"King of The Battlefield" How much of that is hype?

[beachhead1985]

I have no doubt at all that the early mechs were head and shoulders ( :D) above the tanks of the era, but I really think that mechs have never been *that* much better than certain values of other units.

I think a mech's main advantage is in it's mobility and protection. Some things move faster but nothing can move through as much as a mech can. And move every other kind of unit on the field has a way to get around it's armour rather easily, or simply cannot mount as much.

So long as tanks go without fusion engines, they're unquestionably inferior to mechs. Once you add that though, they can easily mount more armour points and more firepower.

Being addled with critical spaces is a bummer too, which further limits mechs.

We know in the real world that artillery is the real king of battle, but my point is that occasional fretful talk that mechs should be king of the battlefield overlooks that the crown has never been secure or uncontested.

I'm not saying; fix it, I'm saying that I think we should look at it more like mechs are the most useful, flexible adjunct of an army at war in the BTU, but "king of the battlefield" is hype for the peasants.

[imperator]

Everything can be countered, even the REAL LIFE "Kings of the Battlefields".  But mechs have the ability to spread the damage around 8 locations without going down, have more IS points, and have maneuvrability and all terrain capability, plus firepower.  Most mechs of even tech levels vs tanks, will crit a tank into a pilbox and locks their turret down and then just leave, well before it has to kill the darn thing.  Or it can brings Heat producing weapons like infernos and plasma weapons and kill them quicker.  And remeber Mechs are cool O0

[Dragon Cat]

Same tonnage ton for ton Mechs remain king yes there are things that Mechs can't do and things that other units are better at but none is more versatile.

Used right the Mech is king used wrong its the court jester

[False Son]

Mechs can:

-Climb elevation changes with less MP cost, including 2 levels in a single hex.

-Move through shallow waters without modification.  And survive water breaches better than vehicles.

-Survive gas and vacuum more often thanks to free environmental sealing

-Recon better thanks to more advanced sensors.

-Perform physical attacks other than just charges.

-Survive location destruction.

-Survive engine hits.

-Overheat, which allows them to push the envelope on their performance.  Other units can do this, but suffer worse penalties for overheating.

-Survive fires

-Use double heat sinks.  Other units can use them, but not other ground units.



And those are just the ones that are springing to mind at the present.  There's no doubt certain units do certain things better than mechs.  But overall, the wide range of capabilities a battlemech has, ton for ton is superior to any other ground unit.  And with transport being a bottleneck, when you go to attack a planet, mechs are your go-to choice.

[SteelRaven]

Think the MW pc game series accurately portrays mechs as they are in the fluff and novels, the tabletop tends to balance things for game play (no one would field infantry otherwise)   

[SCC]

Note that once they start Role Playing some or all of the advantages that False Sons listed might go away. For example, if playing in the early 3050's and your group gets assigned a vehicle equipped with an XLFE they may have trouble believing that whoever paid for the vehicle never thought to put sensors on it that are at least as good as a 'Mechs

[JadeHellbringer]

Think the MW pc game series accurately portrays mechs as they are in the fluff and novels, the tabletop tends to balance things for game play (no one would field infantry otherwise)   

Check the pre-TW infantry rules- THAT'S more like it.  ;D

[Marwynn]

Check the pre-TW infantry rules- THAT'S more like it.  ;D

AKA: A MechWarrior glanced in your platoon's direction for a fraction of a microsecond. Half of your platoon dies.

Even vehicles have become sturdier with "recent" rule books.

[False Son]

They had to.  The successfull house militaries were the ones embracing combined arms.  If infantry and combat vehicles have radically inferior performance that policy doesn't make sense.  That is, unless you emphasize the shortage of mechs to the Nth degree.

As a conventional asset enthusiast, I still believe CVs have it bad compared to mechs.  But, at least infantry have some options these days.  PBIs with TW rules isn't too bad, but TM's construction rules makes them a genuine threat worthy of dishing out for transports.  Still, infuriating when a perfectly good Alacorn is immobilized by the first 3 point LRM that crosses it's nose.

