82 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

DasaDevil, on 24 June 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

The problem with this assessment is that, lore wise, the Atlas is supposed to be this massive impenetrable monstrosity. You turn the corner, face down an Atlas and simply **** your pants because it is this giant wall of armor and firepower that any lesser mech is supposed to fear.. However, that isn't really the case in this game, really. Assault mechs in general are pretty anemic / go down quickly when they're actually supposed to take the brut of the firepower to begin with.

But, the problem with all assessments is that Assault mechs were an extreme rarity and were not to be tossed out into combat on a whim. You wouldn't take a Ferrari and go mudding with it. Thing is, the Assault mech needs to be cherished by the team for what it is - THE Premiere weapons platform. Should it go down, your side just lost a pivotal combat piece and your chances of winning go down drastically. Sadly, people don't play it like that which is why you often see Assault mechs dropping like flies.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Trauglodyte, on 24 June 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

But, the problem with all assessments is that Assault mechs were an extreme rarity and were not to be tossed out into combat on a whim. You wouldn't take a Ferrari and go mudding with it. Thing is, the Assault mech needs to be cherished by the team for what it is - THE Premiere weapons platform. Should it go down, your side just lost a pivotal combat piece and your chances of winning go down drastically. Sadly, people don't play it like that which is why you often see Assault mechs dropping like flies.

And that ^^^ is why I am an advocate for repair/rearm costs.

[Bishop Steiner]

Willard Phule, on 24 June 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

Keep in mind that here lately, at least in the PUG queue, the Assaults have another role......scout.

Lights and Mediums can't go out front to spot targets, the pinpoint damage wastes them. So, they hide behind the Assaults and snipe. Assaults get to go forward and lock targets.

I drive a Medium most of the time, and have been learning Lights. I find that is not true, unless you think that walking out in the open is "scouting". I've got Spider jocks in CGB you never even SEE, and they don't draw attention to themselves, all they do is find LoS and feed passive targeting telemetry top our LRM boats.

Of course, with PUG matches, the biggest issue of any role, is not that people cannot coordinate (though it is a pain,) but that for the most part, too many people don't even want to coordinate, but would rather be solo heroes. And that is especially where the Atlases and DireWolves, get wiped out. But you know what happens in those matches, when a relatively fresh Assault lance hits a couple minutes into the firefight, when both teams are on the verge of CLG?

They tend to shatter the other team. A wedge of Atlases hitting already damaged mechs are 10x more effective than telling that same lance of Atlases to waddle out in front and eat it. They get focused, they die, and your team is now down their firepower.

[Joseph Mallan]

Willard Phule, on 24 June 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

Keep in mind that here lately, at least in the PUG queue, the Assaults have another role......scout.

Lights and Mediums can't go out front to spot targets, the pinpoint damage wastes them. So, they hide behind the Assaults and snipe. Assaults get to go forward and lock targets.

Only if you are Lyran!

[Bishop Steiner]

Trauglodyte, on 24 June 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

But, the problem with all assessments is that Assault mechs were an extreme rarity and were not to be tossed out into combat on a whim. You wouldn't take a Ferrari and go mudding with it. Thing is, the Assault mech needs to be cherished by the team for what it is - THE Premiere weapons platform. Should it go down, your side just lost a pivotal combat piece and your chances of winning go down drastically. Sadly, people don't play it like that which is why you often see Assault mechs dropping like flies.

so bloody true. One reason I wish there was some feasible way to make MM limit it to 1-2 Assault per team, make it more like 3 Light, 4 Medium, 3 Heavy, 2 Assault. (or really, in the "lore correct universe, 4 Lights, 5 Mediums, 2 Heavies, 1 Assault)

Exilyth, on 24 June 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

Jumping tanks are around since about 2650: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Kanga

You mean the one even the Clans cannot replicate?

