17 replies to this topic

[Ghillie Dhu]

Before I go any further this is not a rant at PGI, IGP or Piranha games. I understand that due to game dynamics and balance the design and limitation of battlemech Is the way it is.
===========================================================================

I am a product designer and so I come from the prospective that an object should work or be effective for a designed purpose. That said Battlemechs as a reflection of a design brief are just a badly designed concept. Key pieces of equipment which are of no consequential weigh or size are rudimentary left off of all but a few chassis. If you look at the implementation of technology and design of perhaps their closest cousin's the tank during wwII once a piece of equipment is found to give an advantage then it is almost universally included in other designs ... The exclusion of equipment like jump jets and ecm on some chassis is simply ludicrous . I am surprised that the folks in the battletech universe ever managed to get out into space at all, let alone build 100 ft 100 tonne walking battle tanks . . . So "MechWarrior Online" aside how would you equip your battle ride given the parameters of design we have to work with ?

[YueFei]

Don't analyze the logic of Battletech too closely. Realistically we'd never use large bipedal machines for war. A tank is a superior platform, greater thickness of armor per exposed surface area, more stable firing platform, able to mount a much larger cannon, and lower ground pressure.

If you want to see tanks on steroids in sci-fi, read up on the "Bolo" setting... there you'll get Tanks called "Bolos" that are the size of football fields moving at 500 kph, aim-bot accuracy and snake-like reflexes and turret tracking speeds. The ability to launch multiple expendable sensor drones to avoid exposing themselves. Artillery and missile armaments, nuclear-level firepower, accurate counter-battery capability. When dealing with a berm that blocks line of sight between them and their targets, they just BLOW UP THE BERM and drive through it.

And the range and firepower to duel Starships in orbit.

Honestly we'd probably have Bolos before ever building impractical Battlemechs.

[CheeseThief]

For much the same reasons that the Abrams and Challanger 2 don't come with auto-loaders. Their inclusion conflicts with the design and doctrine so they were omitted from the vehicle.

[Hans Von Lohman]

Actually, many of the stock designs used in BattleTech in the 3025 Tech Readout were deliberately designed to be flawed. Yes, bad on purpose.

Why?

The game has design rules in it, so players can make their own mechs. This way the players should theoretically make better mechs, which is fun. That is why you get mechs that seem bizare in that they'll have rearward facing weapons that usually never get used. The Centurion, for example, has 1 forward and 1 rear medium laser, but in MWO they both face forwards. That is a mod I would do myself when playing the board game, and use Centurions with forward facing weapons only.

So, if the mechs in the game seem odd at first, that is because they are. The boardgame designers were NOT trying to make pefect mechs that couldn't be topped. Quite the opposite. They're trying to set you up so you can do better, or more specifically so a child can do better.

[Reitrix]

Hans Von Lohman, on 18 May 2014 - 11:54 PM, said:

Actually, many of the stock designs used in BattleTech in the 3025 Tech Readout were deliberately designed to be flawed. Yes, bad on purpose.

Why?

The game has design rules in it, so players can make their own mechs. This way the players should theoretically make better mechs, which is fun. That is why you get mechs that seem bizare in that they'll have rearward facing weapons that usually never get used. The Centurion, for example, has 1 forward and 1 rear medium laser, but in MWO they both face forwards. That is a mod I would do myself when playing the board game, and use Centurions with forward facing weapons only.

So, if the mechs in the game seem odd at first, that is because they are. The boardgame designers were NOT trying to make pefect mechs that couldn't be topped. Quite the opposite. They're trying to set you up so you can do better, or more specifically so a child can do better.

Actually, they had rear facing weapons due to the general inability of a 'mech to spin 180 degrees to face whatever is behind it quickly.
In MWO you CAN spin 180 degrees to attack what is on your rear easily and quickly, therefore, rearward weapons are pointless.

[Karl Streiger]

regarding rear facing weapons.
Imo you are both wrong.
Look at the stock armor of the Centurion and compare it with the Enforcer or Hunchback.

While those brawlers are supposed to lead an attack - do or die, or have JJs to fade. The Centurion, like the Dragon or Quickdraw are troopers. They hold the line, used to break through or are the humptey dumptys that defend the retreat.