[StuartYee]

Springing off of JadeHellbringer and Marwynn, I much prefer the new and improved, sturdier infantry and vehicles. Losing nearly an entire jump platoon in the open to just one, ONE PPC shot didn't make sense to me. My bad for putting them in the open, and I know Battletech isn't supposed to be realistic or anything, but come on! It's not like they train infantry to stand in a straight line for enemy fire.

As for the original thread topic, tonnage or BV, I'll take a 'mech any day. Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a 'mech can survive an internal structure section and continue to be tactically effective. A vehicle is well....destroyed.

That's not to say tanks and infantry aren't valuable. Hell, I once had a shutdown phoenix hawk get taken down by three platoons of infantry. They may be grunts, but 'mechs are vulnerable even to infantry when shutdown. Though that's the exception, not the rule.

King of the battlefield? In my humble opinion, that might actually be a 100 ton aerospace fighter loaded to the gills with bombs. That will kill ANYTHING.

But I'd say if you want to call it hype that Battlemechs are the kings of the battlefield, then it's well deserved hype.

[Auren]

I always saw it as that yeah, that PPC might be annihilating 20 guys in a platoon but it was more of a matter of maybe six guys were dead, another four injured, and the other ten 'casualties' out of the fight trying to keep the four injured guys alive and get them away from the lightning spewing titan that deigned to look in their direction.

Machine guns, flamers, small pulse lasers and artillery are a different matter.  :D

[False Son]

But as long as the ERPPC is killing 20 infantry the utility of the MG, SPL and flamer are severely undercut.  One thing that is hilarious about the 3050s-3060s is the glaring omission of AI weaponry that was commonplace on Succession Wars mechs.  Granted, some of that was being handled by the new fangled "battle armor" fad that seriously will never catch on.  Changing to the current infantry damage structure gives infantry a chance, and injects purpose back into AI weapons.  There is little point in developing say, the APGR if infantry are going to be swept across the field with 23 hex, unlimited ammo ERPPCs.

[Auren]

If you honestly have Infantry visible from 23 hexes... you're doing something wrong.  :P

[beachhead1985]

Think the MW pc game series accurately portrays mechs as they are in the fluff and novels, the tabletop tends to balance things for game play (no one would field infantry otherwise)   

Not sure just what you mean about the games. Totally mech-centric?

And actually I have always felt that the TW rules really work hard to hobble infantry.

[False Son]

If you honestly have Infantry visible from 23 hexes... you're doing something wrong.  :P

I'm not allowed to spot for indirect?

[Auren]

I said visible. Hidden Units don't have to reveal themselves to spot for indirect fire.

[Whitestar60]

For the actual tabletop war gaming rules? Yes they are which is no surprise since the games main focus is around them. Thus they get all sorts of buffs while their conventional opponents get matching penalties even if they make no logical sense in the actual setting. One needs to look no further for an example then how hard it is to immobilize a mech with its multitude of large, complex joints but yet the much smaller tracks of an armored vehicle fall off if you so much as look at them crossly. Or how hard it is to hit the enemies giant exposed glass cockpit even if your close enough to see the whites of their eyes.

Now as far as in the actual setting, where we assume the decisions made are generally done so by educated people, you could make an argument that its more hype then fact. In fact the Tech Manual fluff itself is some of the strongest proof you can find as it spells out in as many words that "While yes mechs are kings of the battlefield their position is a tenuous one." Massed artillery, good air support, a healthy dose of vee's and good old PBI used well can and will wreck any mech jocks day anytime anywhere  any tech base even using the tabletop rules for a fraction of the cost.

