45 replies to this topic

[HANGMAN1962]

well in mw/4 i used 4 clan lrm 15's and 4 med is lasers and 5 tons lrm ammo,
and 60 lrm missiles at one time is terrafieing lols
and i intend to run a cat in mwo and starting with standerd is gear you will want to get lrm 5/10's to get max missiles in the air in 1 go so the smaller missile will go a long ways till you can aford the big guns like lrm 15/20's
lrm 15's get more reloads so are better for long ingagements

sincerly the "hangman"

[CCC Dober]

With MW4 there was an 'interesting' effect as far as LRMs went. It took each launcher more or less time to fire a full load of missiles and start the reload cycle. The interesting part was not what happened on the first launch, but over time after say 3-5. The launches became staggered if you fired as fast as possible, so you could chainfire them without a hassle and giving much thought to it. Either that or you give them a few secs to sync again and fire a huge blob of missiles in one go. Also if you were strapped for weight, the different ammo consumption rates allowed to fall back in time, when the big launchers clicked dry for instance. The small ones still had some life left and at least gave the rough impression that you were still at 100% fighting capacity. It may still be a factor in MW:O and I clearly hope so.

[Tyra]

I actually prefer MRM-40s.

But we're about 8 years shy of having those in MWO. XD

[Leanansidhe]

Owens stuffed with SRM4 Fun

Edited by Leanansidhe, 08 June 2012 - 02:59 AM.

[El Loco]

I hardly ever use SRM-2, but I do like the SRM-4, although I'm still packing a SRM-6 as often as possible. On the other hand I almost never equip a LRM-20... I consider them a waste of tonnage and space. I prefer LRM-10s and -15s, they pack a decent punch, don't use up so much space and weight and come with the same number of missiles per ton of ammo as a LRM-20, which means I'm not losing any damage potential.

[Jeero]

I use Clan LRM15s all the time, prefer them over Clan LRM20s. 15s have 3/4 the weight and 3/4 the damage of the 20s, with a missile oriented mech (such as the catapult) placing 4 Clan LRM15s provide the same damage per ton ratio but you've got 1 ton for extra ammo (for longer missions/fights) and another half ton for armor or whatever else you want. Heat on the 15s is lower, but not per ton (4/5s heat for 3/4 ton difference). However with 6 extra tons for ammo and heatsinks, i prefer the Clan LRM 15s. If we are talking non clan LRMs. 15s still have 75% damage but at 72% the weight. 83% heat generation, same range and recycle time. 3 Tons per gives plenty of compensation for that heat gen. (the numbers im using come from MW4:Mercs, the wiki guide for MW:O are showing different numbers...but even those numbers lean towards the LRM15)

LRM10s are half of LRM20s in stats, so placing 8 of those on a cat is like having 4 LRM20s, just salvos can be split differently, so if you micro hard, that could be viable. LRM5s are just too few in a salvo to be of use on an assault mech. For a light mech that needs a lil more OOMPH, sure why not. But 8 LRM5s would give you only 40 missiles total (full salvo) and more weight than you know what to do with.

I rarely run as a catapult, im not a missile heavy player, i like to have some PPCs or Gauss, but i always keep 1 or 2 LRMs on my mech to soften them up, i run Clan LRM15s on my mech as well, just cause i dont commit alot of weight to missiles allowing me more PPCs and heat sinks, but on my catapult lance mates, i decked em in 4 Clan LRM15s.

Short Version: LRM15s beat LRM20s in all but a single salvo. LRM10s are LRM20s cut in half cept for heat (2/3). LRM5s should only be used as a way to round out a light mech (POSSIBLY a medium mech, but they should be able to roll LRM10s in that case, unless you really only have 2 tons to spare).

LRM5s: Light Mechs
LRM10s Light/Medium Mechs
LRM15s: Medium/Heavy/Assault Mechs
LRM20s: Replace with LRM15s

Edited by Jeero, 08 June 2012 - 03:43 AM.

[Odanan]

Mech Wrench, on 07 June 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I have been building mechs sense MW2 and have never found a need to equip them with missiles less then LRM20 or SRM6. I do however find advantages using the smaller beam and ballistic weapons for heat efficiency, range advantages, and recycle rates. but with the Missiles the recycle rates stay the same, the heat becomes less efficient, and ton for ton does less damage the smaller you go. I'm not ruling out that there isn't an advantage for using the smaller missiles, perhaps it just never fit my piloting style. So i am wondering, anyone out there ever build mechs with these smaller missiles? if so why?

Agreed. I accept no less than 2x LRM15 in my mechs.

