Register Register

Author Topic: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV  (Read 1485 times)

Caedis Animus

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
  • Shutdown Overridden; Reactor Critical in...
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #30 on: 24 September 2018, 00:38:55 »
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.
Brave words for someone in melee range.

Dragon Cat

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5898
  • Not Dead Until I Say So
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #31 on: 24 September 2018, 01:24:21 »
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

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4153
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #32 on: 25 September 2018, 07:10:48 »
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: 482
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #33 on: 26 September 2018, 21:14:14 »
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

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #34 on: 30 September 2018, 05:51:38 »
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: 3260
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #35 on: 30 September 2018, 09:38:16 »
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

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
  • Shutdown Overridden; Reactor Critical in...
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #36 on: 30 September 2018, 13:16:08 »
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.
Brave words for someone in melee range.

Demiurge

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #37 on: 01 October 2018, 12:40:36 »
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, 12:43:52 by Demiurge »

Caedis Animus

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
  • Shutdown Overridden; Reactor Critical in...
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #38 on: 01 October 2018, 20:24:05 »
<snip>
« Last Edit: 01 October 2018, 20:27:31 by Caedis Animus »
Brave words for someone in melee range.

grimlock1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 818
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #39 on: 07 November 2018, 11:12:01 »

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

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #40 on: 08 November 2018, 14:38:38 »
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, 14:40:41 by Apocal »

grimlock1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 818
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #41 on: 08 November 2018, 16:44:15 »
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, 16:50:59 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

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #42 on: 08 November 2018, 18:35:30 »
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, 18:41:44 by Apocal »

grimlock1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 818
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #43 on: 08 November 2018, 22:39:44 »
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
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9214
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #44 on: 09 November 2018, 00:28:29 »
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

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14606
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #45 on: 09 November 2018, 00:47:37 »
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.

Our Officer's Club is better than your Officer's Club.

Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

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

grimlock1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 818
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #46 on: 09 November 2018, 10:08:47 »
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

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
  • Shutdown Overridden; Reactor Critical in...
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #47 on: 09 November 2018, 23:00:42 »
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.
Brave words for someone in melee range.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #48 on: 11 November 2018, 06:49:15 »
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.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Getz

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 571
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #49 on: 11 November 2018, 09:06:54 »
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: 3260
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #50 on: 11 November 2018, 11:11:59 »
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

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
  • Shutdown Overridden; Reactor Critical in...
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #51 on: 11 November 2018, 12:09:08 »
This thread is not for discussing Demiurge's design, it's for Mad Cat MKIV versus Mad Cat.
Brave words for someone in melee range.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9214
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #52 on: 11 November 2018, 13:44:53 »
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
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #53 on: 11 November 2018, 14:04:29 »
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.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Caedis Animus

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
  • Shutdown Overridden; Reactor Critical in...
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #54 on: 11 November 2018, 14:12:40 »
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.
Brave words for someone in melee range.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6667
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #55 on: 11 November 2018, 14:47:40 »
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

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Is this the real life...
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #56 on: 11 November 2018, 15:37:58 »
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?
Playing in Saskatoon Saskatchewan
Message if you want to organize a game

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6667
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #57 on: 11 November 2018, 15:45:00 »
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
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #58 on: 11 November 2018, 15:55:14 »
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.
I beats the Urbie to death with my CHARGER!!!

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6667
Re: Fight Night: Mad Cat vs Mad Cat Mk IV
« Reply #59 on: 11 November 2018, 16:02:00 »
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".