BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => Ground Combat => Topic started by: AJC46 on 07 October 2014, 17:20:08
-
Discussion on the uses and canon users of these weapon system try to keep it civil and clean please or I'll request that the mods will destroy it with their eye beams. [copper]
please keep the griping about how they turned out to a minimum has a topic filled with nagging about them isn't were i want discussion to go and i'm pretty sure the staff wouldn't be too happy as well thank you.
-
They're a dark age FedSuns invention iirc, so I'm guessing FedSuns almost exclusively, and even there it's probably rare.
-
I have never used them. On paper, they are "alright" IF you can guarantee you'll be facing a speciality armored unit. If not, they are too heavy and take up too much space to be of much use.
They are a niche weapon, that much like a lot of 3145 tech, have a paper/rock/scissors effect. The RE Lasers are just "normal" against a majority of units in the game, but when you get against the specialist armor that gives energy weapons a hard time, they shine, at least to a point.
FedSuns are probably happy to have them against all of the Reflective armor they see on the Drac boarder at least :)
-
More importantly, they work against Hardened armor as well.
-
More importantly, they work against Hardened armor as well.
I think thats the greater use honestly, but hardened armor is spread out all over the place (though the DCMS I guess have a few)
-
Re-Engineered lasers are tailor made for OmniMechs. Any sort of specialist equipment is, really, but Re-Engineered lasers are a much easier to cart around way to deal with Reflective armor than artillery. Swap out a Larger Laser on an Omni for a pair of RE Mediums, and though you lose range, your damage potential is tripled.
-
they basically negate the effects of (IIRC) Reflective, hardened, and Ferro-lamellor.
Reflective may not be super common at the moment, but certainly it has drawn a lot of attention from designers and seems to be the new big wondertech for many factions design teams. (especially in the aerospace and battlearmor fields.. where the drawbacks are less noticeable or practically non-existent)
Hardened armor, by dint of it's older period of existence, is rather more common.. and while still not yet a standard thing, when used it creates really hard to deal with damage sponges.
F-L armor is so new it is only on a few units so far.. but since said units are being sold by the SeaFox's to anyone able to afford them, and seem to be very very popular with certain factions..
-
As far as actual use goes, these are in the same boat as the Clan ER Pulse Lasers. They look like they have a niche, but in practice they just do not work well enough to ever be a good idea. The numbers got posted a while back, but the gist of it was that the small and medium are almost exactly even with standard 3025-era models against the Reflective and Hardened armor they are supposed to beat so there is never any reason to use them because they are so far behind against other armor types. The Large did better with a meaningful advantage so it is an actual improvement over the standard model when shooting at units with Hardened or Reflective armor, although it is still well behind the standard when used against FL or standard plate. There are naturally some threshold niches where one or the other has an advantage against a specific unit either due to more concentrated damage to penetrate better or more hits to crit better/waste less damage (BA and conventional infantry), but these go both ways and are very opposition-specific so they are naturally not useful in a general discussion.
-
The emperor mounts two of them mostly because it was out of crit space but had tonnage left over.
-
The emperor mounts two of them mostly because it was out of crit space but had tonnage left over.
Honestly, they are really not great for that either. The MPL is denser than any of the Re-Lasers, and missiles are another very strong option which will usually fit in that slot if you do not want to go with another energy weapon.
In the specific case of the Emperor, a Large Laser or ERLL would have filled the tonnage with two crits to spare and given you more ranged firepower (assuming you are able to handle the heat) and SRMs would have let you murder conventional forces even more efficiently with Infernos. You could also go for a mix with something like two MLs, a MPL, and a Flamer to get more firepower against most opponents, a bit of extra accuracy (which translates to more damage), and a dedicated anti-infantry mount for the hordes of conventional infantry running around during the Dark Ages. It does cost you a bit of raw damage against targets with Reflective or Hardened armor which you could fix by replacing the Flamer with another ML, but I feel like the utility of a Flamer is worth far more than the damage it costs you even on a slow design like the Emperor (I do like to hang Flamers on absolutely everything, so you should probably take my opinion on them with a grain of salt).
-
And the one thing that was ignored in those numbers that got posted before.
They were predicated on firing at infinite blocks of armor that were a single location. This is a situation that will not occur in Battletech. Ever.
-
a head hit by the large RE laser will make any mech that doesn't have a torso cockpit worry since after that any further head hits will be going Internal and most weapons will do at least the 3 needed to remove the head.
-
a head hit by the large RE laser will make any mech that doesn't have a torso cockpit worry since after that any further head hits will be going Internal and most weapons will do at least the 3 needed to remove the head.
That's honestly nothing special. Most heavy weapons will do this and there are plenty of headcappers running around out there as well that will cause more than worry. It is somewhat relevant against 'Mechs with hardened or reflective armor because those can give a lot more breathing room, although even then a 15+ point hit will leave the armor worryingly thin and there are plenty of those to choose from.
-
Um, my understanding was that FL armor was treated as standard armor by RE Lasers? It was one reason I was looking closely at the RE LL armed Spider.
-
Um, my understanding was that FL armor was treated as standard armor by RE Lasers? It was one reason I was looking closely at the RE LL armed Spider.
You are correct. The damage-reducing property of FL armor is ignored by RE-lasers.
-
Um, my understanding was that FL armor was treated as standard armor by RE Lasers? It was one reason I was looking closely at the RE LL armed Spider.
It does, but the actual benefit is small in comparison to Reflective or Hardened armor and winds up being drastically outweighed by the inefficiencies of the RE lasers.
The best-case scenario for the RE lasers is the small because the standard small goes from 3 to 2 for a 50% reduction in incoming damage, but the small RE-laser does 4 damage for 1.5 tons and 5 heat which can be matched by two smalls which together deal the same 4 damage for 1 ton and 2 heat, although it does cost you one more crit. That means you save 33% of the weight and 60% of the heat by switching to the standard smalls for a negligible increase in penetrating power and one saved weapon crit which will be devoured by the extra DHS you need to dissipate the extra heat generated by the RE laser, and the larger sizes are even worse.
-
Except it's not matched. Or do you think they every standard PPC should be replaced by twin light PPCs?
-
Oh come on, not this again. The OP is pretty clear that we're supposed to avoid that same sort of quibbling over whether one point of damage is so significant.
Re-Engineered Lasers are not efficient guns.
Re-Engineered Lasers are not useless.
Now can we please get on with the thread? ::)
-
I think it might be best treated like Heavy Lasers- people have various opinions, its a preference thing IMO.
With the proliferation of the special armors, it would seem to be employed the same way, which is why I mentioned the Spider carrying a RE-LL should be used like a Solitaire.
-
In the case of having tonnage left over and not much crit space . Maxing out your armor ; Increasing CASE to CASE II or extra Heat Sinks in Engine : Engine rating permitting . Replacing Endo- Steel IS with Endo - Composite IS ( to get space ) . Extra ammo or a special ammo type slot . TAG . Look to up-gunning lasers such as do you have the tonnage to replace one or more laser with a variable pulse laser or not ? Or combining the extra heat sinks and up-gunning the lasers at the same time . It depends on how much tonnage you have and if you max out the armor for your tonnage already . Most mechs particularly the better designed ones rarely have more than 4 tons of play . All of which may be a better use of tonnage than Re-Engineered lasers . Mixed Tech becomes advanced l in later years replacing your IS ER- Med with a Clan ER - Med gets you better range and 7 points of damage which becomes 3.5 with the new armor type at longer range ; still a better win than Re-Engineered lasers ; oh and replacing a guardian ecm with an angel one works nice too .
-
Ignore
-
I wish RE lasers were just a little bit lighter; possibly matching IS Pulse Lasers in weight. I was playing with an idea for Improved RE Lasers: Lasers that weigh the same as standard IS Pulse Lasers, and generate more heat if they hit the specialty armours that are vulnerable to RE Lasers. This way, you pay for RE Lasers' signature ability when you actually use it. Specifications something like below, albeit in rough form. They'd certainly need some playtesting to polish the stats.
Improved Large RE Laser: 7 tons, 5 crits, 9 damage, 10 heat.
Improved Medium RE Laser: 2 tons, 2 crits, 6 damage, 6 heat.
Improved Small RE Laser: 1 ton, 1 crit, 4 damage, 4 heat.
All Improved RE Lasers function as standard RE Lasers but generate 50% more heat if they hit any specialty armours that are vulnerable to standard RE Lasers.
-
How does a laser generate more heat based upon what it hits? Does it generate extra heat if it hits internal structure on a unit using one of the armors?
-
When this discussion comes up, I always get the feeling no one looks at the BV difference of the suggested "better" weapons. Of course they are "better" they cost about a crapload more BV. The should be "better"...
What I also don't get: So a new weapon isn't the be-all-end-all of weapon development. Why all the fuzz?
-
I think it might be best treated like Heavy Lasers- people have various opinions, its a preference thing IMO.
With the proliferation of the special armors, it would seem to be employed the same way, which is why I mentioned the Spider carrying a RE-LL should be used like a Solitaire.
Not really. The Heavy Lasers have advantages over conventional weapons which gives them a niche they can fill due to their unusually high damage to weight ratio unlike the RE-Lasers which just flop. The HLL is the lightest headcapper in the game, the HML can give you a devastating close range bracket for very little weight, and the HSL has the absolute highest damage per ton of any reusable weapon in the game and ties with the RL-10.
Now, I do not have the numbers up right now but I do remember that the RELL did actually have an advantage over the standard against Reflective and Hardened armor so that Spider may not be totally useless depending on the opposition, but it is not a headcapper like the Solitaire's HLL so it does not present the same kind of threat the Clan design does.
I wish RE lasers were just a little bit lighter; possibly matching IS Pulse Lasers in weight. I was playing with an idea for Improved RE Lasers: Lasers that weigh the same as standard IS Pulse Lasers, and generate more heat if they hit the specialty armours that are vulnerable to RE Lasers. This way, you pay for RE Lasers' signature ability when you actually use it. Specifications something like below, albeit in rough form. They'd certainly need some playtesting to polish the stats.
Improved Large RE Laser: 7 tons, 5 crits, 9 damage, 10 heat.
Improved Medium RE Laser: 2 tons, 2 crits, 6 damage, 6 heat.
Improved Small RE Laser: 1 ton, 1 crit, 4 damage, 4 heat.
All Improved RE Lasers function as standard RE Lasers but generate 50% more heat if they hit any specialty armours that are vulnerable to standard RE Lasers.
There are lots of easy ways to make them better and it is very obvious from looking at the numbers that they do not really work as intended which leads me to believe that there was deliberate thought given to making them inferior so the technology would be experimented with for a while before dying out.
How does a laser generate more heat based upon what it hits? Does it generate extra heat if it hits internal structure on a unit using one of the armors?
I would assume the laser has two different operating modes. It can either work like a normal laser or a RE-Laser so it can pick the mode more appropriate to dealing with the target it is shooting at. I would personally give the player control over which mode they are using it in because the penetration might not be worth the extra heat against some armor types like FL Armor or you might not be willing to take on quite that much heat for whatever reason.
When this discussion comes up, I always get the feeling no one looks at the BV difference of the suggested "better" weapons. Of course they are "better" they cost about a crapload more BV. The should be "better"...
Given that BV is generally a good indicator of the quality of a design, that is fairly strong evidence that the RE-Laser has issues. Also, BV is purely an out of character mechanic so it has absolutely no bearing on in-universe design.
What I also don't get: So a new weapon isn't the be-all-end-all of weapon development. Why all the fuzz?
There is a difference between being the best at everything and being usable. The problem with the RE-Lasers is that they look like they should be good for shooting up designs with Reflective Armor, but in practice they only break even with the standard models in what is supposed to be their niche. This means that you would do just as well shooting at a target with Reflective Armor with a standard Medium Laser as you would with the REML, so you are always better off with the standard because it works better on other targets. They could have easily improved the performance of the RE-Lasers a little bit (tonnage, damage, heat) to fix this problem while still leaving their performance against standard armor behind the standard models so there is an actual reason to use them, but as written they are basically useless.
-
What I also don't get: So a new weapon isn't the be-all-end-all of weapon development. Why all the fuzz?
I totally agree. Trying to introduce new weapons that are simply better than their predecessors, creates a slippery slope with every new generation of weapons making the previous generation obsolete. It's much better to create weapons that are different, or at least created with intention to "fix" the short comings of previous iterations, like the MML/ATM. Of course, when a technology "matures", improved versions should show up.
-
I totally agree. Trying to introduce new weapons that are simply better than their predecessors, creates a slippery slope with every new generation of weapons making the previous generation obsolete. It's much better to create weapons that are different, or at least created with intention to "fix" the short comings of previous iterations, like the MML/ATM. Of course, when a technology "matures", improved versions should show up.
The problem is that for that to work you need to give the new equipment a niche where it is actually advantageous to mount it.
RELasers obviously don't (with a small caveat for the Large). There's really an unfortunate amount of those bad ideas throughout the game. :(
-
Again. If you feel that batteries of standard lasers are better than RE-lasers for fighting special armor, then you obviously subscribe to the theory of replacing PPCs with twin Light PPCs.
-
I keep seeing 2 standard lasers do the job of 1 RE laser against those armors and people should use standard. But don't those 2 standard lasers have to both hit the target in the same location to do the same damage 1 RE laser does? I suppose hitting 2 different locations is good but aren't you still depending on IF? And isn't it better to get past the hard outer shell and into the sweet juicy center as quickly as possible? Don't RE Lasers do that against those armor types? Also aren't there more and more aerospace fighters that are using reflective armor?
To me, RE Lasers would seem to be a good fit on fighters since they'd nullify reflective armor. I would think they'd also be a good fit on AA and fire support units. They'd shoot down fighters faster than those with other lasers and if ground troops run into a unit with that kind of armor they just call in support and let the support unit handle them and then move in to exploit the damage they did.
-
I keep seeing 2 standard lasers do the job of 1 RE laser against those armors and people should use standard. But don't those 2 standard lasers have to both hit the target in the same location to do the same damage 1 RE laser does? I suppose hitting 2 different locations is good but aren't you still depending on IF? And isn't it better to get past the hard outer shell and into the sweet juicy center as quickly as possible? Don't RE Lasers do that against those armor types? Also aren't there more and more aerospace fighters that are using reflective armor?
yep. so the arguement for massed standard lasers has the same flaw as the arguement for using massed LRM5's instead of LRM10's, 15's, or 20's, or the arguement for using twin light PPC's instead of a single standard.
in terms of potential damage, the massed smaller weapons do seem to make sense. but in terms of things like average damage and damage concentration, they fail. the more times i have to roll a to hit, the greater the odds i will miss, reducing the damage. which reduces the average damage by quite a bit. plus each hit has to roll for location separately.. which means the damage is spread out more.
the bigger guns might be less efficnet mass wise, but they have better one hit punch.. while the massed smaller guns is sandblasting.
-
I keep seeing 2 standard lasers do the job of 1 RE laser against those armors and people should use standard. But don't those 2 standard lasers have to both hit the target in the same location to do the same damage 1 RE laser does? I suppose hitting 2 different locations is good but aren't you still depending on IF? And isn't it better to get past the hard outer shell and into the sweet juicy center as quickly as possible? Don't RE Lasers do that against those armor types? Also aren't there more and more aerospace fighters that are using reflective armor?
