252 replies to this topic

[Nightshade24]

PhoenixFire55, on 10 June 2015 - 02:10 AM, said:

You said your turret is the most powerful war asset, is it not if A-bombs beat it? Obviousely nowadays nobody drops nukes from planes (unless fighting some 3rd world backwater natives), and it won't shoot down warheads dropping from suborbit.

Anyhow ... my point was, that if you have a stationary something and I have (as we have in MWO) an infinite (or almost infinite, within the boundaries of our maps) range artillery pieces, I will simply sit outside of your range or outside of you arc of fire and drop shells on your head until you die. Or I simply mass my mobile assets and take you out, and should you decide to station your mobile assets near the stationary one to protect it, I will drop artillery on their heads as well. It is really just as simple as that, in modern warfare mobility is key to survival and victory. In that regard, A-bombs or simple bombs or even orbital bombardment or whatever isn't any different from simple field artillery. If I know where you are and I know that you'll stay there I'll take you out sooner or later, but if you can move, I'll have to invest into finding you, predicting where you'll be and only then trying to take you out, which is obviousely much harder. Needless to say, your war assets become much more dangerous themselves if I don't know where they are.

If no one ever drops nukes from planes, then do tell me when the North korean nuclear launch crysis happened earlier, why did USA send nothing but Nuclear bombers over north korean aerospace? no ICBM's were loaded in USA for nuclear warfare, barely any nuclear submarines are fielded. most of the bombers are B-2's. and North korea isn't a 'back water country' nor is it a 3rd world country, it still has at least a form of anti aerocraft deffense as well as it being a 2nd world country instead. (if you say North korea has no chance then look a few decades earlier, the first stealth planes fielded: the F-117, flew over serbia to bomb precision targets, however 1 was shot down by an out dated SAM and a near WWII era radar system made by the soviets, which is inferior to the british and german radar at the time. In the same comparison to this time of crysis, North korea had at least multiple forms to find B-2 bombers, as well as a method to take them out)

on top of that: If it was so easy to destroy these units, then why have these have such high success? They are put up against the most military active countries on earth on 1 side and on the other side one of the most military advance countries on earth.

Also the location of such turrets proves it quite hard for long range bombardment. from artillery, at least from ones with a payload or velocity to hurt it. From the look of mobile units: there is none to date that can effectively take one down, tanks (that can get into the area) can be penerated and killed by these while infantry would be a slaughter house to the point that sending wave of wave of men inside till it runs out of ammo would be better tactic to engage, however in this situation it's a choice of who looses more life or ammo first. and the loosing life part is a more mortally unacceptable part of this conflict.

Space bombardment? Sorry, via the (short hand official name) "The space treaty", no weapons of mass destruction in space, no orbital bombardments.

Aircraft sadly is the best way to handle this target, and it isnt that effective. On top of that due to the current region this is placed, an A-bomb would be stupid by either country, as even with low yeild it'll take out both countries quite harshly.



The problem with saying "what is the best in war" for combat is quite tough as everything has a problem and counter, yo ufound a problem, I got a counter. you can bring another point up, I can bring in another one.


Also may I note that in BT, strategic targets are some of the worst, as no space for engine or gyro is needed and turrets can ignore the 10 min heatsink rule, Turrets have the highest firepower in the BT universe in some cases and can exced the 100 ton limit (even going to the 1000 ton limits...0)

In a fight between a direwolf in BT (highest firepower known for the era on a functional mech) versus a strategic deffense structure (loaded with 2 UAC 5's, 2 Gauss rifles, 4 large lasers, 3 LRM 20's, 4 medium lasers, and 1 machine gun) who do you think will win?

The alpha of this building is 166 (excluding MG), that'll be enough to kill a direwolf in 1 shot, regardless of it having tripple armour (MW: O) or not...

Got 2 direwolfs? Still a win for the deffense structure...

got 3? could be an even match now. But now you need 3 mechs to take on 1 building... in reality in BT, these would also have some turrets iwth pairs of er large lasers, some LRM turrets... and due to the nature of LRM's, other structures like these could aid in this fight as one gets the target of said enemy...



