Author Topic: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV  (Read 12244 times)

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« on: 08 September 2018, 22:27:02 »
Looks like polls are no longer a thing, but I'm curious as to how people rate the original Mad Cat vs the Mk IV.  Both in a fight between the two and in terms of doing a specific job.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Firesprocket

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2945
  • Broke the Bandwagon
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #1 on: 09 September 2018, 00:17:27 »
The MK IV tries to do too much with advanced tech that I'd still give the nod to the original.  Ferro Lamellor is awesome, but between it, Endo Steel, the XXL engine, there isn't a whole lot of space that you can use for other things.  The extra heat the XXL engine produces give a couple configurations an odd heat curve that I just don't like.  The idea that it doesn't use a compact gyro to open up some space is also somewhat baffling.

If I'm going to go 1 v 1 though I'd take the Mk IV C.  It's probably the most well rounded of the configurations and as good or better than 90% of the Timber Wolf configurations.


Kojak

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4610
  • Melancon Lives!
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #2 on: 09 September 2018, 00:23:12 »
You'd have to specify config, or else the permutations are way too varied to make any kind of reasoned call on this.


"Deep down, I suspect the eject handle on the Hunchback IIC was never actually connected to anything. The regs just say it has to be there."
- Klarg1

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13011
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #3 on: 09 September 2018, 01:10:21 »
The new one is a bit too "flashy new tech" for my tastes,  I prefer the original.

Not that its not a nice machine, just that I'd hate to have to be the logistics chief in charge of supporting that thing after buying one from the Sharks.

And what can I say, I still LOVE me some old fashioned T-Wolf-A, its the kind of mech you can give to a 6 year old to handle its so simplistic in its use.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #4 on: 09 September 2018, 01:15:43 »
You'd have to specify config, or else the permutations are way too varied to make any kind of reasoned call on this.

Either Mad Cat Prime vs the Mk IV C or Mad Cat D vs Mk IV Prime since those are the two "mirror match" configs.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Kojak

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4610
  • Melancon Lives!
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #5 on: 09 September 2018, 01:55:01 »
In that case I'd say the Timber Wolf classic would have the edge, if only because I suspect the slightly more forgiving heat curve combined with the less vulnerable engine would outweigh the advantage of the ferro-lamellor's increased durability more often than not.


"Deep down, I suspect the eject handle on the Hunchback IIC was never actually connected to anything. The regs just say it has to be there."
- Klarg1

Deadborder

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7881
  • Technical Victory!
    • Elmer Studios Blog
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #6 on: 09 September 2018, 02:28:01 »
I ran this one in MegaMek. Out of 11 battles, the Mad Cat Mk IV came out on top in 10 of them. Disregarding one case that was not useful (the Mk IV headshotted the Mad Cat in the first turn, also known as the Hellstar testing principle) I found that the Ferro-Lamellor armour was a huge advantage. It's not just that the Mk IV has functionally 20% more armour that made the difference; it was the rate of absorption.

SRMs do half damage. ER Medium Lasers do 5 damage. LRM clusters get reamed. 10 point hits won't penetrate the head armour. The Mk IV gets so much more out of it's protection that it easily offsets the added vulnerability from the XXL engine. The armoured gyro is just icing on the cake.

The one time the Mad Cat won came from disproportionate concentration of hits to the same side torso, which was itself the result more of luck then any real weakness.
Author of BattleCorps stories Grand Theft Agro and Zero Signal



How to Draw MegaMek Icons the Deadborder Way. Over 9000 so far. Determination or madness?

Kojak

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4610
  • Melancon Lives!
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #7 on: 09 September 2018, 02:32:37 »
Interesting. Good to know I was way off on this, hopefully I'll be better able to gauge the effectiveness of ferro-lam in the future.


"Deep down, I suspect the eject handle on the Hunchback IIC was never actually connected to anything. The regs just say it has to be there."
- Klarg1

Deadborder

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7881
  • Technical Victory!
    • Elmer Studios Blog
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #8 on: 09 September 2018, 04:32:40 »
Yeah, I have to admit, I had not expected how much of a difference the FL would make overall at first, but then I was genuinely surprised by the results. It's that it's one point per 5 points or fraction thereof that makes all the difference. As said, you halve SRM damage, murder LRM clusters and become immune to LBX and SBG clusters. That's a huge change when you consider how many weapons don't just do their damage in multiples of 5. And, as said, you can't penetrate the head armour with a 10 point weapon (in fact, you need to do 13 points to get through, so sorry Bombast and Binary Lasers) which in my experience makes a world of difference.
Author of BattleCorps stories Grand Theft Agro and Zero Signal



How to Draw MegaMek Icons the Deadborder Way. Over 9000 so far. Determination or madness?

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13011
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #9 on: 09 September 2018, 14:04:44 »
Interesting results from the MM tests DB.

I wonder how something like the A with Twin ERPPCs as primary armament would handle things.

Actually the D also has them but also has loads of SRMs too which get gimped.

3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #10 on: 09 September 2018, 14:59:21 »
The reason I started this thread was in part because I took a Mad Cat Mk IV C up against a Mad Cat A in a game last week.

While the Mad Cat A had some bad luck that caused it to miss completely for two rounds, it was pretty clear once the two closed that the Savage Wolf had the upper hand at close range with its medium lasers and Artemis V equipped LRMs.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Boomer8

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Caballeros Forever!
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #11 on: 11 September 2018, 14:24:40 »
Just for curiosity, could you run a T-wolf F versus a Mk 4 prime, Deadborder? Be interesting to see what an upscaled oldie does to the new kid.
Victor W. Milan (1954-2018) Taken before he finished.

Demiurge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #12 on: 12 September 2018, 10:38:20 »
I think a lot of us tend to over-estimate the importance of critical hits and structure damage.  Certainly, the Mk IV dies a bit faster than most once its guts are showing.  Thing is... if a mech's internal structure is showing, it's already mostly dead.

A 3050 model T-wolf (or any other optimized mech with full armor) has essentially 2/3 of its health bar in armor and 1/3 of its health bar in internal structure.  Now, sure, there are some nuances on top of that, since each individual location has its own health pool and losing a torso means losing an arm.  However, these are heavy mechs we're talking about, and neither one is packing concentrated enough firepower to outright amputate any locations, so the damage is going to be spread out enough and stochastic enough that we can basically talk about these mechs having unified hit point pools.

A 3145 model T-wolf, shiny and new from your local loanfox dealer, has a hit point pool that's 2/15s larger than the 3050 model (pessimistically assuming that the enemy is shooting at it with weapons that receive minimum damage reduction).  What's more, that hit point pool is larger exclusively as a result of increased armor.  The portion of its hit point pool where it can face-tank shots and not worry about limbs falling off is 20% larger, which is to say that it's equivalent to a 90 tonner.  On top of that, it has equivalent firepower and speed to the 3050 model.

What is pays is that the 3145 model T-wolf cannot tolerate the loss of a side torso, and if the armor gets flayed open and the internal structure gets chewed on for a while, there's a chance that it dies from engine crits.  But here's the thing; by the time that happens, the mk IV has already lost 70% of its hitpoints.  So the mk IV dies a little faster when it's mostly dead already, but it takes 20% more punishment to get to that point.

That's a straight upgrade.  The ferro-lamellar more than cancels out the XXL engine, at least from a survivability standpoint.  The heat problems from mounting jump jets are more of a concern, as is the fact that you need to re-finance your entire planet to afford the silly thing.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #13 on: 12 September 2018, 11:02:45 »
... as is the fact that you need to re-finance your entire planet to afford the silly thing.

And there it is.  Wondered how long it'd be before that came up.

As far as in-game cost:
We don't know what the C-Bill cost of the Mk IV is (canonically), but since it's not introduced until after Grey Monday the in-universe C-Bill cost probably changes at a daily pace due to the plummeting value of the C-Bill.

We DO know that the mk IV costs no more (and no less) than a mk I Mad Cat for in-universe forces to procure (they cost the same number of Support Points).

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #14 on: 12 September 2018, 11:18:57 »
Musing:  What does the discussion above about relative values of Internals and Criticals do to inform us about Reinforced or Composite Internal Structures?

My gut sense is that Reinforced is worthwhile only if your absolute goal is survival and mission package can be sacrificed for that.  OTOH - can composite be justified if the savings allow increased in armor?  Whats the breakpoint there if composite is allowing you to buy ferro-lamellor or hardened?