To me, RE Lasers would seem to be a good fit on fighters since they'd nullify reflective armor. I would think they'd also be a good fit on AA and fire support units. They'd shoot down fighters faster than those with other lasers and if ground troops run into a unit with that kind of armor they just call in support and let the support unit handle them and then move in to exploit the damage they did.
The problem with this is that they just do not have enough concentrated punch to matter on anything bigger than a light. You will wind up sandblasting the armor either way so concentration does not matter as much as raw damage. Furthermore, more hits means that once the armor goes through you have more chances to score crits, and standard lasers also deal full damage to internal structure so you will rip that apart far faster with massed standard lasers.
Things are a little bit different on the aerospace side because of threshold crits which give the large a real use air-to-air, although its range is too short to be really good in the anti-aircraft roll, especially when you could replace it with the lighter 2-X which is the weapon ASF pilots have nightmares about. That said, most ASFs will have enough armor that the small and medium do not help you on this front either so they are still failed weapons.
yep. so the arguement for massed standard lasers has the same flaw as the arguement for using massed LRM5's instead of LRM10's, 15's, or 20's, or the arguement for using twin light PPC's instead of a single standard.
in terms of potential damage, the massed smaller weapons do seem to make sense. but in terms of things like average damage and damage concentration, they fail. the more times i have to roll a to hit, the greater the odds i will miss, reducing the damage. which reduces the average damage by quite a bit. plus each hit has to roll for location separately.. which means the damage is spread out more.
the bigger guns might be less efficnet mass wise, but they have better one hit punch.. while the massed smaller guns is sandblasting.
That only really works with big hits which the RE-Lasers cannot deliver. Honestly, even the 10-point PPC blast is not great these days when you have the HPPC for serious penetration, and the RE-Lasers are all worse. The Large is the most usable with its 9-point hit, but that cannot even crit the head on its own and will not do much more than scratch the paint on a heavy or assault. The medium and especially small are most definitely down in the sandblasting category so the only thing that matters is total damage output because they cannot concentrate damage enough to matter.
Also, while total damage is important, the total number of hits is also important because more cluster rolls means more chances for TACs and head hits to try to knock out the pilot, and it gets even better once you crack the armor and can start trying to crit out the internals (with double-damage hits because IS does not get the armor bonus). This gets even more important against vehicles because they suffer so much from TACs and is also helpful against conventional infantry if you do not have a dedicated AP mount because you will be killing one guy per hit no matter what you use.
As for the probability of hitting, more weapons does not change your expected damage, it just makes reality conform more closely to the statistically expected values. This can be either a good or bad thing based purely on luck because while you might get lucky with fewer bigger weapons and land more damage than the cluster of smaller weapons, you could just as easily get unlucky and totally miss the target. It is of course also possible to get lucky or unlucky with the larger cluster, but the law of averages says it is less likely to be as extreme either way due to the larger sample size.
-
in terms of potential damage, the massed smaller weapons do seem to make sense. but in terms of things like average damage and damage concentration, they fail. the more times i have to roll a to hit, the greater the odds i will miss, reducing the damage. which reduces the average damage by quite a bit. plus each hit has to roll for location separately.. which means the damage is spread out more.
While damage concentration is indeed an issue with multiple smaller guns (and damage concentration is quite important), the average damage is in fact the same if you have two smaller guns that deal half the damage of a larger gun. Using the PPC vs 2x LPPC example, you've got one gun that deals 10 damage vs two that deal 5. If your odds of hitting are 50%, then you can expect the PPC to on average deal 5 points of damage, and you can expect the LPPCs to deal 2.5 damage on average each, for a combined average of 5 damage: the same as the PPC.
The reason this is so is because while you get that 10-point hit half the time, the other half of the time you get nothing from that PPC. The LPPCs have a 50% chance in a given round of dealing 5 damage (one of the two hits), a 25% chance of dealing 10 damage (both hit), and a 25% chance of dealing no damage (both miss). The average damage per round for both options is the same. Obviously, the PPC has the advantage of dealing much more concentrated damage, and it is more likely for a pair of PPCs to meet the 20 damage PSR threshold for a given round of shooting than a quartet of LPPCs (25% vs 6.25%, assuming 50% odds). In contrast, the LPPCs serve better when you're looking for crits, or if you're just looking to save a ton and only care about the raw damage. But in either case, the average damage per round is the same. Personally, I prefer the higher damage concentration for the PPC, but I can see why people could be more concerned with raw damage per ton.
-
Thanks. I can understand crit seeking but I would think you'd want a big punch to get through the armor as fast as possible. Especially when you don't have a lot of armor. But I think I'm missing something.
When did the damage reduction round up? ??? I just looked up Reflective Armor in the 2nd Ed of the TacOps PDF and it says to divide in half rounding down. So a small laser would do 1 point of damage, a medium 2 points of damage, and a large 4 points of damage.
Looking at Field Manual 3145 I would need 4 small lasers, 3 medium lasers, or 2+ large lasers to equal the damage of 1 small , medium, or large RE Laser. Doubling or tripling the amount of crits taken and gaining .5 to 2 additional tons depending on the size of weapons. Not to mention all the heat those weapons generate. If it weren't for range PPCS would be completely worse compared to RE Lasers. Was there an errata I missed or am I reading things wrong because I don't see anywhere that 2 standard lasers equal 1 RE laser.
What I am seeing is a big advantage for RE Lasers when used against those types of armors. A lot of the advantages RE Lasers have are flipped in standard lasers favor but against those armors RE Lasers have an overwhelming advantage.
I am fuzzy about thresholding on airospace units. Do you threshold before or after dividing damage? Either way standard lasers were used for ages so switching to RE lasers shouldn't be a big deal. Longer ranged lasers might get a shot off sooner but at half damage. Then the range is closed and the RE lasers are doing full damage. I would think the same would go for AA units. Of course you want to keep them far away from the ground targets but you also want to make sure they don't come around for another pass. I would think that a laser that does full damage would be more useful than one that only does half.
I don't know. I still think they'd be good for AA and fire support if nothing else. That way if you need them you've got them. After that I guess it comes down to intelligence. If they have more of one you bring more of the other so they're always under gunned.
-
Was there an errata I missed or am I reading things wrong because I don't see anywhere that 2 standard lasers equal 1 RE laser.
Nope, no errata you missed.
You are absolutely correct and it has been pointed out in the past, but was ignored.
-
I think most people can agree that Large Re-Lasers do have a role on the battlefield, punching through the hardened armor of beasts such as the Shiro, Stalker II, etc. If you disagree, that's fine, but I'll warn you that I'm not getting into a quoting war over it.
I find the Medium Re-Laser also has a use ATM - it can blast through the rear armor of many canon 'mechs. This might be construed as not being a true advantage of the weapon, but one of the metagame instead, but it's still an advantage that I can use on the battlefield. Prey Seekers and their ilk are usable units to me, and their low(er) BV certainly helps.
Small Re-Lasers though...I dunno. The only machine I've found that uses them in an interesting fashion is the Night Stalker variant which makes a good Reflective/Hardened armor 'mech hunter, but even then I'm not completely sold.
-
Thanks DarkISI. I thought I'd gotten something wrong there.
-
I had no idea reengineered lasers were such a hot topic, to justify flame wars...
-
That's what happens when you get people who feel like they've been backed into a corner defending a weapon that is just flat out not able to compete on a normal battlefield without a lot of beneficial conditions.
-
We will have NO flame wars or flames or flamey opinions.
Such posts will be dealt with.
I hope I am clear enough.
Now. Please continue with your rational urbane discussion on a fantastic device in a made-up game world that has marginal bearing on real life troubles. Do not let me detain you.
-
Thanks. I can understand crit seeking but I would think you'd want a big punch to get through the armor as fast as possible. Especially when you don't have a lot of armor. But I think I'm missing something.
When did the damage reduction round up? ??? I just looked up Reflective Armor in the 2nd Ed of the TacOps PDF and it says to divide in half rounding down. So a small laser would do 1 point of damage, a medium 2 points of damage, and a large 4 points of damage.
Looking at Field Manual 3145 I would need 4 small lasers, 3 medium lasers, or 2+ large lasers to equal the damage of 1 small , medium, or large RE Laser. Doubling or tripling the amount of crits taken and gaining .5 to 2 additional tons depending on the size of weapons. Not to mention all the heat those weapons generate. If it weren't for range PPCS would be completely worse compared to RE Lasers. Was there an errata I missed or am I reading things wrong because I don't see anywhere that 2 standard lasers equal 1 RE laser.
What I am seeing is a big advantage for RE Lasers when used against those types of armors. A lot of the advantages RE Lasers have are flipped in standard lasers favor but against those armors RE Lasers have an overwhelming advantage.
The only actual numbers in this thread so far are the quick comparison I did for the small against Ferro-Lamellor armor, but it probably makes sense to repost the full numbers from the other thread so here they are. The other thread is locked so I cannot properly use the quote feature, but this was posted by Yeti and the post is in this embedded link (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/ground-combat/re-engineered-lasers/msg771994/#msg771994).
I just run the number, the only RE laser that seems worth taking is the large, medium and small get a very small advantage against reflective armor but lose against all other types.
Small Lasers
comparison 1 RE vs 3 std
weigth crits heat
RE 1.5t 1 5
std 1.5t 3 3
damage against different armor types
normal armor laser-reflective ferro-lamellor hardened
RE 4 4 4 4
std 9 3 6 4.5
Medium Lasers
comparison 2 RE vs 5 std
weigth crits heat
RE 5t 4 14
std 5t 5 15
damage against different armor types
normal armor laser-reflective ferro-lamellor hardened
RE 12 12 12 12
std 25 10 20 12.5
Large Lasers
comparison 5 RE vs 8 std
weigth crits heat
RE 40t 10 50
std 40t 16 64
damage against different armor types
normal armor laser-reflective ferro-lamellor hardened
RE 45 45 45 45
std 64 32 48 32
As you can see, only the large actually gets an advantage over standards when used against the armor types it is supposed to beat, especially when you factor in the increased chances of scoring TACs or head hits and the fact that internal structure is treated as standard armor so you will always have to do some damage to that if you want to actually destroy a target.
I am fuzzy about thresholding on airospace units. Do you threshold before or after dividing damage? Either way standard lasers were used for ages so switching to RE lasers shouldn't be a big deal. Longer ranged lasers might get a shot off sooner but at half damage. Then the range is closed and the RE lasers are doing full damage. I would think the same would go for AA units. Of course you want to keep them far away from the ground targets but you also want to make sure they don't come around for another pass. I would think that a laser that does full damage would be more useful than one that only does half.
I am not 100% certain, but I am fairly sure it is based on the actual damage dealt which means that reduction could be a lifesaver for a fighter equipped with it so bypassing it gives you a huge advantage there.
I don't know. I still think they'd be good for AA and fire support if nothing else. That way if you need them you've got them. After that I guess it comes down to intelligence. If they have more of one you bring more of the other so they're always under gunned.
No, the 2-X is way better. You only need one point of damage to force a control roll, and if they fail that they go plowing into the ground at supersonic speeds with predictable results. That means the only important things are range and accuracy, and the 2-X is king in both categories with either 27 or 30 hexes of range and a huge flack bonus when used against airborne targets.
-
I think it opens the way to superior armors, that would've been dubbed as OP, if such a weapon didn't exist to counter them. It's a way for battletech technology to keep evolving to the point that a 150 years of technological development do make a difference. 3025 tech shouldn't be comparable to DA tech. If you brought a WWI armor battalion to a modern battlefield, it probably wouldn't even stand up to a light infantry platoon.
-
Diablo, I'm going to ask a question and I'd like an answer.
Do you feel that two LPPC are superior to a single PPC? If not, why not?
-
I suspect he'll say what already been pointed out: 10 points actually matters, 5 points doesn't. The reason being that the common armor levels (around 20 points on average) means that with 10-point hits you have a good chance of actually punching a hole before you've spread damage all over the target (i.e. sandblasting) while 5-pointers have very little chance of beating the odds.
Against fighters it's much the same (10 points TAC most things, 5 points don't). Against vehicles of course you want as many hits as possible, but then you want missiles or LB-X anyway!
Which of course means the ReLL might actually be worthwhile if you expect to meet a lot of reflec/hardened, but the small/medium are really wasted page space. If they had caused 6 and 9 points respectively (with the large pushed up to 10) they would have been a fair investment.
-
Diablo
First, apologies for not replying normally. I'm not allowed. I'll probably be in trouble just for replying. :( but hopefully my reply will make sense anyway.
The numbers you provided are nice but I'm not sure how practical they are. How many units can carry 40 tons of large lasers with enough heat sinks to use them? ??? It looks like Yeti went by matching weights but still 40 tons of laser requiring 25 to 32 tons of heat sinks to cool? I'm not sure that's possible on a Mech. Not only that but it just compares things based on weight alone. If you base the numbers on other things it changes a lot.
I'm also not sure about the damage. The damage for standards is most likely spread out so it isn't 3 points of damage compared to 4 but three 1 point hits compared to one 4 point hit. That's great for crit seeking and whatnot but wouldn't 2 LRM-5s or 4 SRM-2s be even better? Also while you're crit seeking aren't you giving up big hits that would wear down armor faster?
I'm not sure but did you agree that RE Lasers against those armored fighters is a good thing? I do agree that LB-X2a are great against aircraft but a good and/or lucky pilot with a well armored fighter will keep coming back. A pilot that just lost a good chunk of their armor might not. And if they did it'd be a fewer number of times they could. Right? So pairing the two on a couple units would be a good thing right? One plinks away with the LB-X2 and if the fighter keeps coming it gets swatted by the one with the RE laser.
I don't know. I guess I don't see RE lasers as the replacement for others but as an addition to them.
-
I suspect he'll say what already been pointed out: 10 points actually matters, 5 points doesn't. The reason being that the common armor levels (around 20 points on average) means that with 10-point hits you have a good chance of actually punching a hole before you've spread damage all over the target (i.e. sandblasting) while 5-pointers have very little chance of beating the odds.
Against fighters it's much the same (10 points TAC most things, 5 points don't). Against vehicles of course you want as many hits as possible, but then you want missiles or LB-X anyway!
Which of course means the ReLL might actually be worthwhile if you expect to meet a lot of reflec/hardened, but the small/medium are really wasted page space. If they had caused 6 and 9 points respectively (with the large pushed up to 10) they would have been a fair investment.
That is about right across the board, although I do feel like the combination of the LPPC and HPPC can make the old standard feel a little bit superfluous in a lot of cases. The LPPCs are better if you want to sandblast things without worrying about penetration and the 15-point chop from the HPPC is far more threatening than the 10 from the PPC. It does still have its uses, but they are getting smaller and smaller with each new weapon introduced.
Diablo
First, apologies for not replying normally. I'm not allowed. I'll probably be in trouble just for replying. :( but hopefully my reply will make sense anyway.