[Jeero]

Odanan, on 08 June 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

Agreed. I accept no less than 2x LRM15 in my mechs.

I never like running anything less, but thats cause i like running Assault mechs all day over a light/medium mech. They have a place in the BattleTech Universe, but its not in my mech (due to my playstyle).

[Mason Grimm]

Moving since this isn't MWO-centric

[Jost]

Clay Pigeon, on 07 June 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

In MW4 I would forgo all missiles to free up more weight for direct fire weapons.

Same thing for me in tabletop BT. After some early experimentation, I never built a mech with LRMs: that minimal range was brutal: effectively, LRMs are only at short range when you're *exactly* 7 hexes away: more and you're into the to-hit modifiers of medium/long; and less and you're into the to-hit modifiers from the minimum range. Add that to the heat, weight, and chance for explosion, and, well, like I said, I never used them.

Streak SRMs are nice, though: decent crit-hunters.

I'm very interested to see how MWO will spec all the weapons. They say it's close to tabletop rules, with some changes for playability... but that of course means they've got room to do pretty much anything.

Edited by Jost, 08 June 2012 - 05:12 AM.

[Rion Raios]

my personally designed mech from the TT that I brought to Mercs had an LR15. I tandemed it with a ER LL to snipe at targets from mid to long range.

The 20s are nice if you're a missile boat or an Assault, but the lower numbers do just fine, as the others said above.

[Unvictus]

For LRM and SRMs I would often use multiple 5's or 10's/2's 4's in order to do different types of missile loads. Especially table-top, it gave you the option of dropping mines or having a single launcher to do inferno rounds. Having a SRM 2 and a 4 on your mech would give the option of loading infernos in the 2 and then having normal munitions in the 4. Having the flexibility was definitely nice.

[Sleeping Bear]

Unless your building on an assault chassis, crit size and weight are huge factors for weapon payloads. Lighter weight designs ussually take advantage of either endo-steel internal structure, ferro-fibrous armor, or an extra-light engine; some designs incorporate a mix of them or all three. Endo-steel and ferro-fibrous armor take up 14 critical slots each and an XL engine takes up 3 slots in each side torso. Most light mechs can't afford the tonnage to mount an LRM20 rack, but a LRM10 or 5 rack is just fine. As for SRMs, for one more ton, you can mount two SRM4 racks in the space you can fit one SRM6 rack at just one more ton in weight. This goes from a possible 12 damage to a hefty 16 damage. Even in assault mechs where weight is not as big a concern, space still is. For 4 more tons, you can cram 2 LRM15 racks in the space that would fit a LRM20 rack with 1 critical slot to spare. Instead of mounting only 2 LRM20 racks due to space considerations, you now can hose enemies down with 4 LRM15 racks, an increase of 20 missiles per volley. Another concern with missiles is advanced equipment. Downsizing a LRM or SRM launcher array can allow you the tonnage and crit space to mount Artemis IV FCS or even a NARC launcher, greatly increasing the accuracy of the volleys by 35%, and thus the damage and effectiveness, conversly offsetting the reduction in volley size. All things being equal, you would normally have a 50/50 chance to hit, but add that 35% and you go from 50%(a failing grade) to a whopping 85%! If you're trying to be as weight/crit efficient as possible, mounting Artemis on any launcher smaller then an LRM15 or SRM6 is ussually my guideline. Multiple small launchers favors the NARC, but range is a limiting factor. My loadout for a Catapult for brawling is 1 x NARC launcher w/6 pods, and 5 x SRM4 launchers with 2 tons of ammo between them. This loadout carries brutal consequences for any mechwarrior unlucky enough to get thudded with a NARC pod.

So hopefully as you can see, downsizing isn't always a bad thing.

Edited by Sleeping Bear, 08 June 2012 - 04:15 PM.

[Major Bill Curtis]

These are tabletop rules, but we have nothing else to go by currently, and the developers have said they're basing a lot of what they do on tabletop . . .

Well, in terms of the LRM5, if you're not going to go Artemis IV, it is the most efficient size of LRM; once you go with Artemis IV, bigger is generally better or equal. (talking about IS equipment here)

With SRMs, the SRM4 is the most efficient in terms of space (weight being scaled equivalently), but if you go with Artemis IV, again, bigger is better.

Finally, you might want to go with the only available Streak launcher in 3049, why?