However we're getting slightly off topic for a debate I do not really want and should be left for another day. I think it would be better to say strategic structures still are not obselete if used right.

If you are france who in the stard of WWII made dozens of forts to deffend against the german panzers... only for it to be annihilated by planes because not a single AA or AAA emplacement was made. (similar to a streak boat with no BAP running into an ECM enemy...). However if you're more like Britain ,who built the WWII forts and locations with the ability to take out the target enemy and able to prevent the enemy counter from happening, things will go quite well.

[PhoenixFire55]

Nightshade24, on 10 June 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

If no one ever drops nukes from planes, then do tell me when the North korean nuclear launch crysis happened earlier, why did USA send nothing but Nuclear bombers over north korean aerospace?

Because North Korea (no offense) is exactly that ... 3rd world backwater natives with no means to take down an advanced airplance.

Nightshade24, on 10 June 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

no ICBM's were loaded in USA for nuclear warfare, barely any nuclear submarines are fielded. most of the bombers are B-2's. and North korea isn't a 'back water country' nor is it a 3rd world country, it still has at least a form of anti aerocraft deffense as well as it being a 2nd world country instead. (if you say North korea has no chance then look a few decades earlier, the first stealth planes fielded: the F-117, flew over serbia to bomb precision targets, however 1 was shot down by an out dated SAM and a near WWII era radar system made by the soviets, which is inferior to the british and german radar at the time. In the same comparison to this time of crysis, North korea had at least multiple forms to find B-2 bombers, as well as a method to take them out)

See previous response. The fact that one F-117 was taken down while 99 others won't just proves it even further.

Nightshade24, on 10 June 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

on top of that: If it was so easy to destroy these units, then why have these have such high success? They are put up against the most military active countries on earth on 1 side and on the other side one of the most military advance countries on earth.

I can take a Spider with an AC10 into a match and end up top damage, simply because everyone will ignore me as I am hardly a primary threat when Dires and Timbers are running around. Success if very relative.

Nightshade24, on 10 June 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

Also the location of such turrets proves it quite hard for long range bombardment. from artillery, at least from ones with a payload or velocity to hurt it. From the look of mobile units: there is none to date that can effectively take one down, tanks (that can get into the area) can be penerated and killed by these while infantry would be a slaughter house to the point that sending wave of wave of men inside till it runs out of ammo would be better tactic to engage, however in this situation it's a choice of who looses more life or ammo first. and the loosing life part is a more mortally unacceptable part of this conflict.

A-bombs as I already said are pretty much artillery in this regard. And I think we already concluded that they can take your turret out easy enough. As for mobile assets, if they move and your turret won't know where they are it'll have nothing to shoot at. To know where they are it'll need other assets to help it. Consider a rather comical example. A single infantryman goes up against your turret with nobody else around. He simply sneaks inside and turns it off, breaks it or even uses it for its own purposes.

Nightshade24, on 10 June 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

Aircraft sadly is the best way to handle this target, and it isnt that effective. On top of that due to the current region this is placed, an A-bomb would be stupid by either country, as even with low yeild it'll take out both countries quite harshly.

We are not talking about stupid or not stupid. We are talking about powerful and effective. The A-bomb is a most effective and powerful way to take our your stationary target.

Nightshade24, on 10 June 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

Also may I note that in BT, strategic targets are some of the worst, as no space for engine or gyro is needed and turrets can ignore the 10 min heatsink rule, Turrets have the highest firepower in the BT universe in some cases and can exced the 100 ton limit (even going to the 1000 ton limits...0)

In a fight between a direwolf in BT (highest firepower known for the era on a functional mech) versus a strategic deffense structure (loaded with 2 UAC 5's, 2 Gauss rifles, 4 large lasers, 3 LRM 20's, 4 medium lasers, and 1 machine gun) who do you think will win?

