Register Register

Author Topic: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?  (Read 18456 times)

Dave Talley

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2817
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #30 on: 28 January 2011, 14:02:49 »
That's explicitly what was behind the decision to use three SRM 2s on the Saracen.

yep thats why my vehicles tend to use multiples of the 2 rack, also because when it comes time to bug out and run like hell, its nice to drop a wall of infernos accross multiple hexes
Resident Smartass since 1998
“Toe jam in training”.
I agree. Conditionally. I have no qualms kicking the favorite faction in the crotch--repeatedly. But the fact of the matter is, I prefer to kick EVERYBODY in the crotch as often as possible, like a game of whack a mole, only here's it's whack a crotch. Because we're playing in a wargame universe, and if you're NOT getting kicked in the crotch (repeatedly), then you're not in the ****** game.
- Herb

clansittingducks: is it wrong to want to take a baseball bat to their groin so hard their testicles fly out of their eyes upon impact?

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14363
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #31 on: 28 January 2011, 14:34:19 »
Though something massed smaller launcher inarguably offer is that a single critical hit won't knock out a large chunk of your fire power.

I was referring to that, not any inferno suggestions.  That's useful too, mind you, but it's not what I was talking about.

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7874
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #32 on: 28 January 2011, 16:17:23 »
I tend to use smaller SRM packs because the -6's lesser ammo (90 total missiles versus 100) annoys me.  All the LRM launchers have ammo that totals 120 missiles, so I don't discriminate there.  Other than that it's usually an aesthetics thing.  I might put an LRM 5 in each torso rather than a single -15 rack.  or a -10 on each arm instead of a single -20.  Or it's space.  I've run out of room in any one location for a -15, but I have the space to slot in 3 -5s in different locations.
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, cowerer of Dainmar Liao, Creator of the Model Army, Rescuer of Robinson, Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14363
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #33 on: 28 January 2011, 17:59:08 »
Crits don't bother me so much, and for whatever reason, the Sling just doesn't cause me a problem at all, although that may be because it's light and pays for its sins by not having any short-range weapons anyway.  The Firebee, with the launchers spread around, also doesn't bug me.

The one I really dislike is really LRM spam, not SRMs.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #34 on: 28 January 2011, 18:20:01 »
Well in general smaller SRMs are less efficient all around than larger varieties due to the way the cluster hit table works. They give you a few extra options, but they're more an issue of simply having a spare crit and some tonnage to fill than any sort of munchy design aspect. LRMs, on the other hand, while having a few small advantages with bigger launchers, are almost universally better with numerous LRM5s. And that's when it gets munchy and less-than-fun for myself as well.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

garhkal

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4823
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #35 on: 29 January 2011, 05:20:14 »
yep thats why my vehicles tend to use multiples of the 2 rack, also because when it comes time to bug out and run like hell, its nice to drop a wall of infernos accross multiple hexes

Never played in a game where someone used that tactic.. might have to give it a shot.
It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 600
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #36 on: 29 January 2011, 06:43:10 »
I tend to use smaller SRM packs because the -6's lesser ammo (90 total missiles versus 100) annoys me.
Ooo, I hated that. Should have been 96 missles to be more equal by giving you one more volley.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

TJHairball

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 325
    • Ravings of an Ivory Tower Lunatic
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #37 on: 29 January 2011, 07:41:38 »
It does bug me a bit that right now, smaller racks are much better vs AMS.

I like the big shock effect of a larger launcher, but aside from the improved PSR forcing you get on the long end of the curve, there isn't much to recommend the larger racks.

This is particularly irritating with the inefficient rack weights.
President-designate of the Dead World Collective. We control more worlds than any faction since the Star League!
Khan of Clan Iron Elephant. We remember. And if you know who we are, we're going to have to make you disappear.
I'm a numbers guy. Please don't tempt me to do the math, I just might.

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14363
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #38 on: 29 January 2011, 09:54:46 »
Ooo, I hated that. Should have been 96 missles to be more equal by giving you one more volley.

Agreed emphatically.  If you're going to strip missiles, do it the way the MMLs and ATMs do: The absolute minimum, maximizing the number of volleys in the bin.

evilauthor

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #39 on: 29 January 2011, 12:42:14 »
I actually ran this experiment once, at least with stacked LRM-5s.

Basically, I took two Archers and pitted them against each other. One Archer was a basic 3025 2R model. The other was a modified 2R that had its 2xLRM-20s replaced with 8xLRM-5s + 4xHeat Sinks.

The result? A surprisingly even match. Both Archers ran out of ammo before either died (the custom job ran out first because it could sling more ammo down range consistently every turn), and the only reason the custom job won was because I turned the CT Medium Lasers around to face front and even then it was more decided by dice rolls of a kicking contest.

But as to the LRM-20s vs the stacked LRM-5s, the damage inflicted was just about even. While the LRM-5s could hit more often, they would also MISS more often as well. The LRM-20 Archer's ammo lasted longer because it simply couldn't fire both LRM-20s every round without overheating. Likewise, after the LRM-5 Archer's opening volley, it could only sustain a rate of fire of 6 out of its 8 LRM-5s to avoid any major overheating. Damage as mentioned was just about even, except the LRM-20s inflicted 5 point damage clusters while the stacked LRM-5s' damage clusters were usually less that 5 points; but the lower damage clusters were balanced by the fact that the stacked LRM-5s get MORE clusters than the LRM-20s.

