27 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

razenWing, on 28 January 2018 - 03:27 PM, said:

You wouldn't throw your assault mechs in the front right?

For one, they are super expensive and presumably hard to replace
Second, in a limited resource campaign, losing 1 assault is like 50% firepower in a lance, where as losing a... light might constitute a 10% loss for next fight.

Not if you are the Lyran Commonwealth. Steiners use Assault mechs everywhere, even as scouts. Cause they are filthy rich.

[YueFei]

razenWing, on 28 January 2018 - 05:13 PM, said:

I have no doubt in the final push (so in my scenario, the final phase of your attack), you can throw your assaults in as spearheads. But in the entirety of a military campaign, I like to think that you only commit your assaults until the end game.

I hate to say that there is no correlation between the infantry/tank analogy, but a few key differences:

1: infantries don't move faster than tanks, but light mechs are 3-4 times the speed of assaults
2: wouldn't the equivalent be light tanks vs MBT? in which case, the Germans used light assault force to clear the path before committing the panzers and other heavy MBTs. (though that's not a fair parallel either, cause there's no clear equivalent of tech back then to tech now)

I like to think a more direct equivalent is naval warfare. You skirmish with your destroyers, subs, and cruisers before committing your battleships.

Yeah, I was kind've stretching a bit to find a real life analogy that fits, and noted that I might be trying to stretch the analogy too far. There are key differences as you noted. Naval warfare might be more apt. Indeed in Naval warfare there was a really good reason to build big. Ships can actually be incredibly tough... and larger ships have more of a "buffer" against damage. Although that was heavily reliant on good damage control... which the USN had a significant advantage over the Japanese Navy in WW2. Some of the errors of Japanese DAMCON are rather tragically hilarious, while on the flip side USN crews were surprised at the amount of punishment their ships could take and keep going.

So, in that same sense, instead of committing multiple small mechs into a battle, only to lose 30% of them, it can make sense to (after scouting/skirmishing/feinting with smaller mechs) commit the big mechs into battle.... and have each of them lose significant amounts of armor, but not actually lose many of them. Then those damaged Assaults can be pulled back to repair (in the same way that naval vessels can pull back to port and repair). Meanwhile, the breach they create should be followed through on by smaller faster mechs, seeking deeper penetrations into the enemy's depth, along the same lines as what the Russians did in WW2. That helps keep the enemy off balance and disrupts their ability to re-establish their lines.

Then you have your technicians work round the clock to get those Assaults repaired and ready again to launch another offensive, or smash an enemy's counter-attack. Rinse and repeat until you win the war.

Edited by YueFei, 28 January 2018 - 11:59 PM.

[Kotzi]

Well i guess the term assault should be telling isnt it? You use those mechs to assault the enemy. You assault the enemy when you got the numbers or you can jump them. With their superior armor and firepower they are able to dish out a lot of damage. Loosing armor or equipment is less severe than loosing a complete Mech. I mean, take todays tanks. Most powerful weapons you got on the ground but useless without support especially in urban warfare.

[Khobai]

Quote

If Assault Mechs performed like a M1A1HA, M1A2 TUSK II etc, there would be no contest. You would not go into a battle with UACs that over heat as easy as they do now.

yep a weapon that jammed 1 in 6 times would be unfit for combat

[Vellron2005]

I think the only argument for pushing or not pushing with assaults is - survivability.

A) What you expect of an assault pushing:

1) The Assault pushes into the enemy's line.

2) Teammates follow behind his wall of steal.

3) Assault reaches the enemy's front line with the teammates behind.

4) The assault is damaged, but can still pack a significant punch. The teammates are mostly undamaged.

B ) What happens in an actual game:

1) The Assault pushes into the enemy's line.

2) The Assault is focus-fired and dies in seconds, barely gaining any ground.

3) The player screams over comms about why nobody followed the push, expecting to survive the push as described above in scneario A).

Nuff said.

Edited by Vellron2005, 29 January 2018 - 12:53 AM.

[Nik Reaper]

Vellron2005, on 29 January 2018 - 12:50 AM, said:

I
...

B ) What happens in an actual game:

1) The Assault pushes into the enemy's line.

2) The Assault is focus-fired and dies in seconds, barely gaining any ground.

3) The player screams over comms about why nobody followed the push, expecting to survive the push as described above in scneario A).

Nuff said.

Add to this that unless you consider large group team play the assault is probably of the gun bag and not of the punch bag variety, as even the assault player wants to do damage for cbillz, they are only slightly more durable than heavys but noticeably slower..

[PocketYoda]

In real life mechs don't exist and they would never get created because they aren't any good in a warzone.

[Nik Reaper]

Well it's been considered before and generally speaking they might have a place , albeit if they were a bit smaller, in the rear with the construction crew, as having one or 2 could be used for rapid construction and terrain modification ( bridges, bunkers, tank foxholes... ) and could conceivably thus be armed and somewhat armored, as it would be doing a battlefield duty.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 29 January 2018 - 02:48 AM.