You'd have to specify config, or else the permutations are way too varied to make any kind of reasoned call on this.
... as is the fact that you need to re-finance your entire planet to afford the silly thing.
And there it is. Wondered how long it'd be before that came up.
As far as in-game cost:
We don't know what the C-Bill cost of the Mk IV is (canonically), but since it's not introduced until after Grey Monday the in-universe C-Bill cost probably changes at a daily pace due to the plummeting value of the C-Bill.
We DO know that the mk IV costs no more (and no less) than a mk I Mad Cat for in-universe forces to procure (they cost the same number of Support Points).
Musing: What does the discussion above about relative values of Internals and Criticals do to inform us about Reinforced or Composite Internal Structures?
My gut sense is that Reinforced is worthwhile only if your absolute goal is survival and mission package can be sacrificed for that. OTOH - can composite be justified if the savings allow increased in armor? Whats the breakpoint there if composite is allowing you to buy ferro-lamellor or hardened?
I always figured that the cost figures given for XXL engines were when they were brand new technology only found in the secretest, squirrelest laboratories with the best funding. Since they became mass production items they have become... well, certainly not cheap, but much more reasonable.
The Gryfalcon doesn't mount IJJs. :)
Its jumping range is 100% from standard JJs and the Partial Wing*.
*in standard atmosphere.
Basically, if you're comparing the Mk IV to the original, it's a referendum on whether FL armor and an XXL is a better combination than FF armor and an XL. Math says it is most of the time. But neither design remains representative of what an optimal 75 ton mech looks like.
I think more generally, if we're talking Dark Age, 5/8 should not be considered fast for a heavy mech anymore. 5/8 was very fast for a heavy mech in 3025, and all the top-of-the-line "cavalry" designs did 5/8 all the way up through the Jihad era. That was then, this is now. By Dark Age, the MadCat original flavor and MadCat Refreshing Mint Blast should both be considered old-fashioned designs, optimized for an era when clan machines could have the firepower of a mech one weight class higher and the speed of a mech one weight class lower when compared to their spheroid counterparts.
Basically, if you're comparing the Mk IV to the original, it's a referendum on whether FL armor and an XXL is a better combination than FF armor and an XL. Math says it is most of the time. But neither design remains representative of what an optimal 75 ton mech looks like.
It's not physically possible to build a 75 ton mech that moves faster than 5/8. MASC, Superchargers, and TSM can give the ability to temporarily move faster than that, but that's the upper limit of what you can get from engine power.
The weight exists where you could look at putting a large XXL engine into a 75 ton machine with max or respectable armor and go 6/9. Damage output would obviously suffer to some degree, but you can do it. With he larger engine weight MASC is a better weight option than a SC if you want to make it go faster.I'll be honest, I was doubting it was possible until I checked myself. With an XXL 6/9 Clan unit with Endo Steel, you have 18.5 tons to spend on armor and equipment.
The Mad Cat Mk IV is also an omni.
The Mad Cat Mk IV is also an omni.
So in other words, you can get the movement and armor of a Puma, but with about half the firepower.And you could get a stars worth of puma for the same......
Ok, I have to ask, if these are not optimal 75 tonners to you, what is?
Ruger
4/6/7 with IJJs and partial wing, XL engine, and max standard armor. 21.5 tons free. You're basically at three and a half tons less pod space than a Summoner, once you account for fixed heat sinks, but with considerably more armor and an additional two jump MP.
That's a +4 to-hit modifier, every turn, for +4 heat and a +3 to-hit penalty. Anything you can't out-run, you can out-shoot and vice versa.
Armament can be whatever flavor of delicous clan fermented dairy good suits your personal taste.
If you want to get really silly, go for a XXL engine and max the engine heat sinks. This increases your net heat dissipation by 1 while jumping and your free tonnage by 1 ton, at the expense of four additional torso crits and some squishiness.
This is enough to add an ER PPC, capacitor, ER large laser, AES, LRM-20, artemis V, two tons of ammo and CASE II.
LRM is in the arm with AES for a delicious +2 net range penalty at 21 hexes, the ER PPC throws AC-20 equivalent damage out to 23 hexes every other turn, and the ERLL covers on the turns while it's recharging. All while the unit can back-pedal at 7 hexes per turn over any terrain.
