BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => Ground Combat => Topic started by: Neufeld on 30 April 2011, 08:54:51
-
So, what is you opinion on the MML3? Do you consider it a viable weapon or just too small to contribute meaningfully?
We are talking about an average of 2 damage LRM and 4 damage SRM for 1.5 tons + 2 heat + ammo.
-
They might be worthwhile on a very light 'Mech that wants to be a bit flexible (can't fire LRMs under minimum range, but delivers a reasonable amount of hit locations and the option of Inferno ammo) or on a vehicle that doesn't have to worry about criticals, so long as it has the item slots to spare.
Typically it would only be something I would investigate if the design had both an LRM-5 and an SRM-2; upgrading an old Shadow Hawk, for example.
I usually tend to fit a -5 or -7 rather than the smallest or largest MMLs.
-
Well, it's basically an SRM 3 that pays an extra critical slot for the ability to also fire LRM ammo. So how useful you find it probably depends on your position with regard to its closest "cousins", which in my mind are the SRM 2 and 4; those likewise aren't the most devastating weapons out there, but can certainly find their own little niches.
It's also the most efficient MML rack purely in terms of tubes per weight; you get three for 1.5 tons here while the larger launchers only add two more each per extra 1.5. Your mileage may vary as to how much that is worth, but I seem to remember that one does find people arguing for breaking LRM racks down into all-size-5 arrangements on these boards as well purely in the name of greater efficiency -- and if nothing else, I suppose that if you have the crits to spare two MML 3s may make for an acceptable substitute for an SRM 6, still with optional LRM capability. :)
-
I'm going to echo Stormfury here and say that it's ideal for replacing the separate LRM/SRM combos on older light and medium designs like the Shadow Hawk and Assassin. In fact, I'd like to look at the Assassin again in light of packing two MML3's and an ERML on the old ASN-21 chassis. It may be a worthwhile change for a budget conscious mercenary.
-
I'm going to echo Stormfury here and say that it's ideal for replacing the separate LRM/SRM combos on older light and medium designs like the Shadow Hawk and Assassin. In fact, I'd like to look at the Assassin again in light of packing two MML3's and an ERML on the old ASN-21 chassis. It may be a worthwhile change for a budget conscious mercenary.
You actually hit on one of my favorite mods right there.
Anywhere you have an SRM2+LRM5 you can have 2x MML for more raw firepower.
The ShadowHawk-2H comes to mind also.
The MML3 while a good "tonnage" deal is pretty crappy for "critspace"
For mechs w/ Limited space I find the MML5 to be the best "compromise" between tonnage/crits/heat.
The other unit I find them very nice on is the Jihad era Jes-1 hover missile carrier.
I have a variant that uses all Single/Double MML3's in place of the SRM4/SRM6 with enough ammo for a variety of options.
-
So, an acceptable niche weapon. Thanks.
-
It is indeed, especially on light Mechs that often have to worry more about weight than crit space. IMO one of the best Mechs using MML 3s is the Stinger 5T. 6/9/6, delivering 6 LRMs or SRM for not even 350 BV. A 1V Locust costs more.
-
The MML3 while a good "tonnage" deal is pretty crappy for "critspace"
For mechs w/ Limited space I find the MML5 to be the best "compromise" between tonnage/crits/heat.
But you have to remember that light 'mechs often have a lot of crit space compared to weight.
I think that the MML3 is actually quite good at long range crit seeking. In that category it mainly has to compete against the dreaded LB-5X. Perhaps an Ultra as well, although a lot of people are very irrational about those.
-
But you have to remember that light 'mechs often have a lot of crit space compared to weight.
I think that the MML3 is actually quite good at long range crit seeking. In that category it mainly has to compete against the dreaded LB-5X. Perhaps an Ultra as well, although a lot of people are very irrational about those.
Well, if you want to talk long range, then there's also the plain old LRM 5... ;)
-
Consider a upgrade of the vernerable JVN-10N Javelin. 4 x MML/3.
thats the same firepower at short range with an additional LR capability.
-
I have to echo the "value" comments already posted. At the same mass per tube as standard SRMs its the most efficient of the MMLs in terms of mass. A pair of them have the same mass and heat as a SRM6, if you've got the extra crits, what's not to like?