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #15 on: 12 September 2018, 13:44:21 »
I would only use Composite on a mech that dies if you look at it funny anyway (in other words, a bug mech) or the mech was absolutely never intended to be in a position of enemies shooting back at it (artillery/XLRM mech).
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Deadborder

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7881
  • Technical Victory!
    • Elmer Studios Blog
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #16 on: 12 September 2018, 19:17:06 »
One other thing to consider is the effect Ferro Lamellor has on some of the biggest bogeymen of sudden 'Mech kills; headshots, pilot hits and TACs.

The headshot is worth considering. A 'Mech's head can have a maximum of 9 armour. When you look at the amount of weapons that can do 10 damage, you can see an easy route to easily crippling or killing a 'Mech in one shot. A 'Mech with FL armour can't have its head armour penetrated in a single shot from a 10 point weapon; in fact, it takes 13 points to do such. Of course, since there are no 13 point weapons, this means that the only way to do such is through completely destroying the head with a 15 point hit. On top of that, it also means that you can't get through the head armour with two 5 point hits, which are also pretty common.

Number two is the stray LBX or SBG pellet (or single LRM). Not just is FL armour immune to it, but there are other benefits as well. A single point hit can't inflict a TAC on a location with FL armour, nor will it do pilot damage.

Author of BattleCorps stories Grand Theft Agro and Zero Signal



How to Draw MegaMek Icons the Deadborder Way. Over 9000 so far. Determination or madness?

Demiurge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #17 on: 12 September 2018, 21:28:28 »
And there it is.  Wondered how long it'd be before that came up.

As far as in-game cost:
We don't know what the C-Bill cost of the Mk IV is (canonically), but since it's not introduced until after Grey Monday the in-universe C-Bill cost probably changes at a daily pace due to the plummeting value of the C-Bill.

We DO know that the mk IV costs no more (and no less) than a mk I Mad Cat for in-universe forces to procure (they cost the same number of Support Points).

I always figured that the cost figures given for XXL engines were when they were brand new technology only found in the secretest, squirrelest laboratories with the best funding.  Since they became mass production items they have become... well, certainly not cheap, but much more reasonable.

Musing:  What does the discussion above about relative values of Internals and Criticals do to inform us about Reinforced or Composite Internal Structures?

My gut sense is that Reinforced is worthwhile only if your absolute goal is survival and mission package can be sacrificed for that.  OTOH - can composite be justified if the savings allow increased in armor?  Whats the breakpoint there if composite is allowing you to buy ferro-lamellor or hardened?

That's an interesting musing.

Composite structure frees up 5% of a mech's total weight and throws away 17% of its total hitpoints.  Reinforced loses 10% of a mech's total weight and gains an additional 33% hitpoints.

So reinforced is essentially a hobo version of hardened armor.  It gives about the same additional hitpoints per ton, but it doesn't give quite the same protection against TACs, but it doesn't add the same mobility penalties.

Composite structure plus ferro lamellor is an interesting proposition.  You would net lose hitpoints against large weapons, but it would be a loss of 17% of your structure hitpoints versus a gain of 13% armor hitpoints, and armor hitpoints are more desirable anyway.  On top of that, you'd be gaining all the small benefits that Deadborder mentioned.  Headshot threshold would remain the same; two 5 pointers still don't make it through the head armor, binary lasers clean off all the armor but do nothing more, and I guess you'd get killed by 14 point weapons to the head if any of those existed.  You would also net save tonnage vs using standard armor and internals, but only a small amount.

Endo-composite plus max ferro lamellor is weight neutral, or very close to it.


Edit:  Reinforced plus ferro lamellor means that 15 point headshots don't automatically kill.  That's significant.
« Last Edit: 12 September 2018, 21:58:51 by Demiurge »

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #18 on: 12 September 2018, 21:30:05 »
I always figured that the cost figures given for XXL engines were when they were brand new technology only found in the secretest, squirrelest laboratories with the best funding.  Since they became mass production items they have become... well, certainly not cheap, but much more reasonable.

Me too, but having had this very argument at least 3 times already I've learned that there are plenty of those who think the prices are accurate for the entire hundreds-of-years-span of in-game history, and they really don't wanna be convinced otherwise.

Demiurge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #19 on: 22 September 2018, 15:57:15 »
Regardless, I don't think XXL engines are the way forward in most cases.  The heat penalty with jump jets is terrible, and IJJs and partial wings are a more attractive way to improve mobility in the Dark Age era, IMO.

How dumb are IJJs?  They're so dumb that the main variant of the gyrfalcon is one of the most optimized designs and intensely frustrating mechs to fight anywhere that isn't an enclosed, underground pit, and it's shackled with the deadweight of two UAC/2s!

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #20 on: 22 September 2018, 16:42:28 »
The Gryfalcon doesn't mount IJJs. :)

Its jumping range is 100% from standard JJs and the Partial Wing*.

*in standard atmosphere.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #21 on: 23 September 2018, 00:56:40 »
Neither the Mad Cat nor the Mad Cat Mk IV mount IJJs, so IJJs aren't relevant in a discussion about the two mechs.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Demiurge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #22 on: 23 September 2018, 19:30:47 »
The Gryfalcon doesn't mount IJJs. :)

Its jumping range is 100% from standard JJs and the Partial Wing*.

*in standard atmosphere.

My bad, got my wires crossed.

Jump MP is so valuable that even having less than the full value of walk MP as jump MP is a net gain; see the Timberwolf Pryde variant.  But having your jump MP equal or close to your run MP?  The mech's legs would shrivel into vestigial landing gears.

I think more generally, if we're talking Dark Age, 5/8 should not be considered fast for a heavy mech anymore.  5/8 was very fast for a heavy mech in 3025, and all the top-of-the-line "cavalry" designs did 5/8 all the way up through the Jihad era.  That was then, this is now.  By Dark Age, the MadCat original flavor and MadCat Refreshing Mint Blast should both be considered old-fashioned designs, optimized for an era when clan machines could have the firepower of a mech one weight class higher and the speed of a mech one weight class lower when compared to their spheroid counterparts.

Basically, if you're comparing the Mk IV to the original, it's a referendum on whether FL armor and an XXL is a better combination than FF armor and an XL.  Math says it is most of the time.  But neither design remains representative of what an optimal 75 ton mech looks like.

Ruger

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5561
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #23 on: 23 September 2018, 20:25:36 »
Basically, if you're comparing the Mk IV to the original, it's a referendum on whether FL armor and an XXL is a better combination than FF armor and an XL.  Math says it is most of the time.  But neither design remains representative of what an optimal 75 ton mech looks like.

Ok, I have to ask, if these are not optimal 75 tonners to you, what is?

Ruger
"If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back." - Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall...Stand with me." - The Doctor, The Doctor Falls, Doctor Who

Dragon Cat

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7827
  • Not Dead Until I Say So
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #24 on: 23 September 2018, 20:44:04 »
The Mad Cat 4 is an evolution the original king of the Clan invasion can't take but they are also built for different battlefields most of the 3050 designs were struggling to keep up in the Jihad let alone DA.

Me personally the Timber Wolf wins on flexibility of being an Omni but in a straight up fight take two to make sure you kill the MC4
My three main Alternate Timeline with Thanks fan-fiction threads are in the links below. I'm always open to suggestions or additions to be incorporated so if you feel you wish to add something feel free. There's non-canon units, equipment, people, events, erm... Solar Systems spread throughout so please enjoy

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,20515.0.html - Part 1

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,52013.0.html - Part 2

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,79196.0.html - Part 3

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #25 on: 23 September 2018, 21:21:36 »
The Mad Cat Mk IV is also an omni.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #26 on: 23 September 2018, 21:23:45 »
I think more generally, if we're talking Dark Age, 5/8 should not be considered fast for a heavy mech anymore.  5/8 was very fast for a heavy mech in 3025, and all the top-of-the-line "cavalry" designs did 5/8 all the way up through the Jihad era.  That was then, this is now.  By Dark Age, the MadCat original flavor and MadCat Refreshing Mint Blast should both be considered old-fashioned designs, optimized for an era when clan machines could have the firepower of a mech one weight class higher and the speed of a mech one weight class lower when compared to their spheroid counterparts.

Basically, if you're comparing the Mk IV to the original, it's a referendum on whether FL armor and an XXL is a better combination than FF armor and an XL.  Math says it is most of the time.  But neither design remains representative of what an optimal 75 ton mech looks like.