Meanwhile, I have a regular Clan OmniMech loaded to fight this 'Mech...a combination of pulse lasers and targeting computer means I'm at a +1 to hit you at long range, +2 for my running movement, +4 for your movement (+7 at long range)...and things only get better for me as the range closes...Hell, those cut-down LTCs can be used to straight-up ignore the mobility advantages out to 20 hexes-with an extreme of 26. Using IS VSPLs on an ultimately faster units would also be viable, but a bit trickier to get right.
And 6 tons less pod weight than the Timber Wolf, 6.5 tons less than a Savage Wolf...but looks like you didn't use endo either, so you could gain back another 3.5 tons with that...still, if for some reason you can't use jump movement (say in a cave system or inside a large building), you're at a significant disadvantage...
It's not optimized, IMnsHO...it's SPECIALIZED...
Unless you have a very good pilot and/or at short range, you're also going to be regretting that continual +3 to hit penalty, without the use of something to mitigate it...basically, your weapons payload is the same as a Gargoyle right now, and you don't even have the extra DHS's or ground speed it does...
The Artemis V won't get much use, because I'm going to pack an Angel ECM suite...
you're jumping every turn, so you automatically have a +3 ton hit penalty on the ER Large and the ER PPC...you're trying to keep range, so that's another +2 to +4 penalty, so you're at +5 to +7 already, without factoring in my movement...You're AES will help your targeting penalty on your arm-mounted weapon, but nothing else...
Meanwhile, I have a regular Clan OmniMech loaded to fight this 'Mech...a combination of pulse lasers and targeting computer means I'm at a +1 to hit you at long range, +2 for my running movement, +4 for your movement (+7 at long range)...and things only get better for me as the range closes...
Otherwise, everyone would be fielding them now...
How are you coming to you % advantages?
If I can push my enemy's to-hit up to an 8, but keep mine at a 7, then I have a 58.33% to hit and they have a 41.66% chance to hit, which gives me an effective 40% multiplicative advantage in firepower. That more than makes up the difference in pod space.
But if I can push my enemy's to-hit up to a 9, but keep mine at an 8, which is exactly the sort of trade that you can force if you have 7 jump MP vs 8 run MP, then my to-hit is a 41.66% and theirs drops to 27.77%, which gives me a 50% advantage.
For 10 vs 9 this goes up to a 66% advantage, for 11 vs 10 it's an even 100%, and for 12 vs 11 it's a 200% advantage. For 13 vs 12, of course, it is an infinite advantage. Sure, I have to wait to roll boxcars, but until I run out of room to maneuver, I'm untouchable.
How are you coming to you % advantages?
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with this post, but it is basic division.I'm not disputing your math. I'm asking you to explain your process and conclusions, rather than simply declare one case advantageous over another.
58.33 ÷ 41.66 = 1.40
That's a multiplicative advantage (everything past 1.0) of forty percent.
41.66 ÷ 27.77 = 1.50
27.77 ÷ 16.67 = 1.66
...
8.33 ÷ 2.78 = 2.99
Which comes out to two hundred percent.
I'm not disputing your math. I'm asking you to explain your process and conclusions, rather than simply declare one case advantageous over another.
Throw a link if you don't want to explain it.
Having lower to-hit roll than your opponent is better because you hit more often than they do. The percentages are based on the curve of 2d6 dice. I'm not Demiurge and I don't know how I can express the idea more simply than that.Let me rephrase the question.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Aj5ChdgJN_o/SZjeg-QGPxI/AAAAAAAAA28/EbwEO76-yaI/s320/dice_9d2.png)
58.33 ÷ 41.66 = 1.40What does "multiplicative advantage" mean?
That's a multiplicative advantage (everything past 1.0) of forty percent.
It means that even though the difference in hit chance is only ~16% when compared to the sum total of all possible outcomes (58% vs. 42% roughly), the actual difference between those two numbers as a function of how many more times a given result is going to happen is 40%. If you need to roll a 7+ on 2d6, you will hit approximately 40% more often than an 8+ on 2d6, even though the numbers on a bell curve are only one space apart.Thank you.
