23 replies to this topic

[Sept Wolfke]

XL engines seem great on paper, but in my experience the loss of battlemech survivability makes this tech something to actually avoid.

the real question you have to ask yourself when considering whether or not to develop XL engines is: "do I want to be able to lose my right/left torso and still stay in the fight?" if you really get down to it, a mech with a standard or double heatsink engine can take a >significantly< heavier pounding and still survive on the battlefield.

Mechs with XL engines can't suffer the destruction of any torso location, standard and double heatsink engined mechs can literally lose the right and left torsos to the points where they leave their arms on the ground and still be in the fight.

This may not seem like a big deal to someone who's thinking "if I have no arms and no right/left torso, what guns do I have? what's the point in surviving with that kind of damage?" my answer is: "what costs less to repair, a destroyed mech or a damaged mech?" also, for a scout mech that XL engine can be really tempting, but it looks like you'll be getting your XP gains from locating other mechs and other such recon type activities.. maybe the survivability of a standard or double heat sink engine is the exact thing you need to pull off a mission like that and survive.

Just some thoughts on the drawbacks of XL engine tech.

also as a last thought, I'm pretty sure a mech with CASE and an XL engine can't suffer a CASE'd side torso ammo explosion and survive, where a standard or double heatsink engine'd mech actually would survive the ammo explosion (though it'd lose the attached arm as the side torso went). seems better than losing your mech.

[Tincan Nightmare]

The big problem with XL engines is that theres a big temptation due to the extra tonnage you gain that can mean more weapons, armor, and equipment. Or the ability to gain a big speed boost while keeping the same total weight of the engine (like the CN9-A Centurion having an engine that gives it a speed of 60kph while being 1 ton lighter than the CN9-D Centurion that uses an XL to get up to 90 kph.) Yes you are more vulnerable, but you may gain a fairly significant boost in performance. It probably would be better used in fast lights (though the tonnage gain is far less) as their speed will hopefully make some shots miss, and in assaults because they are already heavily armored and it will still take time to wear them down. I may use an XL myself, but it would be for a specific build, not general practice.

[Kip Wilson]

Yes you are correct. I very rarely mount XL engines in any of my Inner Sphere designs more than 60 tons. i'd rather bump my speed back 10 kph than put in an engine thatll take out my mech when a side torso goes byebye. In lighter mechs, where speed is the key, then yes XL's are OK.

Clan mechs are marginally better since a side torso destruction only does two hits on an engine. However, that mech is pumping significantly more heat so they dont get off scott free.

An Inner Sphere mech with case and an XL suffering an ammo explosion will still destroy the engine and render the mech inoperative. However, the damage will still be limited to the torso location and not spread into other areas so ieven though the mech is taken out of action, itll still be cheeper to repair than if there was no CASE, since the damage wont spread and take out things like gyros, additonal weapon systems and whatever else

There is as much strategy in designing a good mech than there is in being a good mechwarrior. .

[ManDaisy]

Yes I'd have to agree. It really depends on how you operate your mech on whether the XL will become a handicap or not. Front line fighter you dont want it, scout of fire support it makes more sense.

[Farseli]

Since I like sniping and fire support medium mechs, I'm thinking about what designs I can take if I do use an XL or not. Just all part of the design process.

[Da Ugh 1701]

a Case is almost imperative to have, especially if you're piloting a Mech w/a lot of ammo. I find it's just good practice to help you survive. as far as XL engines, you all make some good points that I hadn't thought of. On a Light/Scout mech, I'd have to say an XL engine would be quite important for speed & survivability and marginally so on a heavy or Assault. I guess it'd depend on how you are configuring your mech & what you feel is important. The extra weight saved by using an XL could be used to add more armour or heat sinks. Both of which are needed, expecially on a Rifleman cause I believe that mech is seriously underarmoured or at least it was on the tabletop game.

Edited by DaUgh1701, 07 July 2012 - 09:26 PM.

[LordDread]

yeah dont like it for a brawler or mid range, but on a missile boat it can be useful, more launchers and/or ammo, or more close in weaps for dealing with lights that sneak up

[Sept Wolfke]

you make good points about fire support mechs - I would use an XL engine on a catapult for example, after hearing you guys' responses, but I think that on a scout mech, which has such light armor, I would rather find tonnage in other ways because the chances of losing side torsos if things go sideways seems like a pretty huge risk. I'd rather have the survivability of the non-XLs on a scout mech I think.

[BluefireMW]

The XL engine provides a lot of Firepower for less in combat endurance, but most time just, if you get in direct concentrated fire. If it is used to be more mobile instead of more load out it makes sense.
The side Torso is faster down, but some designes don't have enough armor even without XL, so there on my opinion it makes sense.
Example is the trebuchet. It starts jumping with XL, what does increase worth in combat on a about 80 km/h mech a lot.

