22 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

There's been several topics in the past month discussing how Assault mechs have essentially become the range "specialist" that never participate in front line combat sharing armor.

Today, I saw a topic on Fafnir theorycrafting, and it hit me... wait a sec... if a Fafnir is going to have 2 Heavy Gauss + 2 PPCs... do I really want a battle station that big and slow with such a HUGe profile be in the 500 meter sweet spot?

Combining 2 and 2, and I came up with a new theory.

One that's been used in the US Navy since the dawn of.... US Navy...

The Carrier Battlegroup

You don't send your most devastating weapon to the front line. You put them where they can do the most damage without retaliation. An example... during WWII Germans like to showoff their big mean battleships in solo kick@ssery compare to British navies always flanking them with destroyers. The result? Germans have no battleships toward the end of the war.

So my new doctrine is to not launch into an offense dictate by lights/mediums. But to simply have them surround the assault. Assaults pack as much extra-range weapon as humanly possible, and dictate the trading location and distance. Basically, your medium, lights, and heavies are your flankers that will annihilate any enemy aggressors that try to get too close.

Battle is won/loss based on how your Assaults trade (assuming no team send our their aggressors to try to sink the capital ship). If they are annihilated in the exchange, get better assaults next time, and you guys probably lost. If they won the exchange, steamroll to victory.

This is obviously a very defensive way to play, but fits the general mode of how EMP and other top teams fight during the run to WC.

It might not be as intuitive as the conventional push/deathball, but I think it's a safer tactics to winning.

Thoughts?

[Shifty McSwift]

IMO, they need to make that distinction between "weapons platform" and "juggernaut" a whole lot clearer particularly when it comes to assaults (but for heavies to some degree too IMO), some mechs do both or fail to do the one they are set for, and that is just not good.

If the stats and hardpoints made it very clear what kind of roles the differences in mechs were designed for, rather than the blurred grey lines we have now. Particularly in how they would define a "front line" assault for example, concentrating on speed (twist speeds, movement speeds etc), and armor/structure, to the point where even if you were a "weapons platform dps" assault, it would be very clear that it was a frontline assault in how tanky they are (twisting capability + bonus armor).

It wouldn't take much to make these distinctions clearer, and it wouldn't necessarily require stat buffing, but rather more specifically nerfing those mechs that can just do both without issue.

[FireStoat]

Situation - It's Domination mode on Grim Plexus. One team attempts to use cover and form a firing line for long ranged pot shots in an attempt to force trades that result in the least damage taken. The members of this team that have brawl builds recognize instantly that if they try something heroic, the sniping long distance shooters will probably be very reluctant to move forward to engage.

Meanwhile, The other team sees what's going on and politely asks their faster mechs to sweep to a flanking edge out of sight, and wait. Once the faster strike mechs are poised and ready, this team attacks initially from one direction, yes, with their heavier mechs exposed to fire initially while they vector for cover or an elevation change to thwart easy shots while the strikers move in. And then the main heavier force that took the risk are in the thick of things only a few heartbeats later.

Which side wins? I shouldn't have to explain this - people reading this already know how it goes down because they've lived it from both sides. The point is - a static form of tactics and range will simply fail when applied to maps and modes outside of where they're appropriate. And the even bigger point is, if you're forcing me to bet actual money on a team that will come up with a win - I'll put my money on the aggressive team every time.

[Khobai]

Quote

Battle is won/loss based on how your Assaults trade

The problem is assaults tend not to trade well because theyre easy to hit when they peek over and their poor acceleration/deceleration, slow torso twist speed, huge hitboxes, and slow movement speed means they spend more time exposed than lighter mechs.

IMO assaults are not trading pieces. Other weight classes do trading better because they minimize exposure better.

What assaults are good at is pushing the enemy once your team has gained an advantage in trading. But if assaults have lost most of their armor trading then theyre not really capable of helping your team push.

Edited by Khobai, 09 April 2017 - 12:38 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

FireStoat, on 09 April 2017 - 12:26 AM, said:

I'll put my money on the aggressive team every time.

It depends, if there is coordination there then sure, but if it is an uncoordinated mess of an aggressive team vs a coordinated team on the defense, it does often turn into a case of watching the enemy filing into your death-cannons.