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 June 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

so bloody true. One reason I wish there was some feasible way to make MM limit it to 1-2 Assault per team, make it more like 3 Light, 4 Medium, 3 Heavy, 2 Assault. (or really, in the "lore correct universe, 4 Lights, 5 Mediums, 2 Heavies, 1 Assault)

Lore correct unless you were in certain units.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 June 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Thats cause they are not willing to do their duty. A scout puts itself in a bad place and risks itself to get that vital info. But in PUGs, one never knows who has what, and if scouting will be of any real use.

And that is because in the current system, there is no incentive for these other roles, and not only is self sacrificing play not rewarded in any way, nor are most casual players willing to "take one for the team" as their personal stats tend to mean more than the win does.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 June 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Lore correct unless you were in certain units.

cannot base general rules around the exceptions, now can we? And it was their scarcity that made units like the Dragoons "Zeta" Battalion, or even Miller's Marauders, so effective when they were deployed, but also too expensive and valuable to deploy on a whim.

Usually if you sent assault mechs, it was a do or die, majorly important situation.

[xMEPHISTOx]

I don't think that the introduction of clan mechs has helped this any, I think it would be a safe wager to say the assault % per match has increased since their arrival due to having to defend against the high dps clanners.

[Bishop Steiner]

Pygar, on 24 June 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

Mmmm....I'd say with many scouts, it has more to do with the reward system than it has to do with the risks involved. Now days, most of us know the maps pretty well, and don't really need a scout mech to tell us where the bad guys are coming from... they can be used as spotters for LRM, but that requires the scout to skimp on weapons and also depends on the other people on their team to bring LRMs and pay attention for the enhanced lock markers, and the rewards for doing so if successful are kind of "meh"- So instead, many scouts are either flying PPC/LLaser+ ECM snipers or flying close combat DPS builds (Firestarters and Jenners) because they can frequently do as much damage as anybody else that way, which in the end gives the best reward.

Yup. scouts are not rewarding for scouting or spotting, or at least, not sufficiently. So one will always earn more by being a stealth sniper, or part of a wolfpack. Combat is what brings the paycheck.

Still amazing, to me, when you screen your Assaults with ShadowHawks and Embers, just how much more effective those Assaults become.

Because, unless you are facing the underhive, an Atlas, Direwolf, Banshee or Stalker left on their own, are ripped to shred, not even because of armor (they have oodles) or hitboxes (well, sometimes, hitboxes) but simply because they cannot react and turn fast enough to defend themselves.

The BNC-3E and Direwolf are the epitome of the "Tank Destroyer" philosophy. If you are in front of them, you are dead. But if their flanks are not protected, they are 95 and 100 ton coffins.

[Turboferret]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 June 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Lore correct unless you were in certain units.

Ah yes. The infamous Steiner 2 Commando 10 Atlas formation.

Or perhaps do you mean the 5 Warhawk 5 Dire Wolf assault stars?

[Trauglodyte]

This is the whole reason that I struggle with my Assault mechs. I own 4: 2 Awesomes, 1 Victor, and 1 Atlas. The 9M can dance around and do what it needs to do while putting PPCs into people's faces just fine and I dig that. My 8V has multiple PPCs, an LRM15 for long ranged fire and two ASRM6s for people that want to test my metal. BUT, that isn't enough, combined with my slow speed, to warrant pushing into a scrum. My Atlas has SRMs but they're being pulled for LRMs because my survivability, much like that in the 8V, is greatly reduced when trying to brawl. Which leads me to the Victor which is designed to brawl but is better suited to meta brawl at 400m (but I hate it so I don't play it).

I sometimes scratch my head and wonder why I bother to play the big boys. Too slow to dance, too big to avoid, and all caught up in the weird in between of what is and isn't best for game play/survival balance.

[GreyGriffin]

The traditional concept of the Tank really lacks context in MWO, because we're all driving tanks. We're just driving different sizes of tanks.

The true breakthrough of tank warfare was a weapon that was unassailable by infantry. It was literally bulletproof and largely immune to conventional arms, requiring explosives or artillery to destroy. In modern times, this is still largely true. Infantry have to use highly unconventional tactics and weapons to destroy tanks.