For a slightly easier to visualize perspective: imagine the odds of hitting on a 12 on 2d6 versus the odds of hitting on an 11. Hitting on a 12 is approximately 2.7% chance. Hitting on 11 is a 5.4% chance. Even though the difference is only 2.7%, the difference is doubled. The multiplicative advantage (I hate that phrase but can't think of anything better off the top of my head) in that scenario is 2 (or 100%).
This is fascinating and all, but I'm not really seeing how it factors into a fight between the Mad Cat and the Mad Cat Mk IV.This. That entire measuring contest pretty thoroughly derailed this thread.
Good catch; it's just straight better with endo steel and the XL rather than standard internals and the XXL. I got big googly eyes when looking at the new toys, but XXLs on slower mechs are a complete waste.
Nope. Your analysis is just wrong.
You've come up with very specific scenarios wherein this design would lose. That doesn't mean it's not optimized. That just means it's not quite broken enough to completely break the game under every conceivable scenario that a vengeful GM might conjure in order to punish a player who was obnoxious enough to actually use something like this.
You think it's not optimized because it can lost fights in caves?! Say that back again to yourself. Out loud.
Yeah, that's what I thought. That's like saying a T-64 is a horrible tank because it will lose to a Los Angeles-class fast attack boat every time.
Yeah, obviously if you get to counter-pick your scenario and your mech, you can contrive some weird edge case where this doesn't work very well. In fact, as a GM this would be a good thing to do if one of the players tried something this outrageously cheesy. Or, you know, started using canon freaking designs that work like this. What I'm proposing is basically a scaled-up Gyrfalcon.
My theory of design is sound because it's based on how the probability curve of a 2D6 works.
5/8 is a breaking point because it's the first movement speed where mech can potentially (depending on the terrain) force a higher target movement modifier on the enemy than it is forcing on itself. +3 to the enemy, +2 to itself for running, for a difference of 1.
A mech jumping 7 hexes also forces a difference of 1; +4 to the enemy, +3 to itself. Same deal, right? Only a set of five IJJs and that partial wing is a hell of a lot heavier than a 375XL. Much better to stick with the older, simpler design, since it accomplishes the same thing on less tonnage. WRONG. THE MATH SAYS WRONG.
If I can push my enemy's to-hit up to an 8, but keep mine at a 7, then I have a 58.33% to hit and they have a 41.66% chance to hit, which gives me an effective 40% multiplicative advantage in firepower. That more than makes up the difference in pod space.
But if I can push my enemy's to-hit up to a 9, but keep mine at an 8, which is exactly the sort of trade that you can force if you have 7 jump MP vs 8 run MP, then my to-hit is a 41.66% and theirs drops to 27.77%, which gives me a 50% advantage.
For 10 vs 9 this goes up to a 66% advantage, for 11 vs 10 it's an even 100%, and for 12 vs 11 it's a 200% advantage. For 13 vs 12, of course, it is an infinite advantage. Sure, I have to wait to roll boxcars, but until I run out of room to maneuver, I'm untouchable.
This is an inescapable consequence of how bell curves work mathematically. You remember... several iterations of the forums ago how some old-timer (Cray?) would rant about how all VTOLs must possess 10/15 movement or they're worthless death-traps? Same principle here. You always want to push to-hit numbers as high as possible for a given difference between your and your enemy's to-hit numbers. Always. The problem with this inescapable mathematical fact is that it results in an extremely boring playstyle. So maybe mathematical optimization isn't how you have fun playing Battletech. More on that later.
1) Your purpose-built counterpick mech is based around clan pulse lasers and a targeting computer. You know, the combination that is universally acknowledged to be one of the most broken things in the game. My uber-Gyrfalcon must be reasonably optimized if you need to resort to such measures to swat it.
2) I have 7 jump MP. Outside of a contrived scenario like a battle in a cave or a perfectly flat plane where a typical 5/8 won't ever lose MP while trying to close, what on earth makes you think you'll ever close distance?
3) I considered drafting the design with LPLs or ER LPLs and a TC, but I'd already showered that night and it would be a hassle to do so again. Part of the reason I chose an ER PPC+capacitor is that at least the gameplay is a bit less boring. Picking mechs to bit with 10 pointers is rather blase, but when you start flinging 20 pointers there's a certain anticipation that something really pyrotechnic could happen that sort of offsets the fact that you're kiting them to death forever.
