34 replies to this topic

[Damascas]

Given how much an XL engine increases weight efficiency but decreases overall survivability I was wondering the views of some people on it and if they are likely to use it.

Personally I will make use primarily of ferro and endo to achieve similar results except for mechs which I feel are unlikely to survive well in direct combat anyway like scouts or long range support mechs. This I think will also help with cost as an XL engine is 4 times as expensive as a normal fusion engine.

[Thorn Hallis]

Depends on the 'Mech and its role. If I intend to stay away from the frontline and just snipe from the back an XL engine is cool. But I'd never put it into a brawler.

Endo and Ferro are expensive too, and unlike an XL cannot be saved from overwhelming repair costs by CASE.

Edited by Thorn Hallis, 15 July 2012 - 01:43 PM.

[Damascas]

Thorn Hallis, on 15 July 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Depends on the 'Mech and its role. If I intend to stay away from the frontline and just snipe from the back and XL engine is cool. But I'd never put it into a brawler.

Endo and Ferro are expensive too, and unlike an XL cannot be saved from overwhelming repair costs by CASE.

CASE does not protect an XL engine since CASE can only be put in a torso section and CASE protects other sections from the exploding section and since XL engines stick out into the torso they get blown up with or without CASE.

[Fiest]

any indirect heavy/assault class fire support mech would benefit imo

Or a grand dragon.

[WardenWolf]

I will be using XL engines on my scouts (don't expect them to survive a heavy salvo) and long-range mechs. That means probably my founders Jenner and Catapult... and maybe the Atlas, but it will depend on the weapons load-out I end up selecting. The Hunchback will not get one, as I want to keep the AC20 - and there wouldn't be room for both.

[Thorn Hallis]

Damascas, on 15 July 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

CASE does not protect an XL engine since CASE can only be put in a torso section and CASE protects other sections from the exploding section and since XL engines stick out into the torso they get blown up with or without CASE.

Sure they do, the 'Mech is out. But as I said, it saves repair cost, as the engine is not fully destroid.

[Damascas]

Thorn Hallis, on 15 July 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Sure they do, the 'Mech is out. But as I said, it saves repair cost, as the engine is not fully destroid.

That is true, though if repairing is anything like BT repair rules 3 engine crits on an XL can come way too close to totalling a mech or at least making it more cost effective to just buy a new engine.

[Thorn Hallis]

Damascas, on 15 July 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

That is true, though if repairing is anything like BT repair rules 3 engine crits on an XL can come way too close to totalling a mech or at least making it more cost effective to just buy a new engine.

Well yeah, I hope I can get a discount or something.

[Captain Fabulous]

XL ENGINES FOREVER. 160 km/h Jenner? Duh.

[SheepsBane1q]

I may use it once again depending on the mech map and what mood I'm in. Mostly for scouts though. which I'm probably going to play with the most anyway.

[ScrapIron Prime]

I want to see as many ppl using XL as possible. The more people I can laugh at when I take out a side torso, the better.

Edited by ScrapIron Prime, 15 July 2012 - 02:34 PM.

[Xandre Blackheart]

It's a tool.

Don't use a hammer for driving a screw in.

[Arson]

I'll probably avoid them for the most part. But I might have a few mechs that will use it. Same way I handle it in tabletop.

[Damascas]

Xandre Blackheart, on 15 July 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

It's a tool.

Don't use a hammer for driving a screw in.

Why not?

[Xandre Blackheart]

Damascas, on 15 July 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

Why not?

Because you'll puncture your left torso causing your XL engine to go boom.

[grimzod]

Damascas, on 15 July 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Given how much an XL engine increases weight efficiency but decreases overall survivability I was wondering the views of some people on it and if they are likely to use it.

Personally I will make use primarily of ferro and endo to achieve similar results except for mechs which I feel are unlikely to survive well in direct combat anyway like scouts or long range support mechs. This I think will also help with cost as an XL engine is 4 times as expensive as a normal fusion engine.

Yes. Will use. The tradeoff is worth the increase in capability.

[Lykaon]

Depending on what is gained from the increased vulnerability I suppose.

In a light mech I see no reason not to except for the price tag.What an XL engine grants to a light mech is speed that translates into surivability if a higher engine rating is used or the saved mass can go into more armor also improving survivbility or finally improved or exspanded weapons.Just think of a faster beter armored commando with tonnage to replace srms with lrms.

Medium and heavy mechs I go XL on fire support mechs or XL for very fast mechs.With long range mechs close brawling is out of mission profile thus less chance of getting creamed in a kife fight.With speedy mechs evasion improves surival enough to merit the XL risk.

Now with assaults it's a bit different.XL engines to me are to improve overall damage output and capabilities to get the damage on target.It's all about do unto others more often and harder before they do unto you.Dead mechs do not damage your XL engine.

[Sept Wolfke]

I think it's common for succession wars veterans to consider alot of the new XL engined mechs as 'that new trash.'

After playing through the succession wars with tabletop Battletech, I can say that on more than one occasion, I've had a mech return from combat missing both arms, both torsos and having sustained so much center torso damage that the mech was barely holding itself together. THAT is survivability.

The only real engine upgrade I even acknowledge is the double heatsink engine. That is some amazing tech. All benefit and no drawback is a total win. XL engines installed in mechs just condemns it to the 'waiting to become salvage' line.

Sorry if my opinion is too strong for you on the matter, but I like my mechs making it home from an engagement. XL engines are like Urbanmechs: great to have in your crosshairs.

This all being said, I acknowledge the value of XL engines in fast movers or fire support mechs that are designed from the outset to be 'glass cannons.' This is NOT to say I'd use an XL engine in these types of mechs myself, as I view XL's kinda like drugs.. I have a 'just say no' policy. I'd rather my mechs be workhorses than shooting stars. I'll take what weight reductions I can get from other technologies and just sleep easier knowing my battlemechs don't use double edged swords.

Edited by Sept Wolfke, 15 July 2012 - 04:54 PM.

[Xandre Blackheart]

XL Engines are excellent choices for mechs that are not intended to engage in close combat brawls. Support and Sniper mechs will be the likely benefactors.

Anything that needs to get up close and "personal" should avoid XL technology like the plague.

[Damascas]

Seems like my view was very well shared pretty much across the board, if you plan on hitting an enemy and getting hit back don't use an XL if your whole goal is avoid getting hit the extra tonnage an XL gives you for speed and armaments becomes almost necessary in this era.

Sept Wolfke I have had mechs come back like that all the time as well, I once kicked over an Awesome in a Battlemaster with no side torsos left, an engine crit, 4 points of armor and a damaged leg actuator.