A group that balls up and stays still can be massively damaging with coordinated fire, but are massively susceptible to being flanked, and hit by multiple fields of fire and AOE damage. So yeah if that aggressive team is doing it right I'd put money on them, but being on the offense is usually a disadvantage that needs to be overcome.

[Burning2nd]

I don't understand sir... the mission breif said to get in, steal the date and gtfo of there

assault pilots have the same idea's over and over...

"protect the assaults" Im over here like "get over your self sweet heart we let you come as a distraction"

the proof is that continually almost every single game.. Im 500-700 damage right with or above 98% of all the assaults for the entire 24man playing field, there are very few and fare between good assault pilots

occasionally i come across a pilot in a assault who is like... "keep moving lil guy" as there squaring up with a shot... and they take the single shot and put me down...

but for the most part they all are just confused and looking to shoot things.. with the idea of "bigger is better"

assaults are designed to absorb damage

[Shifty McSwift]

Burnin2nd, on 09 April 2017 - 12:44 AM, said:

assaults are designed to absorb damage

Well, that exact specification is arguable, there is the idea that assaults can be designed to be the best at dealing damage with their potential for bigger alphas due to more hardpoints and weight, like I am saying that distinction of a "weapons platform" assault, vs the "juggernaut" style, which has become messy with mechs like the kodiak who can just do it all.

And the idea of tanking at all is very questionable at this stage of the game, as if you make even a slightly wrong move, a well coordinated volley of fire from a single lance (4 mechs) can mean upwards of 350 damage within a 1 second period. Nothing in this game can tank that.

[SQW]

OP forgot oceans doesn't have hills blocking LOS.

A back-of-the-line assault is only useful if it can see the enemy. On most maps, if you don't know how to position, then you are limited to shots of opportunity rather than choosing to focus on the most dangerous mech at the most critical area of the battle line.

DWF is probably the best example - slow, easily killed but packs a punch. It can be really really good or equally useless depending on the quality of the meat.

[Paigan]

razenWing, on 08 April 2017 - 10:38 PM, said:

[...]
It might not be as intuitive as the conventional push/deathball, but I think it's a safer tactics to winning.

Thoughts?

Anyone who has ever played a tactical game (like an RTS) knows that the best strategy is to dead damage while getting no or at least less damage back.

Meaning:
- idealy outrange the enemy
- use cover
- organize your units to neutralize enemies quicker than they get neutralized themselves. E.g. long range weapons, firing line, suppressive fire, denying the enemy certain paths on the battlefield, focussed fire. Kill enemies in a matter of split seconds when they come in sight.

All of that is not very spectecular, but very efficient.

THIS is tactical play. THIS is "thinking man's shooter".
Long range is what opens up tactical possibilities.
Short range is only storming forward without thinking and hoping for the best. It looks pretty cool, but it's also pretty shallow, to say it diplomatically.

All those who see the "right" way to play as storming forword bravely and mindlessly, dying completely useless to enemy firing lines are nothing more than mindless grunts and should not be in a "thinking man's shooter".
At best, they are the suicidal meat shield for those who play tactically.

The brawlers I see in every match don't even know what a choke point is.
Instead of setting up behind it to choke the enemy and take advantage of it, the run into it themselves like sheep, get themselves choked and die.

Edited by Paigan, 09 April 2017 - 01:16 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Paigan, on 09 April 2017 - 01:12 AM, said:

THIS is tactical play. THIS is "thinking man's shooter".
Long range is what opens up tactical possibilities.
Short range is only storming forward without thinking and hoping for the best. It looks pretty cool, but it's also pretty shallow, to say it diplomatically.

Blind charging is always a high risk and should only even be done in an emergency or with a lot of targets by your side. But using scout info to close distance or having the speed to scout and brawl makes it a very viable tactic, considering the kind of increase in flat damage and DPS options that open up at those danger close ranges (under 300).

I know what you are saying, and it is the same reason that optimally one should really take a good array of weapons to deal with all circumstances with decent efficiency, especially when combined with team fire.

But it definitely isn't all about who has the longest range.