All in all, my assessment is that the two are balanced, but given the choice, I'd go with stacked LRM-5s and get a few more tons for things like heat sinks or what not. The equation of course changes if you throw in Artemis; Artemis is obviously better for larger launchers because of its fixed weight. But I've seem quite a few people on these boards poo poo Artemis, so that basically leaves us looking at base launchers.

Frankly, I like Artemis. And I'm still eagerly waiting for LRM-30s, LRM-40s, and SRM-20s to mount them on.  ;)

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #40 on: 29 January 2011, 13:15:57 »
Because a single Megamek match is how real mathmeticians arrive at their conclusions  #P
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3404
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #41 on: 29 January 2011, 14:18:34 »
Both have their place and uses. When tonnage is at a premium, more smaller launchers is better. When space is at a premium, larger launchers rule.

Zombies benefit from smaller launchers too; they can keep pouring fire even as they lose launchers. These also make sense when endurance is desired; when ammo levels drop, multiple launchers give the option of not firing some but still continue fighting.

Schottenjaeger

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 172
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #42 on: 29 January 2011, 23:50:55 »
I usually find my small-rackers work well as team players, but not as stand-alone units. The double-bigboy is going to have more full damage packages on target, rolls faster, and I find they seem to work better as a main gun.

Basically, it's not so much whether I want to get one big whack or not, it's that the big racks play faster and still do appreciable damage as a standalone system. Multiple small racks slow the game down - eating up playtime for little appreciable benefit (which is okay in Megamek, but unacceptable in the tabletop) and put out a lot of stray 1-3 point sandblasting shots. They make for a good auxillary weapon that can occasionally put some hurt on a target. They just don't handle extended combat as the primary weapon as well as large racks. They get more shots per ton, yes, but that can be a serious liability if you only take one (3050 SSRM designs, I'm looking at you)

For LRM racks, my two favorite rides (the Bandersnatch and Mad Dog) are at opposing ends of the spectrum: the Bandie has 3 L-5 racks, and performs well with them - as supplemental weapons. The Mad Dog has (usually) 2-4 really big racks, and can tear things all to hell and gone with the missiles alone. I tried running an experimental Bandersnatch with 40 tubes (stripped the Mlasers and a ton of LBX ammo for more LRM-5s) up against both Archers and a Bandy variant with LRM-20s as the main guns, and the latter always seemed to actually open up the armor and kill faster. Sure, there were a few lucky crits, but I don't base my tactics on Hail Mary plays, and over time the matches were still averaging out to be about 45% (small rack)/ 55%(huge tracts of land). With other units in the lances, it slid right back to 50/50.

Multiple small racks is still a good choice for a Medium or Light design: it keeps your eggs out of one basket, and they're intended to be team players more than the Heavies are.

My rule of thumb is, if there's more than one rack in a single location, just round it up to the next biggest rack unless there's a darned good reason. If you have 3-4 racks on a single design, but they're spread out (Jenner IIc, Bushwhacker, Commando, Whitworth..) there's no reason to combine them into one bigger rack but it won't necessarily hurt the design's effectiveness (Griffin, Centurion, Uziel-B)
Standing proudly on other pilot's cockpits since 1997

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14363
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #43 on: 30 January 2011, 11:07:48 »
The Commando isn't using matched racks and couldn't combine them if it wanted to.  It's really kind of tangential to the whole discussion.  And SRMs, due to their heat and crits, are generally presenting a much more balanced set of options.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #44 on: 30 January 2011, 12:19:01 »
Yeah I tend to agree with Moonsword on this one. We're not so much concerned about SRMs. The way they're laid out there are valid reasons for both, but the math tends to work in the larger launcher's favor. Whereas with LRMs, the math is actually in favor of the smaller launchers in most cases. Both certainly have their uses, and fluff-wis I much prefer the larger puppies where possible, but efficiency wise you'll typically get more use out of multiple smaller LRMs.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Demon55

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2576
  • Victory is life and death before dishonor!
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #45 on: 31 January 2011, 03:07:07 »
I usually prefer larger LRMs (15,20) and SRMs (4,6) as they can go through their ammunition fast enough for it to be less boom to be carrying around.  The SRM2 and SSRM2 are trash as far as I am concerned unless you are using more than one of them. 

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7416
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #46 on: 01 February 2011, 22:59:53 »
Its one of those 50/50 for me. Larger missles, mean more damage. But smaller missle packs says you can put more on a unit, and up your PK.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

500 is the number of Warships Now. 500 looks like it will stay for a long time.

garhkal

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4823
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #47 on: 02 February 2011, 05:59:08 »
As well as target more than 1 opponent.
It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14363
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #48 on: 02 February 2011, 08:55:54 »
As well as target more than 1 opponent.