It's not physically possible to build a 75 ton mech that moves faster than 5/8.  MASC, Superchargers, and TSM can give the ability to temporarily move faster than that, but that's the upper limit of what you can get from engine power.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Firesprocket

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2945
  • Broke the Bandwagon
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #27 on: 23 September 2018, 22:26:07 »
It's not physically possible to build a 75 ton mech that moves faster than 5/8.  MASC, Superchargers, and TSM can give the ability to temporarily move faster than that, but that's the upper limit of what you can get from engine power.

The weight exists where you could look at putting a large XXL engine into a 75 ton machine with max or respectable armor and go 6/9.  Damage output would obviously suffer to some degree, but you can do it.  With he larger engine weight MASC is a better weight option than a SC if you want to make it go faster.

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #28 on: 23 September 2018, 22:34:43 »
The weight exists where you could look at putting a large XXL engine into a 75 ton machine with max or respectable armor and go 6/9.  Damage output would obviously suffer to some degree, but you can do it.  With he larger engine weight MASC is a better weight option than a SC if you want to make it go faster.
I'll be honest, I was doubting it was possible until I checked myself. With an XXL 6/9 Clan unit with Endo Steel, you have 18.5 tons to spend on armor and equipment.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #29 on: 23 September 2018, 22:36:39 »
So in other words, you can get the movement and armor of a Puma, but with about half the firepower.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #30 on: 23 September 2018, 23:38:55 »
I mean, I'd take a near-max armored 75 ton mech with four ER Medium Lasers or Heavy Medium Lasers that moves 6/9. Not willingly, but I'd take it.

Dragon Cat

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7827
  • Not Dead Until I Say So
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #31 on: 24 September 2018, 00:24:21 »
The Mad Cat Mk IV is also an omni.

So it is I thought it had followed the other Sea Fox units I'm away from books I'd say it wins hands down then expensive but effective
My three main Alternate Timeline with Thanks fan-fiction threads are in the links below. I'm always open to suggestions or additions to be incorporated so if you feel you wish to add something feel free. There's non-canon units, equipment, people, events, erm... Solar Systems spread throughout so please enjoy

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,20515.0.html - Part 1

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,52013.0.html - Part 2

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,79196.0.html - Part 3

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6120
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #32 on: 25 September 2018, 06:10:48 »
The Mad Cat Mk IV is also an omni.

I would argue that the IVs free criticals to tons ratio isn't as balanced as as the Original. That makes it less capable as an Omnimech.

Thatguybil

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 500
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #33 on: 26 September 2018, 20:14:14 »
So in other words, you can get the movement and armor of a Puma, but with about half the firepower.
And you could get a stars worth of puma for the same......

Never mind ;)

Demiurge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #34 on: 30 September 2018, 04:51:38 »
Ok, I have to ask, if these are not optimal 75 tonners to you, what is?

Ruger

4/6/7 with IJJs and partial wing, XL engine, and max standard armor.  21.5 tons free.  You're basically at three and a half tons less pod space than a Summoner, once you account for fixed heat sinks, but with considerably more armor and an additional two jump MP.

That's a +4 to-hit modifier, every turn, for +4 heat and a +3 to-hit penalty.  Anything you can't out-run, you can out-shoot and vice versa.

Armament can be whatever flavor of delicous clan fermented dairy good suits your personal taste.

If you want to get really silly, go for a XXL engine and max the engine heat sinks.  This increases your net heat dissipation by 1 while jumping and your free tonnage by 1 ton, at the expense of four additional torso crits and some squishiness.

This is enough to add an ER PPC, capacitor, ER large laser, AES, LRM-20, artemis V, two tons of ammo and CASE II.

LRM is in the arm with AES for a delicious +2 net range penalty at 21 hexes, the ER PPC throws AC-20 equivalent damage out to 23 hexes every other turn, and the ERLL covers on the turns while it's recharging.  All while the unit can back-pedal at 7 hexes per turn over any terrain.

Ruger

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5561
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #35 on: 30 September 2018, 08:38:16 »
4/6/7 with IJJs and partial wing, XL engine, and max standard armor.  21.5 tons free.  You're basically at three and a half tons less pod space than a Summoner, once you account for fixed heat sinks, but with considerably more armor and an additional two jump MP.

And 6 tons less pod weight than the Timber Wolf, 6.5 tons less than a Savage Wolf...but looks like you didn't use endo either, so you could gain back another 3.5 tons with that...still, if for some reason you can't use jump movement (say in a cave system or inside a large building), you're at a significant disadvantage...

It's not optimized, IMnsHO...it's SPECIALIZED...

Quote
That's a +4 to-hit modifier, every turn, for +4 heat and a +3 to-hit penalty.  Anything you can't out-run, you can out-shoot and vice versa.

Unless you have a very good pilot and/or at short range, you're also going to be regretting that continual +3 to hit penalty, without the use of something to mitigate it...basically, your weapons payload is the same as a Gargoyle right now, and you don't even have the extra DHS's or ground speed it does...

Quote
Armament can be whatever flavor of delicous clan fermented dairy good suits your personal taste.

If you want to get really silly, go for a XXL engine and max the engine heat sinks.  This increases your net heat dissipation by 1 while jumping and your free tonnage by 1 ton, at the expense of four additional torso crits and some squishiness.

Which would leave you 1 torso crit in each side torso with which to use for other stuff...

Quote
This is enough to add an ER PPC, capacitor, ER large laser, AES, LRM-20, artemis V, two tons of ammo and CASE II.

LRM is in the arm with AES for a delicious +2 net range penalty at 21 hexes, the ER PPC throws AC-20 equivalent damage out to 23 hexes every other turn, and the ERLL covers on the turns while it's recharging.  All while the unit can back-pedal at 7 hexes per turn over any terrain.

The Artemis V won't get much use, because I'm going to pack an Angel ECM suite...you're jumping every turn, so you automatically have a +3 ton hit penalty on the ER Large and the ER PPC...you're trying to keep range, so that's another +2 to +4 penalty, so you're at +5 to +7 already, without factoring in my movement...You're AES will help your targeting penalty on your arm-mounted weapon, but nothing else...

Meanwhile, I have a regular Clan OmniMech loaded to fight this 'Mech...a combination of pulse lasers and targeting computer means I'm at a +1 to hit you at long range, +2 for my running movement, +4 for your movement (+7 at long range)...and things only get better for me as the range closes...

It would be a tough battle, but I'm not seeing this as the decisive, always-victorious 'Mech you seem to be making it out to be...

Otherwise, everyone would be fielding them now...

Ruger
"If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back." - Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall...Stand with me." - The Doctor, The Doctor Falls, Doctor Who

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #36 on: 30 September 2018, 12:16:08 »
Meanwhile, I have a regular Clan OmniMech loaded to fight this 'Mech...a combination of pulse lasers and targeting computer means I'm at a +1 to hit you at long range, +2 for my running movement, +4 for your movement (+7 at long range)...and things only get better for me as the range closes...
Hell, those cut-down LTCs can be used to straight-up ignore the mobility advantages out to 20 hexes-with an extreme of 26. Using IS VSPLs on an ultimately faster units would also be viable, but a bit trickier to get right.

This said, hard-locked Jump jets is only viable with partial wing-and even then, that pod space is better left untapped on the base config. While an omniconfig of a mech with a partial wing but without jumpjets is certainly not good, it at least provides for options. Demiurge's 'optimal' design's... Not very optimal.

Demiurge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #37 on: 01 October 2018, 11:40:36 »
And 6 tons less pod weight than the Timber Wolf, 6.5 tons less than a Savage Wolf...but looks like you didn't use endo either, so you could gain back another 3.5 tons with that...still, if for some reason you can't use jump movement (say in a cave system or inside a large building), you're at a significant disadvantage...

Good catch; it's just straight better with endo steel and the XL rather than standard internals and the XXL.  I got big googly eyes when looking at the new toys, but XXLs on slower mechs are a complete waste.

Quote
It's not optimized, IMnsHO...it's SPECIALIZED...

Unless you have a very good pilot and/or at short range, you're also going to be regretting that continual +3 to hit penalty, without the use of something to mitigate it...basically, your weapons payload is the same as a Gargoyle right now, and you don't even have the extra DHS's or ground speed it does...

Nope.  Your analysis is just wrong.