Cheers,
LCC
-
If you're going to use MMLs, and don't want Artemis on them, there are very few cases when you should use anything but MML3s.
Consider:
5xMML3: 7.5 tons, 10 crits, 10 heat, 20/10 damage
3xMML5: 9 tons, 9 crits, 9 heat, 19/9.5 damage
2xMML7: 9 tons, 8 crits, 8 heat, 17/8.5 damage
You save 1.5 tons and get more damage. Sure you might need an extra DHS, but unless you're outfitting an omni you should be able to change something else to get those spaces.
-
But you have to remember that light 'mechs often have a lot of crit space compared to weight.
I think that the MML3 is actually quite good at long range crit seeking. In that category it mainly has to compete against the dreaded LB-5X. Perhaps an Ultra as well, although a lot of people are very irrational about those.
Agree strongly with this. You 1 point of damage you lose on average (going from the 5 cluster chart to the 3) means a lot less than having the ability to pepper someone with SRM's if the range falls. Wouldn't mind seeing a Whitworth mod with 6x MML3 (1 ton LRM & SRM), 4xML & DHS.
-
The MML is an excellent piece of kit. If you look at it as an SRM-3 that can fire LRMs as well you will definitely see its use. If you area big fan of the LRM-5 (like I am), this is a lighter version that can fire SRMs as well.
Light units (which usually have a surplus of crits) mounting SRM-6 launchers can definitely benefit from replacing the SRM-6 launchers with a pair each of MML-3 launchers.
Look at the JVN-10N Javelin; replace both SRM-6 launchers with 4 MML-3 launchers. Or the COM-2D Commando, swapping out the SRM-6 and SRM-4 for three MML-3's and a half-ton more armour (or CASE).
-
If you're going to use MMLs, and don't want Artemis on them, there are very few cases when you should use anything but MML3s.
All aircraft, some vehicles. Not what I would consider very few.
-
All aircraft, some vehicles. Not what I would consider very few.
On aircraft you should be using Artemis, which means MML7s. Which are a valid option for mechs as well.
On vehicles it's a pretty extreme case where you you can't mount massed MML3s. I mean, a modified LRM/SRM carrier barely runs out of slots! 18xMML3+ammo, 19 slots of of 17 available...
-
All aircraft, some vehicles. Not what I would consider very few.
Well sure, if you're one of those 'combined arms' nuts, then it's more than a few cases....
-
It's also a remarkably flexible method of delivering harassment and specialty munitions. The Wasp-8T is a good use of it on a light 'Mech, which gave me a pleasant surprise for a 20-tonner.
(Edit: And the Stinger-5T, for that matter.)
A single MML-3 loaded with Inferno and Thunder (or smoke, but I prefer being able to set fires) munitions is incredibly annoying, sprinkling armor-crippling rounds across the entire field for 3.5 tons. And as noted, they're dandy replacements for standard SRM-6 racks.
-
For their weight, the MML's take up a lot of space.
-
For their weight, the MML's take up a lot of space.
True, but for the amount of space they take up, MMLs add a lot of functionality.
-
Everyone seems to be forgetting the downside of multiple smaller launchers versus fewer larger ones. The more launchers you use, the smaller chance you have of hitting with all your missiles. We've all seen an Archer hit with all 40 LRMs in a single turn (quite rare, but it occasionally happens). Replace those 2 LRM 20s with 8 LRM 5s and you have better odds of hitting the lottery than seeing all 40 missiles hit.
-
Everyone seems to be forgetting the downside of multiple smaller launchers versus fewer larger ones. The more launchers you use, the smaller chance you have of hitting with all your missiles. We've all seen an Archer hit with all 40 LRMs in a single turn (quite rare, but it occasionally happens). Replace those 2 LRM 20s with 8 LRM 5s and you have better odds of hitting the lottery than seeing all 40 missiles hit.
But on the other hand you decrease the chance of hitting with the *minimum* number of missiles.
