore.
--A design can make sense from a real world perspective. They had to publish some mechs with the Light Gauss Rifle, and they needed two medium mechs with it, so there you go.
--A design can make sense from a fictional world perspective. The Duke's cousin Joey owns an AC-5 factory, and this mech is meant for export, so by god, it's gonna carry Joey's AC-5.
There are probably several other ways it can "make sense" as well. As far as I'm concerned, if we can come up with any halfway justifiable reason, that's good enough for me. None of these justifications are any better than the others. I don't care if it sucks in the normal game, if we can identify the reason it was built that way, then it makes sense enough.
-
Have you played it recently? I know Flashpoint changed some things so you have to take faster machines to achieve the objective, and the opposition you face is a reflection of the skulls on the planet and what you land with for the mission. I took my original campaign, which had a mix of assaults & heavies, to dump some down for meds . . . last 3 or 4 skull mission I took a Highlander, Catapult, Grasshopper and Wolverine while facing a mix of vehicles supporting heavy and mediums mechs.
I am also started playing through the campaign again before Flashpoint came out and the only assault I will take will be Kamea's Atlas at the end. So far I am getting through with mostly meds and a single heavy I have salvaged.
HBS accurately reflects campaign play in BT . . . if you can get the parts, money and have the time/facilities any mechwarrior is going to make their machine the most effective, for them, it can be. Look at some of the 3025 customs we have been given as part of campaign play.
And MWO's online community behavior should come as no surprise to anyone who has ever heard of online play- its why there are pages out there about 'cookie cutter' designs.
I haven't really played much of it recently. I'm pretty casual when it comes to PC games now a days. The game really needs to beef up its medium and light mech selection if it really wants to be a BattleTech game.
Yeah, the flashpoints did help, but it still doesn't do much because there isn't much to choose from.
I get it, though. Some people just like to slug it out with the best customs they have. I used to do it but I don't get any joy from that anymore. If I do use a custom design it's some kind of refit or something close to what you would see in a TRO.
-
I play the same way, and take the models we get and convert them to other TT models- so a Orion becomes a Marauder 3R or a BK becomes a Marauder 3D. Like I said, I made the Vindicator 1SIC, also made the LL Panther. I was glad PPCs got the buff for targeting penalties when hit and the LRM power got backed off on. But for the complaints of the number of Black Knights, King Crabs, Kintaros & other 'rare' SL stuff . . . just among the heavies, its not like we have (yet) Warhammers, Marauders, Archers, Crusaders, Riflemen, Ostrocs, Ostols, Guillotines, Grand Dragons or Merlins. I hope to get 3 or 4 of those in the next DLC, plus the Assassin, Phoenix Hawk, Dervish, Wasp and Valkyrie.
The coming DLC has the Javelin & Raven plus 3 new vehicles. So you are getting a expansion with a light mech afaik that has not been seen since MW2 (ignoring MWO)- all the mechs for this one is going to be lights.
-
Then as suckage continues to increase, the fun comes back. These are the weirdos that seem to worm their way into our hearts. Urbies, Chargers, Banshees, even Quickdraws.
The Quickdraw is actually a pretty decent Medium 'Mech....except that it's classified as a Heavy. Depending on the variant and the placement of the weapons, it can have a fairly nasty damage curve once you get it into ML range. The standard model is a bit weak for the tonnage, though. It's the placement of the weapons, rather than the selection, that makes no sense.
-
the preponderance of rear facing weapons on the first generation of mechs makes me think backstabbers were a much bigger thing in beta testing than now
-
the preponderance of rear facing weapons on the first generation of mechs makes me think backstabbers were a much bigger thing in beta testing than now
Maybe in your own games, but in mine, backstabbers are still a major cause of lost 'Mechs.....especially when I'm doing the backstabbing. Arm mounted weapons cover that base without detracting from one's forward firepower, so I still regard rear-facing weapons as "mostly wasted". An even more effective way of dealing with back-stabbers is operating your units in pairs a couple hexes apart, so one can always torso-twist to cover the rear of the other with its full forward firepower. Fast scout 'Mechs REALLY hate being in short range of AC/10s, LLs, and large numbers of MLs and SRMs. Once pulse weapons arrive, having your scout 'Mech attack anything standing next to a Penetrator is suicide.
The same "wingman" principle was used by US pilots in WWI with great success against the more agile Japanese Zero fighters, after the initial painful encounters demonstrated the need for a solution to the problem.
-
The Quickdraw is actually a pretty decent Medium 'Mech....except that it's classified as a Heavy. Depending on the variant and the placement of the weapons, it can have a fairly nasty damage curve once you get it into ML range. The standard model is a bit weak for the tonnage, though. It's the placement of the weapons, rather than the selection, that makes no sense.
It doesn't help that the Quickdraw can be dropped from 60 tons to 50 tons with no changes whatsoever - it doesn't even lose armour. You lose the physical damage and IS points from the tonnage, sure, and a couple HS pop out of the engine and into crit slots (which might actually be good in 3025, as ghetto CASE), but the mech's cost drops like 20%, and it's a lot less silly-looking on paper.
-
Maybe in your own games, but in mine, backstabbers are still a major cause of lost 'Mechs.....
i guess by "thing" i really meant "issue for the game designers"
though there's almost no such thing as a rear-mounted weapon any more. it's one of those arcane construction options like one-shot missile launchers
-
Well . . . what, 3058 is the last time we saw quite a few?
heck, have any of the new Atlas designs had the rear MLs?
-
Only the AS7-Dr, which was a field-refit. Of course, most of the recent Atlas variants haven't had much in the way of secondary weaponry in the first place.
The only mech I've really liked rear-mounted weaponry on was the Gunslinger, and that was because with the rear-mounted MPLs I could torso-twist and throw a gauss slug at something directly behind me at the same time. It was really funny the first time I pulled that trick.
-
the preponderance of rear facing weapons on the first generation of mechs makes me think backstabbers were a much bigger thing in beta testing than now
Maybe in your own games, but in mine, backstabbers are still a major cause of lost 'Mechs.....especially when I'm doing the backstabbing. Arm mounted weapons cover that base without detracting from one's forward firepower, so I still regard rear-facing weapons as "mostly wasted".
rear-mounted weapons let you defend your rear while still declaring the forward enemies as your main target instead of dropping everything because there's a Wasp buzzing around, so i do like them in certain roles.
and there was a preponderance of bug 'mechs wasting everyone's time in early games for certain!
-
Unless you have pulse lasers, using those rear-mounted weapons against a secondary target is usually close to pointless. Considering a normal walking pace, and a backstabbing Wasp with a +3 modifier, you've typically got a base 4 shot, +1 for your move, +3 for his move, and +2 or something like that for the secondary target in a different arc, which is 10+ to hit. Meanwhile, the backstabber will be rolling for 7+ (4 base, +1 for your move, +2 for his run). Not that great a deterrent.
Granted, being able to fire the main guns and still send a warning shot behind you which MIGHT actually hit something is better than no response, but I'd rather not pump 1-2 tons into it if I can add that tonnage to my arm-mounted forward firepower instead, and STILL have it available to fire into the rear arc if I have to (at the expense of forward shots for the turn). Of course, there are a few exceptions, where there's not enough room in an arm for secondary weapons, limited arm traverse or inability to torso twist, etc. Flippable arms also make sense in some situations, but not in others where you would want the full set of arm actuators.
-
If you want to punch a lot putting short-range weapons in the arms isn't a great idea, so in that case rear guns makes sense. E.g. Battlemaster: putting two MLs in each arm (to cover the entire rear arc) would weight 4 tons, and you still wouldn't be able to use them if you wanted to punch some heads. But without rear- or arm-guns you wouldn't be able to respond at all to a backstabber in the left part of your rear arc (I don't count the MGs as a response in this case - being at least at medium range!).
-
Rear guns suffer badly from the to-hit penalties. Maybe make a positive quirk that rear-mounted guns can fire with no penalties against a secondary target, and slap it on every mech that has more than one or two of them. They'd stop sucking at that point. Or add a piece of "independent tracking system" equipment that can be stapled onto any weapon like an Artemis or PPC capacitor, which lets it shoot other targets with no issues.
The other existing rules issue is arm flipping. Flippy-arm mechs were cool when Stackpole invented them to justify the Rifleman under 3025 rules, but under modern rules (where a lot of people throw away the lower arms just to free up 4 slots for all the bulky high-tech gear), arm flipping totally obsoletes rear-mounted guns. Maybe require a quirk for that, instead of including it for free on these designs.
-
It's your own fault if you are shooting at that Wasp as a secondary target. Rear mounted guns can be effective if you aren't focused on still shooting at the guys in front of you. Just take a turn or two to focus on getting that bug mech off your back.
And while your to-hit numbers may not be wonderful, remember that the backstabber probably doesn't have great armor. Medium lasers are real threats to a lot of lights.
-
i guess by "thing" i really meant "issue for the game designers"
though there's almost no such thing as a rear-mounted weapon any more. it's one of those arcane construction options like one-shot missile launchers
I've treated rear mounted weapons as part of the overall "style" or "flavor" that tended to go with the various TROs. In addition to New Toy Syndrome, many TROs had certain patterns. The Unseen were "Make it look like the picture." 3025 tended to be swiss army knives, a main weapon, LRM rack, SRM rack and a pair of medium lasers. That and having 1-2 rear mounted medium lasers. 3055/3058 IS was gauss boats, while Clan stuff tended to slow down a tad with Standard engines.
-
Rear weapons only seem bizarre to me on designs whose front facing is undergunned. Like the Quickdraw, Centurion, and Dragon.
Rear weapons on a Clan 'Mech make a perverse sort of sense, because you probably can't afford the heat of another forward-firing weapon system anyway, and a backstabbing stravag isn't going to expect a double SSRM6 to the face.
-
I've treated rear mounted weapons as part of the overall "style" or "flavor" that tended to go with the various TROs. In addition to New Toy Syndrome, many TROs had certain patterns. The Unseen were "Make it look like the picture." 3025 tended to be swiss army knives, a main weapon, LRM rack, SRM rack and a pair of medium lasers. That and having 1-2 rear mounted medium lasers. 3055/3058 IS was gauss boats, while Clan stuff tended to slow down a tad with Standard engines.
Yeah, I always figured that in-universe, the 3025 designs were meant to operate in large formations against combined arms forces. Lots of mechs carried machine guns, because you never know when you'll be walking through a city and some infantry will run out of some rubble and try to scale your mech. It was more important to be able to gun those little bastards down than to have an extra heat sink or another medium laser. It didn't matter if a design wasn't carrying max armor, because the Star League and the Great Houses of those days could churn out endless numbers of mechs.
3055 and later designs were built more in response to the Clan dueling philosophy, where individual mechs needed to be as tough as possible.
-
Yeah, I always figured that in-universe, the 3025 designs were meant to operate in large formations against combined arms forces. Lots of mechs carried machine guns, because you never know when you'll be walking through a city and some infantry will run out of some rubble and try to scale your mech. It was more important to be able to gun those little bastards down than to have an extra heat sink or another medium laser. It didn't matter if a design wasn't carrying max armor, because the Star League and the Great Houses of those days could churn out endless numbers of mechs.
3055 and later designs were built more in response to the Clan dueling philosophy, where individual mechs needed to be as tough as possible.
I like this view.
-
Rear facing weapons are a lot more important in smaller games, where only a few mechs are in use per side. You don't always have a lancemate in position to cover your six, and light faster units in a force relied on backstabbing an otherwide distracted enemy to be effective.
As the game s meta grew in unit sizes to multiple lances or even companies per side, without really expanding the play area size much, rear facing weapons became less needed since you had lancemates around to cover you more regularly.
-
i dunno if it was even that meta
MEANWHILE AT FASA HEADQUARTERS
"hey the players are telling us they don't like rear-facing weapons"
"ok we'll put less of them on"
-
Unless you have pulse lasers, using those rear-mounted weapons against a secondary target is usually close to pointless. Considering a normal walking pace, and a backstabbing Wasp with a +3 modifier, you've typically got a base 4 shot, +1 for your move, +3 for his move, and +2 or something like that for the secondary target in a different arc, which is 10+ to hit. Meanwhile, the backstabber will be rolling for 7+ (4 base, +1 for your move, +2 for his run). Not that great a deterrent.
These were mostly Star League 'Mechs. The Wasp didn't have to contend with a 10+ medium laser when he got behind an Archer, he had to deal with 24 medium lasers at 10+ when he got in back of a company of Archers.
-
These were mostly Star League 'Mechs. The Wasp didn't have to contend with a 10+ medium laser when he got behind an Archer, he had to deal with 24 medium lasers at 10+ when he got in back of a company of Archers.
And those Archers would find themselves swamped with multiple Companies of Wasps, if we're playing by 'arbitrary numbers of enemies' rules.
This discussion is about the lasers in the behind of a singular Archer; An entire company versus a single wasp like a certain sort of obscene video doesn't absolve the lack of usefulness or make up for one of the inefficiencies of the rear laser.
-
i dunno if it was even that meta
MEANWHILE AT FASA HEADQUARTERS
"hey the players are telling us they don't like rear-facing weapons"
"ok we'll put less of them on"
"Fewer." - Stannis Baratheon
-
"Fewer." - Stannis Baratheon
"silence, nerd" -God, probably
-
And those Archers would find themselves swamped with multiple Companies of Wasps, if we're playing by 'arbitrary numbers of enemies' rules.
This discussion is about the lasers in the behind of a singular Archer; An entire company versus a single wasp like a certain sort of obscene video doesn't absolve the lack of usefulness or make up for one of the inefficiencies of the rear laser.
Don't shoot at things in front of you. Just fire the medium lasers at the Wasp and so you aren't taking a secondary target modifier. Treat the Battlemech standing behind you as an actual serious threat instead of an annoyance.
Rear mounted mediums were a good counter to Wasps, evidenced by the fact that people never laughed at Archers saying "haha, I'll just take a Wasp and get behind you".
-
That and even the Star League wasn't wasteful enough to send a company of Wasps to flank a company of Archers knowing they'd probably trade three of their own for one Archer without even forcing the enemy to change facing. Nevermind a battalion of Wasps which would just invite a barrage of danger-close artillery fire as "rear arc weaponry".
-
And those Archers would find themselves swamped with multiple Companies of Wasps, if we're playing by 'arbitrary numbers of enemies' rules.
That's not how the Star League played the game.
This discussion is about the lasers in the behind of a singular Archer; An entire company versus a single wasp like a certain sort of obscene video doesn't absolve the lack of usefulness or make up for one of the inefficiencies of the rear laser.
I thought this was a discussion of design decisions that made no sense. And the Star League designed things for how they did them. The Archer was designed under that era which is why it was made the way it was, not under some Succession War lone Archer situation. It's like asking why 1967 cars had much poorer gas mileage then 1977 cars.
-
It didn't matter if a design wasn't carrying max armor, because the Star League and the Great Houses of those days could churn out endless numbers of mechs.
But the Great Houses of 3025 couldn't churn out an endless number of mechs. You'd figure it would go the opposite way, with Succession Wars-era downgrades packing on armor to increase survivability as their fielded forces shrank and became irreplaceable, while Clan invasion-era mechs were protected less well.
-
But the Great Houses of 3025 couldn't churn out an endless number of mechs. You'd figure it would go the opposite way, with Succession Wars-era downgrades packing on armor to increase survivability as their fielded forces shrank and became irreplaceable, while Clan invasion-era mechs were protected less well.
In the Third Succession War they were just using what was left over. In the First and Second wars, each side thought they were getting ready to win. They didn't produce a bunch of machines for the future when they knew their technology would suck -- they didn't know that MadMax Tech was on the horizon.
Also I think adding armor is probably more complicated than just writing down "drop machine guns and ammo, add 2 tons armor" on a piece of paper. If you want to add more armor onto a Warhammer's legs, you might have to completely redesign the ankle and knee joints, and how the hips attach to the waist. Who knows.
-
And those Archers would find themselves swamped with multiple Companies of Wasps, if we're playing by 'arbitrary numbers of enemies' rules.
The Star League had more archers than the houses had wasps.
-
That's... a really good point, actually... as scary as it is... 8)
-
The Star League had more archers than the houses had wasps.
Yes, that point has been thoroughly thrown at me.
I also still maintain rear facing medium lasers to be an awful idea regardless of how many Archers the Star League may have to throw at the enemy. At that level, you'd still problably be better off having one of the less important Archers go look back and make sure the (SINGULAR) Wasp isn't commiting a suicidal death run at the Company of Archers instead of running away from the COMPANY. OF. ARCHERS.
(My point is, nobody sane would try soloing a company. Of Archers. In a singular, mono, one-on-twelve fight, with a Wasp. The notion that the rear facing mediums is somehow more of a benefit in that sort of herd than a hindrance is just as absurd as taking on a company of Archers in a Wasp.)
Don't shoot at things in front of you. Just fire the medium lasers at the Wasp and so you aren't taking a secondary target modifier. Treat the Battlemech standing behind you as an actual serious threat instead of an annoyance.
I really don't understand how this is supposed to be a counter-argument. In both situations, you have one member of a fire support unit completely ignoring his fire mission to shoot rear lasers at an enemy physically incapable of breaching his rear CT Armor in a single salvo, and BARELY capable of breaching rear side torso armor if all his shots hit the same location... At a 90 meter range. And that the concept of dedicating just two medium lasers-and your valuable rear armor- to the very viable threat of the Wasp instead of a full four is somehow a more reasonable approach.
Bear in mind-I really don't think rear weapons In general are a complete design failure in and of themselves. But the benefits of just putting the weapons forward facing or in the arms far, FAR outweigh the debatable usefulness of rear facing medium lasers.
-
Yes, that point has been thoroughly thrown at
Don't be too hostile about it, that point actually works in favor of your argument. In the Archer's case, those two rear lasers would be better served split between the arms in almost every circumstance. The only condition I can think of where that specific layout works is where you have to engage smaller, lighter targets in three or more directions, including directly behind you. Or, in other words, when you're surrounded by Wasps (or stingers, light vehicles, or other units that have to sweat over getting hit by a medium laser or two).
On a mech like, say, the battlemaster, that makes a degree of sense. It's designed to get in the middle of things, or alternately to be a high value command unit. It's the kinda mech you expect to be ambushed or surrounded on the regular, so you plan for it in the design. Machine guns, back scratchers, even keeping the majority of its close firepower out of the arms so you can punch people, it's the whole package.
The Archer's a support machine. Not only that, it's a ranged support machine that traditionally operated in massive numbers as one of the most heavily produced mechs in the universe. If you're being flanked so bad you have to cover your rear, you've done a whole bunch of things wrong. Even more so if you're in a position where those lasers being rear instead of arm mounted is somehow the best option.
It's not a great setup.
-
Maybe this? They get used to discourage pursuit when they're pulling back to re-arm.
-
...
Before the introduction of the PPC, AC-10, large laser, and LRMs was also before the development of BAR 10 armor. Against primitive armor a heavy rifle with 3 tons of ammo and 4 heatsinks (eg. on an ASF) is 1.67 tons per point of damage and on a non-heat-tracking vehicle it's 1.22 tons per damage.
The use cases for AC-5s center around flak and precision ammo and one of these is rare and the other nonexistent in the SHS era.
And the heavy rifle comes out way after the other Auto Cannons.
-
yes, i know why it is like it is.
i'm saying finish the retcon and make 3050 IS more playable
The multiple retcons, I think are the most frustrating thing that has happened. It takes things that did make sense and changes them so that they do not.
-
One of the mechs that makes no sense to me is the Shadow Hawk SHD-2D, lets take a mech that is fair to good depending on who you ask. Then unlike almost every Davion version than makes them tougher (adding armor) they make it weaker and in its case much much weaker, for an extra SRM-2 (with extra 50 round) and ML? I can understand trying to add firepower to a mech that can only do 19 points of damage if every weapon hits (and every missile as well), now it can cause a piloting check (causes max of 24 if everything hits), but not super likely in my opinion.
-
Also I think adding armor is probably more complicated than just writing down "drop machine guns and ammo, add 2 tons armor" on a piece of paper. If you want to add more armor onto a Warhammer's legs, you might have to completely redesign the ankle and knee joints, and how the hips attach to the waist. Who knows.
In both fluff and crunch, adding armor isn't the easiest thing to do, but it is entirely doable by reasonably skilled tech teams rather than full up Great House armies/industries with a workshop and some time. If the mechs the IS was operating in 3025 were being run stock-to-the-bone from the SL days, it would make sense that they retained the wildly varying and occasionally bizarre armor schemes, but there are plenty of customs and post-SL variants with increased protection. The 3rd Succession War lasted for decades, they had time to up-armor everything left in their inventories.
-
The multiple retcons, I think are the most frustrating thing that has happened. It takes things that did make sense and changes them so that they do not.
nah, sorry. the new slope works a lot better. they just have to fill in a smattering of testbeds so there aren't such large gaps between production gear and production mechs that use it.
-
One of the mechs that makes no sense to me is the Shadow Hawk SHD-2D, lets take a mech that is fair to good depending on who you ask. Then unlike almost every Davion version than makes them tougher (adding armor) they make it weaker and in its case much much weaker, for an extra SRM-2 (with extra 50 round) and ML? I can understand trying to add firepower to a mech that can only do 19 points of damage if every weapon hits (and every missile as well), now it can cause a piloting check (causes max of 24 if everything hits), but not super likely in my opinion.
Especially since you can keep the armor and add the SRM2(and ammo) & a Medium laser by replacing the LRM5.
-
i legitimately thought the 2D was a misprint when i saw the sheet the first time
-
Don't be too hostile about it
Fair enough, just kind of gets grating after the third time.
As for the rest, yes, that's pretty much the point I'm trying to make-I'm just really bad at saying it. It doesn't fit with the role of an Archer very well, and I had (Was gone due to family) thought about how it would make sense on something built to close in-like say, an Atlas, or something. An Archer is a bad example of a 'viable rear medium laser' machine, especially when the Star League produced units that made far better and smarter use of that niche of design philosophy.
-
nah, sorry. the new slope works a lot better. they just have to fill in a smattering of testbeds so there aren't such large gaps between production gear and production mechs that use it.
I was more referring to history retcons, than mech retcons but was trying to not get to far off topic as some of them are supper stupid way past face palm stupid. I really like some of the fill in the gaps like the Hammerahands, and Battleaxe.
-
Especially since you can keep the armor and add the SRM2(and ammo) & a Medium laser by replacing the LRM5.
Or by just stripping out a couple of the Shadowhawk's excessive heatsinks.
-
Or by just stripping out a couple of the Shadowhawk's excessive heatsinks.
No, use that space to give it 2 more Jump Jets (5/8/3 really??).
-
One of the mechs that makes no sense to me is the Shadow Hawk SHD-2D, lets take a mech that is fair to good depending on who you ask. Then unlike almost every Davion version than makes them tougher (adding armor) they make it weaker and in its case much much weaker, for an extra SRM-2 (with extra 50 round) and ML? I can understand trying to add firepower to a mech that can only do 19 points of damage if every weapon hits (and every missile as well), now it can cause a piloting check (causes max of 24 if everything hits), but not super likely in my opinion.
You know, I've made extensive use of the 2D Shadow Hawk, got a good feel for how best to use it (either bullying smaller units or using other, more threatening allies as a distraction), put some thought into modding mini into the configuration. I've even grown to like it a little.
And even I can't come up with a reason why someone would have thought it was a good idea.
Maybe... MAYBE... some Davion officer in the outback developed it to fight pirates. Pirates have the whole risk/rewards equation to deal with, and in theory they tend to lean away from risk, avoiding major confrontations, not committing to fights where they can get hurt too badly. Maybe some garrison commander figured if he put more shooty bits on his mech, the pirates would stay away and he wouldn't have to worry about losing armor.
-
Since it's come up several times now, Strat Ops page 188 classes adding armor as a Class C refit. This can be done in a transport cubicle aboard a DropShip, but has a x2 time multiplier.
-
You know, I've made extensive use of the 2D Shadow Hawk, got a good feel for how best to use it (either bullying smaller units or using other, more threatening allies as a distraction), put some thought into modding mini into the configuration. I've even grown to like it a little.
Easiest way I found to make one was to have the old plastic Shadow Hawk from the (2nd edition?) boxed set, along with one of the metal Shadow Hawk's.
Make the metal one a 2K model by leaving off the medium laser. Take that medium laser and add it to the right arm of the plastic one (which had its medium laser on the left arm for some reason.
Viola! Now you have both the 2D and 2K models!
Ruger
-
You know, I've made extensive use of the 2D Shadow Hawk, got a good feel for how best to use it (either bullying smaller units or using other, more threatening allies as a distraction), put some thought into modding mini into the configuration. I've even grown to like it a little.
And even I can't come up with a reason why someone would have thought it was a good idea.
I don't think it was developed for 'Mech-on-'Mech action. The extra damage clusters and large ammo supply speak to it being an anti-vehicle interdiction raider. Get behind enemy lines and blow up supply trucks, blow tracks off tank columns, etc. Normally you'd want a light 'Mech for that, but really the SHD is just as fast as the standard Davion light (the Valkyrie) and only a little slower than a Wasp but packs more than twice the firepower, which means you can do the same deep strike work with one lance of SHD-2Ds as with a company of WSPs and STGs (and thus support them with a readily-available Leopard instead of a valuable and in-demand Union).
-
I don't think it was developed for 'Mech-on-'Mech action. The extra damage clusters and large ammo supply speak to it being an anti-vehicle interdiction raider. Get behind enemy lines and blow up supply trucks, blow tracks off tank columns, etc. Normally you'd want a light 'Mech for that, but really the SHD is just as fast as the standard Davion light (the Valkyrie) and only a little slower than a Wasp but packs more than twice the firepower, which means you can do the same deep strike work with one lance of SHD-2Ds as with a company of WSPs and STGs (and thus support them with a readily-available Leopard instead of a valuable and in-demand Union).
Considering the LB10X of the Royal version, I can totally buy into this theory.
-
I really don't understand how this is supposed to be a counter-argument. In both situations, you have one member of a fire support unit completely ignoring his fire mission to shoot rear lasers at an enemy physically incapable of breaching his rear CT Armor in a single salvo, and BARELY capable of breaching rear side torso armor if all his shots hit the same location... At a 90 meter range. And that the concept of dedicating just two medium lasers-and your valuable rear armor- to the very viable threat of the Wasp instead of a full four is somehow a more reasonable approach.
Bear in mind-I really don't think rear weapons In general are a complete design failure in and of themselves. But the benefits of just putting the weapons forward facing or in the arms far, FAR outweigh the debatable usefulness of rear facing medium lasers.
Abandoning your fire support mission might sound crazy to you, but when somebody gets into your rear arc you don't have a lot of good choices.
When you boil it down, an Archer is just a delivery system for 2 LRM-20s. It can deliver 12 rounds of fire with those big missile racks, and that's a hell of a lot of firepower in 3025. But if you just needed indirect fire support, you could cram both LRMs into a 40 ton chassis and it would still move 4/6 (of course, it wouldn't have any medium lasers and it would only have 1 ton of armor). That might actually be useful if you just want somebody to give indirect fire for a while.
But the Archer is built to be a more survivable chassis than that. I think the Star League would have been aware of the idea of swarming bug mechs, and the Archer's medium laser array is meant to provide coverage from all angles of attack. After all, once you get inside the LRM minimum ranges, the Archer is in trouble. So it's basically built to be able to put 2 medium lasers into every arc. It isn't supposed to exchange short range fire with a Warhammer, it just needs enough to hold off backstabbers.
As far as why don't you just put 2 mediums in each arm? For one, you might lose an arm. For two, mediums in the center provide nice crit padding. For three, the rules for firing into multiple arcs have changed over the years, and maybe that reflects something in the game world where rear mounted weapons are more useful than we might think. Plus, torso twisting and firing into the arm arc doesn't always give you the same coverage as rear weapons, particularly if there are two targets (both in the rear arc, but one on the left edge of it and the other on the right edge).
-
Abandoning your fire support mission might sound crazy to you, but when somebody gets into your rear arc you don't have a lot of good choices.
When you boil it down, an Archer is just a delivery system for 2 LRM-20s. It can deliver 12 rounds of fire with those big missile racks, and that's a hell of a lot of firepower in 3025. But if you just needed indirect fire support, you could cram both LRMs into a 40 ton chassis and it would still move 4/6 (of course, it wouldn't have any medium lasers and it would only have 1 ton of armor). That might actually be useful if you just want somebody to give indirect fire for a while.
But the Archer is built to be a more survivable chassis than that. I think the Star League would have been aware of the idea of swarming bug mechs, and the Archer's medium laser array is meant to provide coverage from all angles of attack. After all, once you get inside the LRM minimum ranges, the Archer is in trouble. So it's basically built to be able to put 2 medium lasers into every arc. It isn't supposed to exchange short range fire with a Warhammer, it just needs enough to hold off backstabbers.
As far as why don't you just put 2 mediums in each arm? For one, you might lose an arm. For two, mediums in the center provide nice crit padding. For three, the rules for firing into multiple arcs have changed over the years, and maybe that reflects something in the game world where rear mounted weapons are more useful than we might think. Plus, torso twisting and firing into the arm arc doesn't always give you the same coverage as rear weapons, particularly if there are two targets (both in the rear arc, but one on the left edge of it and the other on the right edge).
Trying to cram that Archer into a shoot-and-scoot, run-and-gun, fire-and-forget, mobility doctrine is gonna be difficult any way you slice it. It's just. not. that. kind. of 'Mech. That Archer wants to move forward in a deliberate way, in eschelon and with friends.
Even though we have a few story examples, Wolf and Kell, the high mobility doctrine that was very popular during this 80s era (I know, I'm old enough to remember it) now faces a mixed set of strategies that are calibrating to confront a multitude of different kinds of threats. This isn't about exclusively fighting in the jungles with air mobile forces, or picking apart Soviet bloc legions with fast ground attack and Apaches.
Aside from the topic of the bipolar world of the Cold War, our designs from those days were drawn from FAR FEWER sources than we have today, with the much more complex threat matrix that today's armies plan for.
In this respect, that Archer may be showing its age, and a resort to modifications and variants might be necessary to make it compatible with doctrines it was not designed to be a part of, again, elite pilots not withstanding.
-
The Archer stands up just fine. It's lance-level fire support, with reasonable durability and passable backup weapons, designed for use in small-unit/small-map actions where it can easily be flanked or cornered. As 3025 mechs go, it's still pretty good in that role - outclassed by 3150 mechs, yes, but not outclassed as badly as any other 3025ers that I can think of would be.
That's not its fluff role, but on a hexmap, that's what it does. A company of Archers is, in BT terms, kind of silly - if you have that many units on the field, you can probably do better by mixing units. (Two lances of Longbows bodyguarded by one lance of Hunchbacks, for example). But if you're rolling out with four units, where none of them can generally afford to be a purist, the Archer makes a ton of sense.
-
The Archer stands up just fine. It's lance-level fire support, with reasonable durability and passable backup weapons, designed for use in small-unit/small-map actions where it can easily be flanked or cornered. As 3025 mechs go, it's still pretty good in that role - outclassed by 3150 mechs, yes, but not outclassed as badly as any other 3025ers that I can think of would be.
That's not its fluff role, but on a hexmap, that's what it does. A company of Archers is, in BT terms, kind of silly - if you have that many units on the field, you can probably do better by mixing units. (Two lances of Longbows bodyguarded by one lance of Hunchbacks, for example). But if you're rolling out with four units, where none of them can generally afford to be a purist, the Archer makes a ton of sense.
I'm not trying to contradict that. There was a very good point made, one I've tried to re-iterate, about the Star League and 'Mech doctrines. A lot of designs are purposefully designed to be used a part of an Army, and not a roaming group of freelance mercs. It's axiomatic.
It's the same reason a platoon of soldiers might be mostly rifles with only one or two submachine guns and pistols. If you want to use an eschelon design for skirmishing, fine, but don't expect that your going to be as successful using that Archer as a skirmisher, or that it won't be an underdog.
I'm not recalling who said it, but there does seem to be a definite series of doctrinal movements to account for; a shift from divisional Armies to freelance Mercs in the wake of the Succession Wars, tracking with our perceptions of the Cold War to the asymmetric war of the turn of the century, to the highly mobile warfare of the Clan Invasion, and attendant focus on even smaller numbers of forces, and onward into the more sophisticated doctrines of the FedCom Civil War, the WoB Jihad and now into the ilClan Wars, which I, or we, may not have enough perspective with to adequately analyze.
This is all I'm saying. Sometimes, its just a square peg in a round hole and your better off selecting a different 'Mech to fulfill the role instead of contorting the one you have in your fist to try and make it sound.
-
Trying to cram that Archer into a shoot-and-scoot, run-and-gun, fire-and-forget, mobility doctrine is gonna be difficult any way you slice it. It's just. not. that. kind. of 'Mech. That Archer wants to move forward in a deliberate way, in eschelon and with friends.
Even though we have a few story examples, Wolf and Kell, the high mobility doctrine that was very popular during this 80s era (I know, I'm old enough to remember it) now faces a mixed set of strategies that are calibrating to confront a multitude of different kinds of threats. This isn't about exclusively fighting in the jungles with air mobile forces, or picking apart Soviet bloc legions with fast ground attack and Apaches.
Aside from the topic of the bipolar world of the Cold War, our designs from those days were drawn from FAR FEWER sources than we have today, with the much more complex threat matrix that today's armies plan for.
In this respect, that Archer may be showing its age, and a resort to modifications and variants might be necessary to make it compatible with doctrines it was not designed to be a part of, again, elite pilots not withstanding.
I think it's a mobile, survivable artillery piece. The Archer is meant to take a position either in woods or behind a hill, and rain missiles on its target. At long ranges in 3025, it's got the best combination of durability and firepower there is, except maybe the Awesome. It'll beat a Warhammer or Marauder. With a bunch of them, you can put out a wall of death.
Theoretically, heavy mechs should have taken quite a pounding by the time they get close, so the Archer's lack of good short range firepower isn't supposed to be a problem. It's got really good armor and if you really need to, you can engage in hand to hand combat. I think the medium lasers are there just to prevent a cheap kill.
-
I'm not trying to contradict that. There was a very good point made, one I've tried to re-iterate, about the Star League and 'Mech doctrines. A lot of designs are purposefully designed to be used a part of an Army, and not a roaming group of freelance mercs. It's axiomatic.
It's the same reason a platoon of soldiers might be mostly rifles with only one or two submachine guns and pistols. If you want to use an eschelon design for skirmishing, fine, but don't expect that your going to be as successful using that Archer as a skirmisher, or that it won't be an underdog.
I'm not recalling who said it, but there does seem to be a definite series of doctrinal movements to account for; a shift from divisional Armies to freelance Mercs in the wake of the Succession Wars, tracking with our perceptions of the Cold War to the asymmetric war of the turn of the century, to the highly mobile warfare of the Clan Invasion, and attendant focus on even smaller numbers of forces, and onward into the more sophisticated doctrines of the FedCom Civil War, the WoB Jihad and now into the ilClan Wars, which I, or we, may not have enough perspective with to adequately analyze.
This is all I'm saying. Sometimes, its just a square peg in a round hole and your better off selecting a different 'Mech to fulfill the role instead of contorting the one you have in your fist to try and make it sound.
I have a head-canon explanation for the expected roles of most of the 3025 mechs. It's based on the idea that in the pre-Succession Wars era, it was expected that you'd have a few divisions of mechs to attack a planet, and they'd have mech divisions of their own plus tons of conventional forces as well. The Ostscout is really good if you've got a battalion of Long Toms waiting for targeting information. And boy, a company of Wasps with infernos would be very handy if your enemy has a battalion of Long Toms in the area and you need to get there quickly. And wouldn't you know, having a reinforced lance of Jenners would be nice to stop those Wasps who are attacking your Long Toms...
By the time of the Third Succession War, those massive armies that everyone used to field have been reduced to slag. You're left with, well, whatever's left.
-
I have a head-canon explanation for the expected roles of most of the 3025 mechs. It's based on the idea that in the pre-Succession Wars era, it was expected that you'd have a few divisions of mechs to attack a planet, and they'd have mech divisions of their own plus tons of conventional forces as well. The Ostscout is really good if you've got a battalion of Long Toms waiting for targeting information. And boy, a company of Wasps with infernos would be very handy if your enemy has a battalion of Long Toms in the area and you need to get there quickly. And wouldn't you know, having a reinforced lance of Jenners would be nice to stop those Wasps who are attacking your Long Toms...
By the time of the Third Succession War, those massive armies that everyone used to field have been reduced to slag. You're left with, well, whatever's left.
This is a narrative that makes sense to me and makes what is sometimes called the 'Mad Max' world of 3025-3050 a somewhat accurate description, supported by the fact that in the real world we were, actually, stuffing ourselves with a steady diet of just that; Gamma World, Twilight 2000, and a whole raft of movies with a similar theme; the ever-present threat of a nuclear war to survive.
This is one of the things that made games like original Traveller so attractive to some of us. It was like a sunrise into to a more, um, *enlightened* kind of paradigm.
(OT: It's also a reason why, for all of its faults, I'm still a fan of the original Star League. For myself, it harkens to books I was reading but that weren't penetrating popular culture so much. You might call it escapist, but perhaps not any more so than the dystopian escapism of Mad Max, or cyberpunk, where everybody has to be 'for reeeel, maaaaan.')
-
This is a narrative that makes sense to me and makes what is sometimes called the 'Mad Max' world of 3025-3050 a somewhat accurate description, supported by the fact that in the real world we were, actually, stuffing ourselves with a steady diet of just that; Gamma World, Twilight 2000, and a whole raft of movies with a similar theme; the ever-present threat of a nuclear war to survive.
This is one of the things that made games like original Traveller so attractive to some of us. It was like a sunrise into to a more, um, enlightened kind of paradigm.
(OT: It's also a reason why, for all of its faults, I'm still a fan of the Golden Age of the Star League. For myself, it harkens to books I was reading but that weren't penetrating popular culture so much. You might call it escapist, but perhaps not any more so than the dystopian escapism of Mad Max, or cyberpunk, where everybody has to be 'for reeeel, maaaaan.')
There is also a limit to how much in-universe justification we can do before we think about the IRL considerations. How many games of play testing did the original mechs get? What's the biggest battle/map it was tested on before everything went to the printer?
If having half of your short range energy battery facing aft was really the Good IdeaTM that FASA thought it was back in the day, why don't we see things like Hellstar's with a PPC, or Nova Prime's with quad ER mediums facing rear, over in the customs forum? Now that's an idea... put two mediums in each arm as a rear mount, and get rid of the arm actuators. If something small gets in behind you, give'em the quad. If something nasty gets there, flip arms, give them the octet, oh and give whoever is in front of you a quad shot just so they don't feel unloved.
:lol:
-
There is also a limit to how much in-universe justification we can do before we think about the IRL considerations. How many games of play testing did the original mechs get? What's the biggest battle/map it was tested on before everything went to the printer?
If having half of your short range energy battery facing aft was really the Good IdeaTM that FASA thought it was back in the day, why don't we see things like Hellstar's with a PPC, or Nova Prime's with quad ER mediums facing rear, over in the customs forum? Now that's an idea... put two mediums in each arm as a rear mount, and get rid of the arm actuators. If something small gets in behind you, give'em the quad. If something nasty gets there, flip arms, give them the octet, oh and give whoever is in front of you a quad shot just so they don't feel unloved.
:lol:
Now your talking about that blackbelt thrasher mode that made the Clanners so scared to melee, like they were being locked in a room with John Wick. On that score, that Archer ain't bad.
Its that 4/6 to 5/8 is such a big difference in a turning fight, similar to the 8 to 9 split on 2d6, that it makes the rear lasers an imperial 2-ton insurance policy, but this makes much more sense in the context of that 4/6 to 5/8 turning difference. This is why we see 5/8/3 'Mechs and scratch our heads. 5/8/3 is badass on broken ground in a melee, but doesn't seem to stack up against 5/8/5, because hopping one hex in the middle of a brawl doesn't seem to be useful until you get in there and brawl for awhile. In a way, with a one-hex jump and a melee, your getting lots of tight, powerful, agile moves abstracted into a two-phase jump and attack.
This worked quite well in realtime MUX, allowing a good strike pilot to do some pretty show-stopping melee moves. It could backfire, though, because for the space of a few beats, your speed zero and with a bonus to hit you. That could be really bad, but if you were careful and could pull it off, it was rewarding.
-
I've always thought of the two rear-mounts as letting the archer still move first when there are bugs in the backline. Yeah, they can now get behind you with ease... but they have to move fast or suffer.
I'd prefer heat sinks or ammo, or even two ML in each arm, but they aren't completely worthless.
-
You know, I've made extensive use of the 2D Shadow Hawk, got a good feel for how best to use it (either bullying smaller units or using other, more threatening allies as a distraction), put some thought into modding mini into the configuration. I've even grown to like it a little.
And even I can't come up with a reason why someone would have thought it was a good idea.
Maybe... MAYBE... some Davion officer in the outback developed it to fight pirates. Pirates have the whole risk/rewards equation to deal with, and in theory they tend to lean away from risk, avoiding major confrontations, not committing to fights where they can get hurt too badly. Maybe some garrison commander figured if he put more shooty bits on his mech, the pirates would stay away and he wouldn't have to worry about losing armor.
Back in the old days Inferno`s were only available for SRM 2`s. Given that we`ve seen other Davion versions of classic mech`s made into incendiary mechs, this could be an explanation. Especially if the ammo is cross fed.
Still don`t get why it had to at the expense of armor though.
-
Was the SHAD-2D introduced before or after it became legal for mechs to carry Infernoes?
-
after infernos were introduced. the first appearance i recall is in Record Sheets Vol 2: Medium Mechs (1991).
-
IIRC it's noted in TRO3025?
-
Back in the old days Inferno`s were only available for SRM 2`s. Given that we`ve seen other Davion versions of classic mech`s made into incendiary mechs, this could be an explanation. Especially if the ammo is cross fed.
Still don`t get why it had to at the expense of armor though.
I think my "big light 'Mech" theory satisfies this well enough. It's like a battlecruiser. It has enough armor to withstand the firepower of what it's supposed to face (tanks and light 'Mechs) and it has enough firepower to overwhelm those same enemies, while also retaining the speed and endurance to operate behind enemy lines without being easily overwhelmed.
Saying it's a bad design because it can't go toe-to-toe with other medium 'Mechs is ignoring the context in which it's meant to be used. (And again like the battlecruisers of WW1 it will suffer from misuse because commanders will want to use it as part of the main line of battle since that's just one more 55-tonner they can deploy.) But once advanced tech is available, designs like the Stormcrow are going to eat its lunch.
-
I think my "big light 'Mech" theory satisfies this well enough. It's like a battlecruiser. It has enough armor to withstand the firepower of what it's supposed to face (tanks and light 'Mechs) and it has enough firepower to overwhelm those same enemies, while also retaining the speed and endurance to operate behind enemy lines without being easily overwhelmed.
Saying it's a bad design because it can't go toe-to-toe with other medium 'Mechs is ignoring the context in which it's meant to be used. (And again like the battlecruisers of WW1 it will suffer from misuse because commanders will want to use it as part of the main line of battle since that's just one more 55-tonner they can deploy.) But once advanced tech is available, designs like the Stormcrow are going to eat its lunch.
I just tried the 2D this morning on megamek, for the first time. One Shadow Hawk 2D vs 4 Hetzer tanks (AC-10 variant) on 2 random maps. So far I'm 2-0 with it (okay, so the first time the maps were randomly all woods and the Hetzers couldn't deploy, still won though).
In the one game that lasted beyond deployment phase, the Hetzers began on a city map, and that's where the fight took place (I started on a relatively open map and just ran into the city). I beat them without taking a single point of damage, didn't even get fired upon. Turns out the Hetzers' only weapon faces the front arc (didn't realize that when I picked them). The Shadow Hawk is mobile enough that I was able to keep no sight until I won initiative. Then I moved behind them, firing mediums and SRMs into their rear arc, then follow it with a kick.
Once a tank got immobilized, if there were other tanks with LOS I'd move away. If there weren't I'd just stand behind it and shoot and kick with impunity. I was fast enough that I could move to a solitary vehicle before the others could move to intercept. That 3 jump is really useful in tight confines (moving around corners eats up your walking, and you don't want to run in a city because of piloting skill rolls).
I know that's probably a non-representative sample, but I didn't intend it to be when I set it up. So far, so good.
-
IIRC it's noted in TRO3025?
just so. 3025 mentioned the -2D and -2K. it says the the 2D "reduces" armor. anyone know of an RS before 1991?
i should really go back and read the original 3025. it's been like twenty-five years.
-
The caveman: looks like you could have won that battle with a Locust. As I read it, it speaks of the problems of the tank, not the virtues of the mech.
-
The caveman: looks like you could have won that battle with a Locust. As I read it, it speaks of the problems of the tank, not the virtues of the mech.
I think you meant to reply to massey.
But yes, I wouldn't consider that scenario to be representative. When I conjectured that the SHD-2D is meant to be a vehicle hunter, I was imagining something more like attacking a truck convoy escorted by a lance of Scorpions deep in the rear area, not abusing the poor mobility and fixed firing arc of an assault gun in urban terrain. A Locust could do that job too, but the Shadowhawk will do it more efficiently and with less risk of being crippled by return fire.
-
Yeah I just picked some vehicles without looking at them. I said "this has a big gun" and grabbed 4 of them. Still, I could imagine some test fights going that way, and the procurement officer saying "buy a bunch of those!"
-
That's not how the Star League played the game.
I thought this was a discussion of design decisions that made no sense. And the Star League designed things for how they did them. The Archer was designed under that era which is why it was made the way it was, not under some Succession War lone Archer situation. It's like asking why 1967 cars had much poorer gas mileage then 1977 cars.
because the 1973 Oil embargo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Automobile_industry) forced a complete paradigm shift in car design and purchasing away from big heavy powerful but fuel inefficient cars towards lighter more efficient designs.
there is always a reason, even if it isn't obvious.
for the star league, my guess is it was due to how you'd actually used companies of units at a time in battles involving entire divisions. a company of archers wasn't a frontline combatant, it was 'artillery' support (see also the Bombarder, which was meant to replace it), most likely filling the role that a self propelled mortar battery would IRL. having a dozen archers arrayed in formation and firing volley after volley at a target wouldn't leave much option for turning around to deal with backstabbers using the forward facing weapons, so having a few medium lasers that the nearer mechs in the company can use to shoot up that lance of scouts that ran across them would be useful. and the arm mounted mediums give it nearly all around coverage without having to leave the firing position or take te missiles too far off target.
the battlemaster is a brawler, a company of those would be advancing as part of the frontline towards the enemy.. and turning around to deal with a lance or two of light backstabbers would slow down the advance too much. so, some lasers in the back to potshot them while members of the company further in the back turn to the side to bring their main guns to bear. same goes for the atlas, as a juggernaught it would be anchoring the battleline and it is slow enough that it can't really turn around to deal with an attack from the rear without completely halting the battleline's advance, so they gave it a few lasers and made sure it never went anywhere without support.
battles in the star league were rather less a freewheeling thing that the later succession wars became.
-
The reason for the SHD-2D is explained in Historical: 1st Succession War. It was a field refit issued to Davion units post-Kentares when the goal was to destroy as many DCMS units as you could as fast as you could, embracing the berserker mentality that had engulfed many AFFS soldiers at that point.
Likewise, the SHD-2K model was also developed in the 1st Succession War, but House Kurita did it because of problems with munitions resupply.
-
The 2750 king crab. All those guns, and so little ammo for them.
IMHO, that is either a deliberate gimping or damn close. It can work, but the odds of it doing so are bad.
-
It also sounds like the Hetzers weren't acting in a coordinated manner. Or making effective use of buildings or hidden unit rules.
-
It also sounds like the Hetzers weren't acting in a coordinated manner. Or making effective use of buildings or hidden unit rules.
which would be typical for bot controlled units in megamek
-
The 2750 king crab. All those guns, and so little ammo for them.
IMHO, that is either a deliberate gimping or damn close. It can work, but the odds of it doing so are bad.
Everything about the KGC-000 is just terrible. It's a worthless design IMO.
-
Everything about the KGC-000 is just terrible. It's a worthless design IMO.
I wouldn't call it terrible, but it's very much a "doesn't make sense" design.
I've heard it claimed that it was originally inspired by the Crab. Which, if you think about it, makes it make even less sense (but does make it more hilarious).
-
They were low on AC/20 rounds and wanted to enforce fire discipline
-
From a cynical perspective, putting more than 5 rounds per gun would have been wasteful, because anything packing twin AC/20s is going to draw so much hate that it won't live long enough to empty the bins.
-
The 2750 king crab. All those guns, and so little ammo for them.
IMHO, that is either a deliberate gimping or damn close. It can work, but the odds of it doing so are bad.
Because "go ruin that one jerk's day in particular" is a viable role for a 100-ton 'mech when you're the star league or: Why pack more ammo when you can pack more gun?
-
I wouldn't call it terrible, but it's very much a "doesn't make sense" design.
I've heard it claimed that it was originally inspired by the Crab. Which, if you think about it, makes it make even less sense (but does make it more hilarious).
Put it this way: I know I'm going to win if my opponent wastes BV on a KGC-000. It's rare that I lose when one is against me. They're just not good for most terrain types.
-
Yeah, I'd think the King Crab is meant to be a commander's mech, or at least it belongs in a command lance/company. It operates extremely close to the supply lines, and isn't intended to be on its own in any way.
But it works well as like the end boss of a video game. Imagine you're leading a company of mechs in a raid on the enemy HQ unit. You're hoping to find Duke Jerkwad and blow him to kingdom come. You engage his personal guard. You've got them outnumbered but they're tough. Still, you've yet to see the Duke himself. Then from behind a rocky outcropping, he shows up, in the biggest mech you've ever seen. You've already taken damage, and suddenly you know this day is gonna suck.
The King Crab isn't meant for a fair fight. It's an executioner. That mech shows up and kills things. The Duke doesn't want to engage at range, he doesn't want to shoot at things with a good movement modifier. He wants to come from behind that hill and light up a Warhammer's world like it's Christmas.
You had to fight your way through other units to get to the King Crab. He's looking to take off a limb with each shot. He's showing up at the very end of the fight, if he can help it.
-
fortunately they have the -010 debuting the same year now so you don't have to take a shallow-binned -000 if you can help it.
-
fortunately they have the -010 debuting the same year now so you don't have to take a shallow-binned -000 if you can help it.
Considering the general availability, I get the impression that some of the bog standard SLDF designs were intended to have consumer-grade versions from the get-go. I know the MUL disagrees, but I see things like the EXT-4D as the "general sale" model, while the -4Db and -4C are exclusive to the HAF and SLDF.
Same goes for the KGC-000 or Fury II tank, which are irretrievably crippled, but have much better versions available to the SLDF/HAF.
-
Yeah, I'd think the King Crab is meant to be a commander's mech, or at least it belongs in a command lance/company. It operates extremely close to the supply lines, and isn't intended to be on its own in any way.
Wasn't the King Crab 000 fluffed as originally having been intended as a command mech by Kerensky until he realized it didn't work so well in that regard, leading to him designing the Atlas as a replacement?
-
Now your talking about that blackbelt thrasher mode that made the Clanners so scared to melee, like they were being locked in a room with John Wick. On that score, that Archer ain't bad.
Its that 4/6 to 5/8 is such a big difference in a turning fight, similar to the 8 to 9 split on 2d6, that it makes the rear lasers an imperial 2-ton insurance policy, but this makes much more sense in the context of that 4/6 to 5/8 turning difference. This is why we see 5/8/3 'Mechs and scratch our heads. 5/8/3 is badass on broken ground in a melee, but doesn't seem to stack up against 5/8/5, because hopping one hex in the middle of a brawl doesn't seem to be useful until you get in there and brawl for awhile. In a way, with a one-hex jump and a melee, your getting lots of tight, powerful, agile moves abstracted into a two-phase jump and attack.
This worked quite well in realtime MUX, allowing a good strike pilot to do some pretty show-stopping melee moves. It could backfire, though, because for the space of a few beats, your speed zero and with a bonus to hit you. That could be really bad, but if you were careful and could pull it off, it was rewarding.
Not sure I'm following you...
Yeah, I'd think the King Crab is meant to be a commander's mech, or at least it belongs in a command lance/company. It operates extremely close to the supply lines, and isn't intended to be on its own in any way.
But it works well as like the end boss of a video game. Imagine you're leading a company of mechs in a raid on the enemy HQ unit. You're hoping to find Duke Jerkwad and blow him to kingdom come. You engage his personal guard. You've got them outnumbered but they're tough. Still, you've yet to see the Duke himself. Then from behind a rocky outcropping, he shows up, in the biggest mech you've ever seen. You've already taken damage, and suddenly you know this day is gonna suck.
The King Crab isn't meant for a fair fight. It's an executioner. That mech shows up and kills things. The Duke doesn't want to engage at range, he doesn't want to shoot at things with a good movement modifier. He wants to come from behind that hill and light up a Warhammer's world like it's Christmas.
You had to fight your way through other units to get to the King Crab. He's looking to take off a limb with each shot. He's showing up at the very end of the fight, if he can help it.
It doesn't matter how close you are to the supply lines if you squeeze the trigger and hear 'click' not 'BRRAAAAAAP.' The Hunchback IIC makes sense in a "These people are nucking futs!" kind of way. At the other end, the Victor -10D, with 30 rounds of uAC/20 ammo is begging for a torso bomb.
Your idea of treating it as a boss fight is good though.
-
Not sure if it was actually designed as such, but the SLDF deployed homogeneous lances and companies. While you might see a lone King Crab as a command unit it should be more common to see a full company in the field. In that context things change a bit. Showing up to plug a forming breach in the lines, or to exploit the same; or sweeping the field of crippled units; or while not leading the charge, following up when you absolutely *must* own that hilltop. With a full company ammo expenditure isn't as big a deal, which increases longevity.