You've come up with very specific scenarios wherein this design would lose.  That doesn't mean it's not optimized.  That just means it's not quite broken enough to completely break the game under every conceivable scenario that a vengeful GM might conjure in order to punish a player who was obnoxious enough to actually use something like this.

You think it's not optimized because it can lost fights in caves?!  Say that back again to yourself.  Out loud.

Yeah, that's what I thought.  That's like saying a T-64 is a horrible tank because it will lose to a Los Angeles-class fast attack boat every time.

Quote
The Artemis V won't get much use, because I'm going to pack an Angel ECM suite...

Yeah, obviously if you get to counter-pick your scenario and your mech, you can contrive some weird edge case where this doesn't work very well.  In fact, as a GM this would be a good thing to do if one of the players tried something this outrageously cheesy.  Or, you know, started using canon freaking designs that work like this.  What I'm proposing is basically a scaled-up Gyrfalcon.

Quote
you're jumping every turn, so you automatically have a +3 ton hit penalty on the ER Large and the ER PPC...you're trying to keep range, so that's another +2 to +4 penalty, so you're at +5 to +7 already, without factoring in my movement...You're AES will help your targeting penalty on your arm-mounted weapon, but nothing else...

My theory of design is sound because it's based on how the probability curve of a 2D6 works.

5/8 is a breaking point because it's the first movement speed where mech can potentially (depending on the terrain) force a higher target movement modifier on the enemy than it is forcing on itself.  +3 to the enemy, +2 to itself for running, for a difference of 1.

A mech jumping 7 hexes also forces a difference of 1; +4 to the enemy, +3 to itself.  Same deal, right?  Only a set of five IJJs and that partial wing is a hell of a lot heavier than a 375XL.  Much better to stick with the older, simpler design, since it accomplishes the same thing on less tonnage.  WRONG.  THE MATH SAYS WRONG.

If I can push my enemy's to-hit up to an 8, but keep mine at a 7, then I have a 58.33% to hit and they have a 41.66% chance to hit, which gives me an effective 40% multiplicative advantage in firepower.  That more than makes up the difference in pod space.

But if I can push my enemy's to-hit up to a 9, but keep mine at an 8, which is exactly the sort of trade that you can force if you have 7 jump MP vs 8 run MP, then my to-hit is a 41.66% and theirs drops to 27.77%, which gives me a 50% advantage.

For 10 vs 9 this goes up to a 66% advantage, for 11 vs 10 it's an even 100%, and for 12 vs 11 it's a 200% advantage.  For 13 vs 12, of course, it is an infinite advantage.  Sure, I have to wait to roll boxcars, but until I run out of room to maneuver, I'm untouchable.

This is an inescapable consequence of how bell curves work mathematically.  You remember... several iterations of the forums ago how some old-timer (Cray?) would rant about how all VTOLs must possess 10/15 movement or they're worthless death-traps?  Same principle here.  You always want to push to-hit numbers as high as possible for a given difference between your and your enemy's to-hit numbers.  Always.  The problem with this inescapable mathematical fact is that it results in an extremely boring playstyle.  So maybe mathematical optimization isn't how you have fun playing Battletech.  More on that later.

Quote
Meanwhile, I have a regular Clan OmniMech loaded to fight this 'Mech...a combination of pulse lasers and targeting computer means I'm at a +1 to hit you at long range, +2 for my running movement, +4 for your movement (+7 at long range)...and things only get better for me as the range closes...

1)  Your purpose-built counterpick mech is based around clan pulse lasers and a targeting computer.  You know, the combination that is universally acknowledged to be one of the most broken things in the game.  My uber-Gyrfalcon must be reasonably optimized if you need to resort to such measures to swat it.

2)  I have 7 jump MP.  Outside of a contrived scenario like a battle in a cave or a perfectly flat plane where a typical 5/8 won't ever lose MP while trying to close, what on earth makes you think you'll ever close distance?

3)  I considered drafting the design with LPLs or ER LPLs and a TC, but I'd already showered that night and it would be a hassle to do so again.  Part of the reason I chose an ER PPC+capacitor is that at least the gameplay is a bit less boring.  Picking mechs to bit with 10 pointers is rather blase, but when you start flinging 20 pointers there's a certain anticipation that something really pyrotechnic could happen that sort of offsets the fact that you're kiting them to death forever.

Quote
Otherwise, everyone would be fielding them now...


This is terrible logic.

Look, the construction system is not very well balanced, doesn't make any sense, and everyone has known this for decades.  The reason the game works as well as it does there's a system of unspoken gentlemen's agreements that keeps everyone from fielding forces entirely comprised of rifleman IICs and garbage like that.

The canon designs don't follow anything like a methodological in-universe arms race that trends towards greater optimization.  Designs are usually very badly sub-optimal, and they serve for decades of in-universe time before being replaced by designs that are usually equally sub-optimal, just usually in different and interesting ways.

My point isn't that players should munchkin their hearts out or anything like that.  This is not a game that really works with a competitive, optimization-driven mindset.  It's much more casual, more about having fun with your friends over beer and pretzels.

My point is that the new rules allow for mechs that are generally superior to the old MadCat, or even the shiny new mk IVs, and that such machines aren't terribly different than things that already exist.  Just take a Gyrfalcon and blow it up 40%, or take a Jade Hawk and juggle the engine and jump jet configuration a bit.
« Last Edit: 01 October 2018, 11:43:52 by Demiurge »

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #38 on: 01 October 2018, 19:24:05 »
<snip>
« Last Edit: 01 October 2018, 19:27:31 by Caedis Animus »

grimlock1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #39 on: 07 November 2018, 10:12:01 »

If I can push my enemy's to-hit up to an 8, but keep mine at a 7, then I have a 58.33% to hit and they have a 41.66% chance to hit, which gives me an effective 40% multiplicative advantage in firepower.  That more than makes up the difference in pod space.

But if I can push my enemy's to-hit up to a 9, but keep mine at an 8, which is exactly the sort of trade that you can force if you have 7 jump MP vs 8 run MP, then my to-hit is a 41.66% and theirs drops to 27.77%, which gives me a 50% advantage.

For 10 vs 9 this goes up to a 66% advantage, for 11 vs 10 it's an even 100%, and for 12 vs 11 it's a 200% advantage.  For 13 vs 12, of course, it is an infinite advantage.  Sure, I have to wait to roll boxcars, but until I run out of room to maneuver, I'm untouchable.
How are you coming to you % advantages? 
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Apocal

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 547
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #40 on: 08 November 2018, 13:38:38 »
How are you coming to you % advantages?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with this post, but it is basic division.

58.33 ÷ 41.66 = 1.40

That's a multiplicative advantage (everything past 1.0) of forty percent.

41.66 ÷ 27.77 = 1.50
27.77 ÷ 16.67 = 1.66
...
8.33 ÷ 2.78 = 2.99

Which comes out to two hundred percent.
« Last Edit: 08 November 2018, 13:40:41 by Apocal »

grimlock1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #41 on: 08 November 2018, 15:44:15 »
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with this post, but it is basic division.

58.33 ÷ 41.66 = 1.40

That's a multiplicative advantage (everything past 1.0) of forty percent.

41.66 ÷ 27.77 = 1.50
27.77 ÷ 16.67 = 1.66
...
8.33 ÷ 2.78 = 2.99

Which comes out to two hundred percent.
I'm not disputing your math.  I'm asking you to explain your process and conclusions, rather than simply declare one case advantageous over another. 

Throw a link if you don't want to explain it.
« Last Edit: 08 November 2018, 15:50:59 by grimlock1 »
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Apocal

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 547
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #42 on: 08 November 2018, 17:35:30 »
I'm not disputing your math.  I'm asking you to explain your process and conclusions, rather than simply declare one case advantageous over another. 

Throw a link if you don't want to explain it.

Having lower to-hit roll than your opponent is better because you hit more often than they do. The percentages are based on the curve of 2d6 dice. I'm not Demiurge and I don't know how I can express the idea more simply than that.

« Last Edit: 08 November 2018, 17:41:44 by Apocal »

grimlock1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #43 on: 08 November 2018, 21:39:44 »
Having lower to-hit roll than your opponent is better because you hit more often than they do. The percentages are based on the curve of 2d6 dice. I'm not Demiurge and I don't know how I can express the idea more simply than that.


Let me rephrase the question.