-
Everyone seems to be forgetting the downside of multiple smaller launchers versus fewer larger ones. The more launchers you use, the smaller chance you have of hitting with all your missiles. We've all seen an Archer hit with all 40 LRMs in a single turn (quite rare, but it occasionally happens). Replace those 2 LRM 20s with 8 LRM 5s and you have better odds of hitting the lottery than seeing all 40 missiles hit.
Yes, but with the LRM-20x2, two bad rolls means ZERO missiles hit,while with the LRM-5x8 you still have six more rolls, increasing your chances that at least some missiles will hit. It also allows for greater flexibility; the 20x2 unit can engage a maximum of 2 targets, devoting equal resources to each, while the 5x8 can engage up to eight targets, tailoring the number of launchers to threat level. Or, when heat is high or ammo is low, the 5x8 can reduce the number of launchers, alleviating its heat/ammo problems without significantly decreasing its combat effectiveness. Also, consider crits; the 20x2 takes a crit to a launcher and the unit's LRM capability drops by 50%; the 5x8,on the other hand, takes a hit to a launcher and it loses just 12.5% of its LRM capability.
-
Yeah, It'd be interesting to see the statistical impact, taking the Archer as a case-study, of 8xLRM-5 vs. 2xLRM-20 regarding the average number of missiles that hit and the statistical deviation from that average and how they compare. My un-scientific hypothesis is that fewer launchers == higher variability whereas more launchers == more consistency and maybe even a slightly elevated average damage. Does this Summon Statistician scroll still work....
-
8 LRMs on 7s to-hit is an expected average damage of 14.776 per turn.
2 LRM-20s on 7s to-hit is an expected average damage of 14.8 per turn.
Really not that much of a difference, but it's a hit/miss approach and some people like to roll more dice.
-
But with larger racks, you get more 5 point groups, and a better chance of internal hits. Also, you get a better chance at hitting the important 20 pt margin (and forcing a piloting skill roll).
-
8 LRMs on 7s to-hit is an expected average damage of 14.776 per turn.
2 LRM-20s on 7s to-hit is an expected average damage of 14.8 per turn.
Really not that much of a difference, but it's a hit/miss approach and some people like to roll more dice.
Those 8 LRM5s also generate 16 heat, versus the 12 for two 20s.
-
But with larger racks, you get more 5 point groups, and a better chance of internal hits. Also, you get a better chance at hitting the important 20 pt margin (and forcing a piloting skill roll).
Do you? Seems to me like you'd have the same number of groups. An average of 4 LRM-5's hit or your LRM-20s average 7 damage each.
-
Those 8 LRM5s also generate 16 heat, versus the 12 for two 20s.
Yeah, but using the LRM-5s saves you four tons, at which point it's a question of crit spaces and concentrated damage vs hoping for 12s and 2s on your location rolls.
I prefer the larger racks; others prefer the smaller ones. In most cases you don't get much out of multiple smaller launchers, especially when you look at Artemis and the like.
Do you? Seems to me like you'd have the same number of groups. An average of 4 LRM-5's hit or your LRM-20s average 7 damage each.
Average damage per launcher for the LRM-5 is 1.4ish when you are at TN 7. More smaller clusters.
-
Yeah, It'd be interesting to see the statistical impact, taking the Archer as a case-study, of 8xLRM-5 vs. 2xLRM-20 regarding the average number of missiles that hit and the statistical deviation from that average and how they compare. My un-scientific hypothesis is that fewer launchers == higher variability whereas more launchers == more consistency and maybe even a slightly elevated average damage. Does this Summon Statistician scroll still work....
Due to the similarities of the cluster tables ( the ten, fifteen, and twenty columns are two, three and four times the five column, respectively), on average, forty tubes (2x20) of LRM's is the same as forty tubes of LRM's (8x5, 4x10, 2x15+10, or any other combination of LRM launchers that total to forty). The only differences are when MML's and LRM's are compared. Ten MML3's firing LRM's is noticibly better than thirty tubes of LRM launchers and an LRM10 is only a little better than three MML3's (three rolls on the three column average 6 missiles, one roll on the ten averages 6.1). MML9's, which average less than 60% on the cluster chart are to be avoided, as 5 MML9's firing LRM's need to fire off several tons before the slight advantage over two LRM20's is significant (this is only on average).