The numbers you provided are nice but I'm not sure how practical they are. How many units can carry 40 tons of large lasers with enough heat sinks to use them? ??? It looks like Yeti went by matching weights but still 40 tons of laser requiring 25 to 32 tons of heat sinks to cool? I'm not sure that's possible on a Mech. Not only that but it just compares things based on weight alone. If you base the numbers on other things it changes a lot.
While you cannot reasonably mount that many of each gun on anything smaller than a DropShip, it is still a useful point of comparison because it gives you an idea of how they stack up on a per-ton basis. You will probably not exactly match the weights, but you can use that weight difference for other stuff which is usually fairly well balanced around the 3025-era gear so it is essentially the same. You might wind up with a slightly different performance envelope if you use that mass for LRMs, but it is not objectively better or worse, just different. Also, those numbers show that the large does actually give you an advantage against the armors it is supposed to beat so the minutia of the numbers there really just boils down to nitpicking because we have already established that the weapon works.
You are right that the comparison would have been better if the weight of the required DHS had been factored in to leave only crits as a floating variable, but the point still stands that the small and medium are not worth the weight because they are very close to each other on heat and crits so the numbers there are at least very close to accurate.
I'm also not sure about the damage. The damage for standards is most likely spread out so it isn't 3 points of damage compared to 4 but three 1 point hits compared to one 4 point hit. That's great for crit seeking and whatnot but wouldn't 2 LRM-5s or 4 SRM-2s be even better? Also while you're crit seeking aren't you giving up big hits that would wear down armor faster?
4 points of damage does not make a hole, that is smaller than a LRM Cluster. At that point you are firmly in the critseeking and sandblasting category so more hits is more useful than the marginal damage concentration. You are going to have to grind through all their armor no matter what so the critseeking is better than nothing. For reference, I generally consider 5-point hits to be the absolute least useful form of damage in the game because it is not concentrated enough to make a serious dent in armor so there is no hole punching power and it is too concentrated to really critseek effectively so all it does is sandblast armor.
I'm not sure but did you agree that RE Lasers against those armored fighters is a good thing? I do agree that LB-X2a are great against aircraft but a good and/or lucky pilot with a well armored fighter will keep coming back. A pilot that just lost a good chunk of their armor might not. And if they did it'd be a fewer number of times they could. Right? So pairing the two on a couple units would be a good thing right? One plinks away with the LB-X2 and if the fighter keeps coming it gets swatted by the one with the RE laser.
That was air-to-air only, and even then that only applied to the large. ASFs behave very differently in air to air combat than they do when engaging ground targets. In the air you cannot usually force them to lawn dart because they have too much altitude so that PSR looses its teeth and the 2-X becomes useless, but when they are attacking ground targets failing that PSR is essentially instant death so nothing else matters.
This means the 2-X is the king of ground to air work with other long range flack weapons filtering in behind it, and air-to-air work is dominated by what 'Mech jocks think of as hole punching weapons (AC/20, HGR, Gauss Rifle, HPPC, ect).
I don't know. I guess I don't see RE lasers as the replacement for others but as an addition to them.
The problem is that outside the large, they do not even do that. The standard Medium and Small Lasers do just as good a job as the RE-Lasers in the cases where the new technology is supposed to shine while performing far better in all other cases so there is no reason to ever use them.
-
I don't know. Numbers can be made to say a lot of things. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. It's just that if I were in close with a unit mounting reflective armor I'd want 1 small RE laser because I'd need 4 standard small lasers, and probably a targeting computer and so on to do the same job. Otherwise I'm maybe sandblasting. Getting crits is good but I don't want to rely on maybes. I want to put that unit down as fast as possible. That's getting through the armor and to the crits. That extra .5 tons could come in handy for something else too. And then there's the crits I'd need to mount all the extra lasers. They may not be available.
Of course Id I'm going up against a different unit I might want something else. I'd take a standard medium over a small RE if going up against standard armor. Of course if we're just talking tonnage I'd take 2 mediums over the 4 small when up against reflective armor. Then I'd have to weight the range advantage and sandblasting over a solid shot ranged hit. Which of course screws with the numbers that were posted.
Ah okay. Thanks. Still, with more aerospace units using reflective armor I would think re small and mediums would be more welcome since you'd spend more tonnage on standard to do the same damage. And then they'd be sandblasting. I suppose when it comes to aero units I miss Aerotech 1's more damage location. PSRs weren't so much a concern then when the AA unit could shoot off a wing. Now you have to hope for failed PSRs because there's more armor in fewer locations to get through.
When it comes to PPCs I think I'd prefer the standard to 2 light PPCs. The Standard gives you more damage than both the lights against reflective armor.
-
I don't know. Numbers can be made to say a lot of things. I'm not saying they're right or wrong.
Ok, go ahead and play with the numbers then. See if you can come up with any kind of argument based on actual data for the existence of the small or medium. I can clearly see that there is no value at all because any slight advantage you could come up with will be more than offset by the fact that 1/3 of the total damage you will have to do goes into what is essentially standard plate, but feel free to prove me wrong.
It's just that if I were in close with a unit mounting reflective armor I'd want 1 small RE laser because I'd need 4 standard small lasers, and probably a targeting computer and so on to do the same job. Otherwise I'm maybe sandblasting. Getting crits is good but I don't want to rely on maybes. I want to put that unit down as fast as possible. That's getting through the armor and to the crits. That extra .5 tons could come in handy for something else too. And then there's the crits I'd need to mount all the extra lasers. They may not be available.
4 points is not a hole puncher and it is not getting through the armor any faster than the 1-point plinks will. Combat units just have too much armor for the difference in concentration to matter so the chance at TACs or pilot damage are a much better deal.
Also, there is no accuracy difference, the RE-laser is just more descretized so it will look bigger. They will both do the exact same average damage. That is how probabilities work.
Of course Id I'm going up against a different unit I might want something else. I'd take a standard medium over a small RE if going up against standard armor. Of course if we're just talking tonnage I'd take 2 mediums over the 4 small when up against reflective armor. Then I'd have to weight the range advantage and sandblasting over a solid shot ranged hit. Which of course screws with the numbers that were posted.
Yeah, Small Lasers of all forms have always been more notable in that they fit in a half-ton slot than any kind of performance advantage outside a handful of very specialized niches.
Ah okay. Thanks. Still, with more aerospace units using reflective armor I would think re small and mediums would be more welcome since you'd spend more tonnage on standard to do the same damage. And then they'd be sandblasting. I suppose when it comes to aero units I miss Aerotech 1's more damage location. PSRs weren't so much a concern then when the AA unit could shoot off a wing. Now you have to hope for failed PSRs because there's more armor in fewer locations to get through.
It does not matter. What matters air to air is cluster size, and 6 points is not enough to worry anything bigger than a light so there is really no point.
When it comes to PPCs I think I'd prefer the standard to 2 light PPCs. The Standard gives you more damage than both the lights against reflective armor.
That is a tiny advantage against that only applies when used against a relatively uncommon armor type so I do not worry about it. Reflective is really only worth considering with RE-Lasers because that is what they are supposed to be good at, and even there I have serious doubts that the niche is worth worrying about at all because you can just point a Gauss Rifle at the problem and laugh.
-
Well, except for when your Gauss Rifle has blown through it's 8 shots/ton of ammo, or it gets critted and does 2 pilot hits to you.
-
I'm not allowed to prove anyone wrong, nor am I saying that you are. But if I look at damage I need 4 standard small lasers to equal 1 re small laser against reflective armor. That's 1 extra half ton and 3 extra critical slots. I'm also sand blasting instead of solid hitting. Against standard armor though for for 1.5 tons I'd go with a medium and a small laser than the small re laser.
Also not every unit has 40 points of armor per location. Many have less than 10 points and losing 40% or more of their protection in that location compared to 10% is going to be a big deal.And again TACs can be great but I don't want to have to rely on maybes.
When it comes to air to air isn't a 6 point hit better than a 2 point hit? :-\
It is a tiny advantage but it still is one. There's also 10 points of damage being more threatening than a couple of 5s. But if someone wants to use 2 light PPCs instrad of a single PPC that's okay with me. There's also the fact that not every unit can weild a guass rifle but if you got one. >:D
-
I'm not allowed to prove anyone wrong, nor am I saying that you are.
Why not? It is just some basic math and this is the perfect place to dump the numbers.
But if I look at damage I need 4 standard small lasers to equal 1 re small laser against reflective armor. That's 1 extra half ton and 3 extra critical slots.
It is also 1 less heat which requires half a DHS (because we can totally do that ;D) to dissipate for the RE-Lasers which costs you .5 tons and 1.5 crits so the net difference is 1.5 extra crits for weapons that will deal 3 times the damage once they get through the armor.
I'm also sand blasting instead of solid hitting. Against standard armor though for for 1.5 tons I'd go with a medium and a small laser than the small re laser.
Also not every unit has 40 points of armor per location. Many have less than 10 points and losing 40% or more of their protection in that location compared to 10% is going to be a big deal.
That is really not a valid argument. Very few units (as a percentage of total units) have that little armor on any front location (with the obvious exception of the head), and the ones that do are almost always fast enough to guarantee the smalls will never get in range. Furthermore, if they do have 10 points of armor there is no functional difference between 1 point and 4 points because a 4-point hit leaves them with 6 points which will still stop a small clusters so it is not a big deal, and 9 points is not enough to stop the 10 point hits that they are really worried about from penetrating. Also, this only applies to units with Reflective Armor and I would be very surprised if there are more than one or two with thin enough armor that 4 points would actually worry them.
And again TACs can be great but I don't want to have to rely on maybes.
Agreed, but it is better than nothing which is what the 4-point cluster gets you.
When it comes to air to air isn't a 6 point hit better than a 2 point hit? :-\
Not really. You have to beat a threshold based on their armor to get a crit, and most ASFs can take a 6 point cluster because they have so few facings to armor.
It is a tiny advantage but it still is one. There's also 10 points of damage being more threatening than a couple of 5s. But if someone wants to use 2 light PPCs instrad of a single PPC that's okay with me. There's also the fact that not every unit can weild a guass rifle but if you got one. >:D
Honestly, I do agree with that logic outside the edge case that is Reflective Armor, but I also extend it to include the HPPC which is an order of magnitude more threatening than the standard because it is a headcapper.
As for the Gauss Rifle, it is far from the only option, it is just an all around exceptional weapon for anything big enough to mount one. You can get LRMs or SRMs on anything, and the recent proliferation of conventional units has made SRMs more valuable than ever for their ability to carry Infernos. There is also the option of breaking out AE weapons like the artillery cannons because they do double damage to Reflective Armor or rushing into melee to exploit that vulnerability.
Hm, that just reminded me of yet another nail in the RE Small's coffin. Its range is so short that you are practically in melee anyways which is something every design with Reflective Armor wants to avoid like the plague because melee attacks do double damage to Reflective Armor. Even a 20 ton 'Mech will gain 4 points of damage from this, and heavies and assaults get huge can openers for free (and a TSM Berzerker will annihilate anything it hits with an insane 80 point axe blow).
-
Can't go into it.
You have to get through the armor first.
It happens enough to put small lasers on things
It's 4 points less armor.
Oh okay. I don't play Aero too much.
Sure the HPPC is great. But it's also heavy and generates lots of heat. Not every unit can carry it.
Most of those are also a lot heavier too.
Wowey! 80 points is a lot! But it still has to get into range though. RE small lasers may not have a lot of range but it is greater than physical ranger.
-
Can't go into it.
You have to get through the armor first.
Yes, but getting through the armor does not destroy a 'Mech and you will have to chew through at least half as much IS as you did armor. I am going to mathematically demonstrate this by assuming the best case scenario for the RE-Laser which is 100% of possible armor protecting that IS and I will pick easy numbers for the math which will be 24 armor and 12 IS. That means it will take 6, 4-point hits from the RE Laser to get through the armor (6*4=24) and 3 hits to get through the IS (3*4=12) to destroy the location for a total of 9 hits which naturally takes 9 turns. The standard smalls will need 24 hits to get through the armor, but only 4 hits (4*3=12) to destroy the IS for a total of 28 hits which takes 9.33 turns with 3 lasers or 7 hits with 4 lasers. Given that 4 standard lasers have almost exactly the same profile as the single RE-Laser once you account for DHS as demonstrated earlier, we can clearly see that the standards beat the RE-Laser in what is supposed to be a best-case scenario for it. Indeed, it is so bad that we can knock off one of the standard smalls and still come out almost exactly even when ignoring the extra heat of the RE-Laser, and that is still using the best possible situation for the RE-Laser.
It happens enough to put small lasers on things
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
It's 4 points less armor.
It is 4 points less armor either way. The smaller hits just give you much better odds of scoring a TAC or head hit in the process.
Oh okay. I don't play Aero too much.
Sure the HPPC is great. But it's also heavy and generates lots of heat. Not every unit can carry it.
Most of those are also a lot heavier too.
It is not all that much heavier than the standard PPC, and the difference in impact is far out of proportion to the extra weight you pay to get it. Also, anything that does not have room for the HPPC probably has the kind of speed that makes the ERPPC a much better buy to help keep the enemy's TNs up too high for them to effectively retaliate.
Wowey! 80 points is a lot! But it still has to get into range though. RE small lasers may not have a lot of range but it is greater than physical ranger.
The range difference is negligible, although I do agree that getting into range is going to be a major issue for that Berserker because nothing with reflective armor wants to risk letting it get on the same mapsheet as them for obvious reasons.
-
Let's see, 24 hits over 10 turns or 9 hits over 9 turns. I think I'll stick with the RE Laser. There's a lot less presumptions with it.
I did say TACs were nice. I just don't want to rely on them.
Acturally, if I had to name a weapon that was bad I'd probably go with the HPPC. The Clan ERPPC does everything the HPPC does and is 4 tons and 2 crits less than it. I still like it and it's still useful for lower tech places but if the Clan ERPPC is available there's no reason to use the HPPC.
Yeah. That's a Mech to stay away from.
-
Clan tech is better than Inner Sphere tech.
I feel the need to point out how utterly useless this kind of statement is. It's totally unhelpful for the discussion (on top of being a good example of why Clan tech is awesome, not why IS tech is garbage) on top of being tangential at best. You might as well say the IS ER PPC is utter garbage because the Clan version does 50% more damage for a ton less and similar heat. You might as well say that IS LRMs are garbage because the Clan version is half the weight. None of the above statements are true, and it's the most egregious example of comparing apples and oranges and then declaring apples must be worse than oranges because oranges have citric acid in them. Totally arbitrary and unhelpful.
-
I feel the need to point out how utterly useless this kind of statement is. It's totally unhelpful for the discussion (on top of being a good example of why Clan tech is awesome, not why IS tech is garbage) on top of being tangential at best. You might as well say the IS ER PPC is utter garbage because the Clan version does 50% more damage for a ton less and similar heat. You might as well say that IS LRMs are garbage because the Clan version is half the weight. None of the above statements are true, and it's the most egregious example of comparing apples and oranges and then declaring apples must be worse than oranges because oranges have citric acid in them. Totally arbitrary and unhelpful.