Each of this tasks need strong rear armor, because its more likely that enemy will turn behind you - with enemys in front and enemys in rear - you need both, fire in each direction and good rear armor. Like you would need a rear facing MLAS in MWO - when you are used to pilot a Trooper Mech - turn to face that Locust in your rear is instant dead -> you have to stay at the enemy in front of you, and hope for a Lifesaver...(a rear facing MLAS even for the Centurion would make it more interesting for the "bug"

[Reitrix]

Karl Streiger, on 19 May 2014 - 02:02 AM, said:

regarding rear facing weapons.
Imo you are both wrong.
Look at the stock armor of the Centurion and compare it with the Enforcer or Hunchback.

While those brawlers are supposed to lead an attack - do or die, or have JJs to fade. The Centurion, like the Dragon or Quickdraw are troopers. They hold the line, used to break through or are the humptey dumptys that defend the retreat.

Each of this tasks need strong rear armor, because its more likely that enemy will turn behind you - with enemys in front and enemys in rear - you need both, fire in each direction and good rear armor. Like you would need a rear facing MLAS in MWO - when you are used to pilot a Trooper Mech - turn to face that Locust in your rear is instant dead -> you have to stay at the enemy in front of you, and hope for a Lifesaver...(a rear facing MLAS even for the Centurion would make it more interesting for the "bug"

In the lore for a lot of 'Mechs, the rearward weapons are usually intended for Infantry though, lol.

[Karl Streiger]

Reitrix, on 19 May 2014 - 02:07 AM, said:

In the lore for a lot of 'Mechs, the rearward weapons are usually intended for Infantry though, lol.

Right the rear facing weapons on Cerberus, Gunslinger and Grand Titan -> where primary a "defense" vs swarming toads...not that they are really impressed by a "machine gun"

The "best" rear facing weapon i have ever seen - was on the Deimos C (former MekPack) before it becomes cannon....a rear facing "Clan large ER-Laser" that would have effect on a Toad

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 May 2014 - 02:12 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Karl Streiger, on 19 May 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

Right the rear facing weapons on Cerberus, Gunslinger and Grand Titan -> where primary a "defense" vs swarming toads...not that they are really impressed by a "machine gun"

The "best" rear facing weapon i have ever seen - was on the Deimos C (former MekPack) before it becomes cannon....a rear facing "Clan large ER-Laser" that would have effect on a Toad

yeah always felt that was stolen from my TT DireWolf variant...... 4 ER Large and 4 SSRM6 to the front, and an extra rear facing ER Large that could protect my 6 from almost across the map. Especially on an Assault Mech, the entire point of any rear facing weapon was quite simply.... rear defense, because mechs weren't Gundams. Especially Assault Mechs. And whilst not as ideal as facing off with your forward weaponry, it was better than nothing, and since usually it was a Light Mech in your rear arc, a single, or pair of Medium Lasers were often as much firepower as your attacker carried, and your rear armor equal to his frontal.

The concept that rear weapons were primarily anti infantry is laughable, since until the Clan Invasion, the standard rear weaponry was 1 or 2 MLasers, which were pure overkill on infantry.


As for the impracticality of designs, that had nothing to do with "Players Building Better Mechs" though one could. Modifications were actually pretty strictly governed by the rules,, which of course, your GM could ignore as he chose, but BTech was always meant to be run with 99% Stock Mechs, to the point even most "notables" ran Stock Mechs. Changing that by the rules was costly in time, money and could often actually cause flaws and problems, using the modification tables provided. It's just that most home leagues ignored that.

The reason designs were often flawed is because if you look at Military Vehicles.... they often ARE flawed. They are designed by committees and bean counters, much more often than actual warriors. Armchair Generals, theory crafting. Including one feature may realistically, due to structural issues, space, money or even doctrine, require the removal or oversight of another system. Look at the Marine Corps Osprey, which is one of the biggest boondoggles in recent US military spending...... but the current Littoral Combat Ship program is another coming under fire for similar issues. Heck, half the US MIlitary equipment designs gets modified by bean counters in congressional oversight committees who are getting kickbacks. Heck, if things were done based purely on military merit, the 1911 or other 45 caliber firearms would be in use across the board over the M9, and NATO would have standardized the 6.8 spc over the 5.56 in M4s. But...... Military Budget planners have a stockpile of 5.56, and Congressmen are not the people in the trenches wishing they had a more reliable stopping powered round. Heck, the bloody Air Force is still trying to rid itself of it's A10s...despite being the single most effective airframe in their inventory, and being the one most boots on ground soldiers trust and rely on for support.