-
It doesn't matter how close you are to the supply lines if you squeeze the trigger and hear 'click' not 'BRRAAAAAAP.'
Of course it does.
There's a huge difference between deploying ammo dependent units in an extended salient where resupply might be an hour away, versus having them in the second or third rank of a static front where an ammo truck can be called up in a couple of minutes. In the latter case, it's not a big deal to pull your lance of King Crabs back once they've expended their payload and have them reload for another sortie.
-
The other thing is that the Star League didn't need to worry about a "fair fight". If you've only got 5 shots for each of those AC/20s on your KGC and 12 targets, it's not a problem, because you've got 11 more King Crabs accompanying you. That's 24 AC/20s and 120 rounds of ammo in total, and those targets are going to get quickly reduced to tiny bits of scrap metal even if you miss 75% of your shots.
As for the Archer, if an Archer turns to use its arm-mounted MLs against a Wasp that got behind it, it can't deliver its normal LRM-20 barrage that turn. However, if it DOES use the rear-firing MLs instead, it won't be able to fire both LRM racks on either the current or the next turn without suffering significant overheating anyway, and the odds are that it won't hit the Wasp anyway. If it's operating in a Company of Archers, then one of the other Archers within 3 hexes of the Wasp would do well to use an arm-mounted ML to deal with the problem (in its side arc) without impacting its own forward fire.
-
Yeah, the Star League doesn't play BV-balanced games. They load up with as much BV as they can get and try to overwhelm their opponents.
The King Crab is super dangerous for a very short period of time. Unsupported, it's in a lot of trouble because you can get picked to pieces by a single Griffin. Even a Phoenix Hawk or a Jenner could give it hell. It's especially vulnerable if you're using quirks, because as I recall it can't torso twist. But holy crap, if you've got other mechs around to run interference and prevent that sort of thing? If the King Crab's only goal is to show up and kill one guy? Yeah, it's really dangerous.
-
Of course it does.
There's a huge difference between deploying ammo dependent units in an extended salient where resupply might be an hour away, versus having them in the second or third rank of a static front where an ammo truck can be called up in a couple of minutes. In the latter case, it's not a big deal to pull your lance of King Crabs back once they've expended their payload and have them reload for another sortie.
I think grimlock's point was that if the AC/20 is out of ammo, it's really not useful to the pilot in the immediate fight.
-
I think grimlock's point was that if the AC/20 is out of ammo, it's really not useful to the pilot in the immediate fight.
In the star league, the pilot isn't the one deciding if they stay in the field. Worrying about your own hide first when planning your kit isn't military logic. :P
-
I think grimlock's point was that if the AC/20 is out of ammo, it's really not useful to the pilot in the immediate fight.
Yeah, but the King Crab is just a delivery system for 10 AC/20 shells. It's not there to win the immediate fight, it's there to put those shells where the commander wants them to be, and then scuttle back to the forward rearming point and leave the mainline combatants to hold the front. More ammo would be great, but the longer a 'Mech like a King Crab stays on the field, the more likely it is to be destroyed. You have to weigh any increased effectiveness against the likelihood of losing the asset if it's on the field too long.
Ideally you want it to show up for a "mad minute" where it finishes off several already-damaged heavy and assault 'Mechs, then turn around and escape while other forces exploit the breach that was just made in the enemy lines.
-
Yeah, the King Crab shows up like the big powerful teammate at the end of that comic book movie. You're all "oh wow, how are they gonna get out of this?" and then the big guy appears and smashes the giant alien monster. Suddenly everything swings in the heroes' favor. But the big guy can't stick around, because then he'd just destroy the rest of the enemies, so he has to go offscreen for a while until the fight is over.
You hold the King Crab in reserve until it's time to smash, then it shows up and eats through it's ammo. Then it withdraws. It's not a great mech if you've got two evenly matched forces. But it's a nice extra to have.
Think of it this way. Take an Atlas. Downgrade the LRM-20 to a 15. Upgrade the 2 arm medium lasers to a single large laser. Drop the rear mediums and 2 tons of armor. Now swap out the SRM-6 for the ability to shoot your AC-20 twice as fast. Is that a good trade? It's not terrible. The Atlas has more endurance, but holy crap the King Crab can put out a lot of damage really fast.
-
I can buy this when Medium mechs were the most prevalent and many were 4/6 . . . the King Crab hangs back offering a LL and some LRMs until it comes forward to hammer enough to punch out something. Say its two lances- Shadow Hawk, Enforcer, Whitworth, Wasp, Tbolt, Centurion, Hunchback, and Panther- against a single lance of a KGC, maybe a Archer, Warhammer, and Blackjack. The KGC would be a threat in being, and it if hung back behind the ranged fire support until some enemy mechs tried to rush it should be able to keep the ranged from being overrun. Twenty points of damage to a medium's torso is going to open most of them up, its not going to need much more to protect its friends.
-
I think grimlock's point was that if the AC/20 is out of ammo, it's really not useful to the pilot in the immediate fight.
That's where I was going.
In the star league, the pilot isn't the one deciding if they stay in the field. Worrying about your own hide first when planning your kit isn't military logic. :P
At the tactical level, of course the pilot should have input on when to quit the field. Barring mythic last stands and heroic rear guard actions, pulling back when you can no longer contribute is the smart thing to do. It's not just saving your hide, its saving your machine for tomorrow's fight.
-
The thing about the King crab is that it's basically the same concept as the Hunchback writ large and it's best used counter offensively. If a lance of heavies or assaults have breached your lines, send in a lance of King crabs to break the assault. Is that a profligate expense for the outcome? Perhaps, but no one ever said the SLDF was shy about spending money
They have enough armour to walk into a serious fire fight expecting to walk out again, and they can pour a hell of a lot damage into a target incredibly fast - a single King crab is more than capable of felling even an Atlas and anything less will simply disintegrate under the kind of fire power they kick out, especially if they have already taken some hits punching through your lines - but they're still a team player. A King crab is like the star striker in a soccer team who's got the clinical finish needed to score lots of goal, but only when his midfield team mates create the opportunities for him.
This is not to say more ammo wouldn't be welcome and to be honest I would prefer them to have double heat sinks too, but they don't really need the massive endurance of a long ranged sniper. King crabs are all about finishing fights - not necessarily starting them.
-
This is not to say more ammo wouldn't be welcome and to be honest I would prefer them to have double heat sinks too, but they don't really need the massive endurance of a long ranged sniper. King crabs are all about finishing fights - not necessarily starting them.
To be fair the KGC-000b has pretty much all you are looking for. Double heat sinks and two tonnes of ammo for each cannon. The use of Artemis on the LRM could be seen as wasted tonnage but it is just about the best line breaker/bodyguard you can do without clan tech.
-
The thing about the King crab is that it's basically the same concept as the Hunchback writ large and it's best used counter offensively. If a lance of heavies or assaults have breached your lines, send in a lance of King crabs to break the assault. Is that a profligate expense for the outcome? Perhaps, but no one ever said the SLDF was shy about spending money
They have enough armour to walk into a serious fire fight expecting to walk out again, and they can pour a hell of a lot damage into a target incredibly fast - a single King crab is more than capable of felling even an Atlas and anything less will simply disintegrate under the kind of fire power they kick out, especially if they have already taken some hits punching through your lines - but they're still a team player. A King crab is like the star striker in a soccer team who's got the clinical finish needed to score lots of goal, but only when his midfield team mates create the opportunities for him.
This is not to say more ammo wouldn't be welcome and to be honest I would prefer them to have double heat sinks too, but they don't really need the massive endurance of a long ranged sniper. King crabs are all about finishing fights - not necessarily starting them.
I get the rationalization. But there's no reason you couldn't make them more useful for the exact, same cost for even LESS money.
-
When did the Star League ever do anything for less money?
-
Everything about the KGC-000 is just terrible. It's a worthless design IMO.
I once went up against one. It advanced inexorably towards me, taking fire from my Shogun and two Patton's and just eating it like a fatty in an all you can eat burger joint. Until it got close enough to be able to range in with its main guns that is. One Patton vanished and the second one was crippled by the next turn whilst the Shogun fled. Everything I had turned on it and whilst it eventually went down I spent so long shooting it that its supporting units had shredded my force. KGC 000's may be low on ammo but they are still damn scary, especially in close terrain.
-
It's not like the design is particularly wasteful cost-wise. Standard engine, standard structure, standard heat-sinks. The only area where they really splurged was the ferro armor. There aren't a lot of ways they could have reached the same goal and cut costs. Even changing to an SRM boat would cost more in the long run thanks to the more expensive ammo.
You want to talk about a 'Mech that's a waste of money, look at the Berserker. It costs as much as a lance of Marauders and is worth perhaps a Marauder and a half.
-
It's not like the design is particularly wasteful cost-wise. Standard engine, standard structure, standard heat-sinks. The only area where they really splurged was the ferro armor. There aren't a lot of ways they could have reached the same goal and cut costs. Even changing to an SRM boat would cost more in the long run thanks to the more expensive ammo.
You want to talk about a 'Mech that's a waste of money, look at the Berserker. It costs as much as a lance of Marauders and is worth perhaps a Marauder and a half.
Well - when you put 10 DHS into the KGC 000 and drop the FF for maximum standard armor you get a Mech with more ammunition, that is better armored and you save roughly 160,000 CBills.
I think the KGC was okay when it was "developed" but all the retconed StarLeague Mechs like Pillager or NightStar or even the KGC-010 (well thats a scary Mech) made it look mediocre.
For a counter assault mech, the ammunition might be adequate to stop a charge of Mechs that already have seen lots of damage - but 10rounds are usually not enough to stop an Atlas even with scratched armor. And the more important question why to keep a 100t Mech in the rear and not use it at the front line?
-
Because fresh forces can be a decisive tactical and strategic advantage. Yes, its hard on the guys doing the fighting but when that untouched force slams into the enemy line they can be critical. Look at historical battles, most had mobile reserves (typically some cav) that could be sent to seal off any breaches or to flank at the right moment.
-
I think the KGC was okay when it was "developed" but all the retconed StarLeague Mechs like Pillager or NightStar or even the KGC-010 (well thats a scary Mech) made it look mediocre.
I think there's a bit of a problem with the timeline on when exactly advanced tech was available. Sometimes you've got the Star League building old tech Atlases right before Kerensky leaves, and sometimes you've got Gauss boats running around long before that. I think you just have to make peace with your own vision of it and ignore any intro dates that contradict it. FASA didn't pay attention to that stuff and there's a lot of conflicting information.
-
The Regulars/Royal (THAF) split does kinda-sorta handle that, but yeah, some things you just have to make peace with.
-
I think there's a bit of a problem with the timeline on when exactly advanced tech was available. Sometimes you've got the Star League building old tech Atlases right before Kerensky leaves, and sometimes you've got Gauss boats running around long before that. I think you just have to make peace with your own vision of it and ignore any intro dates that contradict it. FASA didn't pay attention to that stuff and there's a lot of conflicting information.
I rationalize a lot of that stuff as the "old tech" that was available during the Star League era as being superior to the same "old tech" available in other eras. An AC/20 built in 2750 ought to be superior to one built in 3025 or in 2550. The lack of CASE on the Atlas can be solved easily if the SLDF-grade weapons demanded one less heat sink.
Although a lot of the weirdness with SLDF 'Mechs could be solved if there were some downside to double HS aside from the number of critical slots.
-
I rationalize a lot of that stuff as the "old tech" that was available during the Star League era as being superior to the same "old tech" available in other eras. An AC/20 built in 2750 ought to be superior to one built in 3025 or in 2550. The lack of CASE on the Atlas can be solved easily if the SLDF-grade weapons demanded one less heat sink.
Although a lot of the weirdness with SLDF 'Mechs could be solved if there were some downside to double HS aside from the number of critical slots.
There is also logistical inertia.
Given the size of the SLDF, even they couldn't necessarily afford to upgrade EVERYTHING.
-
Given the phenomenally long operational lifespan of a BattleMech if nothing actively destroys it, there would be a lot of older equipment still in service. You can upgrade some of it over time, but in a lot of cases it's more than adequate for the task it's assigned to. Upgrading isn't a high priority, if it's even authorized. I can picture a lot of basic tech 'Mechs being operated in remote places not near an active border, but still in need of a garrison to deal with potential revolts or pirate raids. Then the whole Star League went pear-shaped and they were called into front line service, because yet another part of the old front line (and the city it was stationed near) had suddenly ceased to exist.
Some units may have been intentional downgrades, for legal sale to the surrounding House armies. The factories would likely have been required to remove some exotic piece of equipment which was not permitted for sale, and replace it with some other item or combination of more standard items to fill the space. Guess what? The design is now compromised and way less than optimal, but still reasonably effective at its intended purpose. The only thing I see contradicting that is how mediocre a lot of the 2750 Star League designs ended up being, even with that exotic equipment.
-
I rationalize a lot of that stuff as the "old tech" that was available during the Star League era as being superior to the same "old tech" available in other eras. An AC/20 built in 2750 ought to be superior to one built in 3025 or in 2550. The lack of CASE on the Atlas can be solved easily if the SLDF-grade weapons demanded one less heat sink.
Yeah I do too. I figure a lot of Star League mechs would probably have a long list of positive Quirks that a normal mech wouldn't. Basically the Star League had all kinds of tech advances that don't necessarily translate into more damage or more armor.
The Star League would have been working on lots of different tech improvements, and integrating them into the units they built. At the time they didn't know what was going to be published in TRO: 2750. That's just the well known stuff that ComStar kept track of afterwards. But you might have a manufacturer that was making LRMs that got a +1 to the missile hit roll, all the time (without Narc or Artemis). Maybe somebody had a cooling system that was going to be a competitor of DHS. It just used better coolant and subtracted 2 extra heat. Something like that might have been incorporated into the Marauder.
Maybe the Star League would have had its own HD DVD vs BluRay format wars. At the time, DHS may not have looked like the obvious winner.
-
Maybe the Star League would have had its own HD DVD vs BluRay format wars. At the time, DHS may not have looked like the obvious winner.
Perhaps an early coolant flush system that came at no weight or space penalty, but was only compatible with single HS. You trade better sustained cooling for the ability to periodically zero out your heat load during a firefight.
-
Yeah I do too. I figure a lot of Star League mechs would probably have a long list of positive Quirks that a normal mech wouldn't. Basically the Star League had all kinds of tech advances that don't necessarily translate into more damage or more armor.
The Star League would have been working on lots of different tech improvements, and integrating them into the units they built. At the time they didn't know what was going to be published in TRO: 2750. That's just the well known stuff that ComStar kept track of afterwards. But you might have a manufacturer that was making LRMs that got a +1 to the missile hit roll, all the time (without Narc or Artemis). Maybe somebody had a cooling system that was going to be a competitor of DHS. It just used better coolant and subtracted 2 extra heat. Something like that might have been incorporated into the Marauder.
IIRC the original 3025 TRO referred to Phoenix LRMs & Hawk SRMs for the Star League Era Crusader. Impression was certainly that these were 'better` than the standard munitions(maybe equivalent to Artemis but without the actual equipment).
-
I've always supported my King Crab as a sole Sniper role.
Why, you ask?
Running with a large laser all day, spread some LRM love abound and oh yeah!, AC flavored buttersplats for those times that I want to stay syrupy at close range.
Split my shots, when I have to ( as in firing only one cannon, instead of two... those I save when I can good numbers ). Lay down enough constant damage and absorbing the return can scare people...
TT
-
At the tactical level, of course the pilot should have input on when to quit the field. Barring mythic last stands and heroic rear guard actions, pulling back when you can no longer contribute is the smart thing to do. It's not just saving your hide, its saving your machine for tomorrow's fight.
ironically, we're speaking the same thing on different arguments- the King crab is so underammoed because it's not supposed to go out and play as long as it wants. it's the commander's tool, he sends it out to administer a healthy dose of excessive fire and then trots back to his side. if the pilot wants to keep in the fight to grab some glory, he can shut it and trot home anyways.
-
I don't really buy this scenario as plausible so much as inserting a reason to have it make sense. No military I've ever heard of would purposely hamstring its soldiers as a way to force them to not make contact. i.e.: "we're sending your M1A2 SEP into the field with 5 rounds instead of 42 because you shouldn't be using the gun." Does that happen by mistake? Sure. But nowhere does purposeful under-supply exist, to my knowledge.
It's (KGC-000) simply a bad design that makes no sense in-game or in reality, IMO. Even if the SLDF ordered it under-supplied in the original specs, the soldiers would have found out VERY quickly that they ran dry early in the engagement and a variant would have been produced to remedy the situation. And, frankly, that's what the -010 does -- The exact, same job as the -000, but uses its assets infinitely better and for only $1MM more in cost. Instead of 5 shots, you have 30 for each LB-10X and infinite ammo for the PPCs.
-
And, frankly, that's what the -010 does -- The exact, same job as the -000, but uses its assets infinitely better and for only $1MM more in cost. Instead of 5 shots, you have 30 for each LB-10X and infinite ammo for the PPCs.
But it doesn't do the same job as the 000. LB10s and PPCs make for a support/sniper build. Dual AC/20s crunch 'Mechs and demoralize the enemy in a way that only dual AC/20s can.
If you're building a mixed lance to take on another lance, then yes, you take the 010 or the 001, 110% of the time. But for something that's meant to be used as a homogenous lance attached to a formation at battalion level to be used as a designated execution squad, the 000 is built almost exactly right. To really make it better at its job you would need weapons that wouldn't be invented for centuries, like HGRs or MRM-40s. Because again, its mission isn't to hang out on the front line like that company of Warhammers, it's meant to show up at a particular moment to turn a fair fight into an unfair one.
-
But it doesn't do the same job as the 000. LB10s and PPCs make for a support/sniper build. Dual AC/20s crunch 'Mechs and demoralize the enemy in a way that only dual AC/20s can.
If you're building a mixed lance to take on another lance, then yes, you take the 010 or the 001, 110% of the time. But for something that's meant to be used as a homogenous lance attached to a formation at battalion level to be used as a designated execution squad, the 000 is built almost exactly right. To really make it better at its job you would need weapons that wouldn't be invented for centuries, like HGRs or MRM-40s. Because again, its mission isn't to hang out on the front line like that company of Warhammers, it's meant to show up at a particular moment to turn a fair fight into an unfair one.
To make the -000 do that job better, all it needs is to drop the LRM rack (which it doesn´t need for its job) down to 10 and use the weight saved to double AC/20 ammo - *and* giving its long-range weaponry an ammo supply boost (12 is so much better than 8).
-
To make the -000 do that job better, all it needs is to drop the LRM rack (which it doesn´t need for its job) down to 10 and use the weight saved to double AC/20 ammo - *and* giving its long-range weaponry an ammo supply boost (12 is so much better than 8).
Yes, but FASA loved to give us all reasons to customize.
(Heck, you could just swap it for a PPC and add a ton of ammo, with no other changes, if you preferred. That might also be fun. Or swap the 15 SHS to 10 DHS, up the laser to a PPC/ERPPC, and double all your ammo loads.)
-
Sure . . . but one of the other OOC things in that design is pretty simple. The universe as spelled out at that time had few assaults- mostly mediums. Many of the combat/line/trooper mediums were 4/6- Hunchback, Centurion, Enforcer, Blackjack, Vindicator, Whitworth, and the pocket med Panther. Those mechs will form the bulk of what you should face statistically. Throw in the more rare Hatchetmen and Wyvern for AFFC/DCMS along with most heavies doing 4/6 as well and when it gets to medium range its not going to have too many problems hitting. And for most those mediums up into heavies like the Rifleman and Jagermech, a 20 point hit is going to wreck a limb or punch through a side torso. Most of those medium's center torso is not going to like it.
Forget ripping the armor on other assaults, the King Crab was built to OSK the most common mech of its game play era- the medium mech. If it does not kill it, then that rare/valuable/no-longer-made/precious should be retreating from having a open side torso- or missing side torso!
-
can we all agree that literally none of us would have designed the -000 as it is and move on?
-
can we all agree that literally none of us would have designed the -000 as it is and move on?
And stop arguing ad nauseam about things none of us is ever going to convince the other of anything?
You´re taking all the fun out of this!
-
some people here would defend even the most absurd canon design decisions to the death
in an AU where the king crab was designed with one leg, people would be out here defending it as a decision to keep the mech true to its mission as a defensive unit
You´re taking all the fun out of this!
(http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/13100000/Mandark-dexters-laboratory-13130973-335-422.jpg)
-
King Crab vs. a modern Mackie (3025).
And see who'll win in a standard play.
TT
-
i've won the same fight with a spider
-
i've won the same fight with a spider
I have yet to lose a BattleTech match against an invertebrate, it's not all that impressive. Try with a mammal and see how hard it is.
-
Yeah I do too. I figure a lot of Star League mechs would probably have a long list of positive Quirks that a normal mech wouldn't. Basically the Star League had all kinds of tech advances that don't necessarily translate into more damage or more armor.
The Star League would have been working on lots of different tech improvements, and integrating them into the units they built. At the time they didn't know what was going to be published in TRO: 2750. That's just the well known stuff that ComStar kept track of afterwards. But you might have a manufacturer that was making LRMs that got a +1 to the missile hit roll, all the time (without Narc or Artemis). Maybe somebody had a cooling system that was going to be a competitor of DHS. It just used better coolant and subtracted 2 extra heat. Something like that might have been incorporated into the Marauder.
Something I liked about HBS Battletech was how by changing the scale, they found the granularity to tweak and quirk a lot f weapons. If a medium lasers is 25 points of damage, you can buff Magna model by 20% and have something that's a little bit better, but not overwhelmingly so.
-
I have yet to lose a BattleTech match against an invertebrate, it's not all that impressive. Try with a mammal and see how hard it is.
look man we're not all George S. Patton of the gaming table and have to take the Ws where we can find them
-
HBS did not change the scale, they just multiplied it by 5. All weapon damage is boosted x5.
And they made the smaller AC deal more damage (CBT equivalence: AC2=5; AC5=9; AC10=15; AC20=20), which would be a very good thing to do in CBT as well IMO.
So an increase of 20% in damage of an ML is just making it do 6 points of damage in CBT :)
-
Well, you also get partial damage based on factors . . . but all of that was done b/c they did not have to use a piece of paper with 120 pips for armor points on the CT. I mean I like the four different methods of weapons quirks and it would be interesting to use it as an idea for a campaign detail. Lol, then we get into- who makes the best ACs? I mean Imperator is supposed to be good, but that Pontiac Justin Allard used was supposed to be a good 20 class.
-
can we all agree that literally none of us would have designed the -000 as it is and move on?
Yeah, but the point wasn't that the King ~Crab couldn't be done better, the point was that "Everything about the KGC-000 is just terrible. It's a worthless design IMO."
Well, I don't find the 286 points of armour to be terrible. I don't find the ability to fire both autocannons while walking without generating heat to be worthless. Despite the brave talk here, I seriously doubt that any of you would actually ignore a King Crab on the table top because it always presents a problem that needs to be addressed. Used right the KGC-000 will wreck any one mech's day - with a bit of luck it might wreck two - and as long as it has even a single shot left for each of the big guns it will shape the battlefield by creating a danger zone that only another assault mech can casually enter. Could it do with more ammo? Yes. Is it worthless? Hell no... !
-
can we all agree that literally none of us would have designed the -000 as it is and move on?
I feel like that is being entirely too harsh on a mech who only has one real fault, and that's an ammo related one at that.
-
I feel like that is being entirely too harsh on a mech who only has one real fault, and that's an ammo related one at that.
If it had loaded too much ammo people would say it's a walking bomb. There is a happy medium though.
Some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time.
I've always liked the King Crab. Straight up beatstick that gets a LOT of attention, especially with upgraded gunnery. It packs token long range weapons so it can't just be ignored at 10+ hexes.
Design decisions that make no sense are slow and or under armored narc carriers. That Stalker and Trebuchet come to mind immediately.
-
For what it may be worth, according to the MUL the 000 King Crab and its two more sophisticated versions (010 and 000b) were all introduced at the same time.
So it appears, to me at least, that the OOOb and 010 were intended to complement each other, and the 000 was a fairly basic downgrade for the regular divisions. From an engineering standpoint, pulling some ammo to make room for the less efficient heat sinks you've been told to use feels relatively painless.
(not so painless to the guys who have to pilot it, though)
-
There's a very big difference between "I wouldn't have done it that way" and "makes no sense".
Not having enough ammo for an AC/20? I wouldn't have done it that way.
The War Dog has two One-Shot launchers of the same type? That makes no ****** sense.
The King Crab 000 is a good example of the former. The Fireball with MASC and ammo in the legs is the latter.
-
I feel like that is being entirely too harsh on a mech who only has one real fault, and that's an ammo related one at that.
This is what I’m talking about. Show me some links of mechs you put in the design forum that are direly short on ammo without fluff that either paints the engineers or design board as idiots or some other concocted in-universe flaw.
The greatest indictment of the 000’s ammo shortage is that no one replicates it. It’s a bad decision
-
The Fireball with MASC and ammo in the legs is the latter.
Which Fireball variant is that?
Anyway, MASC + leg ammo is only a problem since they changed the rules on how MASC failure works. Original recipe MASC didn't roll random crits.
-
Which Fireball variant is that?
Anyway, MASC + leg ammo is only a problem since they changed the rules on how MASC failure works. Original recipe MASC didn't roll random crits.
The one I swear I've seen but now can't find. xp
-
The Targe is the only mech I can think of that combines MASC and leg-mounted ammo. And that was intentional on Kit's part.
-
The Targe is the only mech I can think of that combines MASC and leg-mounted ammo. And that was intentional on Kit's part.
This must be what I'm thinking about.
-
it's ok we all try to forget about the targe
-
Can someone explain to me the logic of the Griffin-5M? I understand Project Phoenix was intended to get new illustrations for the Unseen and get some new designs out, but this mech has 13 double heat sinks for a maximum build up of 11. You already have a LGR version of the Shadow Hawk for trooper and fire support duty, and the Griffin-3M has more firepower and the same armor. Wouldn't have made more sense to downgrade the LRM-20 to a 15, keep the ER PPC and add in more short range firepower to supplement the new build Shadow Hawk and older 3050 designs?
-
despite the project phoenix reskinning, the -5M is a refit of the -3M. for whatever reason, they didn't strip the three extra sinks off.
as for the LGR + LRM-10... the LCCC was going through a midlife crisis in the early 3060s and apparently the perceived panacea was to put an LGR on as many new designs as possible.
-
The inability to put IS CASE in legs notwithstanding, leg-mounted ammo isn't the worst idea in the world. Much easier for tech crews to reload in the field, they don't need a cherrypicker to reach the bins. It's also placed as far as you can get from the MechWarrior's seat so if you don't have the technology for CASE it at least reduces the chance of the pilot being caught in the blast.
Although I do question how anything other than machine gun ammo could feed from the legs...
-
Leg-mounted ammo isn't a terrible idea.
It's leg-mounted ammo combined with MASC that's a terrible idea (unless you're a remarkably stupid person who enjoys standing in hexes occupied by hostile infantry, in which case you deserve what's going to happen.
As far as the ammo feed works, well, best not think too deeply about that for any mech.
-
Sure . . . but one of the other OOC things in that design is pretty simple. The universe as spelled out at that time had few assaults- mostly mediums. Many of the combat/line/trooper mediums were 4/6- Hunchback, Centurion, Enforcer, Blackjack, Vindicator, Whitworth, and the pocket med Panther. Those mechs will form the bulk of what you should face statistically. Throw in the more rare Hatchetmen and Wyvern for AFFC/DCMS along with most heavies doing 4/6 as well and when it gets to medium range its not going to have too many problems hitting. And for most those mediums up into heavies like the Rifleman and Jagermech, a 20 point hit is going to wreck a limb or punch through a side torso. Most of those medium's center torso is not going to like it.
Forget ripping the armor on other assaults, the King Crab was built to OSK the most common mech of its game play era- the medium mech. If it does not kill it, then that rare/valuable/no-longer-made/precious should be retreating from having a open side torso- or missing side torso!
Rolling on 8s and 9s, then on the location table to see where every shot lands? I'd be surprised if the typical KC engaged and got even four hits out of the deal, with the majority of those going some place not immediately debilitating. And that's it. It obviously isn't fast, but there are other assaults that at least manage jump jets to mitigate the effects of turning and terrain while they head to wherever needed. Dumping the LRM15 and ammo gets it all the necessary tonnage to spare, plus enough for another five rounds of loaded AC/20s.
The sad thing is, I actually really like the King Crab. It should be the counter-argument to the Awesome, a bruiser of an assault mech that gets up close to rips up other assault mechs within a few turns. But it isn't. Most anything its worth in BV can outlast the KC, unless they are already half-dead or crippled, in which cases something less of a commitment can seal the deal.
HBS did not change the scale, they just multiplied it by 5. All weapon damage is boosted x5.
And they made the smaller AC deal more damage (CBT equivalence: AC2=5; AC5=9; AC10=15; AC20=20), which would be a very good thing to do in CBT as well IMO.
HBS actually did change around the heat scale a bit; as a basic change, heat sinks only provide 3 sinking (or 6 in the case of doubles, with no engine doubles in the base game) compared to the multiplied heat, so most TT stock mechs cook a bit. Originally PPCs were like 50 heat or, whatever ridiculous number it was, but they've been dropped down to 35 in post-release balancing, which is still twice that of LLas in the game. There were some other changes made as well, but HBS has definitely done some things to make heat more of a concern.
Also: AC10s are actually AC12s in HBSTech. Only Gauss Rifles do 75 (TT 15) out of the box, although you can get upgraded AC10s that push 70 (14 TT), I think. Along with 35 damage (TT 7) MLas for boating purposes :D
-
Leg-mounted ammo isn't a terrible idea.
Ammo in the legs is a pretty terrible idea; they may be less prevalent on the normal hit location tables than Torsos and have more armor, but they are also the only thing to take damage from kicks under normal circumstances, and kicks happen a damn lot. It's not difficult to crit ammo that's stored in the legs, and then you're out an entire half of a 'Mech (one that's never walking off the field) instead of merely a third of one.
-
Ammo in the legs is a pretty terrible idea; they may be less prevalent on the normal hit location tables than Torsos and have more armor, but they are also the only thing to take damage from kicks under normal circumstances, and kicks happen a damn lot. It's not difficult to crit ammo that's stored in the legs, and then you're out an entire half of a 'Mech (one that's never walking off the field) instead of merely a third of one.
Is this a case of ammo in the leg is a terrible idea, or a case of physical just do not make sense in how much they do?
-
Although I do question how anything other than machine gun ammo could feed from the legs...
Ever wondered why Mech ACs usually use clips rather a static ammunition feed (like Blade or Legionaire)
Ok to work this way the Mech need hands or the gun in need of ammunition have to be mounted in the arm. (you simply do not transfer ammunition through the joint, problem solved)
-
The inability to put IS CASE in legs notwithstanding, leg-mounted ammo isn't the worst idea in the world. Much easier for tech crews to reload in the field, they don't need a cherrypicker to reach the bins. It's also placed as far as you can get from the MechWarrior's seat so if you don't have the technology for CASE it at least reduces the chance of the pilot being caught in the blast.
Although I do question how anything other than machine gun ammo could feed from the legs...
Easier reload of leg ammo is a thing? Cool.
HBS did not change the scale, they just multiplied it by 5. All weapon damage is boosted x5.
And they made the smaller AC deal more damage (CBT equivalence: AC2=5; AC5=9; AC10=15; AC20=20), which would be a very good thing to do in CBT as well IMO.
So an increase of 20% in damage of an ML is just making it do 6 points of damage in CBT :)
Multiplying everything by 5 is changing the scale. But that also makes a 10% damage buff possible.
-
The War Dog has two One-Shot launchers of the same type? That makes no ****** sense.
Pfff, that pales in comparison to the extra-heavy XL engine they used on that thing to start off with! xp
Ammo in the legs is a pretty terrible idea; they may be less prevalent on the normal hit location tables than Torsos and have more armor, but they are also the only thing to take damage from kicks under normal circumstances, and kicks happen a damn lot. It's not difficult to crit ammo that's stored in the legs, and then you're out an entire half of a 'Mech (one that's never walking off the field) instead of merely a third of one.
In Soviet BattleTech, you explode on landmines!
But if the Targe is getting kicked that much, it really deserves it. I've played with it a few times and it's not the death-trap that some people think it is. Those are probably the same people that freak out over a 5-point T-Aug field being planted around their assault 'Mech.
-
The greatest indictment of the 000’s ammo shortage is that no one replicates it. It’s a bad decision
HBK-5M says you're wrong. Granted, it's called out in the fluff that it was a bad decision but that's a design I thought of in no time at all.
-
HBK-5M says you're wrong. Granted, it's called out in the fluff that it was a bad decision but that's a design I thought of in no time at all.
I disagree
The 5M allows you to have a Mech after that forsaken verheatred Phx jumped from somewhere into your rear and landed that impossible hit.
It's not nice, but those two ammunition bins in the 4G are even worse.
-
Is this a case of ammo in the leg is a terrible idea, or a case of physical just do not make sense in how much they do?
One informs the other. Kicks to my knowledge haven't changed in 35 years, so It's definitely ammo in the legs being a bad idea.
-
One informs the other. Kicks to my knowledge haven't changed in 35 years, so It's definitely ammo in the legs being a bad idea.
Only if you limit yourself to thinking of things in boardgame terms. The fact that the Hatchetman was seen as a curiosity for carrying a dedicated melee weapon for the first time 600 years after the invention of the BattleMech says physical attacks are a lot less common in-universe than they are on the table--which is probably directly caused by the damage of kicks and punches being grossly over-represented compared to weapons fire.
And in-universe they don't have 1d6 tables to decide things.
-
HBK-5M says you're wrong. that it was a bad decision but that's a design I thought of in no time at all.
by "no one" i meant "us, the people." and i didn't think it was required to add the caveat that noone is a colloquial limiter to mean "a very small number of people representing the extreme minority of players who have learned the basics of both mech design and the basic parameters of playing the game." that's where i was wrong. canon is full of "hold my beer" bad ideas and wasn't what i was talking about at all
Granted, it's called out in the fluff
Show me some links of mechs you put in the design forum that are direly short on ammo without fluff that either paints the engineers or design board as idiots or some other concocted in-universe flaw.
-
cleanup
-
Yeah . . . to be honest, I do not have a problem with ammo in the legs for the simple reason I do not want to be kicked. Knowing that the mech has the ammo in the legs, the point of its movement then becomes to avoid being kicked as well as getting a good shot. BUT if it is ammo in the legs, I want to to be something I am going to burn through pretty quick . . . like say a ton of the Longbow's LRM20 ammo, 3 turns at range and its gone!
The Awesome -9M? Oh yeah, dumping that on a pick up game and short changing its load in a campaign to something like 3 or 4 shots.
-
the "reality" of the BTU might very well make leg ammo popping off more rare than in the board game. headcanons are fun and all but dice make my mechs explode.
-
I can just see doing a leg ammo dump. Shaking it off like you're walking through a dog park and stepped wrong.
-
i like to think of it as a flume like a snowblower that pitches the ammo in an arc behind the mech
but hold up. if the leg takes any hit during the turn when it's dumping the ammo, it blows, right? the leg doesn't have a separate rear facing to cover the procedure
-
the "reality" of the BTU might very well make leg ammo popping off more rare than in the board game. headcanons are fun and all but dice make my mechs explode.
Fiction, to me, is the only thing that matters. What you get at the table as a result of that fiction is what you get. If you want a game that is all strategy and no context, go play chess.
Yeah . . . to be honest, I do not have a problem with ammo in the legs for the simple reason I do not want to be kicked.
Yep. A real MechWarrior isn't going to be rushing into short-range combat just to get a quick kill because a real MechWarrior doesn't want to be killed (solahma Clanners notwithstanding). You'd stay as far as possible out of your enemies' effective range for as long as possible and take shots as you had them, or only attack when the enemy wasn't ready to fight. That doesn't happen at the table because people don't want to spend 50 turns maneuvering for position or futz with double-blind rules.
-
i like to think of it as a flume like a snowblower that pitches the ammo in an arc behind the mech
but hold up. if the leg takes any hit during the turn when it's dumping the ammo, it blows, right? the leg doesn't have a separate rear facing to cover the procedure
I believe it's weapon hits in the rear arc, not damage to the rear armor that counts.
-
Fiction, to me, is the only thing that matters. What you get at the table as a result of that fiction is what you get. If you want a game that is all strategy and no context, go play chess.
the universe provides a context and helps tell a story surrounding the game - you know, the essential component that allows the fiction to exist. how the ammo is positioned in the leg is irrelevant to that context. if you have fun thinking about it cool, but the fluff without the game is body without a skeleton.
mechs are designed through the game rules - fluff considerations might affect the final design (that still conforms to the rules), but don't have any real, tangible bearing unless you impose arbitrary quirks. Leg ammo is asking for trouble under that paradigm.
-
i like to think of it as a flume like a snowblower that pitches the ammo in an arc behind the mech
but hold up. if the leg takes any hit during the turn when it's dumping the ammo, it blows, right? the leg doesn't have a separate rear facing to cover the procedure
We're told that the ammo's location doesn't matter. All ammo dump chutes feed through the rear torso, so only hits to rear torso armor will light things off, regardless of where the ammo is actually stored.
-
We're told that the ammo's location doesn't matter. All ammo dump chutes feed through the rear torso, so only hits to rear torso armor will light things off, regardless of where the ammo is actually stored.
So does that make it the only way (in Total Warfare) to suffer internal damage on a non-torso location that still has armor?
Interesting....
-
You might be right. Every other armor-bypassing situation I can think of either only does crits, or requires TacOps. Of course, there's always the stuff I can't think of...
-
So does that make it the only way (in Total Warfare) to suffer internal damage on a non-torso location that still has armor?
Interesting....
There's always ammo explosions due to heat.
-
you know, the essential component that allows the fiction to exist
It's funny. To me the game isn't even an essential component. I think it's been about 15 years since I've played BattleTech on a table with miniatures, and I only occasionally pop open MegaMek to test something out. I had more fun building and painting the minis than using them.
I don't even think it's a very good game. But it's a fantastic universe. The fiction is what drew me in and kindled a nearly 25-year love affair. Without it I probably would have played the game once, said "this sucks" and moved on to something else.
-
We're told that the ammo's location doesn't matter. All ammo dump chutes feed through the rear torso, so only hits to rear torso armor will light things off, regardless of where the ammo is actually stored.
considering some 'mech designs that's pretty impressive, and probably the most blatant violation of physics in the game.
The guys designing battlemech ammo feeds would probably be crazier than everyone here put together. i don't know if i should be afraid of them or wish to meet 'em!
personally, i always thought the Scarabus packing a hatchet on it's 30-ton frame with no JJs was absurd. then they released the Mjolir.........
-
personally, i always thought the Scarabus packing a hatchet on it's 30-ton frame with no JJs was absurd. then they released the Mjolir.........
Scarabus is fast enough to use the hatchet anyway, 10/15 covers a multitude of sins. I have more of a beef with the 4/6/4 Hatchetman reaching its target without crippling movement mods
-
Scarabus is fast enough to use the hatchet anyway, 10/15 covers a multitude of sins. I have more of a beef with the 4/6/4 Hatchetman reaching its target without crippling movement mods
Well the best thing that could happen to a Scarabus is a critical hit on the hatchet - did happen and then the small boy killed a Timber Wolf.
I don't even think it's a very good game. But it's a fantastic universe. The fiction is what drew me in and kindled a nearly 25-year love affair. Without it I probably would have played the game once, said "this sucks" and moved on to something else.
Amen to that
-
Sometimes a weapon is in the "legs" and what it really means is it's mounted on the hip. If a mech has ammo in the legs, maybe we could imagine that it's got an armored housing of some kind on the outside of the hip, kind of like it's wearing a holster. That part doesn't have to move with the rest of the leg. It could basically be an extension of the torso, but positioning wise it still counts as part of the leg.
Advantages could be faster reloading times, an experimental partial-CASE system (theoretically the ammo is supposed to explode outward, leaving the mech intact, but maybe the damn thing doesn't work right), extra space in an already cramped design, etc. I could see why somebody would try it.
-
Scarabus is fast enough to use the hatchet anyway, 10/15 covers a multitude of sins. I have more of a beef with the 4/6/4 Hatchetman reaching its target without crippling movement mods
The Hatchetman and the Axman combined to give melee mechs a bad taste in my mouth for a long time. The "its designed to fight in cities, so 4/6/4 is plenty," never made sense to me. You need more MP in a city than you do on say the standard map or a field with a mix of open and cluttered terrain. Yes you can always jump around the corner. That's great for "I need to get my thinly armored tuchas out of the line of fire," but not so good on the attach. Running on paved roads means PSRs, so you want to walk in turns where you attack, but cities are so cluttered that you spend a lot of MP moving AROUND the buildings.
All that combines to suggest that a city fighter wants to be like 6/9/4, minimum, and bricked out.
-
The Hatchetman and the Axman combined to give melee mechs a bad taste in my mouth for a long time. The "its designed to fight in cities, so 4/6/4 is plenty," never made sense to me. You need more MP in a city than you do on say the standard map or a field with a mix of open and cluttered terrain. Yes you can always jump around the corner. That's great for "I need to get my thinly armored tuchas out of the line of fire," but not so good on the attach. Running on paved roads means PSRs, so you want to walk in turns where you attack, but cities are so cluttered that you spend a lot of MP moving AROUND the buildings.
All that combines to suggest that a city fighter wants to be like 6/9/4, minimum, and bricked out.
i've never have a problem with those 'mechs, they're ambushers. they don't need to be fast, they need to let the other city forces funnel enemies into position. much like an SRM carrier, they shouldn't be caught before it's too late. the Scarabus.....it's not good for that. what, is it supposed to play dennis the menace and assume every target has bigger fish to fry than splattering it for trying to land a lucky headshot?
-
Running on paved roads means PSRs, so you want to walk in turns where you attack, but cities are so cluttered that you spend a lot of MP moving AROUND the buildings.
This just points to a severe problem with the way pavement and buildings are handled in the rules. Something is badly wrong when a Locust has an easier time navigating a city on foot than an UrbanMech.
There needs to be a "surefooted" quirk or the like that negates PSRs for running on pavement or through light/medium building hexes.
-
This just points to a severe problem with the way pavement and buildings are handled in the rules. Something is badly wrong when a Locust has an easier time navigating a city on foot than an UrbanMech.
There needs to be a "surefooted" quirk or the like that negates PSRs for running on pavement or through light/medium building hexes.
Ooh, good call. I'm on board with this.
-
City fighting really needs to be played as double-blind. Unless you have active probes, or C3, there's no way of knowing what's around that corner. You're not going to be sprinting around corners lest there's something bigger and nastier blocking the street.
-
cleanup
-
cleanup
-
The Celerity, a Savanah Master is cheaper by a factor of at least 50.
Sub-30 ton 'Mechs in general.
Anytime a designs fluff is that another similar design was having production problems and rather then fix the problems the first design was having, the solution is to produce a new design, which of these is going to be cheaper and quicker to do, do you think?
-
Well, depending on the problem, it really might be faster and cheaper to build a new mech.
-
Anytime a designs fluff is that another similar design was having production problems and rather then fix the problems the first design was having, the solution is to produce a new design, which of these is going to be cheaper and quicker to do, do you think?
This can work if the second design comes from a competing firm, like the Stinger and Wasp. Manufacturer "A" can't make good on the contract requirements in a reasonable timeframe, so manufacturer "B" (who might have been runner-up for the original bid) is contracted to put its similar product into production as an insurance policy. Then down the line the army decides it likes both (or the political leadership can't afford to pull the plug on one of them and kill jobs).
Of course, for some reason nobody ever pays attention to the dates and the competing design will show up generations after the problem design debuted...
-
Not all solutions are economically feasible. And not all engineering problems have solutions.
One thing that comes to mind is armored recovery vehicles. Every time a new, heavier tank comes out the existing recovery vehicles have problems handling them. Yes, you could remanufacture the old vehicles with better power plant etc. But the better solution is to create a new one based on the new tank chassis.
-
Well, depending on the problem, it really might be faster and cheaper to build a new mech.
This suggests that the problem is intrinsic to the design or the manufacturer who holds some key intellectual property, either of which should see the design withdrawn from service.
-
This suggests that the problem is intrinsic to the design or the manufacturer who holds some key intellectual property, either of which should see the design withdrawn from service.
and? "should" and "does" don't intersect as often as they should, and both circumstances are common enough.
-
and? "should" and "does" don't intersect as often as they should, and both circumstances are common enough.
Yeah should have seen that coming, after all Quicksell is somehow still in business
-
Going back to the original topic, how about the Shadowhawk 2D? Its a close combat Mech that drops most of its armour for a modest increase in short range firepower, leaving it vulnerable in its intended role.
-
Going back to the original topic, how about the Shadowhawk 2D? Its a close combat Mech that drops most of its armour for a modest increase in short range firepower, leaving it vulnerable in its intended role.
Don't think that the 2D is a "fighter" - think of it as a Hunter Killer.... armor is enough to take some hits from Wasp and can deal twice the damage in reverse.
of course, it would have been better to swap the LRM5 for those additional guns or keep the heat sinks at 12.
For close combat, Davies might use the Enforcer and keep the 2D to scare lights away that want to attack the tin rear of that brawler
-
As I understand, the -2D came about during a particularly dark time for the AFFS, when a berserker mentality had taken hold in many mechwarriors. They demanded to be in close with the enemy NOW, and to hit them with all the firepower NOW, and shut up about armor, survival is very optional.
As for why SRM-2s were used...maybe that's what was available?
-
As for why SRM-2s were used...maybe that's what was available?
Moar infernoes! And I'll light the woods around me on fire! And I still won't worry about the heat!
-
Going back to the original topic, how about the Shadowhawk 2D? Its a close combat Mech that drops most of its armour for a modest increase in short range firepower, leaving it vulnerable in its intended role.
Didn't we just spend a couple pages discussing that? Or was that a different thread?
-
Yup, we did.
-
Didn't we just spend a couple pages discussing that? Or was that a different thread?
Hey you know what really sucks? The King Crab. How come nobody has mentioned that yet?
-
Hey you know what really sucks? The King Crab. How come nobody has mentioned that yet?
Be quiet you.
-
As I understand, the -2D came about during a particularly dark time for the AFFS, when a berserker mentality had taken hold in many mechwarriors. They demanded to be in close with the enemy NOW, and to hit them with all the firepower NOW, and shut up about armor, survival is very optional.
As for why SRM-2s were used...maybe that's what was available?
software issues? might not have had anyone to program a new driver for the other launchers and there's already the 2-racks programmed in....and you've got this bratty mechjock screaming he wants it "now, now now!" so i say screw 'im.
-
software issues? might not have had anyone to program a new driver for the other launchers and there's already the 2-racks programmed in....and you've got this bratty mechjock screaming he wants it "now, now now!" so i say screw 'im.
One would think it'd be a relatively simple matter to simply add two more tubes to the 2-tube and give it a head-mounted 4. But then, considering one of the few silver linings of the Shadow Hawk 2D is a more sane ammunition bin for the SRMs, I'd almost prefer the 2D as presented.
-
I didn't get a good look before I had to go to work and my computer decided to reset itself, but I swear I saw a mech with rear-facing pulse lasers mounted in its legs...
Tell me I was just hallucinating that.
-
Gunslinger. That mount is arguably the best rear mount in the game.
-
Gunslinger. That mount is arguably the best rear mount in the game.
Yeah, I found it and at the same time another, rear weapons-minded, player who explained that when you twist to bring the forward guns to bear, you take the rear weapons out-of-arc, so it actually makes a lot of sense to mount rear-facing weapons in the legs so they'll always the rear cone.
-
As I understand, the -2D came about during a particularly dark time for the AFFS, when a berserker mentality had taken hold in many mechwarriors. They demanded to be in close with the enemy NOW, and to hit them with all the firepower NOW, and shut up about armor, survival is very optional.
As for why SRM-2s were used...maybe that's what was available?
Mechs are freaking expensive and nearly unreplacable, especially in a particularly dark time.
For people with that sort of attitude, there´s always plenty of open spots among the infantry.
-
Not when those folks are nobility, or sons/daughters/other relations/good friends of such. And the Davions are notable for their shadowy cabal of mechwarrior nobles, those guys will never see the inside of an infantry barracks for as long as they or their thousands of compatriots live.
You forget, this is Battletech. Bloodline and influence trumps common sense and pragmatism EVERY time, even in the less overtly feudal nations.
-
You forget, this is Battletech. Bloodline and influence trumps common sense and pragmatism EVERY time, even in the less overtly feudal nations.
I present the last century worth of Davions as proof.
-
I've created a poll thread over in the customs area to see how often rear mounted weapons crop up over there.
Devs proceed with caution. This is fan-build territory but if you just ready the results, you should be safe.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=65357.0;viewresults
-
Mechs are freaking expensive and nearly unreplacable, especially in a particularly dark time.
Not during the early parts of the 1st Succession War, which is when the -2D was developed.
-
Well . . . when the Kuritans are rolling over everything you have and massacring the folks on Kentares . . . its about getting replacements in time.
-
Well . . . when the Kuritans are rolling over everything you have and massacring the folks on Kentares . . . its about getting replacements in time.
And the -2D was a field refit kit for existing SHDs. Delivery of new machines was not in any way affected by this.
-
The LRM 5 on the hornet.
Long range weapon? Good. Token long range weapon when you're already sucking for speed and other weaponry? Maybe not so good.
It's like the worlds lightest albatross, without the sheer options that made the albatross good.
I'll take equal BV in valkyrie and be able to jump a worthwhile distance to boot.
-
3025
2 tons of SRM ammo on the Dervish (when is the next time you are going to be in a 50 turn battle, or even a 25 turn battle?)
1 Ton of ammo for the Enforcer. Dang it seems about the time where I really get things dialed in, I am out of boom. And the thing is I always hold my shots unless I have 8s or better.
-
3025
2 tons of SRM ammo on the Dervish (when is the next time you are going to be in a 50 turn battle, or even a 25 turn battle?)
1 Ton of ammo for the Enforcer. Dang it seems about the time where I really get things dialed in, I am out of boom. And the thing is I always hold my shots unless I have 8s or better.
The excess SRM ammo isn't nearly as problematic as the limited LRM ammo. An LRM boat should not be in a position of having to hold its shots. You want to be able to rain missiles at anything that can be hit on a 12 or less.
-
And the -2D was a field refit kit for existing SHDs. Delivery of new machines was not in any way affected by this.
I can just see that logic... "The Dracs are rolling over our defenses, we´re desperately short on machines... oh, I know the solution: Let´s make our existing machines more vulnerable!"
-
I don't think the original reason for the SHD-2D is that unreasonable. I mean, it's not a good idea, but I can see it happening in the heat of war.
But they kept doing it afterwards. The 2D remained a davion standard even after the berserker rage went away. House Davion even did it again during the 3050s, buying brand new shadow hawks from the Canopeans to refit to the 2D2 standard (This comes from the original printing of TRO 3050). Whatever their initial reasoning, somewhere along the way House Davion decided "yeah, this is a thing we need to keep doing".
Though in that case they managed to at least take off slightly less armor...
-
3025
2 tons of SRM ammo on the Dervish (when is the next time you are going to be in a 50 turn battle, or even a 25 turn battle?)
It allows you to have regular and extra crispy.
-
It allows you to have regular and extra crispy.
Yeah, you can carry normal SRM ammo and infernos. Not a terrible idea.
-
Yeah, you can carry normal SRM ammo and infernos. Not a terrible idea.
Actually, it is a pretty bad idea. The Dervish is poorly-armored and has awful heat dissipation. If you cannot take 2 engine hits (+10 heat) and not build up heat by moving, you've NO business near inferno ammunition, IMO.
If I see a Dervish coming at me, I won't even bother wasting laser fire on it if I have an SRM-equipped unit on my side. Pump that thing full of infernos and watch it stumble around until it blows up on its own. Now that won't happen every game, but if I know it has an inferno bin, that's going to be the play.
-
The excess SRM ammo isn't nearly as problematic as the limited LRM ammo. An LRM boat should not be in a position of having to hold its shots. You want to be able to rain missiles at anything that can be hit on a 12 or less.
We tend to design mechs for maximum butt-whoop. We want powerful and efficient designs that cram as much stuff into the mech as possible. We also like mechs to have an easy to see, defined role. This means that jack-of-all-trade mechs like the Shadow Hawk and Dervish end up being criticized.
12 shots per launcher is usually considered enough for LRMs. I don't think it's a big problem for the Dervish. It's not the 12 shots per launcher from dual LRM-20s that the Archer has, but it's not supposed to be an Archer. The Dervish is extremely mobile for its time, has decent long range firepower, and decent short range firepower. A force of Dervishes would be a cross between fast cavalry and fire support.
Under old inferno rules (6 heat/turn for 3 turns per missile), I see the Dervish as being pretty damn tough. Put it up against a Griffin, Rifleman, or Wolverine (maybe even
a Warhammer or Marauder). The Dervish would close to short range, unload with inferno missiles until the enemy was cooking for a few minutes, then back off and play the range game until your LRMs run dry. By that point, you've probably opened up at least one location. Then you close again and fire normal SRMs, tossing in a couple infernos every now and then just to keep the heat up.
It's also the kind of thing that could wreck columns of vehicles. Immobilize them with LRMs and then set the hex on fire with your burny SRMs.
-
Actually, it is a pretty bad idea. The Dervish is poorly-armored and has awful heat dissipation. If you cannot take 2 engine hits (+10 heat) and not build up heat by moving, you've NO business near inferno ammunition, IMO.
If I see a Dervish coming at me, I won't even bother wasting laser fire on it if I have an SRM-equipped unit on my side. Pump that thing full of infernos and watch it stumble around until it blows up on its own. Now that won't happen every game, but if I know it has an inferno bin, that's going to be the play.
It's a 3025 mech. They all run hot. As a bracket firer, it's fairly cool. If you've already got two engine hits on me, you might as well finish me off with regular weapons.
