Jump to content

The thing about Mechs is...


53 replies to this topic

#1 Stefan Ukris Amaris

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:12 AM

...they're only Mechs if there are other vehicles which aren't Mechs.

The BattleTech Universe has all kinds of war machines from Battle Armoured Infantry to Tanks and Hovercraft to Aircraft. There are heaps of Worlds whose defence force is mainly tanks with only 2 or 3 Mechs! Only the best of the best of elite pilots get to be MechWarriors.

If every combatant is a Mech then a Mech is not a Mech. It's just a vehicle or even worse, a player. This is why MechWarrior games need all kinds of units to get a feel for the scale and responsibility of piloting a Mech.

#2 JFlash49

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • LocationKingston

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:16 AM

yeh i see your point, but who would really wanna be in a tank the size of a toy and go up against something that can kill you in a step?
or are you saying they should have small infantry butting in on the action?

#3 Feindfeuer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 234 posts
  • LocationNew Hessen

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:17 AM

Actually, there are no Battle Armor for infantry in the Inner Sphere 3049. So the earliest we'll see hem, is during the beginning of the clan invasion. I agree with you though; the 'special snowflake feeling' does not realy come up if everyone is also piloting a robotic space knight. I guess it's too late for pilotable small vehicles though, but maybe we could see them on the battlefield, even if it's just knocked out tanks, burning wrecks, or fleeing support-crew/transports.

#4 Terror Teddy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:21 AM

I hope they keep the clans as much NPC's they can and keep any non-mech as limited support you can call in.

Playing a co-op against NPC's and be swarmed by Clan Elementals in a night fight would be damn cool.

If they want to add the clans later as players they should add them AFTER Tukkayid.

#5 Max Liao

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 695 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationCrimson, Canopus IV

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:22 AM

Give tanks to the dispossessed. You're outa cash and can't afford repairs on your 'Mech, it's Rommel/Patton time for you.

While fragile, most tanks can give a pretty good punch.

#6 River McCain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 944 posts
  • LocationTropical Paradise

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:25 AM

Perhaps NPC vehicles and people might help.

#7 Adridos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 10,635 posts
  • LocationHiding in a cake, left in green city called New A... something.

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:28 AM

Problem with tanks and other assets is that there are only 2 forms of implementation we can think of, both are bad:

1st - Make them player controllable:
Problem is that you need to completeyl rewrite the game to allow a different type of vehicle to the game.
Then there's teh problem that most of them aren't good enough to face off against mechs, therefor they would stagnate.

2nd - Make them AI controlled:
Well, here's the problem that you need to make a complete AI from the ground up, which is a very long and hard process, while it still wouldn't be perfect and interfere with matches.


If you have any idea on their implementation that would be plausible, I bet anyone would like to hear it.

#8 DirtyBinrat

    Rookie

  • 4 posts
  • LocationYellowknife, NWT

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:32 AM

I've played as a tank in the tabletop Battletech game. sure, they are easier to kill then a mech(under most circumstances) but there are big tanks out there that can pack quite a punch(The Alacorn MK VI Heavy tank comes to mind with it's x3 Gauss Rifles. Sure it's 3050)

#9 fett

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • LocationVancouver

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:33 AM

"whose defence force is mainly tanks with only 2 or 3 Mechs"

I agree though I'm not sure the scope fo the game can really allow that nuance of the genre easily.

Maybe it is best to think of it as the moments in time where the large forces ARE meeting. Just like when we see a movie about the 2nd world war,... they aren't hours of guys digging trenches or sleeping (which is probably mostly what they did).

In the novels, I always enjoyed how a handful of mechwarriors would have to salvage a light mech to lead a militia infantry to repel a company (12 mechs). It made it seem that if you had a few mechs, you really were the most powerful force on the planet.

The one thing that I think really takes away from the genre (in all mech games) is the high level of customization. A mech is supposed to be some old relic that is held together for generations like your dad's old Chevy. To me, it should be VERY costly to customize at all, and it should need to be based on a base stock chassis, none of this upgrading an engine to go 2X as fast what the chassis was not designed for it.

Personally, I think we should all have to play stock and live with the inherent weaknesses in each IS design.

#10 Stefan Ukris Amaris

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:34 AM

View PostJFlash49, on 20 July 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

yeh i see your point, but who would really wanna be in a tank the size of a toy and go up against something that can kill you in a step?
or are you saying they should have small infantry butting in on the action?


See that is a problem if a Tank is the size of a toy. You already feel that a Mech is just a player.

An Infantryman should feel like a player, a Tank large and a Mech tall and very large.

#11 Willpower

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • LocationJapan

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:50 AM

.... This confuses me.

How can you people be talking about how small tanks are?

I don't know what the canon says about tanks in BT, but I look over at my other screen here, has the specs on an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. 67 tons, or close enough to it.

Did tanks get miniaturized in BT?

#12 Adridos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 10,635 posts
  • LocationHiding in a cake, left in green city called New A... something.

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:55 AM

Abrams has 67 tons, but his height is only around 2,8 meters. Atlas has 100 tons, but heights around 20 meters.

Think of mechs as tanks built vertically, so all that weight builds to the height, not width.

#13 Freakiie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:56 AM

Tanks toys?

Those are some darn painful toys then. Quite a few off the heavy tanks pack a punch that could oneshot a light or even a medium with a good shot.

The heavy missile carriers shoot salvos of 60 missiles (3x LRM-20 or 10x SRM-6), the Rommel runs around with an AC20 and a LRM-5 and there's even a tank with 3 PPCs, the Burke (it also has a LRM-10, just in case). Heck some tanks are more expensive than the standard Atlas.