The Light 'Mech is the Light Tank. It is basically a scout car that can't be punked by a single high caliber bullet.

The Medium 'Mech is the WW2 conception of the Medium Tank. The Medium 'Mech is capable of engaging other tanks by dint of its ability to maneuver into the vulnerable angles of other tanks.

The Heavy Mech is what we conceive of as the modern the Main Battle Tank. It is heavily armed enough to destroy anything on the battlefield in a straight fight, but maneuverable enough not to get pinned down strategically, even if they aren't the fastest offroad vehicles.

The Assault 'Mech is back to the World War 2 conception of the Heavy Tank. The Heavy Tank is basically a giant swathe of area denial. However, its low mobility makes it highly vulnerable to things like engineering charges, attacks against its weak points like tracks, and getting stuck in swamps.

Unfortunately for MWO's assaults, they lack the durability that would make them stand above other chassis with similar armaments.

[XX Sulla XX]

Agreed really not a perfect match. For example many tank destroyers and US theory on them was for them to be fast and mobile.


US combined-arms doctrine on the eve of World War II held that tanks should be designed to fulfill the infantry support and exploitation roles. The anti-tank warfare mission was assigned to a new branch, the tank destroyer force. Tank destroyer units were meant to counter German blitzkrieg tactics. >>>>>

Tank destroyer units were to be held as a reserve at the corps or army level, and were to move quickly to the site of any enemy tank breakthrough, maneuvering aggressively to destroy enemy tanks. This led to a requirement for very fast, well-armed vehicles. Though equipped with turrets (unlike most tank destroyers of the day), the typical American design was more heavily gunned, but more lightly armored, and thus more maneuverable, than a contemporary tank. The idea was to use speed and agility as a defense, rather than thick armor, to bring a powerful self-propelled gun into action against enemy tanks. http://en.wikipedia...._tank_destroyer

[somerandom18]

Assault mechs are only cannon fodder so others can kill the enemy while they are distracted...

[Praehotec8]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 June 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

That's right. Not tanks, but tank destroyers, which are deployed totally differently from Tanks, because while they usually bigger, and often better armored (at least in front) and have the biggest guns.... they are devoid of mobility in general, and as such, leading the charge, are easily flanked, swarmed and overwhelmed. The best place, usually for an Assault, is coming in BEHIND the Heavies, so that when the opposing units are flushed, then they can bring that massive frontal armor and firepower to bear on the opposing tanks.

This is fine, sounds correct (I have absolutely no military background, nor would I want to in real life) and would be awesome to see working well. However, the current largest assaults, the atlas and dire wolf, are not really more heavily armored in front...Technically they are, but the amount is not enough enough to make much practical difference. The dire wolf, in particular soaks too much damage to its CT.

I think it's great if assaults require some support from flanking or rear attacks, given that: 1. they are worth the effort of using when faced down from the front, and 2. there is a reasonable assumption that said support will be provided.

Unfortunately in PUG matches, number 2 is often not a reasonable expectation, and currently both of our largest assault mechs suffer from being large, easy to core or disarm targets.

Currently, the stalker is my ideal of a true assault in this game, and it fits your tank destroyer idea. It is rather sluggish, slow, and is vulnerable to fast flanking attacks (but not completely helpless either which I feel is important in a game where many will never play in organized matches). However, it soaks frontal damage like a sponge, and carries enough firepower to destroy a fleet of tanks. It may not be the first into the enemy line, but it can anchor a charge and, properly supported, can easily form the backbone of a successful assault.

Unfortunately I don't feel that the largest assaults currently fit my impression of what an assault or even a tank destroyer should be.

[Bishop Steiner]

XX Sulla XX, on 24 June 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

Agreed really not a perfect match. For example many tank destroyers and US theory on them was for them to be fast and mobile.


