Why do people hate/dislike Quad mechs?
#41
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:03 AM
#42
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:22 AM
#43
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:24 AM
#44
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:29 AM
Xander185, on 22 June 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:
One word will destroy your argument:
STALKER
Most people on the forums want it!
What about Raven? Jenner? Catapult?
They're everything BUT humanoid
#45
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:29 AM
There also seems to have been three legged mechs as well:
http://www.sarna.net...res_(BattleMech)
Edited by PissdOffChuchNorrisWithChainsaw, 22 June 2012 - 05:31 AM.
#46
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:30 AM
I think both Bipedal and Quad mechs have their place, and if possible I would want to even pilot a quad. Makes me remember the quad mech from Lost Planet series, good stuff.
Now, the best argument thus far has been flanking, but bearing in mind that the combat in this game is team based, it shouldn't be a problem.
If you were soloing like a muppet in a quad you deserve to get killed, same as every other mech.
#47
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:32 AM
no Mech:
NO MECH:
MECH!!!
dont get me wrong, i like trans formers, in transformers but battletech is battletech
Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 22 June 2012 - 05:34 AM.
#49
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:36 AM
Adrienne Vorton, on 22 June 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:
no Mech:
NO MECH:
MECH!!!
dont get me wrong, i like trans formers, in transformers but battletech is battletech
MECH
Starscream, oh wait its a Land air MECH...sadly also a mech
A mech too....unfortunately
Edited by Stormeris, 22 June 2012 - 05:38 AM.
#50
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:41 AM
Stormeris, on 22 June 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:
My main reason for disliking the quad mechs in the table top game was a simple matter of hit locations and losing the arm firing arc. Losing one, leg on any mech immobilizes the chassis. Since the quad had a slightly modified hit table where arm hits became leg hits you were twice as likely to be hit in a location that had the potential to immobilize you in a quad mech. (Pardon need to edit. Spent too many years playing Mechwarrior games. A quad was immobilized if it lost a leg in table top but I believe the bi pedial mechs could still limp along, can anyone verify this its been a couple years and I don't have a book availalbe to me at the moment.)
The net effect in the game mechanic was this.
Pros.
The sideways movement gave some tactical advantage.
Cons
1. You mech was twice as likely to be hit in location that could immobilize it.
2. Losing the arm mounted weapons firing arc.
Now how this plays out in a computer simulation I guess I will have to re-evaluate my current bias when they let me play with quad mechs in this game. Just my two cents and sorry if I restated the obvious but have limited time to read the threads so your warned.
Regards,
Red
Edited by Fastred, 22 June 2012 - 05:46 AM.
#51
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:49 AM
But of course, none of that is canon so to speak . .
#52
Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:50 AM
Fl3tcher, on 22 June 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:
But of course, none of that is canon so to speak . .
This game isn't considered canon so to speak...
#54
#55
Posted 22 June 2012 - 07:17 AM
#57
Posted 22 June 2012 - 07:42 AM
#59
Posted 22 June 2012 - 07:58 AM
#60
Posted 22 June 2012 - 07:58 AM
6 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users