Actually, you could say that about the IS ERPPC and IS LRMs. That doesn't mean I wouldn't use them. And the HPPC was brought into the discussion because it was a headcapper. Which is great but not every unit can use it because of it's weight and bulk. Just like not every unit has weight and space crits to mount 4 small lasers compared to 1 RE small laser. But if it is garbage because it heavier than small lasers wouldn't the same be true of the HPPC compared to the Clan ERPPC?
Personally, I don't see the hate for it. Against certain armors its a single weapon that does the same damage as multiple standard weapons. I think that's a good thing. Against the other armor types it isn't as great but that extra point of damage could be useful. But then those other armors aren't it's intended opponent. RE Lasers are more tactical weapons than general purpose weapons.
-
Let's see, 24 hits over 10 turns or 9 hits over 9 turns. I think I'll stick with the RE Laser. There's a lot less presumptions with it.
First, that was 7 turns with equivalent payloads, not 10. Second, that is the best possible case scenario for the RE-Lasers and is thrown off in favor of the standard smalls if the target is hit with absolutely anything else. Third, there are no more presumptions with one over the other, I only assumed that they would both hit 100% of the time because misses will affect both equally.
I did say TACs were nice. I just don't want to rely on them.
I never said I was relying on them. In fact, I have been explicitly ignoring them in every calculation which just goes to show how bad the RE-Lasers are because they cannot even compete with the standards when I hobble them by ignoring a major advantage they have.
Acturally, if I had to name a weapon that was bad I'd probably go with the HPPC. The Clan ERPPC does everything the HPPC does and is 4 tons and 2 crits less than it. I still like it and it's still useful for lower tech places but if the Clan ERPPC is available there's no reason to use the HPPC.
That is a supremely useless comment. The Clan ERPPC renders every single medium or long range weapon the IS has obsolete as anything but special effect dispensers, and even that is highly questionable outside vehicles. Honestly, it even makes the standard Medium Laser a very questionable choice because the Clan ERPPC will generally serve you better outside 3 hexes unless you have an exceptionally good gunner, and the ER models are totally outperformed at all ranges.
Actually, you could say that about the IS ERPPC and IS LRMs. That doesn't mean I wouldn't use them. And the HPPC was brought into the discussion because it was a headcapper. Which is great but not every unit can use it because of it's weight and bulk. Just like not every unit has weight and space crits to mount 4 small lasers compared to 1 RE small laser. But if it is garbage because it heavier than small lasers wouldn't the same be true of the HPPC compared to the Clan ERPPC?
Personally, I don't see the hate for it. Against certain armors its a single weapon that does the same damage as multiple standard weapons. I think that's a good thing. Against the other armor types it isn't as great but that extra point of damage could be useful. But then those other armors aren't it's intended opponent. RE Lasers are more tactical weapons than general purpose weapons.
Let me summarize this in one sentence.
RE-Lasers do not have a viable niche.
The numbers are such that they do not do the job that is presented as being their niche any better than the standard lasers they are supposed to beat there, and they fall off very hard everywhere else so they do not do their job.
-
Ok, go ahead and play with the numbers then. See if you can come up with any kind of argument based on actual data for the existence of the small or medium.
Battle Armour mounting special armours. A Re-Engineered laser will kill off a trouper (and thus reduce the firepower of the squad/point by 25~20% respectively) in far fewer turns than a pair of standard lasers will.
But this is where the endless arguing begins:
1) Someone asks what use a Re-Engineered Laser has
2) Someone replies that Re-Engineered Lasers have a niche use at X
3) Original person replies that weapon Y is better at use X than the Re-Engineered laser (E.g, someone will say to just bring a SRM with Infernos)
Which is moving the goal posts.
-
RE-lasers lose to standard lasers when employed in large numbers shooting at a single target location.
This is not something that will occur in actual play. Ever.
-
RE-lasers lose to standard lasers when employed in large numbers shooting at a single target location.
This is not something that will occur in actual play. Ever.
Indeed. A lot of the Battletech weapons can be classified as either 'hole punchers' (for lack of a better term) like Gauss Rifles and AC20s that deal a lot of damage to a single location and the 'Damage over time' or 'sandblasters' like SRMs and LBx.
A battery of SRMs or Medium lasers may do more damage over time than an AC20 but the AC20 can cripple a light or medium 'mech in one shot. Most people here can agree that both types have their uses.
The Re-Engineered lasers fall between the two against special armours. Medium lasers essentially become SRMs against special armour, the Re-Engineered lasers perform similar to their standard equivalents against regular armour, and the big guns (Gauss Rifles, AC20s, whatever) remain the big guns.
Anytime you'd use a medium laser instead of, say, SRMs or an AC20 is when you'd use a Re-Engineered medium laser against a unit with special armour. That's their niche.
-
RE-lasers lose to standard lasers when employed in large numbers shooting at a single target location.
This is not something that will occur in actual play. Ever.
Lots of the sorts of analyses used for comparison will rarely-to-never occur in actual play. That doesn't make them useless as a means of comparing the two systems.
-
Lots of the sorts of analyses used for comparison will rarely-to-never occur in actual play. That doesn't make them useless as a means of comparing the two systems.
It also doesn't make them gospel for determining the relative worth of weapons.
-
That's true. Is there an alternative that works better?
-
Sure. Actual gameplay. Say...take a Prey Hunter and a Prey Hunter variant that replaces the REL with standards. Run engagements against the same enemy on the same map.
-
How many times did you run it? What were the results? Did you do anything similar with REL or RESes?
-
How many times did you run it? What were the results? Did you do anything similar with REL or RESes?
Irrelevant. I'm not the one declaring the weapons are useless based on a test that will never occur in actual gameplay.
-
The real problem with Re-engineered lasers is how relatively rare the armor types they're superior to standard lasers against are. Even in 3145 there are only a few dozen at best mechs, vehicles, and battle armor types that mount such armor, so you really have to know ahead of time that you'll be facing a Stalker II or Gunsmith before choosing to take a unit with RE Lasers is a good decision.
-
Irrelevant. I'm not the one declaring the weapons are useless based on a test that will never occur in actual gameplay.
But you're saying that they are useful, without having ever tested that? Since you can't actually prove a negative, it' impossible to prove they're useless, just as it's impossible to prove the non-existence of bigfoot or aliens. The burden of proof is on the folks making testable statements, ie "They're not useless in actual gameplay." Can you offer any proof of that?
-
The burden of proof is on the folks making testable statements, ie "They're not useless in actual gameplay." Can you offer any proof of that?
So your default stance on all new equipment is "That's useless"? Or is it just the RE-laser that you've decided to single out? If it's just the RE-laser, what's your actual testable proof that it is? And no, the example that will never appear in game play does. not. count.
-
OK, I actually ran a test. Two modified Hitotsume Kozos. One with two medium re-lasers, one large re-laser, one SRM-6, 13 double heat sinks. The other with seven medium lasers, one large laser, one SRM-6 and 14 double heat sinks. No jump jets for either because I felt they would skew the results.
End results: 6-4 in favor of the standard laser machine. Now, the thing that won it more games wasn't the actual amount of damage that it was putting out, but rather the fact that it was forcing PSRs all the time and causing the Re-Laser machine to fall more often than not. This caused the Re-Laser mech's TH numbers to go up, causing it to land even fewer hits. The games that the Re-Laser machine won were because of its superior hole-punching.
I think this shows my biggest problem with Re-Lasers: their inability to force PSRs. If a medium (standard) laser hits hardened armor, it deals 2.5 damage to the armor but counts as 5 damage for PSR calculations. If a medium Re-Laser hits hardened armor, it deals 6 damage to the armor but still only counts as 6 damage for PSR calculations. This seems really backwards to me. If it were changed (either having the standard laser only counting as dealing 2.5 damage for PSR calculations OR having the medium Re-Laser count as 12 damage) it would suddenly give Re-Lasers a much better chance at performing well when compared to standard lasers.
-
So your default stance on all new equipment is "That's useless"? Or is it just the RE-laser that you've decided to single out? If it's just the RE-laser, what's your actual testable proof that it is? And no, the example that will never appear in game play does. not. count.
The argument here is on the RE Laser, I'd rather stay on topic. But any time new equipment comes out, the first questions asked about it are invariably going to be along the lines of "What does it do? When do you use it? Why use it over [insert older, proven tech here]?" Sometimes, like for Gauss Rifles or DHS, the answer is obvious. But in this case, I've yet to see any reason to use an RE Laser besides New Toy Syndrome or TPTB's penchant for deliberately-suboptimal designs. So, if you're arguing that thy're useful, great. What for? Let's see some examples.
As far as examples that aren't found in gameplay, aren't the ones that have been presented simply applications of the scientific method? When conducting an experiment, you want to eliminate as many variables as possible. Ideally, you have one single variable that separates the experimental group from the control group. That looks like what's going on here. Rather than try to extrapolate results through the vagaries of to-hit number, randomly-rolled location, etc, you have folks saying "Given an armor slab of x thickness, how many hits does an RE Laser take to burn through it? How many hist does a standard laser take?" Or, given that the previous is know, "Given an equal tonnage (or heat, or critspace allotment, or what have you) of RE Lasers and equivalent standard lasers, how many turns does each take to burn through an armor slab of x thickness?" Sure, odds are good you'll never come up against such a situation in the game (though yes, it could happen), but the examples are still helpful.
-
I think this shows my biggest problem with Re-Lasers: their inability to force PSRs. If a medium (standard) laser hits hardened armor, it deals 2.5 damage to the armor but counts as 5 damage for PSR calculations. If a medium Re-Laser hits hardened armor, it deals 6 damage to the armor but still only counts as 6 damage for PSR calculations.
Where exactly did you come to this rules conclusion?
-
Where exactly did you come to this rules conclusion?
Here:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/supplementary-rules/%28answered%29-re-engineered-lasers-versus-hardened-armor-concerning-psrs/
I might be misunderstanding it though.
-
This, too: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/general-discussion/tro-3145-free-worlds-league/msg719951/#msg719951 It's been quoted at least a time or two outside the original thread when the subject comes up.
-
But you're saying that they are useful, without having ever tested that? Since you can't actually prove a negative, it' impossible to prove they're useless, just as it's impossible to prove the non-existence of bigfoot or aliens. The burden of proof is on the folks making testable statements, ie "They're not useless in actual gameplay." Can you offer any proof of that?
I have. You have, as well, with proxies. Do you ever use Medium lasers instead of SRMs? What would you rather have, 2 Medium lasers or a SRM4 for dealing with Battle Armour? For attacking the undamaged rear armour of a 'mech? If you've ever played with a unit that has both medium lasers and SRMs on it, which weapons do you fire first?
I'm on break at work, so I'll keep this quick and not actually bother with MegaMek. We can simulate 'gameplay' right now. I will cut corners and assume all shots will be hits.
2 Re-Engineered Lasers: 5 tons, 4 crits, 14 heat, 12 damage (in two groups of 6 damage)
5 Medium Lasers: 5 tons, 5 crits, 15 heat, 25/10 damage (in five groups of 5/2 damage)* *- First number is against standard armour, second number is against reflective.
2 Re-Engineered Medium Lasers vs a squad of Kishi Battle Armour (From the preview of TRO3145: Draconis Combine)
It has 7 points of Reflective Armour (+1 for the trooper)
From [url=http://www.random.org]Random.Org[/url] Dice Roller:
20 Virtual Dice Roll Results: 1,2,5,2,1,1,5,4,5,4,2,3,3,1,6,3,5,1,1,3
Turn 1:
- Trooper 1: Hit for 6 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
- Trooper 2: Hit for 6 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Turn 2:
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '2'
- Trooper 2: Hit for 6 damage. Dead.
- Trooper 1: Hit for 6 damage. Dead.
Turn 3: (Squad is now at 50% effectiveness)
Result of 1 is 'Rerolled' due to trooper 1 being killed on the previous turn. Skipped to the next result of '5'
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 2 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '4'
- Trooper 4: Hit for 6 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to the squad only having 2 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '4'
- Trouper 4: Hit for 6 damage. Dead
Turn 4: (Squad is now at 25% effectiveness. All die results will be rerolled until the only remaining trooper is hit)
- Trooper 3: Hit for 6 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
- Trooper 3: Hit for 6 damage. Dead.
***Squad is dead in 4 turns.***
5 Medium Lasers vs a squad of Kishi Battle Armour (From the preview of TRO3145: Draconis Combine)
It has 7 points of Reflective Armour (+1 for the trooper)
From [url=http://www.random.org]Random.Org[/url] Dice Roller:
20 Virtual Dice Roll Results: 1,2,5,2,1,1,5,4,5,4,2,3,3,1,6,3,5,1,1,3
Turn 1:
- Trooper 1: Hit for 2 damage. 5 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 2: Hit for 2 damage. 5 Armour points remaining
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '2'
- Trooper 2: Hit for 2 damage. 3 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 1: Hit for 2 damage. 3 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 1: Hit for 2 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Turn 2:
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '4'
- Trooper 4: Hit for 2 damage. 5 Armour points remaining
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '4'
- Trooper 4: Hit for 2 damage. 3 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 2: Hit for 2 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
- Trooper 3: Hit for 2 damage. 5 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 3: Hit for 2 damage. 3 Armour points remaining
Turn 3:
- Trooper 1: Hit for 2 damage. Dead
Result of 6 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '3'
- Trooper 3: Hit for 2 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '1'
- Trooper 1: Hit for 0 damage. Already dead this turn.
- Trooper 1: Hit for 0 damage. Already dead this turn.
- Trooper 3: Hit for 2 damage. Dead.
Turn 4: (Squad is now at 50% effectiveness)
[Additional dice rolled: 4,5,6,2,6,3,6,1,2,5,6,5,4,1,6,5,4,4,3,6]
- Trooper 4: Hit for 2 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Results 5 and 6 'Rerolled'
- Trooper 2: Hit for 2 damage. Dead.
Results 6,3,6 and 1 'Rerolled'
-Trooper 2: Hit for 0 damage. Already dead this turn.
Results 5,6 and 5 'Rerolled'
-Trooper 4: Hit for 2 damage. Dead.
***Squad is dead in 4 turns***
Now, while both the 2 Re-Engineered Lasers and the 5 Medium lasers killed the squad in 4 turns, you'll note that the squad was crippled more quickly with the Re-Engineered Lasers.
This example is also in favour of the Medium lasers because:
-It 'only' takes 4 hits from a medium laser to kill a trooper, whereas the 2 lasers from a Re-Engineered Medium laser results in a lot of 'wasted' damage (~50% more damage is expended on a trooper than is required).
If we used a heavier suit- for example a medium suit with 10 or 11 points of reflective armour it would take six shots from a medium laser to do what a pair of Re-Engineered medium lasers could do.
-
Here:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/supplementary-rules/%28answered%29-re-engineered-lasers-versus-hardened-armor-concerning-psrs/
I might be misunderstanding it though.
Thanks, I missed that one. :)
-
But in this case, I've yet to see any reason to use an RE Laser besides New Toy Syndrome or TPTB's penchant for deliberately-suboptimal designs. So, if you're arguing that thy're useful, great. What for? Let's see some examples.
