20517 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

FLG 01, on 09 August 2017 - 03:05 AM, said:

I was not sure about the Stooping Hawk. In TT it is a fine Mech and fairly mobile thanks to ok speed and great JJs (8 iJJ on the -F!). But would the average MWO Clanner (most of whom don't even know the Blood Spirits) be exited by an Omni with STD-engine?

But other than the STD engine, the Mech might be fairly potent in MWO if given some quirks.

well the Stooping Hawk need to be compared with the Huntsman - Stormcrow and Nova differ to much.
The Huntsman is (imho) the best medium Mech and it doesn't have quirks anymore (as said quirks are bad because you can not build you Mech on quirks - keep with the "fixed" stats)

I did run two builds on the Huntsman non of them are "super" but they do what they should do and i can perform good enough (for me) - those build is the LB10X in combination with ERPPC or dual ERPPC with AMS support for both variants.
The Stooping Hawk can have the same build but would lack the heatsinks.
The LB10X-ERPPC might be the better option for the Stooping Hawk - anyhow the Huntsman is superior so it seems obviously that the Stooping Hawk would need quirks (the falancy of the quirk metric however is - if the Stooping Hawk is super successful they tend to remove quirks (like they did with the Huntsman lately) - the problem when you remove quirks the Huntsman is again the better Mech for 5t less....

but this is a global problem (and people at PGI need to think about - combining equipment with quirks) or at least they should have thought about it in the first instance, the ship has sailed the harbor a while ago

[Odanan]

The Stooping Hawk loses 7.5 tons just for using that Std. Engine instead of XL. Compared to the Stormcrow, it's slower, has less hardpoints and podspace - it only excels in the fact it has jumpjets. Also, it's cockpit is badly placed and it would probably have worse hitboxes. I wouldn't say it will never come to MWO, but who would take that instead of the Vapor Eagle, for instance?

PS: and yes, quirks can save it. Quirks can save any mech.

[Karl Streiger]

Odanan, on 09 August 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

PS: and yes, quirks can save it. Quirks can save any mech.

It sound similar but the meaning is different - I accuse the missing BV (similar just scan the forums for good ideas) and the different paradigms of the game modes for this, mixed with the 1:2/3 copy of tt construction rules and stats

You have tonnage relevance in FP -> so 80t > 75t correct?
You also have tonnage in Group QP - because 2 guys can have 200t and 12 guys can have 600t to overcome their communication advantage correct?
But you have no tonnage based MM in Solo QP - correct? there is the idea that each Mech has equal worth.

So what is it?

You need quirks for both - you need massive quirks to make each Mech perform like another - or have other game mechanics that help winning (info warfare, game modes) that can be achieved by some Mechs more effective

You need quirks when you consider 75t<80t either.... but the tonnage based balance is already screwed because 4 IS ER-M-Laser > 1 L-Laser....
so in the end the more Mechs we want to have and the more Mechs we want to be viable the more the missing base balancing concept became obvious.

That on the other hand makes it very clear which Mechs will be the next - and the Black Lanner has 200% better chances over Crimson Langur or Stooping Hawk - same for Hellspwan over Cobra or Chimera & Daimyo or Templar & Legacy, Blood Asp before Scylla.... the next mechs are only those with good chances to generate income and PGI will play it safe with MW4 Mechs

[FLG 01]

Odanan, on 09 August 2017 - 04:21 AM, said:

The Stooping Hawk loses 7.5 tons just for using that Std. Engine instead of XL. Compared to the Stormcrow, it's slower, has less hardpoints and podspace - it only excels in the fact it has jumpjets. Also, it's cockpit is badly placed and it would probably have worse hitboxes. I wouldn't say it will never come to MWO, but who would take that instead of the Vapor Eagle, for instance?

PS: and yes, quirks can save it. Quirks can save any mech.

Would I prefer it to the Vapor Eagle or the Crimson Langur? No, certainly not.
Would I prefer it to the Uziel? Any day.

Again it is not a good choice, but there is no reason - absolutely none - to exaggerate the weakness of a design. You should, for example, first look at the alternate configurations before you pass any judgement on the hardpoint count. The Stooping Hawk is littered with HP. And the cockpit is on the place it is on the Huntsman, and that's hardly an issue. Perhaps a tad lower, but I don't see a problem. Hitboxes are ok, nothing spectacular, but again nothing bad.