Besides, if you're shooting infernos at it, you aren't taking advantage of its relatively thin armor. I'll use my infernos on something that has heat problems to begin with.
-
It's a 3025 mech. They all run hot. As a bracket firer, it's fairly cool. If you've already got two engine hits on me, you might as well finish me off with regular weapons.
Besides, if you're shooting infernos at it, you aren't taking advantage of its relatively thin armor. I'll use my infernos on something that has heat problems to begin with.
Intro tech units don't always have poor heat dissipation. The STK-3F has 20 single heat sinks and two bins of SRM ammo. I would have no problem loading it with inferno rounds. But the DV-6M has only 10 SHS. If I hit it with an SRM-6 filled with inferno (+8 heat average, +12 heat max), you can blow it up in a single turn.
DV-6M heat: Running (+2), 1 x Medium Lasers (+3), 2 x SRM-2 (+4), hit with 6 x inferno rounds (+12) = 21 heat (+11)
In this example, I would cause the unit to explode on a 2 or 3 in a single turn. And since it only has 10 SHS, it cannot fire and move the next turn without risking another explosion check. So it's a truly bad idea to load it with infernos, IMO. I know you're saying "it's intro tech," but 10 SHS is the minimum heat dissipation in all of BT. And there are MANY intro tech units which have much better dissipation and still can afford to load inferno rounds (STK-3F, TDR-5S, PX-3R, KTO-18, etc.).
-
Intro tech units don't always have poor heat dissipation. The STK-3F has 20 single heat sinks and two bins of SRM ammo. I would have no problem loading it with inferno rounds. But the DV-6M has only 10 SHS. If I hit it with an SRM-6 filled with inferno (+8 heat average, +12 heat max), you can blow it up in a single turn.
DV-6M heat: Running (+2), 1 x Medium Lasers (+3), 2 x SRM-2 (+4), hit with 6 x inferno rounds (+12) = 21 heat (+11)
In this example, I would cause the unit to explode on a 2 or 3 in a single turn. And since it only has 10 SHS, it cannot fire and move the next turn without risking another explosion check. So it's a truly bad idea to load it with infernos, IMO. I know you're saying "it's intro tech," but 10 SHS is the minimum heat dissipation in all of BT. And there are MANY intro tech units which have much better dissipation and still can afford to load inferno rounds (STK-3F, TDR-5S, PX-3R, KTO-18, etc.).
Well, a couple of problems with that.
First, I was talking about the older inferno rules, where a single missile adds +6 heat for 3 turns, and each additional missile extends the duration (but doesn't increase the total heat). I know those aren't the current rules, but when we debate "decisions that make no sense", I think we've got to look at all the various rule sets that have existed. If it makes sense under one set of rules, then that's enough. Anytime we see sets of SRM-2s, it's basically a neon sign telling us to think about the old inferno rules.
Second, with your example, you've got to catch the mech with an SRM-6 load of inferno missiles on the same turn that he moves and fires lots of weapons. It's certainly possible, but let's look at it from a true game perspective. He's a 5/8/5 mech, and you've got him running. He's probably getting at least a +2 movement mod, possibly a +3. He's pretty fast for his time frame, so he may be able to dictate range. So you certainly aren't guaranteed to hit him. With regular pilots, you need 4 + 2 or 3 for his movement, + whatever he's got for range, + your own movement. If he can position himself at 7 hexes, he'll be shooting at short with his LRMs and you'll be at long with your SRMs. I'd say there's a good chance that you'll need 10+ to hit him, and you're hoping he'll explode on a 2 or a 3. The odds are not in your favor on that one.
Basically once he knows you've got an inferno-6, you'd need to win initiative (so that you can declare fire last), and then hit him on a turn when he attacks with a lot of weapons. Then if he doesn't explode, you need a reason why he can't jump 5 out of line of sight and cool off.
Third, the Dervish isn't any more vulnerable to this than any other mech that carries ammo. It carrying infernos really has nothing to do with it. As soon as you can push him past 14 heat, you've got a chance to shut him down. Push him past the ammo explosion point and you might blow him up. But that's just the problem with mechs with 10 SHS. It has nothing to do with the Dervish carrying 2 tons of SRM ammo.
-
Well, a couple of problems with that.
First, I was talking about the older inferno rules, where a single missile adds +6 heat for 3 turns, and each additional missile extends the duration (but doesn't increase the total heat). I know those aren't the current rules, but when we debate "decisions that make no sense", I think we've got to look at all the various rule sets that have existed. If it makes sense under one set of rules, then that's enough. Anytime we see sets of SRM-2s, it's basically a neon sign telling us to think about the old inferno rules.
Second, with your example, you've got to catch the mech with an SRM-6 load of inferno missiles on the same turn that he moves and fires lots of weapons. It's certainly possible, but let's look at it from a true game perspective. He's a 5/8/5 mech, and you've got him running. He's probably getting at least a +2 movement mod, possibly a +3. He's pretty fast for his time frame, so he may be able to dictate range. So you certainly aren't guaranteed to hit him. With regular pilots, you need 4 + 2 or 3 for his movement, + whatever he's got for range, + your own movement. If he can position himself at 7 hexes, he'll be shooting at short with his LRMs and you'll be at long with your SRMs. I'd say there's a good chance that you'll need 10+ to hit him, and you're hoping he'll explode on a 2 or a 3. The odds are not in your favor on that one.
Basically once he knows you've got an inferno-6, you'd need to win initiative (so that you can declare fire last), and then hit him on a turn when he attacks with a lot of weapons. Then if he doesn't explode, you need a reason why he can't jump 5 out of line of sight and cool off.
Third, the Dervish isn't any more vulnerable to this than any other mech that carries ammo. It carrying infernos really has nothing to do with it. As soon as you can push him past 14 heat, you've got a chance to shut him down. Push him past the ammo explosion point and you might blow him up. But that's just the problem with mechs with 10 SHS. It has nothing to do with the Dervish carrying 2 tons of SRM ammo.
The thread is about design decisions that make no sense. i.e.: actual units. You're talking about a rule set that is no longer in use. So we're not on the same page.
Second, ammunition explosions are on a 19+ heat normally. With inferno bins, there's an explosion check at 8+ heat. So it has everything do to with a unit carrying inferno that cannot cool down. :) A 10 SHS unit doesn't cool as well as one with 20 SHS. They're just not equivalent in any way.
-
No, massey has the right approach . . . the paired SRM2s on a cavalry unit makes sense since it was the only sized launcher that could carry infernos at the time and they were the easiest kill on vehicles- since fire support vehs are a special target for the mech cav, again it makes sense. It also makes sense since Infernoes provided a set amount of heat (60% of what the average mech could cool) rather than spiking it up for a single turn to a higher artificial cap (especially when fiction has them affecting a unit over what would be multiple turns). If I could hit a vehicle with 50% of the 4 Inferno SRMs, that is 6 turns total the vehicle has to survive on a 8+ roll.
Its akin to saying the Dreadnaught as a design sucks because it cannot stand up to a US CVN- both ships were designed under different rules.
-
No, massey has the right approach . . . the paired SRM2s on a cavalry unit makes sense since it was the only sized launcher that could carry infernos at the time and they were the easiest kill on vehicles- since fire support vehs are a special target for the mech cav, again it makes sense. It also makes sense since Infernoes provided a set amount of heat (60% of what the average mech could cool) rather than spiking it up for a single turn to a higher artificial cap (especially when fiction has them affecting a unit over what would be multiple turns). If I could hit a vehicle with 50% of the 4 Inferno SRMs, that is 6 turns total the vehicle has to survive on a 8+ roll.
Its akin to saying the Dreadnaught as a design sucks because it cannot stand up to a US CVN- both ships were designed under different rules.
Your analogy isn't a valid one. There really isn't a real-world scenario which would work, because "rules" don't retroactively change the past like they do in BattleTech. If the SRM-4 and -6 suddenly have infernos available, that means they always had them available, unless there's a hard date before which that never occurred. Unlike the Dreadnought, which was created to stand up to the guns of its day and eventually became obsolete. If aircraft carriers and torpedo-equipped fighters somehow retroactively existed during WWI, you'd have to assume the Dreadnought class would have been created knowing that it would face these anachronisms and been adjusted during the design phase to accommodate. It was obsolete because these things didn't exist at the time and could not counter them once they did.
The SRM-4 and -6 suddenly having inferno rounds available should have been cause for a retcon to fix the design, since the entirely philosophy was different under which it was made. Hence why the MAD-3R sucks as a unit; it USED to have "crit padding" from the heat sinks under Battledroids rules. Now that it doesn't, it's a walking bomb. That design decision 'made sense' under the original rules, but once those crits "disappeared", would SOMEONE not have noticed that they kept blowing up? Well, the MAD-1R fixed this oversight by relocating the ammo to the same torso as the AC/5 in its record sheet. The MAD-3R should have had the same done for it.
-
The SRM-4 and -6 suddenly having inferno rounds available should have been cause for a retcon to fix the design, since the entirely philosophy was different under which it was made. Hence why the MAD-3R sucks as a unit; it USED to have "crit padding" from the heat sinks under Battledroids rules. Now that it doesn't, it's a walking bomb. That design decision 'made sense' under the original rules, but once those crits "disappeared", would SOMEONE not have noticed that they kept blowing up? Well, the MAD-1R fixed this oversight by relocating the ammo to the same torso as the AC/5 in its record sheet. The MAD-3R should have had the same done for it.
They're just not gonna do that. There's no reason to, and you are the only person I've ever heard suggest that they ought to.
This thread alone probably puts 10 times the amount of thought and analysis into uses of individual mechs than the original game designers did. Really we are just playing around, coming up with justifications for the eccentricities of a 30+ year old board game that we happen to enjoy. I figure if we can come up with a half-assed reason why something might be a good idea, that's reason enough. But it's not as much fun to just say that. That's why we're pounding away, making square pegs fit into round holes.
-
If you're firing that many SRMs at my Dervish I'm still ahead in that exchange. It's a 1 in 12 chance of explosion and it'll bounce right back out on jump jets.
-
If you're firing that many SRMs at my Dervish I'm still ahead in that exchange. It's a 1 in 12 chance of explosion and it'll bounce right back out on jump jets.
And if you'd hit the Dervish with standard SRMs you'd have had a chance to force a PSR and possibly breach the armor somewhere.
-
Yeah, the Dervish is lightly armored enough that it's kind of a waste to shoot infernos at it.
-
They're just not gonna do that. There's no reason to, and you are the only person I've ever heard suggest that they ought to.
That topic (re.: revising 3025 units) has been up on the board before and discussed by many people. Do a search. :)
-
Saying it could be re-done better is one thing, but saying it absolutely should have been redone b/c a rule change invalidates a 'advantage' in how its designed under old rules.
-
Also, historically the developers have avoided retconing specific designs unless absolutely necessary (such as the design being suddenly illegal). So it's not going to happen anyway.
-
I can just see that logic... "The Dracs are rolling over our defenses, we´re desperately short on machines... oh, I know the solution: Let´s make our existing machines more vulnerable!"
Except that wasn't the situation when the -2D was developed. It was given out when the AFFS was on a "kill them all" rampage as a result of Kentares. "More guns means I kill them faster".
After that, during the 2nd SW and more importantly, the -2D2...yeah, I got nothing.
-
The 2D2 actually makes a little sense if you think of it as trying to fix something you've become emotionally invested in. It's a significantly more polished design that cuts out the extra fat (superfluous heat sinks and ammo) and manages almost passable armor protection, while indulging in the new toy syndrome of the era. It's just how they got to that point that baffles me. :D
-
If you think of it as a bug mech on 'roids it's actually pretty good.
-
Are you familiar with the phrase "damning by faint praise?"
-
Except that wasn't the situation when the -2D was developed. It was given out when the AFFS was on a "kill them all" rampage as a result of Kentares. "More guns means I kill them faster".
After that, during the 2nd SW and more importantly, the -2D2...yeah, I got nothing.
Well, if you really want to make the design be what you suggest here, there are a few modifications that would make it into a fair ambush design (as its purpose is suggested to be on Sarna).
>:D
Ruger
-
The Celerity and any other 'Mech built for speed. The standard Celerity is only 2 or 3 hexes faster then a stock 3025 Savannah Master, and things only get worse from there, accumulating in a VTOL with a movement profile of 30/45 (60)
-
The Celerity and any other 'Mech built for speed. The standard Celerity is only 2 or 3 hexes faster then a stock 3025 Savannah Master, and things only get worse from there, accumulating in a VTOL with a movement profile of 30/45 (60)
That's comparing apples to oranges. The Celerity doesn't have significant terrain restrictions, can take advantage of partial cover, go hull down to get additional TMM, laterally shift, and carry a unit of battle armor with no mass dedicated to cargo like the others. The VTOL in your example does not exist in canon which makes the example moot.
-
That's comparing apples to oranges. The Celerity doesn't have significant terrain restrictions, can take advantage of partial cover, go hull down to get additional TMM, laterally shift, and carry a unit of battle armor with no mass dedicated to cargo like the others. The VTOL in your example does not exist in canon which makes the example moot.
It is a perfectly fair comparison. Those other things you listed are just mitigating factors as to why you're basically spending more BV for less actual speed, which is a fair question to ask when you're devoting so much of the build towards going as fast as possible. However with that said, I think the Celerity makes more than enough sense though, especially since it is packing C3. I might not agree with the design decisions but I can see the reasoning why someone might make those decisions the way they did.
-
Although an OmniMech (why did auto correct try to use OmniGraffle?!?), it's a drone. Can a drone carry BA using mechanized BA rules?
-
Although an OmniMech (why did auto correct try to use OmniGraffle?!?), it's a drone. Can a drone carry BA using mechanized BA rules?
Can't imagine why not, it's the contact points built into an omnimech rather than the piloting that allow it so it might be a bit of a rumble but it ought to work.
-Sent from my Omnigraffle
-
Why did it autocorrect it indeed
OmniGiraffes are clearly divinely inspired and have no place in this thread
-
It's clearly a Quad Superheavy suffering with the Exposed Head and Hyper Accuators (Head) quirks :)
-
Well OmniGraffle is' diagramming software on Mac's, so that's why auto-correct might suggest it. Given that it's business software but I'm guessing you where posting from a Mac or iPhone then as I can't imagine it's well know outside of that sphere.
-
Samsung, actually. Sorry for the derail.
-
Sorry, did someone say Omnigiraffe?
https://i.imgur.com/2RfxAzI.jpg
-
Sorry, did someone say Omnigiraffe?
https://i.imgur.com/2RfxAzI.jpg
They did say that, but what do OmniGiraffes have to do with the subject, even if they were Omnivores, which they are not? Do Omnivores eat OmniMechs?
-
They did say that, but what do OmniGiraffes have to do with the subject, even if they were Omnivores, which they are not? Do Omnivores eat OmniMechs?
Of course. You just have to prepare them properly with the right seasonings.
-
They did say that, but what do OmniGiraffes have to do with the subject, even if they were Omnivores, which they are not? Do Omnivores eat OmniMechs?
Nope, just giraffes that can be reconfigured to eat from either tall, or short trees.
But it's possible that I just made an omnigaffe.
-
You know, now I'm imagining giraffes with SRM pods attached to their necks, like the old Dino Rider toys from the 80s.
-
So, back to 'Mech designs that make no sense. If it hasn't been said before, the Charger, or at least the decision to produce (The idea itself isn't bad, so I can see why it got to the design stage, but it should never have reached full production).
-
So, back to 'Mech designs that make no sense. If it hasn't been said before, the Charger, or at least the decision to produce (The idea itself isn't bad, so I can see why it got to the design stage, but it should never have reached full production).
You should bring up the Shadowhawk 2D, too.
-
You should bring up the Shadowhawk 2D, too.
It´s been a while since we talked about that.
Way too long, actually.
-
Let's talk about the Snake 1V (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Snake)
45t, 5/8/5, 7t armor, XL engine, LB10x w/2t ammo, 3x SSRM2.
Purportedly an elemental hunter, or an IS BA hunter... it really is not great for its intended role. The LB10x is a solid weapon no matter what, but that triple SSRM2 is poor. And then... double-heat sinks, for something that jumping and alpha striking makes... 13 heat.
As a vehicle hunter it might be decent, but it is fairly weakly armored, and again, it is wasting a bunch of tonnage on 3 SSRM2s, which isn't great when trying to counter battle armor or elementals. You could mount a pair of SRM4s and increase the armor by 0.5t, which would let you mount infernos
LB10X platforms in light mediums are tough, but this one just isn't as fast as others, the secondary weaponry is lackluster, and its "role" is one it is not good at.
Compare against the other "elemental hunter" battlemech, the Komodo. Also 45t, also 5/8/5, also XL engine. But the Komodo mounts 10 medium lasers, TAG, ECM, 2xAMS (and 2t ammo), and 7.t armor. So it outputs way more damage, it can spot for many things with the TAG, it can shut down hostile electronics, it can swat down elemental SRMs, and has more armor. The snake just pales in comparison.
-
that is a bad mech more than one that makes no sense then, right?
-
It's a fairly good anti-suit warload if you're fighting as part of a team. Put an LB and SRM volley into a Point, and suddenly they're at far greater risk than they used to be, because now secondary shots from your buddies using PPCs, large lasers, even MPLs(if you're lucky) are now probably going to completely kill suits, so they're now one or two salvos away from being effectively neutralized as a fighting unit.
The main strength of battlesuits(Elementals in particular) is that the amount of firepower needed to deal with them is just a bit more than most players are willing to devote, given their actual threat level. A Snake takes that away.
-
Actually . . . it can kill 1 Elemental a turn out of the point IF the LBX slug hits & you get a missile hit on the same suit- 12 points will kill a Elemental, 10 & the SSRM scatter will cripple a IS BA squad. But yeah, I used it as a veh hunter . . . and the ability to sit in a burning fire hex places it with the Gargoyle Prime as a mech whose doctrine IS to sit in the fire.
-
Always thought about the Snake - that it is a Wolftrap with SRMs.... although speaking of the Wolftrap that guy is also not very capable in dealing with Wolfhounds - and speaking of Wolfhounds those are not so solid in their performance when dealing with Panthers.
But I have another - were the lore does not meet the performance. Clearly and obviously the Shrike - in every version. look at the description, based on an Onager and outclassing that Mech in all fields of combat? Wut?
The Onager is a brutal close range Mech and has the durability to use it in most cases, the HAG 30 is also a deadly weapon at range and clearly, a fair match for 2 ER Large Laser and 2 UAC5s or 2 UAC10s - and hands-down the Shrike 3 is even more absurd and prone to overheating.
I think the worst problem of the Shrike (heat) can be overcome by dropping those LRMs - and why to drop a solid HAG30 for two UAC5s is beyond me
-
Let's talk about the Snake 1V (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Snake)
45t, 5/8/5, 7t armor, XL engine, LB10x w/2t ammo, 3x SSRM2.
Purportedly an elemental hunter, or an IS BA hunter... it really is not great for its intended role. The LB10x is a solid weapon no matter what, but that triple SSRM2 is poor. And then... double-heat sinks, for something that jumping and alpha striking makes... 13 heat.
As a vehicle hunter it might be decent, but it is fairly weakly armored, and again, it is wasting a bunch of tonnage on 3 SSRM2s, which isn't great when trying to counter battle armor or elementals. You could mount a pair of SRM4s and increase the armor by 0.5t, which would let you mount infernos
LB10X platforms in light mediums are tough, but this one just isn't as fast as others, the secondary weaponry is lackluster, and its "role" is one it is not good at.
Compare against the other "elemental hunter" battlemech, the Komodo. Also 45t, also 5/8/5, also XL engine. But the Komodo mounts 10 medium lasers, TAG, ECM, 2xAMS (and 2t ammo), and 7.t armor. So it outputs way more damage, it can spot for many things with the TAG, it can shut down hostile electronics, it can swat down elemental SRMs, and has more armor. The snake just pales in comparison.
At the time, the triple Streak SRM-2 could mount infernos. SRM-2s were the only size launcher that could mount infernos. And infernos then were lethal as all hell.
The LB-10X makes sense for fighting Elementals. You had enemies that took 11 points of damage to kill. You'd probably start out with a burst of cluster ammo, slapping a bunch of 1 point hits around the Elemental squad. Then you would switch over to 10 point slugs and kill one each round. Makes sense to me. And the Snake is fast enough that it can stay out of range of the Elementals. They can't even get in range of their SRMs if the Snake doesn't want them to (unlike the Komodo, which has the same range profile).
-
Actually . . . it can kill 1 Elemental a turn out of the point IF the LBX slug hits & you get a missile hit on the same suit- 12 points will kill a Elemental, 10 & the SSRM scatter will cripple a IS BA squad. But yeah, I used it as a veh hunter . . . and the ability to sit in a burning fire hex places it with the Gargoyle Prime as a mech whose doctrine IS to sit in the fire.
Now that you mention the Gargoyle Prime... similar firepower (at slightly shorter range with LB-X/10 versus LB-X/5), similar heat profile, more mobile with the jump jets, but considerably less armor, and all that at a FAR lower price.
The Snake is the Inner Sphere´s budget version of the Gargoyle Prime, and its only sin is that the mission it is build for is so narrow/niche.
-
Actually . . . it can kill 1 Elemental a turn out of the point IF the LBX slug hits & you get a missile hit on the same suit- 12 points will kill a Elemental, 10 & the SSRM scatter will cripple a IS BA squad. But yeah, I used it as a veh hunter . . . and the ability to sit in a burning fire hex places it with the Gargoyle Prime as a mech whose doctrine IS to sit in the fire.
The idea is to use the cluster rounds. One shot, and instead of hoping to kill one suit at most, most/all of them are now in great danger.
-
Always thought about the Snake - that it is a Wolftrap with SRMs.... although speaking of the Wolftrap that guy is also not very capable in dealing with Wolfhounds - and speaking of Wolfhounds those are not so solid in their performance when dealing with Panthers.
But I have another - were the lore does not meet the performance. Clearly and obviously the Shrike - in every version. look at the description, based on an Onager and outclassing that Mech in all fields of combat? Wut?
The Onager is a brutal close range Mech and has the durability to use it in most cases, the HAG 30 is also a deadly weapon at range and clearly, a fair match for 2 ER Large Laser and 2 UAC5s or 2 UAC10s - and hands-down the Shrike 3 is even more absurd and prone to overheating.
I think the worst problem of the Shrike (heat) can be overcome by dropping those LRMs - and why to drop a solid HAG30 for two UAC5s is beyond me
A 3/5/5 mech designed to fight under 12 hexes (really 6) vs a mech that can consistently reach out to 25 hexes for a pair of 10 point hits and is 4/6/4(whatever partial gets) and can walk staying neutral? or kick in cooler weapons and leap about . . . with a TC? Yeah, the Shrike is better, sorry. The Onager 2 you might have a case for, but it came out 20+ years later than the Shrike.
-
Always thought about the Snake - that it is a Wolftrap with SRMs.... although speaking of the Wolftrap that guy is also not very capable in dealing with Wolfhounds - and speaking of Wolfhounds those are not so solid in their performance when dealing with Panthers.
Lolwat?
-
At the time, the triple Streak SRM-2 could mount infernos. SRM-2s were the only size launcher that could mount infernos. And infernos then were lethal as all hell.
The LB-10X makes sense for fighting Elementals. You had enemies that took 11 points of damage to kill. You'd probably start out with a burst of cluster ammo, slapping a bunch of 1 point hits around the Elemental squad. Then you would switch over to 10 point slugs and kill one each round. Makes sense to me. And the Snake is fast enough that it can stay out of range of the Elementals. They can't even get in range of their SRMs if the Snake doesn't want them to (unlike the Komodo, which has the same range profile).
SRM-2 was the only one that could mount inferno. Streaks never could AFAIR.
-
SRM 2s and SSRM 2s could both use Infernos prior to Total Warfare.
-
SRM 2s and SSRM 2s could both use Infernos prior to Total Warfare.
The decision to disallow inferno from Streak launchers was a big mistake, IMO. The way it's done for the iATM system is perfect: Streak capability for explosive rounds, but you roll on a normal cluster table for the IIW missiles.
It was tinkering with something that wasn't broken.
-
SRM-2 was the only one that could mount inferno. Streaks never could AFAIR.
Streaks could when they first came out. I checked the book before I posted to make sure. :)
-
There was an optional rule in maximum tech that gave every hit against a battle armor squad a small chance of outright eliminating a suit. I often wonder if it was specifically written for mechs like the Snake.
As for the Snake itself, it still makes sense to have been built, even given its ineffectiveness in its role. The Capellans only had second hand accounts to base their battle armor hunter on, and its easy to imagine underestimating just how hard it would be to kill an elemental.
And even given its limitations, the mech's still a pretty serviceable machine, especially fighting a combined arms opponent. Cluster rounds and lots of SRMs are going to make vehicles cry.
The decision to disallow inferno from Streak launchers was a big mistake, IMO. The way it's done for the iATM system is perfect: Streak capability for explosive rounds, but you roll on a normal cluster table for the IIW missiles.
It was tinkering with something that wasn't broken.
Personally I'm entirely in favor of launching standard SRMs out of a streak launcher (including specialty warheads) without getting the streak bonus. The extra mass you pay for the ability you're not using is penalty enough.
-
Lolwat?
I'm with MoneyLovinOgre.
The idea is to use the cluster rounds. One shot, and instead of hoping to kill one suit at most, most/all of them are now in great danger.
It's amazing the way I have been playing this game and reading these rules for 20+ years and I there are so many things that I didn't know that I already knew.
-
Let's talk about the Snake 1V (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Snake)
45t, 5/8/5, 7t armor, XL engine, LB10x w/2t ammo, 3x SSRM2.
Purportedly an elemental hunter, or an IS BA hunter... it really is not great for its intended role. The LB10x is a solid weapon no matter what, but that triple SSRM2 is poor. And then... double-heat sinks, for something that jumping and alpha striking makes... 13 heat.
As a vehicle hunter it might be decent, but it is fairly weakly armored, and again, it is wasting a bunch of tonnage on 3 SSRM2s, which isn't great when trying to counter battle armor or elementals. You could mount a pair of SRM4s and increase the armor by 0.5t, which would let you mount infernos
LB10X platforms in light mediums are tough, but this one just isn't as fast as others, the secondary weaponry is lackluster, and its "role" is one it is not good at.
Compare against the other "elemental hunter" battlemech, the Komodo. Also 45t, also 5/8/5, also XL engine. But the Komodo mounts 10 medium lasers, TAG, ECM, 2xAMS (and 2t ammo), and 7.t armor. So it outputs way more damage, it can spot for many things with the TAG, it can shut down hostile electronics, it can swat down elemental SRMs, and has more armor. The snake just pales in comparison.
Completely disagree. The all-cluster loadout is a nightmare for vehicles and infantry. The LBX is perfect for scoring BA crits without letting them into their effective range and I'd much rather have 3 Streak-2s for the purpose than one Streak-6. Plus, back in the old days, you could put infernos in that SSRM2 bin and the Snake is as heat-neutral as it gets.
-
you also have to wonder whether the CapCon actually was concerned with hunting Clan Elementals.. or if they were focused more on hunting the IS Standard, Sloth, and Infiltrator Mk.I suits the Fedcom had developed. which were much more fragile and also far more likely to be encountered by the CCAF.
-
Possibly both. At the time the Snake project likely started, there was no indication the Clans could be stopped before they reached Capellan space. And it doesn't hurt that the same stuff that hurts Elementals usually hurts IS suits as well, usually more so.
-
Also here to reiterate that "decisions that make no sense" are not synonymous with "I would have done it differently".
Decision that makes no sense: using Compact Heat Sinks for any reason; putting Composite Structure on a 'Mech with more than 14 free crits; mixing ATMs and iATMs on the same 'Mech.
Decision I would have done differently: 3x Streak-2s instead of a single Streak-6 on the Snake (now that Inferno rules are different, naturally).
-
iATMs and ATMs on same mech is a novel idea...
Allows me to use the alternative ammos effectively...
Also should cause people to take a look at what I did there moment!
Able to fire three types, the Improved also allows me Inferno, short range only, and Magnetic Pulse ( for every 3 missiles hit up to +2 < 6 missiles > to target-to hit, walking / running up to -2 MP < 6 missiles, -1 for 3 >, every missile over 3 = + 1 heat )
And then I fire ATMs on top of this... for more crunch factor!
TT
-
Also here to reiterate that "decisions that make no sense" are not synonymous with "I would have done it differently".
Decision that makes no sense: using Compact Heat Sinks for any reason; putting Composite Structure on a 'Mech with more than 14 free crits; mixing ATMs and iATMs on the same 'Mech.
Decision I would have done differently: 3x Streak-2s instead of a single Streak-6 on the Snake (now that Inferno rules are different, naturally).
Ok, I would have said the jackal, ER PPC with 11 standard heat sinks. Ouch. The panther 10k is almost as bad, but at least it has 13 singles. It was so bad that not only is the 10k2 there downgrading the ppc, but the fluff for the no-dachi and akuma mentions a stockpile of er ppcs sitting around from being pulled out of panthers.
-
Decision I would have done differently: 3x Streak-2s instead of a single Streak-6 on the Snake (now that Inferno rules are different, naturally).
You couldn't have done that. Inner sphere streaks were -2 only until, iirc, Field Manual: Draconis Combine, in 1996. TRO:3055 came out four years earlier.
Same reason there are no IS ER medium in TROs 3050, 3055, and 3058.
-
isn't there a Goshawk that has some SRM launchers and just the single ATM-3 that needs to pack more ammo? i never figured out what possible advantage you could get out of that. it's not like clans are hurting for extremely token ranged fire or something.
-
Decision I would have done differently: 3x Streak-2s instead of a single Streak-6 on the Snake (now that Inferno rules are different, naturally).
3 Streak-2's are better than 1 Streak-6 in nearly every way. More chances to achieve a lock, more ammo per ton, more tolerant of critical hits. If you have good TNs you'll most likely do the same damage. If you have bad TNs, you're more likely to do *some* damage. At the cost of 1 slot and (maybe) 2 heat. Oh and it even costs less.
The three 2's even perform better against AMS as long as the target isn't a Kit Fox C.
-
isn't there a Goshawk that has some SRM launchers and just the single ATM-3 that needs to pack more ammo? i never figured out what possible advantage you could get out of that. it's not like clans are hurting for extremely token ranged fire or something.
Goshawk 3 - ATM-3, x2 SRM-2, x3 HML, ERPPC. the ATM gets one ton of ammo
-
I'd run the ATM-3 with ER ammo so that my Vapor Eagle 3 can squash opponents at range, keeping you at 6 hexes or more away from me...
Allows me 3 HML and twin SRM-2 with a nice ATM3 care package to boot. Not to mention that lovely ER PPC stamp to insure proper postage! Of course it might be a bit toasty afterwards...
TT
-
Why not just go with HE? You've already got to close in to use the HMLs and SRMs, why not go for maximum hurt? An ATM 3 is not an impressive long-range weapon.
-
Ah... your wrong, in-direct and a Peeper to slam home.
I'd rather soften you up then knife fight at range... take care of my range. I've got the speed... I can dictate your response...
TT
-
ATMs can't be fired indirect, and a single ATM-3's 1-3 points of damage doesn't really complement the ER PPC enough to be worth it IMO.
-
One 2-3 point damage cluster, and not enough ammo to make it stick. You can expend the whole bin and maybe get one head roll. Since you have the PPC there is no point whatsoever to ER ATMs.
HE ammo is the way to go, for a potential 9 damage across two clusters. 2.5 tons and 3 heat for 9 damage, that's one of the best tonnage investments in the game. Open some big holes with the PPC, then close and finish them off with the secondaries.
-
Decision I would have done differently: 3x Streak-2s instead of a single Streak-6 on the Snake (now that Inferno rules are different, naturally).
Well apart from the fact that at the time the design was put into production the IS couldn't manufacture Streak launcher's in racks greater then 2, and wouldn't be able to until 5 years later.
-
iATMs and ATMs on same mech is a novel idea...
Allows me to use the alternative ammos effectively...
Also should cause people to take a look at what I did there moment!
Able to fire three types, the Improved also allows me Inferno, short range only, and Magnetic Pulse ( for every 3 missiles hit up to +2 < 6 missiles > to target-to hit, walking / running up to -2 MP < 6 missiles, -1 for 3 >, every missile over 3 = + 1 heat )
And then I fire ATMs on top of this... for more crunch factor!
TT
I'm not tracking the benefit here... iATMs are the same weight, same size as regular ATMS. iATM ammo, be it ER, HE or regular, does everything that ATM ammo does, and more.
It seems like you're arguing there is a good reason to have an ATM 6 and an iATM 6 on the same mech.
-
Maybe you pissed off the purchasing office or they got swindled?
I'm not tracking the benefit here... iATMs are the same weight, same size as regular ATMS. iATM ammo, be it ER, HE or regular, does everything that ATM ammo does, and more.
It seems like you're arguing there is a good reason to have an ATM 6 and an iATM 6 on the same mech.
-
The only reasons to EVER take ATMs over iATMs are:
1. Staying within canon, since iATMs don't exist outside of the Wars of Reaving timeline and post-Reaving Homeworlds
2. Keeping BV low, since iATMs are a bit more pricey
3. You've too much ammunition and need every shot to waste part of the bin, lest you risk an explosion later
Otherwise, iATMs are superior in every way.
-
4. The unit quartermaster has a LOT of ATM pods and the Star Colonel says your machine does not qualify for the limited iATM pods.
5. Your unit only has ATM ammo.
-
6. You are a Clan warrior and do not need superior weaponry to utterly destroy your foe.
-
6. You are a Clan warrior and do not need superior weaponry to utterly destroy your foe.
A Clan warrior wouldn't purposely pick garbage unless it was part of a bid. If a standard ATM was all that's available, they'd take it. But given a Clan PPC versus a vintage Star League model, they'd choose the Clan version every time, unless trying to prove some kind of point regarding skill.
-
Well apart from the fact that at the time the design was put into production the IS couldn't manufacture Streak launcher's in racks greater then 2, and wouldn't be able to until 5 years later.
Anyone who responded to my post to make this correction appears to have missed the forest for trees. The entire point I was making is that the difference between one weapon system and another that does the same thing is academic, not a design flaw.
-
Eh . . . the Arcas taught me to love trio SSRM4s over SSRM6s . . . and the cheapskate in me appreciates the extra 10 missiles a ton for any SRM ammo that is not feeding a 6.
-
A Clan warrior wouldn't purposely pick garbage unless it was part of a bid. If a standard ATM was all that's available, they'd take it. But given a Clan PPC versus a vintage Star League model, they'd choose the Clan version every time, unless trying to prove some kind of point regarding skill.
"Trying to prove some kind of point regarding skill" is pretty much the point of the bidding system. If I can defeat you, who uses iATM, with standard ATM, I prove that I am much better at this than you are.
-
Yeah, except that the Clans have always been about trying to use the most advanced weapons tech they could, not the least. Otherwise they'd have invaded the Inner Sphere with Primitive mechs.
-
Otherwise they'd have invaded the Inner Sphere with Primitive mechs.
That Mackie better have a HAG and ER Pulse weapons on it!!!
TT
-
Dunno . . . I RP'd a Wolf warrior using a standard battlemech, and in one case lighter, to defeat several Falcons, to be insulting to them when calling a Trial of Grievance. I want to say there have been a few Trials where that was done.
-
In TRO 3055 Upgrade, the Notable Pilot for the Hercules was a Clan warrior who deliberately used an inferior machine to demonstrate her skill.
-
Like beating somebody in Street Fighter using Dan.
-
Yeah, except that the Clans have always been about trying to use the most advanced weapons tech they could, not the least. Otherwise they'd have invaded the Inner Sphere with Primitive mechs.
They use high tech in order to do more with less. Every Clan could have a hundred galaxies of standard-everything 5/8 medium 'Mechs with a couple ERML but it wouldn't maximize the chance for glory of individual warriors.
-
Ignoring the debate over ATMs vs items, the Snake's new descriptive text and updated variants with stealth/and or Plasma Rifles explain that the actual target of the Snake was IS battle armor, which make sense. Inner Sphere Standard only has 10 pts counting the trooper, and using scatter shot backed by the 3 Streak 2s means you have at a good chance of hitting multiple targets. The Snake also has 5/8/5 movement, so it can buzz around outside the range of most battle armor as well. It's also a good anti-vehicle unit, is pretty low cost, and is a good export for the CC's allies. It works pretty well for the Magistracy of Canopus when teamed up with Calliopes.
-
3. You've too much ammunition and need every shot to waste part of the bin, lest you risk an explosion later
If you're using ATM as primary weapons, you NEED that ammo. Standard ATM are expensive enough in BPV and inefficient enough in damage/ton-of-ammo (Outside of HE range) that even the Turkina D is sucking for enough ammo to kill its BPV in other units.
In my experience, of course, with the assumption that you're fighting decently armoured units; killing equal BPV(2) in Hellbringer isn't hard at all.
-
Ignoring the debate over ATMs vs items, the Snake's new descriptive text and updated variants with stealth/and or Plasma Rifles explain that the actual target of the Snake was IS battle armor, which make sense. Inner Sphere Standard only has 10 pts counting the trooper, and using scatter shot backed by the 3 Streak 2s means you have at a good chance of hitting multiple targets. The Snake also has 5/8/5 movement, so it can buzz around outside the range of most battle armor as well. It's also a good anti-vehicle unit, is pretty low cost, and is a good export for the CC's allies. It works pretty well for the Magistracy of Canopus when teamed up with Calliopes.
Um . . . you know the Plasma Rifle does MORE damage than those 10 points to BA?
Greatclub, are you talking about BV for TW fights or PV for AS fights?
-
Total Warfare. I've played little AS.
-
Um . . . you know the Plasma Rifle does MORE damage than those 10 points to BA?
Greatclub, are you talking about BV for TW fights or PV for AS fights?
Also if your fighting IS BA LB-X 10 in cluster mode is pointless as slug WILL eliminate a trooper.
Having gone through XTRO:SW earlier today I've got some good contenders:
FLE-14 if there has ever been a better case of pull the engine to power a vehicle I have yet to find it.
Anything mounting a collapsible command module, I'm still going to need an APC to move my staff around.
Kestrel Scout VOTL, you're not mounting a SFE why, exactly?
The Şoarece, ER Large Laser where still being manufactured at this time, why not use one of those?
-
I'm aware the Plasma Rifle does more damage to infantry. However, the base Snake design didn't have access to Plasma Rifles until they were invented. The stock Snake still does well vs battle armor that doesn't have reactive armor, and you can use it vs other units as well, especially when teamed up with Mechs that make up for its shortcomings, just like most designs.
If you want questionable designs, the 4/6 bass Cyclops under Total War without the benefit of a Command Console is a head scratcher, since it becomes an average version of the Victor with an LRM 10. Also why we don't have modern updates for the remaing primitive designs under manufacture in the Dark Ages such as the Mackie or the Ymir, or upgrades on 3025 designs like the Mk1 Devastator for the Taurians is another area that should be explored.
-
Also if your fighting IS BA LB-X 10 in cluster mode is pointless as slug WILL eliminate a trooper.
The -1 bonus from the cluster rounds is useful for countering the additional +1 to-hit penalty. And the dispersion can eliminate several damaged troopers rather than just one. That applies to all suits, not just those with 9 or less points of armor.
-
If you want questionable designs, the 4/6 bass Cyclops under Total War without the benefit of a Command Console is a head scratcher, since it becomes an average version of the Victor with an LRM 10.
in 3025, a 4/6 AC/20 tooling around it its own benefit! it also makes for a potent bodyguard in a fire support lance while still having token conributions when nothing tries to stop said supporting fire, which the victor doesn't do.
-
in 3025, a 4/6 AC/20 tooling around it its own benefit! it also makes for a potent bodyguard in a fire support lance while still having token conributions when nothing tries to stop said supporting fire, which the victor doesn't do.
The design itself makes little sense for its role. It's a command 'Mech, but it spends 6 tons on fire support? Why? Its armor is so paper thin that even a half-hearted assault can put it in serious danger. Nothing about the Cyclops says "command" to me, anymore than a Hunchback does. They serve the exact, same combat role.
-
The design itself makes little sense for its role. It's a command 'Mech, but it spends 6 tons on fire support? Why? Its armor is so paper thin that even a half-hearted assault can put it in serious danger. Nothing about the Cyclops says "command" to me, anymore than a Hunchback does. They serve the exact, same combat role.
A commander shouldn´t get into the thick of battle... but with an AC/20, SRM-4 and two med lasers, you´d have to, in order to get into range of your weapons. So the LRM-10 is there to give the commander some way to "contribute" without getting into the thick of battle, and the thin armor is there to remind him that getting shot at - such as by getting into the think of battle - is a bad idea.
It´s a way to keep the commander safe. A stupid way to do so, but a way.
Myself, I´d rather have a 3025 Awesome or Stalker as a command mech than a 3025 Cyclops.
Heck, even the -3E Banshee makes more sense as a command mech - tough enough to not be easily taken out, not well-armed enough to be a threat worth concentrating on, fast for its size, and what weapons it has are almost all long-ranged enough that the commander can keep a distance from the enemy and still kinda contribute to the battle.
-
Never want a commander in the Awesome or Stalker . . . the Cyc's AC/20, MLs and SRM4 are to shout 'Go AWAY' to anything head hunting.
The Awesome makes a really bad command mech b/c it should be the point of your spear grinding forward into the other guy's guts- it takes a LOT of killing. Stalker? Long range fire support advancing at a walk behind the troopers, it should be focused on giving LRMs and LLs out to cover the front line.
Now the Charger . . . with its armor, speed and weapons might be best as a command mech, it can get away from most things that can threaten to punch out its armor.
-
Now the Charger . . . with its armor, speed and weapons might be best as a command mech, it can get away from most things that can threaten to punch out its armor.
That's an interesting idea.
Is there an upgraded Charger with a C3M?
-
I was meaning the 3025, but yeah using one later would work too . . . for the 3K pull the ArtIV and maybe a MPL or two and you should be able to squeeze it in.
-
I was meaning the 3025, but yeah using one later would work too . . . for the 3K pull the ArtIV and maybe a MPL or two and you should be able to squeeze it in.
It has 4 MPL, right? Switch those over to regular ML and pull the ArtIV, and you have your five tons.
-
A commander with LOS to the enemy is jeopardizing the mission. You keep the Cyclops behind cover, and he does his job by providing command bonuses. The LRM rack lets him contribute with firepower, for the players too undisciplined to keep their commander away from the damned trigger. The rest of the guns are there because plans go to hell and headhunters happen, and this way you can make such attackers Go Away almost immediately.
-
A commander with LOS to the enemy is jeopardizing the mission. You keep the Cyclops behind cover, and he does his job by providing command bonuses. The LRM rack lets him contribute with firepower, for the players too undisciplined to keep their commander away from the damned trigger. The rest of the guns are there because plans go to hell and headhunters happen, and this way you can make such attackers Go Away almost immediately.
More or less this. I'd say that the bigger crime is including the SRM-4 and not giving it more armor, considering the AC20 is already enough of a 'go away from me' button.
-
A commander with LOS to the enemy is jeopardizing the mission. You keep the Cyclops behind cover, and he does his job by providing command bonuses. The LRM rack lets him contribute with firepower, for the players too undisciplined to keep their commander away from the damned trigger. The rest of the guns are there because plans go to hell and headhunters happen, and this way you can make such attackers Go Away almost immediately.
You could say the same for any poorly-armored unit with an LRM. Heck, the Dervish could be explained away as a good command unit, since its 150m jump capability will keep it from headhunters and allow it a view of the field of battle, as well as IDF to stay out of LOS.
There's just no good reason the Cyclops would be considered a command unit. Not like the Atlas or Osteon.
-
There's just no good reason the Cyclops would be considered a command unit. Not like the Atlas or Osteon.
You are looking at too narrow of an area. The Cyclops is considered viable as a Command Unit because it has a Tacticon B2000, not necessarily the payload. The payload just lends itself well to that role. Most backstabbers are not strong enough to tank an AC20 to any location, not to mention whatever the bodyguard for such a valuable mech may be.
The loadout isn't 'optimized' and the mech has poor armor, but 4/6 is at least enough in the era to get out of the way of the enemy's stronger components, and the payload eliminates pretty much anything that is moving 6/9 or higher in the SW era. And it's doubtful that the Command Mech is completely undefended by hardier elements.
-
You could say the same for any poorly-armored unit with an LRM. Heck, the Dervish could be explained away as a good command unit, since its 150m jump capability will keep it from headhunters and allow it a view of the field of battle, as well as IDF to stay out of LOS.
There's just no good reason the Cyclops would be considered a command unit. Not like the Atlas or Osteon.
Improved Communications quirk, existence of a CC version prior to 3025. You yourself were the one earlier in this thread that said the circumstances of a unit's design at the time of its publication are irrelevant in the face of the current state of the game, no?
Fluffwise, the Cyclops was William Cameron's 'Mech when he was coordinating as XO the entire Wolf's Dragoons communications, and is specifically called out as unique in its capability to function in that role in the late Succession Wars.
-
There's just no good reason the Cyclops would be considered a command unit. Not like the Atlas or Osteon.
WTF? Why would you ever make the Osteon a command unit? It really is the OP zombie people claim the Celestials are/could be . . . Ferro-Lam armored, reinforced interior, CASE II, Nova CEWS, and rather optimized weapons load-outs. The thing is linked to a Ceph A you can get it and a Osteon D in under 5k and will just murder as it walks forward with a 4-4-3 firing pattern. Its the Omni equivalent of the Hellstar.
Atlas, depends on the variant but they are designed for the assault to grind forward- just not as survivable as the Osteon. Really your commander should be sitting back in a command van or better in the DS up in orbit.
Both are too slow to escape any headhunting effort or to shift to face changes on the battlefield. Sticking anything besides the lance or company commander in a Atlas is just a bad bad idea.
-
More or less this. I'd say that the bigger crime is including the SRM-4 and not giving it more armor, considering the AC20 is already enough of a 'go away from me' button.
The SRM 4 is to differentiate it from the Hunchback, I think. Like every other 3025 mech with an AC 20 that isn't a Hunchback.
-
The Victor's got it, but the Urbanmech variant doesn't, nor did Yen Lo Wang, I think...
-
The SRM 4 is to differentiate it from the Hunchback, I think. Like every other 3025 mech with an AC 20 that isn't a Hunchback.
I would prefer the SRM over the MLs, its to poke at the hole the AC/20 opened up- if anything is left.
-
WTF? Why would you ever make the Osteon a command unit?
Why would you make the most-survivable 'Mech a command unit? Is that really a question? lol General Kerensky went into combat with a well-armored Orion; Aaron DeChevalier was in an Atlas; Natasha Kerensky died in a Dire Wolf.
You will seldom see a field commander rolling around in an unarmored vehicle in BattleTech. Commanders tend to fight from the front in this universe.
Really your commander should be sitting back in a command van or better in the DS up in orbit.
Yes, he/she should. But that still makes my point as to the worthlessness of the Cyclops as a command unit. If they're off the field entirely, you could put them in a burlap sack with a headset; something else will be protecting them instead of the CO being in a 'Mech.
-
Why would you make the most-survivable 'Mech a command unit? Is that really a question? lol General Kerensky went into combat with a well-armored Orion; Aaron DeChevalier was in an Atlas; Natasha Kerensky died in a Dire Wolf.
Yes, it is a question, strictly because putting it inside of an Osteon-durable and tanky as it may be-is a bad idea. Too slow to run from a threat, no explicit benefits for command units, a torso-mounted cockpit making the chances of falling over and taking injury even higher, uncomfortable to be in for long periods, hard to eject from.
The Osteon's something you put out to defend your Command Lance, not something you use a Commander's ride. Whatever the Commander's in has to be fast enough to get away, durable enough to survive at least one ambush, and most importantly, good enough at communication and comfort to get a battlefield image without being fatigued. That's why historically, in Battletech, Command vehicles tend to have spacious cockpits and extra seats; Your Battlemasters, Atlas D-DCs, Cyclopsi, Zeuses, et cetera. The Commander needs enough room and ability to do his own thing, which is commanding, not tanking hits and not fighting. Your Commander should not be the one doing all the fighting. That's what his bodyguard lancemates/starmates/levelmates/septmates are for.
-
Why would you make the most-survivable 'Mech a command unit? Is that really a question? lol General Kerensky went into combat with a well-armored Orion; Aaron DeChevalier was in an Atlas; Natasha Kerensky died in a Dire Wolf.
Because the Osteons had a limited production and they were better used gutting Clan formations than hanging back. Give it to the trio commander, fine . . . I also said the Atlas is fine for a assault lance or company commander. But battalion or regiment really needs to be out of the line of fire to direct the sub units (not the same as micro-manage) and watch the big picture. While Kerensky may have dropped in a Orion, I do not recall hearing about it being on the frontlines throwing LRMs or AC/10 shots. DeChevalier paid for the stupidity of the commander being in combat, Nat was following Clan custom which is also stupid- commander commands, not fights. Theo Kurita rode the backseat of a Battlemaster as he climbed the rank ladder, which is still not a great idea but better than piloting & commanding. Prudent doctrine would have commanders in a 5/8/5 heavy able to run from anything it cannot outfight, and outfight anything that can catch it- if they were not back at the DS.
As a counter example, one of the most successful commanding fighters is . . . Aletha Kabrinksi, saKhan and later Khan of the Bears who pilots a Fire Moth. She has the speed to get where needed faster than almost any of her peers.
-
You could say the same for any poorly-armored unit with an LRM. Heck, the Dervish could be explained away as a good command unit, since its 150m jump capability will keep it from headhunters and allow it a view of the field of battle, as well as IDF to stay out of LOS.
There's just no good reason the Cyclops would be considered a command unit. Not like the Atlas or Osteon.
you seem to have a wildly different view of what the commander's job is from me, but i feel the commander's job is directing his forces on how to kill the other guys, rather than doing it himself. if anything, he should only be involved when the enemy force is broken and scattered, which is a good time for a Cyclops to step into the fight. your commander needs to survive, and the unit that survives most is the one you don't commit to the battle after all.
-
A commander shouldn´t get into the thick of battle... but with an AC/20, SRM-4 and two med lasers, you´d have to, in order to get into range of your weapons. So the LRM-10 is there to give the commander some way to "contribute" without getting into the thick of battle, and the thin armor is there to remind him that getting shot at - such as by getting into the think of battle - is a bad idea.
It´s a way to keep the commander safe. A stupid way to do so, but a way.
Myself, I´d rather have a 3025 Awesome or Stalker as a command mech than a 3025 Cyclops.
Heck, even the -3E Banshee makes more sense as a command mech - tough enough to not be easily taken out, not well-armed enough to be a threat worth concentrating on, fast for its size, and what weapons it has are almost all long-ranged enough that the commander can keep a distance from the enemy and still kinda contribute to the battle.
In 3025 I like the CP-10-Q drop the AC for a extra LRM and more armor. Also it may just be me, but I do not see the Cyclops so much as a commanders mech, but more a mech for someone on his staff (XO, S-3, or someone).
-
You could say the same for any poorly-armored unit with an LRM. Heck, the Dervish could be explained away as a good command unit, since its 150m jump capability will keep it from headhunters and allow it a view of the field of battle, as well as IDF to stay out of LOS.
You're right, the Dervish would indeed make a good command ride for faster forces. :thumbsup:There's just no good reason the Cyclops would be considered a command unit. Not like the Atlas or Osteon.
The quirk giving all Cyclops command bonuses and the later variant with a command console beg to differ.
As far as the Osteon goes...you're really going to put your commander in a mech deigned to wade into the thickest enemy fire, and has no ejection seat?
I'll give you this: You're definitely embracing the whole 'nobody cares, warriors are expendable' attitude of the Society's leadership.
-
Because the Osteons had a limited production and they were better used gutting Clan formations than hanging back. Give it to the trio commander, fine . . . I also said the Atlas is fine for a assault lance or company commander. But battalion or regiment really needs to be out of the line of fire to direct the sub units (not the same as micro-manage) and watch the big picture. While Kerensky may have dropped in a Orion, I do not recall hearing about it being on the frontlines throwing LRMs or AC/10 shots. DeChevalier paid for the stupidity of the commander being in combat, Nat was following Clan custom which is also stupid- commander commands, not fights. Theo Kurita rode the backseat of a Battlemaster as he climbed the rank ladder, which is still not a great idea but better than piloting & commanding. Prudent doctrine would have commanders in a 5/8/5 heavy able to run from anything it cannot outfight, and outfight anything that can catch it- if they were not back at the DS.
As a counter example, one of the most successful commanding fighters is . . . Aletha Kabrinksi, saKhan and later Khan of the Bears who pilots a Fire Moth. She has the speed to get where needed faster than almost any of her peers.
This, so much this. As a result of this thread I've come to realize that the concept of a Command BattleMech is at odds with the 'future of the 80's' BT is built around, it requires a degree of computer intelligence we just don't normally see in BT.
The quirk giving all Cyclops command bonuses and the later variant with a command console beg to differ.
The problem is that you can't make use of the Cyclops' command bonuses when your in a Collapsible Command Module, even if said Collapsible Command Module is deployed from a Cyclops. (There is no Command Console variant to my knowledge)
-
The reason the Cyclops has the AC-20 instead of more armor, is because we should really look at the HQ variant as the reason the mech exists. It has an AC-20 because it's a one weapon swap-out. Yank the command equipment, put in something else to fill the hole.
The mech is all about the HQ module. You aren't refitting it with more armor, or yanking the SRM-4, because despite what the introductory dates say, the baseline version is the one with all the specialized gear.
-
The problem is that you can't make use of the Cyclops' command bonuses when your in a Collapsible Command Module, even if said Collapsible Command Module is deployed from a Cyclops. (There is no Command Console variant to my knowledge)
When you're in a deployed CCM, you use the CCM's bonus. When you're in the cockpit of any Cyclops ever, you use the Combat Computer Quirk(I think that's the name) bonus. When you're in the cockpit of a CP-11-A-DC Cyclops (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4032/cyclops-cp-11-a-dc), you use the Command Console bonus.
