94 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

Yokaiko, on 08 September 2015 - 03:14 AM, said:

Incorrect, the Firecontrol systems that allow a 5" to hit a plane didn't exist for the 5" 38, that didn't come along till the 70s with the MK92 (Frigate 76mm main battery) and MK86 5" 54 main battery still in service on the Ticonderoga Cruisers.

20-25mm were the AA guns, the fact is it took a LONG time to load a 16" gun so something had to fill the gap.

The range was used for shore support, because against manuvering targets over the horizon wasn't a lot of use without a spotter (which they used destoyers for)

I didnt say the 5" were for AA. But they did have a lot to do with the huge increase in size of the ships. And being able to add secondary weapons without sacrificing your main battery like on the much smaller earlier battleships. And as you said as a side point to getting larger ment longer reload times.

But a great deal of it goes back to battleships having to be protect themselves from other ships and aircraft. And and other ships of many sizes and speeds.

The secondary guns do not translate to an argument to Mechwarrior. The Mechs are not getting larger. They are not having to deal with ground troups or aircraft in game. So the reasons why the dreadnaughts went to complementary batteries translate well. The reason why later ships used lots of AA and had room for secondary gun in general do not translate to mechwarrior.

El Bandito, on 08 September 2015 - 03:17 AM, said:

Basically, boated weapons = better performance. We knew this since 2012. Even further in the past, if you count other MW titles.

Or at least complementary weapons

cdlord, on 08 September 2015 - 03:20 AM, said:

I don't, not that naive. However, there will be changes, and these forums will be filled with hate and vitriol against PGI for ruining their mechs, their playstyle, their meta.

Again, any change, any balancing, any nerfs will not affect any of my mechs or my playstyle. And yes, I view myself as taking the high road here, not succumbing to my baser instinct to PWN my fellow gamer, to ruin his game just so I could have a better one, with the meta.

So no matter what changes you choose not to change your mechs at all?

Hit the Deck, on 08 September 2015 - 03:21 AM, said:

They are actually taking a note from MWO because they will soon add "Gauss Rifles" to their floating weapon platforms to make them more meta. Still somewhat related, I have a hunch that theirs will not feature a charging mechanism.

And lasers

[CDLord HHGD]

XX Sulla XX, on 08 September 2015 - 03:31 AM, said:

So no matter what changes you choose not to change your mechs at all?

I've been running the same, almost stock, HBK-4G build since closed beta. My TBR is built along the lines of a Marauder. My Resistance Panther has a single ERPPC and a NARC. My Atlas have MLs, AC20, LRM20 (and ECM where applicable). I bought a Top Dog (because I buy all the Heroes) and so far, I haven't found a build I like. Hell, my favorite ACH was the one with a LBX2 on it.

I collect HBKs (favorite chassis since the 80's), all the (x) variants from packages (so far), all the Heroes and Specials (Sarah's Jenner), and all ECM mechs. This is my garage. I sold all the other variants from packages (again, only keeping the (x) variants) and I have like 60 empty mechbays.

[XX Sulla XX]

Yokaiko, on 08 September 2015 - 03:23 AM, said:

Correct, buy the 70s we had missiles that flew over 100 miles, and Carriers end the reign of the Battleship as a capital vessel during WWII.

Which was my point, it was basically a incorrect premise by the OP.

No my point stands and is correct. Unless you have secondary elements besides direct fire weapons it does not make sense to carry a mixed loadout. Battleships, Tanks etc have followed the same path. A wide mix of small guns gives way to main guns of larger sizes. And this is only really changed when you have secondary considerations like anti-ship missles, aircraft etc.

And the 5 inch guns on the later battleships fit into that. They are very much like a medium laser gause build. But they are not at all like an AC5, LRM5, Flamer, Machinegun, 3 Medium laser, 1 Streak 4 build.

And there is a reason I used the HMS Dreadnought (1906). It was the point in time where battleships changed to a main a battery of large guns. It was before aircraft were considered a threat to them. It was well before missles etc. And it was a time when its new 12" guns were faster loading where it could get and keep range and speed of the targets unlike the earlier guns of the size. (Although exactly how effective that was is debatable.) But the fact remains the reasons they went to a battery of main large main guns instead of many small guns does translate over all to MWO while the later later reasons for say moving away from battleships completely do not translate.

cdlord, on 08 September 2015 - 03:42 AM, said:

I've been running the same, almost stock, HBK-4G build since closed beta. My TBR is built along the lines of a Marauder. My Resistance Panther has a single ERPPC and a NARC. My Atlas have MLs, AC20, LRM20 (and ECM where applicable). I bought a Top Dog (because I buy all the Heroes) and so far, I haven't found a build I like. Hell, my favorite ACH was the one with a LBX2 on it.