Zou Heavy Battle Armor: It will take 6 hits from standard medium lasers to kill a single suit. It will take 2 hits from RE-mediums to kill a single suit. Of course, hits are randomized among a squad of 4 troopers, so best-case scenario for ML or ERML shooting a squad of Zou is 6 hits. Worst case is 21 hits before a trooper dies. Now the RE-ML. Best case is 2 hits. Worst case is 5 hits. Yes, worst case for REML fire is better than the best case for ML fire.
Kamakiri VTOL: 7 hits by REML on the front armor kill the VTOL. It will take 19 hits from standard ML fire to do the same.
Narukami Heavy Tank: 8 hits from REML on the front armor will kill the tank. It will take 19 hits (because Hardened tracks fractions) for ML to kill the tank.
But wait, you say. 'Mechs can just mount hordes of ML to cancel this out! That assume these hordes of ML will *all hit the same location*. Let's run another math experiment. A 'Mech with Ferro-Lamellor armor is destroyed by 2 REML hits to the head or by 3 standard ML hits to the head. On the surface, this favors the ML machine. However the odds of this occuring are 1/1296 for the REML shots and 1/46656 for the ML shots if my math is correct. And that is where "single hit location" analysis falls apart.
-
But wait, you say. 'Mechs can just mount hordes of ML to cancel this out! That assume these hordes of ML will *all hit the same location*. Let's run another math experiment. A 'Mech with Ferro-Lamellor armor is destroyed by 2 REML hits to the head or by 3 standard ML hits to the head. On the surface, this favors the ML machine. However the odds of this occuring are 1/1296 for the REML shots and 1/46656 for the ML shots if my math is correct. And that is where "single hit location" analysis falls apart.
But wait, I say. Due to the numbers of locations 'Mechs have and armor, greater damage potential has a higher likelihood of ending the battle faster than miraculous shot groupings. Two RE MLs against five normal MLs, you're seeing a damage potential disparity of 12 damage versus 20. The latter is also actually capable of forcing a PSR once in a blue moon. This is a concrete and quantifiable advantage (against Ferro-Lamellor, much less regular armor!), where as your rebuttal uses at its central focus an event that has a less than 0.1% greater likelihood of happening than the alternative. And that is where "Re-Engineered Lasers" fall apart.
-
Hardly. I chose that for an extreme example.
Let's take the Rokokubri. 5 points of hardened Rear Center Torso Armor. It will take a single REML to go internal and do damage. This is a 1/6 chance.
Standard Medium Lasers? It will take 3 hits to go internal, being a 1/216 chance.
The Wendigo! This time you need 2 REML to go internal on the rear CT, making it a 1/36 chance. However you'd need FIVE standard lasers.
The Hitotsume Kozo? A single REML to any rear torso goes internal, where you need 3 standard medium lasers. Two REMLs will penetrate the arms vs 5 hits needed from standard lasers.
-
Battle Armour mounting special armours. A Re-Engineered laser will kill off a trouper (and thus reduce the firepower of the squad/point by 25~20% respectively) in far fewer turns than a pair of standard lasers will.
That really only holds true at a few specific thresholds which you are not going to see all that often. Even against BA, odds are you will need multiple hits from either weapon system to knock out a suit so things will even out fairly quickly and get you back to grinding through a wall of armor with luck mattering more than which weapon you chose.
But this is where the endless arguing begins:
1) Someone asks what use a Re-Engineered Laser has
2) Someone replies that Re-Engineered Lasers have a niche use at X
3) Original person replies that weapon Y is better at use X than the Re-Engineered laser (E.g, someone will say to just bring a SRM with Infernos)
Which is moving the goal posts.
I have never done that. I limit my arguments to the RE-Lasers vs. the standard of the same model because while an artillery cannon will make a mess of any BA unit you point it at, it is a very different weapon with a very different roll that is not comparable to any of the lasers.
Indeed. A lot of the Battletech weapons can be classified as either 'hole punchers' (for lack of a better term) like Gauss Rifles and AC20s that deal a lot of damage to a single location and the 'Damage over time' or 'sandblasters' like SRMs and LBx.
A battery of SRMs or Medium lasers may do more damage over time than an AC20 but the AC20 can cripple a light or medium 'mech in one shot. Most people here can agree that both types have their uses.
The Re-Engineered lasers fall between the two against special armours. Medium lasers essentially become SRMs against special armour, the Re-Engineered lasers perform similar to their standard equivalents against regular armour, and the big guns (Gauss Rifles, AC20s, whatever) remain the big guns.
Anytime you'd use a medium laser instead of, say, SRMs or an AC20 is when you'd use a Re-Engineered medium laser against a unit with special armour. That's their niche.
The thing is, that cluster band is all about raw damage efficiency. You gain real advantage from either very concentrated damage or lots of hits, so the way weapons like the Medium Laser remain viable is by being one of the most efficient ways to pump out lots of raw damage to grind through heavy armor. By extension, the RE-Lasers should be filling the same roll because their cluster size is similar with twist of doing it against specialty armors, but the fact of the matter is that they are no more efficient than the degraded standard models in that roll so there is absolutely no reason to use them.
So your default stance on all new equipment is "That's useless"? Or is it just the RE-laser that you've decided to single out? If it's just the RE-laser, what's your actual testable proof that it is? And no, the example that will never appear in game play does. not. count.
I was going to keep ignoring you, but I had to respond to this complete butchery of logic. We have already provided an argument against the RE-Lasers backed up by mathematical reasoning. It may not be the most 100% rock solid bulletproof evidence ever because we did not chew through every possible statistical permutation, but it is still concrete evidence that the RE-Lasers do not work as intended. In order to refute that, you have to provide stronger counterevidence which I have yet to see in any form. The closest I have seen are cherry picked examples and individual incidents which are far from conclusive proof. After all, it is entirely possible for a Sucession Wars-era Wasp or Stinger to kill a Dire Wolf in a duel if the dice work out right, but no one in their right mind will claim the bugs are actually superior to that monster of an assault.
I have. You have, as well, with proxies. Do you ever use Medium lasers instead of SRMs? What would you rather have, 2 Medium lasers or a SRM4 for dealing with Battle Armour? For attacking the undamaged rear armour of a 'mech? If you've ever played with a unit that has both medium lasers and SRMs on it, which weapons do you fire first?
I'm on break at work, so I'll keep this quick and not actually bother with MegaMek. We can simulate 'gameplay' right now. I will cut corners and assume all shots will be hits.
2 Re-Engineered Lasers: 5 tons, 4 crits, 14 heat, 12 damage (in two groups of 6 damage)
5 Medium Lasers: 5 tons, 5 crits, 15 heat, 25/10 damage (in five groups of 5/2 damage)* *- First number is against standard armour, second number is against reflective.
2 Re-Engineered Medium Lasers vs a squad of Kishi Battle Armour (From the preview of TRO3145: Draconis Combine)
It has 7 points of Reflective Armour (+1 for the trooper)
From [url=http://www.random.org]Random.Org[/url] Dice Roller:
20 Virtual Dice Roll Results: 1,2,5,2,1,1,5,4,5,4,2,3,3,1,6,3,5,1,1,3
Turn 1:
- Trooper 1: Hit for 6 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
- Trooper 2: Hit for 6 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Turn 2:
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '2'
- Trooper 2: Hit for 6 damage. Dead.
- Trooper 1: Hit for 6 damage. Dead.
Turn 3: (Squad is now at 50% effectiveness)
Result of 1 is 'Rerolled' due to trooper 1 being killed on the previous turn. Skipped to the next result of '5'
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 2 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '4'
- Trooper 4: Hit for 6 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to the squad only having 2 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '4'
- Trouper 4: Hit for 6 damage. Dead
Turn 4: (Squad is now at 25% effectiveness. All die results will be rerolled until the only remaining trooper is hit)
- Trooper 3: Hit for 6 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
- Trooper 3: Hit for 6 damage. Dead.
***Squad is dead in 4 turns.***
5 Medium Lasers vs a squad of Kishi Battle Armour (From the preview of TRO3145: Draconis Combine)
It has 7 points of Reflective Armour (+1 for the trooper)
From [url=http://www.random.org]Random.Org[/url] Dice Roller:
20 Virtual Dice Roll Results: 1,2,5,2,1,1,5,4,5,4,2,3,3,1,6,3,5,1,1,3
Turn 1:
- Trooper 1: Hit for 2 damage. 5 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 2: Hit for 2 damage. 5 Armour points remaining
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '2'
- Trooper 2: Hit for 2 damage. 3 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 1: Hit for 2 damage. 3 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 1: Hit for 2 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Turn 2:
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '4'
- Trooper 4: Hit for 2 damage. 5 Armour points remaining
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '4'
- Trooper 4: Hit for 2 damage. 3 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 2: Hit for 2 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
- Trooper 3: Hit for 2 damage. 5 Armour points remaining
- Trooper 3: Hit for 2 damage. 3 Armour points remaining
Turn 3:
- Trooper 1: Hit for 2 damage. Dead
Result of 6 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '3'
- Trooper 3: Hit for 2 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Result of 5 is 'Rerolled' due to squad only having 4 troopers. Skipped to the next die result of '1'
- Trooper 1: Hit for 0 damage. Already dead this turn.
- Trooper 1: Hit for 0 damage. Already dead this turn.
- Trooper 3: Hit for 2 damage. Dead.
Turn 4: (Squad is now at 50% effectiveness)
[Additional dice rolled: 4,5,6,2,6,3,6,1,2,5,6,5,4,1,6,5,4,4,3,6]
- Trooper 4: Hit for 2 damage. 1 Armour point remaining
Results 5 and 6 'Rerolled'
- Trooper 2: Hit for 2 damage. Dead.
Results 6,3,6 and 1 'Rerolled'
-Trooper 2: Hit for 0 damage. Already dead this turn.
Results 5,6 and 5 'Rerolled'
-Trooper 4: Hit for 2 damage. Dead.
***Squad is dead in 4 turns***
Now, while both the 2 Re-Engineered Lasers and the 5 Medium lasers killed the squad in 4 turns, you'll note that the squad was crippled more quickly with the Re-Engineered Lasers.
While that is true in this single test, it is more the result of unusual luck than anything else. Your first four shots all landed on the same half of the squad which is a 2/16 chance (12.5%), and your next two both went into the same trooper as well which is another 2/4 chance (50%) for a combined 1/16 chance (6.25%) of getting that kind of grouping. That is very far outside the bounds of expected values and significantly altered the test results here. Realistically, you would need to either do some heavy duty number crunching to see what the expected values are or set up a program to simulate a very large number of tests (I would go for at least 10,000) to generate a statistically significant body of data to work from in order for this type of test to be statistically meaningful.
Now, looking at it I do think there is probably a small advantage for the RE-Lasers here, but it is very minor and not at all worth taking the REMLs for.
This example is also in favour of the Medium lasers because:
-It 'only' takes 4 hits from a medium laser to kill a trooper, whereas the 2 lasers from a Re-Engineered Medium laser results in a lot of 'wasted' damage (~50% more damage is expended on a trooper than is required).
If we used a heavier suit- for example a medium suit with 10 or 11 points of reflective armour it would take six shots from a medium laser to do what a pair of Re-Engineered medium lasers could do.
This is true, although the optimal cases for the RE-Lasers are still extremely rare and do not offer a drastic advantage over the standard, especially when you factor in how far behind the RE-Lasers are against anything else including the internal structures of 'Mechs that used to be covered by Reflective or Hardened Armor.
Still, while RE-Lasers do have some minor advantage cases against BA with Reflective Armor, it is not a reason to use the weapons on its own. After all, if you are really that worried about BA with reflective armor that you are specifically selecting weapons to counter them, you will probably be gravitating towards something with a more definite advantage against them like the Mech Mortars or Artillery Cannons which will inflict massive AE damage on every trooper in the squad with each hit. After all, the enormous Long Tom Cannon can instantly annihilate a full squad of assault BA with max reflective armor on a miss (AE damage is doubled against Reflective Armor), although it is not even close to directly competing with the REML at 20 tons, 15 crits, and 20 heat a shot plus several tons of explosive ammo (but it is hilarious against all kinds of things, especially in urban combat >:D).
Now, if you can come up with some other meaningful advantages you might be able to make a case for them on a combination of small advantage cases, but I am still not seeing anything that is even remotely close to making up for their pitiful damage output.
-
Diablo, your "mathematical evidence" is invalid because it CAN. NOT. EXIST. BattleMechs are not solitary hit locations with armor values so high as to be meaningless.
The only "evidence" I'd consider conclusive would be multiple battles using both REL and standard lasers against the same opponent on the same terrain with the same skills.
In the meantime, I'll continue to consider RE Lasers a viable if very limited weapon...and treat them as a replacement for IS Pulse Lasers.
-
Diablo, your "mathematical evidence" is invalid because it CAN. NOT. EXIST. BattleMechs are not solitary hit locations with armor values so high as to be meaningless.
I don't think anyone here was arguing that. No one but you has said anything about "armor values so high as to be meaningless". In fact, part of the argument against RELs is that once you get through the armor, regular lasers burn through IS a lot more efficiently.
-
Diablo, your "mathematical evidence" is invalid because it CAN. NOT. EXIST. BattleMechs are not solitary hit locations with armor values so high as to be meaningless.
This is not the point of statistical analysis. You know what else can not exist? Any sort of knowledge whatsoever of whether your laser will connect, whether your 'Mech will pass a PSR to stay standing, or any one of literally hundreds of millions of permutations of dice rolls. If you can't take numbers in a vacuum and at least get a passing resemblance to anything likely, then it quite frankly isn't happening in BattleTech.
Statistical analysis takes a series of assumptions (targets are at the same range bands, tonnage available is similar, pilots are the same skill), and distills the likelihood of a given outcome to a probability. If you have a TN of 8+, then one shot is more likely to miss than hit, and 10 shots are likely to hit four or so of them, assuming an average distribution of dice rolls. In order to make the analysis valid at all, these basic probabilities are applied to all instances: Assuming a TN of 8+, we would take 41.8% of a weapon's damage as the average, and work from there.
In this instance, RE Lasers need some really fringe scenarios to be useful. "Reflective armor Battle Armor with armor values between six and nine" is really niche to be arguing where RE Lasers are effective. "Against standard armor" is much simpler (and more representative of your normal battle) than anything RE Lasers have been proven to be good at so far.
-
After all, the enormous Long Tom Cannon can instantly annihilate a full squad of assault BA with max reflective armor on a miss (AE damage is doubled against Reflective Armor),
Minor point, but this is incorrect: BA Reflective armor has none of the vulnerability to AE or physical damage that mech grade Reflective Armor has.
Now, back to the probably inconclusive argument about the utility or lack thereof of RE lasers.
-
Minor point, but this is incorrect: BA Reflective armor has none of the vulnerability to AE or physical damage that mech grade Reflective Armor has.
Now, back to the probably inconclusive argument about the utility or lack thereof of RE lasers.
A Long Tom will still kill any non-Reactive battle armor squad in the game, though, and most of the reactive ones besides.
-
Yes.
-
You know what else would be good? Comparing RE-lasers to the weapons they were developed from. Which is not, by the way, standard lasers.
RE-lasers were developed from Pulse Lasers, not the amazingly efficient Standard Medium Laser (seriously, there have been complaints about how good the standard ML on a number of occasions).
