Most eficient mech weights

[Scotty]

I didn't include maximum armor, because the discrepancy in tonnages between internal structure points means that it's entirely possible a heavier 'Mech has more 'effective' points of health than a 'Mech that is smaller but has more armor.  That is to say, the amount of tonnage available for armor (the payload minus engine and gyro) was more important than the maximum tonnage of armor that could be mounted for a given size.  You will always be better off with a bigger 'Mech for the same warload, because you can mount identical armor to a smaller 'Mech and still come out ahead on durability.

[Crimson Dawn]

Yep, odd movement is slightly better.
And tech level makes a difference, too.
The spreadsheets are pretty good - I have my own, in which I also maximize the armour - after all, who doesn't?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Dz6W2xISZ_aDdqsAXYxev6m_l7tn1YsNYkmmbMUX-0/pubhtml

Red just means NO! 

For example, at base tech level, speed 4, after 75 tons, your 'free tonnage', i.e. the amount left over for weapons and extra heat sinks, goes down.  The number changes to 90 tons, if using an XL engine.

The tables to the right show the 'free tonnage' with respect to the mechs' tonnage. 
So, at base tech, speed 4, the 45 ton mech is more 'efficient'.  So, for 225 tons, 3 75 ton mechs would have a total of 84 tons for weapons, while 5 45 ton mechs would have slightly more, at 95 tons.

Another point is that smaller mechs are less likely to use more than the base heat sinks.  The second you start adding HS, you are taking away from available weapon tonnage.  Of course, single vs double makes a big difference here!


While these charts capture 'efficiency', they have to be taken with a grain of common sense.  Sure, the 100 ton, speed 1 mech is the most efficient, using just Free Tonnage.  And anything crawling along with a 1/2 move is going to die horribly against a swarm of Locusts! 

I have built some 65 ton 'assault' mechs ... as in, 3/5 move, and plenty of weapons ... but a) the weapons were long range and b) the units were part of a mixed force, with *much* faster mechs included.  Speed is life.  Apart from assaulting a fixed installation, anything slower than 4 is probably not worth it.

Last, for those who are concerned, is a 'Cost per Free Ton'.  If you are building your forces using C-Bills, this is a useful little sheet.

Using just tonnage (the usual build basis), speed 5, 40 ton is a favorite sweet spot of mine.

THe movement numbers you are talking about are walking speed correct not running speed?

[The_Geek]

Yes, walking speeds.  It's pretty hard to get a run of 4   :)

In response to Scotty's comment, "You will always be better off with a bigger 'Mech for the same warload, because you can mount identical armor to a smaller 'Mech and still come out ahead on durability." .. meh, it's a mixed bag.  First, as you put in, "...for the same warload" ... as the charts show, sometimes the available warload goes down, as the mech's weight increases.

Second (and more importantly), you are "...better off with a bigger 'Mech" if you are talking 1:1 combat.  This precludes factors like a force built on total tonnage (or even C-Bills).  For 300 tons, at speed 3, you could have 3 100 ton monsters.  Or 5 60 ton stringbeans.  Comparitively, the 5 mechs have a combined IS+Armour (I'm hoping this is what you meant by 'points of health' ... if not, my apologies) of 557, vs 513 for the 100 ton force. 
And the 60 tonners have a combined 147 tons for weapons, vs only 138 for the larger mechs.

Reducing the armour on the 100 ton mechs to match that of the 60 ton mechs changes the numbers:  The total health points go down (493), although the warload goes up (157 tons, which is now more than the 60 ton force).

Then, finally, there is the Heat Sink consideration.  Five mechs inherently start with more heat sinks than three.  So while the 3 100 ton force - with matching armour - has slightly more warload (157 vs 147), each heat sink added to the behomoths (over what the stringbeans take) reduces that difference by 3 tons.  Put three extra heat sinks on the big guys, the warload difference goes away, and you are left with only one point of comparison - health points - where they come out worse (in total), no matter how you slice it.

[Scotty]

There's a reason tonnage isn't the primary balance mechanism any more.  The chart is built, indeed the entire concept of this question, on an assumption of fixed number of units, where the only variables are size and speed to define the maximum warload per unit at the speed you are comfortable with.

Yes, walking speeds.  It's pretty hard to get a run of 4   :)

In response to Scotty's comment, "You will always be better off with a bigger 'Mech for the same warload, because you can mount identical armor to a smaller 'Mech and still come out ahead on durability." .. meh, it's a mixed bag.  First, as you put in, "...for the same warload" ... as the charts show, sometimes the available warload goes down, as the mech's weight increases.

That's...why I specified equal warload? ???  It was a comment designed to address the specific edge cases where speed and tonnage remaining are the same for multiple weighs, like SFEs with 75/80/85 tons at 4/6. Efficiency wise, you are better off taking the 85 ton design and constructing what you would have done at 75 tons exactly.  You'll get identical capability, with more internal structure and therefore more durability.

[The_Geek]

Yep.  The first two charts were constructed using the old 'tonnage' design.  Still interesting, though.

The last chart, 'Cost pre Free Ton', is relevant to any game where C-Bill is the basis for building your force (as opposed to BV or BV2 values).

e.g At speed 3, 2 50 ton mechs (combined free tonnage of 48), compared to a single 100 mech (free tonnage of 46), cost 4.9 MM C-Bills (before weapons), compared to 7.4 MM C-Bills.  The green lines in that chart show the 'most efficient' weight, in terms of C-Bills, for a given speed.