3/5/3 or 4/6 movement better for a firesupport Heavy Mech 3025 era

[billtfor3]

Most Inner Sphere Fire Support Mechs were 4/6 movement (Archer, Rifleman, or Jagermech) where as a few sacrificed firepower for manuverability (Catapult, Whitworth, Blackjack).  Do you think lowering the movement of such a Mech to 3/5/3 and still have the extra tonnage to spare would be worth the slightly slower ground speed?  Discuss.

[Lorcan Nagle]

In 3025, 4/6.  In 3075+, 3/5/5.

[I am Belch II]

Jumping adds options to your movement. There isnt that big of a bonus to be a 4/6

[StuartYee]

It really depends on the terrain.

It's nice to have those jump jets to overcome one obstacle or water crossing, but I'd rather have the 6MP of running movement overall. Besides, most obstacles that can be overcome in 3 jumping hexes can be circumnavigated just as easily with 6mp of running movement without the heat or attacking modifier penalties.

The only terrain that comes to mind where I'd rather have the jump jets would be any of the Wooded map sheets, one with lots of hills and woods combined or many water crossings.

The standard Battletech mapsheet is an example of terrain where I think the 4/6 movement would be more appropriate.

In terms of defensive modifiers, with a 3/5/3, you either have to jump 3 hexes or run in a straight line to get the +2 modifier. With a 4/6, you still have to run, but you can make at least one hexside turn during that phase to get the same modifier.

[greywolf79]

Personally, I prefer 3/5/3 over 4/6/0 due to being able to jump - gives more flexibility. I have had too many times when I have been up on a hill and either been totally cut off from getting to the ground and joining the fight or where it took me 6+ turns to walk back and get to a point I could get off the upper levels... I like the hammerhands design for instance over a similar weight design with 4/6/0 - unless I am on a flat open area.

[Sartris]

While I appreciate the logical arguments presented for 3/5/3 (and on most days agree with them), something repulses me to the core of my being about something that goes less than 4/6 and is not an assault mech.

[Frabby]

I don't like stuff that moves slower than 4/6; jump jets can't alleviate the problem. (This is also why I can't take the Shadow Hawk's "jump capability" serious; and while I like the UrbanMech, it's only because it is a "colorful" unit.)
As far as I'm concerned, 'Mechs only make sense to have if they are mobile, and that starts in the 5/8 range for me.

[Challenger]

I'd tend to 4/6

I'm always concerned that a 3/5 mech will get left behind in either an advance or retreat.

Challenger

[Dave Talley]

I have become a fan of the 3/5/3 since comparing hammerhands and warhammers in megamek
the jump option is way too useful to giveup

[Marwynn]

For Heavies, I think 4/6 in the 3025 era is sufficient. It's the 4/6/0 Assault 'Mechs that should be 3/5/3, like the BattleMaster for instance.

[Wolverine-7SK]

What happens when you get an engine hit? I chose 4/6 for this occasion. Mechs in 3025 have a tendency to overheat, and having a better ground speed to begin with helps. Yes, I am a fan of jump jets, but not for a lumbering fire support mech. Remember, jumping adds to your to hit rolls.

[GhostCat]

If I want a bouncy mech, I also want it to be a fast one.  Fire Support mechs need good shooting with lots of damage value, not jumpy over small terrain.  A big slow mech with jump jets?  What guns did you give up to be able to jump? 

I'll take the downgraded engine and the extra weapons, thank you.

GC

[Beazle]

. Yes, I am a fan of jump jets, but not for a lumbering fire support mech. Remember, jumping adds to your to hit rolls.

This.

A fire support platform (of any type) should be in the rear, at ranges that make it unlikely to be the target of much fire.  They should be more concerned with lowering their own to-hit rolls than stacking modifiers on their opponents rolls.

That said, the reduction in engine size may make it possible to mount enough guns to justify the loss of ground speed, but that's really a question of speed over firepower, not ground speed over jumping.

A jump of 3, in my opinion, isn't worth the weight for a fire support mech (regardless of it's ground speed), now on a close in-fighter, that's another story.

[Lysenko]

Fire support...4/6 all the way. You're support, you're not supposed to move and fire. :)

[Ian Sharpe]

At 3/5, way too slow for me.  Jumping is useful, but I'd rather have something OK be able to get there like a Crusader or even better, a Catapult, than have a great fire support machine that never reaches the battle til its over.

