58 replies to this topic

[fett]

I only care about stock, so won't get into the customizations or variants which would make this conversation pointless.

If the game has limitations on lance tonnage, I think Trebuchet is an interesting one for the developers to offer. If that 15 tons can be allocated elsewhere..., the fact we are debating between a 50 and a 65 ton mech suggests just how good Tebuchet is.

However, if basically it is "what 4 mechs are you going to field?" of course people will pick the one with way more heat tolerance, the jets, a laser, and armour. I think toe to toe Catapult would usually win and the ability to fire and hide with jets is a whole tactic the Trebuchet does not have. The points made about the location of ammo and weapons, and even mech profile, are good ones I had not thought of.

When everyone is talking about "cheaper", my mind keeps going to a lance level discussion, but I I'm guessing what you are talking about is c-bills earned int he game wil get you to a Trebuchet faster? If so, I never really thought of that part of this game but hope that people don't just aim to always climb higher and higher in tonnage and we see games with realistic mixes of mechs out there.

[BigJim]

I'm gonna come clean - My entire rationale behind which mechs I favour is based on how cool they look.
Imo the Cat looks well 'ard compared to the Trenchie, so Catapult every time.

No more deep & meaningful than that I'm afraid.

[Jakob Knight]

Each has it's place.

The Catapult was designed to operate with heavy/assault lances, where the need to take damage and give it outweighed the need for speed. While it was still equipped for fire support, the mech was equipped with jump jets and medium lasers to give it the flexibility to adapt to whatever kind of heavy lance it was assigned to. At the same time, the Catapult's heavier frame meant more room for modification and upgrades. Finally, the larger mech has more efficient heat management, allowing it to engage in close-in fighting without going into thermal overload.

The Trebuchet, by contrast, was built to operate as part of Medium and Strike lances. It needed enough speed to keep up with the faster mechs that made up this kind of unit, while still providing fire support for them. Lighter armor and less heat efficiency were seen as acceptable tradeoffs because the units it would operate with were not intended for stand-up fights, but hit-and-run. If it did get engaged by something faster than itself, it probably would outgun the enemy and hopefully bring it down fast.

Ultimately, the choice between the two comes down to if you are going to be part of a main battleline or a raiding force. Putting a Catapult in a company designed to move quick would lead to the rest of the unit losing their speed advantage to avoid leaving the Catapult behind, probably resulting in the unit not arriving on target in time and/or being unable to disengage. At the same time, putting the Trebuchet in a battleline alongside Atlas and Awesome battlemechs would leave the mech taking fire and restricted to a low speed it was never designed to operate with, and likely overheating in the constant firing needed in that kind of warfighting.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 12 July 2012 - 07:51 PM.

[Sean von Steinike]

On the attack I'd probably go with the Trebuchet where it's slightly faster speed would help it keep up and re-position quickly. Defense I'd pick the Catapult.

[Xandre Blackheart]

The trebuchet is a solid mech, but it is going to be overshadowed by the catapult. It's almost exactly the same design, with less armor and no jump jets.

Where the tree-bucket comes into it's own is as a conversion chassis. That will be the only reason to choose one over a catapult, as the stock variants give the majority of benefits to the catapult.

For example ripping out the LRM's gives you 16 tons. Since the trebucket is a 55 ton mech bumping it up to 6/9 takes a 330 engine (24.5 tons) - up from a 275 (15.5tons ), costing you 9 tons, and one more ton for the upgraded gyro meaning it's 10 tons.

shove in 2 SRM4 with 1 ton of ammo each and that's 6 more tons. You now have a very fast medium mech with enough armor and firepower (2 x ML + 2xSRM4) to ruin any scouts day, and the ability to sustain it's missile fire over a lengthy engagement vs something larger. (unless you think 25 salvos might not be enough)

Or stay at 5/8 and remove the medium lasers and one LRM and get 10 tons. Shove in a narc bacon for 4 tons, add 2 more tons of ammo for the LRM giving you 24 shots total, 2 small lasers for a ton, and bump up the armor 3 tons giving you a mech that can run in close with decent speed, and tag while popping off small laser shots and then run away while shooting LRM's over it's shoulder with it's arm mounted LRM.

You can try to do things like that with a catapult, but it just doesn't work nearly as well.