-
This, so much this. As a result of this thread I've come to realize that the concept of a Command BattleMech is at odds with the 'future of the 80's' BT is built around, it requires a degree of computer intelligence we just don't normally see in BT.
Yeah, it's more an effect of the settings neofeudal aesthetic.
-
When you're in a deployed CCM, you use the CCM's bonus. When you're in the cockpit of any Cyclops ever, you use the Combat Computer Quirk(I think that's the name) bonus. When you're in the cockpit of a CP-11-A-DC Cyclops (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4032/cyclops-cp-11-a-dc), you use the Command Console bonus.
The Cyclops has the Battle Computer Quirk, which provides +2 initiative, Command BattleMech provides a +1 that doesn't stack with Command Computer, and finally Combat Computer provides 4 extra heat dissipation.
Here's the thing, if I'm piloting a Cyclops I'm already getting the +2 to initiative that the CCM is giving me, so why would I deploy it?
-
so why would I deploy it?
You're right, all the best generals stay at home, in their arm chairs.
-
The Cyclops has the Battle Computer Quirk, which provides +2 initiative, Command BattleMech provides a +1 that doesn't stack with Command Computer, and finally Combat Computer provides 4 extra heat dissipation.
Here's the thing, if I'm piloting a Cyclops I'm already getting the +2 to initiative that the CCM is giving me, so why would I deploy it?
Because the Quirks were added like 25 years after the Cyclops was published, and they're optional rules that don't really reflect how the mech is supposed to operate.
-
they're optional rules that don't really reflect how the mech is supposed to operate.
This is arguably the exact opposite of the purpose of quirks.
-
Yeah, quirks were added to allow mechs like the Cyclops and Quickdraw to match their fluff.
-
Besides, ALL the rules that make command units useful are optional, so you can't really dismiss quirks solely on that basis. If you're dealing with command stuff of any kind, you're already at least at the TacOps level.
Here's the thing, if I'm piloting a Cyclops I'm already getting the +2 to initiative that the CCM is giving me, so why would I deploy it?
I can already think of two reasons of the top of my head that fit 100% within existing rules AND fluff, so I'm going to challenge you: How many reasons can you think of? (Again, within existing fluff and rules.)
-
You're right, all the best generals stay at home, in their arm chairs.
I can already think of two reasons of the top of my head that fit 100% within existing rules AND fluff, so I'm going to challenge you: How many reasons can you think of? (Again, within existing fluff and rules.)
Well given that the Cyclops with a Command Console provides twice the bonus the CCM does, I know which one I'd pick. Which ignores the fact that using a CCM requires both a separate transport carrying an infantry platoon to set up and man it, at which point you may as well just stuff the transport full of comm gear and ride around inside that instead.
Note that this means that a 'Mech carrying a CCM functionally has the mobility of what transport is carrying the infantry, so it actually losses a 'Mechs ability to cross terrain that tanks can't.
-
No, I'm challenging you to think of reasons to actually use the CCM. Stretch your brain, it's good for you.
-
This is arguably the exact opposite of the purpose of quirks.
Yes, but they don't always get it right.
-
Yes, but they don't always get it right.
This seems both subjective and also totally irrelevant to the claim you made that they aren't representative of how a given Mech is supposed to operate.
That said, I'm curious which ones are wrong*.
*Not having more quirks isn't wrong, I mean which quirks are incorrect.
-
I'm confused as to how the Cyclops of all things is a contentious choice of command vehicle, but now that we're here i ahve to admit i'm curious how much further it'll go.
-
No, I'm challenging you to think of reasons to actually use the CCM. Stretch your brain, it's good for you.
Assuming you mean at all, as opposed to other options, well it's got the requisite 7 tons of comm gear that all good command centers have, the thing is the 30 turn set up time in TW play (I don't even know if it's usable at other levels) means that by the time it's set up the fight is almost certainly over. If you can start with it set up you're good, as long as you don't want to move, but you can cram 4 LB 10-X's into the structure using the field gun rules so there that.
-
I didn't think anyone would stoop to customs, it's a psychological blind spot of mine. Got anything that uses an actual CCM and doesn't involve customs? Yes, I'm willing to assume it was set up prior to the game.
-
I can only imagine it has something to do with double-blind play.
-
I didn't think anyone would stoop to customs, it's a psychological blind spot of mine. Got anything that uses an actual CCM and doesn't involve customs? Yes, I'm willing to assume it was set up prior to the game.
The only 'customs' I was using where field gun infantry.
And problem with having the CCM set up before the game is that, well, you lose any trace of portability for it, which is basically the reason to use one.
-
The benefits of portability would be strategic, not tactical. You wouldn't be using a CCM for anything less than a battalion, and more likely a regiment. It would be set up close to the area of operations but far enough that normal combat turns shouldn't be an issue when remounting. With the above unit sizes that's some distance.
The commander may not even be the Mech pilot, but if so they can move forward with the troops and still have the benefits of the support staff.
-
The only 'customs' I was using where field gun infantry.
And problem with having the CCM set up before the game is that, well, you lose any trace of portability for it, which is basically the reason to use one.
And if it is fixed in place like that, well, artillery isn't exactly unheard of on the table.
The benefits of portability would be strategic, not tactical. You wouldn't be using a CCM for anything less than a battalion, and more likely a regiment. It would be set up close to the area of operations but far enough that normal combat turns shouldn't be an issue when remounting. With the above unit sizes that's some distance.
The commander may not even be the Mech pilot, but if so they can move forward with the troops and still have the benefits of the support staff.
Well, it came up in a discussion of why you would use the CCM instead of the Battle Computer quirked Cyclops. I'm wracking my brain trying to think of reasons why, since they both give a +2 to initiative rolls. Maybe if CCMs give an initiative bonus even while off-board...?
-
The thing is that you don't just want ONE unit with comm gear, you want a total of ELEVEN, the first with 7+ tons for that sweet +2 initiative bonus and then the other ten to link to satellites, 6 to get one each of the generic ones on page 195 of TacOps, and then 4 more to connect to 4 different satellites, each carrying a different satellite imager (TacOps 338), these last 4 in addition to providing various overlapping benefits in revealing hidden units, they also provide a further +1 initiative each.
-
I suspect comfort is going to come into play at some point. The CCM when deployed is basically a big fancy tent, which is going to be a more pleasant operations center to work in than a sweaty 'Mech cockpit in most climates.
Though it does beg the question, why not just use a Mobile HQ truck in the first place? I mean in the Succession Wars era the availability of MHQs isn't guaranteed, but at the time the Cyclops was designed that was hardly an issue.
-
It has 4 MPL, right? Switch those over to regular ML and pull the ArtIV, and you have your five tons.
5 tons? For a 3 ton Command Console?
Improved Communications quirk, existence of a CC version prior to 3025. You yourself were the one earlier in this thread that said the circumstances of a unit's design at the time of its publication are irrelevant in the face of the current state of the game, no?
Fluffwise, the Cyclops was William Cameron's 'Mech when he was coordinating as XO the entire Wolf's Dragoons communications, and is specifically called out as unique in its capability to function in that role in the late Succession Wars.
It was unique because so many Cyclops had lost their B-2000 Battle Computer. Once those are lost the Cyclops end up being fast assault units or decoys to protect the real command mech. I think all Cyclops having the Command Quirk is depended on whether or not the B-2000 is functional or not.
The Cyclops has the Battle Computer Quirk, which provides +2 initiative, Command BattleMech provides a +1 that doesn't stack with Command Computer, and finally Combat Computer provides 4 extra heat dissipation.
Here's the thing, if I'm piloting a Cyclops I'm already getting the +2 to initiative that the CCM is giving me, so why would I deploy it?
And if it is fixed in place like that, well, artillery isn't exactly unheard of on the table.
Well, it came up in a discussion of why you would use the CCM instead of the Battle Computer quirked Cyclops. I'm wracking my brain trying to think of reasons why, since they both give a +2 to initiative rolls. Maybe if CCMs give an initiative bonus even while off-board...?
Because the CCM's 7 tons of Com. Equipment gives it ECM and ECCM capabilities and ghost targets. Those are things the Cyclops can't do and they can only be used once the CCM is deployed. The CCM can also monitor 6 more remote sensors than a BattleMech can.
I suspect comfort is going to come into play at some point. The CCM when deployed is basically a big fancy tent, which is going to be a more pleasant operations center to work in than a sweaty 'Mech cockpit in most climates.
Though it does beg the question, why not just use a Mobile HQ truck in the first place? I mean in the Succession Wars era the availability of MHQs isn't guaranteed, but at the time the Cyclops was designed that was hardly an issue.
Because they can't go everywhere that mechs can.
-
5 tons? For a 3 ton Command Console?
Was about a C3 Master, not a command console.
Because they can't go everywhere that mechs can.
This is invalidated by the need to have ground personnel to man and deploy the collapsible command module. Something has to transport those people and it can't be a 'Mech. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If the Cyclops goes somewhere that the staff car can't follow, the CCM is useless. If the Cyclops sticks close to the staff car, it forfeits the go-anywhere benefits of being a 'Mech. If you're going to hobble yourself by dragging around a dedicated staff vehicle, you may as well utilize the dedicated Mobile HQ, which can use its full capabilities on the move and is reasonably well protected.
The only case where I can see the CCM making logistical sense is in the bizarre case of a dedicated regimental headquarters 'Mech company, where all 12 MechWarriors plus an additional number of cockpit ride-alongs are assigned to staff the command post when it's deployed. But by definition if you're using the CCM you're taking an entire company of precious BattleMechs out of service to do it, and you'd still be better off having a MHQ vehicle and using the 'Mechs as bodyguards for it.
-
Was about a C3 Master, not a command console.
C3 is good for fire coordination, but utterly horrible for command. It does nothing useful on that front, aside from letting you monitor more remote sensors.
-
This is invalidated by the need to have ground personnel to man and deploy the collapsible command module. Something has to transport those people and it can't be a 'Mech. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If the Cyclops goes somewhere that the staff car can't follow, the CCM is useless. If the Cyclops sticks close to the staff car, it forfeits the go-anywhere benefits of being a 'Mech. If you're going to hobble yourself by dragging around a dedicated staff vehicle, you may as well utilize the dedicated Mobile HQ, which can use its full capabilities on the move and is reasonably well protected.
The only case where I can see the CCM making logistical sense is in the bizarre case of a dedicated regimental headquarters 'Mech company, where all 12 MechWarriors plus an additional number of cockpit ride-alongs are assigned to staff the command post when it's deployed. But by definition if you're using the CCM you're taking an entire company of precious BattleMechs out of service to do it, and you'd still be better off having a MHQ vehicle and using the 'Mechs as bodyguards for it.
Why is that weird? You have to hot drop an entire ‘Mech regiment because your DropShips and JumpShips are needed elsewhere. The command company (which includes the staff for the CCM in rumble seats in the various ‘Mechs) sets up the CCM in an out of the way, hard to get to location, and then either provides guards for the CCM or acts as decoys to lure away headhunter units your enemy deploys.
Ruger
-
Agreed, rumble seats can help with the staff transportation problem, but it's pretty uncomfortable, and requires as many 'mechs as staff members.
-
The place of a commander is in a command, not in a mech. Being in a Frontline mech is all cool and flash,and a great highway to an early grave and command chaos in the unit.
-
The place of a commander is in a command, not in a mech. Being in a Frontline mech is all cool and flash,and a great highway to an early grave and command chaos in the unit.
In the BattleTech universe, probably true at the regimental level, but debatable for battalion command. In later eras with higher mobility and more nasty in smaller packages like BA and ProtoMechs, being in a traditional HQ can be a liability. Look at what happened to Nondi Steiner. Also, being in a Mech isn't necessarily at the very front lines e.g. directly commanding reinforcements.
-
Agreed, rumble seats can help with the staff transportation problem, but it's pretty uncomfortable, and requires as many 'mechs as staff members.
I have to ask, what exactly is your point? These are soldiers. They are used to discomfort, especially for the limited amount of time it takes to hot drop from orbit and then to get to the setup area.
If needed, the hot drop is done with minimal personnel and then the rest are choppered in or something.
Ruger
-
This seems both subjective and also totally irrelevant to the claim you made that they aren't representative of how a given Mech is supposed to operate.
That said, I'm curious which ones are wrong*.
*Not having more quirks isn't wrong, I mean which quirks are incorrect.
I'm not going to go digging through the books. SCC's point, as I understood it, is that the Cyclops doesn't need the specialized 17 ton command unit, because the 5 ton command console gives it (and the unit it commands) a better bonus.
My point is even if that's the case, you can't look at a baseline Initiative bonus and say "this covers everything it does".
-
I have to ask, what exactly is your point? These are soldiers. They are used to discomfort, especially for the limited amount of time it takes to hot drop from orbit and then to get to the setup area.
If needed, the hot drop is done with minimal personnel and then the rest are choppered in or something.
Ruger
My point is that exhausted staff officers aren't as capable as well rested ones, and that rumble seats aren't cockpit seats designed for long term occupancy. I've pulled more than one 30 hour day, and can attest that the last hour or two of them wasn't exactly my best work.
-
My point is that exhausted staff officers aren't as capable as well rested ones, and that rumble seats aren't cockpit seats designed for long term occupancy. I've pulled more than one 30 hour day, and can attest that the last hour or two of them wasn't exactly my best work.
Agreed. But something like this shouldn’t take that long. Nowhere near that long.
You hot drop, truck it to the setup site, and dismount for setup.
Ruger
-
Set up is the just the first part of the battle... any fight one of these things is being deployed for will certainly last longer than a few hours. At some point, that first team is going to need to sleep and eat. You're looking at effectively two companies with rumble seats to get a full 24-hour rotation manned. The only upside is that means you should also have a full 'mech company awake and alert 24/7 too.
-
Was about a C3 Master, not a command console.
This is invalidated by the need to have ground personnel to man and deploy the collapsible command module. Something has to transport those people and it can't be a 'Mech. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If the Cyclops goes somewhere that the staff car can't follow, the CCM is useless. If the Cyclops sticks close to the staff car, it forfeits the go-anywhere benefits of being a 'Mech. If you're going to hobble yourself by dragging around a dedicated staff vehicle, you may as well utilize the dedicated Mobile HQ, which can use its full capabilities on the move and is reasonably well protected.
The only case where I can see the CCM making logistical sense is in the bizarre case of a dedicated regimental headquarters 'Mech company, where all 12 MechWarriors plus an additional number of cockpit ride-alongs are assigned to staff the command post when it's deployed. But by definition if you're using the CCM you're taking an entire company of precious BattleMechs out of service to do it, and you'd still be better off having a MHQ vehicle and using the 'Mechs as bodyguards for it.
Ah sorry. I would think for command a command console would be better.
Rumble seats. The legal way to do it. Or make mounting infantry compartments on mechs legal.
I'm not going to go digging through the books. SCC's point, as I understood it, is that the Cyclops doesn't need the specialized 17 ton command unit, because the 5 ton command console gives it (and the unit it commands) a better bonus.
My point is even if that's the case, you can't look at a baseline Initiative bonus and say "this covers everything it does".
5 ton command consoles are no longer legal. Not that I'd complain if you wanted to use the old TacHandbook version. And while command consoles do have a bigger bonus, 7 tons of com Equipment do have a couple advantages.
-
Set up is the just the first part of the battle... any fight one of these things is being deployed for will certainly last longer than a few hours. At some point, that first team is going to need to sleep and eat. You're looking at effectively two companies with rumble seats to get a full 24-hour rotation manned. The only upside is that means you should also have a full 'mech company awake and alert 24/7 too.
Right. You're going to need 24 people just to man the HQ's communication and command stations round the clock, maybe 16 if you do a 4-shift rotation. Then there are all the other HQ staff roles: guards, meal prep (MREs are great and all, but cooked food is better for morale once you start planning for week-long battles), logistics bookkeeping, fire watch, so on and so forth. Even with most people wearing multiple hats you're going to need the 'Mech jocks out of their 'Mechs and staffing the command post at least part of the time.
It can be done, but it's far from the most efficient allocation of personnel. And carrying the module in the first place gimps the Cyclops considerably.
-
That cyclops is a large formation command unit. I wouldn't expect to see it in anything less than a battalion. That's enough rumble-seats for a bare-bones setup. Regiment? Doesn't even need to try hard to staff one.
The hard part would be moving one, cycling mechs through one by one to pick up passengers - though commandeered local vehicles might pick up the slack.
Specialized tool? Yep. It's not a army system, it's for the marines taking beaches, to use a parallel.
-
The CCM should probably be carried in an industrial mech only they didn't have those back then. Be that as it may, I don't think that Cyclops variant is meant to be charging off into the thick of battle. I feel its job is to carry the CCM and the guard it. If the commander does take it out its lack of weapons helps keep the commander out of the thick of things.
-
Because the CCM's 7 tons of Com. Equipment gives it ECM and ECCM capabilities and ghost targets. Those are things the Cyclops can't do and they can only be used once the CCM is deployed. The CCM can also monitor 6 more remote sensors than a BattleMech can.
Operating a CCM within ECM-range of the enemy is not a good plan, ghost targets or not. I suppose monitoring remote sensors is a double-blind thing but I have zero familiarity with remote sensor rules. Weirdo claimed he could think of two reasons to field a CCM over the quirked Cyclops, both rules- and fluff-wise, so I'm wondering what it could possibly be and coming up pretty short.
-
That cyclops is a large formation command unit. I wouldn't expect to see it in anything less than a battalion. That's enough rumble-seats for a bare-bones setup. Regiment? Doesn't even need to try hard to staff one.
Spreading your command staff across an entire battalion to get them into the field because you want to avoid using a ground vehicle is just zany. What do you do when one of your companies drops off-course? Not to mention you have to waste valuable time getting every 'Mech in the battalion back to HQ any time you want to move camp.
If you need a mobile headquarters that can deploy directly from orbit, a spheroid Small Craft is a better fit and it can carry additional supplies too.
The collapsible command module just seems like one of those 1960s "world of tomorrow" ideas like the inflatable airplane or food pills--a neat (expensive) concept but ultimately an answer to a question that already had more cost-effective solutions.
-
The collapsible command module just seems like one of those 1960s "world of tomorrow" ideas like the inflatable airplane or food pills--a neat (expensive) concept but
They actually did some serious studies on nuclear powered aircraft too. I wouldn't be surprised to seen them come back in my lifetime.
http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/ORNL-2536.pdf
ultimately an answer to a question that already had more cost-effective solutions.
Specialized tool, for when other solutions aren't viable. Best solution? Not really, but if it works, it wasn't entirely dumb. The star league was able to spend a mint on low-probability contingencies.
-
Because the CCM's 7 tons of Com. Equipment gives it ECM and ECCM capabilities and ghost targets. Those are things the Cyclops can't do and they can only be used once the CCM is deployed. The CCM can also monitor 6 more remote sensors than a BattleMech can.
As has already been pointed out, comm gear can only produce one of those things at a time, it's also likely that while providing them it can't provide an init bonus. For the weight of a CCM you can take 7 tons pf comm gear, an ECM suite, and have tonnage to spare.
Because they can't go everywhere that mechs can.
Right, apart from the EXPLICIT rule that you need a squad of infantry, likely carried by an APC that can't go where 'Mechs can, yeah that's not going to hamper your 'Mechs mobility at all
-
Unless it's been errata'd, TacOps actually says "platoon" which is odd wording given that the same book addresses squad-level deployment.
-
*snip*
If you need a mobile headquarters that can deploy directly from orbit, a spheroid Small Craft is a better fit and it can carry additional supplies too.
*snip*
Or, you know, an Intruder DropShip... ^-^
-
I know that a 50 ton 4/6 trooper was a good size in 3025 due to the efficiencies of the Nissan 200 engine. However... Bump the Enforcer up 5 tons, use the extra 2 tons to drop the SL add a ML and give me another 1/2 ton of armor and full ton of ammo. I like the idea of the mech, I just hate running out of ammo so fast!
-
One use for the CCM i can think of is that it provides a very easy nucleus for a semi-permanent base camp for matters where you need to establish presence in an area but you also don't want to dig in too much without wasting a Mobile HQ, which you can apparently find no end of better uses for.
it's also probably pretty close to ideal for coordination with local forces that might lack the needed equipment for coordination- you loan them joint use of the facilities to ensure that their leadership is able to work with you reliably and the odds that they'll try anything to "commander" it with a 90-ton Battlemech ready to say "No." is minimal compared to if it was a mobile HQ or installed equipment.
-
Operating a CCM within ECM-range of the enemy is not a good plan, ghost targets or not. I suppose monitoring remote sensors is a double-blind thing but I have zero familiarity with remote sensor rules. Weirdo claimed he could think of two reasons to field a CCM over the quirked Cyclops, both rules- and fluff-wise, so I'm wondering what it could possibly be and coming up pretty short.
First off, at no point did I say to use the CCM *instead* of the Cyclops. I was talking about using the CCM even though the Cyclops is there, which brings me to reason 1:
Redundancy: If you have two command units, then the loss of one doesn't mean the loss of all command bonuses. The task of keeping a CCM alive in a situation that can kill a Cyclops is referred to as "a game of Battletech".
Command ability: If you're fighting in the days of inherited BattleMechs, you might not have a choice with regards to who you put in the cockpit of the Cyclops. That Baroness may be a strategic idiot, but it's her Cyclops and stripping her of it could have serious sociopolitical consequences for your own forces. So you assign her to the staff of a general she can work with, put said general in the CCM, and make the Baroness the stalwart last line of defense. (It helps if the Baroness isn't a complete idiot, and is understanding of the situation).
Bonus number three: More command is always better. As SCC pointed out, there's plenty more you can do with command stuff beyond the base initiative bonus. Satellite uplinking, remote sensor monitoring...there's plenty you can do with additional command gear. And that's on top of the force bonuses their mere presence can provide in Alpha Strike, or the higher-scale games like Battleforce and up from there.
Right, apart from the EXPLICIT rule that you need a squad of infantry, likely carried by an APC that can't go where 'Mechs can, yeah that's not going to hamper your 'Mechs mobility at all
There appears to be a large swath of the Battletech universe you seem to be unaware of. (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasRole=&HasBFAbility=CT&MinPV=&MaxPV=&Role=None+Selected&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=&SubTypes=25&SubTypes=26&SubTypes=40&SubTypes=41&SubTypes=44&SubTypes=47&SubTypes=51&SubTypes=53&SubTypes=58&SubTypes=88) You're welcome! :)
-
First off, at no point did I say to use the CCM *instead* of the Cyclops. I was talking about using the CCM even though the Cyclops is there, which brings me to reason 1:
Redundancy: If you have two command units, then the loss of one doesn't mean the loss of all command bonuses. The task of keeping a CCM alive in a situation that can kill a Cyclops is referred to as "a game of Battletech".
Command ability: If you're fighting in the days of inherited BattleMechs, you might not have a choice with regards to who you put in the cockpit of the Cyclops. That Baroness may be a strategic idiot, but it's her Cyclops and stripping her of it could have serious sociopolitical consequences for your own forces. So you assign her to the staff of a general she can work with, put said general in the CCM, and make the Baroness the stalwart last line of defense. (It helps if the Baroness isn't a complete idiot, and is understanding of the situation).
Bonus number three: More command is always better. As SCC pointed out, there's plenty more you can do with command stuff beyond the base initiative bonus. Satellite uplinking, remote sensor monitoring...there's plenty you can do with additional command gear. And that's on top of the force bonuses their mere presence can provide in Alpha Strike, or the higher-scale games like Battleforce and up from there.
There appears to be a large swath of the Battletech universe you seem to be unaware of. (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasRole=&HasBFAbility=CT&MinPV=&MaxPV=&Role=None+Selected&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=&SubTypes=25&SubTypes=26&SubTypes=40&SubTypes=41&SubTypes=44&SubTypes=47&SubTypes=51&SubTypes=53&SubTypes=58&SubTypes=88) You're welcome! :)
Negative number one: The Cyclops is known by every military as a command BattleMech that carries a command center into combat. If you find one, you might as well put a big, fat sign above your unit saying "PRIME TARGET HERE: KILL ME!". And protecting this giant sign? Paper-thin armor.
-
Negative number one: The Cyclops is known by every military as a command BattleMech that carries a command center into combat. If you find one, you might as well put a big, fat sign above your unit saying "PRIME TARGET HERE: KILL ME!". And protecting this giant sign? Paper-thin armor.
If 'paper thin armor' can tank an AC20 to all three front torso locations and at least one medium laser for every rear torso location, on top of whatever the screening force is, I'm really scared of what actually good armor can protect.
It's thin compared to several other assault mechs. Do not mistake that for being too thinly armored to demolish a light or medium backstabber by itself or shrug off a decent hit from anything else.
-
There appears to be a large swath of the Battletech universe you seem to be unaware of. [/url] You're welcome! :)
I thought about the idea of a MHQ VTOL. And then I thought about the idea of a MHQ VTOL going down in flames with a destroyed rotor.
-
If 'paper thin armor' can tank an AC20 to all three front torso locations and at least one medium laser for every rear torso location, on top of whatever the screening force is, I'm really scared of what actually good armor can protect.
It's thin compared to several other assault mechs. Do not mistake that for being too thinly armored to demolish a light or medium backstabber by itself or shrug off a decent hit from anything else.
We have very different experiences in our games, is all. The Cyclops doesn't "shrug off" much, IMO. And an AC/20 isn't scary. It's there to protect a static location, meaning it can't walk forward to close that gap between hex 9 and hex 21 of an LRM-X. So... why wouldn't I be fighting it from range with PPCs and such? You can say "that's the job of its lance mates," but then that's 3 effective units vs 4. It's just a big design that doesn't even do the Banshee's job right.
BTW: 17 armor on its leg doesn't shrug off an AC/20 hit. I don't need to blow it up by coring it. Kicking that thing twice by anything heavier than a Phoenix Hawk is going to bring it to the ground, if I did bother to get into close range.
Edit: I'm off my Cyclops kick. Last post on that. :)
-
I thought about the idea of a MHQ VTOL. And then I thought about the idea of a MHQ VTOL going down in flames with a destroyed rotor.
I made one a while back. The idea was to use it as a HQ on the ground, but use its mobility to rapidly redeploy if the enemy starts closing in.
-
I did a similar thing with an artillery unit a while back (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56825.msg1306185#msg1306185).
So I think it just might be doable, outside of the extremely short (30 second) "shoot and scoot" cycle...
-
BTW: 17 armor on its leg doesn't shrug off an AC/20 hit.
That's funny, I don't recall legs being torsos. Let me consult the record sheet.
Edit: Nope, just checked, legs are definitely not torsos. Also, what are you talking about, regarding comparing the Cyclops' Battlefield role to the Banshee? They have incompatible roles. One's a dedicated command unit/EWAR unit, and the other is a poor excuse for a 'brawler/sniper' hybrid. Also, I would love to see the face of the Phoenix Hawk pilot when he realizes he just kicked a mech... That is still a 90 ton assault... In the shins. And getting ready to kick the offending unit's leg off. Followed by AC20.
Also, not all terrain allows you to get those clean 9 to 21 hex shots off...
-
snip
After telling people to 'stretch their brains' to find reasons to field a CCM, your second was RPing a bad pilot, oh my god...
-
That's funny, I don't recall legs being torsos. Let me consult the record sheet.
Edit: Nope, just checked, legs are definitely not torsos. Also, what are you talking about, regarding comparing the Cyclops' Battlefield role to the Banshee? They have incompatible roles. One's a dedicated command unit/EWAR unit, and the other is a poor excuse for a 'brawler/sniper' hybrid. Also, I would love to see the face of the Phoenix Hawk pilot when he realizes he just kicked a mech... That is still a 90 ton assault... In the shins. And getting ready to kick the offending unit's leg off.
...And beat him with it? :drool:
-
Personally, I rather like the idea of three Robinson-class transports (or even just Overlord-class DropShips) burning into low orbit and hot dropping three battalions in three locations, each of which has a Cyclops (but only one with a CCM). Now, the enemy has to figure out which of the locations has the CCM, while the invading forces are striking to expand their landing zones so the DropShips with the rest of their forces have less risk of attack while unloading. These later transports can bring more admin personnel to man the CCM, and other background functions, as well as armor and infantry.
But that’s just me.
Ruger
-
The one with a CCM will have a completely different ESM signature... better to deploy three with the same gear. If you're going as far as deploying three Cyclops in the first place, might as well go all the way.
-
I thought about the idea of a MHQ VTOL. And then I thought about the idea of a MHQ VTOL going down in flames with a destroyed rotor.
Like a Command Cobra? Such an HQ would be strategically mobile, but you'd keep it the hell away from actual tactical battlefields.
After telling people to 'stretch their brains' to find reasons to field a CCM, your second was RPing a bad pilot, oh my god...
Well, yeah. The neo-feudal nature of Battletech is a core part of the setting, both the good and bad parts. From such comes stories and entertainment.
-
getting off the argument of the correct way to deploy command units and back on point, how about the Penetrator's leg assemblies? nothing about those make any sense. ???
-
Only if you expect the Penetrator to actually walk inside of jumping everywhere.
-
I thought about the idea of a MHQ VTOL. And then I thought about the idea of a MHQ VTOL going down in flames with a destroyed rotor.
And I thought of a VTOL carrying the required ground troops for the CCM, so it could go anywhere the 'mech could.
-
And I thought of a VTOL carrying the required ground troops for the CCM, so it could go anywhere the 'mech could.
can VTOLs (and WIGEs, now that i think about it) be designed to carry CCMs? also, shouldn't this topic be it's own thread by now?
-
As has already been pointed out, comm gear can only produce one of those things at a time, it's also likely that while providing them it can't provide an init bonus. For the weight of a CCM you can take 7 tons pf comm gear, an ECM suite, and have tonnage to spare.
Right, apart from the EXPLICIT rule that you need a squad of infantry, likely carried by an APC that can't go where 'Mechs can, yeah that's not going to hamper your 'Mechs mobility at all
Hmm. Missed that. Thank you. And true you can do all those things but 1 person can only do so many things. You also put all your com in one unit. The CCM could remain in relative safety while the mech goes and fights.
And infantry could ride in Mechs.
Unless it's been errata'd, TacOps actually says "platoon" which is odd wording given that the same book addresses squad-level deployment.
Platoons can be of any size. Also if they were a single squad, where's the rest of the platoon?
Easier just to have a Platoon of 7 than a fraction of a platoon.
Negative number one: The Cyclops is known by every military as a command BattleMech that carries a command center into combat. If you find one, you might as well put a big, fat sign above your unit saying "PRIME TARGET HERE: KILL ME!". And protecting this giant sign? Paper-thin armor.
Not all Cyclops carried a CCM and by 3025 around 10% of Cyclops still had a working B-2000 and less than half of those have a working CCM. That doesn't really scream "PRIME TARGET HERE: KILL ME!" As for those that do it reinforces my belief that it isn't meant to be in the front line but guarding the CCM. Unless the line's collapsed that Cyclops variant still has enough weapons and armor to deal with lighter units that might get behind the lines and find the HQ.
-
getting off the argument of the correct way to deploy command units and back on point, how about the Penetrator's leg assemblies? nothing about those make any sense. ???
Think Ed-209. The "knee" doesn't bend. Note to self, never pledge support to anyone in Westeros by giving them a company of Penetrators....Rather moving the foot relative to the thigh achieved by the shin telescoping in and out.
-
Figuring out a Penetrator's legs isn't nearly as difficult as figuring out a Falconer's legs.
-
Figuring out a Penetrator's legs isn't nearly as difficult as figuring out a Falconer's legs.
What? Wide hips and a ankle joint that moves the 'boot' shinguards up the leg. Really like the War Dog's original work. Though the different TROs would suggest the legs work in two different methods.
So this shelter is ported by a Cyclops and seems to be connected? And people think it stays connected to a motionless Cyclops when the HQ comes under attack?
I will tell you what happens- the on call pilot in the Cyclops pilot walks away from the HQ. Either someone pops the quick release, or it breaks off when the Cyclops starts backing up to get out of the area. Company & Battalion level (not sure about brigade, never joined that goat rope) SOP is that when the HQ is attacked the QRF responds along with any guard vehicles while the vehicles with sensitive equipment & materials bug out. Doctrine is to start the veh, button up, and drive off to a rally point while everyone else- cooks, supply, techs and off-shift personnel respond to the threat. Its practiced, and when it is its not as fast as it would be IRL b/c you make sure the ramp is not breaking anything and you do not drive off but the vehicle is started up. We started the APC w/o anyone even in the driver's seat, someone leaned into that compartment, hit the start button and put a hand on the gas pedal since they were stretched out over equipment- you needed power to raise the ramp, which was the responsibility of the on-duty person next to it. And if you could not bug out, we had instructions about asset denial.
So IMO, if you had it set up for a table top game and were playing a headhunter scenario the HQ player's decision would be when do they move the Cyclops which would cause X damage to the CCM. The longer they wait the less damaged the CCM would be (IE, tent ripping, power/com/computer cords still plugged in being drug by the Cyclops, personnel at a safe distance, operations hand off, etc) with the trade off being the more damage a immobile Cyclops would take as well as some AOE damage to the 'soft' target of unprotected troops in a shelter full of delicate electronics and paper.
So can the guard units deal with it, does the Cyclops have to either retreat to keep some C&C function w/ a commander, or does the Cyclops pitch into the fight to stomp on the raiders.
Either way, after being spotted the HQ is going to be moving.
-
Thinking some more on the CCM Cyclops... It actually makes sense, kind of.
The discussion has assumed SW-era armies, but it was actually built during the Star League. You know, the "I throw another couple of regiments at the problem" SLDF. They don't need any infantry transport for the HQ staff because everyone has his/her own mech! Shutting down a whole company when all you have is 2-3 battalions makes little sense, but the SLDF would probably have half a dozen REGIMENTS around. Leaving a company idle wouldn't make a dent! :D
-
Trying to make the Scorpion an LAM. That made no sense.
-
Trying to make the Scorpion an LAM. That made no sense.
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. One engineer told another to hold his beer, and we can all follow the train of logic from there.
-
Beer? It would take
a multiple PPCs to get the budgetary approval for that sort of a challenge!
-
Some"engineers" can talk a really, *really* good game. But when it comes time to execute it really shows where they were substituting desired outcomes for logically derived ones.
-
Here's one mech that really doesn't make sense to me: the Eisenfaust.
Medium mechs that slow were something that really stopped being viable by the Clan invasion. Sticking an XL engine into it really just makes it even more vulnerable without giving it enough firepower to compensate.
-
Here's one mech that really doesn't make sense to me: the Eisenfaust.
it's a semi-mobile fire support platform, what's not to get. don't you like plasma rifles?
-
The Eisenfaust mounts an ER Large Laser as its longest-range weapon, followed by a Plasma Rifle and a pair of Medium Pulse Lasers. It's really not equipped for sniping (and Alpha Strike designates it a Brawler). It's too fragile to be put up for duty in positions that can expect to be fighting other mechs and too expensive to fill in at posts where it won't.
I like Plasma Rifles just fine, I just want the unit carrying them to live long enough to actually make use of them.
-
Consider it a escort to kill BA for Zeus and Atlas, letting them kill other mechs. Or use the Plasma Rifle for AA work to lawn-dart ASF.
-
Well, that's a necessary task, but I still say it's slow and fragile for the role.
-
Doesn't have the protection to hang in a fight, or blistering firepower, or speed to get in or out of trouble. Definitely questionable, even considering the use of reconditioned Hatchetman engines.
-
Trying to make the Scorpion an LAM. That made no sense.
A BiModal Scorpion LAM make sense. TriModal Scorpion LAMs though I'm not sure about. Not that I'm complaining. I'm just still trying to picture the AirMech mode.
-
Using a TSEMP weapon in the very early Dark Age might qualify, against the up armed IM's everyone's using the Centurion Weapon System actually has better range, better re-use, no blow back the the user and you can use heat-causing weapons to make it harder to resist your attack.
-
Well, that's a necessary task, but I still say it's slow and fragile for the role.
That's the whole point of making it an escort. It doesn't need speed if it just needs to keep pace with Atlases and Fafnirs. It doesn't need armor if the enemy is going to be focused on said Atlases and Fafnirs. It needs guns to quickly kill stuff that threatens the Atlases and Fafnirs but is too small to justify diverting the fire of the big boys. The pulse lasers hurt fast movers, BA, and infantry. The plasma rifle outright murders anything that isn't a mech. The ER Large has the range so that undisciplined players feel like the mech is still contributing, and the range lets you hit most fast movers(using the range bracket advantage to reduce the effect of movement mods) and perform decent AA duty.
Using a TSEMP weapon in the very early Dark Age might qualify, against the up armed IM's everyone's using the Centurion Weapon System actually has better range, better re-use, no blow back the the user and you can use heat-causing weapons to make it harder to resist your attack.
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/2e47bbbf3ee4c19faa8b44f2381e95cc/tumblr_inline_mxznmi3VDJ1r3zat8.png)
Okay, this I gotta hear. Who's this 'everybody' that makes the Centurion plentiful, as opposed to one of the rarest weapon systems in the entire Battletech universe?
-
I think the implication was the IndiMechs everyone was using . . . punctuation problem.
I do like the SecurityMechs we see in products like TP Irian, though I do want to see the first version and I think it might be interesting to see some conversions of repurposed mechs from the Jihad for low-tech lights & meds to become SecurityMechs.
-
It needs guns to quickly kill stuff that threatens the Atlases and Fafnirs but is too small to justify diverting the fire of the big boys.
And there, sir, lies the problem: Something with big guns and thin armor *always* justifies diverting fire towards it.
-
And there, sir, lies the problem: Something with big guns and thin armor *always* justifies diverting fire towards it.
If you do that you're not shooting the Atlas. Bringing a smaller escort to screen that can still contribute is what we call a "win-win" in the business.
-
If you do that you're not shooting the Atlas. Bringing a smaller escort to screen that can still contribute is what we call a "win-win" in the business.
yeah. if something merits an escort, it is likely more valuable than the escort (and therefore the escort drawing fire is the preferred scenario)
-
Waddling your way is a Fafnir w/2 HGR, Atlas, Zeus and a Eisenfaust . . . what are you going to shoot at, especially if the Eisenfaust is staying 3 or 4 hexes behind the point mech?
-
if you don't have something that can immediately threaten the things threatening the unit(s) you're escorting and force them to reconsider their course of action, it's a bad escort.
-
Waddling your way is a Fafnir w/2 HGR, Atlas, Zeus and a Eisenfaust . . . what are you going to shoot at, especially if the Eisenfaust is staying 3 or 4 hexes behind the point mech?
The Eisenfaust.
It's no faster than the others and I can kill it with damage that wouldn't even breach the armor of the other three. Then I can worry about dealing with three mechs instead of four.
-
Waddling your way is a Fafnir w/2 HGR, Atlas, Zeus and a Eisenfaust . . . what are you going to shoot at, especially if the Eisenfaust is staying 3 or 4 hexes behind the point mech?
I shoot the hostage!
-
The Eisenfaust.
It's no faster than the others and I can kill it with damage that wouldn't even breach the armor of the other three. Then I can worry about dealing with three mechs instead of four.
Meanwhile you've wasted a turn or three getting bombarded by all of them and the assault 'Mechs still have fresh paint. The escort has done its job.
-
People talk about shooting little slow things all the time, but when minis hit table? In my experience 90% of the time the big scary thing still draws all the fire.
-
Meanwhile you've wasted a turn or three getting bombarded by all of them and the assault 'Mechs still have fresh paint. The escort has done its job.
Which still puts me in a better position than spending several turns trying to kill the Atlas or Fafnir and getting bombarded by all four mechs, none of which will have had their offensive potential lowered by the end of that time.
And consider this: for the price of an XL engined medium mech, I could get a heavy mech with a standard engine. And at 4/6 movement it would be more heavily armed and armored, which would make it even more effective at escort duty. Or I could get a medium mech that was faster and therefor harder to hit and consequently a less inviting target.
-
People talk about shooting little slow things all the time, but when minis hit table? In my experience 90% of the time the big scary thing still draws all the fire.
The_Caveman has the rest of it. If you fail to kill the escort for any reason it breaks LOS and all of that shooting you did was effectively for nothing against the big murderbots that have been closing the range.
Bonus points for the Escort to pop back up later and draw fire again once armor starts getting low.
EDIT: c-bill costs are stupid and you'll score no points here invoking them. BattleTech's prices operate in a bizarre superposition of "significant scarcity" and "scarcity doesn't exist" and invoking whichever is most convenient at the time is disingenuous.
-
A BiModal Scorpion LAM make sense. TriModal Scorpion LAMs though I'm not sure about. Not that I'm complaining. I'm just still trying to picture the AirMech mode.
For arguments sake, lets assume LAMs are a Usefultm, Good Ideatm.
Why would a slightly heavier, slightly better armored, potentially better armed LAM not be worth exploring?
-
EDIT: c-bill costs are stupid and you'll score no points here invoking them. BattleTech's prices operate in a bizarre superposition of "significant scarcity" and "scarcity doesn't exist" and invoking whichever is most convenient at the time is disingenuous.
Then the entire point of reasoning about it being an escort mech is invalid: you might as well just buy another assault mech.
-
For arguments sake, lets assume LAMs are a Usefultm, Good Ideatm.
Why would a slightly heavier, slightly better armored, potentially better armed LAM not be worth exploring?
Because pilots could barely control the damn thing on the ground and now you want to alter it to fly as well.
People talk about shooting little slow things all the time, but when minis hit table? In my experience 90% of the time the big scary thing still draws all the fire.
Want to make a ThunderHawk invisible? Stick a Berserker or Banshee with an ax next to it.
-
Then the entire point of reasoning about it being an escort mech is invalid: you might as well just buy another assault mech.
"C-bill costs are stupid and pointless" can be true (and is) without making all logistics irrelevant. It also says nothing whatsoever about BV.
-
Yeah, to be honest that is why I would expect to see something like that . . . you want the lance that screams Steiner Wall of Steel, but coming up a bit short in BV. Besides, only so many heavy mechs are also made . . . so I weaken this lance a bit by using a med as escort while really boosting the combat power of a slow lance somewhere else with a heavy.
-
Want to make a ThunderHawk invisible? Stick a Berserker or Banshee with an ax next to it.
People like to make Sound Tactical Decisions and all, but in all honestly the fear of being the guy that let a Berserker go full Godzilla across their front lines carries a lot more weight than any sort of rational thought. Every battle has a loser, but a stupid choice of tactics is remembered forever.
-
C-bills work okay-ish in 3025.
After about 3060 they become completely meaningless because apparently the Inner Sphere's banking system carried on like it was still the late 3rd SW depression and manufacturers somehow don't face market competition pressure to lower their prices on mature technologies.
Maybe we should bring the old Combat Value system back as a better alternative to the c-bill, since it mainly cared about the amount of lostech crammed into a chassis.
-
Because pilots could barely control the damn thing on the ground and now you want to alter it to fly as well.
Until you get a few months into R&D, you don't know how it will work out.
Want to make a ThunderHawk invisible? Stick a Berserker or Banshee with an ax next to it.
Why are you suggesting that Banshee or Berserker is now the center of attention? Is it because of the danger, implied, imagined or real, or rather because it is more fragile?
Attaching a Hellbringer to an assault start can give you the same results but for different reasons. It it's a Hellbringer A, its "swat that squishy thing quick and get it out of the way." A Helbie Prime is more like, "I can't afford to ignore 2 ERPPCs tied to a t-comp, moving 5/8."
-
People like to make Sound Tactical Decisions and all, but in all honestly the fear of being the guy that let a Berserker go full Godzilla across their front lines carries a lot more weight than any sort of rational thought. Every battle has a loser, but a stupid choice of tactics is remembered forever.
On a whim, I took the Berserker variant with triple strength myomer against a full company of 3025 mechs. I think the bot had a lance of mediums, a lance of heavies, and a lance of assaults. I tried to minimize LOS and then played Jason Voorhees popping out of the woods. There were 5 mechs left when I made for the edge of the map and fled. My armor was stripped everywhere and I think I had two engine hits, but I made it safely away.
-
Why are you suggesting that Banshee or Berserker is now the center of attention? Is it because of the danger, implied, imagined or real, or rather because it is more fragile?
Because axes that can take off the side torso of an undamaged heavy 'Mech make people very, very scared. Moreso than a trio of headcappers. It works super well when you get a Banshee with a +3 move mod while the T-Hawk is standing still and plinking folks from medium range.
-
I think a lot of this is based on an attacker that can face down one of the big Steiner units i.e. another Atlas. When you start getting smaller e.g. 50 - 60 tons or so, it's less clear on what to do. Cripple the Eisenfaust and force it withdraw, if not outright kill it? Or tickle one of its bigger brothers?
To me, sucking fire for one round before withdrawing isn't 'escorting'. May as well have a security Mech for that job.
-
The Eisenfaust? It's not very good, but again this falls into the category of "somebody might think it's a good idea". That covers a lot of mechs.
The Eisenfaust was supposed to be a very old design that somebody thought they might finally make work. It was probably the project of some executive who said "we need a new mech, but we don't want to spend a lot of money designing it". And the engineers said "you have to spend a lot to design a mech". And the exec said "what about those test models we've got in storage?" And thus the Eisenfaust was born.
It's really sort of an upgraded Panther, really. I don't have the book it's in, but isn't the armor fairly close to max for a 45 tonner? It's not my first choice, but what are you supposed to do with a bunch of 180 XL engines anyway?
-
It's really sort of an upgraded Panther, really. I don't have the book it's in, but isn't the armor fairly close to max for a 45 tonner? It's not my first choice, but what are you supposed to do with a bunch of 180 XL engines anyway?
If I did the math right, yes, it’s virtually at max armor.
As to 180XL’s, I favor 20 tonners for them. 9/14 speed forgives a lot of XL issues.
Ruger
-
If I did the math right, yes, it’s virtually at max armor.
As to 180XL’s, I favor 20 tonners for them. 9/14 speed forgives a lot of XL issues.
Ruger
But sneezing while driving does not.
-
Until you get a few months into R&D, you don't know how it will work out.
Well, they had decades of R&D to get it to walk correctly and didn't, but don't worry, they'll get it to fly in far less time than that.
-
It's not my first choice, but what are you supposed to do with a bunch of 180 XL engines anyway?
You put them in something that isn´t supposed to hang around near enemy assaults, not into something suffering from delusions that it can play with the big boys.
-
Well, they had decades of R&D to get it to walk correctly and didn't, but don't worry, they'll get it to fly in far less time than that.
That's not flying. That's falling with style.
-
You put them in something that isn´t supposed to hang around near enemy assaults, not into something suffering from delusions that it can play with the big boys.
The Eisenfaust is a plasma cannon carrier. Basically its job is to hose vehicles and infantry so the big boys don't have to worry about them. Otherwise it's just a simple trooper mech, similar to an Enforcer or Centurion.
It doesn't really matter if you wouldn't make the same decisions. The thread isn't "things I wouldn't do". It's just an okay mech.
-
That's not flying. That's flailing with style.
There, that's better. :)
-
The Eisenfaust is a plasma cannon carrier. Basically its job is to hose vehicles and infantry so the big boys don't have to worry about them. Otherwise it's just a simple trooper mech, similar to an Enforcer or Centurion.
It doesn't really matter if you wouldn't make the same decisions. The thread isn't "things I wouldn't do". It's just an okay mech.
Pretty much this. I feel like this thread keeps forgetting that.
-
Yeah, my inclination is not to put Plasma Rifles on anything 4/6 or slower simply b/c with a max range of 15, I want to be able to get them in play where I want easier. But there are plenty of designs with the rifles at that speed. Does not make them bad mech per se but not my preferred tactical deployment.
-
The Eisenfaust is a plasma cannon carrier. Basically its job is to hose vehicles and infantry so the big boys don't have to worry about them. Otherwise it's just a simple trooper mech, similar to an Enforcer or Centurion.
Now we´re talking sense. People here were pretending the Eisenfaust is the ideal buddy to back up assaults against other assaults.
FWIW I was thinking Panther or Vindicator rather than Enforcer or Centurion. Fourth member in a lance of slow mediums or lower-end heavies, especially if the other three lack effective anti-infantry weapons. Say you have a Rifleman, Centurion and Enforcer, then picking the Eisenfaust makes a lot of sense. As bodyguard for an Atlas, as suggested earlier, not so much.
-
Okay, this I gotta hear. Who's this 'everybody' that makes the Centurion plentiful, as opposed to one of the rarest weapon systems in the entire Battletech universe?
ME! ME!
For arguments sake, lets assume LAMs are a Usefultm, Good Ideatm.
Why would a slightly heavier, slightly better armored, potentially better armed LAM not be worth exploring?
I didn't say it wouldn't be worth exploring. I just said I couldn't picture the AirMech Mode for a Scorpion LAM.
And what do you mean lets assume LAMs are a useful, Good Idea? They're a useful, Great Idea! ;D
-
I didn't say it wouldn't be worth exploring. I just said I couldn't picture the AirMech Mode for a Scorpion LAM.
Scorpion? As in, the quad ´Mech? I picture something like wing membranes spread between the legs, like a flying squirrel.
-
And what do you mean lets assume LAMs are a useful, Good Idea? They're a useful, Great Idea! ;D
Oh, brother. :bang:
Scorpion? As in, the quad ´Mech? I picture something like wing membranes spread between the legs, like a flying squirrel.
The airmech mode is fairly easy to see. I'm having a bit of trouble seeing seeing the fighter mode, but the art LAM art in TRO 3085 is a bit funky. On the other hand, without seeing it in motion, holding a toy or having these handy-dandy (http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossf/vf-25f/colorcode-vf25f_small.gif) and color coded charts (http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossplus/yf-19/colorcode-yf19_small.gif) from this Macross fan site (http://www.macross2.net/m3/m3.html), picturing some of those transformations would be hard too. The only reason the Unseen LAM's seem reasonable to us is that most of us either saw it on Robotech, or had the old G1 Jetfire.
Not saying it wouldn't work, just saying I don't see it.
-
Now we´re talking sense. People here were pretending the Eisenfaust is the ideal buddy to back up assaults against other assaults.
FWIW I was thinking Panther or Vindicator rather than Enforcer or Centurion. Fourth member in a lance of slow mediums or lower-end heavies, especially if the other three lack effective anti-infantry weapons. Say you have a Rifleman, Centurion and Enforcer, then picking the Eisenfaust makes a lot of sense. As bodyguard for an Atlas, as suggested earlier, not so much.
e . . . s . . . c . . . o . . . r . . . t
It escorts the assaults across the battlefield, scraping off the conventional units so that the Fafnir, Atlas, Hauptman, Thunderhawk, or other Lyran Assaults can do their anti-mech thing breaking the back of the enemy line. Its why I suggested putting it 4 or so hexes behind the assault line, so it will usually end up in a different range band and keeps flankers from getting backshots while still being able to melt BA and vehicles. The lance I suggested would have been for BV limited play to plug it into a assault group.
-
e . . . s . . . c . . . o . . . r . . . t
It escorts the assaults across the battlefield, scraping off the conventional units so that the Fafnir, Atlas, Hauptman, Thunderhawk, or other Lyran Assaults can do their anti-mech thing breaking the back of the enemy line. Its why I suggested putting it 4 or so hexes behind the assault line, so it will usually end up in a different range band and keeps flankers from getting backshots while still being able to melt BA and vehicles. The lance I suggested would have been for BV limited play to plug it into a assault group.
Does TO have rules for friendlies attacking the swarm? If so, this is a case where the Clan plasma cannon has a significant edge over the IS plasma rifle. I'd 2D6 heat to get a swarm of Elemental IIs off me.
-
My take on the Scorpion fighter mode would be that the legs fold under to act as extra engines (via enhanced jumpjets), or as vectored thrusters. The wings unfold from the bottom before the legs fold up. Ends up looking like a cross between a shilone, and a Northrup YB-49.
As for 'Bodyguard' mechs, that's what I do with my Lyran Trooper mediums and lighter heavies. I'll pair an assault with a trooper. The assault focuses on the big stuff, while the medium keeps it from being swamped.
-
Does TO have rules for friendlies attacking the swarm? If so, this is a case where the Clan plasma cannon has a significant edge over the IS plasma rifle. I'd 2D6 heat to get a swarm of Elemental IIs off me.
As far as I know, there are no rules allowing that in any books.
-
As far as I know, there are no rules allowing that in any books.
IIRC any kind of weapons fire hitting a unit that is being swarmed has a chance of hitting the swarmers.
-
If someone is swarming a walking/active mech, then their BA is not much threat b/c they have no clue what to do with the BA.
-
IIRC any kind of weapons fire hitting a unit that is being swarmed has a chance of hitting the swarmers.
Friendly Fire is the only thing that isn't a rule in any one of the entire line of BattleTech rulebooks.
-
Friendly Fire is the only thing that isn't a rule in any one of the entire line of BattleTech rulebooks.
Outside of coolant trucks. ;)
-
Friendly Fire is the only thing that isn't a rule in any one of the entire line of BattleTech rulebooks.
Is it simply not mentioned?
Or is there an explicit rule that you´re not allowed to fire on your own or allied units?
-
Is it simply not mentioned?
Or is there an explicit rule that you´re not allowed to fire on your own or allied units?
BattleTech is a permissive ruleset. "Not mentioned" is the same thing as "not allowed".
-
I would swear I read somewhere in TacOps or TM about shooting swarmers on a friendly unit. If not, then its a weird case since it happened in fiction long ago and several times since and did not get a rule made.
-
Is it simply not mentioned?
Or is there an explicit rule that you´re not allowed to fire on your own or allied units?
Only in special cases. Artillery, Swarm LRMs, and possibly under TO's Misses Shot rule, but that's all that's coming to mind.
And BA/Infantry swarm/leg attacks. My troops swarm you, and then I try to shoot you, I might accidentally hit my buddies. At which point I will no longer be welcome down in BA country.
