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

[snewsom2997]

Fire support will be back away from the main combat, so the faster movement of 4(6) allows you to reposition.

[Kathil Uhlans]

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?  ???

It can generate even movement modifiers (the same value for shooter and target), and still turn a hexside, move up or down a level, or step into a forest.  If you can get a 'Mech set up to pace back and forth between two Light forests, with two hexes of open ground between them, it has an AMM of +1, while enemies have to deal with a TMM of +1 and a Light Forest, for a total of +2.  Because To-Hit rolls are on  2d6 bell curve, this means that although you are losing effective firepower compared to being stationary in a light forest, the enemy is losing more.

*****BEWARE, MATH BELOW*****

G 4, LR (+4), To-Hit 8+ (.41).  Enemy G 4, LR (+4), Light Woods (+1), To-Hit 9+ (.28)
The ratio of your hits to his is (.41/.28) or 1.46

G 4, LR (+4), Walked (+1), To-Hit 9+ (.28).  Enemy G 4, Long RR (+4), TMM (+1), Light Woods (+1), To-Hit 10+ (.17)
The ratio of your hits to his is (.28/.17) or 1.65

Stationary in a forest, any design will inflict 1.46 the number of hits on a target that the target will inflict back (assuming the target generates even movement modifiers, which most 3025 Heavies do).  Walking 3 into a Light Woods (which a 4/6 can do but a 3/5 cannot), you will inflict 1.65 the number of hits.

Before you say that having two light forests with two hexes separating them is an ideal situation, the "Battletech" Mapsheet has that exact setup in two different locations.

[snewsom2997]

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?  ???

That extra distance could get you behind something, instead of twisting in the wind in the middle of an intersection in a city, or in between copses of trees on a map. The higher engine rating, for example of a 280 vs 210 for an archer, means more heat sinks in the engine and less taking up space needed for LRMS and Ammo, same with the 340 vs the 255 for the Longbow, in pre SL Tech games it made a difference, with double heat sinks available not so much. Our group also tends to play on 3x3 maps, so getting in position first and firing first is a plus.

[TigerShark]

I think people are overestimating the usefulness of an extra hex of movement for a fire support design. I'm willing to be proven wrong if anyone wants to try (PM me if you want a game) but we seem to be at an impasse, argument wise. Best to move on.

[willydstyle]

I don't think anyone would argue that being able to move an extra hex is "worthless" but that for a fire support design, whose mission in life is to find a forested area with partial cover and lob long-ranged weapons down field, they're not really going to be moving often enough for it to matter.

The 3/5/3 movement curve is great because not only does it help get you *in* to position, but when the enemy sends a baddy your way, you can jump *out* of position while they get mired in the heavy terrain.

Now, I realize that for custom designs with no in-universe cost worried 85 or 100 tons is simply more efficient for a 3/5/3 mover, compared to canon designs 3/5/3 fire support heavies work quite well.

[Breetai]

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 ?

Ti be fair, you can do that at 4/6. http://www.solaris7.com/TRO/HTMLBattleMech/BattlemechInfo.asp?ID=16823

[TigerShark]

Ti be fair, you can do that at 4/6. http://www.solaris7.com/TRO/HTMLBattleMech/BattlemechInfo.asp?ID=16823

At a reduction of 32 points of armor. But I suppose if you're far enough out of combat, that shouldn't matter too much. This is a bit like the -A1 Catapult.

[cray]

I lean toward 4/6 in 3025. There's more to war than a few turns of combat, like road marches. The extra MP also provides a margin to address overheating and actuator damage, and allows you to turn 180 degrees and move a bit without shifting to running to-hit penalties.

Though in the best of all worlds, I'd take 4/6/3. 3 jumping is just enough to overcome a lot of obstacles. It eliminates damage from deliberate falls, clears most cliffs, hops over copses of heavy woods, reduces the problem of water, etc.

[Fatebringer]

I'd go for the 3/5/3 option. As stated before here, you have more options for mobility and 4/6 doesn't give you that much of an edge on speed.

What I really like is that with 3/5, you save tonnage and can mount more heat sinks / ammo / armor, things that will make a bigger difference for a fire support mech in the long run.

[House Davie Merc]

Before you say that having two light forests with two hexes separating them is an ideal situation, the "Battletech" Mapsheet has that exact setup in two different locations.

Both are on level ground .  Elevation 0 .

BOTH also have woods hexed immidiatly to their sides so that if an enemy comes in
from those sides they will have to fire through additional woods hexes and in several
directions LOS is blocked completely past 2 hexes .

Now take a look at any of the elevated fire positions on that map that have a woods hex
and/or partial cover from any angle .  If you're over run in ANY of them in a single move
the 3/5/3 can withdraw to the opposite side of either hill and then return in a single turn .