58.33 ÷ 41.66 = 1.40

That's a multiplicative advantage (everything past 1.0) of forty percent.
What does "multiplicative advantage" mean?

I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #44 on: 08 November 2018, 23:28:29 »
It means that even though the difference in hit chance is only ~16% when compared to the sum total of all possible outcomes (58% vs. 42% roughly), the actual difference between those two numbers as a function of how many more times a given result is going to happen is 40%.  If you need to roll a 7+ on 2d6, you will hit approximately 40% more often than an 8+ on 2d6, even though the numbers on a bell curve are only one space apart.

For a slightly easier to visualize perspective: imagine the odds of hitting on a 12 on 2d6 versus the odds of hitting on an 11.  Hitting on a 12 is approximately 2.7% chance.  Hitting on 11 is a 5.4% chance.  Even though the difference is only 2.7%, the difference is doubled.  The multiplicative advantage (I hate that phrase but can't think of anything better off the top of my head) in that scenario is 2 (or 100%).
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #45 on: 08 November 2018, 23:47:37 »
This is fascinating and all, but I'm not really seeing how it factors into a fight between the Mad Cat and the Mad Cat Mk IV.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

grimlock1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #46 on: 09 November 2018, 09:08:47 »
It means that even though the difference in hit chance is only ~16% when compared to the sum total of all possible outcomes (58% vs. 42% roughly), the actual difference between those two numbers as a function of how many more times a given result is going to happen is 40%.  If you need to roll a 7+ on 2d6, you will hit approximately 40% more often than an 8+ on 2d6, even though the numbers on a bell curve are only one space apart.

For a slightly easier to visualize perspective: imagine the odds of hitting on a 12 on 2d6 versus the odds of hitting on an 11.  Hitting on a 12 is approximately 2.7% chance.  Hitting on 11 is a 5.4% chance.  Even though the difference is only 2.7%, the difference is doubled.  The multiplicative advantage (I hate that phrase but can't think of anything better off the top of my head) in that scenario is 2 (or 100%).
Thank you.
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #47 on: 09 November 2018, 22:00:42 »
This is fascinating and all, but I'm not really seeing how it factors into a fight between the Mad Cat and the Mad Cat Mk IV.
This. That entire measuring contest pretty thoroughly derailed this thread.

Anyhow, the only reason I'm really hesitant to use a Mad Cat Mk IV is due to the XXL engine; Losing a side torso in a Clan mech's pretty dang notable, all things considered, even with the increase in durability.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #48 on: 11 November 2018, 05:49:15 »
I'll ask a simpler question. 

Imagine a Clan Cluster commander fitting out his forces, now imagine he has X kerenskies to play with (basically, how many MkIV's can he buy for the price of a Star of baseline Timberwolves?)

whatever you have left, is your budget for pods.  (aka how many Omni pod configurations can you support for the same budget in Kerenskies?)

This ignores transportation cost, loss of access to the homeworlds, etc. etc.

aka 'the story elements'...just the C-bill/Kerensky equivalent price in resources between procurement, using a fixed resource number and ignoring the ability to go fight a bunch of lunchroom duels.

also keep in mind; your Cluster has zero idea where they're going to be deployed, or for how long, or whether/if/how well they're going to be resupplied.

basically, there is a point where 80% is good enough, because that is the point at which your resources run out and you still have things to do.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Getz

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 752
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #49 on: 11 November 2018, 08:06:54 »
Good catch; it's just straight better with endo steel and the XL rather than standard internals and the XXL.  I got big googly eyes when looking at the new toys, but XXLs on slower mechs are a complete waste.

Nope.  Your analysis is just wrong.

You've come up with very specific scenarios wherein this design would lose.  That doesn't mean it's not optimized.  That just means it's not quite broken enough to completely break the game under every conceivable scenario that a vengeful GM might conjure in order to punish a player who was obnoxious enough to actually use something like this.

You think it's not optimized because it can lost fights in caves?!  Say that back again to yourself.  Out loud.

Yeah, that's what I thought.  That's like saying a T-64 is a horrible tank because it will lose to a Los Angeles-class fast attack boat every time.

Yeah, obviously if you get to counter-pick your scenario and your mech, you can contrive some weird edge case where this doesn't work very well.  In fact, as a GM this would be a good thing to do if one of the players tried something this outrageously cheesy.  Or, you know, started using canon freaking designs that work like this.  What I'm proposing is basically a scaled-up Gyrfalcon.

My theory of design is sound because it's based on how the probability curve of a 2D6 works.

5/8 is a breaking point because it's the first movement speed where mech can potentially (depending on the terrain) force a higher target movement modifier on the enemy than it is forcing on itself.  +3 to the enemy, +2 to itself for running, for a difference of 1.

A mech jumping 7 hexes also forces a difference of 1; +4 to the enemy, +3 to itself.  Same deal, right?  Only a set of five IJJs and that partial wing is a hell of a lot heavier than a 375XL.  Much better to stick with the older, simpler design, since it accomplishes the same thing on less tonnage.  WRONG.  THE MATH SAYS WRONG.

If I can push my enemy's to-hit up to an 8, but keep mine at a 7, then I have a 58.33% to hit and they have a 41.66% chance to hit, which gives me an effective 40% multiplicative advantage in firepower.  That more than makes up the difference in pod space.

But if I can push my enemy's to-hit up to a 9, but keep mine at an 8, which is exactly the sort of trade that you can force if you have 7 jump MP vs 8 run MP, then my to-hit is a 41.66% and theirs drops to 27.77%, which gives me a 50% advantage.

For 10 vs 9 this goes up to a 66% advantage, for 11 vs 10 it's an even 100%, and for 12 vs 11 it's a 200% advantage.  For 13 vs 12, of course, it is an infinite advantage.  Sure, I have to wait to roll boxcars, but until I run out of room to maneuver, I'm untouchable.

This is an inescapable consequence of how bell curves work mathematically.  You remember... several iterations of the forums ago how some old-timer (Cray?) would rant about how all VTOLs must possess 10/15 movement or they're worthless death-traps?  Same principle here.  You always want to push to-hit numbers as high as possible for a given difference between your and your enemy's to-hit numbers.  Always.  The problem with this inescapable mathematical fact is that it results in an extremely boring playstyle.  So maybe mathematical optimization isn't how you have fun playing Battletech.  More on that later.

1)  Your purpose-built counterpick mech is based around clan pulse lasers and a targeting computer.  You know, the combination that is universally acknowledged to be one of the most broken things in the game.  My uber-Gyrfalcon must be reasonably optimized if you need to resort to such measures to swat it.

2)  I have 7 jump MP.  Outside of a contrived scenario like a battle in a cave or a perfectly flat plane where a typical 5/8 won't ever lose MP while trying to close, what on earth makes you think you'll ever close distance?

3)  I considered drafting the design with LPLs or ER LPLs and a TC, but I'd already showered that night and it would be a hassle to do so again.  Part of the reason I chose an ER PPC+capacitor is that at least the gameplay is a bit less boring.  Picking mechs to bit with 10 pointers is rather blase, but when you start flinging 20 pointers there's a certain anticipation that something really pyrotechnic could happen that sort of offsets the fact that you're kiting them to death forever.

This is terrible logic.

Look, the construction system is not very well balanced, doesn't make any sense, and everyone has known this for decades.  The reason the game works as well as it does there's a system of unspoken gentlemen's agreements that keeps everyone from fielding forces entirely comprised of rifleman IICs and garbage like that.

The canon designs don't follow anything like a methodological in-universe arms race that trends towards greater optimization.  Designs are usually very badly sub-optimal, and they serve for decades of in-universe time before being replaced by designs that are usually equally sub-optimal, just usually in different and interesting ways.

My point isn't that players should munchkin their hearts out or anything like that.  This is not a game that really works with a competitive, optimization-driven mindset.  It's much more casual, more about having fun with your friends over beer and pretzels.

My point is that the new rules allow for mechs that are generally superior to the old MadCat, or even the shiny new mk IVs, and that such machines aren't terribly different than things that already exist.  Just take a Gyrfalcon and blow it up 40%, or take a Jade Hawk and juggle the engine and jump jet configuration a bit.

I'd like to add that I have actually used something very similar to what Demiurge proposes here, albeit built with IS technology and using a combination of VSPLs and a TC to keep my accuracy sensible whilst never putting afoot on the ground.  It was used in a six player Solaris 7 duel and absolutely dominated the fight because nobody could reliably lay hit on me and when they did I had more than enough armour to shrug the hit off (having IS tech, I happened to be using hardened armour rather than FL).