[House Davie Merc]

The question asked was for a " Fire Support Mech " .


After such a mech gets into a good fire position they often stay in that position
for most of the game .

Something like in a woods hex on a hill with a little partial coverage
if it's available .
Jump jets can usually get you into those kinds of  positions WAY faster then ground pounding .
( They can get you OUT way faster when overheated to)

On  a 70 ton mech switching from 4/6 to 3/5/3 gives you an extra 4 tons to work with
and on a 75 tonner you get an extra 6 tons to work with .

6 tons extra on a Marauder D allows you to carry max armor, 22 heat sinks,and
an extra medium laser giving you the ability to cause over 20 points of damage
with your close in weapons .

That's been my custom MAD mod since the very first day I cracked open the
original box with the cardboard standups .  I was like 10 years old and it was
my first mod in the 2nd game I ever played .

Try it out some time in a 3025 setting .


This switch turns an "OK" fire support mech into an absolute monster .

I've been wishing for a canon production variant of a level 1 tech Bounty Hunter
MAD for YEARS .


I wish they would have made some 3/5/3 heavies in the original
3025 TRO .

We missed out .

IMHO the only reason so many will vote for the 4/6 ground pounders is they
didn't have  canon 3/5/3s heavies  in TRO 3025  for a fair comparison .

[StCptMara]

Each has their advantages. 4/6 can move farther on flat terrain. The 3/5/3 has greater agility, and can do things like jump back over a hill(which a 4/6 cannot) if the enemy starts getting close. In a heavy woods map, the 3/5/3 is going to move further each turn to get to its firing position, and can get to that spot on a hill faster then the 4/6, and jump back down out of line of sight easier.

Let's take a look at the Catapult C1. If you drop it from 4/6/4 to 3/5/3, it gains 7.5 tons. This means you could give it extra ammo,
heat sinks, medium lasers, and armour. It loses some speed, sure, but....it is still a good design for FIRE SUPPORT.

[Kathil Uhlans]

For a frontline Heavy in 3025, 3/5/3 may be a very good choice.  The extra tonnage at the upper end of the weight range, and the added maneuverability, gives some impressive capability sorely missing from the canon 3025 designs.  The Marauder variant posted by House Davie merc would be an impressive combatant, maybe even as potent in its era as the Timberwolf is in 3050, but its PPCs, like the Timberwolf's LRMS, do not make it a fire-support design.  Both machines' heavy armor, maneuverability, and close-in firepower outweigh their long-range capabilities.

The same applies to StCptMara's Catapult variant, which does not need more heat sinks, MLAS, or armor to make it a better fire-support design, although I heartily agree with the ammo.  (By the way, a CPLT going from 4/6/4 to 3/5/3 only gets 6.5 tons, 5.5 for the engine, 1 for the single JJ.)  With 4 MLAS and Jump Jets already, it is an impressive brawler once its bins run dry.  Adding any more lasers or armor falls into what I will now refer to as the "Timberwolf Trap", trying to improve a fire support design by turning in into a mid-range combatant.  The base -C1 already is on the edge of fire-support and brawler, devoting a third of its total equipment tonnage to those lasers and jump jets.

I believe 4/6/0 is a better choice for a fire support design in 3025, partially because it is simply the base speed of almost all canon designs in that weight range for the era.  Very few non-Assaults are that slow (UrbanMech aside :)), and dropping a fire-support design from 4/6/0 to 3/5/3 has a significant effect on the strategic maneuverability of a 3025 force.  The whole formation will drop to a 3/5, but since most Heavies don't carry jump jets, the formation will as a whole will have no more capability in rough terrain.

Tactically, 4/6/0 gives the ability to make a turn, or push heat, while still maintaining even movement modifiers.  I commonly move my support designs at an angle to the enemy, to keep the range open, and that 4th, or 6th, point of movement lets me keep enemies out of my side arcs, or step into that stand of trees for an additional +1 on my enemy's shots.  I believe these advantages outweigh the weight difference, since any turn I use those Jump Jets is a turn I'm not firing effectively.  For any fire support design jump jets are questionable, regardless of speed, because you are using tonnage on equipment that does not increase your damage output, and actually decreases your accuracy.

[TigerShark]

You're not jumping 3 every turn. You're not running every turn. You're fire support! You find a position and sit still, lobbing missiles and shells out at range. If you're running around with your Archer, you're doing something really wrong. :) Either your unit composition means you failed to provide guard units or you planned on using your ARC- as a brawler or some sort. Neither situation is good.