Going along with your arguments, the AC/20 is a waste of space compared to the ML, as is the SRM-6.
-
There's responding to a point, and then there's just being ridiculous. You know very well that damage thresholds have been discussed previously in this thread, and that the AC/20 breaks several key thresholds that make it worth more than the sum of medium lasers. 20 points of damage is a lot in one hit. 9 points is not, and 6 points is even less impressive. SRMs critseek like nobody's business, something that both normal and RE lasers are really bad at.
Comparing RE Lasers to pulse lasers makes RE lasers look better, but it doesn't make them perform better in the respective role. They're still not good weapons.
If you feel the need to move the goalposts that far in order to successfully make a statement about RE lasers, that should tell you something.
I still don't understand this powerful need people feel to defend RE Lasers. They're not useless. They're also not good. Declaring something isn't good isn't saying that no one should ever use them ever, or that they're bad additions to the game, it just means that they're not good. You don't need to rescue the weapon from its stats.
-
And Diablo is saying they're worthless and shouldn't be used so perhaps you should stop misrepresenting the other side.
*I* am not saying RE-lasers should replace all other energy weapons. I am saying that they do have uses, and those uses are based on design theory. RE-lasers should be used on fast machines that can get around to rear armor locations which are thinly protected by the specialty armor. They also should not be the only weapons on a 'mech.
-
There's responding to a point, and then there's just being ridiculous. You know very well that damage thresholds have been discussed previously in this thread, and that the AC/20 breaks several key thresholds that make it worth more than the sum of medium lasers. 20 points of damage is a lot in one hit. 9 points is not, and 6 points is even less impressive. SRMs critseek like nobody's business, something that both normal and RE lasers are really bad at.
Comparing RE Lasers to pulse lasers makes RE lasers look better, but it doesn't make them perform better in the respective role. They're still not good weapons.
If you feel the need to move the goalposts that far in order to successfully make a statement about RE lasers, that should tell you something.
I still don't understand this powerful need people feel to defend RE Lasers. They're not useless. They're also not good. Declaring something isn't good isn't saying that no one should ever use them ever, or that they're bad additions to the game, it just means that they're not good. You don't need to rescue the weapon from its stats.
I'm saying that they don't have a niche. Anything they can do, something else can do better. That's pretty much useless, unless you consider "doing a job badly" to be a use.
And Diablo is saying they're worthless and shouldn't be used so perhaps you should stop misrepresenting the other side.
*I* am not saying RE-lasers should replace all other energy weapons. I am saying that they do have uses, and those uses are based on design theory. RE-lasers should be used on fast machines that can get around to rear armor locations which are thinly protected by the specialty armor. They also should not be the only weapons on a 'mech.
Something that's fast enough to be a backstabber probably doesn't have the mass to mount anything else. And if they do have other weapons, odds are good you'd be better off using the other weapons themselves.
-
I'm saying that they don't have a niche. Anything they can do, something else can do better. That's pretty much useless, unless you consider "doing a job badly" to be a use.
Punch through the rear armor of a Rokokubri. You have five tons.
-
A TSM-enhanced fist will do nicely, and for no tons at all. Alternatively, a T-bolt 5, capacitor-aided LPPC, a set of arrayed MGs, or several standard lasers using a TC and a called shot. If you really wanted to have fun with probability, 10 RL-10s throw out enough clusters that you're quite likely to do the deed and then some. There's probably other IS-tech options I'm forgetting, and I'll leave out the possibilities of clantech.
-
T-bolt 5 = wrong
Capacitor-aided LPPC = wrong
That's hardened armor
And really, I can do it in 2.5 tons.
-
Punch through the rear armor of a Rokokubri. You have five tons.
Booby trap on a 6/9 50-tonner and some dice luck(if you need any with 150 damage)
-
That really only holds true at a few specific thresholds which you are not going to see all that often. Even against BA, odds are you will need multiple hits from either weapon system to knock out a suit so things will even out fairly quickly and get you back to grinding through a wall of armor with luck mattering more than which weapon you chose.
Few specific thresholds? This example was heavily in favour of the standard medium laser. If I wanted to demonstrate fewer, more specific thresholds, I could have set the Battle Armour's Reflective armour up to 10 points, or even 11 points, where it would take six medium lasers to kill a single trooper compared to only two Re-Engineered Medium lasers.
The thing is, that cluster band is all about raw damage efficiency. You gain real advantage from either very concentrated damage or lots of hits, so the way weapons like the Medium Laser remain viable is by being one of the most efficient ways to pump out lots of raw damage to grind through heavy armor. By extension, the RE-Lasers should be filling the same roll because their cluster size is similar with twist of doing it against specialty armors, but the fact of the matter is that they are no more efficient than the degraded standard models in that roll so there is absolutely no reason to use them.
The standard medium laser is reduced to 2 points of damage, making a battery a less efficient SRM rack. Switch the armour to standard, and you have much the same scenario: SRMs should render medium lasers useless in 3025 play.
While that is true in this single test, it is more the result of unusual luck than anything else. Your first four shots all landed on the same half of the squad which is a 2/16 chance (12.5%), and your next two both went into the same trooper as well which is another 2/4 chance (50%) for a combined 1/16 chance (6.25%) of getting that kind of grouping. That is very far outside the bounds of expected values and significantly altered the test results here.
First, I should point out that I re-used the initial dice roll for both cases- so the grouping of shots is the same for both the Re-Engineered lasers and the Medium lasers.
Second, thanks to probability, we know that this isn't an unusual case. While this specific grouping is unlikely, there are other groupings that produce similiar results. For example, there is a 25% chance to kill a trooper on the very first turn outright (which didn't happen here). That result would have increased the odds that a second trooper would die on the following turn to 33%, which is 8.33%. Not bad, considering that is the ideal grouping.
The fact is, there is an 90.625% probability that at least one trooper will be dead on turn 2.
Realistically, you would need to either do some heavy duty number crunching to see what the expected values are or set up a program to simulate a very large number of tests (I would go for at least 10,000) to generate a statistically significant body of data to work from in order for this type of test to be statistically meaningful.
Only a little number crunching is needed to show that overall, the effectiveness of a squad of battle armour will be reduced much more quickly with Re-Engineered lasers than Medium lasers.
For example:
For Re-Engineered Medium lasers against any Battle Armour squad with up to 11 points of Reflective armour:
Odds the first laser hits an undamaged trooper on the first turn: 4/4
Odds the second laser hits the same, undamaged, trooper as the first: 1/4
----------
4/16 = 25% two Re-Engineered Medium lasers kill a Battle Armour on the first turn.
For Medium lasers against any Battle Armour squad with 6-7 points of Reflective armour:
Odds the first laser hits an undamaged trooper on the first turn: 4/4
Odds the second laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the third laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the four laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the fifth laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Which is one of (several) outcomes that result in one trooper dying on the first turn: 4/1024 or 0.39%
Another outcome is:
Odds the first laser hits an undamaged trooper on the first turn: 4/4
Odds the second laser strikes a different trooper: 3/4
Odds the third laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the four laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the fifth laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Which is 12/1024, or 1.172%
As we can only afford one 'miss', the only remaining outcomes that result in a dead trooper on the first turn is if the third, fourth or fifth laser misses and the others hit. They all have the same probability as if the second laser misses but the others hit, so we can add those together.
Third laser hits an undamaged trooper: 12/1024
Fourth laser hits an undamaged trooper: 12/1024
Fifth laser hits an undamaged trooper: 12/1024
That gives us a combined probability of 48/1024, which we add to the chance that they all hit the same trooper for a total of 52/1024 or 5.075% chance that they kill a suit on the first turn. That's 1/5 the chance the Re-Engineered lasers have.
For Medium lasers against any Battle Armour squad with 8-9 points of Reflective armour:
Odds the first laser hits an undamaged trooper on the first turn: 4/4
Odds the second laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the third laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the four laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the fifth laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Which is 4/1024, or 0.39%
For Medium lasers against any Battle Armour squad with 10-11 points of Reflective armour:
Even if all lasers hit the same trooper, he'll still be alive so the chance is 0%.
In summary,
Two Re-Engineered medium lasers that hit a squad of Battle Armour with between 6 and 11 points of reflective armour, there is a 25% that a suit will die on the first turn.
Five standard medium lasers that hit a squad of Battle Armour with either 6 or 7 points of reflective armour, there is a only a 5.075% that a suit will die on the first turn.
Five standard medium lasers that hit a squad of Battle Armour with either 8 or 9 points of reflective armour, there is a only a 0.39% that a suit will die on the first turn.
And for Battle Armour with either 10 or 11 points of reflective armour, 5 standard medium lasers cannot kill a suit on the first turn (which, again, two Re-Engineered Medium lasers have a 25% chance)
Now, looking at it I do think there is probably a small advantage for the RE-Lasers here, but it is very minor and not at all worth taking the REMLs for.
Yes, the same advantage that medium lasers have in 3025 play.
This is true, although the optimal cases for the RE-Lasers are still extremely rare and do not offer a drastic advantage over the standard, especially when you factor in how far behind the RE-Lasers are against anything else including the internal structures of 'Mechs that used to be covered by Reflective or Hardened Armor.
The benefits against Battle Armour also applies to rear torso armour.
Now, if you can come up with some other meaningful advantages you might be able to make a case for them on a combination of small advantage cases, but I am still not seeing anything that is even remotely close to making up for their pitiful damage output.
You are aware that Re-Engineered Medium lasers deal ~20% more damage than their weight in standard Medium lasers, correct?
And that the Large Re-Engineered lasers are more 'efficient' as well?
-
T-bolt 5 = wrong
Capacitor-aided LPPC = wrong
That's hardened armor
And really, I can do it in 2.5 tons.
My bad, on the t-bolt, I was thinking reflective. The LPPC can though. 10 points cut in half to five destroys all the armor on the CTR, and does all that plus internal damage to a rear torso side. At any rate, the other four examples weren't enough for you? One of my examples costs 0 extra tons.
-
My bad, on the t-bolt, I was thinking reflective. The LPPC can though. 10 points cut in half to five destroys all the armor on the CTR, and does all that plus internal damage to a rear torso side. At any rate, the other four examples weren't enough for you? One of my examples costs 0 extra tons.
And the LPPC+ Capacitor can do that once every two turns. The two REML can do that twice a turn, or four times as often.
Your TSM-enhanced fist requires a 55+ ton machine that's running hot.
MG Arrays are limited to 4 machine guns, which will not penetrate the rear armor even assuming you max out your cluster roll, so they fail.
Targeting Computer-enhanced called shots are also much more likely to not score ANY damage, given the to-hit penalty.
RL-10s are inaccurate, require you to get lucky on the cluster and location rolls, and of course you can only use each one once. So no, they're not good enough either.
Hmm...so far it looks like none of these options are as good as the REML.
-
Actually ML vs. REML against hardened, the system weight per point of damage dealt/turn with DHS is
REML: 6/(2,5+3,5)=1,0
ML: 2/(1+1,5)=0,80
I'm not convinced that REMLs are worth it over MLs(replacing a battery of MLs for a REMLs) unless its known beforehand that the enemy will use the specialty armors a lot or only and you get to pick your units/get to refit/or so forth. RE-lasers are also kind of heavy to bring as just backup weapons(dismissing heat, bracketing). They seem to be niche weapons, kinda like the LB-2 or 5X, useful but worth their utility only in small numbers.
In a campaign I could bring some of them, say 2 or 3 at max, on a mobile unit as a part of a large force though. Say, on a fast medium mek for every 8 or 12 meks, if I knew there was a chance to meet any of the special armors especially if worn by enemy BA.
-
And the LPPC+ Capacitor can do that once every two turns. The two REML can do that twice a turn, or four times as often.
Your TSM-enhanced fist requires a 55+ ton machine that's running hot.
MG Arrays are limited to 4 machine guns, which will not penetrate the rear armor even assuming you max out your cluster roll, so they fail.
Targeting Computer-enhanced called shots are also much more likely to not score ANY damage, given the to-hit penalty.
RL-10s are inaccurate, require you to get lucky on the cluster and location rolls, and of course you can only use each one once. So no, they're not good enough either.
Hmm...so far it looks like none of these options are as good as the REML.
Fair point on the MGs, I was lumping all the damage together then halving. But now you're moving the goalposts. You original challenge said nothing about heat, odds of getting a hit, or luck on rolls. You asked for a way, in 5 tons or less, to punch through the rear armor of a Rokurokubi. I gave you 4 valid ways. If you want to look at other factors, let's look at the fact that any of the 4 would be far more useful in any other scenario one ever faces on a battlefield. Which is really my point: RELs have, at best, a very, very narrow space when they're arguably useful. Those of us on this side of the argument would say that even there they're not. In literally any other case, they're inarguably terrible. They're like OS missile systems; about the only reason to ever mount one is a highly-contrived scenario tailored to their strength(in which case it's still arguable), or having their exact weight/crits left when building a design. Neither of which makes them a useful weapons system.
-
Oh, I'm sorry. I merely assumed that since you were using a totally unrealistic scenario to establish mathematical efficiency, you would be open to math and statistics in other situations.
Assuming: You need a 6 to hit the target. that's a 13/18 chance to hit. Further you have 4/9 chance of hitting a rear torso with your shot. This gives each REML roughly a 30% chance to penetrate a rear torso upon being fired.
For your TarCom + mediums solution you need a 9 instead of a six, and you still need three hits. That's a 5/18 chance for EACH laser to hit before we get into "you might not hit the targetted location". We're already far far below the 30% chance here.
I'm not claiming that RE Lasers are the best thing ever. I am saying that claims that they're worthless are purely based on one completely flawed analysis.
-
I'm not claiming that RE Lasers are the best thing ever. I am saying that claims that they're worthless are purely based on one completely flawed analysis.
To set the record straight, neither am I.
I just believe that in some situations, Re-Engineered Lasers are superior to their standard counterparts.
-
Oh, I'm sorry. I merely assumed that since you were using a totally unrealistic scenario to establish mathematical efficiency, you would be open to math and statistics in other situations.
Assuming: You need a 6 to hit the target. that's a 13/18 chance to hit. Further you have 4/9 chance of hitting a rear torso with your shot. This gives each REML roughly a 30% chance to penetrate a rear torso upon being fired.
For your TarCom + mediums solution you need a 9 instead of a six, and you still need three hits. That's a 5/18 chance for EACH laser to hit before we get into "you might not hit the targetted location". We're already far far below the 30% chance here.
I'm not claiming that RE Lasers are the best thing ever. I am saying that claims that they're worthless are purely based on one completely flawed analysis.
Your original request said absolutely nothing about TNs, piloting skill etc. Yes, when you introduce gunnery skill, TMMs, AMMs, terrain, etc, it's possible that it would be a hard shot to make. But you can do the opposite as well. With a 0 gunner who didn't move, an immobile target, at short range, it's a pretty easy shot. But you didn't ask for that. Here's the original request: Punch through the rear armor of a Rokokubri. You have five tons.