It takes 2 turns for a 4/6 to circumvent or go over those same hills and often it
loses LOS in the process .

Even given the scenario of walking between the light woods hexes ,  the 4/6 won't
have the heat sinks and/or ammo to keep up the barrage while the 3/5/3 simply
has more tonnage available to do so .

The statistics behind improving your chances to make an individual hit are meaningless
if the other side can fire more often or you just can't get LOS at all on incoming
threats .

[Stormfury]

Much as the 4/6 Clan "Pocket Assault" works in that er, the Age of War/Succession Wars allows the 3/5/3 heavy to assume that role.

A 3/5/3 75-tonner can, with near or completely full protection be armed with:

-2 PPCs, 4 Medium Lasers, 1 SRM6 with one ton of ammunition and 12 additional heat sinks (Warhammer+)
-3 Large Lasers, 7 Medium Lasers with 12 additional heat sinks (mini Awesome)
-2 LRM-20s with 6 tons of ammunition, 4 Medium Lasers, and 4 additional heat sinks (Archer+)
-1 Large Laser, 1 LRM-15 with 2 tons of ammunition, 3 Medium Lasers, 2 Machine Guns with 1/2  a ton of ammo, an SRM-6 with one ton of ammo and 12 additional heat sinks (Thunderbolt-esque, but not really superior to the base model aside from ammo placement and extra armour)
-2 PPCs, 1 Large Laser, 2 Medium Lasers and 13 additional heat sinks (Marauder+)
-2 Large Lasers, 2 Medium Lasers, 1 LRM-15 with 2 tons of ammunition, and 1 SRM-6 with 1 ton of ammo and 9 additional heat sinks (Orion+)

The armaments of some Assualts, like the BattleMaster, can even be replicated or expanded upon.

The downside is that you have less strategic mobility, but in an era where true Assault 'Mechs are rare beasts it is only with hindsight that the presence of the "Pocket Assault" in earlier times is notably lacking.

[Fireangel]

3/5/3

Long-range marching might sound good, but 4/6 just 10.8 kph faster; 6.7 mph.

Along a paved road, a running 4/6 will push 75.6 kph (about 47 mph), while a 3/5/3 will push 64.8 kph (about 40.25 mph). Overland, the difference might be negligible, as the jumper can jump over obstacles that would require the non-jumper to expend extra MP.

[TigerShark]

3/5/3

Long-range marching might sound good, but 4/6 just 10.8 kph faster; 6.7 mph.

Along a paved road, a running 4/6 will push 75.6 kph (about 47 mph), while a 3/5/3 will push 64.8 kph (about 40.25 mph). Overland, the difference might be negligible, as the jumper can jump over obstacles that would require the non-jumper to expend extra MP.

I'm confused. Do you think we're talking about vehicles, somehow?

[Orin J.]

4/6/0 if i have to choose, jumpjets have their (many) uses but i need the fire support to keep pace with the frontlines more than i need it to huddle in the woods hoping the enemy is willing to approach.

Long-range marching might sound good, but 4/6 just 10.8 kph faster; 6.7 mph.

Along a paved road, a running 4/6 will push 75.6 kph (about 47 mph), while a 3/5/3 will push 64.8 kph (about 40.25 mph). Overland, the difference might be negligible, as the jumper can jump over obstacles that would require the non-jumper to expend extra MP.

long-range marching will be along whatever path is most effective for the least mobile troops, not the most. the infantry transports, supply train, and other forces are going to be slowed down by the obstacles you're suggesting the fire support hop over, and any raiding forces are going to be hoping for that sort of thing. the fire support stays with them on the road as deterrent until they reach their destination.

if 4/6 lets them keep pace with the convoy by letting the slower transports use the paved roads while they tromp through the fields alongside, then 4/6 is what they need to be going at.

[Fireangel]

I'm confused. Do you think we're talking about vehicles, somehow?

I've been using vehicles in urban areas A LOT recently... just plain forgot 'mechs don't get the bonus.

Point still stands though; overland vees do not get the paved bonus either, so a 3/5/3 'mech may keep pace with a flat-out running 4/6 'mech.


It would be rare to find a circumstance where that extra 10.8 kph makes that much of a difference in strategic movement in the 3025 environment.

[Jim1701]

It would be rare to find a circumstance where that extra 10.8 kph makes that much of a difference in strategic movement in the 3025 environment.

Given a 12 hour movement that is an extra 130km per day.  That seems pretty significant to me.  It would take your 3/5 units an extra 3 hours to reach the same spot. 

[Siden Pryde]

Seeing as I believe that (almost) all mechs should have jump jets, then it the only options are 3/5/3 or 4/6/0 I will go with the 3/5/3, even though that is WAY slower than I like my units ever being.