The 3-jump lets you get into position quickly so you're not walking and running up hills/through woods for two-to-three turns, increasing your TNs for no appreciable gain in movement mod. I can think of no reason to waste the tonnage on a 4/6 movement profile for something that's not using its land speed very often.

[House Davie Merc]

You're not jumping 3 every turn. You're not running every turn. You're fire support! You find a position and sit still, lobbing missiles and shells out at range. If you're running around with your Archer, you're doing something really wrong. :) Either your unit composition means you failed to provide guard units or you planned on using your ARC- as a brawler or some sort. Neither situation is good.

The 3-jump lets you get into position quickly so you're not walking and running up hills/through woods for two-to-three turns, increasing your TNs for no appreciable gain in movement mod. I can think of no reason to waste the tonnage on a 4/6 movement profile for something that's not using its land speed very often.

Well said .

At 3/5/3 ALL of the 4/6 fire support heavies save weight to better use for ammo,heat sinks,whatever .

If you're running around to get high movement mods in your fire support mechs then they
aren't going to hit much .

[StCptMara]

(By the way, a CPLT going from 4/6/4 to 3/5/3 only gets 6.5 tons, 5.5 for the engine, 1 for the single JJ.) 

And 1 ton for going from a 3 ton gyro to a 2 ton gyro.(remember..Gyro weight is determined by Engine rating, rounded
up)

[Breetai]

And 1 ton for going from a 3 ton gyro to a 2 ton gyro.(remember..Gyro weight is determined by Engine rating, rounded
up)

It's also a fair chunk cheaper (around 1.1 million C-bills) due to the reduction in engine size and smaller gyro, which is good from the perspective of running a merc company using C-bills as the limitation of what you can field.

[Kathil Uhlans]

And 1 ton for going from a 3 ton gyro to a 2 ton gyro.(remember..Gyro weight is determined by Engine rating, rounded
up)

Good catch, I missed that!  Now I have to build two 3025 Fire Lances, one 4/6 and the other 3/5/3, and throw them into two otherwise identical companies and bash it out, just to vindicate myself.  I'll let you know how it goes.

In a battle with no-man's land equal to the effective ranges of the weapons (your average 2x2 mapsheet battle) 3/5/3 probably is better, regardless of the terrain, and the ability to position a 'Mech in hills or trees first or second turn is important.

The battles I fight are generally part of campaigns, so recon elements will skirmish over a larger are, 3x3 at the absolute minimum, usually larger.  This gives me the time and space to get fire support machines into position, so jump jets are less effective, but it means overall speed is more important to reach the objective in time, and the only terrain where a 3/5/3 is faster is when there are at least 1 extra MP of terrain in every 3 hexes.  Across a half-dozen hexes, in the race for that wooded hill on a 2x2, 3/5/3 has the advantage.  Across a whole mapsheet or more, a 4/6 has at least a full turn's advantage, unless the mapsheet in question is Mountains or Heavy Woods.

Also, I generally use random 'Mech generation, so in 3025 there are no 3/5/3s in any weight range (a pity, because it is an effective and weight-efficient movement curve for heavies, as several people have pointed out.)

I have a mathematical explanation for one advantage a 4/6 has, but at this late hour the powers of numbers are far too terrible to contemplate seriously, so maybe tomorrow.

[House Davie Merc]

It's also a fair chunk cheaper (around 1.1 million C-bills) due to the reduction in engine size and smaller gyro, which is good from the perspective of running a merc company using C-bills as the limitation of what you can field.

Given my Marauder variant I described above ,even WITH adding the extra armor,JJs,
extra laser ,and 2 extra heat sinks it comes to a total cost of 6,307,000 C-Bills .

The standard Marauder MAD-3D costs 6,597,500 C-Bills .

The 3/5/3 then costs 290,500 less and outperforms the 3D in all categories except
maximum speed on flat ground .
In use on average the 3D will loose to the 3/5/3 variant .

Add hills,woods,rivers,and urban conditions and the 3/5/3s advantages shine even more.

Similar results are achived with the other 4/6 fire support heavies .

How about an Archer that's 334,333 C-Bills cheaper yet can fire BOTH LRM-20s without
heat build up AND carries another ton of ammo per launcher ?