Nothing about who has what skill, etc. Lots of things can do that. A 25 tonner with a hatchet and TSM can do that. I don't recall any such mech offhand, but to pick a canon example, the Scarabus 9T can do it. We can keep introducing extra qualifiers all day, but I wasn't trying to pick a weapon that meets standards I won't know until you add them. I was responding to "Punch through the rear armor of a Rokokubri [sic]. You have five tons." Like I said though, that's a highly contrived scenario. Outside of contact range, the Rokurokubi does 5 damage. 10 if you have the ERPPC version. As the weapon is arm-mounted, you can even get out of its arc by getting behind the thing. I'd just attack the thing from the front and do enough damage to put it on its back. With hardened armor, it's going to have a harder than usual time getting up, while I keep pounding it until something vital goes. Why would I need to get behind it?
-
To set the record straight, neither am I.
I just believe that in some situations, Re-Engineered Lasers are superior to their standard counterparts.
If you're comparing an individual REL to an individual standard laser, sure. But since they weigh a lot more, they'd better. That's like saying that a Medium Pulse Laser is better than a Medium Laser in some situations.
-
I'd just attack the thing from the front and do enough damage to put it on its back. With hardened armor, it's going to have a harder than usual time getting up, while I keep pounding it until something vital goes. Why would I need to get behind it?
Because you made the claim that anything a RE-laser can do, something else can do better. This is not the case.
-
Because you made the claim that anything a RE-laser can do, something else can do better. This is not the case.
There's sort of the implied qualifier "anything useful" attached to the front of that.
-
Even in such an absurdly contrived scenario, a Scarabus-9T's hatchet can do the same job for less weight and no heat. Or an Ostsol-6D's fist can do the job for no weight and no heat. Or a capacitor-enhanced LPPC can do the job from twice the range (outside the range of the LAC model's return fire) every other turn. Even in its niche, other weapons can arguably beat it. I guess I can concede that in the absurdly narrow niche of removing a specific threshold of hardened armor in a single hit for a given weight, other weapons are only arguably better and nothing is clearly superior in every way. Would I ever take one in a real battle? No, because outside of tailored restrictions like the above, there's always a better choice.
-
Yes. Utterly contrived. Why, a Prey Seeker would never try to circle around behind enemy 'mechs, would it? No. Much much better for it to try and batter through the frontal armor!
And no rational person would look at existing enemy units to decide how effective his equipment would be in dealing with them!
What's utterly contrived is the "infinite block of armor with infinite time to shoot it" analysis.
-
You're the only one postulating infinite blocks of armor. One of the primary advantages I and others have expressed is that once through the armor, every alternative chews through IS faster than RELs, because IS doesn't get the damage reduction of Hardened, FL, or Reflective armor.
Specifically, a Prey Seeker would be better off with 5 MLs or 4 MLs and a TC. That way it could actually force a PSR. Forcing a Rokurokubi to make PSRs puts it in a bind, because of the +1 from Hardened armor. And if it ever falls, it's toast, because it also has a harder time getting up. A Preyseeker with 5 MLs can miss with one but still force a PSR, then once the Roku falls, it rushes in and adds kicks (forcing further PSRs). A REML Prey Seeker can't make a Roku do a PSR any way but kicking it, which exposes the Prey Seeker to sword swipes.
-
Yes. Utterly contrived. Why, a Prey Seeker would never try to circle around behind enemy 'mechs, would it? No. Much much better for it to try and batter through the frontal armor!
And no rational person would look at existing enemy units to decide how effective his equipment would be in dealing with them!
What's utterly contrived is the "infinite block of armor with infinite time to shoot it" analysis.
None of this makes Re-Engineered Lasers very good. If the question is "How do you use a 'Mech with sub-par weapons" like the Prey Seeker, that's an entirely different discussion altogether. The fact that a Prey Seeker has Re-Engineered Lasers and must get behind things to reasonably use them at all does not make RE Lasers good.
-
You're the only one postulating infinite blocks of armor. One of the primary advantages I and others have expressed is that once through the armor, every alternative chews through IS faster than RELs, because IS doesn't get the damage reduction of Hardened, FL, or Reflective armor.
Wrong. Diablo's "analysis" that you put so much faith in is the one that postulates infinite blocks of armor.
The difference between the two REML and "4 ML + TarCom" is that of time. Shooting at targets with specialty armor, the quad ML design will be forced to sandblast. It will be doing damage in groups of 2-4 points (depending on armor type), while the REML design will be doing 6-point groups.
It's play style. If you want to hang around and sandblast, fine. Take the standards. If you want to minimize time spent and try for larger hits, go with the REML.
Though I do notice most of this is hanging on the standard Medium Laser vs the RE Medium Laser. Do you have the same claims about Large Lasers vs RE Large Lasers?
-
Large Lasers versus RE Large Lasers are even less flattering to the RE laser, because you're giving up four tons for the ability to do five more damage (at most) against special armor. When you can very nearly mount two weapons that deal half damage against one kind of target and full damage against almost anything else the numbers are not friendly. Especially since 9 points is not a good thresholding number when compared to other things that you can get for 9 tons plus heatsinks (like a Light Gauss or an AC/10).
EDIT: Essentially the biggest problem with the RE Large is that you start competing with real heavy weapons, and it's not a huge stretch to decide to mount a gauss rifle instead of an RE Large, where the Gauss rifle does better against literally everything except ballistic-reinforced, and then is only beaten by two points.
-
The standard Prey Seeker can't force a PSR, one with 5, or even 4 MLs can. That's a huge advantage you seem to be ignoring.
Honestly, I'm not so sure I'd compare an RELL to a regular LL as much as I'd compare it to a PPC. It has the same heat as a PPC, but worse range, brackets, crits, and damage (against most targets). but as you say, there hasn't been as much analysis. I'd have to look at the options some more.
-
Large Lasers versus RE Large Lasers are even less flattering to the RE laser, because you're giving up four tons for the ability to do five more damage (at most) against special armor.
Three tons
the Large RE-Laser is an 8 ton weapon. That makes its competitors the PPC and LPL.
-
My mistake. It's eight tons and 10 heat, making its competitors the PPC with a Capacitor, and after heat sinks the AC/10 which meets or outclasses it in every single regard except ammunition supply (and technically crit space).
-
My mistake. It's eight tons and 10 heat, making its competitors the PPC with a Capacitor, and after heat sinks the AC/10 which meets or outclasses it in every single regard except ammunition supply (and technically crit space).
What heat sinks? My fusion engine handles an RE-Large Laser just fine without any extra heat sinks.
EDIT: Oh, and the AC/10 fails when engaging BR Armor or Ferro Lamellor compared to the RE-laser.
-
What heat sinks? My fusion engine handles an RE-Large Laser just fine without any extra heat sinks.
EDIT: Oh, and the AC/10 fails when engaging BR Armor or Ferro Lamellor compared to the RE-laser.
You know, if you're going to be so flippant with your responses, you're going to very quickly run out of willing discussion partners - and not because you're right. The AC/10 is not a fantastic weapon in modern times, it's average and adequate at best.
Other weapons the RE Large competes against: Light Gauss (ridiculous range and low heat, decent single-hit damage), LB-10X (crit-seeking superiority, range, damage against non-BR armor), Plasma Rifle (murders everything), LRM-15 w/Artemis (range, crit seeking, damage against non-specialty armor). That's just on the inner sphere side, off the top of my head. Introducing Clan weapons, things get messy.
The RE Large laser is not a good weapon.
-
Other weapons the RE Large competes against: Light Gauss (ridiculous range and low heat, decent single-hit damage),
Weighs more, does LESS damage against all targets.
LB-10X (crit-seeking superiority, range, damage against non-BR armor),
Weighs more, cluster-gun effect does less damage on average, does NO damage to Ferro-Lamellor armor.
Plasma Rifle (murders everything)
Does less damage against all specialty armor, only gets 10 shots before it outweighs the RE-Large Laser
LRM-15 w/Artemis (range, crit seeking, damage against non-specialty armor).
Weighs more (as soon as you count ammunition), doesn't group damage, large minimum range, vulnerable to AMS
The RE Large laser is not a good weapon.
And every weapon you quoted has flaws compared to it. Your point?
-
Your heatsinks aren't magically free forever, you know. Everything except the Plasma Rifle on that list is significantly less heat, unless you're about to claim that heat is totally irrelevant (which is even less sensical than your "infinite block of armor problem" strawman). You also totally ignored how every single thing I just listed either matches or outranges the RE Large. The Light Gauss shoots over 60% further. Further, every one of those guns is massively more useful against every other target on the field than a RE Laser of any stripe, let alone the Large. Light Gauss outranges just about everything. LB-10X murders vehicles (and can still fire solid shot, by the way) and has a huge critseeking advantage when it isn't. The LRM-15 w/Artemis has 40% longer range, deals more damage and still maintains the crit-seeking advantage while also being able to toggle into indirect fire.
And every weapon you quoted has flaws compared to it. Your point?
Quit being obtuse. You know exactly what my point is. Again, if you're going to be such a poor sport about it, you'll quickly find yourself without anyone to talk to.
-
Yes. Every weapon on that list has advantages compared to the RE-Large. They also ALL have disadvantages compared to the RE-Large.
You may think the advantages always outweigh the disadvantages. I disagree. Again, *I* am not the one making a blanket statement on the weapon's total inferiority in all circumstances.
And sure. I will agree to drop the "infinite armor straw man" the second you agree to drop Diablo's "comparison" of standard lasers vs RE lasers where he matches the tonnage of weapons only to compare the damage they do against armor types.
-
Yes. Every weapon on that list has advantages compared to the RE-Large. They also ALL have disadvantages compared to the RE-Large.
You may think the advantages always outweigh the disadvantages. I disagree. Again, *I* am not the one making a blanket statement on the weapon's total inferiority in all circumstances.
And sure. I will agree to drop the "infinite armor straw man" the second you agree to drop Diablo's "comparison" of standard lasers vs RE lasers where he matches the tonnage of weapons only to compare the damage they do against armor types.
Ah, right, the comparison where he explicitly mentions the internal structure underneath and how it makes the regular lasers even more attractive comparatively speaking because once you grind away the armor they do even more relative damage than the RE Lasers. Here's a friendly tip: Agreeing to drop a logical fallacy in exchange for abandoning a real data point isn't very sporting.
In fact, let's actually go that route again, and instead do it with the Larges. We'll even be charitable and do it both including the engine heat sinks and as a standalone. The reason this is valid is that it gives us a point of comparison between two weapons in such a way that we can look at what makes them tick - and avoid all that messy unpredictability that comes with actually using dice. Unless you're playing it out an infinite number of times, it's still possible to get a skewed result (which is incidentally what we assume when we set up this comparison - the infinite number of times, that is).
With engine heat sinks:
The closest point of comparison I can get without getting ridiculous is 3 Larges versus a pair of RE Larges. That comes to 17 tons (including heatsinks) for the Larges and 16 tons for the RE Larges.
For that amount, we get 24 damage for the Larges in three hits. We also get 18 damage for the RE Larges in two hits. Clear advantage standard lasers against normal armor.
Against Ferro-Lamellor, we get 18 damage for the Larges in three hits. We also get 18 damage for the RE Larges in two hits. Equal damage, Large Lasers generate more hits and more chance for crits, but do less damage (though the difference between 6 and 9 doesn't cross any important thresholds). No discernible advantage either way. This is fairly damning against RE Larges, because they're supposed to do better against FL, but they don't.
Against Reflective, we get 12 damage for the Larges in three hits. We get 18 damage for the RE Larges in two hits. Clear damage advantage RE Larges.
All that said, damage against the internal structure is also important, and the Large Lasers go back up high on the advantage for that due to their overall improved damage. Amusingly, the damage disparity is the same in opposite directions against Reflective armor and against internal structure. Before the armor is gone, the RE Larges have a six point advantage, after the armor is gone the standard lasers have a six point advantage. Naturally, getting through the armor faster would intuitively mean that the RE Larges have less ground to make up, and come out overall on top, if only just barely.
And that's exactly the problem. They come out on top only just barely in their favored environment, with favorable assumptions regarding loadout and equipment. That is the definition of a niche event, and it only gets slimmer once other weapons are introduced - namely weapons that can break through the Reflective armor before the Large lasers hit and allow the lasers to unleash their full damage. Against Ferro-Lamellor and other armors that aren't Reflective, the standard larges already perform better compared to their RE Laser counterparts (once internals are taken into account), where the RE Lasers are explicitly designed to excel.
That's what Diablo is saying. It's not assuming an infinite armor block, it's using the damages of each weapon to determine their ability to break through armor and hit the internals underneath. Just because there are not hard numbers to the armor is meaningless.
-
But the RE-Laser does do better than the standard laser. On a ton-for-ton basis with total damage assigned to a single location it does not. Of course, the PPC and ER PPC also lose to the standard large laser in that analysis, don't they?
RE-lasers are developments of IS pulse lasers and should be viewed as improvements on those weapons. They are not the best weapons out there, they may never have improvements in technology, but they are not worthless.
-
But the RE-Laser does do better than the standard laser. On a ton-for-ton basis with total damage assigned to a single location it does not. Of course, the PPC and ER PPC also lose to the standard large laser in that analysis, don't they?
RE-lasers are developments of IS pulse lasers and should be viewed as improvements on those weapons. They are not the best weapons out there, they may never have improvements in technology, but they are not worthless.
I just explained to you very clearly that the RE Laser does not, in fact, do better than the standard laser. In detail.
I'm not saying you have to stop using it, or that it's impossible to use one on the field. I'm saying that there's a better weapon to use in the vast majority of situations. It's like the AC/5. You can use one, but you can also find something better without even looking that hard.
-
I just explained to you very clearly that the RE Laser does not, in fact, do better than the standard laser. In detail.
Wrong. You explained that for your playstyle the RE Laser does not do better. I happen to like the 9 point hits vs the 4-6 point hits. Yes, I am aware of your view that "Eating through the internal structure" will put the standard laser ahead of the RE laser. In my view, once targets have vulnerable internal structure they're more likely to act in ways to shield that IS from damage. This forces my opponents to change their own playstyle, which helps grant me control of the battlefield.
-
Wrong. You explained that for your playstyle the RE Laser does not do better. I happen to like the 9 point hits vs the 4-6 point hits. Yes, I am aware of your view that "Eating through the internal structure" will put the standard laser ahead of the RE laser. In my view, once targets have vulnerable internal structure they're more likely to act in ways to shield that IS from damage. This forces my opponents to change their own playstyle, which helps grant me control of the battlefield.
And, again, if that result on the battlefield is your goal, there are a dozen other weapons that do it better for similar tonnage, better range, and better damage against everything else on the battlefield. RE Lasers are a ridiculously niche design that does not perform appreciably better (and in many cases perform worse) than weapons that already fill that niche (or don't even fill that niche). I can point to a weapon that's considered outright bad in the form of the Improved Heavy Large Laser[/b], and that bad weapon outperforms the RE Large in nearly every way (it loses by one point against Reflective - one point!).
RE Lasers are not good. They are not better than standard lasers. They are not even particularly good at what they do in general.
-
Who's a forum poster that's gonna take a step back and cool off right cheesin' now?