-
Hrm, how do variable skill levels affect that? I would think more skilled pilots would want more shots, since their skill cannot affect the cluster table. Then again, I also doubt the impact would be that great.
-
Hrm, how do variable skill levels affect that? I would think more skilled pilots would want more shots, since their skill cannot affect the cluster table. Then again, I also doubt the impact would be that great.
While the probability of both twenties hitting is larger with better pilots, the chance of missing with at least one stays a non-zero number and missing with both, while small, is larger than missing with all of the smaller launchers. The expected damage from firing LRM's increases with better gunners, but it affects all LRM launchers by the same ammount. I first figured it out looking at IS PPC's. The LPPC, PPC, and HPPC all have identical range brackets, identical dammage to heat ratios, and nearly identical damage to mass ratios. Solely in terms of expected damage (ignoring crit seeking and headcapping) there is almost nothing to distinguish between 6xLPPC's, 3xPPC's, or 2xHPPC's.
-
As someone mentioned the odds of hitting the 20 point hit and forcing the PSR is better w/ just a single LRM20 rack.
4 LRM5's ALL need to role 11-12 at the same time, which over a 1 in 20,000 chance or so.
And that is assuming they all hit in the same turn, which is unlikely.
Meanwhile the LRM20 will force the PSR one in 12 hits.
The average damage will be the same over time but the spikes to hit a PSR is MUCH more common w/ a single LRM20 rack v/s split 5 racks.
-
I never played with the intention of causing PSRs with a single LRM20 rack. You need to get to the 40 missile point to get a regular chance at forcing the PSR. It's for that reason that I consider LRMs to be sandblasters rather than hole punchers.
-
The five-point hits also serve to reinforce that.
-
I never played with the intention of causing PSRs with a single LRM20 rack. You need to get to the 40 missile point to get a regular chance at forcing the PSR. It's for that reason that I consider LRMs to be sandblasters rather than hole punchers.
Agreed, well, w/ 5 point hits they are nicely in the middle like a ML boat.
But yes, more crit seeking that hole-punching.
I was just pointing out the PSR reliability is better w/ a single rack.
Though, I am now pondering what units out there only use a single LRM20 in 3025.
Atm I can think of the 3025 Hunter Light Tank & that's it, till the 3050 Griffins/Shadowhawk/Charger come along.
-
Agreed, well, w/ 5 point hits they are nicely in the middle like a ML boat.
But yes, more crit seeking that hole-punching.
I was just pointing out the PSR reliability is better w/ a single rack.
Though, I am now pondering what units out there only use a single LRM20 in 3025.
Atm I can think of the 3025 Hunter Light Tank & that's it, till the 3050 Griffins/Shadowhawk/Charger come along.
Well, there's the Atlas... :D
-
But yes, more crit seeking that hole-punching.
I don't see it as a crit seeker either. To me a crit seeker is a weapon that will take advantage of exposed holes in the armor. Unless you're using LRMs to backstop ERPPCs, Gauss Rifles and Clan Large Pulse Lasers you're probably not going to use them in that role. More than likely you're using them to bombard the targets initially and soften them up.
I was just pointing out the PSR reliability is better w/ a single rack.
In a discussion about absolutes, yes. You can force a PSR with a single LRM20 rack than a quartet of LRM5s. With the inherent unreliable nature of missiles strikes, even your best chance still isn't a good chance.
Though, I am now pondering what units out there only use a single LRM20 in 3025.
All units below have a Succession Wars or Star League introduction date, all are build with Intro-level technology:
'Mechs:
CGR-1A9 Charger
HGN-733 Highlander
HGN-733C Highlander
HGN-733P Highlander
AS7-D Atlas
AS7-D-DC Atlas
Aerospace Fighters:
LCF-R15 Lucifer
LCF-R16K Lucifer II
SL-17 Shilone
SL-17R Shilone
STU-K5 Stuka
STU-K10 Stuka
STU-K15 Stuka
Vehicles:
Hunter Light Support Tank (as you indicated), as well as its (Ammo) variant
Bulldog Medium Tank (LRM) variant
Sturmfeur Heavy Tank (SRM) variant