What makes the Mech look bad is the STD, nothing more nothing less. There might be some niche builds requiring lots of crit-space, like heavy lasers with lots of DHS. Overall it will be worse than the Stormcrow...
... and of course it will. Compared to the Stormcrow pretty much every other medium will look bad, because the Stormcrow is meant to be the best medium.

Again, I have no interest in the Mech as I prefer Vapor Eagle and Crimson Langur (or even Black Lanner), but we need to be fair. You must not start being overly critical towards a solid if outclassed design. Again, compared to the PoS that is the Uziel, the Stooping Hawk is a marvel of engineering.

Karl Streiger, on 09 August 2017 - 05:19 AM, said:

the next mechs are only those with good chances to generate income and PGI will play it safe with MW4 Mechs

I don't think Night Gyr or Huntsman sold badly, and I would not think the Nightstar sells badly. And the best seller so far was the (IS) Marauder.

Also I really don't know how the supposedly popular Uziel did financially since its population died within a week.

[Metus regem]

FLG 01, on 09 August 2017 - 05:28 AM, said:

Also I really don't know how the supposedly popular Uziel did financially since its population died within a week.

This is what I think happend:




There was nothing aside from MW4 nostalgia saying that the Uziel would be anything other than bad at worst to average at best. If people chose to look at it as it was in MW4 where you could mount clan spec gear on it and have immortal XL ST's, rather than looking at all other sources that screamed it was "average" and "unloved/unwanted"... well about time they took a hit to the rose coloured glasses...


Me though, I got lucky with my Bushwacker, she has surpassed my expectations of her. That being said, I went in expecting it to be average at best, what I got was a solid platform that works for my style of battle, Water Warrior.

To take from WH40K, this is by no means a comprehensive and easily transferable set of ideas, just a general idea.

Spoiler

Combat and the Four Elements

Each of the four elements represents a style/philosophy of approaching combat. Few people or armies are simply an expression of one pure element, as nothing in life is that simple. However, understanding yourself in terms of these elements is useful, as playing an army that reflects your way of thinking makes the process more enjoyable (and more successful). It can also help you to understand your strengths and weaknesses as a player.

Earth overview: An Earth army wins by outlasting it's opponent, and is characterised by it's resilience and staying power. This means that good Earth armies tend to have high model counts and/or resilient troops.

Movement phase: For reasons given below, Earth armies are usually firepower based, and movement precludes the firing of heavy weapons. Thus, Earth armies do not usually invest much in mobility. Moreover, Earth troops often benefit (directly or just generally) from being in proximity to each other, so high movement , which serves only to separate the unit from the whole, is to be actively discouraged. However, this often means that Earth armies surrender the initiative to the enemy, and it is this phase that will usually defeat an Earth army.

Shooting Phase: The rules of 40k mean that Earth armies are almost always firepower based; cover adds resilience in a shooting war, but means little in protracted close combat, and ranged weapons allow a concentration of force despite the army's size and sluggishness, whereas in assault those numbers cannot be brought effectively to bear. This is the phase in which an Earth army tries to win the war.

Assault Phase: Although not geared for assault, Earth armies are by no means pushovers. High numbers of resilient troops (often receiving the charge in cover) mean that Earth armies can often grind their opponents down over time.

Example: An infantry heavy marine army with Purity Above All and hidden power fists.

This reference is now out of date. A similar example would be Necrons. Highly durable, with special rules that make them hard to kill, and a strong (though not the strongest) shooting phase.

Personal Comment: I dislike Earth armies as I find the play style dull. Undeniably effective however.


Fire overview: A Fire army wants to overwhelm it's opponents, and is characterised by it's specialisation. Good Fire armies often have high model counts and use specialist troops.

Movement phase: Fire armies, for reasons given below, tend to be assault armies. This means that they have a vested interest in getting to the enemy fast, so Fire armies often have good mobility, though not on the level of an Air army. This is where Fire armies may lose, as their specialist troops must survive in enough numbers that they can overwhelm the enemy in assault.

Shooting phase: There is one shooting phase (that you can use) for every two assault phases. This means that it is easier to overwhelm an opponent with assault superiority than fire superiority. Moreover, assault tends to be a more "one on one" affair than shooting wars, and the specialist nature of fire troops really shines when compared model for model with other armies. Thus most Fire armies will focus on assault, and because of their troops specialist nature, shooting will be weak, or non-existent.

Assault phase: This is where most Fire armies try to win. Ideally, their specialist troops empty their kill zone before the enemy can strike back, avoiding the protracted fights that often shows up the lack of resilience that characterises many Fire armies.

Example: An all genestealer army.