You are! You're both posters who are going to back off right now! Yes, you are! :D
(And in case I'm being too subtle: [copper])
-
Actually I totally forgot about damage against inner structure and forcing PSRs. Those factored, theres no reason to use REML over ML except maybe against special armor BA and possibly vehicles(dont care about PSRs, little to no inner structure).
LL, SNPPC and PR against RELL: yeah they lose a bit of efficiency against special armors, but they are still better choices most of the time. LL loses by 36% which but contributes more towards PSRs and chews IS better(weight and heat need to be factored). Also sinks > gun mass.
ERSL is just useless. Even standard SL is just as inefficient against the special armors and it wins by 50% towards PSRs and against inner structure.
But when comparing guns with each other there are often range profile differences and ammo and so forth, so things can become a bit fuzzy. To make it simplier, lets look at weapons that need no ammo and share the same ranges. Out of those weapons, a base to-hit of 8 is enough for X-medium-pulse, a gun not considered very good at all by most people I know to have an opinion on it, to be more efficient anti-hardened armor and such gun than the REML. Let me demonstrate:
To-hit odds difference between REML and XMPL with base to-hit of 8(REML needs 8, XMPL needs 6)
(26/36)/(15/36)=1,7333....
Allocated weight, how much damage a turn you get by allocating 1 ton, against the special armors while using DHS(notice the weapon ranges are same)
REML: 6/(2,5+3,5)=1,0
XMPL: 3/(2+3)=0,6
1/0,6 = 1+(2/3) = 1,666.... < 1,733...
--> XMPL is more efficient when base to-hit number is 8 or higher. Using 4/5 pilots, that is basically almost all of the time, and a lot of the time even if the firing range is 3 or lower and in the short range bracket. Only advantage REML retains is double the hit cluster size(which isnt meaningless, and can possibly make REML+TC combo better for aerospace fighters perhaps?), but it loses 20% in damage counted towards PSRs and another 20% against damage to inner structure which is not a small thing when facing meks. On the top of it all, a larger portion of REML's required weight consists of the weapon itself: by using XMPLs you get proportionally more heat sinks that can be used for cooling other guns or systems.
Medium and small VSPL dont share quite the same ranges but they are both even more efficient at ranges 1 and 2 thanks for huge that to-hit odds bonus. Medium VSPL also happens to have exactly the same BV value, 56, as the REML.
But what about REML+TC combination against XMPL?
ERML: 6/(2,5+2,5/4+3,5)=0,9056603774
XMPL: 3/(2+3+0,5(for TC))=0,454545...
ERML/XMPL: again the same 1,66 --> What happens is the to-hit required for XMPL to be better is a step higher at 9: (26/36)/(15+36)=1,733... Sorry about the maths. ;)
My conclusion: I believe that for usual ground battles at least the XMPL is, facing special armors or not, a better choice than the REML for all 4/6 or faster meks and 5/8 vehicles as well as jumpers, as they can generate 2 or more movement modifiers consistently and can control engagement range at least somewhat. For the slowest of units there are probably more requirements for their close-range backup weaponry than being slightly more efficient against specialty armors than more conventional options.
What do you people think about the RE-lasers on Aerospace units, intended as a counter against possible laser-reflective armor units? Do standard energy weapons' full damage count towards structural integrity treshold? If not, I could see the RE lasers have a use right there.
edit: fixed typo
-
Few specific thresholds? This example was heavily in favour of the standard medium laser. If I wanted to demonstrate fewer, more specific thresholds, I could have set the Battle Armour's Reflective armour up to 10 points, or even 11 points, where it would take six medium lasers to kill a single trooper compared to only two Re-Engineered Medium lasers.
That would be the threshold I was talking about, yes. Also, that cuts both ways because BA with 12 or 13 points of armor will take 3 REML hits to kill while the standard will do it in 7. That means you will need 12 REML hits to wipe out a 4-suit squad which takes a full 6 turns with two lasers while standards need 28 hits which is only 5.6 turns using the 5:2 equivalency established earlier giving the standards a small advantage (misses will drag this out longer for both weapons in practice so that .4 turns may turn into an extra turn).
The standard medium laser is reduced to 2 points of damage, making a battery a less efficient SRM rack. Switch the armour to standard, and you have much the same scenario: SRMs should render medium lasers useless in 3025 play.
Ok, number crunching time. A SRM 6 with a ton of ammo and 4 SHS to cool it weighs 8 tons. A Medium Laser with 3 SHS to cool it weighs 4 tons so you can mount two of them for the weight of the SRM. Those two Medium Lasers will do 10 damage in 2, 5-point clusters. The SRM 6 will on average land 4 missiles for 8 total damage in 4, 2-point clusters. That means the Medium Lasers are more efficient at grinding through armor with raw damage while the SRMs are better for critseeking which is exactly what I said earlier.
That is very different from what we see with RE-Lasers where you have the same damage output in both cases, superior critseeking with the standard lasers, and a huge difference in total damage output the moment you shoot at anything besides Reflective Armor which includes the internal structure of the Reflective Armor design.
First, I should point out that I re-used the initial dice roll for both cases- so the grouping of shots is the same for both the Re-Engineered lasers and the Medium lasers.
Second, thanks to probability, we know that this isn't an unusual case. While this specific grouping is unlikely, there are other groupings that produce similiar results. For example, there is a 25% chance to kill a trooper on the very first turn outright (which didn't happen here). That result would have increased the odds that a second trooper would die on the following turn to 33%, which is 8.33%. Not bad, considering that is the ideal grouping.
The fact is, there is an 90.625% probability that at least one trooper will be dead on turn 2.
If you looked, I did factor that into my assessment when I conceded that there was an advantage in killing one trooper faster. I am still not totally convinced it is that drastic and would have to chew through far more math than I would like on both of them to get useful results to see what the actual difference is, but I would expect the REML to have a small advantage here.
Only a little number crunching is needed to show that overall, the effectiveness of a squad of battle armour will be reduced much more quickly with Re-Engineered lasers than Medium lasers.
For example:
For Re-Engineered Medium lasers against any Battle Armour squad with up to 11 points of Reflective armour:
Odds the first laser hits an undamaged trooper on the first turn: 4/4
Odds the second laser hits the same, undamaged, trooper as the first: 1/4
----------
4/16 = 25% two Re-Engineered Medium lasers kill a Battle Armour on the first turn.
For Medium lasers against any Battle Armour squad with 6-7 points of Reflective armour:
Odds the first laser hits an undamaged trooper on the first turn: 4/4
Odds the second laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the third laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the four laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the fifth laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Which is one of (several) outcomes that result in one trooper dying on the first turn: 4/1024 or 0.39%
Another outcome is:
Odds the first laser hits an undamaged trooper on the first turn: 4/4
Odds the second laser strikes a different trooper: 3/4
Odds the third laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the four laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the fifth laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Which is 12/1024, or 1.172%
As we can only afford one 'miss', the only remaining outcomes that result in a dead trooper on the first turn is if the third, fourth or fifth laser misses and the others hit. They all have the same probability as if the second laser misses but the others hit, so we can add those together.
Third laser hits an undamaged trooper: 12/1024
Fourth laser hits an undamaged trooper: 12/1024
Fifth laser hits an undamaged trooper: 12/1024
That gives us a combined probability of 48/1024, which we add to the chance that they all hit the same trooper for a total of 52/1024 or 5.075% chance that they kill a suit on the first turn. That's 1/5 the chance the Re-Engineered lasers have.
For Medium lasers against any Battle Armour squad with 8-9 points of Reflective armour:
Odds the first laser hits an undamaged trooper on the first turn: 4/4
Odds the second laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the third laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the four laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Odds the fifth laser strikes the same trooper: 1/4
Which is 4/1024, or 0.39%
For Medium lasers against any Battle Armour squad with 10-11 points of Reflective armour:
Even if all lasers hit the same trooper, he'll still be alive so the chance is 0%.
In summary,
Two Re-Engineered medium lasers that hit a squad of Battle Armour with between 6 and 11 points of reflective armour, there is a 25% that a suit will die on the first turn.
Five standard medium lasers that hit a squad of Battle Armour with either 6 or 7 points of reflective armour, there is a only a 5.075% that a suit will die on the first turn.
Five standard medium lasers that hit a squad of Battle Armour with either 8 or 9 points of reflective armour, there is a only a 0.39% that a suit will die on the first turn.
And for Battle Armour with either 10 or 11 points of reflective armour, 5 standard medium lasers cannot kill a suit on the first turn (which, again, two Re-Engineered Medium lasers have a 25% chance)
Yes, but that advantage will start to normalize out on subsequent turns which you did not analyze (probably because the probability web gets huge and ugly and far more trouble to deal with than it is worth). I am not denying that there is an advantage, but I still do not see it being as overwhelming as you are suggesting.
Yes, the same advantage that medium lasers have in 3025 play.
I have absolutely no idea where this came from because this discussion was explicitly limited to Battle Armor which do not exist in 3025 play.
The benefits against Battle Armour also applies to rear torso armour.
Rear armor will be even worse because there is so little of it in relation to the internals underneath. It also does not help that even very light 'Mechs can strip away huge chunks of rear armor with physical attacks due to the fact that reflective armor takes double damage from them. You may very well want to switch your plan to small TSM designs in this case because even a 20 tonner with active TSM gets two 8-point punches against Reflective Armor thanks to the multiplicative damage bonus stacking for 4 times damage.
You are aware that Re-Engineered Medium lasers deal ~20% more damage than their weight in standard Medium lasers, correct?
Which then drops to less than half the damage output of the standards the moment you crack the armor and puts the standards well ahead even if the target has max Reflective Armor over the location in question and nothing else ever hits the location which are both very favorable and unrealistic assumptions in favor of the REML. After all, torso locations must split some of that armor to the rear so the front will be less than the 2/3 reflective armor it could theoretically be and you have to take out the torso to take out the 'Mech (barring head hits which are total luck).
And that the Large Re-Engineered lasers are more 'efficient' as well?
As I have said before, the RELL is the one that does have a clear advantage over the standard version. That should give it a real niche on some designs, although as Scotty pointed out it is big enough to start competing with some very substantial weapons and the competition is very tight up there. It also cannot really compete on its effect against Reflective Armor alone because the Thumper Cannon is the same weight after factoring in DHS and does more damage there even before factoring in its other benefits, although the RELL is also very effective against Hardened Armor which gives it a meaningful advantage.
You know, if you're going to be so flippant with your responses, you're going to very quickly run out of willing discussion partners - and not because you're right....
That is exactly why he is on my ignore list.
All that said, damage against the internal structure is also important, and the Large Lasers go back up high on the advantage for that due to their overall improved damage. Amusingly, the damage disparity is the same in opposite directions against Reflective armor and against internal structure. Before the armor is gone, the RE Larges have a six point advantage, after the armor is gone the standard lasers have a six point advantage. Naturally, getting through the armor faster would intuitively mean that the RE Larges have less ground to make up, and come out overall on top, if only just barely.
One important detail is that the Reflective Armor bonus is calculated up front just like Ferro-Lamellor which I abuse ruthlessly with my armor layouts for a little bit of free protection, although Hardened Armor is a difference in absorption rather than a reduction so it does not get this bonus. What that means is that a single point of Reflective Armor is enough to cut any energy weapon hit in half so the standard Large Lasers will loose a bit more damage to that which tweaks the numbers some. This is fairly trivial with the Mediums because they do so little damage per hit, but the Large is a big enough cluster to be concerned about it. When combined with the generally more efficient nature of the RELL I can see a real niche for it when you expect to be facing a lot of designs with Hardened armor, although I would rather take ballistic and missile weapons if I expect lots of Reflective armor with a special focus on the Artillery Cannons because their AE damage is doubled against Reflective Armor.
-
(sigh)
All these numbers being thrown around only convinces me more that RE Lasers do have a place. I also haven't seen anyone compare RE lasers to standard large lasers. A small RE Laser does as much damage against reflective as a large laser. Two will equal a large laser against other armors with two tons left over. Two RE mediums will do more damage than a standard large either way. As for the RE large lasers it's better than a PPC with capacitor so if it fits I'll take it. Yes there's a loss of range but if getting into physical combat is an argument against RE lasers, range doesn't matter.
And then there's the internal structure argument. It's a non issue. It doesn't matter what kind of armor they have or what kind of weapons you have. If you don't get through the armor, your not going to damage the internal structure.
Now can we please stop hating things and start thinking up good ways to use them?
-
--
Now can we please stop hating things and start thinking up good ways to use them?
I'm thinking hard but I'm failing to find any good use for them except maybe as pure anti-laser-reflective-armor-BA. I want to look beyond the fluff and handwaving so I do the maths(the min-maxing). They do have some hipster value too I guess.
What about my question about them for Aerospace units, 2 posts up?
-
I think they'd be good against Aerospace units with reflective armor. I can see them regularly being mounted on Aerospace units to counter Aerospace units as well as ground based AA units.
-
I'd think hard about using RELL or REMLs on units like fast mechs or VTOLs who I expect to serve as backstabbers, especially against the DCMS. They've got a lot of units which play with the specialty armors (the Kishi BA, Zou BA, Narukami heavy tank, Mamano IFV, Rokurokubi, Shiro, and Wendgo immediately come to mind), and with light or fast mediums who already have limited tonnage for guns I'd want a single gun or two that'll work against everything. Or if I've got a lance of Omnis, then I could spare the tonnage on one or two of them to switch out to one of those lasers to give them a gun that'll punch through those armors quickly without spending precious ammo.
They're a niche weapon, but if I'm using (or fighting) ASFs or dealing with front-line DCMS mechs or vehicles, they can be useful. They're certainly cheaper than getting a bunch of Clan tech ERPPCs, which would be my other option for dealing with hardened or reflective armor.
-
Yes there's a loss of range but if getting into physical combat is an argument against RE lasers, range doesn't matter.
I compared Large and RE Large lasers on the previous page. Range is directly (and painfully, in many cases) linked to accuracy. Large lasers are hitting at 10 hexes at +2, Medium RE lasers don't get to shoot. Large lasers are hitting at 5 hexes at no penalty, Medium RE Lasers are at +2. That adds up fast on 2d6.
-
By that same token Scotty, you should hold the view that 4 ML tied to a TarCom will not blow through armor locations faster than two REML because of the +3 penalty for aimed shots.
-
By that same token Scotty, you should hold the view that 4 ML tied to a TarCom will not blow through armor locations faster than two REML because of the +3 penalty for aimed shots.
Now you're just saying things that I've never said. Stop putting words in my mouth, stop making silly straw man arguments, and we might be able to have a good conversation.
-
Now you're just saying things that I've never said. Stop putting words in my mouth, stop making silly straw man arguments, and we might be able to have a good conversation.
No, I'm just trying to get all you anti-RE laser guys on the same page and to stop contradicting each other. AW made the claim about the TarCom-assisted lasers being better than 2 RE-ML for blowing through armor locations.
-
No, I'm just trying to get all you anti-RE laser guys on the same page and to stop contradicting each other. AW made the claim about the TarCom-assisted lasers being better than 2 RE-ML for blowing through armor locations.
There hasn't been a contradiction, and trying to force us all into saying the same thing so you can try to dismiss it all at once is frankly a little insulting. Have a fun thread, I won't be continuing with it.
-
Locked pending review