Who wants do go in infight with a long range outfit, so there it's no Problem to use.

Small mechs who come closer are mostle not with enough firepower to make a difference if you have a XL Engine or not.

[Aeryk Corsaer]

Extra-Light engines are one of those "damned if you do, unless you don't" things. What I mean is that if you use it, you gain some tonnage to do stuff with n the 'Mech. Sometimes if you are upping the engine like on the Centurion example above for more speed, the speed is all you get (mostly). Other times, you increase firepower or armor or some other equipment. Regardless of what is done, the 'Mech loses an aspect of survivability from an endurance (taking a pounding) standpoint but gains something else that may or may not compensate for the lesser chance of survivability. Individual basis makes that choice (or the company that makes your BattleMech).

[Calon Farstar]

I imagine in this game the real issue will be the price to repair an XL engine.. Remember some of the larger XL engines are as expensive as your average 35 ton mech....

[ManDaisy]

Engine ratings of run speed of up to 90 kmph you dont need an XL engine for on a scout, but if you want to go blazing fast such as 210 kmph and still have some weapons, your gonna need that XL.

[Deathz Jester]

Well plus side I save weight.... bad side I'm more easily cored to death.... But I'd only use it in certain situations.

[Anubis132]

A well-piloted Atlas can use its arms to soak damage that might otherwise go to the side torsos by turning sideways between volleys, forcing the enemy to shoot its arms. However, for armless 'mechs like the Raven, or 'mechs with small arms compared to the torso like the Dragon, the side torsos are much more vulnerable. This is a consideration when deciding on an XL.


Edit: unless the side torsos on the Dragon are considered to be the small bits that the arms are attached to, and not part of the huge protruding center torso.

Edited by Anubis132, 08 July 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[Murku]

In terms of the advantage XLs, Endo, or Ferro-Fib can deliver the XL engine gives you so much weight back its untrue. It is VERY hard to ignore this is you are building an endgame 'ultimate' Mech. While CASE and XLs don't mix either a laser boat or arm mounted Gauss is still a treat, and what a hefty chunk of that returned weight should be doing is going on Armor. So, to use the illustration of our XL Centurion what about:

300XL engine (for Commando scale speed)
Arm mounted Gauss Rifle with 3 tons of (non-explosive) ammo in side torso
CT mounted Lasers (either 2 small pulse or 1 medium pulse)
Both Endo Steel structure and Ferro Fib Armor (we still have 3 spare slots after both).
New armor is not only ferro-fib but climbs from 8.5t to 12t...

A 50% faster mech carrying 41% more armor weight (while being 4 times more expensive) is going to be a hard ride to pass up when we're all swimming in spare lostech.

Edited by Murku, 08 July 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I will use an XL engine on mediums mostly for extra speed on some sniper or especially scout hunter builds.

[Sept Wolfke]

Murku, on 08 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

In terms of the advantage XLs, Endo, or Ferro-Fib can deliver the XL engine gives you so much weight back its untrue. It is VERY hard to ignore this is you are building an endgame 'ultimate' Mech. While CASE and XLs don't mix either a laser boat or arm mounted Gauss is still a treat, and what a hefty chunk of that returned weight should be doing is going on Armor.

increased armor is good, but it can't compare to the survivability of the "old school" engines which allow for whole chunks of the mech to be completely destroyed while keeping the mech functional.

your point about tonnage being used to up-armor, when you take up something like XL engines is a very good point, however.

*edit*
my ultimate endgame mech sports a double heatsink engine, no more, but that's personal preference I 'spose.
*/edit*

Edited by Sept Wolfke, 08 July 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[Fahr]

If you want to go a true Scout only roll, then an XL can be ok, as having the speed to run away is a lifesaver, esp. if you are just working as a spotter/Narc/TAG - ie you don't deal damage, you make it so fire support can. in that case, ECM/Beagle/Tag/Narc with as fast an engine as you can get is the key to survival. In that build, you can almost forgo arm armor, and make up the difference in Leg/Torso armor.

run away to spot again another day.

[Murku]

Since I made that post I'm worried there's an armor cap based on mech weight I don't know about, my Battletech Compendium is probubally a little out of date. Couldn't find anything online in a cursory search, anyone wanna fill me in?

[Sept Wolfke]

armor cap is double the internal structure pts. so if you've got 10 internal structure points in a side torso then that torso location can support 20 armor, divided between the front and rear.

I still have the compendium too... such nostalgia I can't seem to stop using it!