The 3025 TRO showed the remaining functional mechs after 250 years of clubbing humanity back to the stone age, and were often compromises, meant to keep originally more advanced designs, operational. Mechs were generalists, but with gaping flaws because the tech available, one often could not perform the design function of said mech without compromising somewhere else. Other cases, like the Rifleman, technology available simply did not allow it to actually do what the designers envisioned, efficiently.

The 2750 TRO mostly showcased early testbed designs for emerging advanced technologies during the Star LEague era, and were often not "maxxed out" to represent that like today, designers had a budget that had to be met, and simply put, if every mech was max tech, people could afford a lot less of them in their standing militaries. Plus many of those emerging technologies, like XL engines were not only massively expensive, but fragile, so not alway desirable. And then these designs had to be "dumbed" down further to survive the tech loss of the Succession Wars.

The designs in the TRO 3050 were representing a mix of early recovered tech, which was not fully understood, and so often applied without proper thought and testing (like the ER PPC on the Panther, but not upgrading it to DHS) or in hurried field kits trying to desperately "upgrade" existing armies to face the Clan Threat.

By TRO 3055, you see the initial glut of New Designs to face the Clans, but most were rushed through prototyping, and so had again, glaring flaws and oversights to represent this. One will notice by the TRO 3058, the designs, in general become much more streamlined in the ir purposes, and continue that trend through TRO 3067. And these designs featured the more mature era of SLDF mechs, and of the Second SLDF, where tech was fully understood, and better implemented. Yet even then, few were truly minmixxed, because again, the "stock" designs were meant to represent "realistic" design choices, which had to face things like budget constraints. Things the lay player never really thought about.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 May 2014 - 02:57 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Reitrix, on 19 May 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

Actually, they had rear facing weapons due to the general inability of a 'mech to spin 180 degrees to face whatever is behind it quickly.
In MWO you CAN spin 180 degrees to attack what is on your rear easily and quickly, therefore, rearward weapons are pointless.

Pointless? Not having to turn my back on a Cataphract to shoot a Jenner behind me is a very good Point to have rear firing weapons.

[Tombstoner]

YueFei, on 18 May 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

Don't analyze the logic of Battletech too closely. Realistically we'd never use large bipedal machines for war. A tank is a superior platform, greater thickness of armor per exposed surface area, more stable firing platform, able to mount a much larger cannon, and lower ground pressure.

If you want to see tanks on steroids in sci-fi, read up on the "Bolo" setting... there you'll get Tanks called "Bolos" that are the size of football fields moving at 500 kph, aim-bot accuracy and snake-like reflexes and turret tracking speeds. The ability to launch multiple expendable sensor drones to avoid exposing themselves. Artillery and missile armaments, nuclear-level firepower, accurate counter-battery capability. When dealing with a berm that blocks line of sight between them and their targets, they just BLOW UP THE BERM and drive through it.

And the range and firepower to duel Starships in orbit.

Honestly we'd probably have Bolos before ever building impractical Battlemechs.

Except in terms of dealing with hills and large rocks. granted a tank can go hull down and minimizes its profile but a correctly designed BM would have arm mounted weapons that extend over head to clear the terrain. so yes classic BT and MWO successors are not designed for one possible future combat.

To keep things real as it where, we would have elementals / powered armor before bolos and BM.... WWII Germany tried for a Bolo but terrain is a prohibitive factor and is also a factor for the modern main battle tank is the bridges and sort terrain, they collapse or sink due to weight. That's the upper limit of ground vehicle combat weights. hence the move to fast light stealthy multi wheeled vehicles with massive fire power.

over all to the OP i agree with you to a point but thats where the game diverges from real tech to something is just a story from the 80's. As such some elements like human not computer controlled targeting is beyond silly but is needed for the story.
that is the fundamental element of BT and i applaud PGI for attempting to simulate that, but its just unrealisticly accurate and leads to balance issues.

