The problem being that huge (15 hex) gap between what you term the 3S's 'main gun' and the meat of its firepower. Either you close to use the rest of the guns, OR they amount to thirteen tons of dead weight. And you said 'main guns' plural, yet your whole rebuttal revolves around the LB-2X, which is a singular weapon mount on this machine.
You might be missing the point. The secondaries are by no means "dead weight", if the
Uziel bites off what it can chew. Maintaining long range modifiers, maneuver, and long range sniping is for cavalry machines on a tabletop full of shit that can kill an
Uziel deader than hell in very short order if one acts the damned fool, and closes from "long bow" to "spear" and "knife" fighting ranges with
Challengers,
Black Knights and
Dire Wolves strolling about. Even the "mighty" -2S won't last long enough with it's superior mid-ranged firepower, considering it's poor armor and unprotected ammo combined together (the same goes for the -3S to a large extent).
And let's not get into a grammar dispute here. In my original post, the "main guns" (plural) I was referring to was the PPCs of the -2S. It in no way implies that the -3S has more than one main gun. If I was misunderstood, my apologies.
The sticking point being that by price you can field a full star of Mithras, a reinforced company of h-7 Warriors, or a couple lances of Pikes.
Sorry, bro, but price and battle value doesn't come into play in my group's games, since neither is used. I rate and compare machines individually by roles, capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses (flaws). So, the above is a moot point on my end.
In addition their is serious apples to oranges comparison of cheap combat vehicles carrying one AC/2 and a top of the line mech chassis doing the same as it's primary weapon.
See the next to last line above. I look at them all from the perspective of mechanized combat units, not the tired old 'Mechs versus vehicles perspective. Nor do I take the position of "cheapness and flaws is the word of God" and "optimizing and expense are the Devil" like some do when it comes to this game. Effectiveness in given roles is the only issue, regardless of costs and class of mechanized combat unit. And I hardly consider the
Uziel to be "top of the line".
To expand, the Pike has three AC/2s, enough ammo for a siege, and would deployed in numbers. On a BV2 level about two to one, or 6 AC/2s to the single weapon of a Uziel. The Warriors are 4 to one on a BV2 level, and have the advantage of being able to rertrograde faster than most mechs can run at them on clear terrain. Even for those fast enough to run at them faster than they can back off, most can be held up by even modest terrain features the Warrior can drift over.
While we can agree on the strengths of the
Warrior and deployment schemes of the
Pike, it's beside the point of why I bought them up. The point is that they have established the precedent of the Class-2 family of autocannons as long ranged trouble makers. The
Uziel has the speed and mobility to effectively cause some considerable headaches at long range with this weapon.
And once again, with all due respect, battle value means jack shit to me, since my playgroup does not use that flawed system.
The Uziel has neither the advantage of numbers, nor multiple AC/2 mounts.
Run it with similar units, or other
Uziel-3S units, in lance or company-sized formations and you get your numbers. No ''Mech is an island in this game.
The last part is only semi-relevant to the argument here, although more than one would be nice.
And the Mithras? That tank is a known death trap for a reason, and at least the pair of Clan ERMLs are serious backup weapons. Some would consider them the primary and the LB-2X a backup plink gun.
Serious back-ups, yes. Primaries? Not in a ****** million years. There is a reason why the light autocannon was mounted as a main gun. It all goes back to the "death trap" issue. Range is one of the ingredients of life with this thin-skinned hunk of Clan shit.
But if somebody wants to run their
Mithras like damned
Galleons, then more power to them. But I don't drink that particular flavor of Kool-Aid.
I can see the 2S as a midranged harasser, the ability in potential to force a PSR at up to 18 hexes is potent. The 3S has the LB-2X, then nothing till the ERML gets range, and for the most part it has an infighter's armament without the armor for that kind of game.
But yet against
serious opposition, the -2S has the armor to get into the mid-ranged brackets and play for a substantial period of time? Not.
Neither variant is armored for a slugging match or getting too close to the heavy hitters found on the "line". Which is one reason they are considered, to a large extent, specialists amongst my crew.
The secondaries of the -3S are sufficient for opposition
it can deal with without dying quick-like. And the -2S is best used bringing it's "deadly duo" to play against enemy recon platforms and high speed flankers as a screening unit, which generally don't have the firepower to threaten it's light armor with quick removal. And as a recon/sweep unit itself, the twin PPCs keep the scout hunters extremely honest.
But slash attacks against the big dogs isn't my cup of tea with this thin-skinned thing. "Hit n' Run" can be a tricky proposition. Firepower isn't armor. As we used to say,
"Use it smart, or lose it quick". I prefer to keep as many of my
Uziels up and running as possible. But I guess pick-up gamers don't have those worries.
