54 replies to this topic

[TheSilken]

The best way to answer this is to show him. If you download MegaMek (computerized TT) then you can play around with it and experience the mech first hand. Ammo fireworks are fun btw........especially on the Bane 3 (16 tons of LRM-15 ammo = 1,920 missiles that can potentially blow up )

[Soy]

Na if I'm loadin up anything else BT/MW related lately, it'll be MechCommander2. Woohoo!

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Soy, on 06 May 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

This isn't really directly related to MWO, but just bear with me for a quick train of thought...



What's up with that?

Can someone explain to me the actual ******* logic behind putting CASE on a mech that uses only one ******* ton of ammo? With a STD engine??? I don't understand.

Now it's a given, I'm analyzing the above thing thru an MWO-centric perspective, which isn't really fair to BT/MW in general as a whole, but... seriously, can someone justify that example or some of the other head scratchers?

It seems to me that there's lots of examples of mechs and armor that has stuff like that in BT/MW. So while this isn't exactly a MWO thing per se, you can sort of see examples of it in game, particularly stock builds etc.

Seems odd that some random mongo nerds on the internet in in 2015 [and surely earlier] can see obvious inefficient or dumb **** on some of these mechs n stuff... so whats up with a thousand years later, these super genius engineers and scientists make questionable decisions from the start? That Targe is a great example. I know that logistics and financial and technological things come into play yada yada yada, but still. Whats the point of that ******* CASE. What's the point of any CASE, ever. **** it. Ride the snake.

K, got that off my chest, gg.

ps - no really, think about it... 24 shots... if you can't get those off before the ammo goes, while you get ***** on in a MASC-capable mech that hauls ass, something is wrong... ****** CASE, I will never understand. NEVER!

This mostly has to do with discrepancies between MWO and Btech, and the fact that maximum armor is very rarely mounted on the stock 'mechs.

Very few battles in CBT/Battletech/Tabletop/whateverwe'recallingitthisweek last more than four to six turns, and with each weapon only firing once per turn maximum, 24 is plenty of shots for a single 'mech to run three to five missions. It's part of the reason stock 'mechs wind up so horribly under-ammo'd in MWO.

Outside of serious line battles during the conquering of a planet (which are relatively uncommon in-universe, actually), most 'mechs are going to be used for extended garrison, raiding, and small skirmish-level battles of one or maybe two lances/stars to a side. Focus fire is a lot easier, although damage sprays all over the place on the target 'mech, and battlemechs frequently leave a battle rather than stick it out to the bitter end. On top of that, even planetary-scale combat involves relatively few line battles, including a lot more supply depot raids, targeted lance drops, et cetera.

Given all of that, it's very easy to take ammo explosions, particularly since ammo always explodes when critically hit, and anything taking a critical hit is automatically destroyed- compared to MWO, where critical hits deal 'critical damage' equal to the weapon damage and equipment has from seven to twenty 'critical damage' hit points, and on top of that ammunition rarely (<20%) explodes when critically hit.

As far as XL engine, for a 'mech with an Inner Sphere XL engine, basic Inner Sphere CASE is survivability-meaningless, as it only saves the Center Torso from the ammo explosion- similar to how it is in MWO. Never question the value of CASE with a Standard engine- but always question it in combination with an XL engine. It results in monetary savings on repair (less equipment and less of the engine is unrecoverable) but it doesn't make the 'mech any less 'dead'.

It's a rare machine in the tabletop game that genuinely needs more than twelve to fifteen shots per weapon even on extended missions, unless that weapon is something with very long range like a Gauss Rifle, AC/2, AC/5, or LRM rack- and even then it's hardly ever warranted, as AC/2 and AC/5 rounds come in very large lots, and most things that can rely heavily on Gauss and LRMs are massive and slow enough that they're not going to be running repeat raids far from supply depots.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 06 May 2015 - 11:57 AM.