If a friendly unit is being swarmed, can I directly attack the swarming troops?
-
If a friendly unit is being swarmed, can I directly attack the swarming troops?
No. You must shoot at the swarmee, and hope the location rolls are in your favor.
And the only friendly fire allowed is accidental(such as drifting), or coolant. Nothing else.
Trust me, I asked about this myself, though long ago, it might be on a previous forum incarnation. I wanted to shoot Nemesis pods at friendlies. :(
-
I tried asking about it with relation to using Infernos on a friendly mech that's being swarmed.
Unfortunately, once you've successfully been swarmed there just isn't much you can do in response.
-
The Swarmed mech can- vehicles have much less in the way of options- drop prone & thrash, get in depth 2 water or go prone in depth 1, I think you can try to brush off like with the NARC/iNARC pod, and IIRC you can try to shake them off by jumping.
With Swarming being a 2 turn attack, and the possibility of being dislodged before being able to get in your first fire it is better to leg attack.
-
Trust me, I asked about this myself, though long ago, it might be on a previous forum incarnation. I wanted to shoot Nemesis pods at friendlies. :(
...Why?
Were you trying to turn your friends into missile magnets that someone else could hide behind?
The Swarmed mech can- vehicles have much less in the way of options- drop prone & thrash, get in depth 2 water or go prone in depth 1, I think you can try to brush off like with the NARC/iNARC pod, and IIRC you can try to shake them off by jumping.
Swarming BA and iNARC can be "brushed off" using the same rules. The only way to get rid of regular NARC is to destroy the section to which it is attached. Which is yet ANOTHER case where intentional friendly fire could be useful. "Hey, do a lancemate a solid and blow my arm off so that lance of Longbows on the other side of the hill will leave me alone."
-
I tried asking about it with relation to using Infernos on a friendly mech that's being swarmed.
Unfortunately, once you've successfully been swarmed there just isn't much you can do in response.
Shoot the infernos at the hex instead? Start a fire and let the swarmers cook that way.
-
...Why?
Were you trying to turn your friends into missile magnets that someone else could hide behind?
Pretty much, yeah. The idea was to attach the pod to something crazy fast like a Celerity or Savannah Master so it could run around and build up a massive TMM, then end that move right in front of the buddy I want to protect. Guided missiles don't go after the big guy, and with numbers that high, probably won't hit the decoy either.
I'd obviously prefer some kind of drone for this. I temporarily considered AMS to also be a plus, except that would have made attaching the Nemesis pod a dicey prospect.
And yes, I know this plan has more holes in it than LRMs(including the LRMs). It still would have been fun! Alas, it was not meant to be...
-
AMS would have been fine since you can designate what it shoots at . . .
-
Can't you choose to turn AMS off during the end phase of a round?
-
Wait, what? There's an explicit ban on friendly fire somewhere in the rules?? ???
-
Wait, what? There's an explicit ban on friendly fire somewhere in the rules?? ???
No. Battletech's rules are permissive. That means that if the rules don't explicitly say that you can do something, it means that you can't.
-
Because it's either that or rulebooks that are literally infinite in length.
-
Interesting... I don't think I've ever considered that reading of the word "permissive" before. Maybe it's because I'm in the Navy (it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission)…
In all seriousness, IFF should be one button press away from being overridden. If you want a unit's AI to argue for two seconds, fine, but the human operator should win in the end.
In response to Weirdo's post while I was typing the above:
And no, I don't think "friendly fire" as an option drives infinite rules... It's simply a function of the people at the table.
-
Not talking about friendly fire specifically, but rather the nature of Battletech rules. They HAVE to be written on the basis of "If we don't explicitly say you can do a thing, you cannot ever do the thing", because otherwise the book has to be infinitely long, to cover all the things you cannot do
-
I appreciate your perspective, but also think there are plenty of human behavior things (like friendly fire) that don't necessarily fall under it.
-
Outside of the game? Sure. Inside the game? No. We're 100% serious when we tell you that if a rulebook doesn't say you can do a thing, you cannot do the thing.
-
Officially, at least i.e. con events. Your table, do what you want.
-
Then put me in the camp of those that think "friendly fire" falls outside the rules. Choice of targets shouldn't be constrained by the "physics" of the universe...
Even in light of what dgorsman said...
-
You wanna play with fan rules, go right ahead. We won't stop you.
-
Hmmm... really making me reconsider my love for the game. I always viewed it as an underlying physics engine for rule of cool stuff. Rolling the human behavior element into that just doesn't seem right.
-
But that's been part of the rules for a long time, too.
Like intentionally ramming with a warship- first you've got to make a roll to see if the crew will actually go through with it.
-
A Warship crew is a bit different animal than a 'mech though.
-
What MLO4H said. There's plenty of things in the rules that are there solely for the sake of the human element, such as DFAs or strafing. Those are almost universally terrible and counterproductive ideas, but humans often do stupid and counterproductive things, so the rules let you do them.
But outside of house rules, there are stupid and counterproductive things we are NOT allowed to do, and friendly fire is one of them.
Of course, there's also scenario and unit-specific rules. For example, the rules for the First Marik Protectors DO allow friendly fire, under specific circumstances.
-
My point is that friendly fire is one of those things that as stupid and counterproductive as it is, is best handled by the people at the table, not the rules.
-
Pretty much, yeah. The idea was to attach the pod to something crazy fast like a Celerity or Savannah Master so it could run around and build up a massive TMM, then end that move right in front of the buddy I want to protect. Guided missiles don't go after the big guy, and with numbers that high, probably won't hit the decoy either.
I'd obviously prefer some kind of drone for this. I temporarily considered AMS to also be a plus, except that would have made attaching the Nemesis pod a dicey prospect.
And yes, I know this plan has more holes in it than LRMs(including the LRMs). It still would have been fun! Alas, it was not meant to be...
ah yes, the Roadrunner defense.....another day, another post that reminds me why i'm glad i don't play against Weirdo.
-
You mean besides the fact that he's probably in another state/country?
-
What MLO4H said. There's plenty of things in the rules that are there solely for the sake of the human element, such as DFAs or strafing. Those are almost universally terrible and counterproductive ideas, but humans often do stupid and counterproductive things, so the rules let you do them.
if they're such bad ideas why are they so satisfying?
-
Because we're human. :)
(Allegedly. I don't judge.)
-
Incidentally, "I can do <the thing>, and I can also do <the other thing>, doesn't that mean that logically I should be able to do <a third thing>?" is the single most frustrating (and common) rules question we get and the answer is always "no" (unless it's already "yes" somewhere else in the rules) because that's not how the nature of BattleTech's rules work.
Do whatever you want on your table, but BattleTech is not an accurate simulation of the universe and is not trying to be.
-
Outside of the game? Sure. Inside the game? No. We're 100% serious when we tell you that if a rulebook doesn't say you can do a thing, you cannot do the thing.
I'm sorry man. I think I'm going to have to disagree with you on friendly fire. I just took a quick look at Total Warfare, and nowhere does it specify what a "target" is. Now, maybe I just skimmed over it, but I don't think so.
The only thing that appears to even hint that you can't shoot at a friendly unit is under Weapon Attacks on page 103 (first subpoint -- "An attacking unit fires a weapon at an enemy target unit"). But the paragraph right before specifies "Players should not consider the list below a hard-and-fast set of rules..." It's basically just a simple description of how things are supposed to work, so new players can get a handle on it.
In Battletech, you can shoot at lots of things that aren't even units. You can shoot at trees, bridges, buildings, and hexes. And there's never a restriction on whose units you can shoot at. By the letter of the law, I think you can friendly fire to your heart's content.
-
Is it possible to physically attack BA on a friendly unit? I have an image in my head of an Atlas plucking up an Elemental in each hand from another mech and squeezing until they go pop.
-
The only thing I can find on that subject deals with mounted BA on a target that is being swarmed that may help out in defeating the attackers and attempting to push the aggressor's off the target.
Do whatever you want on your table, but BattleTech is not an accurate simulation of the universe and is not trying to be.
So if I want to lob Arrow IV infernos rounds into hexes occupied by my units and my opponents to give their BA a bad case of hot foot I'm good by the rules set as I'm not targeting my units per se?
-
That is, I believe, allowed.
-
Yup, that's allowed.
-
In Battletech, you can shoot at lots of things that aren't even units. You can shoot at trees, bridges, buildings, and hexes. And there's never a restriction on whose units you can shoot at. By the letter of the law, I think you can friendly fire to your heart's content.
Since apparently Weirdo and I being ironclad certain that Friendly Fire is not possible is not enough, please take a moment to review the official stance on the subject. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=13245.msg311666#msg311666)
-
I think Weirdo let that one go WAY too easily back in the day. And I think Chunga used a wrong word there. If he'd said "Tournament" instead of "Official", I don't think we'd be having this discussion.
-
Since apparently Weirdo and I being ironclad certain that Friendly Fire is not possible is not enough, please take a moment to review the official stance on the subject. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=13245.msg311666#msg311666)
Sorry, reading that thread kicked some gears lose in my brain, but are you telling me that friendly units aren't valid targets for coolant and water ammo for Flamers/Fluid Guns/Sprayers? Because that seems like the ENTIRE purpose of those ammo types and the coolant truck rules.
-
I think Weirdo let that one go WAY too easily back in the day. And I think Chunga used a wrong word there. If he'd said "Tournament" instead of "Official", I don't think we'd be having this discussion.
There is no difference between those words in this context. If you want to shoot friendlies, it's a house rule. House rules are absolutely encouraged in your games.
For what I hope are obvious reasons, I'm not going to include that paragraph and an asterisk every time a rules question comes up.
-
Since apparently Weirdo and I being ironclad certain that Friendly Fire is not possible is not enough, please take a moment to review the official stance on the subject. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=13245.msg311666#msg311666)
I don't care what their official stance is. I'm saying the rules don't actually say that. There is no restriction against friendly fire in the rulebook. You simply pick a target, and then you fire. There is nothing that restricts what qualifies as a "target".
Catalyst is free to publish some errata. But the text in the rulebook does not support that ruling. They pulled it out of nowhere.
-
Sorry, reading that thread kicked some gears lose in my brain, but are you telling me that friendly units aren't valid targets for coolant and water ammo for Flamers/Fluid Guns/Sprayers? Because that seems like the ENTIRE purpose of those ammo types and the coolant truck rules.
It's been mentioned in this thread that coolant is the exception. But you don't roll to hit, you just need to be close enough and it does it's thing.
-
Scorpion? As in, the quad ´Mech? I picture something like wing membranes spread between the legs, like a flying squirrel.
How'd the AirMech mode be different from BattleMech mode?
Oh, brother. :bang:
The airmech mode is fairly easy to see. I'm having a bit of trouble seeing seeing the fighter mode, but the art LAM art in TRO 3085 is a bit funky. On the other hand, without seeing it in motion, holding a toy or having these handy-dandy (http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossf/vf-25f/colorcode-vf25f_small.gif) and color coded charts (http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossplus/yf-19/colorcode-yf19_small.gif) from this Macross fan site (http://www.macross2.net/m3/m3.html), picturing some of those transformations would be hard too. The only reason the Unseen LAM's seem reasonable to us is that most of us either saw it on Robotech, or had the old G1 Jetfire.
Not saying it wouldn't work, just saying I don't see it.
;D
You can picture the Scorpion in AirMech Mode? Were the front legs become arms? I can see a couple different ways Fighter Mode can look but I'm stuck on AirMech.
-
Sorry, reading that thread kicked some gears lose in my brain, but are you telling me that friendly units aren't valid targets for coolant and water ammo for Flamers/Fluid Guns/Sprayers? Because that seems like the ENTIRE purpose of those ammo types and the coolant truck rules.
It's a bit obscure, but I recommend reading through this thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63696.0), it explains that coolant is an exception.
It's been mentioned in this thread that coolant is the exception. But you don't roll to hit, you just need to be close enough and it does it's thing.
You do roll to hit. But nonetheless, coolant is the explicit exception.
I don't care what their official stance is. I'm saying the rules don't actually say that. There is no restriction against friendly fire in the rulebook.
The restriction is the same one as the restriction against turning enemies to your side by exiting your mech and offering them autographed animation cels. If the rules do not say you can do a thing and tell you how to do the thing, you cannot do the thing. It's that simple.
-
The restriction is the same one as the restriction against turning enemies to your side by exiting your mech and offering them autographed animation cels. If the rules do not say you can do a thing and tell you how to do the thing, you cannot do the thing. It's that simple.
I had started writing a response, and now I'm going to have to correct myself.
-
So, Total Warfare does actually have an explicit restriction against friendly fire. I've been looking through it during the course of this discussion. It's on page 42 in the definitions section.
Target
A target is defined as anything a unit may attack, whether
with a weapon or physically. This can be another enemy unit (a
friendly can never be the target of a direct attack, though it can
be damaged through the effects of another attack),
This is exactly what I had been looking for. So I'll retract my earlier statement. As of Total Warfare, you can't intentionally friendly fire. Previous to this (all the way back to Battledroids and all the way forward to BMR) there wasn't such a restriction. But it doesn't have anything to do with a lack of specific restriction. Under the combat rules, if a target is in LOS and in your firing arc, you can shoot at it. Except for that parenthetical statement I quoted, there is nothing restricting this to enemy targets. If something is in LOS and your firing arc, it's a target.
-
So, Total Warfare does actually have an explicit restriction against friendly fire. I've been looking through it during the course of this discussion. It's on page 42 in the definitions section.
This is exactly what I had been looking for. So I'll retract my earlier statement. As of Total Warfare, you can't intentionally friendly fire. Previous to this (all the way back to Battledroids and all the way forward to BMR) there wasn't such a restriction. But it doesn't have anything to do with a lack of specific restriction. Under the combat rules, if a target is in LOS and in your firing arc, you can shoot at it. Except for that parenthetical statement I quoted, there is nothing restricting this to enemy targets. If something is in LOS and your firing arc, it's a target.
While I'm glad you got to the right conclusion, what Weirdo and I have been trying to impress is that "there is no restriction against..." is a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of any possible rule in BattleTech. Or at the very least way of approaching rules questions.
-
While I'm glad you got to the right conclusion, what Weirdo and I have been trying to impress is that "there is no restriction against..." is a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of any possible rule in BattleTech. Or at the very least way of approaching rules questions.
And we have a fundamental disagreement on that. I'm not trying to make my mech use the Care Bear Stare on you ("the rules don't say I can't do it!"). I am simply reading the literal language of the rules.
Let's take a look at the original Battletech Manual: The Rules of Warfare (with the Atlas on the cover). I picked this one at random, but it doesn't really matter, because most versions of the rules are virtually copy/pasted from it. In the section "Playing The Game", Combat, page 17.
After completing the Movement Phase of the turn, the players begin to engage in combat. There are two forms of combat: Weapon Attacks and Physical Attacks. Weapon Attacks are attacks using the unit's armaments, such as missiles, lasers, and autocannons. In Physical Attacks, the 'Mechs use their weight to inflict damage on targets.
(skip description of how damage works)
During the Weapons Fire Phase, players use the armaments of their units to inflict damage on targets. For one unit to fire at another, it must have a clear line-of-sight to the target, and the target must be within the range and firing arc of the weapons that player wishes to use. The likelihood of a shot hitting a target is then calculated based on the range, movement of the target and firer, intervening terrain, and other factors.
Hmm, well, it appears to shoot at a target you have to have line of sight, be within range, and the target has to be within your firing arc. But it doesn't say anything about who or what you can target. According to that, "units" can fire at "units".
Maybe it says something in Line of Sight? I'm not going to quote the whole section, but it doesn't. What about the section on Firing Arcs? No, it doesn't say anything there either. What about in the "Firing Weapons" section on page 19?
FIRING WEAPONS
After a player has determined that a target is within the firing arc of his weapons and there is a clear line-of-sight to the target, his unit may fire.
The phrases "enemy unit" or "friendly unit" never appear in the book, not that I've found. The phrasing is either 'mechs shooting at 'mechs, units shooting at units, or attacker shooting at target. And that's the case with Battledroids, Battletech Third Edition, Battletech Fourth Edition, The Rules of Warfare, Battletech Master Rules, and Battletech Master Rules Revised. Even Total Warfare uses those same terms except for the definition of "target" that I found on page 42 (posted above).
The game allows a unit to shoot at another unit. It makes no distinction as to who controls either one. Saying "well obviously you can't shoot your own guys" is you reading something into the rules that (until Total Warfare page 42) was not there. The game also allows you to make facing changes, but it doesn't use the terminology "left" or "right". I don't think anyone would argue that you can't turn left.
-
I'm struggling to figure out what your point is here. Referencing a rulebook written before I was born means nothing for the rules now. If you're fishing for an admission that friendly fire used to be possible (however pointless that admission might be) it certainly was.
That said: you're still getting to the right place the wrong way. "It doesn't say I can't target friendlies!" is a backwards justification and forms a seriously bad habit for interpreting other rules. For example: under that body of text you quoted, you can't shoot at a hex, only another unit. Does that make sense? No, of course not. Is that the literal reading of the text? Yes, it is. It is imperative to approach from a perspective of "this is what the rules say I can do". The (old, obsolete) rules say I can fire at a unit. What kind of unit? Any kind. The current rules say I can fire at a target. What kind of target? Any kind that isn't friendly. Similarly, the rules say I can make a facing change. What kind of facing change? Any kind, as long as I pat the costs for it. What kinds are there? Left and right.
Part of that evolution is the improvement in technical writing standards across the industry, part of it is experience. Holding up an old book and saying it wasn't a rule until recently is completely irrelevant.
EDIT: "It used to be possible" is a fun fact, not an argument.
-
I'm struggling to figure out what your point is here. Referencing a rulebook written before I was born means nothing for the rules now. If you're fishing for an admission that friendly fire used to be possible (however pointless that admission might be) it certainly was.
That said: you're still getting to the right place the wrong way. "It doesn't say I can't target friendlies!" is a backwards justification and forms a seriously bad habit for interpreting other rules. For example: under that body of text you quoted, you can't shoot at a hex, only another unit. Does that make sense? No, of course not. Is that the literal reading of the text? Yes, it is. It is imperative to approach from a perspective of "this is what the rules say I can do". The (old, obsolete) rules say I can fire at a unit. What kind of unit? Any kind. The current rules say I can fire at a target. What kind of target? Any kind that isn't friendly. Similarly, the rules say I can make a facing change. What kind of facing change? Any kind, as long as I pat the costs for it. What kinds are there? Left and right.
Part of that evolution is the improvement in technical writing standards across the industry, part of it is experience. Holding up an old book and saying it wasn't a rule until recently is completely irrelevant.
EDIT: "It used to be possible" is a fun fact, not an argument.
Edit: I think we are talking in circles around each other. But I think we are agreeing at this point.
I'm not going to quote from Total Warfare, because the book is too damn long. The one I quoted from is the one I had at hand while I was typing the post. But as I said, the language is virtually identical in the other books. Last night I looked at a copy of every major rulebook, except for Battletech Second Edition (which I don't have) and the Compendium with the MadCat and Elemental on the cover (which I just forgot to look at). In every version, you shoot at "units" or "targets", with no restriction on ownership. Other sections allow you to shoot at hexes, trees, buildings, etc. To shoot at a target, it has to be a unit (or building, hex, trees, etc) in LOS, in your firing arc, and in range. That's it.
Even Total Warfare uses the same language, just with a lot more words. In fact it was the first book I checked. The restriction on friendly fire comes in the definitions section, separate from the "how to play the game" instructions. That's why I didn't find it initially, and probably why Weirdo was going with the "permissive rules" argument instead of just telling me to look at page 42. We both missed it in the language of the rules the first time.
Weirdo was taking the position that because it doesn't say I can shoot at "friendly units" that I can't. But the only place the game makes any distinction between friendly and enemy units is in that one parenthetical on page 42 of TW. Absent that specific restriction, I can shoot at any unit I want. Just like it doesn't have to specifically tell me that I can shoot at a Wasp or a Warhammer, just like it doesn't have to tell me that I can turn left and right, the general rule is that I can shoot at something in range, in LOS, and in my firing arc. As long as those three things are true, it's a target and I can shoot at it. I don't need special permission to shoot at a friendly, because under the general rule I can shoot at anything.
It's only when there's a specific restriction that friendly fire becomes against the rules. Absent that one sentence on page 42, it's allowed.
-
If that rabbit is dead . . .
What about Missile Fire Support mechs that only have a few shots? I am specifically talking about things like the Bombardier which has a single ton per launcher.
-
If that rabbit is dead . . .
What about Missile Fire Support mechs that only have a few shots? I am specifically talking about things like the Bombardier which has a single ton per launcher.
At the risk of going too general, ANYTHING that brings an LRM-20 to the field without at least 9 shots is a product of the Good Idea Fairy.
Speaking of missiles, WTF is up with the Dire Wolf X? ATM 6, streak 2, SRM 4 and LRM 15? The lasers run the gamut of pulse, ER and heavy flavors. The Ultra and LB AC's are represented. The only thing I can think of is this is a config designed by Jaguar or Falcon merchant, trying to one-up a Diamond Shark.
-
120 missiles is 120 missiles, it doesn't matter what size launcher you're using. The size of the launchers you're using should really be dictated by the amount of ammo you're carrying, not the other way around.
That said, if you can't carry the ammo yourself, you can always have somebody else carry it. The Bombardier and Catapult are probably meant to unload quickly and then scoot back to where the J-27s are hanging out for a quick reload, rather than hanging out in the combat zone for prolonged periods and taking hits.
-
If that rabbit is dead . . .
What about Missile Fire Support mechs that only have a few shots? I am specifically talking about things like the Bombardier which has a single ton per launcher.
when you have to provide fire support but be back to pick up the kids from school by 3pm
-
IIRC the Bombardier was meant to operate 'artillery style' with support crews, including reloader vehicles. so the small bins shouldn't have been a big deal in such a use.
of course i'm not sure the rules actually allow that to work as intended.
-
That said, if you can't carry the ammo yourself, you can always have somebody else carry it. The Bombardier and Catapult are probably meant to unload quickly and then scoot back to where the J-27s are hanging out for a quick reload, rather than hanging out in the combat zone for prolonged periods and taking hits.
I get that, I worked with MLRS & HiMARS . . . one has 12 rockets and the other has 6 though both reload quickly (oddly perhaps, the heavier system is faster) but when it comes to fire support and mission tasking the MLRS is/was easier to plan just b/c each launcher had more shots before reload. Probably easier at higher levels to work up fire plans too. The Bombardier and Catapult C1 are different IMO b/c the Cat actually has a solid secondary weapons array and thicker skin. The Bombardier just has that single SRM for back up . . . and as a mech, it can be expect to go places the ammo trucks do not (or get to easily, movement through terrain in a combat turn vs strategic movement is different IMO). No trucks are going to be falling with you out a dropship . . . or at least not useful ones. Does raise the question if the SLDF had IndiMech support forces that jumped too (Sure that Bombardier only has 6 rounds for its main weapons, but you see that LoaderMech over there? Its jumping too and it has four reload packs for the Bombardier.)
-
I can't speak to the Bombardier, but looking at the 3025 drawing of the Wolverine, I got the impression that the ammo was stored in a detachable magazine. It looks like it should be able to fire its 20 rounds, eject a mag, and manually insert another one with its hands. Now the rules don't allow for that, but that's how it looks visually.
If you had a weapon system something like that, basically a one turn reload, then that opens up a lot of design possibilities.
-
I want to say there was some fluff about that sort of thing but it never made it past lore.
-
Looking again at the mech, I think the perceived value of the Bombardier is the 5/8 movement profile of the Star League design. Since they had more units than anybody else, that's a pretty nice machine. You've got a 25% faster top speed than an Archer, carry the same firepower, and the only downside is you have to bring more of them to sustain fire for a long time. Oh darn, however will the Star League cope?
It sort of reminds me of the M1 Abrams. Fast and powerful, but it guzzles fuel. That'd be a huge issue for many militaries, but the US Army already has huge fleets of fuel vehicles. As it is intended and expected to be used, it's not a big deal for them.
The Bombardier would e able to provide fire support for mechs like the Champion and Lancelot much better than the slower Archer or the lighter Trebuchet.
Edit: Basically the slower, crappier 3025 version would have just downgraded the engine without changing much else. It's a way to keep a mech in service (or make use of existing spare parts) to get more bodies in the field. At that point just having a mech out there is more important than whether the design is great or not.
-
Consider that the Bombardier is intended to support more mobile forces, that would not be sticking around to slug it out. They can still make use of the limited endurance firepower.
-
Does raise the question if the SLDF had IndiMech support forces that jumped too (Sure that Bombardier only has 6 rounds for its main weapons, but you see that LoaderMech over there? Its jumping too and it has four reload packs for the Bombardier.)
I always liked the idea of a battery composed of 3 Helepolis and one Daedalus, with the Daedalus going anywhere the artillery mechs could go, hiding during a firefight, and reloading them whenever needed. I could see the same or similar working with Bombardiers. Unless you go with a different design your loader won't be able to match their tactical speed, but I'll bet their strategic speed(especially over rough ground) will still be a lot better than a force with a conventional supply train.
-
Its the artillery mech with the big tube from the shoulder, a heavy? Yeah, I have to tell you the ammo trucks are not too far behind the SP arty . . . like the reload points are supposed to be about 100 meters, usually behind terrain from the firing points if it can be arranged. And the ammo truck will be in its own hide location, parked a little bit away from the actual reload point (b/c of clearances for machinery) since it tends to be a open area.
The lance is not bad, but typically its organized at the battery so . . . 1st Lance/4 Helepolis, 2nd Lance/4 Helepolis, 3rd Lance/ammo platoon. Btw, those Indi drivers are going to be your back up ArtyMech drivers.
-
Oh, absolutely. I just reduced the size so it could actually fit in a typical Battletech game without being the entire force.
-
I get that, I worked with MLRS & HiMARS . . . one has 12 rockets and the other has 6 though both reload quickly (oddly perhaps, the heavier system is faster) but when it comes to fire support and mission tasking the MLRS is/was easier to plan just b/c each launcher had more shots before reload. Probably easier at higher levels to work up fire plans too. The Bombardier and Catapult C1 are different IMO b/c the Cat actually has a solid secondary weapons array and thicker skin. The Bombardier just has that single SRM for back up . . . and as a mech, it can be expect to go places the ammo trucks do not (or get to easily, movement through terrain in a combat turn vs strategic movement is different IMO). No trucks are going to be falling with you out a dropship . . . or at least not useful ones. Does raise the question if the SLDF had IndiMech support forces that jumped too (Sure that Bombardier only has 6 rounds for its main weapons, but you see that LoaderMech over there? Its jumping too and it has four reload packs for the Bombardier.)
The Bombardier is basically an Archer variant, so I have to wonder why they just didn't make it an Archer variant.
As for reloading that's possible under the rules, but I don't know how you can get extra ammo onto the field.
I always liked the idea of a battery composed of 3 Helepolis and one Daedalus, with the Daedalus going anywhere the artillery mechs could go, hiding during a firefight, and reloading them whenever needed. I could see the same or similar working with Bombardiers. Unless you go with a different design your loader won't be able to match their tactical speed, but I'll bet their strategic speed(especially over rough ground) will still be a lot better than a force with a conventional supply train.
I was going to say that this wouldn't work because the Daedalus doesn't have Jump Jets, but it turns out that the Helepolis doesn't have Jump Jets, I just thought it did.
-
I want to say there was some fluff about that sort of thing but it never made it past lore.
Isn't there the Fast Reload quirk?
-
The Bombardier is basically an Archer variant, so I have to wonder why they just didn't make it an Archer variant.
God that 'Mech blows...
The Bombardier is such a head-scratcher. It's so close to being an awesome unit.
-
It's not a 'Mech but the SRM Carrier (Narc) probably counts, your going to want the target Narc'd before it encounters the SRM Carrier and it's not likely to be very intact after it encounters the carrier, Narc Beacon or not.
-
Isn't there the Fast Reload quirk?
Assuming fast reload quirk, an industrial mech to help, and an elite crew, reloading a single bin would be take 3 minutes, 18 turns. So 6 minutes to top off the LRMS, 9 if the pilot wants the AMS too.
This based on Strat Ops pg 186 and BMM pg 83
-
God that 'Mech blows...
The Bombardier is such a head-scratcher. It's so close to being an awesome unit.
Do you mean overall or variant-specific? Because the 14C is actually really nice, with the 14K being a close second.
First few suck in terms of ammo dependency despite a scarcity of spare funbins, yeah, but they at least hit the right mark twice in terms of usefulness. Even if the 14K is really freaking weird in terms of ammo placement. Hell, with as much ammo as the 14K has plus the MGs, it's almost as though the weapon is goading the user into packing a ton of inferno.
-
Do you mean overall or variant-specific? Because the 14C is actually really nice, with the 14K being a close second.
First few suck in terms of ammo dependency despite a scarcity of spare funbins, yeah, but they at least hit the right mark twice in terms of usefulness. Even if the 14K is really freaking weird in terms of ammo placement. Hell, with as much ammo as the 14K has plus the MGs, it's almost as though the weapon is goading the user into packing a ton of inferno.
Yeah, I should have been specific and said the -12D. I have a special hate for that machine.
-
It's not a 'Mech but the SRM Carrier (Narc) probably counts, your going to want the target Narc'd before it encounters the SRM Carrier and it's not likely to be very intact after it encounters the carrier, Narc Beacon or not.
Only if you're using the NARC to guide your own missiles and nobody else's.
-
Only if you're using the NARC to guide your own missiles and nobody else's.
True. A lot of these NARC units are designed to work in larger formations, i.e.: a Lance of NARC taggers with two Lances of fire support. Even if you kill one, whatever it tagged with a beacon is probably going to be hurting very soon.
-
Only if you're using the NARC to guide your own missiles and nobody else's.
I kind of figure there's not much left of the target after an SRM Carrier's done firing at it.
True. A lot of these NARC units are designed to work in larger formations, i.e.: a Lance of NARC taggers with two Lances of fire support. Even if you kill one, whatever it tagged with a beacon is probably going to be hurting very soon.
You don't exactly want one shot ambush predators for this roll.
-
I kind of figure there's not much left of the target after an SRM Carrier's done firing at it.
SRM Carriers are scary, but they're not THAT scary. There's plenty of things out there tough enough that they might try to take one for the team so nobody else has to. The question is if they're willing to do so if they know about the lingering effects.
After all, if it does survive, it's definitely worth pointing 10-11 LRM racks at it...
-
Also there's nothing that says the SRMs and the Narc have to go to the same target.
Heck, I wouldn't even load narc-capable munitions into the SRM carrier. Either narc my target and then dump into someone else, or... ooh, load smoke SRMs, narc my target, then lay smoke EVERYWHERE.
Let my old model LRM carriers in the backfield and their narc equipped ammo sort it out.
-
Mangonel
So close. Just a little more ammo...
-
I'll be honest. Any design that has a RAC/5 and one ton of ammo.
-
Don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but it makes no sense to me that all movement speeds are in arbitrarily set increments of 10.8 kph.
I mean, I get it from a game perspective that movement points have to be a multiple of some constant factor, I just don’t understand why 10.8 was chsen.
-
We get 10.8 from turn length and hex size, it's the result of performing a proper conversion between hexes per turn and Kph
-
I'll be honest. Any design that has a RAC/5 and one ton of ammo.
I know of one variant of the Hammerhands that's like that. Struggling to think of any others.
-
Target
A target is defined as anything a unit may attack, whether
with a weapon or physically. This can be another enemy unit (a
friendly can never be the target of a direct attack, though it can
be damaged through the effects of another attack),
So can you target the enemy Infantry or Battle Armor that are swarming your friendly unit?
You're not targeting the friendly just the enemies on it.
-
Except that swarming infantry and BA can't be targeted.
-
Correct. Long story short, shooting them off isn't feasible. You need to either counterswarm, or have the swarmee do any one of the myriad and reasonably easy methods to shake them.
-
I know of one variant of the Hammerhands that's like that. Struggling to think of any others.
Hermes II variant. And I got an ONN Hammerhands variant to explicitly deal with the ammoless version. :)
-
At the risk of going too general, ANYTHING that brings an LRM-20 to the field without at least 9 shots is a product of the Good Idea Fairy.
Speaking of missiles, WTF is up with the Dire Wolf X? ATM 6, streak 2, SRM 4 and LRM 15? The lasers run the gamut of pulse, ER and heavy flavors. The Ultra and LB AC's are represented. The only thing I can think of is this is a config designed by Jaguar or Falcon merchant, trying to one-up a Diamond Shark.
I'm pretty sure that Direwolf X was created to have one of each weapon system. It was used as an example in a rule book for resolving firing phases, I'm not sure if it was supposed to really be canon as a "usable" config.
-
Except that swarming infantry and BA can't be targeted.
Correct. Long story short, shooting them off isn't feasible. You need to either counterswarm, or have the swarmee do any one of the myriad and reasonably easy methods to shake them.
Thanks
Poor friendly. Hope they can get the swarmies off.
-
I'm pretty sure that Direwolf X was created to have one of each weapon system. It was used as an example in a rule book for resolving firing phases, I'm not sure if it was supposed to really be canon as a "usable" config.
Yeah, it was first used as an example for using different weapons in Total Warfare, then added to Record Sheets 3050 Upgrade unabridged without comment.
-
The sad part about the 12D Bombardier is that it's easy to fix. Remove the anti-missile system and the SRM 4, add 2 more tons of LRM ammo to the left torso along with CASE, and put a medium laser in each arm. You've doubled its ammo capacity, increased its short ranged firepower, and also secured it in case of field salvage/repair if the ammo goes up. The SRM 4 and anti-missile system are superfluous, especially in a mech whose entire idea was based around fast fire support.
-
The sad part about the 12D Bombardier is that it's easy to fix. Remove the anti-missile system and the SRM 4, add 2 more tons of LRM ammo to the left torso along with CASE, and put a medium laser in each arm. You've doubled its ammo capacity, increased its short ranged firepower, and also secured it in case of field salvage/repair if the ammo goes up. The SRM 4 and anti-missile system are superfluous, especially in a mech whose entire idea was based around fast fire support.
That's the thing: Just about ANY change is going to make more sense than what it has: LRM-15s w/Artemis, laser instead of the SRM, dumping the AMS for an ECM or Active Probe, etc. Just like the EXT-4D, the AMS is worthless on that thing and becomes a liability.
In regards to the Exterminator, the AMS should just be an ECM Suite. The base -4D model has no stealth properties, despite being described as a stealth unit. And it wasn't referring to the EXT-4C, since they were made the exact, same year. The AMS and missile rack is counter to the entire premise of the machine. "Let's try sneaking around, then creating a giant cloud of smoke and tracer fire to let you know where I'm at." Derp. The EXT-4Db is the only version that got it correct and that doesn't even have the Chameleon LPS or Null-Signature System. :-\
-
Let's run around with the electronic equivalent of a kreig light, instead. Yup, much more stealthy. :thumbsup: Smoke and tracer fire only happens when being shot at (with missiles, no less), at which point it's safe to say you're no longer stealthy.
-
I think you mean klieg light there...
-
How about the anemic weapons load on what is ostensibly a headhunter? Too light to threaten a command 'Mech, horribly mismatched to taking out vehicles and tents. It's also too big, too heavily armored, and badly suited to its purported role.
The Exterminator is basically an ill-conceived Assassin competitor that costs too much.
-
That just got me thinking... the Assassin almost makes sense when you throw the Exterminator's Star League tech at it...
-
Let's run around with the electronic equivalent of a kreig light, instead. Yup, much more stealthy. :thumbsup: Smoke and tracer fire only happens when being shot at (with missiles, no less), at which point it's safe to say you're no longer stealthy.
The purpose of the 'Mech is assassination. Smoke/missiles should NEVER come in. And four medium lasers isn't going to kill, say, an Emperor or Pillager, which were the kings of the battlefield when the -4D debuted. We're talking 20 damage (23 with the small laser), max. The WVR-6R does that (5 + 12 = 17) and at 1/3 the cost.
If the EXT-4Db gets behind you, however, you can take 38 (41 w/small laser) damage. That's something to be afraid of.
-
Royals got the real version, everyone else got the monkey model. Sounds right.
-
The purpose of the 'Mech is assassination. Smoke/missiles should NEVER come in. And four medium lasers isn't going to kill, say, an Emperor or Pillager, which were the kings of the battlefield when the -4D debuted. We're talking 20 damage (23 with the small laser), max. The WVR-6R does that (5 + 12 = 17) and at 1/3 the cost.
If the EXT-4Db gets behind you, however, you can take 38 (41 w/small laser) damage. That's something to be afraid of.
Command units should not be the biggest nastiest unit on the field- and since it was designed (Royal version anyway) to go after the command structure, its going to be soft targets in the SL era.
-
Royals got the real version, everyone else got the monkey model. Sounds right.
It does. But the EXT-4D literally does nothing that its fluff says it can do. It's not a dangerous "assassin," it has no stealth ability, and it doesn't have laser-reflective armor (FYI - that's from the TRO:2750 write-up).
So, to me at least, it's a design that makes no sense. The EXT-4Db is truly what it should have been, armament-wise, and the EXT-4C (which didn't have a record sheet until... 5 years ago?) for its stealth abilities.
-
The purpose of the 'Mech is assassination. Smoke/missiles should NEVER come in. And four medium lasers isn't going to kill, say, an Emperor or Pillager, which were the kings of the battlefield when the -4D debuted. We're talking 20 damage (23 with the small laser), max. The WVR-6R does that (5 + 12 = 17) and at 1/3 the cost.
If the EXT-4Db gets behind you, however, you can take 38 (41 w/small laser) damage. That's something to be afraid of.
if the Exterminator is meant to be piloted by highly skilled pilots intended for in-close called shots, the laser loadout makes sense. as for the LRMs they might work as a distraction or possibly for lobbing at range those rare chances when your target is out in the open with fragmentary munitions. or, i guess misdirection. loose a few missile flights, let them try and chase a ghost while a lancemate goes in for the kill on the real target.
-
The Exterminator was (allegedly) for headhunting Mobile Command Centers and other non-combat units, not taking down enemy assault mechs.
-
Except that swarming infantry and BA can't be targeted.
So, this answers my question about physical attacks.
-
It does. But the EXT-4D literally does nothing that its fluff says it can do. It's not a dangerous "assassin," it has no stealth ability, and it doesn't have laser-reflective armor (FYI - that's from the TRO:2750 write-up).
So, to me at least, it's a design that makes no sense. The EXT-4Db is truly what it should have been, armament-wise, and the EXT-4C (which didn't have a record sheet until... 5 years ago?) for its stealth abilities.
Well, the problem you're having is that you're trying to apply 2019 Battletech rules to something that was published in 1989. Back then, there were no "quirks" or other specialized equipment. There were references in the TROs to such things, but there weren't rules for them. At the time it was published, the EXT-4D had undefined abilities with no rules support. That's just how they did things back then.
While Catalyst writers have tried to be completionist on everything, they haven't followed up with some of the older designs. The Exterminator got left out, and it probably shouldn't have.
-
The Exterminator was (allegedly) for headhunting Mobile Command Centers and other non-combat units, not taking down enemy assault mechs.
"One of these in the era of specialization is the Exterminator, whose sole function is to target specific command 'Mechs and destroy them." - TRO:2750, p. 38
-
Hmm, not a book I've read in 25 years.
-
I don't think that was meant as any possible Mech, ever, all on its own. ::)
-
"One of these in the era of specialization is the Exterminator, whose sole function is to target specific command 'Mechs and destroy them." - TRO:2750, p. 38
Do we know what "specific command 'mechs" it was intended as targeting? 'cause i sorta doubt it was aimed and assault 'mechs....
-
well looking at the fluff for other mechs that existed at the time.. Phoenix Hawk's, the Cyclops.. maybe Battlemasters.
it is also worth noting that the way the SLDF fought, the exterminator probably wouldn't have been expected to fight alone.. probably with at least a full lance on the same mission, with the ability to vector in airstrikes and artillery onto the target once it found it.
-
The SLDF might have sent a company of them after one guy. But a Phoenix Hawk with the same stealth gizmos would do the job just as well if not better. The EXT is a collosal waste.
-
Do we know what "specific command 'mechs" it was intended as targeting? 'cause i sorta doubt it was aimed and assault 'mechs....
No. That's one of the major faults of the writing so far; 100% detail on the SLDF, 50% detail on anyone they actually fought. So that might have been an MAD-1R it was facing, or it might have been a PX-3R that was a total pain in the butt to catch. Who knows?
-
And then we get a book that establishes that the favorite command mech for the CC at the time was the Urbanmech...
-
The SLDF might have sent a company of them after one guy. But a Phoenix Hawk with the same stealth gizmos would do the job just as well if not better. The EXT is a collosal waste.
Um, I seem to recall fluff saying that a regiment was lucky to even have one Exterminator.
-
The Exterminator in a 1x1 situation can take out most assault command mechs with ease. Its a faster hopper or a bigger spider - and people tell me on every possible occasion that they can take out an Atlas with a Spider.... well the exterminator has the armor to face those rear-facing weapons.
However, the ammunition dependent weapons are a bad taste - but when you really look at a design decsision that makes no sense - look at the Exterminator 5E and 5F - both have iNarc and iC3 to be dedicated spotter but lack the jump jets to escape bad situations - great they have MASC but 3 JJs might have been the better option
-
That's the thing: Just about ANY change is going to make more sense than what it has: LRM-15s w/Artemis, laser instead of the SRM, dumping the AMS for an ECM or Active Probe, etc. Just like the EXT-4D, the AMS is worthless on that thing and becomes a liability.
In regards to the Exterminator, the AMS should just be an ECM Suite. The base -4D model has no stealth properties, despite being described as a stealth unit. And it wasn't referring to the EXT-4C, since they were made the exact, same year. The AMS and missile rack is counter to the entire premise of the machine. "Let's try sneaking around, then creating a giant cloud of smoke and tracer fire to let you know where I'm at." Derp. The EXT-4Db is the only version that got it correct and that doesn't even have the Chameleon LPS or Null-Signature System. :-\
It's got both CLPS and Null Sig, what more do you want for Stealth, Void Sig?
-
I've actually run the Exterminator vs Command Lance game. It was the stealthy version, though we found that the stealth systems tended to get turned off(and stayed off) once the battle was joined, so the standard model should do just as well here. The LRMs were used, but not during the game - because this was a prepared ambush, the EXT pilot(not me, I was running the command group) loaded Thunder rounds and was allowed to pre-place several minefields. It only stands to reason that elite pilots would be used, so he was a 2/3 pilot, and got the Fist Fire SPA(because of the same text that names it a headhunter).
THAT THING IS TERRIFYING. The ability to outmaneuver anything its size or bigger, plus two twelve-point laser punches(seriously, Fist Fire was probably created almost solely for the Exterminator) made for the scariest infighter I think I've ever seen. He systematically executed three of my four mechs, and failed the mission only because the scenario did not tell him which one was the commander, and that's the one that got away. Even then, it was an incredibly close thing, with that last mech only barely making it of the map and survival an open question all the way to the end.
-
Having played with and against CLPS and Null Sig a few times, for tactical boardgames I am not sure its better than having Stealth Armor. Meta/Strategic . . . yeah, I am going a lance of Royal Exterminators equipped with those systems a LOT better chance to penetrate enemy lines than most other mechs.
The use of Thunder munitions by the Exterminator player was a very smart move- both in being able to set up minefields without Engineer support and the ability to herd the target or keep reinforcements at bay. What mechs were in the command lance?
-
I'm in the midst of typing up the full scenario in its own thread, rather than clutter up this one. You should see it in this subforum in a few.
-
Um, I seem to recall fluff saying that a regiment was lucky to even have one Exterminator.
And I seem to recall fluff saying that the SLDF never bothered sending just one regiment.
-
I'm in the midst of typing up the full scenario in its own thread, rather than clutter up this one. You should see it in this subforum in a few.
Looking forward to it, thanks
-
It's up!
-
And I seem to recall fluff saying that the SLDF never bothered sending just one regiment.
“Never” is a pretty strong statement.
-
It's got both CLPS and Null Sig, what more do you want for Stealth, Void Sig?
The EXT-4D has no stealth whatsoever. Only the EXT-4C does.
-
“Never” is a pretty strong statement.
As we say over here, the exception proves the rule.
-
The EXT-4D has no stealth whatsoever. Only the EXT-4C does.
And I'll say again, the 4D was created at a time when the TRO just said "oh yeah this thing has some secret stealth thing that there aren't any rules for". That's how they handled a lot of Star League tech back in 1989. That's how the Mercury's omni tech was handled. The fact that TPTB haven't got around to detailing it yet doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to be present.
-
And I'll say again, the 4D was created at a time when the TRO just said "oh yeah this thing has some secret stealth thing that there aren't any rules for". That's how they handled a lot of Star League tech back in 1989. That's how the Mercury's omni tech was handled. The fact that TPTB haven't got around to detailing it yet doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to be present.
I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree. The Guardian ECM debuted in TRO:2750 on page 10, as did the rules for using it. There's no excuse for it not being included on the Exterminator, even according to your premise.
-
Except it was supposed to use something unique, different from the Guardian ECM. This was basically how FASA handled weird one-off technology back then.
-
They get around to it, it will probably get a quirk like a lot of those designs.
-
Anything that terrifies WEIRDO (of all people) must be doing something right... off to read that after action... ^-^
-
Two that still bother me. MGs in the legs of the Cicada -C. and The SRM 4 of the ORION -K. The SRM in the original fluff says its in the left arm. But due to a screw up on the record sheets somewhere along the way, its forever been in the LT.
-
I know of one variant of the Hammerhands that's like that. Struggling to think of any others.
I found out that the Lineholder "Linebreaker" has 2 RAC2s and one ton of ammo today :(
-
Did your BRAAAAAAPPPPP turn into burp!?
-
I found out that the Lineholder "Linebreaker" has 2 RAC2s and one ton of ammo today :(
Oh snap.
-
I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree. The Guardian ECM debuted in TRO:2750 on page 10, as did the rules for using it. There's no excuse for it not being included on the Exterminator, even according to your premise.
There's all kinds of things mentioned in the early TROs that we don't have rules for. Some I don't think we ever will.
There's also Comstar mistakes and intentional errors. The 2750 fluff talks about the Exterminator having the latest in ECM equipment but the Guardian ECM Suite isn't listed in the stats. It also talks about the latest in Null Signature devices. Is there more than one? What isn't listed are variants. Nothing in the 2750 TRO specifically says that the 4D has the Null Sig or Chameleon. Just than the Exterminator mounts it. TacOps says that only a small number of Exterminators mounted the Chameleon. I'd put it down to Comstar misinformation and now worry about it. It's still a good mech.
-
It does. But the EXT-4D literally does nothing that its fluff says it can do. It's not a dangerous "assassin," it has no stealth ability, and it doesn't have laser-reflective armor (FYI - that's from the TRO:2750 write-up).
So, to me at least, it's a design that makes no sense. The EXT-4Db is truly what it should have been, armament-wise, and the EXT-4C (which didn't have a record sheet until... 5 years ago?) for its stealth abilities.
Granted there's no rules for it but I always found the reflective armor on something meant to be sneaky a little WTF?
There's all kinds of things mentioned in the early TROs that we don't have rules for. Some I don't think we ever will.
There's also Comstar mistakes and intentional errors. The 2750 fluff talks about the Exterminator having the latest in ECM equipment but the Guardian ECM Suite isn't listed in the stats. It also talks about the latest in Null Signature devices. Is there more than one? What isn't listed are variants. Nothing in the 2750 TRO specifically says that the 4D has the Null Sig or Chameleon. Just than the Exterminator mounts it. TacOps says that only a small number of Exterminators mounted the Chameleon. I'd put it down to Comstar misinformation and now worry about it. It's still a good mech.
I always read the reference to "latest Null Sig," stuff as an acknowledgement that technology doesn't just "appear." There is always a developmental history. FASA didn't even have rules for the Null Sig and CLPS as used in 2630, let alone the 2620 version that was only 95% as effective. The abstractions of hexes and range bands and the 2d6 bell curve mean they didn't have the granularity to do that even if they wanted to.
-
Command units should not be the biggest nastiest unit on the field...
I’m glad to hear someone say this this...
-
There's all kinds of things mentioned in the early TROs that we don't have rules for. Some I don't think we ever will.
There's also Comstar mistakes and intentional errors. The 2750 fluff talks about the Exterminator having the latest in ECM equipment but the Guardian ECM Suite isn't listed in the stats. It also talks about the latest in Null Signature devices. Is there more than one? What isn't listed are variants. Nothing in the 2750 TRO specifically says that the 4D has the Null Sig or Chameleon. Just than the Exterminator mounts it. TacOps says that only a small number of Exterminators mounted the Chameleon. I'd put it down to Comstar misinformation and now worry about it. It's still a good mech.
Nothing in the TRO entry needs to say that. The description is of the -4D, not of a bunch of unnamed Exterminator variants. There were no others in this time. This was more of a "we screwed up and need to address it in TacOps" than any long-term plan, IMO. I think it just flat-out was forgotten in the Tactical Handbook.
-
Nothing in the TRO entry needs to say that. The description is of the -4D, not of a bunch of unnamed Exterminator variants. There were no others in this time. This was more of a "we screwed up and need to address it in TacOps" than any long-term plan, IMO. I think it just flat-out was forgotten in the Tactical Handbook.
The TRO says the 4D has the Chameleon Light Polarization Shield, and then doesn't say what it does. That's not a screwup, it's just how FASA operated back then, throwing in little details with no rules to simulate them. They didn't have any rules for it until Tactical Operations (not the Tactical Handbook), and it seems clear to me that both the CLPS and the Null Signature System were supposed to be retroactively mounted on the 4D.
-
It's worth noting that Fasa actually published the null signature system in Maximum Tech (I believe the chameleon light polarization shield was intended to be an integral part of the null signature system, and only became a separate system
in tactical operation). They also never put it on an Exterminator, but then Fasa had this thing about not putting level 3 stuff in their TROs and main record sheet books.
Even so, by that point the default intent was clearly that some exterminators had null signature system and some didn't. All Catalyst did was codify it by giving the stealth exterminators a different model number.
-
I'm not sure I see the point in a monkey-model Exterminator. Wasn't it reserved for elite units anyway?
-
The SLDF was so big, its elite units had elite units.
-
(seriously, Fist Fire was probably created almost solely for the Exterminator)
Hah, have a cookie. We actually started with the PXH, but cackled when we did the math on the EXT. Close enough to call you right in my book.
Do note though: fistfire only works on 1 fist per turn. So if you have Melee master, you're swinging 4 fists per turn, but only 1 gets to use the Fistfire ability.
-
Because four punches a turn aren't threatening by themselves.
-
Do note though: fistfire only works on 1 fist per turn. So if you have Melee master, you're swinging 4 fists per turn, but only 1 gets to use the Fistfire ability.
Slightly confused based on what you said in this thread.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=43641.0
2 of those 4 can benefit from a weapon, but NOT the same weapon
Did this change? When?
-
Speaking of Melee master, that just makes the Berserker D4 even more terrifying-and on the subject of the D4, why on earth does it use impact-resistant armor?
Getting into melee combat with it is a death sentence, so I'm sure even Clan Jade Falcon's recent kick fetish isn't dumb enough to close with it; And at that point, it's really like the Berserker D4 was built to shout "Your life is now forfeit" as it proceeds to clobber whatever unfortunate it singled out. It makes sense for Solaris, but it's a line assault.
I guess there *are* more threats than just JF melee, such as buildings; I could see "Kool-Aid manning" through buildings being a popular tactic for Berserker Mechwarriors. But otherwise, the Impact Resistant armor just seems pointless.
-
I'm pretty sure the D4 was built for Solaris arena combat, where you pretty much don't have a choice about whether or not you get into melee combat.
I mean, why else would it mount a bombast laser?
-
Slightly confused based on what you said in this thread.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=43641.0
Did this change? When?
My petard! What is it doing?!
That older post is true, and my prior post in here should be ignored.
-
I'm pretty sure the D4 was built for Solaris arena combat, where you pretty much don't have a choice about whether or not you get into melee combat.
I mean, why else would it mount a bombast laser?
I was under the impression the Berserker D4 was utilized in at least tiny numbers on the battlefield. In which case, yeah, in Solaris it makes perfect sense.
-
*Looks up Fist Fire rules*
Wow, and I thought the -3 you used to be able to get for missiles was bad before the errata for ARAD was bad, but you can get a -5 for VSP's with AES and Fist Fire.
-
I double checked Melee Master, and I think it's only three punches per round, not four (AToW, page 223). Of course, since Melee Specialist is a pre-requisite for Melee Master, those punches have a bonus to hit, and do one more point of damage too...
-
Yes, we changed that. Because 1 punch attack can be 2 fists, so 2 Punch attacks can be 4 fists.
-
Granted there's no rules for it but I always found the reflective armor on something meant to be sneaky a little WTF?
I always read the reference to "latest Null Sig," stuff as an acknowledgement that technology doesn't just "appear." There is always a developmental history. FASA didn't even have rules for the Null Sig and CLPS as used in 2630, let alone the 2620 version that was only 95% as effective. The abstractions of hexes and range bands and the 2d6 bell curve mean they didn't have the granularity to do that even if they wanted to.
I agree technology doesn't just appear and I wish we had rules for things like the reflective armor and using older versions of tech.
Nothing in the TRO entry needs to say that. The description is of the -4D, not of a bunch of unnamed Exterminator variants. There were no others in this time. This was more of a "we screwed up and need to address it in TacOps" than any long-term plan, IMO. I think it just flat-out was forgotten in the Tactical Handbook.
Why shouldn't it? Some entries are clearly for 1 mech variant and others are for the class. Look at the Hermes. It starts off with standard plate armor and then gets upgraded to ferro-fibrous. There's also the Vehicle Flamer. What variant has the standard armor plate and a vehicle flamer? And like the Exterminator it has systems we don't have rules for, that being the Alexis Photon targeting system. The Hermes II has the same vehicle flamer as the Hermese and yet its a mech flamer in the stats. There's also the Champion where it mentions some are being upgraded with DHS but doesn't have a seperate variant listed.