This is terrible logic.
Look, the construction system is not very well balanced, doesn't make any sense, and everyone has known this for decades. The reason the game works as well as it does there's a system of unspoken gentlemen's agreements that keeps everyone from fielding forces entirely comprised of rifleman IICs and garbage like that.
The canon designs don't follow anything like a methodological in-universe arms race that trends towards greater optimization. Designs are usually very badly sub-optimal, and they serve for decades of in-universe time before being replaced by designs that are usually equally sub-optimal, just usually in different and interesting ways.
My point isn't that players should munchkin their hearts out or anything like that. This is not a game that really works with a competitive, optimization-driven mindset. It's much more casual, more about having fun with your friends over beer and pretzels.
My point is that the new rules allow for mechs that are generally superior to the old MadCat, or even the shiny new mk IVs, and that such machines aren't terribly different than things that already exist. Just take a Gyrfalcon and blow it up 40%, or take a Jade Hawk and juggle the engine and jump jet configuration a bit.
I'd like to add that I have actually used something very similar to what Demiurge proposes here, albeit built with IS technology and using a combination of VSPLs and a TC to keep my accuracy sensible whilst never putting afoot on the ground. It was used in a six player Solaris 7 duel and absolutely dominated the fight because nobody could reliably lay hit on me and when they did I had more than enough armour to shrug the hit off (having IS tech, I happened to be using hardened armour rather than FL).
Coming up with configurations optimised to tackle specific problems is hardly an argument that the problem doesn't exist, and it's not as if Demiurges machine couldn't ship LPLs and a TC and try to win the damage race by always presenting a harder to hit target that you can in a 5/8/5 mover with everything else being equal.
I'll ask a simpler question.
Imagine a Clan Cluster commander fitting out his forces, now imagine he has X kerenskies to play with (basically, how many MkIV's can he buy for the price of a Star of baseline Timberwolves?)
whatever you have left, is your budget for pods. (aka how many Omni pod configurations can you support for the same budget in Kerenskies?)
This ignores transportation cost, loss of access to the homeworlds, etc. etc.
aka 'the story elements'...just the C-bill/Kerensky equivalent price in resources between procurement, using a fixed resource number and ignoring the ability to go fight a bunch of lunchroom duels.
also keep in mind; your Cluster has zero idea where they're going to be deployed, or for how long, or whether/if/how well they're going to be resupplied.
basically, there is a point where 80% is good enough, because that is the point at which your resources run out and you still have things to do.
C-bill costs for anything in the Dark Age are (putting it as mildly and charitably as it deserves) complete bullshit. Hard currency costs in general for anything in the Dark Age are A) wholly unreliable and B) haven't changed since the 3050s, making them flat-out wrong for things like XXL engines that have been around for 100 years and have somehow retained the same cost as when they were hand-built in a laboratory.
The question now is what the Sea Foxes want in exchange for a Mad Cat Mk IV as opposed to a Timber Wolf.
No, I'm going with Scotty on this. Even though an XXL Engine will still cost more, that's still, like everything else engine-related in Battletech, outrageously overpriced for something going on 50+ years of availability.
Especially considering they evidently have enough of these 'rare' materials to build Savage Wolves as standard-issue, rather than one-off, designs.
the C-bill listing is just a stand-in for the resource cost, and you guys bring up a red herring to avoid answering my question-how many Mad Cat Mk IVs can you get for the price of a Star of Timberwolves? Call it "Kerenskies", "Trade Dollars", "purple pandas" or whatever, the numerical listing is the resource cost of production in a 'common term' the same way that Latin is used as a common language in medical and some biological research.
the C-bill listing is just a stand-in for the resource cost, and you guys bring up a red herring to avoid answering my question-how many Mad Cat Mk IVs can you get for the price of a Star of Timberwolves? Call it "Kerenskies", "Trade Dollars", "purple pandas" or whatever, the numerical listing is the resource cost of production in a 'common term' the same way that Latin is used as a common language in medical and some biological research.Okay.
Well it's not avoiding your question.. at this point it's beating the dead horse.
Buying a star of 5 Mad Cats costs 1000* SPs in a campaign run under modern rules. For 1000 SPs you can also instead buy 5 Mad Cat Mk IVs.