Personal Comment: I dislike Fire armies as the play style tends to be very one track. It also requires a certain flair that I lack.

Note that the changes in 5th edition have made Sisters of Battle a very viable Fire army. They buck the trend by being shooting based, and highly tactical. For those drawn to the Fire paradigm, they are worth checking out.


Air overview: An air army wants to out manoeuvre it's opponent, and is characterised by high mobility. Good Air armies are very fast, often at the expense of numbers.

Movement phase: This the bit where Air armies try to win. They get to choose where and when they hit you, and will choose a time and place that limits any counter attack.

Shooting phase: Unlike Fire and Earth, there is no strong tendency for Air to go shooting or assault, as both are well represented. Good Air armies do tend to specialise in one or the other, however.

Assault phase: As above.

Example: Ravenwing.

Personal Comment: Played Air for a long time. Very intellectual style, and Air v Air battles are some of the most impressive to watch. Table size and the tactical scale of 40k limit the style greatly, however.


Water overview: Unlike the other elements, Water fights reactively, responding to the plan of the enemy. Whereas the other elements try to dominate a particular phase, and "inflict" their plan upon the enemy, Water has no plan other than to defeat the enemy's plan. Good Water armies use well rounded, generalist troops.

I could go through the phases, but there is no point, as a Water army requires an opponent in order to truly define itself.

Example: Deathwing.

Personal Comment: This is the type of force this tactica will consider.


Why Play Reactively

So why play the Water way? For me there are two reasons, one simple, and one complex.

The simple answer is that it is the only style that does not become 'same-ish'. With the other styles you know roughly, before you see the table, or know what army you are facing, what your plan is. In fact, it goes deeper than that. You're locked in. Any deviation from your overall plan weakens your force. Playing your beserkers against the all stealer army? Neither of you really has the option of any tactic but all out assault. Hope you were in the mood for a meat grinder.

A Water army, on the other hand, has no plan until it sees it's enemy. And each game is different, depending on the details of your opponent. If you fight the same guy over and over, this won't help, but in a decent sized club, this can keep your interest alive.

The more difficult answer is that I am a very 'problem -> solution' type person. Take my painting for example. I have never, EVER, amounted to anything as an artist when presented with a blank canvas, a clean sheet of paper, or a lump of clay. I simply have no idea what to do. But put me in front of a mini, and everything changes. So many problems suddenly arise, needing answers. Colour matches, shading and light sources, fluff accuracy, and more. I can take weeks to painstakingly paint a single trooper. In short, once I am given a context, my artistic side really blossoms.

This is true of my martial arts and my war-gaming. I have a hard time formulating battle plans, but when you try something, my brain goes into overdrive, trying to figure out how to stop you.

I suspect I'm not alone in that. I think there are others out there just like me. So this tactica is for the Water Warriors out there.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 09 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

Spoiler

Combat and the Four Elements

Each of the four elements represents a style/philosophy of approaching combat. Few people or armies are simply an expression of one pure element, as nothing in life is that simple. However, understanding yourself in terms of these elements is useful, as playing an army that reflects your way of thinking makes the process more enjoyable (and more successful). It can also help you to understand your strengths and weaknesses as a player.

Earth overview: An Earth army wins by outlasting it's opponent, and is characterised by it's resilience and staying power. This means that good Earth armies tend to have high model counts and/or resilient troops.

Movement phase: For reasons given below, Earth armies are usually firepower based, and movement precludes the firing of heavy weapons. Thus, Earth armies do not usually invest much in mobility. Moreover, Earth troops often benefit (directly or just generally) from being in proximity to each other, so high movement , which serves only to separate the unit from the whole, is to be actively discouraged. However, this often means that Earth armies surrender the initiative to the enemy, and it is this phase that will usually defeat an Earth army.

Shooting Phase: The rules of 40k mean that Earth armies are almost always firepower based; cover adds resilience in a shooting war, but means little in protracted close combat, and ranged weapons allow a concentration of force despite the army's size and sluggishness, whereas in assault those numbers cannot be brought effectively to bear. This is the phase in which an Earth army tries to win the war.

Assault Phase: Although not geared for assault, Earth armies are by no means pushovers. High numbers of resilient troops (often receiving the charge in cover) mean that Earth armies can often grind their opponents down over time.

Example: An infantry heavy marine army with Purity Above All and hidden power fists.

This reference is now out of date. A similar example would be Necrons. Highly durable, with special rules that make them hard to kill, and a strong (though not the strongest) shooting phase.