Coming up with configurations optimised to tackle specific problems is hardly an argument that the problem doesn't exist, and it's not as if Demiurges machine couldn't ship LPLs and a TC and try to win the damage race by always presenting a harder to hit target that you can in a 5/8/5 mover with everything else being equal.

I fell out of favour with heaven somewhere, so I'm here for the hell of it now...

Ruger

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5561
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #50 on: 11 November 2018, 10:11:59 »
I'd like to add that I have actually used something very similar to what Demiurge proposes here, albeit built with IS technology and using a combination of VSPLs and a TC to keep my accuracy sensible whilst never putting afoot on the ground.  It was used in a six player Solaris 7 duel and absolutely dominated the fight because nobody could reliably lay hit on me and when they did I had more than enough armour to shrug the hit off (having IS tech, I happened to be using hardened armour rather than FL).

Coming up with configurations optimised to tackle specific problems is hardly an argument that the problem doesn't exist, and it's not as if Demiurges machine couldn't ship LPLs and a TC and try to win the damage race by always presenting a harder to hit target that you can in a 5/8/5 mover with everything else being equal.

I do not disagree that it is an effective design. What was disagreeing with was the term "optimized" when used on it. While this would be correct for most worlds and battlefields on which this machine would fight, I can see some areas in which it would likely not be as effective as the older Timber Wolf or newer Savage Wolf. This includes areas like the terrain I mentioned before, or on worlds/moons with thin or no atmospheres, or worlds with low or high gravity. To my mind, in those environments, these other designs are more optimized than this 4/6/7 mover due to higher inherent ground movement and the ability to pack jump jets to move just as well by jumping otherwise. Thus, while the 4/6/7 mover works very effectively, and yes, in most aspects better than the two "Wolves", it is not the most optimized of movement profiles to work for the widest amount of terrain. Thus, the design becomes specialized for its movement, not optimized.

Don't get me wrong. I recognized that most of my argument was fallacy in my last post, which is why I did not post any rebuttal at that time. This type of design can and has proven to be a very effective battlefield combatant. One only has to use a Flamberge 2 or 3 to see that on a canon design. But, to me (and perhaps only to my opinion), it is not the most "optimized" of the designs out there.

Ruger
"If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back." - Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall...Stand with me." - The Doctor, The Doctor Falls, Doctor Who

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #51 on: 11 November 2018, 11:09:08 »
This thread is not for discussing Demiurge's design, it's for Mad Cat MKIV versus Mad Cat.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #52 on: 11 November 2018, 12:44:53 »
I'll ask a simpler question. 

Imagine a Clan Cluster commander fitting out his forces, now imagine he has X kerenskies to play with (basically, how many MkIV's can he buy for the price of a Star of baseline Timberwolves?)

whatever you have left, is your budget for pods.  (aka how many Omni pod configurations can you support for the same budget in Kerenskies?)

This ignores transportation cost, loss of access to the homeworlds, etc. etc.

aka 'the story elements'...just the C-bill/Kerensky equivalent price in resources between procurement, using a fixed resource number and ignoring the ability to go fight a bunch of lunchroom duels.

also keep in mind; your Cluster has zero idea where they're going to be deployed, or for how long, or whether/if/how well they're going to be resupplied.

basically, there is a point where 80% is good enough, because that is the point at which your resources run out and you still have things to do.

C-bill costs for anything in the Dark Age are (putting it as mildly and charitably as it deserves) complete bullshit.  Hard currency costs in general for anything in the Dark Age are A) wholly unreliable and B) haven't changed since the 3050s, making them flat-out wrong for things like XXL engines that have been around for 100 years and have somehow retained the same cost as when they were hand-built in a laboratory.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #53 on: 11 November 2018, 13:04:29 »
C-bill costs for anything in the Dark Age are (putting it as mildly and charitably as it deserves) complete bullshit.  Hard currency costs in general for anything in the Dark Age are A) wholly unreliable and B) haven't changed since the 3050s, making them flat-out wrong for things like XXL engines that have been around for 100 years and have somehow retained the same cost as when they were hand-built in a laboratory.

Scotty, if we went through ALL the inconsistencies like that in Battletech, we'd have to get a couple hundred more pages for the thread and it still would not resolve anything.

There's a point where you say  "FASAnomics!" and move on with the information provided, because the BTU doesn't run on a rational economic model, but it does have an internally consistent set of rules.

One of which, is C-bill cost.  It takes X man-hours and Y materials times Z distribution.  This is simplified down to a 'cost' that is immune to inflationary or deflationary influences because "It's a fictional setting."

Secondly, just because XXL engines have existed for that long, doesn't mean they're going to become magically cheaper-to reduce cost you need economy of scale, and to be honest, they're not that useful because they are both bulky and fragile, and may require elements, minerals and materials that are rare and expensive.

it could well be that the tooling to manufacture them wears out faster, costs more (because it has to be take your pick: more precise, powerful, or made of rare materials itself) and may require more training and/or raw talent to manufacture reliably.

further, there's no "Secondary market" for them.  You can't use XXL engines in wide spread mass-production items (which is how you get economies of scale during sustained peacetime) because they have no application in the civilian world that is lucrative enough to justify that kind of expansion, making it a niche product that relies on relatively rare and/or difficult to create materials, and requires more complex and precise machining and manufacturing processes to create, for a smaller market that needs it less.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #54 on: 11 November 2018, 13:12:40 »
No, I'm going with Scotty on this. Even though an XXL Engine will still cost more, that's still, like everything else engine-related in Battletech, outrageously overpriced for something going on 50+ years of availability.

Especially considering they evidently have enough of these 'rare' materials to build Savage Wolves as standard-issue, rather than one-off, designs.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #55 on: 11 November 2018, 13:47:40 »
The only currency that matters in the game now is Support Points, and a mech with an XL engine costs the same in SPs as a mech with an XXL does.

VensersRevenge

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Is this the real life...
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #56 on: 11 November 2018, 14:37:58 »
And C-Bills are completely irrelevant in the Dark Age considering ComStar effectively doesn't exist and the HPGs that backed their currency are still shut down. Making an argument based on C-Bill cost simply doesn't make sense anymore. The question now is what the Sea Foxes want in exchange for a Mad Cat Mk IV as opposed to a Timber Wolf.
...Is this just fantasy?
Warship Arms Race III
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84031.0

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #57 on: 11 November 2018, 14:45:00 »
The question now is what the Sea Foxes want in exchange for a Mad Cat Mk IV as opposed to a Timber Wolf.

Given they're identically "priced" in Support Points, that implies they want more or less equal compensation for either.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #58 on: 11 November 2018, 14:55:14 »
No, I'm going with Scotty on this. Even though an XXL Engine will still cost more, that's still, like everything else engine-related in Battletech, outrageously overpriced for something going on 50+ years of availability.

Especially considering they evidently have enough of these 'rare' materials to build Savage Wolves as standard-issue, rather than one-off, designs.

Pricing really doesn't change that much, when you run the numbers. One of the main reasons the F-16 is as inexpensive as it is, is economy of scale in that the airframe was sold at cost-reduced pricing until the actual cost matched it.   (this is how they beat out the F-20.)

Consider also that 50 years is nothing, really-how long have 'mechs been used in warfare in all theaters? and how many designs that are centuries old are still being used long after production ceased again?

and how many designs remained in production for literally hundreds of years again?

right.  fifty years is a drop in the bucket.

your big barrier is how many can the Sea Foxes Produce?  that in turn suggests things like the low-density, bulky, yet effective shielding materials for an XXL engine is in some way fundamentally different enough to be significantly expensive, either because of exotic materials, or production difficulties that the Sea Foxes were either unable or unwilling to overcome (perhaps to make their balance sheets look better.)

for the END USER, then, your economics is all wet, because "Fasanomics applies".  C-bill listing is just a 'stand in' for whatever extant costs in whatever currency or trade value you happen to be using in your campaign.

as for 'support points' cost, the XXL is more fragile.  it's easier to take out of action, it occupies more internal volume.  this means it's not as durable as an XL, CXL, Light, or Standard engine, which means it has fewer applications that can be used to lower the price by paying for increased logistics on the production end.