US combined-arms doctrine on the eve of World War II held that tanks should be designed to fulfill the infantry support and exploitation roles. The anti-tank warfare mission was assigned to a new branch, the tank destroyer force. Tank destroyer units were meant to counter German blitzkrieg tactics. >>>>>

Tank destroyer units were to be held as a reserve at the corps or army level, and were to move quickly to the site of any enemy tank breakthrough, maneuvering aggressively to destroy enemy tanks. This led to a requirement for very fast, well-armed vehicles. Though equipped with turrets (unlike most tank destroyers of the day), the typical American design was more heavily gunned, but more lightly armored, and thus more maneuverable, than a contemporary tank. The idea was to use speed and agility as a defense, rather than thick armor, to bring a powerful self-propelled gun into action against enemy tanks. http://en.wikipedia...._tank_destroyer

Yeah, I know the US won the war, but US Tank Destroyer doctrine was...not quite as defined or effective as the Germans version. 76 mm on the M10, for example, was near useless against the heavier German units. Had {Godwin's Law} been less, well, NUTS, by the Wars End, and better protected North Africa (as well as not having guys like Rommel commit suicide), I shudder to think of what should've happened during the European campaign.

Praehotec8, on 24 June 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

This is fine, sounds correct (I have absolutely no military background, nor would I want to in real life) and would be awesome to see working well. However, the current largest assaults, the atlas and dire wolf, are not really more heavily armored in front...Technically they are, but the amount is not enough enough to make much practical difference. The dire wolf, in particular soaks too much damage to its CT.

I think it's great if assaults require some support from flanking or rear attacks, given that: 1. they are worth the effort of using when faced down from the front, and 2. there is a reasonable assumption that said support will be provided.

Unfortunately in PUG matches, number 2 is often not a reasonable expectation, and currently both of our largest assault mechs suffer from being large, easy to core or disarm targets.

Currently, the stalker is my ideal of a true assault in this game, and it fits your tank destroyer idea. It is rather sluggish, slow, and is vulnerable to fast flanking attacks (but not completely helpless either which I feel is important in a game where many will never play in organized matches). However, it soaks frontal damage like a sponge, and carries enough firepower to destroy a fleet of tanks. It may not be the first into the enemy line, but it can anchor a charge and, properly supported, can easily form the backbone of a successful assault.

Unfortunately I don't feel that the largest assaults currently fit my impression of what an assault or even a tank destroyer should be.

That is largely because the Direwolf and Atlas, most times are left unsupported. A Tank Destroyer, with multiple heavy tanks facing ti front to front, was still a dead tank destroyer. I find most times the biggest issues come from one team is able and willing to focus fire, and the other is not. Having Shadowhawks and Embers in the grills of the mechs trying to shoot your Direwolf, tends to leave it exposed to less focused fire, and thus, more able to fulfill it's role as the BFG.

Effectiveness, really does come down to support and coordination. Unsupported, most Assaults are just big targets. So was a lone Tank Destroyer.

[Joseph Mallan]

Azrael1911, on 24 June 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Ah yes. The infamous Steiner 2 Commando 10 Atlas formation.

Or perhaps do you mean the 5 Warhawk 5 Dire Wolf assault stars?

I mean Zeta Battalion of The Dragoons, And though it did have a scouting element the 10th Lyran Guard. Clan Assault Stars COULD be 4 assaults ans 1 heavy or 3A and 2H, or 2A and 3H, or rarely 2A, 2H and 1M.

[Turboferret]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 June 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

I mean Zeta Battalion of The Dragoons, And though it did have a scouting element the 10th Lyran Guard. Clan Assault Stars COULD be 4 assaults ans 1 heavy or 3A and 2H, or 2A and 3H, or rarely 2A, 2H and 1M.

I was under the impression CW liked to field assault stars of 2x DW 3x Warhawk or 3x DW 2x Warhawk.

[Joseph Mallan]

Azrael1911, on 24 June 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

I was under the impression CW liked to field assault stars of 2x DW 3x Warhawk or 3x DW 2x Warhawk.

In the Clan Wolf Source book a typical Assault Star might have a Dire Wolf, a Gargoyle, 2 Timber Wolves, and maybe a Fenris or Mad Dog... But the TO&E was rarely 5 Assaults.