88 replies to this topic

[Broceratops]

So I remember in previous mechwarrior games, tanks were basically useless things that you would shoot so that you felt like you were a big boy. And even in the description over at sarna, "A BattleMech's only true equal is another 'Mech—artillery, aircraft, and tanks are disadvantaged against them without BattleMech support or a strong advantage in numbers."

So given that, why does stuff like

http://www.sarna.net...Combat_Vehicle)

exist?

100 ton tank? 20 million c bills? You could buy 2 atlases for that price. Why does this exist in the BT universe? And from reading sarna, there are tanks of every weight class that there are for mechs. And their costs are similar.

Was this just battletech trying to make some more money or what?

Edited by Broceratops, 10 July 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[Kodiak Knight]

iirc much more BatleMech technology has been lost during the Succession Wars than Tank technology.

[Landeraxe]

Tanks are easier to build. Mechs require factories utilizing mostly lost technology.

Between building a tank and nothing, you build a tank.

[Lyteros]

Apart from "lostech" problems...

Tanks are way cheaper, and to outfit milita etc you dont invest that much. also to keep riots down, provide "civil" security and support weaponary (arrow, artillery) you dont need a way more expensive mech.

An AC 20 in a fortified position in a city, if you look into the barrel, is as dangerous placed on a wheeled tank as on a mech. From the price difference you get 4 of the tanks for one mech...

Edited by Lyteros, 10 July 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[Tokimonatakanimekat]

Tanks are:
1. Simple enough compared to machines with legs.
2. Easier to build and have lesser cost. Easily mass-produced.
3. Have equal or better survivability if armored equally to mechs.
4. Can carry powerful guns as well.
5. Don't require special crew qualification to be efficient.
6. Relatively easy to hide.

I bet IRL tanks would beat mechs on the field, but they would suffer on complicated terrain.

Edited by Tokimonatakanimekat, 10 July 2012 - 07:51 AM.

[Broceratops]

i get the idea if they are way cheaper, but this tank is TWICE as expensive as an atlas. pretty much any tank on sarna, is the same price as a mech of its weight class. thats why i'm confused.

[Captain Fabulous]

Because tanks have certain perks that mechs don't:
1)Only being half the height of a mech makes them easier to hide
2)You can maneuver two of them in the same hex
3)Easier to train tank pilots
4)No real problem of slipping on ferro-crete at cruising speed (from what I remember; this might be a lie)
5)Quite generally, they're cheaper.
6)You can put two motherf*cking AC/20's with 3 tons of ammo EACH on one.

Seriously; F*CK this thing:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Demolisher

[BA Dillard]

Tanks provide an important support role in combat. That behemoth has dual lrm 20s, an er large laser and a guass cannon.

It can more than handle its self.

It has a lower/smaller profile and tracked mobility, which means it can go where mechs might not be able to.

Plus it's hard to trip a tank and make it fall over.

I always had tanks backing my mechs in TT. Course I was a tanker in the U.S. Army, So I may be biased.

Up til the 1990's people thought tanks were obsolete. Desert Storm changed that.

And besides, tanks are just bad ***.

[Geobaldi Tseng]

The thing is, come 3049, no you couldn't just BUY an Atlas. No amount of money could get you a mech.

There are so few mech factories left, most production is strictly controlled by house governments. Even
salvage from battles is watched VERY closely by inner sphere houses. Much of the "payment" mercs
get from doing job is the right to salvage parts after the battles they fight in (because no, just because
you were in the fight does not make the salvage automatically yours. Most houses claim salvage in their
territory, no matter who it is fighting.)

Then there is the availability of engines. Mechs use atomic reactors to generate power, and there are no more
reactor factories than there are mech factories. Mechs cannot use internal combustion engines, but vehicles can.

Besides, as much as they are dismissed, vehicles carry the exact same weapons as mechs. And no one laughs
off his first encounter with a Lyran Demolisher tank. Two AC-20's are two AC-20's.

[Sythiss]

in reply i would probably say something like the people that built that tank cant build mechs. So you could either give up, or try and produce a tank that can take on mechs. It is exspensive yes. But to some of the houses of the IS who cares about cost when you can feild them easily. Train up some tank pilots and send them out. That thing is armed to the nines and could with some skill and luck even take out the atlas. And would be far cheaper to repair.

[Kraven Kor]

1. Tanks and non-mechs are much, much cheaper. Even with a fusion power plant and 100 tons, they don't have the miles and miles of myomer fibers or whatever, etc.

