29 replies to this topic

[Lyoncet]

All the XL engines floating around this thread make me cry a little inside. I know it's probably going to turn out to be the optimal way of running the thing, but... it just seems wrong to take such a burly, scrappy 'Mech and put that vulnerable, fancey-schmancy XL in it.

Well that, and you can lose a side torso and still be dumping on them with 3 MLAS, a SRM 6, and ballistics.

[Trauglodyte]

General Taskeen, on 23 July 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

But what if MG's become good comparable to MW3/4 later on? Wishful thinking on my part, but I can dream.

Don't get JoMal started on MGs.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Lyoncet, on 24 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

All the XL engines floating around this thread make me cry a little inside. I know it's probably going to turn out to be the optimal way of running the thing, but... it just seems wrong to take such a burly, scrappy 'Mech and put that vulnerable, fancey-schmancy XL in it.

Well that, and you can lose a side torso and still be dumping on them with 3 MLAS, a SRM 6, and ballistics.

I use XL engines in all of my mechs since it frees up weight for other things and get the benefits of going faster. Why would I use a standard engine when an XL engine gives me better benefits for less tonnage?

[Lyoncet]

James The Fox Dixon, on 24 July 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

I use XL engines in all of my mechs since it frees up weight for other things and get the benefits of going faster. Why would I use a standard engine when an XL engine gives me better benefits for less tonnage?

Exactly. That's why I said XL was probably going to be the optimal way of running it.

Edited by Lyoncet, 24 July 2013 - 09:50 AM.

[One Medic Army]

Lyoncet, on 24 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

All the XL engines floating around this thread make me cry a little inside. I know it's probably going to turn out to be the optimal way of running the thing, but... it just seems wrong to take such a burly, scrappy 'Mech and put that vulnerable, fancey-schmancy XL in it.

Well that, and you can lose a side torso and still be dumping on them with 3 MLAS, a SRM 6, and ballistics.

Mechs I run standard engines in:
Centurions (2 of 3)
Hunchbacks (2 of 3)
Atlas (1 of 1)
Stalkers (3 of 3)

That's out of my 36(?) mechs. The thing is that when you can get an appreciable speed boost and/or the chassis tends to not have vulnerable side torsos it's worth at least trying out.

[orcrist86]

The battlemaster has always been my fav. I used to ride one in the original mechwarrior, legging and head shotting the enemy.

[General Taskeen]

Kanatta Jing, on 23 July 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

The point of the machine guns is to keep scratching at the enemy while your medium lasers cool off.

Nope, unless you are saying an AC/2 is for the same purpose. MG and AC/2 did same damage, hence why the Battle Master has 2 MG's to do decent damage at close range.

[Jack Avery]

You have 14 crit slots left, so Ferro or Endo are an option, though in this case I think you would be better off with the Ferro for extra armor. It's true that Endo would get you the last 26 points of armor that you can't get with the Ferro, but you would have wasted tonnage left over. I don't think the 13 pts of armor per leg are worth the extra cost for Endo, and that build is already pricey.

Looks like fun.

[New Day]

Unless it's a barn like the Awesome.

[Carrioncrows]

I like it, though my advice would be to keep the MG's (because when your heat is maxed you can at least fire something) but drop the SRM6 in favor of a LRM5

You already have devistating close in firepower in the form of those 6 medium lasers, firing the SRM6 would just build up your heat (and because lasers are hit scan and the srm's need you to lead your target you can't exactly alpha them together) so just drop the SRM6 for a LRM5.

The LRM5 would give you a suppression weapon but also allow you to get assits on targets not in your LOS.

Besides dropping the SRM6 would allow you to fit another heat sink.

=)