[Team Leader]

Catapult, because it's better to modify to fit your personal needs, it's less ugly, and nobody tries to make really lame nicknames for it like tree bunchet.

[monev]

Team Leader, on 12 July 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

and nobody tries to make really lame nicknames for it like tree bunchet.

that sounds like a challenge to me.

crapapult
catapuke
tiger rug (cat-pelt)

[Team Leader]

monev, on 12 July 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

that sounds like a challenge to me.

crapapult
catapuke
tiger rug (cat-pelt)

Those were so bad I couldn't laugh-apult

[John Harder]

Trebuchet have another one drawback - unadequate armor and armament placement. 12 points of armor for sides and 22 for center torso, may be, look normal, but... One ton of ammo placed in left side. Alone. For good caaabooom after first critical streak, i think.

With other good points, Cate have less soft spots, then Trebs.

[Xune]

Well i would consider the possible amount of LRM reloads you have too.

Will play the Trebuchet too tough, alone for the sexy Variations you can unlock

Edited by Xune, 13 July 2012 - 03:05 AM.

[Countdownboy]

Dagger6T6, on 12 July 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

I simply can't choose...



so I'm gonna pick...

MadCat is available ?

[Rimestorm]

This comparrison is deffinitly in personal opinion territory here. But I'd would probably lean towards the Trebuchet.
Reason? Mostly due to faster agility that the Treb will have over the Cat'.
Sure it has JJ's but they IMO appear to situational when they are useful, or atleast thats what past MW games have taught me.
The lack of extra heatsinks personally is not always a bad thing. It should make the pilot more disciplined in how they manage their heat. Chain firing their LRMs will be order of the day. Which should also make their ammo last a little bit longer. Good luck to the Cat' pilot who has spammed his 8 LRM(each) shots away at the start of the battle because of his negligble heat.
Granted the armor or lack there of can and will be an issue. But there are ways to mitigate the lack of it.

/Rant

[Skoll Lokeson]

The CPLT should also be able to make better use of cover since the LRM are mounted higher, say 20% exposed to ca. 40% exposed for the TBT (the TBT is slightly smaller so the difference in exposed area is a bit less).

[Xune]

Countdownboy, on 13 July 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

MadCat is available ?

Nop, and hopefully never will be

[Acer Lerxt]

Xune, on 13 July 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

Nop, and hopefully never will be

amen.

[Bodha]

Main difference is speed vs jump jets. The trebuchet is much better for shooting and falling back. The catapult is much better at getting an advantageous position with those jump jets and then laying out a few barrages. If you like skirmishing the trebuchet may be for you b/c that speed will allow you to keep the range open. If following the battle line and usually getting into the brawl is ok then the catapult will work for you.

[CmdrSpider]

The first thing you need to remember is that all mech weren't designed by the same person. They infact they come many different planets within the Innersphere with as many differnt philospy's of how a mech should be used. Much like today's military a request is put out for a piece of equipment with certain specifications. The designers then in turn interpet how to meet those specs and then build a product that they hope will meet or exceed the requestors expectations.

You on the other hand (or lack there of) get to chose which of these fine machines you wish to pilot. Good luck with your decision.

[Jakob Knight]

Skoll Lokeson, on 13 July 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

The CPLT should also be able to make better use of cover since the LRM are mounted higher, say 20% exposed to ca. 40% exposed for the TBT (the TBT is slightly smaller so the difference in exposed area is a bit less).

By that same logic, the TBT would be able to utilize cover even better than the CPLT by simply sticking it's arm-mounted LRM around the corner and firing. Say 10% exposed?

Have to remember that battlefields are not tailor-made to the height of a battlemech, and cover is erratic and unpredictable. What works in one case will almost always not work in many others. This is especially true when you can't just sit immobile while enemy units flank or bypass you.

Both the TBT and CPLT can use cover about the same, especially when in a mobile situation. The size of terrain that is needed to matter to a battlemech is such that the differences in weapon placement are only minor compared to the need for those weapons (and the sensors of the battlemech that aim those weapons) to have clear firing lanes to the target. And that means either being clear of cover, or far enough back that you can shoot over it.

[MechaDraco]

Dagger6T6, on 12 July 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

I simply can't choose...



so I'm gonna pick...

Oh dear god yes, I wants one to, but I think it looks more like this