If they are ever implemented anyone seeing these as "toys" will be in for a rather nasty surprise.

#14 Gabopentin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • LocationBoro,UK

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:59 AM

Yeah go for it. Crunchies and mobile containerised Crunchies.

#15 Feindfeuer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 234 posts
  • LocationNew Hessen

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:59 AM

Tanks are 'special' in BT... they have the same weight classes as mechs, so yes, they have comparable armor and armament... but they are easier to kill, as even though they have different armor on different locations they only have a single internal structure and they go poof as son as they take heat-damage (not sure on the last part, it's been some years since i played BT).
They are artificaly downgraded to make mechs useful, and though they have comparable weights, they are flat on the ground and therefore look 'smaller', they are also commonly pictures smaller overall... probably to further boost the special snowflake mechwarrior feeling.

#16 Willpower

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • LocationJapan

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:15 AM

View PostFeindfeuer, on 20 July 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Tanks are 'special' in BT... they have the same weight classes as mechs, so yes, they have comparable armor and armament... but they are easier to kill, as even though they have different armor on different locations they only have a single internal structure and they go poof as son as they take heat-damage (not sure on the last part, it's been some years since i played BT).
They are artificaly downgraded to make mechs useful, and though they have comparable weights, they are flat on the ground and therefore look 'smaller', they are also commonly pictures smaller overall... probably to further boost the special snowflake mechwarrior feeling.


That I understand.

It was just all of the comments about tanks being little toys, etc. Tanks' low profile is actually a good think when it comes to battle. Lower profile means you are not as easily spotted, targeted, or hit. But we want the special feeling of big stompy robots because that's cool. I get that too.

It's just that every time I see those kinds of comments, it really is a bit of a disconnect for me. Hell, a non-futuristic tank such as the M1A2 has a cannon that would poke a hole right through the armour on any mech on the field, and a targeting system which would put that round through the canopy window every time, on the fly.

Sry.

I am really stoked about "piloting" a very cool looking large stompy robot. I really am.

#17 Stefan Ukris Amaris

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:25 AM

View Postfett, on 20 July 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

"whose defence force is mainly tanks with only 2 or 3 Mechs"

I agree though I'm not sure the scope fo the game can really allow that nuance of the genre easily.

Maybe it is best to think of it as the moments in time where the large forces ARE meeting. Just like when we see a movie about the 2nd world war,... they aren't hours of guys digging trenches or sleeping (which is probably mostly what they did).

In the novels, I always enjoyed how a handful of mechwarriors would have to salvage a light mech to lead a militia infantry to repel a company (12 mechs). It made it seem that if you had a few mechs, you really were the most powerful force on the planet.

The one thing that I think really takes away from the genre (in all mech games) is the high level of customization. A mech is supposed to be some old relic that is held together for generations like your dad's old Chevy. To me, it should be VERY costly to customize at all, and it should need to be based on a base stock chassis, none of this upgrading an engine to go 2X as fast what the chassis was not designed for it.

Personally, I think we should all have to play stock and live with the inherent weaknesses in each IS design.


I hear ya man. The canon variants would be a lot more fun to pilot than every Mech with 6 times the same weapon, which I think people might do.

You reminded me of another concern I have too. They let everyone pick freely between Jenner, Hunchback, Catapult and Atlas. But an Atlas is three times the cost and weight of a Jenner! So there should be at least three Jenners for every Atlas but we're going to see them 1:1 or worse.

Oh dear.

#18 tvih

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:30 AM

I'd love to be able to drive vehicles! Heavy tanks can pack quite a punch, while with fast scouts would be Need for Speed time!

Similarly it'd be great to play power armor, though obviously it'd kinda have to wait until the Clans and Elementals come, no IS power armor for quite some time.

Not that either option will ever be added.

#19 Broceratops

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,903 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:31 AM

thats some crappy logic. thats like saying the thing about dogs are there are cats and people. otherwise they're not really dogs.

mechs are mechs.

now i'm okay with putting in tanks and helicopters and little guys who run away screaming so you feel like you're in a big mech, but its not suddenly a fps if none of those things exist. you're still going to feel like a big robot since you're towering over trees and buildings and whatnot.

Edited by Broceratops, 20 July 2012 - 07:32 AM.


#20 Feindfeuer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 234 posts
  • LocationNew Hessen

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:32 AM

View PostWillpower, on 20 July 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:


That I understand.

It was just all of the comments about tanks being little toys, etc. Tanks' low profile is actually a good think when it comes to battle. Lower profile means you are not as easily spotted, targeted, or hit. But we want the special feeling of big stompy robots because that's cool. I get that too.

It's just that every time I see those kinds of comments, it really is a bit of a disconnect for me. Hell, a non-futuristic tank such as the M1A2 has a cannon that would poke a hole right through the armour on any mech on the field, and a targeting system which would put that round through the canopy window every time, on the fly.

Sry.

I am really stoked about "piloting" a very cool looking large stompy robot. I really am.


I know what you mean, but when talking Battletech (or Mechwarrior), it's best to leave realism at the door, as the world is constructed around rules that support mech combat and artificialy drop the effeiciency of other weapon systems to make them mechs a viable weapon platform. For example, the low profile is not an advantage at all in pure BT rules, as there is no bonus or malus on the to-hit table for beeing a full-sized mech or 'just' a heavy tank.
This of course works a bit better in the videogame adaption, as true line of sight is used for the direct fire weapons, but still tanks and conventional vehicles will always be artificial lowered in performance to make mechs viable, and special. Which is a good thing, cause otherwise we would not get to play with giant robots with laser, cannons and rockets... but still... best leave realism and to some extend logic at the door when arguing about battletech/mechwarrior. :blink:





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users