Why use a stock hunchback over say an atlas?
Posted 09 July 2012 - 02:35 AM
Edited by Vyviel, 09 July 2012 - 02:35 AM.
Posted 09 July 2012 - 02:41 AM
Posted 09 July 2012 - 02:47 AM
Where did you find this in game footage?
Posted 09 July 2012 - 02:50 AM
Posted 09 July 2012 - 06:19 AM
Posted 09 July 2012 - 06:29 AM
Posted 09 July 2012 - 06:30 AM
Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:20 AM
I would like to see a situation where the Atlas isn't sent into battle, it's committed to battle.
By that I mean, I want to have it so that when you commit that Atty to the front lines, you'll suffer as a team big-style if you need to bring him back to the rear lines or to your base. You put the Atty somewhere, and you've committed to keeping him there.
Turning round and "running" (ha!) back to you base ought to be the sign of a plan crumbling - whereas the Hunchie (or hunchie/cat combo) can more easily make positioning errors and be able to re-position themselves on the fly, generally being a more dynamic option.
Does that make sense?
Edited by BigJim, 09 July 2012 - 07:20 AM.
Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:07 AM
Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:13 AM
In today’s class we will explain why 2 mechs of different chassis will never have the same armor!
Today we intend to prove the following thesis - It would not be possible for = armor per weight on an atlas vs. a hunchback.
Let me explain:
We shall use 1 ton of armor as our unit and pretend that 1 ton of armor covers 10 feet at 1 inch think. (These are fake numbers used to explain clearly the examples used). Then let us assume you are putting 10 tons of armor on the front torso of a mech.
In order for you to have the "same" protection as a hunchback on the atlas you would need more armor than the hunchback, as the atlas is taller and the plates need to cover more surface area. Let us say that an atlas torso is twice the size of a hunchback.
IF you used the same tonnage of armor to cover twice the area then even though it would have = armor in terms of weight the armor would be half as thin. The hunchback would have 10 tons of armor 10 inches thick and the atlas would have 10 tons of armor 5 inches thick. In this case the hunchback would be MORE armored in terms of defense then the atlas as any single location could take twice the hits.
THIS is why mechs are made smaller. So that you can get more protection out of the same weight in armor.
OK people, make sure you are prepared for tomorrows quiz! Class dismissed.
Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:13 AM
Mediums for life.
Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:24 AM
If you can take an atlas, strip down the weapons to the same loadout as a comparable medium, and use the left over tonnage to reach speeds very comperable to said medium, 65 kph in the case of the stock hunchback, quite easy with alot of tonnage left over in an atlas, why would you use the hunchback.
I understand things like being lower profile or not precieved as a high threat target mabye buying you some time from being shot at, but the balance at least for me on the tabletop came at both sides having the same tonnage limits. Since there will be no such restrictions why not just use the atlas? Way more armor and I doubt even a terrible loss with little or no money made is going to be a good enough reason to deter you.
Apart from the many reasons already listed, another deciding factor would be initial cost, followed by maintenance costs.
HBK-4G Hunchback costs 3,467,876 C-Bills,
Engine costs 666,6667 C-bills
Gyro costs 600,000 C-bills
Total armour costs 100,000 C-bills
Total weapons cost 391,250 C-bills
Ammo costs 20,000 C-bills
AS7-D Atlas costs 9,626,000 C-Bills.
Engine costs 2,000,000 C-bills
Gyro costs 900,000 C-bills
Total armour costs 190,000 C-bills
Total weapons cost 790,000 C-bills
Ammo costs 107,000 C-bills
There's more, but I think you get the idea...
Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:35 AM
Hunchback: cheap AC20
Atlas: expensive AC20
Hunchback: small head
Atlas: can you miss that head? is it possible? it's huge!
I can see some people having a mech bay with an AC20 theme since, truthfully, in my experience playing tabletop battletech, I look at my enemies forces and say to myself 'where are the AC20's?' AC20s are just battle winning guns, they de-limb and end mechs altogether better than anything else out there. So, for those who want to fill their mech bay with AC20 laden mechs, 4 atlas' are probably going to take a while to put together - it might be smart for that kind of player to have hunchbacks as backups to their Atlas(es). I could see the cataphract being popular to these types of players too, since the chasis looks like it pretty clearly will be able to support an AC20 and it's a heavy mech.
Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:39 AM
Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:48 AM
Does that make sense?
yep, and frankly, you probably nailed it as far as an answer goes.
Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:53 AM
Posted 09 July 2012 - 09:00 AM
Besides, you can crank a hunchback up as fast as 90+ kph if you're willing to spend the cash, and that's a very maneuverable big gun. (though you have to drop back to an AC10 or a Gauss to accommodate the XL engine.) An Atlas, meanwhile can (if you spend a ridiculous amount of cash) move as fast as 65 kph, which means that it is easily outmaneuvered in battle if it's pilot is not careful. An end run around a force to smash their base is harder to pull off against mediums than it is against assaults.
Posted 09 July 2012 - 09:02 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users