*caveat= Shooting from memory here. A clan-tech 75 ton omni may cost something other than 200 SPs. The moral of the story here is that Mad Cat and Mad Cat Mk IVs are both clan-tech, 75 ton omnis and therefore cost the same to procure. XL vs XXL vs SFE no longer matters in "price".
so, what you're saying is, they've dumbed the rules down to a post-scarcity society.
No, they've abandoned bothering to make FASAnomics work because it doesn't. If you think that's "dumbing down" then I'm afraid you've misdiagnosed what was dumb in the first place (it was FASAnomics).
lemme put it this way: if you had to choose r/l between an M-60A3, or an M-1A2 product-improved Abrams, and price wasn't a consideration, and your maintenance would be the same, you'd be an IDIOT to pick the patton.
past a certain point of abstracting, there's literally zero reason to choose any 'mech other than a Mad Cat IV for your forces, and you'd have to be the king of fools to do otherwise.
It. Does. Everything.
and that's my whole 'point' with the comment. Fasanomics wasn't real life economics, but at least it was systemized to show that scarcity was a 'a thing' in the BTU, stuff was expensive, sometimes you had to go to the cheaper alternative.
but the way you guys are using Support Points? That's Star Trek levels of post-scarcity.
lemme put it this way: if you had to choose r/l between an M-60A3, or an M-1A2 product-improved Abrams, and price wasn't a consideration, and your maintenance would be the same, you'd be an IDIOT to pick the patton.
past a certain point of abstracting, there's literally zero reason to choose any 'mech other than a Mad Cat IV for your forces, and you'd have to be the king of fools to do otherwise.
It. Does. Everything.
and that's my whole 'point' with the comment. Fasanomics wasn't real life economics, but at least it was systemized to show that scarcity was a 'a thing' in the BTU, stuff was expensive, sometimes you had to go to the cheaper alternative.
but the way you guys are using Support Points? That's Star Trek levels of post-scarcity.
Except survive a torso destruction, or simply run without generating a wasted 10 heat points per turn. Unlike the Abrams vs Patton comparison, 3050 clan tech is still competitive/game balanced against 3150 clan tech.
While I (and I dare assume) most people would agree the Mk IV is the all round better mech than the Mk I.. the Mk I still has its uses. This thread wouldn't keep going this long if it were otherwise.
I empathize with you on principle... but the BTU became post-scarcity even before leaving the 1980s. It's no recent phenomenon that despite the sustained artificially suppressed sizes of militaries in the BTU, new mech production (both chassis AND factories) happens at the speed of plot... so fast in fact entire TROs are full of entirely new mechs. Over and over. Yet still, despite mechs canonically lasting for hundreds of years despite being destroyed and repaired over and over.. all this new production doesn't result in swelling army sizes.
It's never made sense beyond the Helm Memory Core plotline.
and 'availability' is a non-factor
There's no role the Timberwolf does better, so why would anyone take anything OTHER than the MkIV?Maybe there's a reason why Savage Wolves are more common in the Dark Age. They are better than the Timber Wolf, and just as if not easier to get. Because whether it is reasonable or not for XXL engined Mechs to cost less, the Sea Foxes only produce Savage Wolves. So they can sell more of them, and are more likely to have one available. It doesn't matter if the Timber Wolf is cheaper if you can't find one.
A 12 missile hit drops to two 4 point location instead of two 5s & a 2.
Meanwhile the Timberwolf had not been produced in the IS since the Jihad except for hand assembled from parts somewhere in the Wolf OZ and no indication they are back to being built in the Empire.I thought the WiE were producing them on Arc Royal.
I thought the WiE were producing them on Arc Royal.
Maybe I'm not remembering that right, but I thought they were.
Having lower to-hit roll than your opponent is better because you hit more often than they do. The percentages are based on the curve of 2d6 dice. I'm not Demiurge and I don't know how I can express the idea more simply than that.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Aj5ChdgJN_o/SZjeg-QGPxI/AAAAAAAAA28/EbwEO76-yaI/s320/dice_9d2.png)
The Mad Cat 1.0 has dramatically more interior room, so for carrying crit-intensive weapons it works better (not that it really does so in any canon configurations).
This thread is not for discussing Demiurge's design, it's for Mad Cat MKIV versus Mad Cat.