[LordNothing]

big problem is many assaults are never at appropriate ranges when they are holding back. doing less than 50% damage in a mech with a huge alpha and ability to really sustain fire for long periods of time is completely unacceptable. if you are using ballistics you dont want to do that because it really hurts your maximum damage potential.

assaults need a lot of space to be effective. they need excellent control over their firing arcs, trying to minimize the number of enemy players with a clear sight line, but maintaining a few viable targets at all times. and if you have a couple wingmen with some sight line overlap to help each other when their targets leave their arcs. then you want a few mechs out looking for flanking manuvers while keeping their heads low, but with the fire power to do something about it. the best class for that job is the medium, but if you have them stationed there, then they arent flanking the enemy.

the assaults moving forward and the mediums and lights flanking and the heavies providing additional fire finishing off targets that might have escaped the assault arcs is always going to be better than a team simply trying to keep the assaults alive. never let a battle revolve around an idle assault or an aggressive light.

[Burning2nd]

The larger slower alpha shots are worth less then the faster smaller alpha shots

[Hit the Deck]

That's how teams with Dire Wolves (and King Crabs) should operate.

[Clownwarlord]

I would like to point out the majority of maps that I have played on are ranged maps. Examples of this are polar highlands in quick play because people who bring lrms always pick it, and the same goes with alpine peaks. Then there is grim which is another ranged map because majority of the time the two teams trade for the first part from the two hills.

So probably has more to do with map selection at this time than anything else.

[Skanderborg]

The longer a mech stays alive , the more damage it can do over the match. The CORE strategy in this game is to have favorable trading with the enemy.

Favorable trading is not pushing into the enemy and soaking damage or trading against a numerically superior force.

Favorable trading is putting more guns on target then they can retaliate with , or in layman's terms "shoot them more than they shoot you".

With this being said Assaults are not meant to push , any weight class is not supposed to push. Getting shot to pieces walking into the enemy is not sound tactics.THE PUSH ONLY HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE AT AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED ADVANTAGE.

As khobai said , assaults are horrible at trading , they lack speed , they cannot use cover well , and they cannot re-position to another spot quickly. What assaults ARE good at is controlling choke points and critical map points where they can fight smaller amounts of enemies at the same time.

If you are on the losing team , say you are down 2-3 mechs or have several heavily damaged mechs. The best thing your assaults and heavies can do is set up a defensive position and let the enemy walk into your firing line.

This whole brave heart charge ideology that plagues most quick play matches is very stupid. Which is why every time someone tells me to push in my assault, they are essentially telling me to walk into the other teams cross-hairs. What sense does this make? it doesn't. I spitefully comment on voice comms every time this happens.

When i was in the navy , the amount of resources to protect a carrier is tremendous , IT is the most important thing in the water. You're definitely not going to see the carrier drive up to the enemy fleet and fire broadsides. Its going to stay 100 miles away sending long ranged payloads at an advantage surrounded by destroyers and submarines. The same thing applies to assaults in this game.

Why do you thing the Banshee and Battle master are so good? They have high mounted large lasers so they can attack at a distance with a lot of damage. Same goes for the Kodiak , high mounted ballistics so it can attack from a position of advantage , not waddle into the enemy guns.

Edited by Skanderborg, 09 April 2017 - 08:08 AM.

[Elizander]

I certainly hope that the Fafnir will get some armor and/or structure quirks because Heavy Gauss Rifles blow up and are only effective in short range.

[Skanderborg]

Elizander, on 09 April 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:

I certainly hope that the Fafnir will get some armor and/or structure quirks because Heavy Gauss Rifles blow up and are only effective in short range.

I see the Heavy Gauss being very popular on mediums and fast heavies. They will be mobile enough to get close and use it effectively.

I'm already excited to use it on the shadowhawk , Hunchback , and dragon. However i think the roughneck will employ it very well with its high mounted shoulder gun , its essentially a 65 ton hunchback.

[Elizander]

Skanderborg, on 09 April 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

I see the Heavy Gauss being very popular on mediums and fast heavies. They will be mobile enough to get close and use it effectively.

I'm already excited to use it on the shadowhawk , Hunchback , and dragon. However i think the roughneck will employ it very well with its high mounted shoulder gun , its essentially a 65 ton hunchback.

I'm wondering if the Grid Iron Gauss quirks will cover it just like PPC covers ER PPC.

[razenWing]

I think a lot of people are reading too much into specific situations like Domination, for example, which requires certain amount of tweak.