[Karl Streiger]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 May 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

Pointless? Not having to turn my back on a Cataphract to shoot a Jenner behind me is a very good Point to have rear firing weapons.

Or to turn to follow the light damaged Ember - and kill cars, crates and cranes with mighty blasts of your AC 20- instead of the two heavy damaged Mechs that are in front of you

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 May 2014 - 07:05 AM.

[Lostdragon]

I would advise against analyzing the lore of Battletech and Warhammer 40K. If you start to do that you will find tons of inconsistent or ludicrous things that make no sense. I find much more enjoyment in just taking it at face value because big stompy robots and genetically/surgically modified superhuman space knights/vikings are just freaking cool.

[Galenit]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 May 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

The reason designs were often flawed is because if you look at Military Vehicles.... they often ARE flawed. ...

Look at the G11 and what the Bundeswehr got with the G36 ...

G11 great weapon, 10-20 years ahead of technologie, spend more then 70 million on it. Easy to use, 3 round burst with recoil kicking after the 3. shoot, no problems with heat and dirt.
G36 become inaccurate at 100m over 30°C or after 1 mag fired, at high moisture it becomes inaccurate around 20°C, stock likes to break when steped on or used to break a door ...

We have 1 great but expensive weapon with superior tech, ammo and a handling that makes the average joe become a terminator.
And we have a cheap plastic thingy that makes the best warrior miss at 100m and let him look like a clown but we have also a giant stockpile of its ammo.
What should we buy?

[Joseph Mallan]

Karl Streiger, on 19 May 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

Or to turn to follow the light damaged Ember - and kill cars, crates and cranes with mighty blasts of your AC 20- instead of the two heavy damaged Mechs that are in front of you

Heavy damaged Mechs with more weapons than the Ember weighs total!

[Bishop Steiner]

Galenit, on 19 May 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

Look at the G11 and what the Bundeswehr got with the G36 ...

G11 great weapon, 10-20 years ahead of technologie, spend more then 70 million on it. Easy to use, 3 round burst with recoil kicking after the 3. shoot, no problems with heat and dirt.
G36 become inaccurate at 100m over 30°C or after 1 mag fired, at high moisture it becomes inaccurate around 20°C, stock likes to break when steped on or used to break a door ...

We have 1 great but expensive weapon with superior tech, ammo and a handling that makes the average joe become a terminator.
And we have a cheap plastic thingy that makes the best warrior miss at 100m and let him look like a clown but we have also a giant stockpile of its ammo.
What should we buy?

shame too, cause the G36 LOOKS dead sexy.

[CDLord HHGD]

Don't forget, there is no one factory cracking out all these mechs.... The factories are scattered across the Inner Sphere and some enjoy technologies that others do not. Also, do not forget to include Lostech... Imagine if we were forced to go back to using vacuum tubes only.... Or old technology for batteries, or monitors.... If LEDs disappeared.... Stuff we take for granted.. Now, scatter that across all the planets in the IS.... Some have more access to salvage than others.... Some are basically North Korea while others are the US..... Plus, lets talk about expense... Maybe the ECM module costs so much (in relative terms, I know it's cheap in game) that only 1 in 12 mechs get one based on some politician's budget....

[Tombstoner]

cdlord, on 19 May 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

Don't forget, there is no one factory cracking out all these mechs.... The factories are scattered across the Inner Sphere and some enjoy technologies that others do not. Also, do not forget to include Lostech... Imagine if we were forced to go back to using vacuum tubes only.... Or old technology for batteries, or monitors.... If LEDs disappeared.... Stuff we take for granted.. Now, scatter that across all the planets in the IS.... Some have more access to salvage than others.... Some are basically North Korea while others are the US..... Plus, lets talk about expense... Maybe the ECM module costs so much (in relative terms, I know it's cheap in game) that only 1 in 12 mechs get one based on some politician's budget....

This concept alone could have made salvage a really interesting part of MWO combat. The best stuff costs the most but the cheep stuff has less HP lower damage and range with higher heat generation. along the lines of +/-10%.