[Gryphon]

In any given fight, a 3/5/3 might appear to have an advantage over a 4/6, however slight it might be, but thinking in that sort of vacuum is a mistake.

As noted, a 3/5/X mech is the fastest speed at which a formation can be expected to move into and out of combat, while in combat the 3/5/X is more or less free to act in its role. Outside of combat, you have to account for the entire unit, and unless the whole unit is 3/5/X, they will move extremely slowly. 10 kph might not seem that important, but Battletech shows that mechs can travel fairly impressive distances to engage and enemy, and that loss of 10 kph or so makes them significantly slower in nature. So slowly in fact, that even their armored fighting vehicle support can normally outrun them more often than not. This is hardly ideal. 4/6 is perfectly fine, especially in 3025, for overcoming a given threat in a reasonable amount of time. After all, landing your dropships too close to a battle zone is...contra indicated.

Now, shifting a heavy mech such as a Catapult, Marauder, Archer or similar down to a 3/5/X movement profile when they are intended to function as support elements for a largely 3/5/X force composed mainly of heavier assault units might be worth it, but that is because you are clearly intending to out maneuver a force with lighter, faster units first and force an engagement where those slower, more powerful mechs are best applied. This is especially true (I would expect) when your supporting AFVs are also only 3/5s, such as the heaviest assault tanks, and a few specialist support units such as some of the carriers ("standard" LRM/SRM/AC2 types specifically).

All in all, I would really rather retain the 4/6, even in rougher terrains where MPs get spent faster, just so I can ensure my entire force moves at a similar speed out of combat. If your fights all take place entirely separate to each other, and no real urgency exists to move from one battle to the next, I would accept a 3/5/3 unit, but not in nearly any other encompassing situation you would care to name.

[TigerShark]

The Catapult is not (always) a fire support Mech. :)

The CPLT-C1 (the base model) is certainly not one, as its ammunition is not sufficient for this role. When you look at the CPLT-A1 or -C4, you can include it in the argument of 4/6/x over 3/5/x. These are two fire support variants which have no ability to brawl whatsoever.

In these two cases, what does the extra point of movement and bigger engine buy you? I guarantee that a 3/5/x army would trample a 4/6/x army, much in the same way that a 3/5 Assault is better than a 4/6 one in the Intro Tech eras. (That's where most of the examples are being drawn from, so I assume that's where the conversation is.)

[Frabby]

I guarantee that a 3/5/x army would trample a 4/6/x army, much in the same way that a 3/5 Assault is better than a 4/6 one in the Intro Tech eras. (That's where most of the examples are being drawn from, so I assume that's where the conversation is.)

Disagree. You can't "trample" what you can't catch, and 3/5 units can't trample down anything except fixed installations, grounded DropShips, and UrbanMechs. That 4/6 force will inevitably fight your 3/5/x force in a situation and terrain of their choosing.

[TigerShark]

Disagree. You can't "trample" what you can't catch, and 3/5 units can't trample down anything except fixed installations, grounded DropShips, and UrbanMechs. That 4/6 force will inevitably fight your 3/5/x force in a situation and terrain of their choosing.

I will take that bet. Care to play out a Lance-worth of 3/5/x versus 4/6/x?

[House Davie Merc]

Disagree. You can't "trample" what you can't catch, and 3/5 units can't trample down anything except fixed installations, grounded DropShips, and UrbanMechs. That 4/6 force will inevitably fight your 3/5/x force in a situation and terrain of their choosing.

You can only run as far as the scenario allows .

With the weight savings they'll average more ammo, more heat sinks, and better armor .

The 3/5/3s will simply be able to put up a more consistant barrage for a longer period of time .

If the 4/6s can get in range of a 3/5/3 then the reverse is also true with similar weapons ,except that
the 3/5/3 will be able to fire more often and for a longer time .

Making the aformentioned Catapult a 3/5/3 opens up 7.5 tons for that mech .
That's a LOT of extra tonnage to work with for a minimum loss in speed .

I'm not saying that ALL 4/6 mechs would benefit from this switch .  I'm saying that the Fire Support
specific designs gain a sizable benefit that IMHO  outweighs their need for ground speed .

[TigerShark]

I'm curious to see how a 4/6 is "outrunning" a 3/5. The max TN it can generate is a +2, and it does this mutually. +2 for the attacker and defender. How is that an advantage for the 4/6, who now has a worse heat curve and/or less firepower?  ???