This is equivalent of the Compact and Primitive jump core thing-both are significantly older technologies than the standard jump core, yet both are also significantly more expensive, to the point that standard cores are in mass production and common, while compact cores, which used to be in mass production, are not.

the C-bill listing is just a stand-in for the resource cost, and you guys bring up  a red herring to avoid answering my question-how many Mad Cat Mk IVs can you get for the price of a Star of Timberwolves?  Call it "Kerenskies", "Trade Dollars", "purple pandas" or whatever, the  numerical listing is the resource cost of production in a 'common term' the same way that Latin is used as a common language in medical and some biological research.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #59 on: 11 November 2018, 15:02:00 »
the C-bill listing is just a stand-in for the resource cost, and you guys bring up  a red herring to avoid answering my question-how many Mad Cat Mk IVs can you get for the price of a Star of Timberwolves?  Call it "Kerenskies", "Trade Dollars", "purple pandas" or whatever, the  numerical listing is the resource cost of production in a 'common term' the same way that Latin is used as a common language in medical and some biological research.

Well it's not avoiding your question.. at this point it's beating the dead horse.

Buying a star of 5 Mad Cats costs 1000* SPs in a campaign run under modern rules.  For 1000 SPs you can also instead buy 5 Mad Cat Mk IVs.


*caveat= Shooting from memory here.  A clan-tech 75 ton omni may cost something other than 200 SPs.  The moral of the story here is that Mad Cat and Mad Cat Mk IVs are both clan-tech, 75 ton omnis and therefore cost the same to procure. XL vs XXL vs SFE no longer matters in "price".

Caedis Animus

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
  • How can a bird be sultry? Very carefully.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #60 on: 11 November 2018, 15:11:39 »
the C-bill listing is just a stand-in for the resource cost, and you guys bring up  a red herring to avoid answering my question-how many Mad Cat Mk IVs can you get for the price of a Star of Timberwolves?  Call it "Kerenskies", "Trade Dollars", "purple pandas" or whatever, the  numerical listing is the resource cost of production in a 'common term' the same way that Latin is used as a common language in medical and some biological research.
Okay.

How many Timber Wolves are produced in a year circa 3145? How many Savage Wolves? Who has demand for those mechs? How much does it cost to ship one of either of those mechs? How many of both exist concurrently in 3145? Where do you source the raw materials for the XXL and XL Engines, who manufactures the individual parts in both of those components? How much does it cost for a one-ton batch of rare earth metals and more to make those engines, much less deliver them to the engine factory? How much do you pay the person supervising the mining equipment for getting those metals? How much does a lost engine cost due to shipment accidents? Are they insured?

These are all very, VERY important notes as to exactly how utterly screwed up economics are in Battletech; Only maybe one of those questions get a hard answer, and none of them correlate to the still-unknown-price of a stick of space butter in Marian Talents or the inflation/deflation of the Taurian Bull in 3145. Discussing the hard C-Bill cost and how it somehow manages to fit a now production-grade piece of engine equipment is an exercise in futility, and it won't go anywhere good.
« Last Edit: 11 November 2018, 15:14:47 by Caedis Animus »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #61 on: 11 November 2018, 15:14:26 »
This is exactly why I brought up C-bills being garbage in direct response to the supposition that if a commander can only afford X units of currency what is more effective.

We have no idea, because all of the possible unit of currency prices are complete bullshit.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #62 on: 11 November 2018, 15:17:27 »
Yeah, whatever currency you're using.. if you could buy a Mad Cat you've also got enough to instead buy a MkIV.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #63 on: 11 November 2018, 15:24:34 »
Well it's not avoiding your question.. at this point it's beating the dead horse.

Buying a star of 5 Mad Cats costs 1000* SPs in a campaign run under modern rules.  For 1000 SPs you can also instead buy 5 Mad Cat Mk IVs.


*caveat= Shooting from memory here.  A clan-tech 75 ton omni may cost something other than 200 SPs.  The moral of the story here is that Mad Cat and Mad Cat Mk IVs are both clan-tech, 75 ton omnis and therefore cost the same to procure. XL vs XXL vs SFE no longer matters in "price".

so, what you're saying is, they've dumbed the rules down to a post-scarcity society.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #64 on: 11 November 2018, 15:28:56 »
so, what you're saying is, they've dumbed the rules down to a post-scarcity society.

No, they've abandoned bothering to make FASAnomics work because it doesn't.  If you think that's "dumbing down" then I'm afraid you've misdiagnosed what was dumb in the first place (it was FASAnomics).
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #65 on: 11 November 2018, 15:43:33 »
No, they've abandoned bothering to make FASAnomics work because it doesn't.  If you think that's "dumbing down" then I'm afraid you've misdiagnosed what was dumb in the first place (it was FASAnomics).

lemme put it this way: if you had to choose r/l between an M-60A3, or an M-1A2 product-improved Abrams, and price wasn't a consideration, and your maintenance would be the same, you'd be an IDIOT to pick the patton.

past a certain point of abstracting, there's literally zero reason to choose any 'mech other than a Mad Cat IV for your forces, and you'd have to be the king of fools to do otherwise.

It. Does. Everything.

and that's my whole 'point' with the comment.  Fasanomics wasn't real life economics, but at least it was systemized to show that scarcity was a 'a thing' in the BTU, stuff was expensive, sometimes you had to go to the cheaper alternative.

but the way you guys are using Support Points? That's Star Trek levels of post-scarcity.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #66 on: 11 November 2018, 16:02:08 »
lemme put it this way: if you had to choose r/l between an M-60A3, or an M-1A2 product-improved Abrams, and price wasn't a consideration, and your maintenance would be the same, you'd be an IDIOT to pick the patton.

past a certain point of abstracting, there's literally zero reason to choose any 'mech other than a Mad Cat IV for your forces, and you'd have to be the king of fools to do otherwise.

It. Does. Everything.

Except survive a torso destruction, or simply run without generating a wasted 10 heat points per turn.  Unlike the Abrams vs Patton comparison, 3050 clan tech is still competitive/game balanced against 3150 clan tech.

While I (and I dare assume) most people would agree the Mk IV is the all round better mech than the Mk I.. the Mk I still has its uses.  This thread wouldn't keep going this long if it were otherwise.

Quote
and that's my whole 'point' with the comment.  Fasanomics wasn't real life economics, but at least it was systemized to show that scarcity was a 'a thing' in the BTU, stuff was expensive, sometimes you had to go to the cheaper alternative.

but the way you guys are using Support Points? That's Star Trek levels of post-scarcity.

I empathize with you on principle... but the BTU became post-scarcity even before leaving the 1980s.  It's no recent phenomenon that despite the sustained artificially suppressed sizes of militaries in the BTU, new mech production (both chassis AND factories) happens at the speed of plot... so fast in fact entire TROs are full of entirely new mechs.  Over and over.  Yet still, despite mechs canonically lasting for hundreds of years despite being destroyed and repaired over and over.. all this new production doesn't result in swelling army sizes. 

It's never made sense beyond the Helm Memory Core plotline.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #67 on: 11 November 2018, 16:15:06 »
lemme put it this way: if you had to choose r/l between an M-60A3, or an M-1A2 product-improved Abrams, and price wasn't a consideration, and your maintenance would be the same, you'd be an IDIOT to pick the patton.

past a certain point of abstracting, there's literally zero reason to choose any 'mech other than a Mad Cat IV for your forces, and you'd have to be the king of fools to do otherwise.

It. Does. Everything.

and that's my whole 'point' with the comment.  Fasanomics wasn't real life economics, but at least it was systemized to show that scarcity was a 'a thing' in the BTU, stuff was expensive, sometimes you had to go to the cheaper alternative.

but the way you guys are using Support Points? That's Star Trek levels of post-scarcity.

The Availability for a Mad Cat Mk IV is significantly more difficult to pass the roll for than a regular Mad Cat, and both of those are significantly harder to find and field than lower tech alternatives.  Neither of those things are related to their nominal C-bill costs at all, or their BV, or any other measure you could care to name.

If you create a group of assumptions that illustrate your point, of course they illustrate your point.  But your assumptions are not actually things that can be assumed if your goal is to dispute the implementation of the rules.

"Scarcity" has never meant anything in BattleTech outside of fluff.  It hasn't meant C-bills, it hasn't meant spare parts, it hasn't meant the age or level of the tech.  If you want to assign an arbitrary cost to enforce scarcity for 'Mechs and whatnot in your games and campaigns, go for it.  But recognize it for what it is: arbitrary.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #68 on: 11 November 2018, 17:49:02 »
Except survive a torso destruction, or simply run without generating a wasted 10 heat points per turn.  Unlike the Abrams vs Patton comparison, 3050 clan tech is still competitive/game balanced against 3150 clan tech.