The alpha of this building is 166 (excluding MG), that'll be enough to kill a direwolf in 1 shot, regardless of it having tripple armour (MW: O) or not...

Got 2 direwolfs? Still a win for the deffense structure...

got 3? could be an even match now. But now you need 3 mechs to take on 1 building... in reality in BT, these would also have some turrets iwth pairs of er large lasers, some LRM turrets... and due to the nature of LRM's, other structures like these could aid in this fight as one gets the target of said enemy...

BattleValue. The BV of such a structure would be by far exceeding the BV of a couple lances of elite clan mechs with elite clan pilots inside. But if you match its BV with a crapton of Urbanmechs on the other side they'll take it down simply because it won't be able to dispatch them all fast enough.

Nightshade24, on 10 June 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

If you are france who in the stard of WWII made dozens of forts to deffend against the german panzers... only for it to be annihilated by planes because not a single AA or AAA emplacement was made. (similar to a streak boat with no BAP running into an ECM enemy...). However if you're more like Britain ,who built the WWII forts and locations with the ability to take out the target enemy and able to prevent the enemy counter from happening, things will go quite well.

Nothing to do with planes really. You can't take over a country using planes. Germans never really cared about french forts, they simply went around them via Belgium route same way they tryed to do in WWI. Britain wouldn't have fared any better if Germany would have sent all its armies vs the UK instead of messing with the USSR, and even when they didn't I can hardly call losing 2/3 of your airforce, god knows how many people during bombings and god knows how many cargo ships to german submarines in Atlantic doing "quite well".

Nightshade24, on 10 June 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

The problem with saying "what is the best in war" for combat is quite tough as everything has a problem and counter, yo ufound a problem, I got a counter. you can bring another point up, I can bring in another one.

Exactly. And this is why I made a post about artillery and stationary targets in the first place. Because so many people here screaming poptarts are OP, while they, just like everything else have their weaknesses and counters.

Nightshade24, on 10 June 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

However we're getting slightly off topic for a debate I do not really want and should be left for another day. I think it would be better to say strategic structures still are not obselete if used right.

I think any debate provides insight as long as it stays civil so ours wasn't pointless. As for strategic structures .. perhaps, but in our little game of mechs stationary mechs are dispatched rather easily.

[H I A S]

Mazzyplz, on 08 June 2015 - 11:37 PM, said:

i'm over all of it, since you convincingly proved you can negate a poptart sniper with small lasers

Show me where.
i sayd that you can counter a jumpsnipedeck with a fast brawldeck, when it was meta.
in a brawldeck you had more firepower and more dps.
and i kill many jumpsniper with spl

[Tarogato]

Mystere, on 09 June 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Here's a challenge for everyone. Run this and post your scores.

Ran it myself out of curiousity a bunch of times. Age 24, for reference. In order:

1. 331 (my first five were indeed quite slow)
2. 317
3. 294
4. 285 (by this point I realised it was better to stare at a tiny speck on my screen intently)
5. 281
6. 282
7. 288 (starting to get distracted by the three blinking dots)
8. 313 (... )
9. 305

Strange. I got better as time went on, then proceeded to get worse almost to the point where I started.

[Insaneoflex]

How about we have something completely rational, like JJ fuel cells that work like ammunition. In fact, jump jets should require a slot for fuel which should deplete as it is used... and not recharge.

Four JJ's cost what? 2 tons total? If you also have to fuel the JJ's (with 1 and 1/2 ton fixed quantity cells), now you have to make significant trade-offs in weapon/ammo loadouts to become a long loiter JJ sniper. JJ use becomes less brainless and more strategic (or, much more mobility focused).

For example: If 1 JJ was made to burn .1 tons of fuel per second, a 2JJ mech would get 5 seconds of jump per ton of fuel. If you want to build a JJ sniper mech, you will need to include more fuel in your loadout, reducing the amount of weapons/ammo you can carry otherwise.

Lastly, fuel and JJs should also explode like ammo when destroyed or overheated.