If you want to, sure.  I tend not to bother since I'd rather smash one opponent flat than miss two.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #49 on: 02 February 2011, 10:04:16 »
If you want to, sure.  I tend not to bother since I'd rather smash one opponent flat than miss two.

Agreed. It's rare that targeting more than one enemy with the same weapons type holds any merit. Secondary targets are usually only worthwhile if you're dealing with range issues on your primary target and simply have some extra heat/ammo to play with on whatever weapons can't get a good TN on the primary.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14363
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #50 on: 02 February 2011, 10:17:32 »
Or you have heat open and someone's playing around behind you, but that's a somewhat different issue from splitting your forward fire.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #51 on: 02 February 2011, 10:20:41 »
Basically, if you have heat open and a target in range, you should only rarely not be taking the shots. Ammunition concerns are the only reason to ever hold off.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Crunch

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #52 on: 02 February 2011, 15:33:40 »
Agreed. It's rare that targeting more than one enemy with the same weapons type holds any merit. Secondary targets are usually only worthwhile if you're dealing with range issues on your primary target and simply have some extra heat/ammo to play with on whatever weapons can't get a good TN on the primary.

I've found it to occasionally be useful with Infernos now that there's a cap on external heat.
Quote
It's really, it's a very, very beautiful poem to giant monsters. Giant monsters versus giant robots.
G. Del Toro

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #53 on: 02 February 2011, 17:18:51 »
True, but unless you're packing them on an Arctic Wolf, the chances of achieving 15 heat is really not that great even with dual SRM6s. That's a maximum of 24 possible heat, but that's assuming you hit with both packs in the first place, and hit with all 6 missiles. If you're on an SRM boat or want to spread the heat around, then yeah aiming at multiple targets is a good idea, but in that case you'll rarely be using smaller packs anyways, since the 15 cap on external heat is the concern.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Mattlov

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1184
  • Fnord.
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #54 on: 02 February 2011, 17:30:39 »
Big racks.  I can't stand the LRM-5.  You can argue the heat to tonnage ratio and all, but it boils down to a 3 ton weapon (with ammo) doing an average of 3 points of damage.  I'd rather have 9 small lasers.  Plus, I can burn through ammo faster with a larger launcher.
"The rules technically allow all sorts of bad ideas." -Moonsword


IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #55 on: 02 February 2011, 17:44:08 »
Big racks.  I can't stand the LRM-5.  You can argue the heat to tonnage ratio and all, but it boils down to a 3 ton weapon (with ammo) doing an average of 3 points of damage.  I'd rather have 9 small lasers.  Plus, I can burn through ammo faster with a larger launcher.

Well again, I prefer bigger racks for fluff reasons, but that logic makes absolutely zero sense.

Ammo aside, 5 LRM5s get you 1 LRM20. Already you're behind the curve. Same range; same damage per missile; on average you'll deal equal or better damage per salvo, even if it'll likely be in more 3 point clusters than in less 5 point clusters; you'll burn through ammo about as fast; you won't lose all your firepower from a single crit hit; you can fit the LRM5s into whatever slot you have available rather than all in one; you can choose to only fire a handful of launchers if the TN is high; you can deploy mines more efficiently; you can get more missiles past AMS; you get more chances TH...... only on heat and Artemis are larger launchers anywhere near as or more efficient. The extra average damage per hit is mitigated by a slightly higher average number of actual hits per salvo for crit-seeking, and is 5 damage as opposed to 3 damage really that much when the total damage is still about the same?

HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Sockmonkey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 600
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #56 on: 03 February 2011, 03:24:23 »
Plus, I can burn through ammo faster with a larger launcher.
The use of that is rather situational. If your LRMs are an afterthought on a close-in brawler for softening up enemies before you charge in with your short weapons, sure. For the fire-support role you want enough ammo to controll your killzone for the whole battle.
That's it! Challenge the Clans to rock-paper-scissors in 3050! A good portion of the 'Mechs didn't have hands so the Inner Sphere would win!
If I had a nickel for every time I've legged a Warhammer, I could put them in a sock, spin it around and leg another Warhammer.

TJHairball

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 325
    • Ravings of an Ivory Tower Lunatic
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #57 on: 03 February 2011, 05:25:38 »
I've found it to occasionally be useful with Infernos now that there's a cap on external heat.
Ever played with MPW rounds for LRMs? ;D
President-designate of the Dead World Collective. We control more worlds than any faction since the Star League!
Khan of Clan Iron Elephant. We remember. And if you know who we are, we're going to have to make you disappear.
I'm a numbers guy. Please don't tempt me to do the math, I just might.

garhkal

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4823
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #58 on: 03 February 2011, 06:01:41 »
I'll give you the quicker ammo burn normally..  BUT since i get 6 shots a ton for LRM 20 ammo, and 4 LRM-5s with a ton also get the same 6 shots, to me they are equal.
It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

Paladin1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1437
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #59 on: 03 February 2011, 10:31:42 »
Ever played with MPW rounds for LRMs? ;D
Yes and I'm not allowed too any more.  Heavy LRM carriers loaded with MPW rounds do not make for a good day.

Why yes, that is an additional 48 heat.  Still glad you alpha'd me now?   ;D