Battle Armor- Modular Weapon Mount?

[Colt Ward]

I generally favor systems that let you change to adapt to circumstances.  ATMs, MMLs, SRMs and LBX I generally prefer over their more rigid comparisons because they let non-Omni chassis do more.

With that said . . . I am starting to wonder about the Modular Weapon Mount for battle armor.  Some designs, from reading the BAotW articles, limit themselves on which weapons they can mount because it takes up too much mass.  IIRC, the Purifier is one of those that have the most opportunities by getting rid of the MWM and putting a fixed weapon, like Recoilless Rifles, on it.

But I know people who swear by MWM and say they are a must . . . why?

[worktroll]

Some of it's flavour, some of it's RPG, some of it's mission.

Prior to TW, there was little real difference -for the IS anyway - in carrying a MG, small laser, or flamer. One point of difference was it. However, some people liked the idea of using a flamer, especially with the optional "does heat or damage" rule in play.

Post TW, the flamer and machine guns become highly effective infantry killers. if you only play 'Mech-on-'Mech games, this won't mean much, but a squad/point of suitably equipped BA can route much larger infantry forces, especially in cities.

And some of it is for fun. The Cavalier can have the standard short-range trilogy - or an SRM-1 with 4 reloads. Suddenly the same suit can reach 9 hex ranges, either with standard or inferno rounds. Your BA can pull these unexpected tricks when you'll benefit most.

In-universe, having that sort of flexibility makes a lot of sense, but again that doesn't really impact on in-game.

That helps?

W.

[LastChanceCav]

While the modular weapon mount can leave mass on the table, depending on its capacity and what you mount, it still gives you the flexibility to change up you're BA's weaponry on the go. I think the problem is less with the mount and more with the weapons carried by canon BA.

There are some cases where the payload does go too far, and I agree that the Purifier is one of the biggest offenders - mainly for trying to be the first Medium to carry an ERSL and the dubious advantages of that weapon.

On the other hand, with the RRs now available, a lot of the older BA weapons are less appealing since nothing else (except the Clan's peerless APGR) comes close to matching their combination of range, damage and anti-infantry capability in one package. Since their debut these weapons have taken the compromise out of fixing a single weapon.

Cheers,
LCC

[sillybrit]

@Colt Ward:

I believe you've misunderstood the point regarding designs like the Purifier. The Modular Weapon Mount itself isn't the issue, it's the high payload that the designers made available instead of using some of that payload to improve other features.

In the case of the Purifier, the designers wanted the 350kg ERSL as the primary configuration, but unfortunately that weapon has not stood the test of time as later rules added new weapons that offer superior performance for lower mass, in particular the 250kg Medium Recoilless Rifle. The issue with the MRR is slightly muddled, because technically it's an old weapon and would have been available while the Purifier was being developed in-universe, but it wasn't an option at the time FM:CS was published. If the game rules had been such that the MRR was available when the Purifier was first published, it's possible that it would have been designed with just a 250kg payload to carry that as its primary weapon, saving 100kg for more armor, increased mobility, or enhanced Battle Claws.

Swapping the MWM for a fixed armament would only save you 10 kg above and beyond any savings from chosing a weapon other than the ERSL, which is not really worth it given the loss of modularity that would result.

[Maelwys]

The biggest drawback with the modular mount isn't necessarily the weight/mass that it takes up, but the SPACES that it takes up.

For instance, placing a modular mount on the arm of a Light BA suit limits your choices to weapons that only take up 1 slot (light suits have 2 equipment slots in each arm, the modular mount takes up 1 of these, leaving you with 1 slot). The weight/mass isn't so much of a limitation here as the size is.

On medium suits, placing a modular mount limits you to weapons that only take up 2 slots (medium suits have 3 equipment slots in the arm, the modular mount takes up 1, leaving you with 2). Most medium suits easily have the free weight/mass needed for a Magshot Gauss Rifle (175kg), but because they've got that modular mount, the weapon won't physically fit in that arm (Magshot takes up 3 criticals). This is the reason that the Infiltrator Mk. II doesn't mount a modular Weapon Mount, it requires all the space in that arm for the weapon itself.

Which leaves us with the Purifier. It can mount a King David Gauss rifle (275kg, 2 slots) on a modular mount in its arm easily. It can't however, mount a MagShot (175kg, 3 slots) on that same modular mount because of the size difference.

[Lazarus Jaguar]

Prior to TW, there was little real difference -for the IS anyway - in carrying a MG, small laser, or flamer. One point of difference was it. However, some people liked the idea of using a flamer, especially with the optional "does heat or damage" rule in play.

W.

Actually I gotta correct you here.  Even back as far as the Battletech Conpendium 20 years ago, Machine guns did the increased damage to infantry they do now.  So the choice of the original 3 was basically the Small laser for anit-mech/tank/BattleArmor (as it did the most damage), the Machine gun for anti-infantry, and the Flamer for incendiary (it could start fires, and inflict heat as damage).  However, with the advent of new weapons those roles pretty much have been lost as only the Flamer is still the best weapon for it's original role.  The Laser and MG have been surpassed, although the MG is still an option if weight is in short supply in a design.