Personal Comment: I dislike Earth armies as I find the play style dull. Undeniably effective however.


Fire overview: A Fire army wants to overwhelm it's opponents, and is characterised by it's specialisation. Good Fire armies often have high model counts and use specialist troops.

Movement phase: Fire armies, for reasons given below, tend to be assault armies. This means that they have a vested interest in getting to the enemy fast, so Fire armies often have good mobility, though not on the level of an Air army. This is where Fire armies may lose, as their specialist troops must survive in enough numbers that they can overwhelm the enemy in assault.

Shooting phase: There is one shooting phase (that you can use) for every two assault phases. This means that it is easier to overwhelm an opponent with assault superiority than fire superiority. Moreover, assault tends to be a more "one on one" affair than shooting wars, and the specialist nature of fire troops really shines when compared model for model with other armies. Thus most Fire armies will focus on assault, and because of their troops specialist nature, shooting will be weak, or non-existent.

Assault phase: This is where most Fire armies try to win. Ideally, their specialist troops empty their kill zone before the enemy can strike back, avoiding the protracted fights that often shows up the lack of resilience that characterises many Fire armies.

Example: An all genestealer army.

Personal Comment: I dislike Fire armies as the play style tends to be very one track. It also requires a certain flair that I lack.

Note that the changes in 5th edition have made Sisters of Battle a very viable Fire army. They buck the trend by being shooting based, and highly tactical. For those drawn to the Fire paradigm, they are worth checking out.


Air overview: An air army wants to out manoeuvre it's opponent, and is characterised by high mobility. Good Air armies are very fast, often at the expense of numbers.

Movement phase: This the bit where Air armies try to win. They get to choose where and when they hit you, and will choose a time and place that limits any counter attack.

Shooting phase: Unlike Fire and Earth, there is no strong tendency for Air to go shooting or assault, as both are well represented. Good Air armies do tend to specialise in one or the other, however.

Assault phase: As above.

Example: Ravenwing.

Personal Comment: Played Air for a long time. Very intellectual style, and Air v Air battles are some of the most impressive to watch. Table size and the tactical scale of 40k limit the style greatly, however.


Water overview: Unlike the other elements, Water fights reactively, responding to the plan of the enemy. Whereas the other elements try to dominate a particular phase, and "inflict" their plan upon the enemy, Water has no plan other than to defeat the enemy's plan. Good Water armies use well rounded, generalist troops.

I could go through the phases, but there is no point, as a Water army requires an opponent in order to truly define itself.

Example: Deathwing.

Personal Comment: This is the type of force this tactica will consider.


Why Play Reactively

So why play the Water way? For me there are two reasons, one simple, and one complex.

The simple answer is that it is the only style that does not become 'same-ish'. With the other styles you know roughly, before you see the table, or know what army you are facing, what your plan is. In fact, it goes deeper than that. You're locked in. Any deviation from your overall plan weakens your force. Playing your beserkers against the all stealer army? Neither of you really has the option of any tactic but all out assault. Hope you were in the mood for a meat grinder.

A Water army, on the other hand, has no plan until it sees it's enemy. And each game is different, depending on the details of your opponent. If you fight the same guy over and over, this won't help, but in a decent sized club, this can keep your interest alive.

The more difficult answer is that I am a very 'problem -> solution' type person. Take my painting for example. I have never, EVER, amounted to anything as an artist when presented with a blank canvas, a clean sheet of paper, or a lump of clay. I simply have no idea what to do. But put me in front of a mini, and everything changes. So many problems suddenly arise, needing answers. Colour matches, shading and light sources, fluff accuracy, and more. I can take weeks to painstakingly paint a single trooper. In short, once I am given a context, my artistic side really blossoms.

This is true of my martial arts and my war-gaming. I have a hard time formulating battle plans, but when you try something, my brain goes into overdrive, trying to figure out how to stop you.

I suspect I'm not alone in that. I think there are others out there just like me. So this tactica is for the Water Warriors out there.

Nice analysis... I see I'm more an "Earth" mechwarrior.

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 09 August 2017 - 08:47 AM, said:

Nice analysis... I see I'm more an "Earth" mechwarrior.

While thank you for the praise, I am undeserving of it, as I am not the author of that analysis, that belongs to Silent Requiem, from Bolter and Chainsword. His entire work can be found here:

http://www.bolterand...-water-warrior/

[Valdarion Silarius]

Metus regem, on 08 August 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

Not to mention it's TRO art that Alex uses as his inspiration.... As all other sources are non cannon, so I wouldn't get too attached to the look from other sources aside from the TRO's....