SRM6: 3 tons, 2 crits, 15 shots per ton, average missiles hit per shot? 4
2xStreak SRM2: 3 tons, 2 crits, 50 shots per ton (scale to 25 with 2 launchers), average missiles hit per shot? 4

So, 2 Streak launchers come in at the same weight/space as the single SRM6 and average the same damage, but they have 10 more volleys in a ton of ammo and will not fire if they are going to miss, so their superior ammo is stretched even further. An SRM6 with Artemis IV will do better, but weighs a ton more, so you can almost fit another Streak in for the weight (if you have the extra half-ton, I'd go Streak, otherwise the SRM6 w/ Art IV is a good bargain in terms of weight/space/damage . . . but not cost)

We might wonder how they're going to manage Streaks in-game, but they'll probably be very useful weapons against fast targets.

Aside from that (which advantages are all very minor), fit what you can. I'll almost always go for a greater number of Streak launchers over a lesser number of standard or Artemis IV SRMs, if I have the hardpoints. Since I always use Artemis IV on my LRMs, I tend to go larger there.

The more launchers you have the more flexible you are in terms of how you are managing your heat. There can be a minor advantage that you can spread smaller launchers out all over your 'mech, so that losing a single LRM5 to enemy fire still allows you to fire (for example) your other 3, while losing your LRM20 (for example) means you are done for the day.

One more thing, multiple LRM5s and Streak2s are much cheaper than single LRM20s or SRM6s, unless, again, you go Artemis IV, in which case too many Artemis IV systems (each weapon has its own) will jack up your costs by hundreds of thousands of C-Bills. This, again, if the developers use the costs in the Battletech Tech Manual as a guide.

Edited by Major Bill Curtis, 08 June 2012 - 06:26 AM.

[Major Bill Curtis]

Reading some of the responses here, I'll say that you guys used to driving Clan 'mechs are in for a big surprise regarding the limits of IS 'mechs, particularly in 3049 and particularly regarding missiles. There is a huge difference between the relative weights: a Clan LRM20, while it takes up more space, weighs the same as an IS LRM10.

In other words, an LRM15 is not among the "smaller" launchers for Inner Sphere 'mechs, and you'll see plenty of very powerful assault 'mechs mounting LRM10/15 pairs. If you're only thinking "The LRM20 is the only launcher for me," you're going to run into a lot of difficulty with these 'mechs: it's expensive and heavy.

I'm telling you this to help you out, as it's clear a lot of you guys have mostly (or exclusively) driven Clan 'mechs in the MW series and don't have access to, or experience with, 3049 IS tech (or IS tech at all). Don't be afraid of those LRM10s and 15s, and don't be surprised if you're sacrificing a lot to get a pair of LRM20s on your Stalker (you will sacrifice to do this), whereas in Clan 'mechs, a pair of LRM20s requires barely a second thought.

Cheers

Edited by Major Bill Curtis, 08 June 2012 - 06:44 AM.

[TripleHex]

Lighter missile pods and A/C's have several advantages. First, they reload/recycle a tad faster (i.e. you can shoot quicker). Second, they weigh less and take up less criticals than their bigger versions, hence you can mount them more readily on more types of mechs. Third, you can mount a handful of missiles (LRMs or SRMs) in numerous places, and so decrease the likelihood of loosing a major weapon, unlike the larger versions. Fourh, smaller versions of some weapons (SRMs esp) carry different types of ammo and even different types of launchers (Inferno rounds and Streak SRM, respectively). Fifth, the lower caliber the A/C, the further it's range. Lastly, not every mech chassis has the physical room for such large systems (remember, hardpoints), and so, rather than going with just one or two large weapons (like the Hunchie does), you can mount more weapons of various different types, and make the mech a more flexible fighter.

In short, there are a load of reasons to arm your mech with the smaller launchers or A/C's. But try toying around with the different launchers and A/C's... see what works best for your style of fighting.

[Roland]

Mech Wrench, on 07 June 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

How do you explain the srm4 to have greater knock down power?

The reason is the way that the missiles were fired.
So, for instance....

Say you want to mount, say, 12 CSRM's. You could do it with 3 CSTRK 4's, or with 2 CSTRK 6's.

Overall, the damage from both is going to be the same. Indeed, the CSTRK6's will actually be less vulnerable to AMS, but by late in the game's lifecycle few folks rank AMS since you could just dodge LRM's by twisting your torso to a 90 degree angle from when the missiles were fired, and the missiles would all slam into the ground.

Anyway, we then look at how the damage is gonna come in.

With the CSTRK 6's, you're gonna get the damage in 3 chunks. 4 + 4 + 4.
With the CSTRK 4's, you're gonna get the damage in two big chunks. 6 + 6.

When boating the cstrks, putting your damage into that two-chunk form caused CSTRK 4's to be total beasts when it came to knockdowns... Because CSTRKS actually do a lot of damage for their weight. The way knockdown worked in MW4 was such that the first hit would come in and push the mech hard.. then the second hit would immediately do another big chunk of damage, pushing them further. SInce they hadn't recovered from the first push, they'd fall over.