[Intrepid]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 06 May 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

As far as XL engine, for a 'mech with an Inner Sphere XL engine, basic Inner Sphere CASE is meaningless, as it only saves the Center Torso from the ammo explosion- similar to how it is in MWO. Never question the value of CASE with a Standard engine- but always question it in combination with an XL engine. It results in monetary savings on repair (less equipment and less of the engine is unrecoverable) but it doesn't make the 'mech any less 'dead'.

Even in BT, CASE on an IS XL is very worthwhile. Yes, three engine crits count as a 'mech' kill, but after the fact the engine can be repaired/replaced; however, a mech reduced to 0 CT internal structure by an ammo explosion is DESTROYED and thus requires a completely new mech.

The return of R&R to MWO is long overdue and will very quickly demonstrate that CASE is very much worth using!

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Intrepid, on 06 May 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

Even in BT, CASE on an IS XL is very worthwhile. Yes, three engine crits count as a 'mech' kill, but after the fact the engine can be repaired/replaced; however, a mech reduced to 0 CT internal structure by an ammo explosion is DESTROYED and thus requires a completely new mech.

A fair point, my post edited to take this into account.

[martian]

Lykaon, on 06 May 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

If you want to discuss table top mechs with critical design flaws I could go on for pages so here is one of my favorites.

PLG-3Z Pillager from TRO 3058

A 100 ton Battlemech with a 300XL engine and more heatsinks than it can possibly generate heat for and more Gauss ammo than will likely be fired in two games.

And do you know that there are many heat-inducing weapons in BattleTech (and I am not talking only about Flamers)? (of course such weapons are absent in MWO)
Such weapons can raise your heat by 10-15 points easily. Suddenly you will find out that having more heat sinks is a good idea.
Or take engine hits - each produces +5 heat.

Lykaon, on 06 May 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

Yet,if you use a standard engine reduce the gauss ammo to a more common value (2 tons per gun) reduce the heatsinks to just enough to dissipate 100% of max heat gen a turn and add endo steel you have a mech that not only has superior survivability ( No XL on an Assault mech) but cost a lot less (No XL engine cost at all).

The Pillager was designed for assaulting cities (among other things). It means that it has been provided with more ammo. Sometimes it's better to be left with some unused ammo when the battle ends, than to find out during the battle that your ammo bins are empty.

Lykaon, on 06 May 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

Come to think of it the very next page of TRO 3058 has the Thunderhawk,another 100 ton mech with a 300XL engine (in this case a legit choice for a fire support platform) but only has 10 single heatsinks ??? if you already spent the C-bills on the XL engine why not use the Dubs? As it stands the TDK-7X Thunderhawk overheats by 7 after an alpha strike when it could with double heatsinks have a surplus of 3 heat and what would it cost? off the top of my head 40k c-bills more.

Actually, the Thunder Hawk is okay even with Singles. Its primary armament is the trio of Gauss Rifles which means 3 heat points total. Add 2 points for movement. Even with singles you won't have a problem. Those lasers are just backup weapons for short-range combat when GRs would be less effective or for moments when you run out of ammo. And again, the heat of those Medlasers is manageable.

[C E Dwyer]

Soy, on 06 May 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

This isn't really directly related to MWO, but just bear with me for a quick train of thought...



What's up with that?

Can someone explain to me the actual ******* logic behind putting CASE on a mech that uses only one ******* ton of ammo? With a STD engine??? I don't understand.

Now it's a given, I'm analyzing the above thing thru an MWO-centric perspective, which isn't really fair to BT/MW in general as a whole, but... seriously, can someone justify that example or some of the other head scratchers?

It seems to me that there's lots of examples of mechs and armor that has stuff like that in BT/MW. So while this isn't exactly a MWO thing per se, you can sort of see examples of it in game, particularly stock builds etc.

Seems odd that some random mongo nerds on the internet in in 2015 [and surely earlier] can see obvious inefficient or dumb **** on some of these mechs n stuff... so whats up with a thousand years later, these super genius engineers and scientists make questionable decisions from the start? That Targe is a great example. I know that logistics and financial and technological things come into play yada yada yada, but still. Whats the point of that ******* CASE. What's the point of any CASE, ever. **** it. Ride the snake.