The basis of this idea isn't for Assaults to stand back with lighter mechs running around them, but a general tactics similar to the idea of Carrier Battle Group.

You get map control, then you trade damages from farthest possible spot, statistically speaking, of lowest damage return. Obviously, loadout will affect how effective you set your range and your engagement distance. However, generally speaking, the idea is to pack big, nasty, rangey weapons. That would be your ER LL, ER PPC, Gauss, AC Swarm, LRM 15+, etc.

I mean, this is probably how real war goes as well. You don't use your most expensive weapons in the frontline to absorb damage. Think of a kinetic absorption. Why do some teams work with light rush? It's not the initial score of 12-5 that's significant... it's that those 5 loss and how many damage is from the enemy core. My point, big platforms are designed to unleash and exhaust their firepower... not absorb punishment.

It's a counter idea to the threads advocating that people are playing assault wrong. This is just another way of critical thinking.

[Erronius]

Skanderborg, on 09 April 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

The longer a mech stays alive , the more damage it can do over the match. The CORE strategy in this game is to have favorable trading with the enemy.

Favorable trading is not pushing into the enemy and soaking damage or trading against a numerically superior force.

Favorable trading is putting more guns on target then they can retaliate with , or in layman's terms "shoot them more than they shoot you".

With this being said Assaults are not meant to push , any weight class is not supposed to push. Getting shot to pieces walking into the enemy is not sound tactics.THE PUSH ONLY HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE AT AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED ADVANTAGE.

As khobai said , assaults are horrible at trading , they lack speed , they cannot use cover well , and they cannot re-position to another spot quickly. What assaults ARE good at is controlling choke points and critical map points where they can fight smaller amounts of enemies at the same time.

If you are on the losing team , say you are down 2-3 mechs or have several heavily damaged mechs. The best thing your assaults and heavies can do is set up a defensive position and let the enemy walk into your firing line.

This whole brave heart charge ideology that plagues most quick play matches is very stupid. Which is why every time someone tells me to push in my assault, they are essentially telling me to walk into the other teams cross-hairs. What sense does this make? it doesn't. I spitefully comment on voice comms every time this happens.

When i was in the navy , the amount of resources to protect a carrier is tremendous , IT is the most important thing in the water. You're definitely not going to see the carrier drive up to the enemy fleet and fire broadsides. Its going to stay 100 miles away sending long ranged payloads at an advantage surrounded by destroyers and submarines. The same thing applies to assaults in this game.

Why do you thing the Banshee and Battle master are so good? They have high mounted large lasers so they can attack at a distance with a lot of damage. Same goes for the Kodiak , high mounted ballistics so it can attack from a position of advantage , not waddle into the enemy guns.

Former Navy explains a lot.

You say "THE PUSH ONLY HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE AT AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED ADVANTAGE" while I say that the opposite is equally valid - The Push itself is what is meant to establish the advantage. Especially when the match is essentially a stalemate with handfuls of people sniping at each other. Pushing is a decisive engagement, whereas sniping really isn't.

The Carrier analogy and battlegroups sounds terrible to me. As I was Army myself, I'd say that land based assets and maneuver warfare is more applicable. Partially because a Carrier isn't a good comparison to an assault mech...a Carrier is closer to a floating airfield, and we aren't going to be piloting an airfield, LOL. And we normally don't need to protect airfields from subs, ASMs or whatever else (well, maybe 59 cruise missiles, but that's another thing entirely)

Another problem with the Carrier analogy is that a Carrier can, by itself, decide most engagements on its own. And at a range that the enemy can't really respond. For an assault mech to do that, it would need to be able to net 8-12 kills on it's own without even moving from it's spawn point. For an assault mech to be worth forming an entire 12 man team into some sort of faux naval battlegroup (EVERYONE PROTECT THE USS LURM!) said mech would need to be able to do thousands of damage every single match. Now, if you can drop into QP with me and do 3k-4k damage and obliterate every enemy mech from the safety of your spawn, then I would screen every assault mech without question. As it stands, it seems like a lot of assault pilots have a hard time breaking 500 damage, so....yeah.

But the "Carrier" mentality could explain why a lot of assault pilots have this unrealistic expectation that the rest of the team is only their to provide security for them (LOL).