The LPL can kill 3 troopers (1/10 +2), the lasers a soldier each, and another for the LB-2X. About a single average MG burst. And that costs you your entire anti-material salvo for the round
Which is enough to keep infantry honest, and players from getting stupid, in our games. But I agree with the point about going nuts with your load out. But the trick is not making a habit of engaging infantry with this model. Or if forced to, fight to break contact. And don't forget that you have team mates to help deal with trouble.
The MGs are more for sweeping the annoying PBI platoon that gets delusions of grandure or if doing behind the lines calvary raids hitting defending PBIs and support troops.
Good point and sound thinking. Machine guns can indeed handle these tasks well,
if the opportunity arises. My
issue with the machine guns in this case,
is the lack of Cellular Ammunition Storage Equipment combined with the weak armor. The risks of the machine guns' unprotected payload doesn't pan out, considering how infantry tactical doctrines work in our games. If the -2S had CASE, I would not have issue with them. It would be a case of
"they're nice to have if I need them". As it stands, they are another hazard that could be done without, since I don't consider the MGs absolutely necessary.
And for the record, infantry doesn't get a case of the stupids very often in our games. Players running them know the score, and know that flak and ablative armor don't have a great big
"S" painted on the chest plates. Like I said earlier in the thread, machine guns are situational weapons.
It also polishes the 2S's credentials as a medium weight generalist.
This we will have to disagree on. Big time. The
Uziel is good at certain things, enough to make it useful. But it's far from being a good, dedicated line generalist or medium trooper 'Mech.
The place where Oldfart and I disagree isn't that the -2S loses range, it's that somehow that lost range is as significant as to make the -2S much worse. Yes, you do lose range. However, you gain literally ten times the damage output as soon as the -2S reaches its long range, and it has the speed to get there. Go ahead and plink with a single LB-2X for nine hexes. That's three turns on a salt flat and about the same number of hits if there's actually cover on the field. Six damage to get in range, and then the -2S is dealing ten times that, and still six hexes beyond the next longest ranged weapon on the -3S.
If anything, the -3S is the subpar version, because while it can harass, it's not enough of a threat to actually required reaction. The -2S most assuredly is a threat.
The -2S isn't by any means a horrible sewage truck when compared to the -3S. But it (the -3S) is better suited to adding to Team Bad Guy's pain, with better odds of surviving the engagement, when it comes to dealing with "line" troops fighting it out with serious hardware. The LB-2X offers that extra bit of a safety blanket that can make a big difference more often than not (28-36 versus 19-24 at extreme ranges, 19-27/13-18 in the standard long rang brackets). Especially if keeping the to-hit numbers up with movement/range modifiers, using available covering terrain (if any), and have a good gunner operating the thing. So, the -3S isn't a big pile of shit. But it is a specialist and finesse machine.
One of the golden rules of thumb in my neck of the wood is:
"If it shoots, it's a combat threat." And any combat threat warrants attention. Those two point "pin pricks" you considered not worth worrying about might be just what finishes off your engine, blows your ammo, or breaches your cockpit. Or scores that "Golden BB" critical hit on your center torso location, despite most of the armor still being intact. And that is just the "worst case" stuff.
I
disregard nothing in either scenarios or campaigns. I have to, as a good player team leader, take into account everything. And in this case:
1. The -3S has the same potential as the -2S in bringing about certain tactical outcomes.
2. The main issue is survival, which losses can be kept at manageable levels by using the correct mission profiles and deployment. Fully integrated combine arms is a set of doctrines that the
Uziel seems tailor made for. "Know your role" in the mission. And there is no "I" in "Team" in this game.
Damage curves alone doesn't make the machine. It's a set of factors. Sure the -2S has the punch, combined with the -3S variant's speed and mobility. No argument there. But the -2S also has the shitty armor (for a fifty ton 'Mech) of the -3S. And it also rolls with the same "Old Skool" method of carrying ammo in a mechanized battlefield unit, which any old timey 3025-era player worth their salt knows, is like playing Russian Roulette with high-dollar armored death machines.
That's something else I had to consider over the years of running this design. Hard-won, and hard-bitten, experiences molded my opinion into what it is today.
So, you and I (and Nickky the Z) just have to agree to disagree. Which is no biggie, since variety of opinions and experiences is a damned good thing. And I don't know everything. Sometimes a fresh perspective is needed.
Once again, this is just my two cents worth. Which might not be worth a wheat penny. :P