K, got that off my chest, gg.

ps - no really, think about it... 24 shots... if you can't get those off before the ammo goes, while you get ***** on in a MASC-capable mech that hauls ass, something is wrong... ****** CASE, I will never understand. NEVER!

TT ain't MWO, even a ton of ammo could wipe out a mech with the way ammo explosion mechanics worked, made it half the fun, seeing a mech blown apart by half a ton of mg ammo

[Soy]

Cathy, on 06 May 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

made it half the fun, seeing a mech blown apart by half a ton of mg ammo

That sounds dumb to me but if some people find it to be an exciting thing for TT or whatever, well then, more power to them.

[martian]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 06 May 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

Very few battles in CBT/Battletech/Tabletop/whateverwe'recallingitthisweek last more than four to six turns, and with each weapon only firing once per turn maximum, 24 is plenty of shots for a single 'mech to run three to five missions. It's part of the reason stock 'mechs wind up so horribly under-ammo'd in MWO.

LOL
Your games maybe last for four to six turns only, but I can assure you that people play many "longer" games.

Quickdraw Crobat, on 06 May 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

Outside of serious line battles during the conquering of a planet (which are relatively uncommon in-universe, actually)...

LOL
Have you ever heard about things such as the Clan Invasion, Succession Wars, FedCom Civil War or the Jihad?

Quickdraw Crobat, on 06 May 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

Given all of that, it's very easy to take ammo explosions, particularly since ammo always explodes when critically hit,

LOL no
Check the rules, please. Gauss Rifle ammo, Plasma Rifle ammo, Plasma Cannon ammo etc.

Quickdraw Crobat, on 06 May 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

As far as XL engine, for a 'mech with an Inner Sphere XL engine, basic Inner Sphere CASE is survivability-meaningless, as it only saves the Center Torso from the ammo explosion- similar to how it is in MWO. Never question the value of CASE with a Standard engine- but always question it in combination with an XL engine. It results in monetary savings on repair (less equipment and less of the engine is unrecoverable) but it doesn't make the 'mech any less 'dead'.

As I wrote above, not all BattleTech games are one-off deathmatches.
You really should try some campaigns. Than you would be grateful that your XL-engined 'Mech has been equipped with CASE.

Quickdraw Crobat, on 06 May 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

It's a rare machine in the tabletop game that genuinely needs more than twelve to fifteen shots per weapon even on extended missions, unless that weapon is something with very long range like a Gauss Rifle, AC/2, AC/5, or LRM rack- and even then it's hardly ever warranted, as AC/2 and AC/5 rounds come in very large lots, and most things that can rely heavily on Gauss and LRMs are massive and slow enough that they're not going to be running repeat raids far from supply depots.

LOL, no
Maybe in your games. Many games are longer, really. I have no problem with using two or three tons of ammo per weapon.
Plus, have you ever heard about alternative kinds of ammo? It's useful to have multiple ammo bins for one weapon.

[Alex Morgaine]

Roadkill, on 06 May 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

They'd have to rework RnR from what it was, but yeah it could be.

Under the old RnR, you didn't get any salvage from friendly Mechs. It paid to be as precise as possible while destroying enemy Mechs because that could increase your RnR significantly, but no salvage was gained from destroyed friendlies. Presumably because the destroyed friendly was restored and given back to the pilot.

But if (for example) they made it so that the cost of restoring the destroyed friendlies was deducted from the salvage awarded to that pilot, then CASE would make more sense. It'd be cheaper to restore your Mech that way.


You'll have to add rum to find out!

(Angostura 1824 or El Dorado 21 will do nicely.)

Retreat options are needed before we could make R/R work right. No one wants to have to Rambo if the battle is lost 11-6, and right now all we can do is get called out by "team" mates, or blaze of glory. At least retreating could be done instead of head popping on OoB

Edited by Frosty Brand, 06 May 2015 - 12:22 PM.

[darkchylde]

Roadkill, on 06 May 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

There are considerations in play in TT that have no bearing whatsoever on MWO.