[PhoenixFire55]

Insaneoflex, on 10 June 2015 - 03:50 AM, said:

How about we have something completely rational, like JJ fuel cells that work like ammunition. In fact, jump jets should require a slot for fuel which should deplete as it is used... and not recharge.

BT lore wise ... JJs are using the outside air to refill their reaction mass. In the absensce of said air (i.e. in vacuum, which would only be relevant for HPG map), each mech has a small amount of reaction mass within itself. I would think that in terms of MWO, mechs should be able to jump exactly once on a vacuum map like HPG. It is like most BT ... completely rational.

Insaneoflex, on 10 June 2015 - 03:50 AM, said:

Four JJ's cost what? 2 tons total? If you also have to fuel the JJ's (with 1 and 1/2 ton fixed quantity cells), now you have to make significant trade-offs in weapon/ammo loadouts to become a long loiter JJ sniper. JJ use becomes less brainless and more strategic (or, much more mobility focused).

Ahem ... 4 JJs cost 2 tons on a light. Its 8 tons for an assault. Again, lore wise, 1 JJ should provide same amount of lift relative to the size of the mech for all classes, thus the tonnage difference for JJs between classes. And as I said above, JJs don't use fuel.

Insaneoflex, on 10 June 2015 - 03:50 AM, said:

Lastly, fuel and JJs should also explode like ammo when destroyed or overheated.

Why should a simple electricity generator and atmospheric air suddenly explode when damaged or destroyed? As for overheating ... your entire mech already explodes when you overheat yourself.

[Insaneoflex]

Nothing in the lore would break by requiring the addition of supplementary reaction mass tanks (you know... like the fuel tanks I mention?) to make a mech behave the way people want it to in order to snipe. Also, I know they currently don't require it, I said they should require it in order to make gameplay less brainless.

And since you are such a fan of the lore, how the heck is a JJ anything like a simple electricity generator? Except for the fact that... oh wait, (ahem) its nothing like that.

[Bishop Steiner]

PhoenixFire55, on 10 June 2015 - 12:56 AM, said:

So a guy who hardly ever even saw a proper poptart in his matches complains about poptarts being OP and/or easy-mode ...

I need your help once again my friend from antiquity.

dual gauss Phract was a proper poptart? Odd...then why did 99% of them run Gauss + dual PPCs again?
And then, after the charge mechanic made the "pros" declare the gauss non viable ac10 + PPCs and eventually the shift to Dragonslayers and the 2xac5 2x ppc, etc.

Ah well, it's you, so I don't expect much.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 June 2015 - 04:28 AM.

[Davegt27]

I started playing last June so I was on the tail end of the pop tart era but I thought it was a great idea

You jump up so me and my team mates can get a clear shot at you
To

[H I A S]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 June 2015 - 04:27 AM, said:

dual gauss Phract was a proper poptart? Odd...then why did 99% of them run Gauss + dual PPCs again?
And then, after the charge mechanic made the "pros" declare the gauss non viable ac10 + PPCs and eventually the shift to Dragonslayers and the 2xac5 2x ppc, etc.

Ah well, it's you, so I don't expect much.

Has nothing to do with Gausscharge, the Vilocity was the Point.

But ah well, its you, so i dont expect much.

[Bishop Steiner]

HiasRGB, on 10 June 2015 - 04:49 AM, said:

Has nothing to do with Gausscharge, the Vilocity was the Point.

But ah well, its you, so i dont expect much.

yup, because 2000m/s velocity (not sure what vilocity is, but it's you, so, you know, literacy not expected) was a problem....

Oh, I'm sorry it didn't sync for ezmode anymore with a vel boost? You're painting your comp crowd to be even more crutch dependant than ever.

Funny that every whine post was about the charge up.

next stupid comment?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 June 2015 - 05:10 AM.

[H I A S]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 June 2015 - 05:06 AM, said:

yup, because 2000m/s velocity (not sure what vilocity is, but it's you, so, you know, literacy not expected) was a problem....

next stupid comment?