While I (and I dare assume) most people would agree the Mk IV is the all round better mech than the Mk I.. the Mk I still has its uses.  This thread wouldn't keep going this long if it were otherwise.

I empathize with you on principle... but the BTU became post-scarcity even before leaving the 1980s.  It's no recent phenomenon that despite the sustained artificially suppressed sizes of militaries in the BTU, new mech production (both chassis AND factories) happens at the speed of plot... so fast in fact entire TROs are full of entirely new mechs.  Over and over.  Yet still, despite mechs canonically lasting for hundreds of years despite being destroyed and repaired over and over.. all this new production doesn't result in swelling army sizes. 

It's never made sense beyond the Helm Memory Core plotline.

The armoring makes that torso destruction significantly less likely, so the survival is less of an issue, while the Savage Wolf's over-all a superior machine in every respect, and 'availability' is a non-factor, really because it's just about the same price thanks to the shift from a system meant to show how many techs (and tech hours) it takes to maintain becoming the replacement for the price.
There's no role the Timberwolf does better, so why would anyone take anything OTHER than the MkIV?
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #69 on: 11 November 2018, 17:52:06 »
The Mad Cat 1.0 has dramatically more interior room, so for carrying crit-intensive weapons it works better (not that it really does so in any canon configurations).
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #70 on: 11 November 2018, 18:15:17 »
and 'availability' is a non-factor

This is neither true nor what anyone here has been saying.  Acquiring a Clan Heavy in a non-Clan force still starts by requiring a 9+ on the Availability roll (per Campaign Ops pg. 14 in my PDF copy), versus a 6+ for any Inner Sphere Heavy.  It might actually, sincerely come down to rolling well enough to find an original Mad Cat for sale and being unable to find a Mad Cat Mk IV for sale.

You've consistently misrepresented or misinterpreted the opposing position; nobody is suggesting that a Mad Cat Mk IV and a Mad Cat are always going to be identically available.  The argument is that A) C-bill costs are stupid and B) scarcity the way you suggest it working never existed in BattleTech, because FASAnomics didn't work that way.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

VensersRevenge

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Is this the real life...
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #71 on: 11 November 2018, 21:57:13 »
There's no role the Timberwolf does better, so why would anyone take anything OTHER than the MkIV?
Maybe there's a reason why Savage Wolves are more common in the Dark Age. They are better than the Timber Wolf, and just as if not easier to get. Because whether it is reasonable or not for XXL engined Mechs to cost less, the Sea Foxes only produce Savage Wolves. So they can sell more of them, and are more likely to have one available. It doesn't matter if the Timber Wolf is cheaper if you can't find one.
...Is this just fantasy?
Warship Arms Race III
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=84031.0

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #72 on: 13 November 2018, 14:59:06 »
Honestly, the Savage Wolf might be easier to get a hold of in 3140s since the Foxes are producing it in enough numbers to sell them wide & far while the Falcons are producing standard mech versions without the Ferro-Lam and XXL (or were?).  Meanwhile the Timberwolf had not been produced in the IS since the Jihad except for hand assembled from parts somewhere in the Wolf OZ and no indication they are back to being built in the Empire.

The SP system is a very abstract system worked in with Alpha Strike and the Chaos Campaign stuff as the primary organization method in what I assume is a publisher decision to try to make the game lighter/easier/streamlined for getting in the new blood.  Always of course with the caveat that you can make your game more detailed if you wanted to do so . . . (remember that chart in Combat Ops with ability modifiers?)

As much as I love the classic Timberwolf (especially when trying to put the arms on a SW mini) . . . the Savage Wolf is generally going to hold up in combat better, even with the heat and fragility of the XXL.  The Ferro-Lam armor is just hard to beat with regular weapons and it allows the Savage Wolf can overcome based on that . . . All LBX gets ignored, so no TACs or head rattles.  LRMs?  A 6 missile hit that would strike two locations for a Timberwolf will on a Savage Wolf be reduced to 4 points to only hit 1 location.  A 12 missile hit drops to two 4 point location instead of two 5s & a 2.  SRM damage gets cut in half and they have a harder time for the TAC.  The biggest problem with the Savage Wolf is that they cannot exploit one of Clan tech's most acknowledged advantages- their energy weapons light weight & high damage simply b/c they also have higher heat.  The Savage Wolf can carry most of the same load outs as the Timberwolf though the firing pattern is going to be different b/c of the higher engine heat.

Wish we were getting more variants faster since its now supposed to be the premier mech . . . maybe an attempt to be the new flagship though the Templar might challenge that claim.  It would also be interesting to hear if the production version of the Falcon's retained prototypes made more of a impact for their faction.  Then again the Falcons have a lot of speedy heavies.

Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #73 on: 13 November 2018, 17:02:03 »
A 12 missile hit drops to two 4 point location instead of two 5s & a 2.

Actually, a 12 LRM spread would drop to two 4 point clusters and one 1 point cluster.  Still a solid defense.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #74 on: 13 November 2018, 17:19:27 »
Yeah, sorry I was interrupted in mid type and I guess skipped ahead when I got back to the keyboard.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13011
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #75 on: 13 November 2018, 21:39:01 »
Meanwhile the Timberwolf had not been produced in the IS since the Jihad except for hand assembled from parts somewhere in the Wolf OZ and no indication they are back to being built in the Empire. 
I thought the WiE were producing them on Arc Royal.
Maybe I'm not remembering that right, but I thought they were.

3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28957
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #76 on: 13 November 2018, 21:45:32 »
They were . . . IIRC the official response it was one of those things covered in the Blakist attacks on Arc Royal.  Then again we had units & ships fall through the cracks so no surprise a production line did too.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Deadborder

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7881
  • Technical Victory!
    • Elmer Studios Blog
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #77 on: 14 November 2018, 19:12:11 »
I thought the WiE were producing them on Arc Royal.
Maybe I'm not remembering that right, but I thought they were.

WiE produced the Mad Cat until the mid-Jihad when the production line was destroyed by the Word. (They also took out the lines for several other 'Mechs, leaving them production extinct in the Inner Sphere). After the Jihad, the Exiles lacked the infrastructure to restore the line
Author of BattleCorps stories Grand Theft Agro and Zero Signal



How to Draw MegaMek Icons the Deadborder Way. Over 9000 so far. Determination or madness?

Demiurge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #78 on: 08 December 2018, 07:58:30 »
Having lower to-hit roll than your opponent is better because you hit more often than they do. The percentages are based on the curve of 2d6 dice. I'm not Demiurge and I don't know how I can express the idea more simply than that.



Sorry about the long response, but yes, you are explaining exactly what I had in mind.

You ignore some of the nuance of the game, but basically you can pretend that the average to-hit numbers that your mech encounters are a multiplicative damage modifier, and you can pretend that the average to-hit numbers that your mech generates for enemy gunners is a multiplicative armor modifier.

Assault mechs have enormous raw firepower and heavy armor (or at least they had *better*), but they generate poor to-hit modifiers relative to their faster-moving opponents, which means that they miss a lot more and get hit a lot more, which blunts the relative advantage of all those guns and all that armor.  In the very worst cases, it means that assault mechs aren't giving you very good value.

With 3050 technology, the Timberwolf is at or very close to the optimal combination of speed, armor and firepower.  But with 3145 tech, I contend that it's possible to do much better, and the result doesn't look much like a Mk IV.

The Mad Cat 1.0 has dramatically more interior room, so for carrying crit-intensive weapons it works better (not that it really does so in any canon configurations).

Ironically, it's all the post-3050 clan tech that tends to be crit-heavy.  So the original Mad Cat is substantially more compatible with all the new goodies than its successor is.

Not that anyone cares, 3050 clan tech kills everything plenty dead.

This thread is not for discussing Demiurge's design, it's for Mad Cat MKIV versus Mad Cat.

I wasn't intending to derail, just explain average survivability/movement curves.

Kitsune413

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5324
  • Diamond Khanate Sakhan
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #79 on: 08 December 2018, 09:32:54 »
Mad Cat MK IV wins pretty handily in the availability field though.
Every man lives by exchanging - Adam Smith

 

Register