2. Not every battle is fought with mechs, or with enough mechs, and again, "combined arms" stuff is cheaper than 'mechs. If you can actually manage to use a small force of non-mechs to take out a smaller force of 'mechs, well, that right there is a very profitable victory.

When used right, non-mech vehicles (particularly VTOLs and Hovertanks) can actually take out a mech, but they are as mentioned at a serious disadvantage.

[Fahr]

flank speed + turning is a pilot roll in a tank too. and you can crit yourself doing it, so its a big no no, however you get a bonus movement point if you stay on the roads and concrete the whole time.

Tanks are useful as mech standins some of the time, but are comparatively fragile, even the heavily armored ones, as you can crit them even when the armor is still in place, and inferno missles can cook the crew and internals without even bothering to destroy the armor.

they are however very easy to get crews for (since Mech pilots are elites/nobles) and are simple to manufacture.

they can destroy meks, when the situation is in there favor, but they also can lose very easily in many situations.

some other reasons to build them, ICE engines. the Fusion engines of most Meks are very hard to make, ICE is cheap, easy and not at all Lostech, and many tanks run on ICE. so in some cases it's the only thing that some factories CAN make.

[Zygwen]

@Broceratops

You're linking to a tank designed in 3097 which is almost 50 years in the future. The original was much cheaper.
http://www.sarna.net...mbat_Vehicle%29

[Tokimonatakanimekat]

Broceratops, on 10 July 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

i get the idea if they are way cheaper, but this tank is TWICE as expensive as an atlas. pretty much any tank on sarna, is the same price as a mech of its weight class. thats why i'm confused.

Well, actually tanks can carry more armor due to better weight distribution. As well as waaay bigger dicannon.

[Broceratops]

Geobaldi Tseng, on 10 July 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

The thing is, come 3049, no you couldn't just BUY an Atlas. No amount of money could get you a mech.

There are so few mech factories left, most production is strictly controlled by house governments. Even
salvage from battles is watched VERY closely by inner sphere houses. Much of the "payment" mercs
get from doing job is the right to salvage parts after the battles they fight in (because no, just because
you were in the fight does not make the salvage automatically yours. Most houses claim salvage in their
territory, no matter who it is fighting.)

Then there is the availability of engines. Mechs use atomic reactors to generate power, and there are no more
reactor factories than there are mech factories. Mechs cannot use internal combustion engines, but vehicles can.

Besides, as much as they are dismissed, vehicles carry the exact same weapons as mechs. And no one laughs
off his first encounter with a Lyran Demolisher tank. Two AC-20's are two AC-20's.

thanks, this is a good explanation of the setting

[Aesaar]

Tokimonatakanimekat, on 10 July 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

Well, actually tanks can carry more armor due to better weight distribution. As well as waaay bigger dicannon.

We're talking about in-universe, where mechs are actually useful combat units. IRL, tanks > mechs in almost every way. In BT, that isn't the case.

Edited by Aesaar, 10 July 2012 - 08:02 AM.

[Seabear]

Like mechs, tanks serve many purposes and come in all sizes. The 100 ton tanks were originally designed and built to take the place of the mech following the loss of manufacturing technology. Consider that the technology for tank drives is a mellinium old (at the time of the game), and almost any auto factory can be modified to produce one as opposed to a dedicated factory with lostech components for a mech. Tanks, properly deplyed are a threat to mechs that can be fielded by planets and orginzations not having the resources to use mechs. Maintainence is lower. Tanks can do as well as mechs in certain enviroments and situations. Consider also that all tanks are not 100 ton monsters. Though not a "tank" per se some vehicles do quite well in combat. Consider the "Savannah Master". It weighs 1/4 of a light mech and is made from scrap parts.
The tank will never replace the mech but will always have a place on the battefield and should NEVER be ignored in a fight!

[Captain Fabulous]

Geobaldi Tseng, on 10 July 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

Besides, as much as they are dismissed, vehicles carry the exact same weapons as mechs. And no one laughs
off his first encounter with a Lyran Demolisher tank. Two AC-20's are two AC-20's.

I had both of my legs completely blown off first time I ran into one... Oh man, that poor Jenner pilot.

[Latriam]

dont know which tanks you were looking at that were as expensive as an Atlas but.... they must have fusion engines cause any of ICE engine tanks are super cheap.

[Paralax]

Remeber most of the tanks too are using an ICE.....

This tank is also a Dark ages tank

THE REAL Behe is 3,044,667 C-bills

Edited by Paralax, 10 July 2012 - 08:10 AM.