If this is considered original TRO artwork:

Spoiler

But instead we got this in MW:O :

Spoiler

(using the Glass Spider fan art as a reference to the RFL-IIC)

Then I am 1000% ok with them using a completely new designs with inspirations from the older. I never was a fan of the TRO anime robots, and the reseens are something left to be desired. I've always felt that the TRO artwork never did the mech justice of how armored it was supposed to appear. Like most of it's 11 ton of visible armor went to it's lower half. Why? Lol.

[Odanan]

Arnold The Governator, on 09 August 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

This is the best, in my opinion.

[Karl Streiger]

Metus regem, on 09 August 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

While thank you for the praise, I am undeserving of it, as I am not the author of that analysis, that belongs to Silent Requiem, from Bolter and Chainsword. His entire work can be found here:

http://www.bolterand...-water-warrior/

Fire here - first in line... first to die

When i was drop leading 5 years ago i was however more the water guy.

[FupDup]

I made a Stooping Hawk spreadsheet because boredom. Or, as I like to call it, the "Stoopid Hawk."



The main concern is the awkward hardpoint layout.

[Karl Streiger]

2 er large laser zombi detected....

[Odanan]

FupDup, on 09 August 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

I made a Stooping Hawk spreadsheet because boredom. Or, as I like to call it, the "Stoopid Hawk."



The main concern is the awkward hardpoint layout.

10E hardpoints? Not bad...

Still, the Stormcrow has 13E, better speed and more free tons...

[FupDup]

Odanan, on 09 August 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

10E hardpoints? Not bad...

Still, the Stormcrow has 13E, better speed and more free tons...

There comes a point when you have too many energy hardpoints to make effective use of, due to Ghost Heat, regular heat, and trying to spend your excess of free tonnage on DHS but running out of slots quickly even with smaller Clan dubs.

In particular, the Crow will definitely run out of those more free tons quickly if you're trying to megaboat Micro/Small/Medium type lasers. I think the Stoopid Hawk would actually be a little bit better for that kind of job for this reason. Laser boats need slots way more than tons.

EDIT: Wait a minute, I just remembered the altered JJ hardwiring rules. You can't use the torso E hardpoints without using JJs, so that sucks away 5 of your critslots if you want all 3E. Light and Medium JJs are very inefficient when it comes to their "tons-per-slot density" ratio. Still, the point about having too many lasers remains in effect.

Edited by FupDup, 09 August 2017 - 11:53 AM.

[CK16]

Hey Fupdup if you got sometime today? Can you make hardpoint spreads for the list of IS mechs here?

https://mwomercs.com...n-is-omni-pack/

If not it's all good!

[FupDup]

CK16, on 10 August 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

Hey Fupdup if you got sometime today? Can you make hardpoint spreads for the list of IS mechs here?

https://mwomercs.com...n-is-omni-pack/

If not it's all good!

I already have some of them...but I'll update them for my newest formatting type. Expect it in a few hours or so.

[CK16]

Thanks man!

[FupDup]

Here are the three requested IS heavy Omnis.



The only real worthwhile variants are Prime and E. The rest are just filler.




Many variants are invalidated because of having C3, unfortunately. Also has a bit of a hardpoint famine.




A lot of hardpoint moving had to be done, with the moving of ammo to compensate. This gundam runs out of slots fairly quick. On a side note, the leg-mounted ECM is pretty unique.

Edited by FupDup, 10 August 2017 - 11:35 AM.

[FupDup]

The lights are finished.



This is arguably (if not objectively) the most worthwhile one. Has hardpoints up the wazoo (imagine 10 SL + 1 ERLL) and high mounts.




It's...unremarkable. Not horrible, but not inspiring by any means. Runs out of critslots a little too fast for my liking.




The nicest way I can put this is that it's a dumpster fire. Having to use SHS is by itself a gigantic flashing red flag. Having low space is fairly undesirable by itself. When you combine both at the same time...you get a dumpster fire. A very sexy looking dumpster fire, but a dumpster fire nevertheless.

[Brain Cancer]

Yeah, the Owens is honestly DOA because of it's locked SHS, courtesy of being an early-era Kurita Omni design. At best, it's going to end up some undergunned nightmare that desperately wishes for more ballistic hardpoints so it can at least spam MG fire, but it only gets two, and that on the -A alone. Not worth adding, as it combines the worst in 3025-era tech with an expensive trash build.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 10 August 2017 - 12:29 PM.