And it is possible they forgot to include it in TacHandbook.
The TRO says the 4D has the Chameleon Light Polarization Shield, and then doesn't say what it does. That's not a screwup, it's just how FASA operated back then, throwing in little details with no rules to simulate them. They didn't have any rules for it until Tactical Operations (not the Tactical Handbook), and it seems clear to me that both the CLPS and the Null Signature System were supposed to be retroactively mounted on the 4D.
The TRO does say that the CLPS reduces the chance of the Exterminator being seen. The TRO just doesn't say how it does it.
I'm not sure I see the point in a monkey-model Exterminator. Wasn't it reserved for elite units anyway?
They're still good head hunters. That some do and some don't actually help the ones that do. Defenders go after them and the stealthy Exterminator exterminates the comander.
-
Yes, we changed that. Because 1 punch attack can be 2 fists, so 2 Punch attacks can be 4 fists.
Cool... will there be a new errata published for AToW, then (that change isn't in the current one)?
-
Cool... will there be a new errata published for AToW, then (that change isn't in the current one)?
I thought it was, I'll check it out.
-
The version currently published on the errata page is 2.02, from 2015.
-
Combat vehicles that aren’t primarily missile carriers or transports don’t make a lot of sense to me.
-
Combat vehicles that aren’t primarily missile carriers or transports don’t make a lot of sense to me.
You've never felt the sublime joy that is a fast strike hover or VTOL pointed up somebody's tailpipe? Or the glory that is just about any vee with a light gauss, such as the frustratingly mobile Vedette or the magnificent light gauss Ontoi? Seriously, play a game where you've got a pair of Ontos parked on a distant ridge for fire support, it'll blow your mind, and possibly the other guy's.
You've never done a Demolisher ambush?!? :'(
-
You've never felt the sublime joy that is a fast strike hover or VTOL pointed up somebody's tailpipe? Or the glory that is just about any vee with a light gauss, such as the frustratingly mobile Vedette or the magnificent light gauss Ontoi? Seriously, play a game where you've got a pair of Ontos parked on a distant ridge for fire support, it'll blow your mind, and possibly the other guy's.
You've never done a Demolisher ambush?!? :'(
Psh. I have some AC/20 Scorpions I designed that I would LOVE to use.
-
Are those posted in the design forum somewhere? :drool:
-
I'm not sure I see the point in a monkey-model Exterminator. Wasn't it reserved for elite units anyway?
Not a fan of a royal quickdraw? ;D
Maybe the SLDF had trouble mass producing the Null Signature System and other stealth equipment and built the 4D to inflate their numbers and look like they had a whole bunch of hunter-killer super stealth mechs. As has been mentioned the fluff is famously ambiguous about whether or not the 4D had stealth equipment. Maybe that was by design.
-
Are those posted in the design forum somewhere? :drool:
Yep. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63896.0) >:D >:D >:D
-
Well damn... I had completely forgotten about that thread! Still entertaining, though! :thumbsup:
-
Yep. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63896.0) >:D >:D >:D
Mother of God, it's like a BTU version of the StuG III.
-
You inspired me... posting down in Fear Factory's thread now... >:D
-
Mother of God, it's like a BTU version of the StuG III.
More like the Marder. The STuG III actually had armor.
-
More like the Marder. The STuG III actually had armor.
It can tank a Clan PPC hit on the front facing. That's more like a StuG III than a Marder, which would only be proofed against machine guns.
Anyway, speaking to this comment:
Combat vehicles that aren’t primarily missile carriers or transports don’t make a lot of sense to me.
Given that vehicles don't pay heat cost for ammo-based weapons, it makes a lot more sense to load them down with missiles than autocannons.
It's weird that missile-carrying vehicles are either artillery pieces (LRM/SRM Carrier, Hunter) or lightly-armed scouts (Pegasus, Striker). Where is the MBT with 4 SRM-6 and 1 LRM-10?
-
Missile launchers are a lot more expensive to reload than ballistic weapons. The bean counters will have their day!
-
I think the Saracen and Manticore come pretty close...
-
I think the Saracen and Manticore come pretty close...
Also the Brutus and Behemoth.
-
The Saracen falls into the "lightly armed scout" niche IMO.
A Saladin variant with 5 SRM-6 replacing the AC/20 would be evil.
-
So, the JES I refit? :)
-
It can tank a Clan PPC hit on the front facing. That's more like a StuG III than a Marder, which would only be proofed against machine guns.
In Battletech, 16 points of armor basically is proofed only against machine guns. Consider that the Hetzer has 30 points of frontal armor and the STuG III Ausf G was more heavily armored than the Hetzer.
-
Here's an interesting one for people: Why aren't Anti-Missile Systems more common?
-
Because of how wildly unreliable they were under FASA rules, I'm guessing.
-
Here's an interesting one for people: Why aren't Anti-Missile Systems more common?
Because equipment that can be rendered useless by your opponent's choice in weapons is generally viewed as less useful than equipment that is at least partially effective under all circumstances (such as specialty armors and ECM).
Especially since regular AMS are liabilities thanks to the ammo.
-
AMS would have worked under FASA rules if it was #d6 per shot... meaning you only tick off 1 ammo instead of the matching number.
-
That would have been a lot better.
Especially when it spun up against an SRM-2 and you just blew half a ton of ammo taking out a single SRM.
-
Combat vehicles that aren’t primarily missile carriers or transports don’t make a lot of sense to me.
Because sometimes people want solid predictable results that come from guns. The range and annoyance factor for AC//2s/UAC/2/LB-2s are an added plus. :)
-
Because sometimes people want solid predictable results that come from guns. The range and annoyance factor for AC//2s/UAC/2/LB-2s are an added plus. :)
Given that the primary use of Class 2 Autocannons is anti-aircraft work, them being mounted on vehicles isn't that strange. For heavier A/C's it's even easier, there's the old axiom about slug before cluster, so before your SRM Carrier opens up you might to have a Demolisher work the target over a bit.
-
So, the JES I refit? :)
Speaking of designs that make no sense: a 5/8 hovercraft when could be 8/12 for free. Gimped for the sake of being gimped.
-
That one was a clear case of inexplicably adhering to Clickytech stats for no apparent reason.
-
Missile launchers are a lot more expensive to reload than ballistic weapons. The bean counters will have their day!
So, from an Inner Sphere beancounter's standpoint, why aren't designs that use Streak missiles way more common?
-
So, from an Inner Sphere beancounter's standpoint, why aren't designs that use Streak missiles way more common?
You mean aside from the streak craze of the fifties?
Streak missiles are more expensive than standard missiles and only theoretically more efficient. You still have ammo expenditures during training, maintaining stockpiles, and replacing munitions lost for other reasons. Also you've already got all this old style ammo stockpiled, and now you want to replace it with all new, even more expensive stock?
-
Also you've already got all this old style ammo stockpiled, and now you want to replace it with all new, even more expensive stock?
Procurement A: OK, time to order more SRMs from that factory that happens to be on the planet run by my Duke uncle. Stockpile's getting low.
Procurement B: Wait, didn't we get an email saying we're phasing out SRMs for Streaks?
Procurement A: Can't. Still a bunch of Commandoes in the militia units, and like 22 units just requisitioned SRMs for their ready supply, so we have to get the minimums back up.
Procurement B: We never adjusted the minimums so we'd clear the hopper?
Procurement A: Nope, it's stuck in committee. You know, the one that has my Uncle's daughter in it?
Procurement B: Riiight.
Procurement A: Yep, besides, the other SRM company (subsidiary of my uncle's company) just promised a new SRM warhead that makes them just as efficient as Streaks, so we need to make sure we don't attrition the supply down if we can just upgrade the fleet.
Procurement B: Just as efficient?
Procurement A: Well, almost. Actually, I think it might just be +2%, but we already paid them for R&D, so we have to follow through or that money's wasted.
Procurement B: OK. Look. I need a raise.
Procurement A: Haha, so do I.
-
Procurement A: OK, time to order more SRMs from that factory that happens to be on the planet run by my Duke uncle. Stockpile's getting low.
Procurement B: Wait, didn't we get an email saying we're phasing out SRMs for Streaks?
Procurement A: Can't. Still a bunch of Commandoes in the militia units, and like 22 units just requisitioned SRMs for their ready supply, so we have to get the minimums back up.
Procurement B: We never adjusted the minimums so we'd clear the hopper?
Procurement A: Nope, it's stuck in committee. You know, the one that has my Uncle's daughter in it?
Procurement B: Riiight.
Procurement A: Yep, besides, the other SRM company (subsidiary of my uncle's company) just promised a new SRM warhead that makes them just as efficient as Streaks, so we need to make sure we don't attrition the supply down if we can just upgrade the fleet.
Procurement B: Just as efficient?
Procurement A: Well, almost. Actually, I think it might just be +2%, but we already paid them for R&D, so we have to follow through or that money's wasted.
Procurement B: OK. Look. I need a raise.
Procurement A: Haha, so do I.
We have a winner!
-
Given that the primary use of Class 2 Autocannons is anti-aircraft work, them being mounted on vehicles isn't that strange. For heavier A/C's it's even easier, there's the old axiom about slug before cluster, so before your SRM Carrier opens up you might to have a Demolisher work the target over a bit.
True but LRMs have been used for AA work too. So plinking at air craft and generally being annoying at greater range with a cannon is a plus over missiles. And definitely. :thumbsup: Demolishers and SRM Carriers are fun pairings. >:D
Procurement A: OK, time to order more SRMs from that factory that happens to be on the planet run by my Duke uncle. Stockpile's getting low.
Procurement B: Wait, didn't we get an email saying we're phasing out SRMs for Streaks?
Procurement A: Can't. Still a bunch of Commandoes in the militia units, and like 22 units just requisitioned SRMs for their ready supply, so we have to get the minimums back up.
Procurement B: We never adjusted the minimums so we'd clear the hopper?
Procurement A: Nope, it's stuck in committee. You know, the one that has my Uncle's daughter in it?
Procurement B: Riiight.
Procurement A: Yep, besides, the other SRM company (subsidiary of my uncle's company) just promised a new SRM warhead that makes them just as efficient as Streaks, so we need to make sure we don't attrition the supply down if we can just upgrade the fleet.
Procurement B: Just as efficient?
Procurement A: Well, almost. Actually, I think it might just be +2%, but we already paid them for R&D, so we have to follow through or that money's wasted.
Procurement B: OK. Look. I need a raise.
Procurement A: Haha, so do I.
Procurement C: A raise? What's a raise? ???
-
You mean aside from the streak craze of the fifties?
Streak missiles are more expensive than standard missiles and only theoretically more efficient. You still have ammo expenditures during training, maintaining stockpiles, and replacing munitions lost for other reasons. Also you've already got all this old style ammo stockpiled, and now you want to replace it with all new, even more expensive stock?
can infantry use streaks? just keeping supply lines streamlined so you aren't misshipping several tons of streak missile to units that can't use them might be reason enough to refuse streak missiles.
-
I don't think that they can.
It's why advanced SRMs were developed for Battle Armor.
-
The original Atlas, it was fluffed as its LRM 20 being a rapid fire LRM 5. Why not build it that way? with 4 LRM5s instead of the LRM20?
-
Because it was just a fluff description of a different type of LRM 20.
-
More heat too...
-
Plus you have to make more to hit rolls, and there are already enough multi-LRM boats out there. The mech design I want to know about is the Jenner. Why did it take until the Dark Ages to produce an obvious upgrade in the form of the Havoc for the Combine's primary light mech?
-
Because the JR7-F was just that good?
-
Whoa, a recent Kurita design that isn't horribly weebed out? No samurai armor? No ridiculous melee weapon? I'm in.
-
Whoa, a recent Kurita design that isn't horribly weebed out? No samurai armor? No ridiculous melee weapon? I'm in.
That's the joke. It's a Marik design.
-
Because the JR7-F was just that good?
i'm guessing it was more "LAW kept having their factories blown to shit every year after 3052"
-
It looks like a robo-armadillo.
Whoa, a recent Kurita design that isn't horribly weebed out? No samurai armor? No ridiculous melee weapon? I'm in.
-
That's the joke. It's a Marik design.
Oh, that just makes it even worse.
House Kurita is the theme park version of Japan in space, fine. That's part of the fun. But post-3058 House Kurita is the theme park version of House Kurita. That an obvious upgrade to one of their classic units gets passed off to a different faction so they can have stuff like this (http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/2/2c/Rokurokubi.jpg/800px-01g5ktqlras5ewre69f2jnimzuh5vpg.jpg) is just insult on top of injury.
-
Oh, that just makes it even worse.
House Kurita is the theme park version of Japan in space, fine. That's part of the fun. But post-3058 House Kurita is the theme park version of House Kurita. That an obvious upgrade to one of their classic units gets passed off to a different faction so they can have stuff like this (http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/2/2c/Rokurokubi.jpg/800px-01g5ktqlras5ewre69f2jnimzuh5vpg.jpg) is just insult on top of injury.
I mean, there is the Tenshi, a pretty solid assault omni. That's not super ******.
-
The Avalanche wasn't excessively totemic, either. But it also wasn't very interesting.
-
House Kurita is the theme park version of Japan in space, fine. That's part of the fun. But post-3058 House Kurita is the theme park version of House Kurita. That an obvious upgrade to one of their classic units gets passed off to a different faction so they can have stuff like this (http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/2/2c/Rokurokubi.jpg/800px-01g5ktqlras5ewre69f2jnimzuh5vpg.jpg) is just insult on top of injury.
There are always the "awesome" Combo 'Mechs.
-
What? Do they come with fries and a drink or something?
-
There are always the "awesome" Combo 'Mechs.
i hate you
-
++mod notice++
"******" bad. Find another unrelated word. Capisce?
-
Is Japanophilic a better word for House Kurita mech design/philosophy?
-
Is Japanophilic a better word for House Kurita mech design/philosophy?
How about "Cringeworthy"? "Self-parodic"? "One-note"?
Post-XinSheng Capellan stuff is a little goofy but at least it wasn't a sudden swan-dive into robot cosplay.
-
What? Do they come with fries and a drink or something?
The unstoppable combo of massed Streak SRMs on a 2/3 chassis.
-
New BA designs that transform into hand held weapons and neural interface cockpits on super-heavy Mechs?
-
You mean aside from the streak craze of the fifties?
in theory the Streak-2 missiles on so many refits and new builds of the 50's would be to allow the mechs to operate longer behind enemy lines on clan worlds and in anti-clan hit and run campaigns on the frontlines. since they don't expend the ammo all that rapidly, letting a unit go longer between reloadings.
in practice most of those designs were terrible (and not all because of the missiles either) and didn't offer enough actual advantage in combat to warrant the change in SRM type, and the reduction in firepower combined with the advantage the clans had in tech usually meant the mechs didn't last long enough to actually make use of the streaks.
-
How about "Cringeworthy"? "Self-parodic"? "One-note"?
Post-XinSheng Capellan stuff is a little goofy but at least it wasn't a sudden swan-dive into robot cosplay.
As fine as I am with the 'theme' mechs such as the Shiro and Hatamoto-Chi, I have to imagine the whole "Samurai Regalia" thing is just a parade thing.
I have half a mind to get a Hatamoto-Suna miniature and file off the 'Helmet', back flags, and 'Crotchguard' and paint it in desert camo or an experimental paint job just to have a non-Samurai model, because I agree, the line is pretty overdone at this point, just like Jade Falcon birds.
-
The Falcons at least have the excuse of being lead by someone who's actually insane.
-
All the MWDA 'new' designs went totem- the Falcons went birdy, Bears got human skulls to continue the Clan Punisher joke, the Wolves got a wolf's head (Wulfen, Warwolf, Carnivore tank, etc), Dracs went more Samurai (hello swords!), Davions went full Knighthood with sheilds on the Black Knights (but stripped Pauldrons on the Temp III) and Centurion OD, MoC got female BA, and other 'visual' cues about the origins of the minis.
CGL art decreased or softened the symbolism but it still had to be present.
-
That certainly helped my personal dislike of the mwda designs. Much of the totem-ism added alot of extraneous bits and kibble or just threw off the aesthetics for me. Also the overall tonka truck look and impossibly small and shaped cockpits, why hi there, Jupiter.
All the MWDA 'new' designs went totem- the Falcons went birdy, Bears got human skulls to continue the Clan Punisher joke, the Wolves got a wolf's head (Wulfen, Warwolf, Carnivore tank, etc), Dracs went more Samurai (hello swords!), Davions went full Knighthood with sheilds on the Black Knights (but stripped Pauldrons on the Temp III) and Centurion OD, MoC got female BA, and other 'visual' cues about the origins of the minis.
CGL art decreased or softened the symbolism but it still had to be present.
-
That certainly helped my personal dislike of the mwda designs. Much of the totem-ism added alot of extraneous bits and kibble or just threw off the aesthetics for me. Also the overall tonka truck look and impossibly small and shaped cockpits, why hi there, Jupiter.
And also gave us some designs that were from way out in left field, also known as "artistic restraint," such as the Hellstar. It looks like exactly the uninspired death-brick that it is.
-
One I missed was the second trend among the FedSuns was the little foxhead/face mechs & BA.
Yeah, we do get a lot of MW4 looking functional look between the factions too.
-
I'm just glad the Lyrans only built the Eisenfaust and didn't make a trend of building mechs with big hands.
-
While Catalyst writers have tried to be completionist on everything, they haven't followed up with some of the older designs. The Exterminator got left out, and it probably shouldn't have.
I wonder if anyone has read the entry on it in TRO 3050 Upgrade....
-
I wonder if anyone has read the entry on it in TRO 3050 Upgrade....
I sure didn’t.
-
I'm just glad the Lyrans only built the Eisenfaust and didn't make a trend of building mechs with big hands.
Commando refits in Tyrolian caps and lederhosen?
in theory the Streak-2 missiles on so many refits and new builds of the 50's would be to allow the mechs to operate longer behind enemy lines on clan worlds and in anti-clan hit and run campaigns on the frontlines.
IMO the best quality of the Streak is you can just tape the fire button down because it won't generate heat or expend ammo unless you damage the target in return. Switching an SRM-6 for a pair of Streak-2s is a no-brainer outside of having to pay more for the ammo.
-
Commando refits in Tyrolian caps and lederhosen?
Prohibited by the Ares Convention.
And not even the WoB stooped that low.
-
I wonder if anyone has read the entry on it in TRO 3050 Upgrade....
I have not, but if you want to send me a copy I would love to. ;D
-
IMO the best quality of the Streak is you can just tape the fire button down because it won't generate heat or expend ammo unless you damage the target in return. Switching an SRM-6 for a pair of Streak-2s is a no-brainer outside of having to pay more for the ammo.
I like SRMs a lot but the lack of options on Streaks sours me on them. I'm not as diverse as Weirdo but I love me some infernos.
-
Infernoes, HARMs, Tear Gas for crowd control, never used TC but eventually I will, and NARC are all good reasons . . .
The ones I wonder about are Clan Prototype Streak launchers- can they fire those type ammos . . .
-
I wonder if anyone has read the entry on it in TRO 3050 Upgrade....
I read it twice just now, what's your point?
Because it seems to suggest that the 4D was a downgrade resulting from Comstar's inability to replicate the stealth systems, but the Master Unit List indicates it was in general service with the SLDF since 2660 (including in regular formations), and operation Klondike even turned out a royal variant of the non-stealth 4D.
In fact, those two data points suggest the 4C was the only elite stealthy hunter killer of the bunch, while the 4D (and later the 4Db) was more of a general service mech.
-
Infernoes, HARMs, Tear Gas for crowd control, never used TC but eventually I will, and NARC are all good reasons . . .
I can see all of those being a valid use case for holding onto base srm launchers, except for narc.
I imagine that the majority of narc capable missiles actually used are lrms, not srms. What say you guys?
-
I think NARC had a period, with tech retcon now, where they would have shined 3040-3060 with tech change over- problem is a lack of dedicated NARC'ing machines. But if you had a series of them (either purpose built or refit) and were already doing NARC LRMs, then having some NARC SRMs for your forces would be a good idea. Especially when you start getting BA toting compact NARC launchers.
-
The ones I wonder about are Clan Prototype Streak launchers- can they fire those type ammos . . .
Streak missiles are their own ammunition type so the cannot be used to fire other munitions. The Streak LRM system is still something I have yet to weigh in on. The loss of IDF makes it less desirable. In theory, if one doesn't care about flak bonus, it would make an efficient replacement for a HAG 20 or an Ultra 10 assuming you accept your damage would be spread across the target.
I think NARC had a period, with tech retcon now, where they would have shined 3040-3060 with tech change over- problem is a lack of dedicated NARC'ing machines. But if you had a series of them (either purpose built or refit) and were already doing NARC LRMs, then having some NARC SRMs for your forces would be a good idea. Especially when you start getting BA toting compact NARC launchers.
My outstanding issue with NARC remains the range of the launcher. INARC was an improvement in the right direction, but it is featured even less. I would love to see the NARC system have a little better range than it does now and/or more scout chassis carry them with some better variety. The Owens and the Raven come to mind as mechs that carry them, but the suffer from a lack of secondary weaponry or are to slow for their intended role by late Jihad.
-
Honestly, I think NARC rounds would have made more sense as Thunderbolt-5 alternate ammunition...
-
The Owens is a Omni, give it a supercharger to hit 8/12(16) . . . but no, I was meaning things like Pegasus and VTOLs to get that NARC on target. We should have had simpler/cheaper Tufana type vehicles in 3050. It just would have made so much sense as a force multiplier against the Clans- even if LRMs are more League flavor! The Stiletto, Ottscout 9S should have had a variant dropping the A-Pods & a ERML to get the NARC, Talons, etc. I wish it got a OS like the BA has (or just mount the BA system!) . . . heck, a NARC launcher as a handheld would be nice.
I understand Streaks have their own ammo type, but the Prototypes are not full up systems. I need to find Klondike and see what it says.
-
Honestly, I think NARC rounds would have made more sense as Thunderbolt-5 alternate ammunition...
Only in a world where Thunderbolt aren't relegated to the advanced rules book for.....?
-
In such a world, the Thunderbolt wouldn't be limited to just the advanced rules book...
-
Infernoes, HARMs, Tear Gas for crowd control, never used TC but eventually I will, and NARC are all good reasons . . .
The ones I wonder about are Clan Prototype Streak launchers- can they fire those type ammos . . .
With the TW nerf on Infernoes and Frag missiles making them scarcely worth the risk of the bins I'd rather just have the Streaks. Streak renders Narc irrelevant.
If I-OS launchers were made standard and backdated to the introduction of regular launchers, those would be the ideal vehicle for special SRM ammos.
-
That sounds a lot like special ammo for Rocket Launchers... which I'm not opposed to in any way... ^-^
-
Honestly, I think NARC rounds would have made more sense as Thunderbolt-5 alternate ammunition...
That's higher than I was aiming for, but I'd take it. All I was necessarily aiming for was a 4/8/12 range band that the Clan version has. Anything over and beyond is gravy. I personally think all those nifty little munitions that I-NARC has would also make NARC more attractive. NARC is a nifty little system in that once you hit something with something you never need to spot that target again for IDF as long as it doesn't have a ECM bubble to muffle the NARC's single. That, unfortunately is part of the issue that makes it less desirable even if you boost the range.
The Owens is a Omni, give it a supercharger to hit 8/12(16) . . . but no, I was meaning things like Pegasus and VTOLs to get that NARC on target. We should have had simpler/cheaper Tufana type vehicles in 3050. It just would have made so much sense as a force multiplier against the Clans- even if LRMs are more League flavor! The Stiletto, Ottscout 9S should have had a variant dropping the A-Pods & a ERML to get the NARC, Talons, etc. I wish it got a OS like the BA has (or just mount the BA system!) . . . heck, a NARC launcher as a handheld would be nice.
I understand Streaks have their own ammo type, but the Prototypes are not full up systems. I need to find Klondike and see what it says.
Oh I get it. The fact that there isn't a VTOL out there to launch NARC and INARC munitions I always found as strange. Apparently there is a Scimitar that has both a NARC and TAG that was built in 3050. I hadn't noticed it before tonight. It's DC only, which is probably why I haven't noticed it before. I don't play a whole lot of Dracs. A handheld NARC makes a degree of sense. The Strider A, for example, makes a degree of sense. It's simply to slow though to do what it is supposed to do without getting chewed up.
I'm not extremely familiar with handheld weapons though. I would think the weight once you include the launcher and a ton of ammo would put the hand held at 4-5 tons which would make it bigger than a mech could hold without penalty or using TSM to make it viable?
With the TW nerf on Infernoes and Frag missiles making them scarcely worth the risk of the bins I'd rather just have the Streaks. Streak renders Narc irrelevant.
What was the nerf exactly, that they simply didn't out right kill non mech units like they used to? As for Streak rendering NARC irrelevant, I'll have to disagree. NARC is there for other reason than just simply increase the number of missiles that hit. Both get a nerf bat from Angel ECM though. Streak simply gets a nerf while NARC gets negated. Either way, you have some wasted tonnage.
-
NARC seems like a great little technology to upgrade your reserves inexpensively. As front line tech, it's not great, but as a cheap upgrade it works fine.
Suppose you're the Star League, and you're leaving a garrison on planet Dirtball V. You stick a mere 3 regiments of battlemechs there (just a token force, really). As part of that force, you pull a battalion of Archer 2Rs out of mothballs. The garrison force isn't likely to face anything with too high a tech level -- the bandits and periphery kingdoms (and even most of the House forces in case they feel froggy) are all using 3025 stuff. So you put a company of Kintaros with the garrison, and maybe a company or two of vehicles carrying the NARC, and you just leave advanced ammo with them.
Boom. Suddenly your battalion of old tech mechs has a nice little edge, and you didn't even have to refit them. All it cost you was a company of medium mechs and now your fire support battalion can fire indirectly without a spotter, and gets better odds of missile hits. It's not an amazing improvement, but it's not bad at all for basically being free (yeah the ammo is more expensive, but you aren't having to rebuilt battalions of mechs).
When the Inner Sphere found it, it was basically just old Star League tech. It didn't really suit their modern needs, but they didn't know that at the time.
-
Huh? In 3050 its a great way for the IS to counter some of the Clan onslaught since they would be getting more hits and could track that Ice Ferret that is flanking them behind the hill out of sight- if it was NARC'd. And considering while they had SOME upgraded equipment, they had a lot more old Archers, Crusaders, Catapults, Centurions, Valkyries and other fire support that would get a boost in effectiveness for a mere ammo swap.
Its the external heat cap on mechs IMO, but maybe he is referring to the vehicle insta-kill. I am fine with vehs not getting instantly killed, but I dislike the heat cap.
-
A lot of Clan machines have ECM, enough that NARC will be unreliable. Not that they don't have a use for it, but I think it's better as a "bully" technology that helps you to pound weaker opposition.
-
What was the nerf exactly, that they simply didn't out right kill non mech units like they used to?
Yes, and the change in heat mechanics that made the smaller launchers a lot less useful. It went from a flat +6 heat for 3 turns/missile to +2 heat/missile with no burn time. Used to be, you could have an SRM-equipped bug 'Mech run around and pop Infernos on everything to give your opponent a headache. Now they're a mild inconvenience unless you spam them at a single target. They certainly don't justify the descriptions in the fiction of MWs being outright terrified of them.
It's also kind of silly, on fire is on fire. The heat increase shouldn't vary with the number of hits.
Frag missiles didn't get a direct nerf, but the change in infantry damage mechanics left them out in the cold. They went from 4 troopers killed per missile to 0.8 troopers killed per missile.
As for Streak rendering NARC irrelevant, I'll have to disagree. NARC is there for other reason than just simply increase the number of missiles that hit.
Huh? When has Narc (aside from the fancy iNarc pods) ever done anything besides a +2 on the missile table?
-
Apparently, they decided there was a LOT less gel in each inferno missile to get it down to +2 each.
-
It's also kind of silly, on fire is on fire. The heat increase shouldn't vary with the number of hits.
So if I coat my hand with hand sanitizer and light it on fire (fun party trick, incidentally), it's the same thing as if I'm fully engulfed in flame from the waist up? ??? I mean, on fire is on fire.
Frag missiles didn't get a direct nerf, but the change in infantry damage mechanics left them out in the cold. They went from 4 troopers killed per missile to 0.8 troopers killed per missile.
...no. I just checked my brand new copy of Total Warfare, and Frag Missiles deal their full damage value to the target as if it were dealt by infantry. That's 2 troopers per missile, with a specific callout that in clear terrain it's still doubled. That sounds a lot like 4 troopers per missile to me.
Huh? When has Narc (aside from the fancy iNarc pods) ever done anything besides a +2 on the missile table?
A unit that has been NARC'd is always a valid target for indirect fire, even without a spotter. If you do that there's no +2 to the cluster table, but not requiring a spotter is a big deal.
-
A lot of Clan machines have ECM, enough that NARC will be unreliable. Not that they don't have a use for it, but I think it's better as a "bully" technology that helps you to pound weaker opposition.
Actually not too many of the 3050 configs have it- Fire Moth B, Mist Lynx C, Kit Fox C (not sure anyone uses that, AMS issues), Phantom Prime, Black Lanner Prime & A and Hellbringer Prime . . . more configs involved in the Invasion mounted NARC (maybe more than the IS had in 3050-55) and 3 of the ECM configs I cited are pretty Clan specific.
-
The massive ecm proliferation is really a late 50s/60s thing. You really feel it by the jihad. Narc and C3 are much more reliable in 3052-3055
-
So if I coat my hand with hand sanitizer and light it on fire (fun party trick, incidentally), it's the same thing as if I'm fully engulfed in flame from the waist up? ??? I mean, on fire is on fire.
The impression given in the lore is that infernos are delivering a lot more than a little squirt of gel to a small area of the target. Descriptions speak of 'Mechs coated in the stuff from a single SRM-2 volley.
...no. I just checked my brand new copy of Total Warfare, and Frag Missiles deal their full damage value to the target as if it were dealt by infantry. That's 2 troopers per missile, with a specific callout that in clear terrain it's still doubled. That sounds a lot like 4 troopers per missile to me.
Cite, please? That must be a revision, my copy of TW appears to say no such thing.
A unit that has been NARC'd is always a valid target for indirect fire, even without a spotter. If you do that there's no +2 to the cluster table, but not requiring a spotter is a big deal.
Huh. I don't remember that. Has that always been the case? I just remember Narc granting the +2 on indirect fire with a spotter whereas Artemis needs LOS to function.
EDIT: Just checked the Compendium, it's not in there. So that's an improvement. Narc in the old days had precious little to recommend it. Though SRMs can't indirect-fire in any case, so my point about Streaks beating Narc-SRMs hands-down stands.
-
The impression given in the lore is that infernos are delivering a lot more than a little squirt of gel to a small area of the target. Descriptions speak of 'Mechs coated in the stuff from a single SRM-2 volley.
Descriptions from back in the day talk about a Shadow Hawk's cockpit instantly turning into a sauna just from moving, PPCs fusing themselves if they were fired from inside their minimum range, flamers actually being effective in mech-to-mech combat, and plenty of other things that aren't present in the actual game.
Inferno missiles by themselves were really not that scary under the old rules: a flat +6 heat for a few rounds was inconvenient but not enough to really do anything by itself. Under the current rules, giving someone a concentrated Inferno bath can cause penalties on a mech even if the target itself does nothing.
-
Descriptions from back in the day talk about a Shadow Hawk's cockpit instantly turning into a sauna just from moving, PPCs fusing themselves if they were fired from inside their minimum range, flamers actually being effective in mech-to-mech combat, and plenty of other things that aren't present in the actual game.
Inferno missiles by themselves were really not that scary under the old rules: a flat +6 heat for a few rounds was inconvenient but not enough to really do anything by itself. Under the current rules, giving someone a concentrated Inferno bath can cause penalties on a mech even if the target itself does nothing.
Sure, fiction isn't rules, yada yada yada. But the lore creates the context in which the rules exist. Rules changes should have a good reason to depart further from the lore.
+6 heat was definitely a bother when several of the most common heavies and just about anything under 50 tons was stuck with 10 single heatsinks. Even as late as TRO3055 there was an abundance of 'Mechs with marginal heat dissipation. And it's not like the current rules do a single SRM-2 Inferno volley any favors, they just make the brokenness of double heatsinks even more apparent. You now need a 4-pack, preferably a 6, to do the work of a 2 in the old days and 2s are basically relegated to igniting hexes.
And you can't light someone up and shoot 'em while they burn (with SRMs anyway) since you have to keep pegging them with new infernos turn after turn.
-
The impression given in the lore is that infernos are delivering a lot more than a little squirt of gel to a small area of the target. Descriptions speak of 'Mechs coated in the stuff from a single SRM-2 volley.
You'll have to clarify how this relates to the assertion that I was specifically taking aim at, namely that "on fire is on fire" and that multiple missiles doing more heat doesn't make sense. If "on fire is on fire" isn't actually true (and you've agreed that it is not, implicitly, by disagreeing with the analogy I supplied), then the argument is open to "more infernos = coating more of the 'Mech" (the natural progression of the scenario). Last I checked "a 'Mech's arm" doesn't qualify as a small area in any except a hyperbolic sense.
As it turns out, I don't particularly care what early fluff said about infernos. Early fluff also told us that Hesperus II was a massive spare parts stockpile, that 'Mechs were utterly irreplaceble for any reason, and that raids were conducted between planetary bodies with interstellar spaceships over clean water.
Cite, please? That must be a revision, my copy of TW appears to say no such thing.
Total Warfare, pg. 141, Special Munitions. Atlas cover version.
Huh. I don't remember that. Has that always been the case? I just remember Narc granting the +2 on indirect fire with a spotter whereas Artemis needs LOS to function.
EDIT: Just checked the Compendium, it's not in there. So that's an improvement. Narc in the old days had precious little to recommend it. Though SRMs can't indirect-fire in any case, so my point about Streaks beating Narc-SRMs hands-down stands.
The argument is that a NARC launcher benefits SRMs and also LRMs carried by any 'Mech in a force. Streaks only augment themselves. One NARC launcher provides benefit to an arbitrarily large number of standard SRMs. Ergo, Streaks are not universally more useful than Narc-Capable SRMs.
-
You'll have to clarify how this relates to the assertion that I was specifically taking aim at, namely that "on fire is on fire" and that multiple missiles doing more heat doesn't make sense. If "on fire is on fire" isn't actually true (and you've agreed that it is not, implicitly, by disagreeing with the analogy I supplied), then the argument is open to "more infernos = coating more of the 'Mech" (the natural progression of the scenario). Last I checked "a 'Mech's arm" doesn't qualify as a small area in any except a hyperbolic sense.
If by "taking aim" you mean being pedantic. It should be clear to anyone with a smidge of common sense that when I said "on fire is on fire" it wasn't in reference to an apples-to-oranges comparison of a hand vs the full body.
If the 'Mech is doused in inferno gel, the implication is not that one arm got a little splashed. These things spray a wide enough area to set an entire 30m hex ablaze instantly. Adding more missiles is not going to greatly increase the coverage and in any case the fuel can only be consumed so quickly.
As it turns out, I don't particularly care what early fluff said about infernos.
There is no need for you to get snippy. This is a consistent depiction in the fiction with a 30-year history and was alive and well in the 3060s-era novels. The last ones I particularly cared to read.
Total Warfare, pg. 141, Special Munitions. Atlas cover version.
Then my older copy reads differently. It only mentions the doubled damage and clear/woods special case, nothing about calculating base damage differently. Good to know this oversight has been addressed in errata.
The argument is that a NARC launcher benefits SRMs and also LRMs carried by any 'Mech in a force. Streaks only augment themselves. One NARC launcher provides benefit to an arbitrarily large number of standard SRMs.
And none of this provides a convincing reason to carry standard SRMs vs Streaks. Carrying Narc to benefit LRM carriers is its own beast (and with the IDF improvements, makes vastly more sense than using it for SRMs) and has no bearing on Narc-augmented SRM vs Streak SRM. Introducing LRMs vs SRMs into the equation widens the scope far beyond the original discussion.
-
Its a argument on the mutli-use nature of SRMs. If I had a Javelin 10N in a company with a Archer, Centurion, Dervish, Valkyrie and Orion 1M, then it might be better to not swap the SRMs on that Jav to Streaks . . . because I could fire Infernos, regular or NARC equipped SRMs as the situation dictates. Of course it would be better if you had something else NARC'ing that was faster, but a Orion 1M throw into a LRM heavy 3025 era company with a supply of NARC capable SRM/LRM is going to improve the whole company's missile fire once it starts connecting.
Its combat synergy, that was the point. But some people prefer the raw damage of Streaks even at the higher weight, and others prefer the utility nature of old style SRMs.
-
And none of this provides a convincing reason to carry standard SRMs vs Streaks. Carrying Narc to benefit LRM carriers is its own beast (and with the IDF improvements, makes vastly more sense than using it for SRMs) and has no bearing on Narc-augmented SRM vs Streak SRM. Introducing LRMs vs SRMs into the equation widens the scope far beyond the original discussion.
I agree, bringing in narc capable lrms as an argument in favor of narc capable srms over streak seems to be expanding the comparison beyond the scope of what was originally discussed.
Now, from a straight c bill comparison, a ton of narc capable srm ammunition is 54k. I think a ton of streak srm ammunition is 54k.
As a bean counter, I’d prefer that every single c bill actually generates a consistent amount of payload. NOw, whether that payload is actually used on an enemy or is lit off accidentally is anyone’s guess...;P
-
If by "taking aim" you mean being pedantic. It should be clear to anyone with a smidge of common sense that when I said "on fire is on fire" it wasn't in reference to an apples-to-oranges comparison of a hand vs the full body.
"You know what I meant regardless of what I said" doesn't really work in a text-based medium. You were obviously suggesting that the overall amount of the quality "being on fire" is universal. That was the whole point of your quip. If one instance of being on fire is not equal to every other instance of being on fire, I'd say I've successfully countered the argument.
If the 'Mech is doused in inferno gel, the implication is not that one arm got a little splashed.
Was not. Catalyst (actually I think it was FanPro at the time, but I digress, it's the same people) thankfully came to their senses and realized that the old implementation of infernos was completely bonkers. Your anecdote about it making small bug 'Mechs significant threats is a good one. Though not, I suspect, for the point you wanted to make.
These things spray a wide enough area to set an entire 30m hex ablaze instantly. Adding more missiles is not going to greatly increase the coverage and in any case the fuel can only be consumed so quickly.
A medium laser is equally capable of setting ablaze an entire 30 meter hex instantly (without even trying!). It is not what I would describe as a "wide coverage" weapon.
Presently, each inferno adds two points of heat. The maximum external heat generated before additional heat is ignored is +15. If we're going to infer anything from that pair of linked statements, it's that a 'Mech is fully covered in inferno gel after no fewer than eight missiles. "Adding more missiles is not going to greatly increase the coverage" is founded on rules text at least 20 years old and fluff that's almost that old.
Infernos needed the nerf they got.
There is no need for you to get snippy. This is a consistent depiction in the fiction with a 30-year history and was alive and well in the 3060s-era novels. The last ones I particularly cared to read.
I wasn't trying to be snippy about it; what the novels say happen and what the game says happen are two entirely different beasts, and never the twain shall meet and while the broad strokes should probably line up somehow I doubt that you'd be hawking the same stance if we were arguing about the (canonical) handstands and shoulder rolls that 'Mechs can perform in at least one Dark Age book (I also think they're silly; that's not the point). The 3060s era novels were twenty years ago. More time has passed since they were written than before, as far as BattleTech is concerned.
And none of this provides a convincing reason to carry standard SRMs vs Streaks. Carrying Narc to benefit LRM carriers is its own beast (and with the IDF improvements, makes vastly more sense than using it for SRMs) and has no bearing on Narc-augmented SRM vs Streak SRM. Introducing LRMs vs SRMs into the equation widens the scope far beyond the original discussion.
Artificially narrowing the discussion viewpoint to a (rather myopic) vacuum argument favors the equipment that doesn't also play well with others. Imagine that. (That time the sarcasm was deliberate. It's not intended as a personal attack it's a rhetorical device.) Introducing LRMs to the discussion serves to illustrate the point that Narc-capable munitions are significantly more valuable to a large operation than a Streak is to a duelist.
What is the benefit Narc-capable SRMs have over Streaks? The whole force benefits from Narc (without even considering the other alternate munitions that we're currently quibbling over; I'm partial to Smoke). If you're using it already, why double-up and use Streaks?
-
Unfortunately, narc deployment, even before the ECM explosion, was crippled by the lack of capable canon deployment platforms. We can only speculate what might have been.
I'd take streak over narc in most cases, just because I'm more familiar with it, and there are fewer moving parts to go wrong.
-
So, I did some quick math. One ton of SRM's comes out to 10Kg per missile. It's less about "bath a mech in gel", and more of "how does under 10Kg do anything at all".
Don't forget, you still have to take the rocket, it's fuel, guidance, and structure/hull out of that weight before you have the weight of the warhead.
So under 10Kg. The fact that 8 missiles maxes out on the heat is ridiculous.
-
Like most BT maths, it is better not to look at it too closely or you find funky stuff like that all around. ;) It is magical robots fighting surrealist combats in an unbelievable chivalric universe (that gets smashed after 3030), so just roll with it maths-wise. It is great stuff if you do.
-
SRM's take Class E Ordinance per ATOW, and page 283 says that Class E Inferno warheads are 4kg
-
NARC is very interesting to me, and I think if you play from an in universe perspective it has a lot of pluses, even though I suspect you would need very large engagements with loads of LRM fire support to really get tangible benefits, while I usually play demi-lances with only one or two dedicated LRM units. My Mercs tend to go in on Narc fairly early (until semi guided LRMs become common) for a couple reasons:
1. It's available during the Renaissance a whole lot earlier than Artemis (like 10 years). I figure for a long time it would be easier to get one or two narc launchers than it is to find enough Artemis gear to upgrade a lance of Archers and Trebuchets or what not.
2. You only need to mount it on one or two platforms to upgrade all your missile carrying units. Artemis has to go on everthing that has a missile launcher and has a heavy tonnage cost for what it is. I Like Kintaros and that Saracen variant for my cannon Narc pod delivery needs and down engined Peregrine ECM VTOL for my custom platform.
3. If the launcher breaks down or you run out of pods or Narc specialist ammo (say you got posted way out near the periphery) it only affects that one platform and the rest of your units can go back to regular missiles. If you are a merc that went the Artemis route for your Fire lance and run into procurement problems for the Ammo, a lot of your units are now hauling Artemis tonnage for no benefit.
From all I've read Artemis is probably best for your larger launchers. But one Narc Saracen benefits every SRM and LRM launcher on your team. It also creates a potential "threat in being benefit". Your Narc launcher never needs to hit to change your opponents action.
4. My head cannon relies on that Victor Milan novel where a Narced unit freaks out and runs headlong out of the field of battle after getting Narced by a Raven (at least that is how I remember it) I figure Narc would be a bit of a terror weapon against the Pirate forces my avrg Merc would most likely see combat against.
5. Gives that indirect fire benefit, I always figure any good commander likes the idea of being able to hit the bad guys without exposing their own people to return fire.
Last but not least it is a fun technology. I only play on Megamek, but imagine it must be a hoot to use and have it work on a table. It is so fun and requires effort to use I think rules wise it needs a slight buff to the to hit roll, not just the cluster table (that is the right rule interpretation right? I'm typing on a tablet, with no rules at hand). If it makes it possible for LRMs to find and hit things in indirect fire, it should get a direct fire benefit.
-
Like most BT maths, it is better not to look at it too closely or you find funky stuff like that all around. ;) It is magical robots fighting surrealist combats in an unbelievable chivalric universe (that gets smashed after 3030), so just roll with it maths-wise. It is great stuff if you do.
Oh of course, but at the same time, it shows that the gallon or so of inferno gel really isn't going to coat much of a mech. The fact that it does anything at all is the magic.
-
Oh of course, but at the same time, it shows that the gallon or so of inferno gel really isn't going to coat much of a mech. The fact that it does anything at all is the magic.
Well - don't know how you come to the conclusion that 4kg of incendiary is not enough to coat an area with the size of a Mech.
-
So if I coat my hand with hand sanitizer and light it on fire (fun party trick, incidentally)
You know what's not fun with hand sanitizer? Put some in your hand after using the bathroom and then put it up by your nose reflexively as you start to sneeze. Huffed that stuff up and then sneezed it back out. Almost passed out. Be careful of that stuff. :o
-
Well - don't know how you come to the conclusion that 4kg of incendiary is not enough to coat an area with the size of a Mech.
Probably because a mech is much bigger than my car, and I can't coat my entire car with water by throwing a gallon of water at it.
-
I think this is an apples/oranges thing. Streaks help individual units. Narc helps the entire unit. Those are different things.
Advantages
Streak: conserves ammo, delivers a solid hit.
Narc: gives a bonus to the entire unit. Works with SRMs and LRMs. Can still use alternate ammo.
INarc: Narc plus greater range and alternate ammo.
Cons.
Streak: cant use alternative ammo. Weighs 50% more than standard SRMs. Is only useful for the unit mounting them.
Narc: It's a separate weapon with its own very limited ammo supply. It has a short range. It only works if it hits the target, and only as long as that unit functions, or section is still attached. It needs to be mounted on multiple units to be really effective.
INarc: Narc plus heavier and even more limited ammo supply.
All three systems are useful but I prefer Artemis. It has the same +2 as the Narc but it also lets me use alternate ammo. Narc's ammo supply is just too limited. iNarc is worse and Streak forces me to mount another weapon. Too bad Streak doesn't work like Artemis :( I'd use alternate ammo, including narc, as needed, and then smack anyone who gets too close with the Streaks. >:D
-
I think NARC had a period, with tech retcon now, where they would have shined 3040-3060 with tech change over- problem is a lack of dedicated NARC'ing machines. But if you had a series of them (either purpose built or refit) and were already doing NARC LRMs, then having some NARC SRMs for your forces would be a good idea. Especially when you start getting BA toting compact NARC launchers.
Granted TRO 3050 didn't do a great job of using new tech well, but it didn't do NARC any favors. The Raven isn't bad, albiet a bit slow and something of a bullet magnet, but Trebuchet -7M, Orion -M, Stalker -5M... :bang: All cases where Artemis IV would have been a better choice, especially before NARC was able to IDF. The 3058 SRM Carrier is a good use of NARC over Artemis because the weight of the all that Artemis would have been more than the weight of the NARC+ammo.
TRO 3055 starts to see plenty of TAG popping up, so its not like FASA didn't understand the concept of mobile spotters. I'm kinda curious if there were IRL reasons that NARC didn't see more usage?
-
TRO 3055 starts to see plenty of TAG popping up, so its not like FASA didn't understand the concept of mobile spotters. I'm kinda curious if there were IRL reasons that NARC didn't see more usage?
What is funny is if you look where the Clans put NARC launchers, you can see they get that concept . . . I want to say Mist Lynx has at least 1, Kit Fox, maybe Adder, Viper, Ice Ferret, Nova, Hellbringer, Summoner, and Warhawk all have launchers. The Warhawk comes closest to being like the Orion or Stalker, except its weapons load is designed to get close- GR, SRMs, ERMLs, ERSLs. If you are throwing out zell, that Viper becomes a NARC'er from hades.
-
Probably because a mech is much bigger than my car, and I can't coat my entire car with water by throwing a gallon of water at it.
try a handful of white phosphor - there is a hell of a difference between water and any incendiary weapon we have today.
-
I would imagine that infernos spatter like hot grease, then just burn and burn and burn. The whole surface area isn't covered, but a lot would be on fire. I imagine it looks something like this on a mech:
https://66.media.tumblr.com/a322d6291f0539b291f15980d108ee08/tumblr_inline_o0asl4QiZM1tvsmbh_500.gif
Math-wise, they don't really make sense because a single missile isn't big enough to cause significant fires. An inferno missile setting an entire hex ablaze is questionable. Visually though, that's awesome. And it goes towards something that came up earlier in the thread (or maybe another thread) -- hex sizes, ranges, lengths of turns, weights, it would probably be better if those things were less well defined. More vague and less specific means that you don't have to worry about the Locust that tries to stand up 5 times in one turn and keeps falling (gravity increases on a fast mech, causing him to fall faster than is normally possible).
-
What is funny is if you look where the Clans put NARC launchers, you can see they get that concept . . . I want to say Mist Lynx has at least 1, Kit Fox, maybe Adder, Viper, Ice Ferret, Nova, Hellbringer, Summoner, and Warhawk all have launchers. The Warhawk comes closest to being like the Orion or Stalker, except its weapons load is designed to get close- GR, SRMs, ERMLs, ERSLs. If you are throwing out zell, that Viper becomes a NARC'er from hades.
Clan NARC shouldn't be nearly the ugly duckly that IS NARC is. It has cERMlas range bands, which while not exactly "stand off weapons," are pretty dang good. The big problem for the IS designs I mentioned is that NARCs can't reach past 9 hexes. That means if can lay a pod on someone, then they will be up your nose in the the next turn. If you try to snuggle up to a Summoner B, hoping to avoid those LRMs... Lets all agree that's not the wisest possible tactic. For the Summoner, 3 tons of NARC and ammo versus 4 tons of Artemis, seems like a reasonable trade. Yes, you will have to mark the target, and you will have to wait until next turn, but it also buys you 6 more salvos of LRM.
Which Viper is a NARCer?
BTW, later stuff is showing more combined arms is the Shadowcat C NARC beacon, 2 tons of ammo, and paired ATM 6. It can't use its own NARC, which means it's either meant to carry expoding NARC, why bother, or meant to mark targets for LRM boats.
-
I'm kinda curious if there were IRL reasons that NARC didn't see more usage?
I wouldn't be surprised if early on when the systems were put into the game there was a fear that it could throw off game balance. Look at the Kintaro as the early poster child of Narc delivery. It is fairly mobile, but not TOO mobile at 5/8. It takes some skill to have it dash in at just the right moment to deliver it's NARC, and you don't need to be some super savvy player to counter it. I think it is telling that the first in game NARC delivery units weren't VTOLS moving at 9/14.
The designers probably had visions of jerk players hiding six LRM carriers behind a hill and using a lance of super fast moving VTOL/Hover NARC delivery units turning the game into "Missile Tech".
-
try a handful of white phosphor - there is a hell of a difference between water and any incendiary weapon we have today.
Yes, but the point is that the material only splashes so far, and only has so much coverage. Unless you're using a paint roller to spread it, it's all going to hit maybe a quarter of the vehicle, and a much smaller percentage of the mech. That's including any that drips, or splashes off.
-
you don't really need to cover all THAT much of a 'mech to spike the heat with infernos, just the areas where the heat exchanges from the sinks takes place. can't cool off if you're intaking hotter coolant than you're pushing out to the sinks.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if early on when the systems were put into the game there was a fear that it could throw off game balance. Look at the Kintaro as the early poster child of Narc delivery. It is fairly mobile, but not TOO mobile at 5/8. It takes some skill to have it dash in at just the right moment to deliver it's NARC, and you don't need to be some super savvy player to counter it. I think it is telling that the first in game NARC delivery units weren't VTOLS moving at 9/14.
The designers probably had visions of jerk players hiding six LRM carriers behind a hill and using a lance of super fast moving VTOL/Hover NARC delivery units turning the game into "Missile Tech".
That sounds entirely plausible.
I have to doff my cap to the designers back in the day that intentionally published what they knew to be crap designs, so players would have room to tweak them. I can nerf designs based on in-game constraints, like the DCMS not having access to too many DHS by 3050. That said, I also wouldn't build such heat hogs as the Panther -10K or Atlas -7K. I can make machines that aren't finely tuned murder sticks. But asking me to put out designs like the Quickdraw -5M or Hunchback -5M. I would end up in a straight jacket.
-
Speaking of Exterminators, the EXT-4A is so close to being awesome. If that LRM-10 were downgraded to a -5 rack, you could make the heat curve such that it can actually do something other than jump and fire two medium lasers :-D.
But, apparently, the -10 rack was super important. As was replacing an AMS with a superfluous machine gun that doesn't serve the same function in any way.
-
Speaking of Exterminators, the EXT-4A is so close to being awesome. If that LRM-10 were downgraded to a -5 rack, you could make the heat curve such that it can actually do something other than jump and fire two medium lasers :-D.
But, apparently, the -10 rack was super important. As was replacing an AMS with a superfluous machine gun that doesn't serve the same function in any way.
???
What possible difference can one point of heat make if you're already jumping and therefore not suffering any real penalty for hitting +5-7 on the scale?
-
???
What possible difference can one point of heat make if you're already jumping and therefore not suffering any real penalty for hitting +5-7 on the scale?
Downgrading an LRM-10 to an LRM-5 would give three single heat sinks, bringing dispersal up to 13. Re-read my statement. You misunderstood the intent.
Since it has four medium lasers (12 heat), jumping 5 and firing all four would place you at +4 for the turn if you took the LRM downgrade; under the 5 heat threshold for a movement penalty. Doing so with the nonsense, stock load out's 10 single heat sinks would put you at +7; far too close to the +1 to-hit penalty for my taste. That means you're paying for the BV of medium lasers you have no hope of using on a consistent basis. Not saying you can't push your heat curve and use them, just that 10 SHS is inefficient for even the best of machines, let alone one meant to jump and fire each turn.
It's a solid design, otherwise. But that WVR-6R comparison made in the fluff is a win for the Wolverine 99% of the time. Unless you really have an infantry problem. And even then, if you're within 3 hexes of a bunch of platoons, you've got a bigger problem than a single MG would solve. Drop the size of the rack and you suddenly have firepower that can beat what the WVR-6R can do up-close and more than sufficient ammo for the LRM-5, which has a superior range bracket and similar damage output.