[evilauthor]

3/5/3

Long-range marching might sound good, but 4/6 just 10.8 kph faster; 6.7 mph.

Along a paved road, a running 4/6 will push 75.6 kph (about 47 mph), while a 3/5/3 will push 64.8 kph (about 40.25 mph). Overland, the difference might be negligible, as the jumper can jump over obstacles that would require the non-jumper to expend extra MP.

Recall that's kilometers/miles per hour. If we're talking road marches over long distances, factor in how much time is spent on that road.

8 hours of marching gets you an extra 86.4 km, or 53.6 miles. Remember the standard combat ranges in BT? The difference in ground speed here is VERY significant when talking in terms of long distance travel requiring hours of travel time and can make the difference between beating an enemy to an objective or failing. It can make the difference between arriving in time and arriving too late.

Of course, that's why assault mechs are SLOW. They're not supposed to respond to enemy action. They're supposed to make the enemy respond to them. Assault mechs are for hitting targets that CAN'T outrun them, not for rescue or interception. That's what you have the speedy lights and mediums for. Heavies sort of occupy this odd twilight zone between the two extremes: fast enough to flank and outmaneuver assaults, but still slow enough that they can carry enough firepower to make even an assault sit up and take notice.

[Fireangel]

Recall that's kilometers/miles per hour. If we're talking road marches over long distances, factor in how much time is spent on that road.

8 hours of marching gets you an extra 86.4 km, or 53.6 miles. Remember the standard combat ranges in BT? The difference in ground speed here is VERY significant when talking in terms of long distance travel requiring hours of travel time and can make the difference between beating an enemy to an objective or failing. It can make the difference between arriving in time and arriving too late.

This is indeed true, however, when timing is so tight, that an extra 10.8 kph will make a difference, lighter/faster units should be responding.

Of course, that's why assault mechs are SLOW. They're not supposed to respond to enemy action. They're supposed to make the enemy respond to them. Assault mechs are for hitting targets that CAN'T outrun them, not for rescue or interception. That's what you have the speedy lights and mediums for. Heavies sort of occupy this odd twilight zone between the two extremes: fast enough to flank and outmaneuver assaults, but still slow enough that they can carry enough firepower to make even an assault sit up and take notice.

The issue is that for large-scale strategic movement on a planetary surface, the 10.8 kph difference is not really significant at all; moving more than a couple hundred km will require transports of some sort; 'mechs just won't hoof it.

Even in 3025, 4/6 or 3/5/3 units are not seen or used as fast response unless they are literally the only units available; infantry in flatbed trucks or APCs moves faster.

In a situation where the enemy comes down so close that the defending 4/6 or 3/5/3 'mechs need to run at top speed a couple hours or more just to engage, the defenders would be better served in sending faster units to shadow, observe and (if necessary) engage until heavier forces arrive.

Otherwise the defenders are opening themselves to the situation where they run a couple hours east to engage the enemy located 3 hours away, but the enemy board their dropper and land next to their real target a couple hours west of the defender's base.

[Orin J.]

Along a paved road, a running 4/6 will push 75.6 kph (about 47 mph), while a 3/5/3 will push 64.8 kph (about 40.25 mph). Overland, the difference might be negligible, as the jumper can jump over obstacles that would require the non-jumper to expend extra MP.

The issue is that for large-scale strategic movement on a planetary surface, the 10.8 kph difference is not really significant at all; moving more than a couple hundred km will require transports of some sort; 'mechs just won't hoof it.

then why do the jumpjets help here? you seem to be changing your argument over an arbitrary goal to avoid conceding someone else has a point.

[mutantmagnet]

He's saying two different things that don't contradict each other.

The first point you quoted is that the difference between them will be negligible because the 4/6 movement will run into terrain over long distances that 3 jump is superior or breaks even.

Case in point:
Changing elevation while moving in a straight line expends 2 MP. Running 6 breaks even with jumping 3.
Running through light woods or rubble on even level terrain would have them break even.
Running through light woods/rubble and changing elevation gives the 3 jump 50% greater land speed.
Running through heavy woods on even level would also increase land speed by 50%.
Running through heavy woods with changing elevation would give the jumping unit 2 additional hexes to move through.

Whether we are looking at the terrain of England, Egypt or Ecuador it's pretty apparent that terrain all of the world isn't flat and you will have to deal with hills and additional crap occasionally. If you are moving along roads there is a good chance you are taking a winding path that a jumping assault doesn't have to consider.


The second point you quoted is that in his opinion the very idea of moving grounds units over land is just pants on head silly. For long distances (where people claimed the difference in land speed on flat terrain was a few hours) there would be a dedicated transport in the form of Dropships or the less common but lower tech Planetlifters and the recently released Tonbo.
The actual difference between 4/6 and 3/5 on flat terrain over practical long distances would be around half an hour.