I collect HBKs (favorite chassis since the 80's), all the (x) variants from packages (so far), all the Heroes and Specials (Sarah's Jenner), and all ECM mechs. This is my garage. I sold all the other variants from packages (again, only keeping the (x) variants) and I have like 60 empty mechbays.

Well as long as you are happy

[Yokaiko]

XX Sulla XX, on 08 September 2015 - 03:54 AM, said:

No my point stands and is correct. Unless you have secondary elements besides direct fire weapons it does not make sense to carry a mixed loadout. Battleships, Tanks etc have followed the same path. A wide mix of small guns gives way to main guns of larger sizes. And this is only really changed when you have secondary considerations like anti-ship missles, aircraft etc.

Which of course must be why all modern surface combatants are muti-mission, as well as all plane

Its why Abrams tanks have a 50cal mount, why F35s have a gun. Right?

[LookUpGaming]

I'd say modern tanks have a 50cal mainly for infantry purposes. Sure they can be used against helos or other aircraft, but are not all that effective in the age of missiles.

But its better than nothing so why not mount a .50 that can engage air targets.

I imagine they still include a cannon on modern jets for similar reasons. Its better than nothing. Not mounting a cannon does not really let you mount more missiles. So why not? They took the cannons of some of the early jets, then wished they did not, because every once in a great while they are useful.

[TheSilken]

Battleship > Mech. 1 shell K.O

[XX Sulla XX]

Yokaiko, on 08 September 2015 - 03:58 AM, said:

Which of course must be why all modern surface combatants are muti-mission, as well as all plane

Its why Abrams tanks have a 50cal mount, why F35s have a gun. Right?

Not sure about your logic. I clearly stated that unless you have secondary considerations you do not add the secondary weapons. Your example just back that up again.

1. All modern surface ships have to deal with aircraft, long range missles, small boats packed with explosives, and even needing to be able to do many missions in todays navies. In other words SECONDARY considerations. Mechs do not have these. And for a brief period of times to a great extent neither did battleships.

2. You understand tanks started out with many guns right? And that they moved to one main gun because it was the most effective way to build them. Its really the perfect example of the natural way you get to meta builds. As for the machine gun again its because of secondary considerations. It will not take out another tank its for shooting ground troops.

3. Modern airplanes are nothing like tanks or early battleships and the reason I did not use them for an example. Although if you look at just what planes used to kill each other before missles then it does translate back to meta. P51 4-6 50 Cal Browning. Spitfire 8 × 0.303" Browning machine guns. And yes some had cannons and machine guns in ww2. But they were boating complementary weapons.

LookUpGaming, on 08 September 2015 - 04:08 AM, said:

I'd say modern tanks have a 50cal mainly for infantry purposes. Sure they can be used against helos or other aircraft, but are not all that effective in the age of missiles.

But its better than nothing so why not mount a .50 that can engage air targets.

I imagine they still include a cannon on modern jets for similar reasons. Its better than nothing. Not mounting a cannon does not really let you mount more missiles. So why not? They took the cannons of some of the early jets, then wished they did not, because every once in a great while they are useful.

Very true and also when they took the guns off of earlier jets missles and radar etc were not nearly as good as today.

[Yokaiko]

There are always secondary considerations, no aren't there.

[XX Sulla XX]

Yokaiko, on 08 September 2015 - 04:23 AM, said:

There are always secondary considerations, no aren't there.

Not enough to hide the basic logic of why say tanks went to one main gun. Or why Mechwarrior games produce the same kind of meta over and over again.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 08 September 2015 - 04:34 AM.

[Yokaiko]

XX Sulla XX, on 08 September 2015 - 04:30 AM, said:

Not enough to hide the basic logic of why say tanks went to one main gun. Or why Mechwarrior games produce the same kind of meta over and over again.

Has nothing to do with **** weapon balance.

[Duke Nedo]

Main difference is that when you build a Dreadnought you don't need to install a flamer to push up those 3x LPLs in the shoulder slots.... you apparently do when building a battlemech...

[Clownwarlord]

XX Sulla XX, on 08 September 2015 - 03:16 AM, said:

Hmm so top players just have not figured your your formula?

No, the mech isn't for competitive because well competitive is completely different from the other game modes.