-
Why would you be jumping all the time? Makes it harder to hit . . . and I really do not care about Alpha machines.
-
as a headhunter you're probably fighting outnumbered. not really in a position to trade hits. jump until you get an advantageous moment here and there
-
++mod notice++
Customs and talk of customs/customizing go in Fan Designs, and nowhere else. I really don't know how to make this clearer.
-
EDIT: Nvm
-
So talk about design decisions. It's easy, watch:
The StormWolfBird sucks. Putting two left arms completely negates its combat utility.
The StormWolfBird sucks. Putting two left arms completely negates its combat utility. I would swap out the right left arm for a right arm.
The first post is acceptable. The second is not. If a poster finds they cannot post without it looking like the second, then sometimes a post just isn't meant to be.
Note: The above is a clarification, not an invitation to debate.
-
Hey Wierdo, would this be okay?
"The StormWolfBird doesn't have enough electrical outlets to use all it's waffle makers. It should have less waffle makers and more electrical outlets."
-
If you posted that in Fan Designs, yes.
-
Now i'm wondering what the specs for mech-sized waffle irons are.
-
You put two Nova Prime on top of each other, pour the batter in between, and have both of the alpha strike. Instant Waffle! :D
-
You put two Nova Prime on top of each other, pour the batter in between, and have both of the alpha strike. Instant Waffle Charcoal! :D
Fixed that for you.
-
Now i'm wondering what the specs for mech-sized waffle irons are.
Depends on if you use the old fashioned 25th primitive cast iron or star league plasteel
-
Back to Narc's for a moment. Don't have access to my rulebooks at the moment and my memory is iffy on some things. Is there such a thing as an Arrow IV that can home in on a Narc? Also, if the section on a mech that has been hit by a Narc is destroyed I assume the Narc is destroyed as well?
Re: mech waffle irons. Don't forget the coolant truck loaded with maple syrup.
-
Back to Narc's for a moment. Don't have access to my rulebooks at the moment and my memory is iffy on some things. Is there such a thing as an Arrow IV that can home in on a Narc?
Yes, but not in a conventional sense. The Nemesis iNarc pod. I'm traveling and only have access to an older version of TW at the moment but this is the gist of it:
A successful attack tags the target. Units friendly to a tagged
target that fire Artemis IV-capable missiles, semi-guided missiles
or Narc-equipped missiles will attack the Nemesis-tagged unit
instead of their enemy, if it is along the LOS between the attacker
and the target, and LOS exists between the attacker and the
Nemesis-tagged unit and the Nemesis-tagged unit is not underwater.
Apply a +1 modifier to such unintentional attacks, starting
with the closest Nemesis-tagged friendly if more than one unit
meets the criteria. Nemesis pods have no effect against infantry
Also, if the section on a mech that has been hit by a Narc is destroyed I assume the Narc is destroyed as well?
Correct.
-
Arrow not Artemis.
-
I don't think that there's any form of NARC or iNARC pod that attracts homing artillery.
Sounds like something that would be incredibly broken if there were.
-
Depends on if you use the old fashioned 25th primitive cast iron or star league plasteel
You need ClanTech batter, not that inferior Succession Wars era stuff.
-
You need ClanTech batter, not that inferior Succession Wars era stuff.
Wouldn't ClanTech be for Belgian Waffles?
-
While THAT would make things more interesting, I think you are mis-reading 'semi-guided' . . . especially since it uses the plural 'missiles' when discussing it. Since its a ammo type and not a function, I would think it should be capitalized like Narc & Artemis but eh . . .
-
I wouldn't be surprised if early on when the systems were put into the game there was a fear that it could throw off game balance. Look at the Kintaro as the early poster child of Narc delivery. It is fairly mobile, but not TOO mobile at 5/8. It takes some skill to have it dash in at just the right moment to deliver it's NARC, and you don't need to be some super savvy player to counter it. I think it is telling that the first in game NARC delivery units weren't VTOLS moving at 9/14.
The designers probably had visions of jerk players hiding six LRM carriers behind a hill and using a lance of super fast moving VTOL/Hover NARC delivery units turning the game into "Missile Tech".
And this is different then any other jerk player tactic how?
Beyond that the actual fix is simple: Make AMS effective against every missile attack against a unit for a turn. This probably still needs to happen as it would make taking AMS a LOT more attractive.
-
That's a perfectly valid tactic. It's the entire reason the system exists. Nothing "jerk" about it, anymore than staying at 22 hex distance with a gauss rifle is a "jerk" tactic.
-
And this is different then any other jerk player tactic how?
Beyond that the actual fix is simple: Make AMS effective against every missile attack against a unit for a turn. This probably still needs to happen as it would make taking AMS a LOT more attractive.
Oh I don't have a problem with it per se.
I was just trying to give my two cents to another user's question pertaining to as why a lot of the early NARC deployment units weren't that optimal... I suspect the game designers at the time designed the CANNON units as not too effective to keep "over all" play fun for most players, in case they had introduced a weapon that could lead to unbalanced game play. I think we have to remember that when NARC was introduced you didn't have the potential ease of player feed back and play testing that you do now days and they may have wanted to be a bit cautious with NARC.
Given that TPTB have always given us the ability to build our own units, players were free to build better delivery units if they wished.
I like NARC and as stated earlier my Megamek games use some relatively fast moving NARC deployment unit.
If I played a lot of tabletop I'm SURE I would be one of those dudes trying to make plenty of use of indirect fire and NARC. Heck, I've been experimenting with iNarc.
-
given that i know of at least one novel where Arrow-IV missiles did home in on a Narc pod explicitly, i can understand some confuction. ("Close Quarters" specifically. a Caballero's Raven anbushes some of the ghost regiment mechs in an alleyway, tagging a whitworth with a narc pod then the author spends the next paragraph describing how the arrow-IV missile homes in on the pod and takes the mech's head off. always has been a 'wtf?' moment in the novel, especially since using TAG as it should have would have been even more effective, since the raven wouldn't have revealed its presence the way it did firing the Narc..)
-
I have trouble imagining a world where the designers were afraid of pre-buff narc. It's significant, but one SRM or 2-4 LRM per hit isn't a game-breaker given the hoops you have to jump through to get it.
-
One thing that's always bugged me is how the Clans have their weapons development set up. Given that the warrior caste has had overwhelming control since the Golden Century, one would think that weapons would be geared toward the smaller-scale combat that warriors prefer. Not that every battle allows for zellbrigen to take place, but a glory hound ascending to the Khanship (which, frankly, is every Clan warrior by default) would probably not be keen on signing off on weapons development which didn't allow for bragging rights.
Now you may think that means "no artillery," but it would also mean "no pulse, no targeting computers, etc." If anything, I would think Clan soldiers would attempt to fight with the most-handicapped weapon system possible. i.e.: if one Clanner is using an ER Large Laser, the other Clanner would bid down to a Spheroid-vintage, standard Large Laser to show him up. In the same way that one would "tie one hand behind their back" in boxing to humiliate the opponent. I don't believe that Clan weapons would have developed as far as they had given this attitude being the prevailing mode of thought.
Just my $0.02.
-
One thing that's always bugged me is how the Clans have their weapons development set up. Given that the warrior caste has had overwhelming control since the Golden Century, one would think that weapons would be geared toward the smaller-scale combat that warriors prefer. Not that every battle allows for zellbrigen to take place, but a glory hound ascending to the Khanship (which, frankly, is every Clan warrior by default) would probably not be keen on signing off on weapons development which didn't allow for bragging rights.
Now you may think that means "no artillery," but it would also mean "no pulse, no targeting computers, etc." If anything, I would think Clan soldiers would attempt to fight with the most-handicapped weapon system possible. i.e.: if one Clanner is using an ER Large Laser, the other Clanner would bid down to a Spheroid-vintage, standard Large Laser to show him up. In the same way that one would "tie one hand behind their back" in boxing to humiliate the opponent. I don't believe that Clan weapons would have developed as far as they had given this attitude being the prevailing mode of thought.
Just my $0.02.
Nah. You still wanna win. Bragging rights don't matter if you get your ass kicked. The guys who thought they were too good to use Clan Large Pulse got killed, and as a result they didn't pass on their genetic material.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Clans are stupid. They're often hypocrites, but they aren't stupid.
-
Nah. You still wanna win. Bragging rights don't matter if you get your ass kicked. The guys who thought they were too good to use Clan Large Pulse got killed, and as a result they didn't pass on their genetic material.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Clans are stupid. They're often hypocrites, but they aren't stupid.
"Stupid" is exactly how I'd describe them, frankly. They discount technologies like C3, Nova CEWS, and waive the presence of conventional forces -- Things with obvious and overwhelming strategic value. So if you're going to do that, then how much credit can you get for firing at -3 to-hit beyond your opponent's effective firing range? It's very "this is Clan, this is not...for some reason." I understand the book reason for things like C3 -- It doesn't allow any one warrior to get the glory. But not every Clan fight is one-on-one. Larger engagements were fought without the expectations of zellbrigen, beyond the batchall. So much so that systems like Arrow-IV and TAG continued production continuously since Kerensky's days. And no.. this wasn't just "for bandits." :)
-
"Stupid" is exactly how I'd describe them, frankly.
And that's why I think you're having a problem with it. You've got a stereotyped version of the Clans in your head, you've decided they're stupid, and then you think they're acting out of character unless they act as a stupid person would. That's the wrong way to look at it.
They discount technologies like C3, Nova CEWS, and waive the presence of conventional forces -- Things with obvious and overwhelming strategic value. So if you're going to do that, then how much credit can you get for firing at -3 to-hit beyond your opponent's effective firing range? It's very "this is Clan, this is not...for some reason." I understand the book reason for things like C3 -- It doesn't allow any one warrior to get the glory. But not every Clan fight is one-on-one. Larger engagements were fought without the expectations of zellbrigen, beyond the batchall. So much so that systems like Arrow-IV and TAG continued production continuously since Kerensky's days. And no.. this wasn't just "for bandits." :)
I don't think they discount tech like C3 or the others, they understand the value of them. But it's not necessarily something they'd think to develop themselves. Plus with how easy it is for the Clans to add ECM to their mechs, the value is pretty limited to them. A lot of their "support" tech is a refinement of Star League stuff. It didn't require imagination or innovation to create. It's just a case of smaller, faster, lighter.
-
Some Clans value combined arms, such as Hell's Horses or Blood Spirit. Given the superiority of Clan tech, especially when it comes to infantry arms, they can make some killer non PA troops and vehicles. As for TAG, artillery, etc how the Clans use force multipliers depends on the Clan, the type of battle, and the time period. Short Trials of a Trinary or smaller vs each other is simple unit on unit combat. In larger battles, especially like Tukkayid, Coventry and so on, the Clans made use of artillery and TAG, along with various levels of flexibility in Zellbrigen. So they can adapt, as the current Clans in the Inner Sphere and the Periphery have.
The Falcons have embraced the use of DFA and an increased use of jumping mechs with their version of the "Mongol Doctrine". Clan Wolf continues to be masters of adaptive zellbrigen and longer term strategy. Clan Ghost Bear has built an entire new state out of the Free Rasalhauge Republic and their occupation zone, and made it pretty democratic/safe for a Clan governed territory. They're even building Warships, something only one or two Clans ever did in the history of the Clans. And so on.
The reason why the Clans seem stupid is that they adapt slowly, due to a culture focused on genetic superiority and reproduction through limited warfare. Tukkayid, the Annihilation of Smoke Jaguar, and the Jihad taught them to speed up their adaptation, or die. Arguably the most powerful Clan is now run by its merchant caste, and has territory in at least two Successor States, which is Sea Fox. The warriors serve to reinforce their economic and technical advantage, as well as gaining genetic survivability via conflict as barter based mercs (Shattered Fortress shows this well with the various Aimags negotiating with Davion and Marik for supporting their Houses.)
-
I read it twice just now, what's your point?
Because it seems to suggest that the 4D was a downgrade resulting from Comstar's inability to replicate the stealth systems, but the Master Unit List indicates it was in general service with the SLDF since 2660 (including in regular formations), and operation Klondike even turned out a royal variant of the non-stealth 4D.
In fact, those two data points suggest the 4C was the only elite stealthy hunter killer of the bunch, while the 4D (and later the 4Db) was more of a general service mech.
Whoops, my bad. It's in TacOps in the Chameleon Light Polarization Shield entry.
Seen historically as the crown jewel in the design of the Exterminator BattleMech, it is commonly misbelieved that all Exterminator models sported the LPS system, when in fact only a fraction of those units were so equipped-virtually all of which were lost to the Succession Wars.
-
Oh I don't have a problem with it per se.
I was just trying to give my two cents to another user's question pertaining to as why a lot of the early NARC deployment units weren't that optimal... I suspect the game designers at the time designed the CANNON units as not too effective to keep "over all" play fun for most players, in case they had introduced a weapon that could lead to unbalanced game play. I think we have to remember that when NARC was introduced you didn't have the potential ease of player feed back and play testing that you do now days and they may have wanted to be a bit cautious with NARC.
Given that TPTB have always given us the ability to build our own units, players were free to build better delivery units if they wished.
I like NARC and as stated earlier my Megamek games use some relatively fast moving NARC deployment unit.
If I played a lot of tabletop I'm SURE I would be one of those dudes trying to make plenty of use of indirect fire and NARC. Heck, I've been experimenting with iNarc.
I can't discount the rational you're proposing, but I am having a bit of trouble seeing it. At the time, NARC was no better than Artemis IV. I would not be at all surprised if there were a few games at FASA where Artemis and NARC both offered TH bonuses, and I can understand them feeling that was a bit too much for regular play, but lets throw it in as Artemis V in Tac Handbook.
One thing that's always bugged me is how the Clans have their weapons development set up. Given that the warrior caste has had overwhelming control since the Golden Century, one would think that weapons would be geared toward the smaller-scale combat that warriors prefer. Not that every battle allows for zellbrigen to take place, but a glory hound ascending to the Khanship (which, frankly, is every Clan warrior by default) would probably not be keen on signing off on weapons development which didn't allow for bragging rights.
Now you may think that means "no artillery," but it would also mean "no pulse, no targeting computers, etc." If anything, I would think Clan soldiers would attempt to fight with the most-handicapped weapon system possible. i.e.: if one Clanner is using an ER Large Laser, the other Clanner would bid down to a Spheroid-vintage, standard Large Laser to show him up. In the same way that one would "tie one hand behind their back" in boxing to humiliate the opponent. I don't believe that Clan weapons would have developed as far as they had given this attitude being the prevailing mode of thought.
Just my $0.02.
I think the no arty-malarky comes from the focus on the individual. Sure pulse lasers or targeting computers may be "cheaty" but I studied better than you, trained better, planned better, bid better, and ultimately used the tools at my disposal to fight better.
As to the development level, that just comes down to the Clans never lost the plans to make the machines to etch the control chips for pulse modulators. It wasn't just mechs and vehicles and the like getting destroyed in the SW that dragged the SW down. It wasn't wasn't even loosing the plans to an XL engines, etc. It was loosing the plans to the machines that made the XL engines. The Apollo program took nearly a decade. If there was a unified, sustained directive to NASA, "Put men back on the moon, ASAP. Here are the keys to Ft. Knox. Go," it would still take 5+ years, even if we just dusted off all the Apollo plans. Trust me, NASA has that stuff in a cabinet someplace. We would need to rebuild the factories that built the Saturn 5, rebuild the factories that processed all that fuel, and boy were those engines thirsty. Heck, we would have to rebuild the factories to produce those ancient, so-called computers! In many cases, all those plans may well have been lost.
Ask any materials scientist at in the 3020 graduating class of NAIS what endo steel or ferro fiber was, and they could tell you in a heart beat. They could describe how it was made. But when you ask them how to build the tools to make that complex composite material, and you'll start hearing crickets.
Just given population size and Linus' Law, if the IS had been able to keep building on the old Star League's knowledge base, then by the time the Clans showed up, the tech miss match would have probably swung the other way.
-
Just given population size and Linus' Law, if the IS had been able to keep building on the old Star League's knowledge base, then by the time the Clans showed up, the tech miss match would have probably swung the other way.
That would be interesting.
-
WE ARE HERE TO CONQ... SHIT OW RUN AWAY!
-
On second thought lets not go to the Inner Sphere. Tis a silly place.
-
For those interested we have just begun an Optimize the Locust project over on OBT that aims to make more sense out of your favorite Mechs and it will be followed by more. If your interested ;)
https://www.ourbattletech.com/forum/index.php?topic=3777.0
-
For those interested we have just begun an Optimize the Locust project over on OBT that aims to make more sense out of your favorite Mechs and it will be followed by more. If your interested ;)
https://www.ourbattletech.com/forum/index.php?topic=3777.0
But.... The Royal Locust already exists.
-
Looking at his parameters, I don't think the Royal version fits them. The XL engine is just too expensive and hard to source.
-
For non royal regiment plebes. Git gud.
-
But.... The Royal Locust already exists.
As does the 5M which I could simply dumb down into the 4M with ER Lasers that don't exist at this time (early 3050s just after the Truce of Tukayyid) but where is the fun in that. ;) Seriously though, just a design contest series which will go through all TRO3050 designs and produce the very best. I thought rather than complain about what is lets look at what could be.
Looking at his parameters, I don't think the Royal version fits them. The XL engine is just too expensive and hard to source.
Daryk is right as I generally like to use existing components but development of certain things like XL Engines could be justified given a good enough design or reason.
-
It's a 20-ton design, given the way the system works the weight bracket of 20 to 25 tons probably qualifies for inclusion in this thread.
-
At 25 tons, you don't have to look any further than the Mongoose.
-
Arguably it's slow 20-25 ton mechs that are questionable. A 9/14 20-tonner in 3025 is quite viable. Post-3050 the speed goes up a bit, but f.ex. 13/20 isn't really practical at a higher weight but still gives you a useful 20-tonner.
-
Arguably it's slow 20-25 ton mechs that are questionable. A 9/14 20-tonner in 3025 is quite viable. Post-3050 the speed goes up a bit, but f.ex. 13/20 isn't really practical at a higher weight but still gives you a useful 20-tonner.
8/12 20-tonners mechs are viable enough in 3025, at least in open terrain where they have a good chance to get a +4 TMM.
Though with pulse lasers and targetting computers becoming available, I´m not sure even a +4 TMM is enough any more to make 20-tonners viable. I mean, look at how marginal the Fire Moth is at anything except being a BA taxi.
-
Well, the Fire Moth is criminally under-armored.
I've used a 13/20 mech with 3 TC'd ERMLs successfully against cLPLs. Just stay at range 8.
-
The answer to "how do I get my light Mechs to survive on the battlefield" isn't a function of raw TMM, it's a question of giving the things that kill light Mechs more pressing issues to worry about.
That was true in 3025, it's true in 3150.
-
Also depends on the point of view. If the only role is table top combat monster, pretty much anything under 30-35 tons is worthless. On the other hand, if there is strategic use, like scouting (true scouting, not "run to the opposite map edge and back), screening, deep reconnaissance, etc. then there are valuable uses. If they come up against something with that much firepower they can run away - job accomplished.
-
The answer to "how do I get my light Mechs to survive on the battlefield" isn't a function of raw TMM, it's a question of giving the things that kill light Mechs more pressing issues to worry about.
That was true in 3025, it's true in 3150.
When you're fighting in a zellbrigen duel, there are no more "pressing" matters. Unless you intend on including additional assets and making it a 4-on-1 or something. I mention zellbrigen because Clan weaponry is the biggest offender when it comes to having nullified the entire Light weight class past a certain date. There's just no way to keep lighter units alive in a lot of circumstances. Anecdotally, and maybe in text on forums like this, but not in the average game.
-
Light mechs do a lot of jobs that don't really translate to the board game very well. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful.
--Lights can cover ground quickly, and can prey on vulnerable targets. A 3025 Locust is always going to be a threat to your convoy of ammo trucks.
--A fast light can work well as a scout or spotter, particularly when you don't control the airspace.
--Lights can murder most infantry units, and everybody has those.
--Lights are cheap and not every mech is built to kill lights.
--A fast light can evade contact with something designed to kill it.
You've got to keep in mind that there's an element of rock/paper/scissors to Battlemech design. You can build a mech that will slaughter a fast light, no problem. Targeting and pulse lasers will erase their speed advantage (unless they choose to run away). But how is your pulse boat going to fare against an opponent of equal weight that carries Gauss Rifles?
-
When you're fighting in a zellbrigen duel, there are no more "pressing" matters. Unless you intend on including additional assets and making it a 4-on-1 or something. I mention zellbrigen because Clan weaponry is the biggest offender when it comes to having nullified the entire Light weight class past a certain date. There's just no way to keep lighter units alive in a lot of circumstances. Anecdotally, and maybe in text on forums like this, but not in the average game.
I mentioned earlier, I think maybe in the Hussar thread, that certain mech designs make sense for the universe, but not the game. The Hussar would be a giant pain in the ass to play, especially against a human opponent. I can play a megamek game against the bot while I'm watching a movie, and if it takes 3 hours and 100 turns to complete, it doesn't matter. But nobody wants to spend their Saturday afternoon playing a Commando on rolling maps who gets shot to pieces from range 10+ when his opponent needs 11s and 12s to hit. It's something you'd do in a war, not for a fun game.
Over the past week or so, I've played some megamek games where I took a single Clan mech (with 3/4 pilot) and went up against an IS 3025 lance of the right weight class. BV is heavily in favor of the IS machines. I've found that if you're careful, the Clan mechs can stomp all over the Inner Sphere lance. So Loki vs 4 IS heavies. Ryoken vs 4 IS mediums. Dasher vs 4 IS lights. What I found with the Dasher is the way to win is simple -- if you lose initiative, you hit the gas and break line of sight. On a big enough map with room to move, you can do it. If you win initiative, try to maneuver out of people's firing arcs. You don't have to get a +4 TMM if they can't get a gun pointed at you. Now playing it like this is a pain in the ass -- it's another exercise in endless frustration taking like 60-something turns. But it works.
-
Fire Moth D is going to give a lot of grief to your average IS mech (medium remember) and pilot (4/5) during the Invasion . . .
I also think TigerShark is forgetting a lot of the strategy & tactics going into the bidding before a Clan Trial. If I can win the right to battle over my rival by bidding a Mist Lynx as a member of my force instead of the Nova, Shadow Cat or some other medium then I win. Now I just have to see if a Mist Lynx C with its ERLL & AMS works better than the config that has SRMs, ATMs or whatever. And even if I am calculating the odds of that light mech falling, will it do enough damage before hand so that its star-mates can win me the battle? The Mist Lynx E has 4 ERSL (20 pts) and a ATM6 (HE = 18 max) is going to put a hurt on slower Clan Omni and garrison standard meds, one or two solid turns hitting and that mech is not going to survive long after being freed from its duel.
To beat that bid they will have to eliminate a point overall or weaken a bid point to 'keep' it as a medium- the star becomes 4 points or the heavy point becomes a medium. If I was in a position to push the bidding to that point in the cut down and the commander who won the bid pushes past the cut down to win, then I am the person they must make concessions to if they want to call in more forces. Even though I did not win the right to battle, it would still raise my stock as their failure with to win with the final bid forces makes me look better because I did not bid lower- so I appear to have better tactical acumen which is going to help with rank & bloodname.
-
I think Battletech could benefit from having a campaign guide, a rulebook with special case scenario rules to simulate different types of warfare.
For instance, if you are playing as an attacker, faster mechs would give you the choice of battlefield. This could also affect which units your opponent can bring. If I’m using a lance of Locusts in a raid mission, then sorry buddy, you can’t being that Atlas. It simply can’t get to the fight in time, not unless I want it to. One of the problems with the Steiner “wall of steel” is that when your fastest mech has a 4 walking speed, your enemy can just go around you.
-
Slower units absolutely can fight fast units. You don't chase Locusts with an Atlas, you put the Atlas somewhere where the Locusts need to go.
-
and especially need to go over things to get there. nothing ruins a light's day like forcing them to settle for a low TMM within enemy range.
-
Slower units absolutely can fight fast units. You don't chase Locusts with an Atlas, you put the Atlas somewhere where the Locusts need to go.
If I'm launching a raid, I decide where I need to go. You don't know where that's going to be until I hit it.
That's why I said the game needs a campaign book, to let you play out different adventures within a larger war. The Battletech 3rd edition boxed set had 4 training missions. One of them took a damaged Battlemaster and put it up against a Locust, a Phoenix Hawk, and a Rifleman. The idea was that they caught the damaged mech after another battle and were there to finish it off. I always liked this scenario, it felt like part of a larger story.
-
If I'm launching a raid, I decide where I need to go. You don't know where that's going to be until I hit it.
Unless I have resources on planet that I don't even know about, I kinda do. I may not know which resource you're going after, but the opposite is also true: You might not know which of my resources has heavy defenses already sitting on it, and you won't know until you try to hit it.
-
If I'm launching a raid, I decide where I need to go. You don't know where that's going to be until I hit it.
Sure, if you want to be hitting random potato farms in the hinterlands. But there are generally a finite number of targets on a given planet that are actually worth attacking in a raid, which informs me of how to deploy my units. Also, in the case of Locusts specifically, your lack of arms presents another challenge: either you're not stealing stuff, or you need to bring in additional vehicles and infantry to secure what you're going to steal and that bottlenecks you at what your flatbed trucks or APCs can handle rather than the Locusts.
-
I think Battletech could benefit from having a campaign guide, a rulebook with special case scenario rules to simulate different types of warfare.
For instance, if you are playing as an attacker, faster mechs would give you the choice of battlefield. This could also affect which units your opponent can bring. If I’m using a lance of Locusts in a raid mission, then sorry buddy, you can’t being that Atlas. It simply can’t get to the fight in time, not unless I want it to. One of the problems with the Steiner “wall of steel” is that when your fastest mech has a 4 walking speed, your enemy can just go around you.
For the first . . . Campaign Operations?
For the second . . . yeah, the Falcons & Wolves did exactly that to them.
-
For the first . . . Campaign Operations?
For the second . . . yeah, the Falcons & Wolves did exactly that to them.
I don't have Campaign Operations, but based on other Catalyst books, I don't think that's what I'm looking for.
I'm talking about something that would be much less about record keeping or in-universe info, and much more about giving different scenarios for tabletop play.
-
Really it comes down to-
Do you want scenarios handed to you that you do not have to do anything besides show up and play?
If yes, then the Chaos Campaign stuff is for you- latest free stuff is set in low-tech Succession Wars
Do you want to construct scenarios & campaigns and include randomness?
If yes, then Campaign Ops is for you- With chapters titled 'Narrative Campaigns,' 'Map-Based Campaigns,' and 'Custom Chaos: Campaign Creation' you can find a lot of ways to plug your ideas into a formula that works for you
Several different books have gone over how to build a scenario as well, with charts to randomly select the maps, size of opposing force, composition of opposing force, and other details. To be honest, I do not have much of a problem building a scenario any more- its more about making them seamlessly integrate into a Map campaign.
-
Unless I have resources on planet that I don't even know about, I kinda do. I may not know which resource you're going after, but the opposite is also true: You might not know which of my resources has heavy defenses already sitting on it, and you won't know until you try to hit it.
I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. The idea is to provide reasons for players to take units other than the heaviest thing they can find. Players don't need extra incentive to take an Atlas.
There are reasons in-universe to take fast scout mechs. Those don't translate that well into the conventional game. But you could give them advantages, such as choice of scenario, that make them much better. You could implement strategic considerations in a simplified version into the tabletop game.
Suppose that Bob and I sit down to play a game of Battletech. Right now, we'd select some units (either by BV or by tonnage, or however), pick some maps, and play the game. But in that situation we're gonna gravitate towards mechs that are great at brawling. "I've got a lance with a Hunchback, a Warhammer, a Thunderbolt, and an Enforcer. What do you have Bob?" "Oh, I've got an Awesome, a Vindicator, a Wolverine, and a Crab." Nobody is going to pick an Ostscout, for any reason.
But now suppose that there was a scenario book, with a battle by battle flowchart for playing a campaign. The winner of each battle gets bonuses for later. So maybe you play the mission Supply Raid, where you go after the other guy's ammo convoy. The ammo trucks are 5/8 and are moving along a road, 4x2 mapsheets. 2 mechs are on defense, and 2 mechs attack. For each supply truck you destroy, one of your enemy's mechs in the next battle will start at half his ammo supply. This gives you an in-game benefit without having to bother tracking what each truck was carrying. It eliminates the AccountantTech aspect of campaigns.
Or you could do an Artillery Strike mission, where you launch a raid on an enemy's Long Tom battery. Only mechs above a certain speed can do it, because otherwise you'll just get blasted to pieces, or they'll scoot out of the way and hide. But if you're fast enough, you can catch them and fight a battle. If you lose, in the next mission your opponent gets 6 turns of off-board Long Tom fire or something. If you win, he doesn't. But only mechs that are 5/8 or 6/9 or something can make the raid. You must be at least this fast to play this mission.
--
In a Raid the City mission, the attacker is presumed to have launched some kind of diversion before moving in with their rapid striking force. The defender can bring only the units fast enough to respond. I think this is a lot closer to how battles within the Battletech universe are supposed to work. Could you suddenly be facing a company of Assault Mechs that just happened to be guarding the munitions factory? Sure, but most likely you won't, and in those scenarios when you do, you're not actually playing the Raid the City mission. You're playing the It's a Trap! mission.
-
I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. The idea is to provide reasons for players to take units other than the heaviest thing they can find. Players don't need extra incentive to take an Atlas.
You want a good reason? Give them two objectives to defend. If the Locusts kill one target, it's a draw. Both targets destroyed, it's a win for them. The Defender must protect both objectives to claim a win. You can fiddle with the map setup and allowable defender forces to adjust the difficulty. :thumbsup:
-
In all fairness, the Supply Raid mission works perfectly fine with AccountantTech. You just have to be playing out ALL the subsequent missions (or at least simulating their results).
-
In all fairness, the Supply Raid mission works perfectly fine with AccountantTech. You just have to be playing out ALL the subsequent missions (or at least simulating their results).
Sure. I just know a lot more people who are willing to play something where you use something like the old 40K Strategy Cards than are willing to play full-fledged AccountantTech. Me, for one. And I think something like that would open up people's eyes to how useful certain units are. We talk on this board about how we'd use certain mechs "in real life", but we don't have any scenarios to represent that beyond what we make ourselves.
-
House Arano had a interesting mission . . . a heavy & 2 meds were a bait force leading the Rampart lance to the middle of the map and at one point a surprise lance of three Commandos and a Locust go active with a starting position that should be behind the Rampart lance. It gives the SRMs a great chance to crit the two Cats and meds Rampart is fielding, in set up forcing the Ramparts to decide who they give their backs. I want to try that out blind on some folks on MM, just to see how they feel about the ambush going live.
-
Light's are bad because they can carry so little weapons and armor relative to their mass.
Light mechs do a lot of jobs that don't really translate to the board game very well. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful.
--Lights can cover ground quickly, and can prey on vulnerable targets. A 3025 Locust is always going to be a threat to your convoy of ammo trucks.
--A fast light can work well as a scout or spotter, particularly when you don't control the airspace.
--Lights can murder most infantry units, and everybody has those.
--Lights are cheap and not every mech is built to kill lights.
--A fast light can evade contact with something designed to kill it.
You've got to keep in mind that there's an element of rock/paper/scissors to Battlemech design. You can build a mech that will slaughter a fast light, no problem. Targeting and pulse lasers will erase their speed advantage (unless they choose to run away). But how is your pulse boat going to fare against an opponent of equal weight that carries Gauss Rifles?
Perfect time to use easy to replace vehicles.
I think Battletech could benefit from having a campaign guide, a rulebook with special case scenario rules to simulate different types of warfare.
For instance, if you are playing as an attacker, faster mechs would give you the choice of battlefield. This could also affect which units your opponent can bring. If I’m using a lance of Locusts in a raid mission, then sorry buddy, you can’t being that Atlas. It simply can’t get to the fight in time, not unless I want it to. One of the problems with the Steiner “wall of steel” is that when your fastest mech has a 4 walking speed, your enemy can just go around you.
Fixed defenses protect installations that can't move, not 'Mechs. Wall of steel tactics are only bad if the situation is an open field battle, and against the Clans it's not a major one as they will come to you more then they'll try and cut your supply lines. In a raid where wall of steel means your less likely the catch the raiders, but if by chance you do they are going to be destroyed, and given that the Lyrans aren't fluffed to have fewer 'Mechs then they'd like because of their focus on the heavy end, I don't think it puts them at a major disadvantage.
-
Actually, five (reasonably efficient) 20-ton mechs will often beat one 100-ton mech (unless optimized to fight light mechs). The important factors are semi-fluffy ones like pilot and mech costs, maintenance and transport requirements, and so on.
-
I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. The idea is to provide reasons for players to take units other than the heaviest thing they can find. Players don't need extra incentive to take an Atlas.
(snip)
:-\ You just listed several reasons to take light units for a game. Here's another a couple more. The Raiders only have a Leopard class or similar Dropship so they don't have room for the Atlas. Or they're on a deadline and using an Atlas would take to long to accomplish the raid in time. No book campaign used.
But if a player really wanted to use an Atlas why deny them their fun? They could say the dropship is too small for the raid, that the Locusts are a diversion, and they don't have hands to lift cargo, or someone has to defend the dropship.
Why not see the Atlas as a challenge for both parties? One has an objective to take with a time limit and the other has to defend against a really big raider.
-
Wait...why can't leopards carry atlases?
-
They can. My only guess is that there are already four other mechs taking up the cubicles.
-
Or its a scenario related mech-bay quirk, like we get some scenario information where a weapon cannot do X or a turret is damaged and can only cover 5 hexes of spin, etc.
Sort of like we got 'drop weight' limits with MCG & MC2. Or that could even be the reason- you only have drop boosters/chutes rated for mechs under 50 tons (or whatever arbitrary number) for the HALO mech drop.
-
Try playing the 'scout' scenario from OTP: Death to mercenaries with assault mechs.
I don't think it'd go well.
Battle Hawk. Slow, extremely short range, XL engine, ammo. Would be decent if IS lights were the only thing on the board.
Still, a decent deal at 771 BPV. Shame about the poor suckers piloting it in universe.
-
Wait...why can't leopards carry atlases?
The only longshoreman who can load 100 ton 'Mechs is on vacation to Dustball and won't be back for a few months.
-
Battle Hawk. Slow, extremely short range, XL engine, ammo. Would be decent if IS lights were the only thing on the board.
Still, a decent deal at 771 BPV. Shame about the poor suckers piloting it in universe.
Makes an excellent escort for larger mechs.
-
They can. My only guess is that there are already four other mechs taking up the cubicles.
Ah, I misread his post.
-
The only longshoreman who can load 100 ton 'Mechs is on vacation to Dustball and won't be back for a few months.
Wouldn't you know. Now who's going to load my battle ready collection of 3rd succession war PopCaps? I almost have enough saved up for power armor...
-
TBattle Hawk. Slow, extremely short range, XL engine, ammo. Would be decent if IS lights were the only thing on the board.
Still, a decent deal at 771 BPV. Shame about the poor suckers piloting it in universe.
It works fairly well if you use it to fight BA.
-
I made a Mist Lynx (that was going for my fire support) quite unhappy with a BHawk once. The only this really wrong with it IMHO is the SSRM2, even if used for infernos a pair of standard MLs would still have been more useful.
-
Wouldn't be surprised if the missiles were used to avoid making the Battle Hawk yet another boring laser boat.
-
Thats probably true TBH. I do love me some laser but the same basic "disco fridge" design does get boring very fast, and breaking it up with some AC or missile love helps.
-
Wouldn't be surprised if the missiles were used to avoid making the Battle Hawk yet another boring laser boat.
They also give the stock model a needed range boost.
-
IS Streaks have the same range as SRMs and MLs?
-
Yep. 3/6/9.
-
Yes . . . which is why I was not sure why SSRMs were claimed as a range boost.
-
Battle Hawk has medium pulse lasers.
-
Yes . . . which is why I was not sure why SSRMs were claimed as a range boost.
I think they meant that all the missiles in a Streak salvo could hit at range directly, while the standard models would have a more " slack " range, like not hitting at the full distance with less of a grouping when it did hit.
TT
-
Battle Hawk has medium pulse lasers.
We have a winner.
-
Wouldn't be surprised if the missiles were used to avoid making the Battle Hawk yet another boring laser boat.
The words 'Laser boat' and a 'Mech with an anti-missile don't exactly go together in my book.
-
1: I'd actually forgotten about the AMS at that moment.
2: Given that the Penetrator is very much a laser boat, if such a Battle Hawk ever existed, yes it'd be a laser boat.
3: Fair notice: I don't actually care enough about this to go into a full debate. Just letting you know before you decide wether it's worth your time trying to start one.
-
The words 'Laser boat' and a 'Mech with an anti-missile don't exactly go together in my book.
(http://puu.sh/DHRZk/0c4d12ab36.png)
-
:stupid: :lol: :stupid: 8)
TT
-
:clap:
-
Battle Hawk has medium pulse lasers.
Yup, and Sabel was talking about replacing the SSRMs with MLs- so no range change/improvement.
-
Meanwhile, the rest of us were talking about the stock mech.
-
Yup, and Sabel was talking about replacing the SSRMs with MLs- so no range change/improvement.
So? MLO4H brought up the range boost, and he was comparing the Streaks to medium pulse lasers - so, YES, range improvement.
-
A better range improvement for the Battle Hawk would either be ER Mediums in late Clan Invasion/Civil War/Jihad era, or Medium X-Pulses in the Republic/Dark Ages era. The Battle Hawk BH-306 variant from 3067 flips out the medium pulses to ER mediums, kicks in a Streak 4, and a light engine for only another 155 BV 2 points. That increases firepower, survivability, and range to deal with Clan and IS opponents.
The stock Battle Hawk also works well against IS and slower Clan mechs, as well as battle armor and vehicles. I'd use it as an anchor for defensive light scout lances, bodyguards for devoted electronic scouts, and close range terrain attack. The jump jets are a nice addition to allow the Battle Hawk more manuverability.
-
A better range improvement for the Battle Hawk would either be ER Mediums in late Clan Invasion/Civil War/Jihad era, or Medium X-Pulses in the Republic/Dark Ages era. The Battle Hawk BH-306 variant from 3067 flips out the medium pulses to ER mediums, kicks in a Streak 4, and a light engine for only another 155 BV 2 points. That increases firepower, survivability, and range to deal with Clan and IS opponents.
The stock Battle Hawk also works well against IS and slower Clan mechs, as well as battle armor and vehicles. I'd use it as an anchor for defensive light scout lances, bodyguards for devoted electronic scouts, and close range terrain attack. The jump jets are a nice addition to allow the Battle Hawk more manuverability.
Outside of fighting battle armor, I see the Battle Hawk more as an urban fighter. The short weapon range isn´t as much of a disadvantage there, the jump jets are a plus, and with the pulse lasers it does half-decent damage against conventional infantry, too - and used to do even more back when Streak SRM-2 could fire infernos.
-
Bracket firing notwithstanding, some mechs have ridiculous over heating from firing what should be the same bracket of weapons. Nova, Supernova, Rifleman -3N, Hunchback IIC 2 are some examples. The Clan stuff is particularly egregious, but unless you are hip deep in liquid nitrogen, firing all four large heavies on that Hunchback will put you past 30 on the heat scale. That's auto shutdown.
I get bracket firing. I use bracket firing. I also get salvo firing. I get that some mechs are designed with a harsh heat curve, even with salvo fire, Marauder -3R. I don't like it but I get it.
Part of the game is managing your waste heat. Looking for the opening were the other fellow doesn't manage their heat quite as well, and being able to exploit that. I don't get mechs that are so overgunned/undersinked that they are basically carrying spare weapons, in case they take some crits.
-
It makes perfect sense for the Clans, though: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOrGloryAttack
-
Bracket firing notwithstanding, some mechs have ridiculous over heating from firing what should be the same bracket of weapons. Nova, Supernova, Rifleman -3N, Hunchback IIC 2 are some examples. The Clan stuff is particularly egregious, but unless you are hip deep in liquid nitrogen, firing all four large heavies on that Hunchback will put you past 30 on the heat scale. That's auto shutdown.
I get bracket firing. I use bracket firing. I also get salvo firing. I get that some mechs are designed with a harsh heat curve, even with salvo fire, Marauder -3R. I don't like it but I get it.
Part of the game is managing your waste heat. Looking for the opening were the other fellow doesn't manage their heat quite as well, and being able to exploit that. I don't get mechs that are so overgunned/undersinked that they are basically carrying spare weapons, in case they take some crits.
Its for when you want to put 64 points of damage on someone. Most mechs (since lights & meds still make up the majority IIRC) cannot take 16 points without it going internal. Two of those hits in the same location is going to seriously hurt those mechs. And if you play with the TacOps rule that for each 20 damage it stacks a +1 to the PSR, then it can force a PSR at +3.
-
I personally interpret it as needing to go 100% for literally every conceivable moment from the start of the duel to your inevitable death. A Hellbringer Prime or Hunchback IIC 2 that you shoot an arm off doesn't slow down it gets mad.
-
Hellbringer Primes are great. I love those things. You fire the ER PPCs 2/1/2/1 at long ranges and try to play keep away. When the enemy gets closer, you fire an ER PPC and 3 ER Mediums, and you throw in the Streak 6 for good measure (if you miss, you don't fire -- if you hit, the damage is better than the heat penalty). It's for guys who like to run hot and don't fear making shutdown rolls.
-
Hellbringer Primes are great. I love those things. You fire the ER PPCs 2/1/2/1 at long ranges and try to play keep away. When the enemy gets closer, you fire an ER PPC and 3 ER Mediums, and you throw in the Streak 6 for good measure (if you miss, you don't fire -- if you hit, the damage is better than the heat penalty). It's for guys who like to run hot and don't fear making shutdown rolls.
They´re a bit thin-skinned for my taste, but they work as cavalry ´mechs, especially against Inner Sphere opponents. And it can be optimized for that role with just a few small tweaks (which I´m NOT going to go into in this thread, don´t worry, Weirdo).
The less said about the other Hellbringer configs the better, though.
-
But things like the Nova and Supernova who overheat by 20 or 30 points when firing an Alpha Strike are insane. I agree with Grimlock: it's simply insane. If I lose half of my weapons on the Nova I can still overheat which is still funny. I think the designers needed to be shot and sent back to the drawing board.
At least with the Nova it's an OmniMech so it can have easily swapped configurations, byt the Supernova... and the Hunchback IIC? My god that's atrocious as well!
-
Like I posted earlier, it's a death or glory attack. You wait until you've got really good numbers, like 5s or 6s, then alpha strike. Sure, you shut down, but your opponent melts.
-
Hellbringer Primes are great. I love those things. You fire the ER PPCs 2/1/2/1 at long ranges and try to play keep away.
With thirteen heat sinks can't do that without slowing down every other turn (15+15+1[walk] -26 = 5, AKA -1 movement). The things are deathtraps, and a prime example of Apollo's Law.
The C I like, it can kite until it's time to get in close and stomp face.
-
It takes the stated mission of the Hunchback IIC to wonderfully ridiculous extremes. The best result I got was alphaing into the back of a kingfisher and having four. LHLs hit the CT. A pity that pilot didn’t get to claim the mech but it was satisfying to watch my opponent ask “how much damage?” And then just chucking the sheet
-
But things like the Nova and Supernova who overheat by 20 or 30 points when firing an Alpha Strike are insane. I agree with Grimlock: it's simply insane. If I lose half of my weapons on the Nova I can still overheat which is still funny. I think the designers needed to be shot and sent back to the drawing board.
At least with the Nova it's an OmniMech so it can have easily swapped configurations, byt the Supernova... and the Hunchback IIC? My god that's atrocious as well!
The Hunchback IIC is explicitly for warriors who are past their prime and are looking for a death or glory attack. Like theoretically you could wipe out an entire Star of mechs in 5 turns if you got lucky enough. It wouldn't be that unusual to see some Ultra 20s double up on locations and nuke somebody. The Clans obviously place enough importance on a glorious death that they're willing to splurge a little bit by building kamikaze mechs for those who need it.
But the Black Hawk Prime? Man that thing is one of my favorites. You never shoot all the lasers, but you've got 6 for each side arc. Lose an arm, you're still good. And with 5 jump, you can go up heat and retain your mobility. You pick your comfort level with this mech. You want to go up to 14+ and risk shutdown? Go for it, you can jump away next round. Or you can be conservative and not go up heat at all.
The Supernova is fine, if you realize what you've got. It shoots 4 ER Large Lasers each round with no problem at all. Then people complain because you've got two extra if you want to shoot them.
-
With thirteen heat sinks can't do that without slowing down every other turn (15+15+1[walk] -26 = 5, AKA -1 movement). The things are deathtraps, and a prime example of Apollo's Law.
The C I like, it can kite until it's time to get in close and stomp face.
That's fine. You're still 4/6 when you slow down. I'm not afraid of heat.
-
The Supernova is fine, if you realize what you've got. It shoots 4 ER Large Lasers each round with no problem at all. Then people complain because you've got two extra if you want to shoot them.
The problem is that you're paying BV for weapons that have no functional use for most of the game. Same reason the BNC-5S sucks: You have 8 shots for one of the most-expensive guns in the game. By itself, that's fine. You can play the game just fine riding the heat curve. This is more of a problem because the BV calculation needs to be adjusted, as it over-values weapons that cause movement or firing penalties when used. But the fact still remains that you're wasting BV under the current balance system. So I guess it's not a case of the design sucking, but it just not benefiting from a rule that needs errata, IMO.
-
The problem is that you're paying BV for weapons that have no functional use for most of the game. Same reason the BNC-5S sucks: You have 8 shots for one of the most-expensive guns in the game. By itself, that's fine. You can play the game just fine riding the heat curve. This is more of a problem because the BV calculation needs to be adjusted, as it over-values weapons that cause movement or firing penalties when used. But the fact still remains that you're wasting BV under the current balance system. So I guess it's not a case of the design sucking, but it just not benefiting from a rule that needs errata, IMO.
I'm approximately 90% certain that 'Mechs (and technically ASFs) receive BV discounts for being too hot. Not as badly as they did under BV1, where it was literally cheaper to bring three ER PPCs than it was to bring one on some 'Mechs, but there's still a provision for it.
I also feel like being able to say with confidence that being able to sustain significant damage and missing pieces without losing the capability to maintain full weight of fire is a significant advantage that BV arguably under-values in some 'Mechs.
That's fine. You're still 4/6 when you slow down. I'm not afraid of heat.
Bingo. No targeting penalty; if you feel the need to be firing your weapons every single turn you still have the opportunity to use them. If you're trying to play to your machine's strengths, you'll angle for ending out of LOS on the second turn, and as long as you don't overheat into an early shut-down it doesn't really matter how high you get if you can put all of your heat sinks to the task next turn.
One of the hardest lessons in BattleTech to learn is when not to be shooting your opponent.
-
I'm approximately 90% certain that 'Mechs (and technically ASFs) receive BV discounts for being too hot. Not as badly as they did under BV1, where it was literally cheaper to bring three ER PPCs than it was to bring one on some 'Mechs, but there's still a provision for it.
The discounting method needs to be changed, IMO. It subtracts 50% of the BV from the gun that would fire after passing the heat efficiency threshold, but only if the previous weapon has passed this number.
For example, let's say I have a 'Mech with two PPCs and 10 single heat sinks. Its heat threshold for discounting would be 14 (6 + 10 single heat sinks - 2 for heat while running = 14) Obviously it cannot fire the 2nd PPC without a severe penalty. But, because the first PPC's heat + 2 (again, for running) would be below 14, the second weapon gets no discounting. So you're paying full BV for the second PPC, despite being able to use it once every 3 turns. It's just not right.
Before anyone gets on the "this isn't a BV thread," the calculation for BV does affect whether a design is good or bad, to some degree. Some of these might be perfectly good 'Mechs (like the Battleaxe), but because their heat efficiency is badly calculated, they're a bit over-valued. So they appear to "suck."
-
There isn't anything wrong with mechs that have more guns then they have heat sinks to soak the heat. The Supernova is designed to weaken it's opponent via constant ER Large Laser fire, and it kicks in 5 or 6 lasers as needed to finish the enemy off. Are you going to have penalties from overheating?
Sure, but with a good gunner (which the original designers, the Nova Cats are), that laser boat is going to take out targets before those penalties become super overwhelming. It's the same design concept behind the Nova Cat Prime or the Awesome-9M. They're medium to high risk/high reward designs.
As for the Banshee-5S, that was simply a victim of conservative 3050 FASA design, like many of the mechs in that book. 3050 was an attempt to reflect experimentation with the "new" Star League tech, and it led to some awful experimentation that we now regret, much like the stereotypical college student. And it could have been much worse. You could be a 3050 player stuck with a FWL Quickdraw or a Hunchback. I remember playing in a 3050 campaign where only one design in a lance could be custom, while the rest had to be stock IS designs from TRO 3025, 3050, or 2750 with no vehicles or infantry support, using the Battletech Compendium Rules. Our foes had Clan tech along with custom designs. Fun times. My favorite part was our commander using a King Crab with 3 Gauss Rifles and a C3 Master in a lance that had no C3 slaves, since the C-3 variants hadn't been created yet. He ripped it out and stuck a large laser firing in the rear. Lastly, we could only use half of our lance at a time, and we were paired up with another player to form each lance. I'm glad BV came out, as we had SOME sanity put back in. Well, at least until the Dark Ages...
-
For something less controversial lets try something slightly different: Designs that simply don't add up. Some pocking around on the MUL lead me to look up the Weapons Carrier A on Sarna, which in turn lead me to re-create it in SAW and the results aren't pretty, it's 2.5 tons over weight.
-
That's fine. You're still 4/6 when you slow down. I'm not afraid of heat.
I'm not on most designs either. The loki kinda needs that speed, either for the TMM or to control the range/cover.
-
For something less controversial lets try something slightly different: Designs that simply don't add up. Some pocking around on the MUL lead me to look up the Weapons Carrier A on Sarna, which in turn lead me to re-create it in SAW and the results aren't pretty, it's 2.5 tons over weight.
Did you give it a turret or something?
-
Did they ever fix the Clan refits like the Archer C which 2as quite underweight?
-
No, and I really wish they would retcon those since they are treated like red-headed stepchildren- being mixed tech of Clan weapons and 3025 everything else. Just stuff single heat sinks in the rest of the tonnage, its not like the Clans did not have more of them sitting around after dismantling regiments of IS equipment.
Or Daryk, its one of those designs that was built with fractional accounting . . . or like the early 'hovertank' was built before rules.
-
There's no rule against being underweight.
-
And the refits were supposed to be slapdash.
-
And the refits were supposed to be slapdash.
Yeah. These actually make the most sense, in-universe. "I replace x with a better version of x." Weight reduction might have an effect which doesn't translate to the game. Being a few tons underweight might increase engine performance, since it's carrying less weight overall. It wouldn't in the game rules, but compare it to a car that has its body replaced with a fiberglass kit.
-
It would also reduce wear and tear on the actuators, per the 3025 fluff on the Stalker.
-
Did you give it a turret or something?
According to the Sarna article it has a turret, so I gave it one, that doesn't really help but as it's now only 2 tons over weight.
-
Hmmm... off to SAW to check it out...
-
I got two tons over on my first attempt as well... I'm betting they forgot the minimum tonnage for a hovercraft engine.
-
More likely they forgot about lift equipment.
-
It would also reduce wear and tear on the actuators, per the 3025 fluff on the Stalker.
The 3025 Stalker really DID have too much girth! ;D
-
The 3025 Stalker really DID have too much girth! ;D
I blame the double-sided knee actuators.
-
The Hunchback IIC is explicitly for warriors who are past their prime and are looking for a death or glory attack. Like theoretically you could wipe out an entire Star of mechs in 5 turns if you got lucky enough. It wouldn't be that unusual to see some Ultra 20s double up on locations and nuke somebody. The Clans obviously place enough importance on a glorious death that they're willing to splurge a little bit by building kamikaze mechs for those who need it.
While I'm not a huge fan of the stock Hunchie IIC, I was referring to version 2 with the quad heavy lasers. Sure, it can theoretically smite almost anything than a Great Turtle -1 in one alpha, but then its dead in the water for a turn. So 5 turns to kill a start is really 10.
But the Black Hawk Prime? Man that thing is one of my favorites. You never shoot all the lasers, but you've got 6 for each side arc. Lose an arm, you're still good. And with 5 jump, you can go up heat and retain your mobility. You pick your comfort level with this mech. You want to go up to 14+ and risk shutdown? Go for it, you can jump away next round. Or you can be conservative and not go up heat at all.
By that logic, why not carry 5 extra heat sinks, just in case you take an engine crit?
-
By that logic, why not carry 5 extra heat sinks, just in case you take an engine crit?
The ShadowHawk heard you!
-
By that logic, why not carry 5 extra heat sinks, just in case you take an engine crit?
I actually think you should. Which is why I consider the ON1-K to be garbage and the THG-11E to be a perfect unit for its era. If you can't take engine crits and keep going... you're not much use. Just my philosophy, though.
-
Most 3025 units with 10-12 shs have the same problem to varying degrees. The orion’s real issue is that if it’s taking engine crits, the copious ammo bins are also probably exposed
-
Most 3025 units with 10-12 shs have the same problem to varying degrees. The orion’s real issue is that if it’s taking engine crits, the copious ammo bins are also probably exposed
Any kind of TAC (if using standard rules) will force it to withdraw. You really can't do anything but stand still and fire one gun if you have +5 heat and only 10 heat dispersal. It's just silly. The AC/10 just wastes far too much tonnage to do the same thing as other weapon systems on that beast.
-
Forced withdrawal doesn’t mean you get away. The ammo is a problem regardless. My issue with the AC/10 is that it doesn’t fit well with the other range brackets. In a campaign I had to replace the 10 with a 5 because of parts shortages and it performed a lot better
-
Yeah, I have two generic House/merc/pirate 3025 Orion refits, you either free up mass from the AC or the LRM. Lol, IS the Orion a original New Toy Syndrome mech since it was the point when they added 3 more ACs IIRC?