If you want a fun mech, take an Arctic Wolf, and load it up with CSTRK 4's.

That mech was one of the most abusive knock down mech in the game... I knocked over everything with it, including huge fatties like the fafnir. We'd often run an AW in a lance, whose job it was to run around and knock everyone down. It'd run into combat after initial engagement (because it was fragile), pick a target and unload on it. It'd fall down at least 75% of the time, no matter what it was. Mechs had a knock down protection timer, so at that point it was useless to keep shooting at it... the rest of the lance would do the job of killing it. So the AW would just move to the next target, knock it down.. next target, knock it down... within a minute the entire enemy lance would be lying down trying to get up, and just getting obliterated by the rest of the lance.

[Gremlich Johns]

I tend to prefer ballistics, then lasers and fill up the left over tonnage, if any, with either ammo or SRMs/LRMs

[KingCobra]

Yes i build those configs all the time LRM5-15 or SSRMS,etc but when i do i always used Chain Fire with these builds keeps your opponent on the defensive till you can get in rage with the bigger guns .But we have to ask will MWO have Chain Fire mode??????????

Edited by KingCobra, 08 June 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[KageRyuu]

Not really and here's a little math-warrior for you lot to answer why.

Loading up on smaller missile systems may seem at first to be the answer to your problem but generally the cost is more than what it first appears.

Lets look at the LRM line of missles for a second or two.

At first glance there's great potential in the little LRM5 over it's bigger brothers, but appearances are deceiving once you factor in heat sinks.

There's no denying 2 LRM 5s are better than 1 LRM 10. Not only is it two seperate targets to knock out, but it's 1 less ton.

But comparing 3 LRM 5s to an LRM 15 is another matter entirely. Depending on the heat sinks you're using, double or single and depending on whether or not you already used the heat offered from your 10 "free" heat sinks, not to mention engine size. Those 3 LRM 5s might appear to trade 1 ton for 1 heat, but with single heat sinks, to equalize the equation you'd wind up 1 crit heavier than if you had just taken the LRM 15. And if it had taken double heat sinks, then it would be 3 criticals heavy for 1 extra heat bar, or hypothetically 1.5 critical heavier.

Since the LRM 5 is arguably better than the LRM 10 in just about every way, there's no point in bringing up what 1 LRM 5 and LRM 10 would be against an LRM 15, or any combination of LRM 5 and 10 to LRM 20.

But 4 LRM 5s against 1 LRM 20 again at first appears better but once heat is factored in, not so much. 4 LRM 5s at first appear to trade 2 tons and 1 crit for only 2 heat, but with single heat sinks that'd bring the 4 LRM 5s 1 crit heavier than the LRM 20, and 2 crits heavier but 1 ton lighter with doubles.

While a LRM 5 and 15 would be equal to an LRM 20 with single heat sinks, but be 2 crits heavy for doubles.

Now moving onto SRMs, an SRM 4 is unarguably better than 2 SRM 2s because of the better heat and critical efficiency.to weight/damage ratio. While obviously an SRM 2 and SRM 4 is not equal to an SRM 6 due to the SRM 6s heat efficiency to weight/damage ratio. While 2 SRM 4s to 1 SRM 6 can be argued to be better, but here's why it's not.

At first glance it appears you get 2 more missiles (4 damage) for only 1 more ton and 2 more heat, but in actuality, that's 2 more missiles for 3 more tons and 2 more criticals with single heat sinks, or 2 more tons and 3 more criticals.

Now arguably you could say this is worth 4 more damage, but you'd be wrong.

Now unarguably 2 SRM 4s are better than an SRM 2 and SRM 6, but 2 SRM 6s are unarguably better than 3 SRM 4s.

But for those unfamiliar with math-warrior you cry out, that doesn't make sense! 3 SRM 4s only have 1 more heat then SRM 6s, but also 1 less criticals. But so easily do you forget heat sinks. Because with single heat sinks, those 2 SRM 6s are 1 ton lighter than 3 SRM 4s.


Now of course this is for full heat neutrality, but sometimes you don't need or want that, not to mention your 10 "free" heat sinks (I say free because they're weight free, and depending on engine size critical free, though based on engine size those criticals would be taken regardless of the type of missiles you choose.) Sometimes you can't take something bigger, or don't want to, and depending on how their slotting system will work things could change. But regardless I hope you've discovered which are inequitably the worst two missile launchers in game: the LRM 10 and SRM 2.

Edited by KageRyuu, 08 June 2012 - 02:23 PM.