For solo que though the mech does great because I do not have to rely on friendly mechs to provide lrm support when I can. While again I will state ... my lrms pin the enemy mechs down into cover while I move a 100 ton mech close saving its armor for a brawling. It works.

[Kilo 40]

XX Sulla XX, on 08 September 2015 - 04:30 AM, said:

Not enough to hide the basic logic of why say tanks went to one main gun.

tanks went to one main gun because they needed a really big gun that could punch through a lot of armor very quickly. and since really big guns weigh alot they only have one. but the main reason they don't things like mixed load outs, is because they don't have to or need to since they have things like infantry support, arty, aircraft, etc... tanks with one big gun fill a role and are only able to do that with support.

same with battleships with large uniform main guns. They filled a role and were able to do that with large fleets with load outs that weren't a uniform battery of very large guns.

the only way your comparison holds would be if WWI/II battles were 12v12 battles with no kind of support ever. you also completely ignore modern ships that have anything but uniform armaments consisting of "big batteries of big guns".

so if you only look at one short period of time in history, and ignore facts that are inconvenient, even then your point is still just flat out wrong.

[Vellron2005]

clownwarlord, on 08 September 2015 - 03:13 AM, said:

I have some mechs that are 50/50 on long and short and others that are setup for all the same range. An example of my all one range would be my Battlemaster 1D with its 5 large lasers. As for a 50/50 range build it usually means my Atlas S with its AC20 4 medium lasers and then 4 lrm5s. A lot of people have issues with lrms on an assault but let me explain.

It isn't 100% lrm which allows it to be on the front line and use that armor to help spread damage as a 100 ton mech. The lrms also help give a mech that has low hard points, a way to do damage at range and stay in cover for the most part. The lrms provide suppression support by suppressing the enemy into their cover which means their direct fire weapons are not melting my armor (saving it for the brawling to come). So ... eventually I get into a brawl, the enemy is damaged because of the lrms I have more armor because of the lrms and I win with my AC20 and 4 medium lasers killing the enemy.

Now there's a man who understands how to set up an assault!

I use a similar building strategy on my Executioner EXE-D.. I use 2 x LRM10 for long range, 2 x ERLL for sniping and direct fire at long ranges, and then still have a 4 x ERSLAS for that close-in gut punch..

[TheCharlatan]

So boating started on boats? Fascinating...

[FupDup]

Dreadnoughts, you say?



Oh wait, you're referring to the lame boat instead of the awesome Warhammer 40K mech...

[TheCharlatan]

FupDup, on 08 September 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

Dreadnoughts, you say?



Oh wait, you're referring to the lame boat instead of the awesome Warhammer 40K mech...

Whoever painted that, should have checked better the meaning of "defaeco", instead of just searching latin words for "purify"...
(Spoiler: where do you think the word defecate comes from?)

[Scar Glamour]

TheCharlatan, on 08 September 2015 - 06:09 AM, said:

Whoever painted that, should have checked better the meaning of "defaeco", instead of just searching latin words for "purify"...
(Spoiler: where do you think the word defecate comes from?)

This ain't Latin, scrub. It's High Gothic.

In topic, if you run LRMs on a light or AC2 on anything, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. There is a difference between versatility and equiping sub-par weapons that can be easily replaced with something far more effective for the same role and same weight.

[KHETTI]

Is this thread a hint that in the future we will be able to equip 18 inch guns on our mechs and RNGesus will cast judgement on us all!?.

[Bishop Steiner]

XX Sulla XX, on 08 September 2015 - 02:19 AM, said:

Just had a thought tonight. I still see lots of people with many random weapons on their mechs. Two machineguns, an AC5, a flamer, an LRM 5 and some random laser assortment. If you are running something like this you are handicapping yourself. You are running a pre-dreadnought in a dreadnought age.

The pre-dreadnought had an assortment of battery sizes. But in 1906 the HMS Dreadnought came along and changed the game.

"Dreadnought was the first battleship of her era to have a uniform main battery, rather than having a few large guns complemented by a heavy secondary battery of smaller guns. She was also the first capital ship to be powered by steam turbines, making her the fastest battleship in the world at the time of her completion." https://en.wikipedia...ught_%281906%29

Who new 1906 battleships were meta

Armament: World War II, Korea:
9 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal. Mark 7 guns
20 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 cal. Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal. Bofors
49 × 20 mm/70 cal. Oerlikon
Cold War, Gulf War additions:
32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk
16 × RGM-84 Harpoon
4 × 20 mm (.78 inch).Phalanx CIWS

IOWA class battleship. Seems pretty varied to me.