[TigerShark]

Anyone actually care to test this out in a game?

[Fireangel]

He's saying two different things that don't contradict each other.

The first point you quoted is that the difference between them will be negligible because the 4/6 movement will run into terrain over long distances that 3 jump is superior or breaks even.

Case in point:
Changing elevation while moving in a straight line expends 2 MP. Running 6 breaks even with jumping 3.
Running through light woods or rubble on even level terrain would have them break even.
Running through light woods/rubble and changing elevation gives the 3 jump 50% greater land speed.
Running through heavy woods on even level would also increase land speed by 50%.
Running through heavy woods with changing elevation would give the jumping unit 2 additional hexes to move through.

Whether we are looking at the terrain of England, Egypt or Ecuador it's pretty apparent that terrain all of the world isn't flat and you will have to deal with hills and additional crap occasionally. If you are moving along roads there is a good chance you are taking a winding path that a jumping assault doesn't have to consider.


The second point you quoted is that in his opinion the very idea of moving grounds units over land is just pants on head silly. For long distances (where people claimed the difference in land speed on flat terrain was a few hours) there would be a dedicated transport in the form of Dropships or the less common but lower tech Planetlifters and the recently released Tonbo.
The actual difference between 4/6 and 3/5 on flat terrain over practical long distances would be around half an hour.

Exactly. Thank you. O0

Anyone actually care to test this out in a game?

In an on-the-board-already battle there really isn't much to test; with all else being equal, a 3/5/3 is pretty much the equal of a 4/6/- in most mapsheets (better in some), particularly in the fire support role where a lot of running around is not really needed.

[TigerShark]

You're focusing entirely on movement and not counting the tonnage savings from the equipment that can be put into armor, ammo, heat sinks or other places. It's not "equal" in any of those areas.

[Fireangel]

You're focusing entirely on movement and not counting the tonnage savings from the equipment that can be put into armor, ammo, heat sinks or other places. It's not "equal" in any of those areas.

But the question is about movement. The only way to determine if one is superior to the other is to examine their performance with all else being equal.

[Kovax]

Somehow, this entire argument is along the lines of "Which is better, a small, fast car or a big, heavy truck?"  They have different purposes, and trying to use one for the other purpose is less than optimal.  Fortunately, we can have both.

Give me a flat, relatively open field and those jumpjets won't serve a bit of purpose, while the bigger engines will be a significant help.  On the other hand, take a chain of steep, wooded hills, and those jumpjets will get you places where a ground-bound equivalent will take ages to reach.  Ideally, give me a Whitworth with a 4/6/4 movement profile, since its light weight allows it to do both without too much sacrifice on either end; the stock Catapult offers the same mix of capabilities at the same speed.  The HBK-4J goes the 4/6/0 route, and I find it very effective, moreso than the 5/8/5 Dervish, which trades too much of everything at that greater weight in order to gain both speed and jump capacity.  Going any lighter (such as the VLK, which includes both increased speed and jumpjets, for a serious loss of firepower), I'd definitely opt for more speed over jump capability, but with a high-end heavy, I suspect that a speed reduction in favor of jumpjets might be preferable in many cases.

[deathfrombeyond]

My choice is 4/6, but not for the reasons the poll stated.

I have a nasty habit of overusing jump jets when I have them, one reason being that I don't have to worry about hex side facings or turns with jump jets like I do with land speed. While that's not an excuse, it often means that I'm firing on more difficult numbers than I need to when I'm fielding a jump capable 'Mech.

[Scotty]

You're focusing entirely on movement and not counting the tonnage savings from the equipment that can be put into armor, ammo, heat sinks or other places. It's not "equal" in any of those areas.

Saved tonnage means absolutely nothing if it's not even there to fight.  The primary advantage 4/6 has over 3/5 is overland strategic speed.  If you're playing pick-up games, of course that won't matter.  If you're playing a campaign, it can easily mean the difference between getting there in time and losing the entire theater.

[Crunch]

Honestly if my strategy depends on my fire support being jump mobile I'm likely to sell all the way out for a 5/8/5 fire support mech like the Dervish or Griffin.

[Fear Factory]

My choice is 4/6, but not for the reasons the poll stated.

I have a nasty habit of overusing jump jets when I have them, one reason being that I don't have to worry about hex side facings or turns with jump jets like I do with land speed. While that's not an excuse, it often means that I'm firing on more difficult numbers than I need to when I'm fielding a jump capable 'Mech.

Jump Jets are great in a pinch, not for playing leap frog and botching your own targeting modifiers.