-
I always thought of it as an oversized Centurion with and extra SRM pod.
-
I am literally incapable of understanding the mindset of wanting to be able to take an engine hit and still not meaningfully overheat.
If you're not riding the heat scale at all you're either not using your mech to its fullest potential, or it's fullest potential has been engineered right out of it.
-
I am literally incapable of understanding the mindset of wanting to be able to take an engine hit and still not meaningfully overheat.
If you're not riding the heat scale at all you're either not using your mech to its fullest potential, or it's fullest potential has been engineered right out of it.
Or you've never faced a challenging opponent able to take advantage of that play style.
-
Or you've never faced a challenging opponent able to take advantage of that play style.
When I meet the player who can conjure engine TACs on demand I'll remember this. Otherwise, if you just mean "uses heat inflicting weapons" then I can assure you that I have, and it didn't change that belief.
-
I am literally incapable of understanding the mindset of wanting to be able to take an engine hit and still not meaningfully overheat.
If you're not riding the heat scale at all you're either not using your mech to its fullest potential, or it's fullest potential has been engineered right out of it.
Yeah . . . Mad Dog C and Gargoyle Prime for the latter- when you have a engine crit and still think its fine to stand in the fire.
No, its had the fullest potential engineered out- heat neutral or just plain cool designs waste tonnage on cooling that could be weapons.
-
I am literally incapable of understanding the mindset of wanting to be able to take an engine hit and still not meaningfully overheat.
If you're not riding the heat scale at all you're either not using your mech to its fullest potential, or it's fullest potential has been engineered right out of it.
I completely agree. If I can't go up heat, that means I don't have enough weapons.
-
I am literally incapable of understanding the mindset of wanting to be able to take an engine hit and still not meaningfully overheat.
If you're not riding the heat scale at all you're either not using your mech to its fullest potential, or it's fullest potential has been engineered right out of it.
On the other hand, to pull and IRL example, How much more ammo could and A-10 carry if just had redundant flight controls instead of triple redundancies?
But by this logic, it would be prudent for soldiers to carry a spare SAPI plate for thier body armor, in case they take a hit.
-
On the other hand, to pull and IRL example, How much more ammo could and A-10 carry if just had redundant flight controls instead of triple redundancies?
If it had BattleTech ablative armor, probably.
-
On the other hand, to pull and IRL example, How much more ammo could and A-10 carry if just had redundant flight controls instead of triple redundancies?
But by this logic, it would be prudent for soldiers to carry a spare SAPI plate for thier body armor, in case they take a hit.
If in either of those cases performance could be meaningfully improved at little to no real loss? Abso-damn-lutely. "Unfortunately" the real world doesn't have construction rules for aircraft that fit on six pages, so your example is meaningless in how (not) equivalent it can ever hope to be. The infantry example is even more hopelessly irrelevant to a Mech's construction and gameplay rules.
Having a mech with a maximum heat generation of 5-15 points under it's maximum heat is with precious few exceptions wasting performance in a big way by in the most charitable interpretation possible expecting a hit that will probably never happen.
-
If in either of those cases performance could be meaningfully improved at little to no real loss? Abso-damn-lutely. "Unfortunately" the real world doesn't have construction rules for aircraft that fit on six pages, so your example is meaningless in how (not) equivalent it can ever hope to be. The infantry example is even more hopelessly irrelevant to a Mech's construction and gameplay rules.
Having a mech with a maximum heat generation of 5-15 points under it's maximum heat is with precious few exceptions wasting performance in a big way by in the most charitable interpretation possible expecting a hit that will probably never happen.
On the table top, I agree.
-
Yeah . . . Mad Dog C and Gargoyle Prime for the latter- when you have a engine crit and still think its fine to stand in the fire.
No, its had the fullest potential engineered out- heat neutral or just plain cool designs waste tonnage on cooling that could be weapons.
So an AWS-8Q has "less potential" than, say, a WHM-6R because of its heat profile? O.o Compare the LGB-7Q to the ARC-2R. The former is a FAR superior platform and more reliable for its BV. The latter will be rendered toothless by a few inferno SRMs.
There is a big line between "can take an engine hit and keep firing" and "is oversinked like the THG-11E".
-
The AWS-8Q can ride the heat curve fine, but pursuant to the overall point, the Awesome also doesn't really have much to change. It isn't sacrificing anything to be where it is. There's not an easy number of hear sinks you can rip off for something better. +4 while running and firing all main guns is entirely reasonable.
I think we also disagree significantly on what "toothless" means, or you're flat out unwilling to ride the heat scale. If you have an Archer that's taking multiple full salvos from SRM-6s with Infernos, yes there is a problem. The problem is not that your Archer is overheating. Even with max heat from external sources the Archer is still getting a full turn of shooting and assuming it ran and fired one set of weapons or the other you're only going up to +11 or +17. Neither of those check for ammo explosions and only one has an easy shutdown check.
-
About the only change I'd consider making is one that might make Weirdo use customs, pull the SL and a HS for a sprayer and a ton of coolant ammo, then deploy in pairs that hose each other down, u\enabling continuous firing of all three PPC's for ten turns.
-
Why use a custom when you could just bring a coolant truck?
-
Why use a custom when you could just bring a coolant truck?
Part of it is the absurdity of the situation of two overheating 'Mechs cooling each other down. The other part is that people always complain about vehicles not being able to go all the places 'Mechs can, well then by that logic the should be a Coolant 'Mech and things sort of snowballed.
-
Just use a Pompier or one of the other numerous sprayer-equipped indymechs. When presented with a pair of Awesomes and a small IndustrialMech providing only a minor benefit, I'm fairly certain the Awesomes are going to draw to vast bulk of the incoming fire.
-
So no we're giving Battlemechs field assist crews in battle? Well that's a new one. As for heat efficiency, it can go super insane, like the 5K Quickdraw. I'm still trying to figure out where all these 17 DHS came from and weren't routed to the Atlas manufacturers on Quentin. That's a supply and design snafu of interstellar proportions.
-
So no we're giving Battlemechs field assist crews in battle? Well that's a new one. As for heat efficiency, it can go super insane, like the 5K Quickdraw. I'm still trying to figure out where all these 17 DHS came from and weren't routed to the Atlas manufacturers on Quentin. That's a supply and design snafu of interstellar proportions.
Don't. Trust me on this, just don't.
-
Apparently. I'm still trying to figure out how the AS7-K2 became the Atlas poster child for all of the factions in the Dark Ages as well....
-
So no we're giving Battlemechs field assist crews in battle? Well that's a new one. As for heat efficiency, it can go super insane, like the 5K Quickdraw. I'm still trying to figure out where all these 17 DHS came from and weren't routed to the Atlas manufacturers on Quentin. That's a supply and design snafu of interstellar proportions.
Also, Charger -3K. Granted the -3K isn't as cruel a joke as the -1A1, it's still a lot of resources I would have sent elsewhere.
-
Apparently. I'm still trying to figure out how the AS7-K2 became the Atlas poster child for all of the factions in the Dark Ages as well....
Defiance Industry has good marketing.
-
Ain't a bad design. A smidgen inefficient, but reasonable as long you aren't afraid of losing a bit mobility to heating up, something the design can afford to do.
It is ugly to be sure though. I'm gonna assume DI marketing department relies on stats and photoshopped images.
-
Ain't a bad design. A smidgen inefficient, but reasonable as long you aren't afraid of losing a bit mobility to heating up, something the design can afford to do.
It is ugly to be sure though. I'm gonna assume DI marketing department relies on stats and photoshopped images.
What photo-shopping will be required? The shimmering waves of heat emanating off the Atlas is great to make the mech stand out from a blurry background.
-
What photo-shopping will be required? The shimmering waves of heat emanating off the Atlas is great to make the mech stand out from a blurry background.
It has tiny main gun, terrible buck-teeth, feet that look like they belong to a WorkMech.
-
Oh that . . .
-
Ain't a bad design. A smidgen inefficient, but reasonable as long you aren't afraid of losing a bit mobility to heating up, something the design can afford to do.
It is ugly to be sure though. I'm gonna assume DI marketing department relies on stats and photoshopped images.
The base 4/6 movement keeps it serviceable. Kinda like a Marauder -3R, you just accept that you can get to the fight at 60 kph, but accept that you're going to spend most of the day stuck down at 3/5. Certainly better than the Atlas -K, where using both ER larges and ANYTHING else puts you down into Urbanmech speeds!
-
Oh that . . .
Seriously, what kind of self-respecting Lyran would buy something with that tiny gun?
(Once they have it, they ain't gonna complain because no self-respecting Lyran will admit it is tiny, nor would they demand refund because that would imply they made a bad deal.)
-
It doesn't have buck teeth, it has a hockey mask! (overheard at a Defiance Industries board meeting)
-
Oh that . . .
Wasn't there a Dark Age Atlas with horns or fangs for some other ridiculousness?
-
Yes, the original Atlas from the very first Dark Age set was covered in spikes and horns. And tusks. It was remarkably silly looking.
-
Come on, I thought everyone loved the Darth Vader Atlas II? I now cannot find the picture, or even remember the name, but someone did up a great Darth Vader using one of the MWDA Atlas IIRC.
-
The original Atlas looks good. Ugly but in good way.
Atlas II looks good too. Especially if Darth-Vaderized, i recall the pic.
I like Atlas III too, despite its hockey-goalie-esque looks.
But that DA Atlas (got turned into Atlas K2 for CBT) looks terrible.
-
Honestly, I prefer the K2 over the Atlas II's look.
-
Honestly, I prefer the K2 over the Atlas II's look.
Are we talking the CBT-K2 or the MWDA -K2? The CBT -K2's waist and torso are a bit better proportioned. And the Atlas II does have a bit of a bug-eye thing going on. But if you're talking about the MWDA version, then I think you and I will have to agree to disagree. Either that or meet one morning on the quad with Nerf guns for two and coffee for... two.
Didn't think that one all the way through...
-
I'm talking about the artwork from TRO 3085, not the spiky blob of a mini from Dark Age.
-
Seriously, what kind of self-respecting Lyran would buy something with that tiny gun?
One of the few that isn’t compensating for other deficiencies ^-^
-
One of the few that isn’t compensating for other deficiencies ^-^
There are Lyrans who don't do that?
If there are, i'd assume they're the ones piloting Commandos or other light 'Mechs.
-
Yeah the other ones get blitzkriegs
-
I like the K-2. I just found it hilarious that every faction has access to it, just like various Wasp or Stinger variants. I still don't see why intentionally capping theAtlas K to single heat sinks was needed given the horrors of the Clan Invasion like the Mad Cat, the Masakari, and the Dragonfly (ok maybe not so much on the last one.)
-
LAW is the SAFE of manufacturing
-
The single HS are less of a sin in my eyes than the XL engine. The Atlas is a machine designed to wade into Hell and come out the other side. You don't go making it extra fragile just to cram some bigger lasers in (especially when it can't afford to shoot them all that often).
-
The same thing happened with the Imp and Marauder II, as well. Didn't make sense in any of them.
-
Those were expansions the Dragoons put into gain more firepower so they could go fight the Clans, and have Blackwell prep for Star League and Clan tech production. The Imp isn't too bad since it added in better ranged and close in capability, but the Marauder II is pretty bad. It's the same reason why the Annihilator became closer to its Star League era model, but forgot to put in DHS to add armor, which a defensive mech like the Annihilator needs. I'm not a big fan of the real late Annihilator variants, especially the dual Improved Heavy Gauss, since it has no real back weaponry.
As a side note, I'm working on a homebrew update for the remaining Dark Age intro/secondary and primitive tech units to get some modern upgrades, as some of the Periphery States can't afford to have older assault mechs like the Ymir or the Marauder II-H around given the proliferation of tech across the galaxy. The Devastaor 1-D that the Taurians have is the first one on my list.
-
LAW is the SAFE of manufacturing
;D
-
Actually, has TPTB actually commissioned a mech deliberately in canon to meet the topic at hand? I do remember various writers telling us that for certain products, certain tech had to be used or excluded and weight limits placed on the mechs for fluff reasons.
-
Actually, has TPTB actually commissioned a mech deliberately in canon to meet the topic at hand?
I wrote a whole XTRO (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/110086/BattleTech-Experimental-Technical-Readout-Boondoggles?term=boondogg) of poor decisions.
-
Hah, I love that TRO for a reason.
I wrote a whole XTRO (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/110086/BattleTech-Experimental-Technical-Readout-Boondoggles?term=boondogg) of poor decisions.
-
I'm not a big fan of the real late Annihilator variants, especially the dual Improved Heavy Gauss, since it has no real back weaponry.
That variant was an experimental testbed for the iHGR. It wasn't a production unit.
-
That variant was an experimental testbed for the iHGR. It wasn't a production unit.
The problem is that most people will treat it as if is was a production unit and say it shouldn't ever go extinct, when really it should.
-
That's a problem with people, not with the design itself.
-
Something to add to the pile. Mechs with two different melee weapons. Thankfully there aren't too many, just the Violator(Claw+mining drill), Cudgel(claw+mace) and Volkh(2 x lances).
Although for some reason, I keep thinking that a mech with 2 matched melee weapons can use them both. So if that's not just a brain fart, then the Volkh is off this particular naughty list. Torso cockpit's +1 PSR may not affect your melee attack rolls but it will certainly be noticed when that Archer you just skewered responds with a page from the Kobra Kai playbook!
-
Although for some reason, I keep thinking that a mech with 2 matched melee weapons can use them both.
Only if the weapons are claws. Double punch is the only double melee attack allowed(barring SPAs or similar), and claws are not their own attack, they merely modify a punch.
-
Only if the weapons are claws. Double punch is the only double melee attack allowed(barring SPAs or similar), and claws are not their own attack, they merely modify a punch.
Thanks!
So the Volkh is secure on that list.
Although i imagine a fair few folks on here will want to had all melee weapons to the list....
-
Claw + Something Else made sense for mechs that were designed prior to TacOps, since under the original rules in the Tactical Handbook, claws could be used to grab a target and prevent them from moving. That was the design strategy for the Cudgel.
-
Claw + Something Else made sense for mechs that were designed prior to TacOps, since under the original rules in the Tactical Handbook, claws could be used to grab a target and prevent them from moving. That was the design strategy for the Cudgel.
:yikes: Well that certainly provides a terrifying bit of perspective on the Cudgel....
-
yeah it seems i only find out about combos like that after the rule change (another one was the RAC/5 - TC combo)
-
yeah it seems i only find out about combos like that after the rule change (another one was the RAC/5 - TC combo)
Is the Rotary AC + Targeting Computer not legal anymore? I thought that was the only real advantage for RACs over LRMs.
-
it was with aimed shots
Targeting Computer: If the firing unit is using a targeting computer to aim at a specific hit location, and multiple shots hit, all the shots hit the targeted location.
horrifying (but in a funny way)
-
Yeah, its why certain designs had the TC- like the JM7-F . . . which I always forgot about!
-
it's actually not a super rare combo in the davion arsenal - argus, centurion, hammerhands, legionnaire, marauder as well as the jager. the RAC-armed yellow jacket has a TC too in addition to a few other vehicles...
but enough of design decisions that make sense :))
-
So is it still legal, or not?
-
Its no longer legit, but it was the reason for all those designs except for the Legionnaire.
-
RAC + TAC is still legal. What changed is that now it doesn't work with aimed shots, specifically that every shot doesn't automatically hit the aimed for location.
-
Weirdo: what about Talons? ???
-
RAC + TAC is still legal. What changed is that now it doesn't work with aimed shots, specifically that every shot doesn't automatically hit the aimed for location.
Well, that was the entire point of it, so... shrug.
Of all the things in the game to change for play balance, that one didn't need to happen. I wonder if the people who currently make the calls on that really have a good grasp on what makes the game work.
-
Well, that was the entire point of it, so... shrug.
Of all the things in the game to change for play balance, that one didn't need to happen. I wonder if the people who currently make the calls on that really have a good grasp on what makes the game work.
You don't think that a guaranteed ~20 damage all hitting the same place in clusters of 5 with no roll to conform locations at all was something that should have been left in? ???
-
It's not like RACs stopped getting the -1 bonus for normal shots. They just can't make 30 point aimed shots anymore.
-
One weapon w/15 or 18 hex maximum range, 2 or 3 tons for the TC per gun, ammo weights, modifier to the TH roll, chance to jam if you roll bad . . . yeah, I think it was pretty well balanced. I forgot about it the couple of times I could use it on table top. And depending on the roll, even in 6 mode (highest jam chance) you still have the probability curve for how many of the six 5-pointers hit.
Its not the same as the cLPL and TC though the rules mechanics are the same, so to keep the rules simple and cut down on case exceptions/special rules it makes sense.
-
The change also applied to UACs.
-
You don't think that a guaranteed ~20 damage all hitting the same place in clusters of 5 with no roll to conform locations at all was something that should have been left in? ???
Yes I do. There are a lot of drawbacks to the RAC. The idea that if everything goes perfectly, you can dump up to 30 points in the same location is a nice possibility, but realistically it doesn't actually happen.
Nobody ever said "you know what's overpowered? RACs on a targeting computer." They just aren't all that effective most of the time. You've got a really heavy weapon, that uses up a metric buttload of ammo, that has crappy range, doesn't do great damage, but if you take an additional piece of equipment then you've got the option to shoot at +3 and then roll 8+ after you roll on the missile hit chart, and then you could theoretically do 6 medium lasers worth of damage to one spot. Whoopee.
10 tons for the RAC, + 3 tons for Targeting (I'm using Inner Sphere stats because the Clan version just pales so badly compared to the stock LRM-20) + ammo tonnage. You probably want at least 3 or 4 tons of ammo if you intend on actually using this wonder weapon. Now compare that to a standard IS Gauss Rifle.
Even without the targeting computer, the Gauss is going to go back and forth as far as which is more accurate because of the better range profile. It fires at medium range while the RAC is at long. The Gauss always does 15 point hits, without having to target. The Gauss can maintain fire for longer. It's just a better weapon overall. You gotta give the RAC something to make it worth using.
-
I could have sworn that the first round hit the targeted location with the others rolling location normally.
Must have been a house rule.
-
Multiple crit/motive/headshot opportunities per attack and a 50-100% average greater damage:ton ratio isn't bad. When that doesn't work, it's literally the reason BV is a thing. Weapons don't have to be individually balanced with each other to have balanced games in any format except tonnage.
I love RAC/5s as-is. Getting that kind of bonus for aimed shots (which as far as I'm aware no Cluster weapon gets anyway) is a big issue the minute you start using better than Regular pilots.
(Incidentally, the wording before the change also meant you could aim at an immobile target and get the same bonus. Not having to confirm the hit like normal is the part that's outrageous)
-
I could have sworn that the first round hit the targeted location with the others rolling location normally.
Must have been a house rule.
I believe that's actually the current rule for cluster guns like the LBX and the RAC. You can still use them for aimed shots, but only the first round hits the targeted location.
-
Standard slugs from LB-X guns can be aimed and gain the targeting bonus, clusters shots can't be aimed nor receive the bonus. Ultras and RACs cannot be aimed when firing more than one shot, though they benefit from the targeting bonus regardless of the number of shots. HAGs cannot be aimed but gain the targeting bonus. Pulse lasers gain the bonus but cannot be aimed. MGs and flamers don't benefit from TarComps in any way (nor are they counted for TC mass).
-
I thought there was a clarification that the clusters still got the -1 from TC?
-
They don't.
TW 5th printing:
LB-X Autocannons: When firing cluster munitions, LB-X autocannons lose the benefits of the firing unit’s targeting computer.
BMM notes that weapons making cluster or flak attacks don't gain TC benefits. Note that rapid fire weapons like RAC and Ultras aren't cluster weapons despite functioning similarly, but are forbidden from aimed shots if firing more than one shot (with TC or vs immobile target). The HAG is an exception but it cannot be aimed.
-
Weirdo: what about Talons? ???
They're...a thing? Yes? What's your question?
-
You said Claws were the only physical weapons that could attack twice... Talons also both attack, don't they?
-
They don't, they just enhance kicks and DFAs.
-
Weirdo: what about Talons? ???
You can't use them with a Targeting Computer either.
-
You said Claws were the only physical weapons that could attack twice... Talons also both attack, don't they?
As Empyrus said, they don't have their own attack, they enhance kicks and DFAs. And barring SPAs or such, you can still only do one of those per turn.
-
Barring SPAs, rog... thanks for the clarification.
-
I know it takes an optional rule, but the mismatched weapons I like to mount are a claw on the left and a retractable blade in the right. Unless I misunderstood the rules you can make two punches with each weapon doing it's modification. Makes a great rip and tear effect.
Unfortunately I am unaware of any cannon mech that mounts that pair.
-
I'm pretty sure you have to mount two claws in order to be able to make two melee attacks with them.
-
I know it takes an optional rule, but the mismatched weapons I like to mount are a claw on the left and a retractable blade in the right. Unless I misunderstood the rules you can make two punches with each weapon doing it's modification. Makes a great rip and tear effect.
I'm pretty sure you have to mount two claws in order to be able to make two melee attacks with them.
I haven't used Claws all that much so if I'm wrong someone can step in and correct me. A mech with 2 Claws can make an attack each turn because you are allowed 2 punches which is exactly what a Claw attack is, augmented punch damage. The premise would be the same with optional rule for the retractable blade, you aren't attacking with the blade for damage, you can simply augment the punch for the possible crit by extending the blade.
Now I want to go quirk out a mech that has double claws, double retractable blades, and some experimental talons with spring blades to GM against my locals. To bad no one really has free days between watching their kids or getting sucked into the latest FF expansion.
-
I suppose you could do that, but with the amount of tonnage that's going to eat up it's not going to leave you with a lot of options for conventional weaponry.
-
But it's going to look GREAT!
I suppose you could do that, but with the amount of tonnage that's going to eat up it's not going to leave you with a lot of options for conventional weaponry.
-
There are two ways to win at Battletech
1) by defeating your opponent (boring, cliche, so 1990)
2) losing with PANACHE (brilliant, innovative, unforgettable)
-
There are two ways to win at Battletech
1) by defeating your opponent (boring, cliche, so 1990)
2) losing with PANACHE (brilliant, innovative, unforgettable)
This man wins the forum!
-
There are two ways to win at Battletech
1) by defeating your opponent (boring, cliche, so 1990)
2) losing with PANACHE (brilliant, innovative, unforgettable)
Well played. :clap:
-
There are two ways to win at Battletech
1) by defeating your opponent (boring, cliche, so 1990)
2) losing with PANACHE (brilliant, innovative, unforgettable)
The DM in my Pathfinder group let me do something weird last week mostly because if I botched the roll, it would have been hilarious.
I didn't and the villainous NPC took an adamantine grenade to the chest. :-)
-
But it's going to look GREAT!
Which has little more priority in the S7 arenas where these designs would normally be found. Maybe Noisel, but just like real life: would you play soccer when the other team looked like that?
-
There are two ways to win at Battletech
1) by defeating your opponent (boring, cliche, so 1990)
2) losing with PANACHE (brilliant, innovative, unforgettable)
"Oh, you're a villain all right. Just not a *super* one."
"Oh yeah? What's the difference?"
"PRESENTATION!"
-
There are two ways to win at Battletech
1) by defeating your opponent (boring, cliche, so 1990)
2) losing with PANACHE (brilliant, innovative, unforgettable)
Unfortunately, this means JadeHellbringer automatically wins every single game he plays.
-
I suppose you could do that, but with the amount of tonnage that's going to eat up it's not going to leave you with a lot of options for conventional weaponry.
Got that part covered. I am going to save weight with a smaller engine and paint the mech red to compensate ;).
-
There you go.
Be sure to add a bunch of spikes, too.
-
There you go.
Be sure to add a bunch of spikes, too.
Only need spikes on the left shoulder.
-
To answer this question you have to ask yourself "From what perspective is the question being asked".
From a purely in universe perspective I would have to say that this ship sailed a long time ago.
As ex-military I ask:
Why are there so many designs in the first place.
No military is going to create new designs for combat vehicles just to have more variety.
As an air force vet I can say you don't create custom layouts for each of your pilots this is set for the mission not the pilot, and you don't create multiple platforms for the same job.
The point of platform creation is to fined the for (lack of a better word) the most min/maxed platform to best utilizes the available equipment and minimized the cost.
If a piece of equipment failed to meet this requirement it is abandoned. At this point in Battlemech history there should be maybe 20 or so Battlemech designs (probable less as weight ranges are ruled out for min/maxing) in total, and all new Mechs should be just new tech variance of the standard Mech chassis.
The U.S. army/Marines have used the same single tank chassis (M1 in all its variances) for going on 25 years.
Clan omni-tech is a perfect example of this, why would any military with this tech produce anymore then one mech chassis per weight class or even less since most of the time 5 tons doesn't make that much of a differences.
By this time in the Battletech universe (706 years since the Mackie) each house should at most have one maybe two mech chassis in any weight class. As they have had way to long to Min/Max the Mech designs.
And the idea of iconic Mechs is just be silly from a military uses perspective. We don't use bi-planes anymore in the air force or put them on the recruiting posters, so why would a Warhammer which is majorly out classed by newer chassis still be used on the field or in the literature to recruit new mechwarriors?
The old argument Mechs are rare is long past in the modern Innersphere.
Now from a out of universe perspective it all makes sense, Money!
CGL is a business and they need to make money, so they need to keep having new products for us to buy.
While I don't agree with the idea that we need 1+ new TRO every year.
I don't hold it against them that they are good sellers.
IMHO, they should concentrate on the story aspect of the universe and stop trying to come up with 20+ new mechs all the time.
Just this marketing design alone explains the OPs mech choice. They needed another design so they had to come up with something.
The backwards firing MG's make an otherwise already used chassis design seem new.
At this point I can guess that it become harder each day to come up with new and original mech ideas.
After awhile you run out of ways to equip new mech with the construction system employed.
-
To answer this question you have to ask yourself "From what perspective is the question being asked".
From a purely in universe perspective I would have to say that this ship sailed a long time ago.
As ex-military I ask:
Why are there so many designs in the first place.
Every time they build weapons it's easier to convince someone in the government they need the new toy than it is to simply convince them to refit the Enforcer again. then they throw it at the army who get the fun of figuring out how to field them without tying too many new knots in their supply lines.
you know, like we do now!
-
As ex-military I ask:
Why are there so many designs in the first place.
No military is going to create new designs for combat vehicles just to have more variety.
The Houses are sort of like the old Soviets . . . never throw any gear away! It just gets handed down to lower priority units, I mean the Soviets were still flying MiG-21s when the system collapsed IIRC. So over 40 years and several generations of aircraft yet it was still in production in places (or variants) while various places were refitting their fleets to incorporate advances.
-
To answer this question you have to ask yourself "From what perspective is the question being asked".
From a purely in universe perspective I would have to say that this ship sailed a long time ago.
As ex-military I ask:
Why are there so many designs in the first place.
No military is going to create new designs for combat vehicles just to have more variety.
Nah. Because politics. Politics and the size of the Inner Sphere.
Don't think of a Successor State military as similar to a modern one. At best, it's like a version of NATO. A version of NATO where no tech advancement took place over a few centuries, and people are still using WWII equipment in large numbers because it still works and half the factories have been blown up.
-
The point was he was looking at it from a Western military perspective . . . the Soviets did not throw away or recycle gear, they just gave it to lower tiers. I mean the NKoreans were using WWII T-34s b/c the Russians peddled them for influence and they were still adequate.
But yeah, the post WWII arms race frozen in the 50s is probably a good analogy. Since some units were equipped with pre-WWII gear and some had more cutting edge stuff- like jets!
-
So let's say you've got a Successor State. At the top, you've got the Chancellor/First Prince/Grand Poobah/whatever. Not only does this guy have a lot of money personally, and probably owns a large private army, but he's also got a hundred different titles, and a million different alliances with various nobles.
Grand Duke Doofus who runs the Backwater Conglomeration, a group of a dozen planets in the most remote part of the kingdom, is happy to send five Battlemech regiments to help his third cousin twice removed (by marriage), the Successor Lord. And so the Backwater Hussars are considered a vital part of the Successor State's armies. But they're gonna make use of that weird Crusader variant, because it's produced by Grand Duke Doofus' factories. It doesn't matter if there's a better variant out there, this one is the "best" because it's produced by the Grand Duke. And by God, you're gonna make a purchase every year of two dozen Battlemechs and send them to units under your command, because that's part of the 700 year old treaty that originally joined the Backwater Conglomeration to your kingdom.
This kind of thing isn't unique. It's the standard way of doing business. Everybody's got their own factories, and produce their own style of mechs. Yes, to a degree combat ability matters, but there's a whole lot of redundancy in design because you've got to buy from the right person.
-
The point was he was looking at it from a Western military perspective . . . the Soviets did not throw away or recycle gear, they just gave it to lower tiers. I mean the NKoreans were using WWII T-34s b/c the Russians peddled them for influence and they were still adequate.
But yeah, the post WWII arms race frozen in the 50s is probably a good analogy. Since some units were equipped with pre-WWII gear and some had more cutting edge stuff- like jets!
don't forget the successor states are countless orders of magnitude larger than any worldly nation- more than a little of it is going to be "what can i support with parts in reasonable range" and "who does we have contracts to supply new 'mechs with here". i'd wager a fair chunk of 'mech designs are "make this other 'mech, but in way we can produce it here without copyright infringements and using local weapons". or just vanity projects like all those combine 'mechs dressed like samurai...
-
The DCMS loves a good cosplayer.
-
The soviet philosophy of keeping every piece of equipment they ever made had more to do with being outnumbered and already behind a technologically advanced west.
The old soviet addict of "quantity over quality" which had won them the eastern front.
I don't see the Successor State as the old soviet state.
And as I said, while this answer worked during the 3rd Successor war, by 3050 and beyond technology was rapidly climbing back to Starleague levels so it would have been way more efficient to par down the numbers of chassis type to reduce the stress on logistics for the house armies, not create more to further strain them.
Add to this the Omni-technology and you should have had Successor State armies more in line with the 3049 Clans. (one or two chassis per wight level)
But, really world business had to butt in and even mess this up with clans getting new mechs every TRO at Successor State rates, not because they needed them but to fill-up TROs.
-
I think I saw this response up there somewhere,
but I'd say why there are so many variants is that there are so many different entities out there that can afford their own equipment, even if it is made by the same international/stellar company or their competitors.
The magnitude of the BTU easily dwarfs one planet and it's internecine issues. The clans are as fractured as the I.S. Instead of the US, it's like having 100 US's and they don't want to simply copy-cat each other or they're trying to support their homegrown tech first ... even if it is a load of horse phooey (armed and armored horse phooey, that is).
-
The soviet philosophy of keeping every piece of equipment they ever made had more to do with being outnumbered and already behind a technologically advanced west.
The old soviet addict of "quantity over quality" which had won them the eastern front.
I don't see the Successor State as the old soviet state.
And as I said, while this answer worked during the 3rd Successor war, by 3050 and beyond technology was rapidly climbing back to Starleague levels so it would have been way more efficient to par down the numbers of chassis type to reduce the stress on logistics for the house armies, not create more to further strain them.
Add to this the Omni-technology and you should have had Successor State armies more in line with the 3049 Clans. (one or two chassis per wight level)
But, really world business had to butt in and even mess this up with clans getting new mechs every TRO at Successor State rates, not because they needed them but to fill-up TROs.
I mean, a lot of the successor states still worked similarly to the Soviet methodology of "keep it, we'll find a use for it later". Old Soviet stuff was easy to maintain. As are quite a few units the States continued to use throughout the series of BT.
Units which are relatively easy to retrofit, such as the T-34 in our timeline can apply to many units in the BT universe. We talked about the PO, and how it can be turned into a LB-X carrier (in the weapons maintenance thread, I thought this was that). The T-34 was also retrofitted into using AA guns. Mechs probably are the least likely to be able to be retrofitted as easily, since a lot of the mounts are hardwired contrary to an Omni.
That's not even mentioning that "we have a T-34" is usually better than "we don't have any armor at all". Anything that can lob shrapnel shells is better than something that doesn't.
-
One major difference between the Soviets and the IS is that I'm pretty sure the Soviets stopped making outdated (for them) gear. The IS also seems to introduce new designs just because, unlike any real world military.
-
One major difference between the Soviets and the IS is that I'm pretty sure the Soviets stopped making outdated (for them) gear. The IS also seems to introduce new designs just because, unlike any real world military.
They would sell not just the outdated stock, but designs and possibly technical support in helping the client state set up manufacturing for some of the necessary parts. Pretty cheap way to get access to the client states resources and/or strategic location.
I don't think there's as much design competition in the IS than real life militaries. While they happen from time to time, it's more a case of "Make a competing product or we're going to lose market share" for the less favored companies. Even if the federal forces don't pick them up regional forces might (possibly just to politically spite their own feds). Together with authorized merc sales, there's rarely an actual boondoggle design.
-
They would sell not just the outdated stock, but designs and possibly technical support in helping the client state set up manufacturing for some of the necessary parts. Pretty cheap way to get access to the client states resources and/or strategic location.
I don't think there's as much design competition in the IS than real life militaries. While they happen from time to time, it's more a case of "Make a competing product or we're going to lose market share" for the less favored companies. Even if the federal forces don't pick them up regional forces might (possibly just to politically spite their own feds). Together with authorized merc sales, there's rarely an actual boondoggle design.
It's a better system, TBH. Companies develop products to spec, the military evaluates and buys new products as they're submitted for approval and manufacturers who can't deliver don't get repeat orders. Instead of having protracted winner-take-all bids that are sold on the strength of a single pre-production prototype that may only loosely reflect the finished product. It works well because 'Mechs are difficult to produce quickly and components are highly standardized between models.
Where you have contractor bids for a single universal design, you get designs that are politically optimized instead of optimized for their intended mission (one might argue that keeping the state bureaucracy happy becomes the intended mission).
-
Caveman, an important difference between the real world and BT is that BT has a seemingly unregulated military hardware market, IRL military hardware companies can often only sell to their national governments, so free market principals don't apply. Not saying your wrong, but there are good reasons we have the systems we do IRL.
-
My point is that while in universe, I understand that the different houses would field different mech, this still would only require about 17 to 34 mechs at most per house, less with crossover.
Trying to push an in universe reason to keep making TRO is a waste of time.
And we just have to except that CGL is a business needing to make money and leave it at that.
Again I personally feel that they should just optimize the mechs and stick to storyline updates.
But again TRO are big sellers so that will never happen.
-
For other examples of "1st world powers" using mish-mash gear, pick a country and watch the related episodes on C&Rsenal (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClq1dvO44aNovUUy0SiSDOQ). Modernization programs are derailed, old gear is pulled from mothballs, production is ramped up, production is outsourced. I want to say Remington took a contract to license build Mosin-Nagants for Russia. The US couldn't spare Springfields and Enfields for training, so US troops trained on Mosins, shipped to England, where they had to learn an new rifle. I may be mixing my episodes, but there is at least one documented case of some oddball rifle being issued to a unit of engineers, who did use that rifle in combat.
At the same time, US troops were training on .30-06 Chauchats, which were less than reliable, but issued French built guns in 8mnm Lebel, which was actually pretty good for the day.
-
I can't see houses limiting themselves to just 35 designs or less. That's like saying Ford never should have stopped producing Ford Model T. Why would we need a new one? I'm sure by now they could be equipped with anti-lock breaks, fuel cell engines, airbags, bluetooth, AC, satellite radio, and GPS. They might even come in different colors.
As has been mentioned, the Houses rarely throw things away. There's always a lower unit to pass things on to. That means more and more units as time marches on.
There's also the Houses size. A single company couldn't produce enough to support the whole military even with multiple factories. The Houses are just too big. I've mentioned the M4 Sherman before, in this or another thread. The M4 Sherman had multiple factories, with multiple variants in production at the same time. That was just the basic medium tank, not any of the more exotic varieties, copies, chassis variants or design inspirations. That's just one example from a tiny country compared to a House, in a war that would be considered minor in scale compared to those seen in Battletech.
In real life the Sherman copies didn't see much production. In BT, the Houses would need all the war material they could get. That means mass producion of Sherman copies like the Grizzly, and buying similar other tanks like the Nahuel DL 43 for their forces. Not only that but the M3 Lee/Grant wouldn't have ceased production. They'd still be used by second line forces as there's simply so much territory that the House needs to protect. Even tanks like the Ram and would have been mass produced. So a House is going to end up with many different tanks doing the same or similar jobs.
As time moves on, tech improves, Houses get more advanced units and the hand me down process takes place. Frontline units get new equipment. Secondline units get the cast offs from the Frontline units, and so on out to the Periphery Miliita units. Plus you have other groups purchasing units for their own needs. Mercs are going to have their requirements. Police Forces are also going to have requirements. And none of the above include all the upgrading the various forces are going to do.
The Militias would also be buying/producing units for their own defense, and even for export.
Each Militia also might have their own requirements as to what they need. One planet might need a lot of DD Shermans while another would need one with a Fuel Cell and Environmental Sealing. And since they might not be able to license the plans for the Sherman they'd have to get the designs from somewhere else or create their own. That's also just the richer Militia units. Poorer units would use M3 Lees/Grants and Rams. The really poor ones are having to make do with the M2 tanks and even old Liberty Tanks and copies of the FT-17.
The end result is a massive number of different types of Tanks, each with a massive amount of variants. And just one type of unit, in one House. BattleTech has lots of unit types and lots of Houses to use them.
I think the TROs we've had barely scratched the surface of what is or was available. Entire production runs, their factories, and designers could have been lost to the fires of history and nukes. The only information that they ever existed is found in an ancient TRO, in an old library way out in the middle of no where. And its been put in the children's section because some kid used a crayon to color in the line art. Or there could still be numerous examples still around. We just haven't seen them in a TRO yet. Plus given that TROs are generally Tournament only leaves a lot of units we have yet to see. Like all those from the Reunification War, the founding of the Clans, and War of 3039 that used prototype tech. We know they existed but there's very few examples to be found.
So no I can't see a House Limited to just 35 designs. Just the frontline forces, maybe but not for all the forces a House might have in total.
-
I think another thing that is being missed is that the Houses have lots of powerful nobles within them, all of whom are competing for power. If you're the House Lord, you don't want some Duke getting too much power.
It makes sense from a modern day perspective for the Federated Suns to pick about 5 mechs, and produce only those. Let's say they had Enforcers, Valkyries, Phoenix Hawks, Warhammers, and Jagermechs. And they're just going to build them in vast quantities until they outnumber everybody else. With standardization, they should benefit from better economies of scale and be able to build larger numbers. However, if you actually tried to do that, you're going to be giving your no-good cousin the Grand Duke more political power. You want to limit how big those private armies can get, otherwise you might not be House Lord all that much longer.
Unlike modern militaries, House militaries aren't completely nationalized organizations. A lot of the units are regional armies that owe their first loyalty to somebody other than the House lord. Imagine if 70% of the US military was made up of a bunch of state militias. Texas would have its own army, Nebraska would have an army, California would have one, etc. And they all report to the US President, but everybody knows that if push comes to shove, those state troops are going to report to the governors of their own states. The federal military might be powerful enough to defeat any single individual state, or maybe a small group of them, but not too many at once. So you wouldn't want to let any one nobleman get too much power, or expanding their military by too much.
Buying a hodge-podge array of mech designs might not be the most efficient way to build your army, but it distributes the power better and keeps various nobles happy. Duke Johnson will be happy because his Shadow Hawk factory got another order, and him being an ally is likely to keep Duke Stevens from feeling too adventurous.
-
Now transplant that whole idea to something like the Phillipines, with hundreds if not thousands of separate islands.
-
All this comparison to real-world militaries is off topic.
-
All this comparison to real-world militaries is off topic.
Not really. When you say a design decision makes "no sense", that's a pretty broad area. There are a lot of undefined parameters there. In what context might something make sense?
-
The comparisons seem to be in the course of making sense of various arguments in-universe. They seem on-topic to me...
-
It's a discussion on why the Inner Sphere has thousands of variants of different mechs still in circulation, which is really adjacent to the original discussion of mechs that were built in ways that had glaring flaws without in-universe justifications.
-
My point is that while in universe, I understand that the different houses would field different mech, this still would only require about 17 to 34 mechs at most per house, less with crossover.
Trying to push an in universe reason to keep making TRO is a waste of time.
And we just have to except that CGL is a business needing to make money and leave it at that.
Again I personally feel that they should just optimize the mechs and stick to storyline updates.
But again TRO are big sellers so that will never happen.
The last Technical Readout that CGL has made, that wasn't a reprint of existing material to keep it available, was Technical Readout 3150. That was four years ago. The only announced Technical Readout that isn't a reprint is Technical Readout: Golden Century, which I believe will be PDF only and is on indefinite hold.
-
And even 3150 was in no small part stocked by units from the 3145 faction pdfs not included in the initial printing of TRO 3145. So really it’s been the better part of six years since the last big new unit dump.
Some of our assumptions about the product line are based on old information that may have been true in 2008-2010 but not any more. There will probably be another main line post 3150 TRO but the 90s-00s where we got one every 2-3 years won’t be coming back
-
For other examples of "1st world powers" using mish-mash gear, pick a country and watch the related episodes on C&Rsenal (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClq1dvO44aNovUUy0SiSDOQ). Modernization programs are derailed, old gear is pulled from mothballs, production is ramped up, production is outsourced. I want to say Remington took a contract to license build Mosin-Nagants for Russia. The US couldn't spare Springfields and Enfields for training, so US troops trained on Mosins, shipped to England, where they had to learn an new rifle. I may be mixing my episodes, but there is at least one documented case of some oddball rifle being issued to a unit of engineers, who did use that rifle in combat.
At the same time, US troops were training on .30-06 Chauchats, which were less than reliable, but issued French built guns in 8mnm Lebel, which was actually pretty good for the day.
We're not talking small arms here.
I can't see houses limiting themselves to just 35 designs or less. That's like saying Ford never should have stopped producing Ford Model T. Why would we need a new one? I'm sure by now they could be equipped with anti-lock breaks, fuel cell engines, airbags, bluetooth, AC, satellite radio, and GPS. They might even come in different colors.
-Snip-
The difference here is that Ford stopped producing the Model T when it made sense to, and they only add a design to their line-up when there's a need.
The last Technical Readout that CGL has made, that wasn't a reprint of existing material to keep it available, was Technical Readout 3150. That was four years ago. The only announced Technical Readout that isn't a reprint is Technical Readout: Golden Century, which I believe will be PDF only and is on indefinite hold.
And I'm pretty sure that 3150, 3145, and 3085 largely contained designs that originated in Clickly-Tech
-
It's a discussion on why the Inner Sphere has thousands of variants of different mechs still in circulation, which is really adjacent to the original discussion of mechs that were built in ways that had glaring flaws without in-universe justifications.
The thousands of mechs in circulation is were comparisons to real life are applicable.
I don't know why there isn't fluff to say why a Mech or tank or whatever has some flaw. I can however think of reasons why it could still be produced.
The flaw was unknown at the time.
They know of the flaw but its the only thing available.
Need for military equipment, flaws or not.
Contractual obligations.
Political pressure.
Economic pressure.
An incomplete understanding of the technology.
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
I'm sure there's other reasons.
The difference here is that Ford stopped producing the Model T when it made sense to, and they only add a design to their line-up when there's a need.
Battletech is supposed to make sense? :o
Let's use the Wasp as an example. It's been in production for over 600 years. It's had many changes over the years. New armor, engines, weapons, chassis, body styling. Pretty much everything that could be changed has been yet it's still being produced even though there's been better scouts. Why should the Model T be any different? It can still be produced as it was or modernized as much as one wants. And when you consider Battletech is still using tech that predates the automobile who's to say there aren't Model Ts out there some where? They'd be cheap easy to make vehicles for a colony.
-
Battletech is supposed to make sense? :o
Let me use something I think most people will get: One of the major criticisms of of Jayformers is the lack of conforming to it's internal rules
-
Let me use something I think most people will get: One of the major criticisms of of Jayformers is the lack of conforming to it's internal rules
I don’t have any idea what this means.
-
The difference here is that Ford stopped producing the Model T when it made sense to, and they only add a design to their line-up when there's a need.
I will refute that with the Edsel, the Th!nk and Blackwood.
-
Battletech is supposed to make sense? :o
Let's use the Wasp as an example. It's been in production for over 600 years.
There’s never been much realism in BT technology and industrial development. If we still waged war using weapons from 600 years ago, then we’d still be swinging swords and maces and halberds from behind shields under armor suits and mail shirts, some of us on horseback and with proper archery support if we were lucky. We don’t even use Sherman tanks from 60 years ago, nevertheless 600 year old technology and designs.
This lack of realism has been baked in from the beginning of the game and story. Even if we accept the technological stagnation of the Successor Wars, it’s still unlikely that mechs generally, and certain mech designs specifically, would have remained the state-of-the-art for the entire run of the Star League’s 200+ year history.
Lack of realism is just the price paid to have a stable set of gaming rules and pieces set against a multi-hundred year epic story. We simply have to ignore it to enjoy the game and setting.
-
The original military Jeep is a pretty good analogy of how the BT universe operates. The US had the Jeep manufactured by several different companies, since the original manufacturer could no longer keep up with demand. It was made a criminal offense to modify the design without approval, since supplying different parts for different versions would have been a logistical nightmare, and virtually all of the approved "upgrades" to the design were directly interchangeable with the original components or sub-assemblies. It wasn't until post-war and the revocation of the restrictions that variations and changes were made, yet the basic design still remained mostly untouched for a few more decades (completely new designs were introduced, but did not REPLACE the original), and remained fairly static until the company was bought and sold a few times.
In the BT universe, with the difficulties and costs inherent in shipping spare parts for literally hundreds of different designs between different star systems, making changes in the design without the express permission of the House they're going to would be economic suicide. There are already too many different manufacturers making too many different designs for most facilities to stock parts for, and adding sub-versions for those would rapidly make repairs and replacements unmanageable. Given a choice between continuing to provide parts for its existing hundreds of Battlemechs of a particular design, or complicating the issue with two different and incompatible sets of components for basically the same chassis, it's no wonder that the House armies refuse the changes and continue to use flawed designs instead of upgrading. Quick and easy fixes are one thing, but if it's not directly compatible, it doesn't get approved without some pressing reason behind it (like a powerful political backer, who probably has other priorities than pure military effectiveness in mind).
We don't use Sherman tanks anymore, but the US Marines continued to use a Sherman-derived design until only a couple of decades ago. Those were based on a set of designs which originated in the 1930s, although its earlier Grant predecessor based on a lot of the same components was essentially replaced by the Sherman. Unlike the Jeep, the Sherman had significant changes and upgrades made, with radically different models, but like the Jeep, most service components continued to be interchangeable within the entire series, so you COULD use parts from a Grant or early WWII Sherman to fix a substantially different Korean War model. There are still Soviet T-34 tanks dating back to the mid-1940s in service in a few countries, although they're practically all gone. That's a design that had significant transmission problems right from the start, yet it's still being kept in service since the origin of the design in the 1930s. Basically, as long as parts are available, they're still being used.
If the parts are still being made 600 years later, and the chassis is structurally sound (thanks to wonder-tech from the 25th Century), it's at least plausible that the designs would still be viable, although few individual machines would be anywhere near that ancient outside of museum pieces.
-
The only announced Technical Readout that isn't a reprint is Technical Readout: Golden Century, which I believe will be PDF only and is on indefinite hold.
When did that get announced?
-
off-handedly iirc. officially when it slipped off the coming releases page, i imagine.
-
Let me use something I think most people will get: One of the major criticisms of of Jayformers is the lack of conforming to it's internal rules
Helps if I don't make a typo, that should be Bayformers, the nickname for the live action transformers movies.
I will refute that with the Edsel, the Th!nk and Blackwood.
How many of there where successful?
-
There’s never been much realism in BT technology and industrial development. If we still waged war using weapons from 600 years ago, then we’d still be swinging swords and maces and halberds from behind shields under armor suits and mail shirts, some of us on horseback and with proper archery support if we were lucky. We don’t even use Sherman tanks from 60 years ago, nevertheless 600 year old technology and designs.
This lack of realism has been baked in from the beginning of the game and story. Even if we accept the technological stagnation of the Successor Wars, it’s still unlikely that mechs generally, and certain mech designs specifically, would have remained the state-of-the-art for the entire run of the Star League’s 200+ year history.
Lack of realism is just the price paid to have a stable set of gaming rules and pieces set against a multi-hundred year epic story. We simply have to ignore it to enjoy the game and setting.
Funnily enough Paraguay just retired their Sherman Tanks last year. :o We can also do the knights on horse back with swords and shields and proper archery support in Battletech. ;D We can't do musketeers though. :(
We also know that mechs haven't been state of the art. State of the art has changed many times in Battletech. It improved for a while. Then things started degrading. The Marauder is a perfect example. It started out state of the arm and was downgraded.
Not everyone can afford state of the art though. The further they are from a frontline unit the less state of the art is found. And with Battletech using some tech that's a couple thousand years old it isn't unrealistic to find a Model T on some planet some where.
snip
If the parts are still being made 600 years later, and the chassis is structurally sound (thanks to wonder-tech from the 25th Century), it's at least plausible that the designs would still be viable, although few individual machines would be anywhere near that ancient outside of museum pieces.
Which is why I brought up the Model T. It is still a sound functional automobile. There's no reason it couldn't still be viable in Battletech.
As for units being 600 years old, isn't there fluff for the Banshee talking about Primitive versions being upgraded to standard tech and continuing to see service 600+ years later because they weren't on the frontlines?
-
If the parts are still being made 600 years later, and the chassis is structurally sound (thanks to wonder-tech from the 25th Century), it's at least plausible that the designs would still be viable, although few individual machines would be anywhere near that ancient outside of museum pieces.
I think it was 'Zuma in one of the Victor Milan books who compared a particularly temperamental Jenner to his grandfather's ax. The one that's had six new handles and 3 new heads.
We also know that mechs haven't been state of the art. State of the art has changed many times in Battletech. It improved for a while. Then things started degrading. The Marauder is a perfect example. It started out state of the arm and was downgraded.
I would argue that most mechs were state of the art, until the 3030's. It's kind of pedantic but "state of the art" doesn't mean "bleeding edge." It means "what is the industry doing now." So as the industry lost capability in the succession wars, mechs degraded until they were at the level with the current "state" of the "art of battlemech production."
3030's and the Helm Memory core hits and new stuff starts walking off the lines, then people who can't afford to upgrade fall behind the state of the art.
-
Can someone explain the AC2 on the Vulcan-2T? Most of the rest of the design makes sense to me is infantry fighter and support. The AC2 is what? To crit enemy APCs from a county over?
-
Can someone explain the AC2 on the Vulcan-2T? Most of the rest of the design makes sense to me is infantry fighter and support. The AC2 is what? To crit enemy APCs from a county over?
Range. Same as with the Sentinel. AC/2 have range unlike most infantry weapons.
Yes, LRMs offer good range and more damage, as do many other weapons. But that's not so much a fault of the Vulcan as it is fault of FASA and their lack of sense.
That said, with TacOps AC rapid fire rules, the AC/2 can function as a suppressive fire weapon, cluster attacks gain bonus to suppression.
Plus if we assume some weapons can fire faster than once per 10 seconds (eg Solaris rules or how weapons are depicted in MechWarrior games), the AC/2 becomes a relatively fast-firing weapon, again useful for suppression and damaging heavier targets that the infantry have difficulties dealing with.
-
Autocannon rounds are also dirt-cheap, and the AC/2 gets a lot of shots per ton. Need to take out infantry without getting close? The AC/2 works as well as an AC/5 for the purpose, for a lot less money. ...and yes, you CAN crit vehicles from the neighboring county.
-
The range of the AC/2 makes it a pretty decent AA weapon, useful whenever the revolting peasants you're suppressing get the idea to hang barrel bombs off of crop dusters.
-
I kind of wish the Vulcan's AC2 was mounted above the cockpit instead of below, because its really not all that good against infantry unless you load the single ton of ammo the mech has for it with fletchettes. It'd just give a better visual indicator of how it's used than just haphazardly stapling it to the bottom of where the ribcage would be on a person.
(Because I like the idea of using it to plink aircraft or countersnipe infantry with a 40mm analogue, and mounting it in a higher location makes that visual more sensible.)
-
Autocannon rounds are also dirt-cheap, and the AC/2 gets a lot of shots per ton.
Not shots, Salvos...
TT
-
I would argue that most mechs were state of the art, until the 3030's. It's kind of pedantic but "state of the art" doesn't mean "bleeding edge." It means "what is the industry doing now." So as the industry lost capability in the succession wars, mechs degraded until they were at the level with the current "state" of the "art of battlemech production."
3030's and the Helm Memory core hits and new stuff starts walking off the lines, then people who can't afford to upgrade fall behind the state of the art.
State of the Art varies. What was state of the art does always remain so. A Standard tech Mech isn't going to to be state of the art next to a,Mech using SLDF tech. And that Mech won't be state of the art against one using Clan tech.
-
Re: Vulcans: I once played a campaign game where the GM threw us against a fortification without a time limit. It had LRMs for long range weaponry, and we had a Vulcan (and sadly, no artillery). Said Vulcan had to reload at least twice, but the fort was reduced with exactly zero damage to our force.
-
That must have been an exercise in monotony... 100 turns of "roll, miss" or "roll, hit"
Please tell me you didn't roll for initiative every turn.
-
Re: Vulcans: I once played a campaign game where the GM threw us against a fortification without a time limit. It had LRMs for long range weaponry, and we had a Vulcan (and sadly, no artillery). Said Vulcan had to reload at least twice, but the fort was reduced with exactly zero damage to our force.
Too bad you didn’t have some JagerMech’s to add to that.
Ruger
-
Indeed, though I doubt that particular thought crossed any of our minds at the time... :)