AC5 1350
PPC 1500
Gauss 2000
Its the different between ppc and the other weapons.

and a dualgauss3d needs an xl or is slow as **** but i sometimes pilot one with dualgauss/erppc

i will waiting for your next comment. how do you call it? stupid?

[Gyrok]

HiasRGB, on 10 June 2015 - 03:18 AM, said:

Show me where.
i sayd that you can counter a jumpsnipedeck with a fast brawldeck, when it was meta.
in a brawldeck you had more firepower and more dps.
and i kill many jumpsniper with spl

The problem was that in the jump snipe hey day...brawlers were not a proper counter...the jump snipers could do roughly equal DPS to a brawl deck because SRM hitreg was scheiss.

[Bishop Steiner]

HiasRGB, on 10 June 2015 - 05:13 AM, said:

AC5 1350
PPC 1500
Gauss 2000
Its the different between ppc and the other weapons.

and a dualgauss3d needs an xl or is slow as **** but i sometimes pilot one with dualgauss/erppc

i will waiting for your next comment. how do you call it? stupid?

look up.

Poor situational awareness for such a Pro.

[H I A S]

Gyrok, on 10 June 2015 - 05:14 AM, said:

The problem was that in the jump snipe hey day...brawlers were not a proper counter...the jump snipers could do roughly equal DPS to a brawl deck because SRM hitreg was scheiss.

Look at a earlyer comment.

Bishop Steiner, on 10 June 2015 - 05:20 AM, said:

look up.

Poor situational awareness for such a Pro.

i see no arguments and no understand of the game.

Edited by HiasRGB, 10 June 2015 - 06:16 AM.

[Kh0rn]

MWLL jump jet system and we will all be good.

[Lugh]

Insaneoflex, on 10 June 2015 - 03:50 AM, said:

How about we have something completely rational, like JJ fuel cells that work like ammunition. In fact, jump jets should require a slot for fuel which should deplete as it is used... and not recharge.

Four JJ's cost what? 2 tons total? If you also have to fuel the JJ's (with 1 and 1/2 ton fixed quantity cells), now you have to make significant trade-offs in weapon/ammo loadouts to become a long loiter JJ sniper. JJ use becomes less brainless and more strategic (or, much more mobility focused).

For example: If 1 JJ was made to burn .1 tons of fuel per second, a 2JJ mech would get 5 seconds of jump per ton of fuel. If you want to build a JJ sniper mech, you will need to include more fuel in your loadout, reducing the amount of weapons/ammo you can carry otherwise.

Lastly, fuel and JJs should also explode like ammo when destroyed or overheated.

Why exactly? the mech is powered by a FUSION engine. Recharge makes sense. Even if talking Hydrogen fuel cells charging. It's more advanced than that though.

[Soy]

PhoenixFire55, on 10 June 2015 - 12:31 AM, said:

If it did, then it would be both counter-clockwise and clockwise nascaring in equal measure. Haven't seen many people rotating clockwise, so nope ...

...Nascaring is a result of spawn being split into squads, I don't know what you're talking about with toilet bowl voodoo/mechanics here...

[Kh0rn]

I still think JJ should be a burst as they are in MWLL instead of this hover stop hover stop Jets. Also watching a light mech flying towards a building, face planting it then magically lifting over it and dropping down the other side is a rather interesting sight. MWLL jets also had increased heating meaning doing it too often would result in damage too your mech via heating. in order too get over a wall or obstacle the pilot now has too burst up then use a directional system and burst again foward too clear the building. Instead of lets face planet this building or rock, Ride up it and pop right over. Also if they had the burst system it should eliminate the bunny hop exploit. But that is just my take.

[Melon Lord]

As someone who wasn't here for the jump sniping era, but has seen videos of it, I can honestly say the day it comes back will be the day I uninstall. It looks like such an un-interactive way to play, on both sides really. Jump sniping can be done now with lights and some mediums and that's fine, they have limited weapons and their maneuverability should allow them to jump snipe. Assaults with 5 times the firepower doing it do your team is dead before you have a chance to engage them. Nah, count me out.