Mentally I like to handle this disconnect by assuming that in-universe fiction is what typically goes on about how they are 'steel gods of war' and 'invulnerable to anything but another mech' and the reality is they are really just the pinnacle of raiding cavalry. Insanely tough thanks to their quasi-magical armor, durable due to having such a large area to spread damage over and remain combat operational, wielding much more firepower then a comparable vee, packed with enough inherent ECM/ECCM goodies to counteract their higher sensor profile even in the most primitive of mechs, and thanks to a legged propulsion system having a higher average speed even through terrain that would stop all but Vtols or PBI cold. Given those constraints its the perfect sort of force to flank an enemy, slip in behind his front line and raise merry hell before getting out. Or to try countering his attempt to do the same to you. :D

[Khymerion]

It is kinda hype but there is some weight to it.   As long as you can figure out how to feed the mech pilot and keep them stimulated enough to make them drive endlessly, the only thing stopping them is ammo and damage.   Then again, I don't see many battlemechs really being able to self-reload themselves in the field...  so that takes out the endless deployment range.

Sorry, campaigner at heart so things like this really weigh heavily on the mind when making choices.

It is really their go anywhere anytime trait that puts them above other units.   That and their amazing durability in terms of being rebuilt and repaired.   Short of gutting one, if it can be dragged back, it can be put back into service...  something not many other units can claim.   Which is both nice and a nightmare.

Trying to explain to an over-zealous player/pilot that the ruined hulk of an assault mech they dragged back CAN be repaired... doesn't mean that it should be.   Especially when you start to list off all the things that are going to go into the rebuild and suddenly it starts to look like one of an episode of Tank Overhaul...  or some kind of classic car rebuild.   With the same glassy eyed effect when you start describing the man hours that they are going to need.

But the fact that it CAN be repaired is the amazing thing all together.   To know that after hundreds or more man hours of work, you can have something you scraped off the bottom of a lake from a sunken multi-hundred year old dropship wreck you found in a jungle and able to get it to walk and fight again...   amazing.

You just can't get that out of any other unit in the game.

Now I want to play a RP campaign of just technicians in a rebuild shop now.

[Whitestar60]

If I were running an RPG campaign I might allow someone to drag back even a gutted hulk of a mech and attempt to repair it. But at that point all you have left is a blackened shell wrapped around a yoke of still smoking components. So sure I'd let them try but you'd have to pretty much rebuild if not outright replace any of the damaged internals, Long story short you would just be salvaging the skeleton and whatever serviceable mechanical organs it has left to serve as a foundation for hand building a 'brand new' mech. The fact that it'd probably be cheaper and easier just to break it for parts and/or to just 'buy' a replacement  however as you mentioned is an entirely different question. :)

[StuartYee]

Changing to the current infantry damage structure gives infantry a chance, and injects purpose back into AI weapons. 

Another thing I like about TW, now AI weapons ARE important!

I'm willing to bet that whereas there was little difference in BMR, nowadays the STG-3R Stinger (Med Laser, 2x MGs) is going to have a jolly good time annihilating platoons of infantry, while his STG-3G (2x Med Laser) cousin is going to have a frustrating time picking off only a handful of troopers per turn while gradually being picked apart.

[Khymerion]

If I were running an RPG campaign I might allow someone to drag back even a gutted hulk of a mech and attempt to repair it. But at that point all you have left is a blackened shell wrapped around a yoke of still smoking components. So sure I'd let them try but you'd have to pretty much rebuild if not outright replace any of the damaged internals, Long story short you would just be salvaging the skeleton and whatever serviceable mechanical organs it has left to serve as a foundation for hand building a 'brand new' mech. The fact that it'd probably be cheaper and easier just to break it for parts and/or to just 'buy' a replacement  however as you mentioned is an entirely different question. :)

Cheaper...  maybe...  but then again...  when you are staring at the wreck of say...  a Flashman (before the retcon that put it back into production), you really can't go back to the original factory and buy a new one.   So, like those magicians out there who somehow can take a Panther hauled out of the bottom of a river bed and somehow make it look beautiful again, I can see master enthusiasts and skilled craftsmen going to extreme lengths to do something like that with an iconic mech.   If it is something you love, breaking it up for parts is almost a crime.