Salvage is a HUGE deal, because Mechs are expensive. CASE will leave that Mech salvageable, and will protect the pilot from an ammo explosion. "Disabled" and "dead" are entirely different things in TT.

If only this game had salvage that would of been the only way for certain factions to get access to certain mech variants/weapons or via the black market. Mercs factions would have to keep themselves stocked and take on contracts based on pay or salvage rights. What a difference this would make to the game, that if every so often you were able to get your hands on a wrecked mech and repair it for profit or personal use.

Edited by darkchylde, 06 May 2015 - 12:35 PM.

[DaZur]

Frosty Brand, on 06 May 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

Retreat options are needed before we could make R/R work right. No one wants to have to Rambo if the battle is lost 11-6, and right now all we can do is get called out by "team" mates, or blaze of glory. At least retreating could be done instead of head popping on OoB

I think resigning half of your potential match reward would be a necessary punitive damage for a retreat/surrender mechanism.

There has to be a cost for surrendering a match otherwise players who bail to preserve their W/L and K/D would abuse it...

[jlawsl]

Soy, on 06 May 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

This isn't really directly related to MWO, but just bear with me for a quick train of thought...



What's up with that?

Can someone explain to me the actual ******* logic behind putting CASE on a mech that uses only one ******* ton of ammo? With a STD engine??? I don't understand.

Now it's a given, I'm analyzing the above thing thru an MWO-centric perspective, which isn't really fair to BT/MW in general as a whole, but... seriously, can someone justify that example or some of the other head scratchers?

It seems to me that there's lots of examples of mechs and armor that has stuff like that in BT/MW. So while this isn't exactly a MWO thing per se, you can sort of see examples of it in game, particularly stock builds etc.

Seems odd that some random mongo nerds on the internet in in 2015 [and surely earlier] can see obvious inefficient or dumb **** on some of these mechs n stuff... so whats up with a thousand years later, these super genius engineers and scientists make questionable decisions from the start? That Targe is a great example. I know that logistics and financial and technological things come into play yada yada yada, but still. Whats the point of that ******* CASE. What's the point of any CASE, ever. **** it. Ride the snake.

K, got that off my chest, gg.

ps - no really, think about it... 24 shots... if you can't get those off before the ammo goes, while you get ***** on in a MASC-capable mech that hauls ass, something is wrong... ****** CASE, I will never understand. NEVER!

In its defense, its kind of like saying that tanks or ships shouldn't protect their ammunition if they are only running small amount of it in the real world. It transfers over in Battletech, as others have said, because ammo explosions on the TT end a mech, even with a small amount of ammo.

If I had a TON of ammunition for missiles, rockets, or guns in a hopper within feet of me, I wouldn't really mind having something that vented or reduced the explosion. But, the OP is also correct in his assessment that it is pretty worthless in mwo.

[IronChance]

Soy, on 06 May 2015 - 10:23 AM, said:

Ye... I know... it was still better than no RnR...

...anyways....................

...how cool would it be if CW was like, whatever house your unit or whatever is aligned to, you have access to the mech and tech that house had at this point in the timeline or whatever...

...then...

...you know, you go invade this planet or whatever and if you take it if it has XYZ production/manufacturing capabilities, well, now you have access to that ****...

...all that stuff could be kept 'in-house' ie limited to just your CW mode...

...then you throw in stuff like logistic risk vs reward and RnR in a legit way, and boom...

the solo/group 'regular' queue could tie in to this stuff intangible, cuz you can farm cbills in those modes and then turn to what I just described and that's how you can put the risk and reward all together... Solaris could even be another way to tie it all in in terms of farming funds as a solo to help prepare for a planet attack with your small unit or somethin.......

...that's my MWO dream.

It's stuff Russ and/or Paul talked about for the "Logistics" phase of CW implementation. Granted, this was a while ago and we haven't heard anything new about it. Still, I'm hoping the next phase is the Logistics phase and we'll at least see some of this stuff when it rolls out.

[Soy]

Yeah it'd be cool...