41 replies to this topic

[Renzor the Red]

Looking at the Roughneck and Warhammer for really tough heavies that can do dakka and lasers. They both have good hard points, and both are durable. SnugglesTime claims to love them both just about equally.

Which one's actually tougher (armor/structure wise)? I suspect the Roughneck. What are pros and cons of one vs the other? And how do the heroes compare?

[tutzdes]

renzor51, on 01 February 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

Looking at the Roughneck and Warhammer for really tough heavies that can do dakka and lasers. They both have good hard points, and both are durable. SnugglesTime claims to love them both just about equally.

Which one's actually tougher (armor/structure wise)? I suspect the Roughneck. What are pros and cons of one vs the other? And how do the heroes compare?

Roughnecks are definitely more durable (even compared to Warhammer, which is a good tanky mech with nice hitboxes).

If you are going for energy or mixed builds - Roughnecks are IMO just better.

Warhammer has a definite edge in other department: two variants have ballistic mounts in both STs, so if you want to fit two big ballistics into the mech - it is WHM-6R or WHM-BW. It also has 5t extra capacity compared to Roughnecks, which is very helpful if you are serious about taking multiple humongous guns.

For heroes: Warhammer Black Widow can do quad (or less) torso ballistics with insanely good convergence, very-very good mech. Roughneck Powerhouse offers nothing on top of C-Bill bonus compared to non-hero Roughnecks; Reaver is a very nice UAC(10) carrier due to durability and quirks (these two uacs will be in the arms, so no 20s, weapon mounts are low, and fully articulated).

[The Basilisk]

warhammer...cuz its a lore mech not something made up by pgi....there are few other reasons in this game at its curent state that would matter anyhow

[Steel Raven]

Both are great brawlers when you get the torso twisting down. My Roughnecks are usually one big gun + SRMs while my Wammy is Dual AC/10s + Med Lasers (was rocking dual UAC/10s but got tired of the jams)

If your looking for straight up durability vs weapons variety, the Roughneck has slightly better hit boxes (with the exception of the easy to crit shoulder gun) and decent buffs that allows it to tank with the assaults. It has overshadowed the Thunderbolt which was the tanky 65 ton machine for years. I still get better scores with the Warhammer thanks to the weapon load out but that may be personal preferences.

[Veolfen]

The Basilisk, on 01 February 2019 - 12:51 PM, said:

warhammer...cuz its a lore mech not something made up by pgi....there are few other reasons in this game at its curent state that would matter anyhow

Some creativity isn't bad when done well. Instead of copy pasting everything, adding some new stuff can be a good thing if it fits well.
It's not like they created 10000 mechs and the Roughneck is a nice addition, design wise and lorewise.

[Steel Raven]

At worst, the Roughneck is a nice placeholder for the Axman until we get a MW game with melee like Battletech (honestly, if there is one thing other mech sims should learn from Titan Fall)

[Koniving]

Spoilered as it relates to something said rather than contributes to the original poster's request. Far as that, I'd say Roughneck if you are better with ammo-consuming low heat weapons, if you want something with more of a focus on energy weapons with missiles/ballistics as side options, go Warhammer.

Spoiler

Veolfen, on 02 February 2019 - 12:11 PM, said:

Some creativity isn't bad when done well. Instead of copy pasting everything, adding some new stuff can be a good thing if it fits well.
It's not like they created 10000 mechs and the Roughneck is a nice addition, design wise and lorewise.

I could see it either way, but every developer that has owned BT has invented their own stuff.

By extension, the "Loader King" is referenced as the base model for the Roughneck. It doesn't have any official details, but given what fluff has been given to us, I was able to create one that fits the role, and can compete with the Powerman and the Buster, without being outright superior to either, in elements such as price, fuel economy, capabilities, tonnage, etc.

I'll share the latest version in the Battletech Discussion section on here Sunday as well as have a file for downloading it if you want to try it in Megamek. I will either post it under PGI created mechs thread or the Civilian Combat thread. Probably both.

Edited by Koniving, 02 February 2019 - 09:42 PM.

[Phoenix 72]

Personally, I prefer the Warhammer. It is my go to Heavy Mech that will just work. Sure, the Roughneck can be more sturdy, but I can run the builds I prefer on the Warhammer and not on the Roughneck, due to lack of tonnage.

I really like the Black Widow. One of the best hero Mechs available IMO. If you have the MC to spend on it.

[Bersigil]

You are extremly lucky: the Warhammer and the Roughneck are 2 of the first mechs that where reviewed on grimmechs.
Some of the communities best Players put up the top builds for those 2, so I strongly suggest you take a look at the site:
https://grimmechs.isengrim.org/

[B L O O D W I T C H]

renzor51, on 01 February 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

Looking at the Roughneck and Warhammer for really tough heavies that can do dakka and lasers.

You've pretty much answered your own question right there.

Both are very good mechs, duo to hardpoint placements, tonnage capacity and hitboxes.
The twist comes with your question, "dakka and lasers".
The Roughneck is good at boating dakka or missiles, or dakka and missiles. Roughneck 3A is a good enery boat but there isn't one good dakka and energy Roughneck.
The Roughneck 2A and Reaver Hero have far worse hardpoint placement then any of the Dakka+Laser Warhammer variants namely 6R or Black Widow.
So if it's Dakka AND Energy, the Warhammer 6R wins out by a longshot.

Edited by Toha Heavy Industries, 05 February 2019 - 05:28 AM.

[Acersecomic]

Roughneck-1C, AC/20 x3 SMR6A, nuff said. 52 alpha with minor SRMA spread. Every 3+ seconds.
Thing's a murderous beast with high mounts and armor/structure to spare.

Build Code- AI8830>1|Ogpf0|X?qf0|@@|@@|_O|_O|_O|[<2rX0|@@sH0tZ0|@O|@OuZ0|@O|@Ov@0w606060
(my) Skill Build- a5773b30e3e0e5d5ebbefefff7f00000000000000e877770f000000000000

Bonus points if you paint is Rasalhague with Obsidian Black primary and Blood Orange secondary.

Edited by Acersecomic, 05 February 2019 - 06:25 AM.

[Mister Maf]

Warhammer is not nearly as tough as people make it out to be. Roughneck is way more durable and IMO easily the better mech.

[Acersecomic]

Mister Maf, on 05 February 2019 - 08:02 AM, said:

Warhammer is not nearly as tough as people make it out to be. Roughneck is way more durable and IMO easily the better mech.

^^ THIS!
Really don't understand peoples obsession with the Warhammer.

[RandomBeing]

I love both mechs for different reasons. The Roughneck can be a durable brawling powerhouse, i have the champion variant and in brawling, it can rival assault mechs if played well. Also it can hammer pesky light mechs out of existence with some or even one well placed shot(s). For the Warhammer, i have the 6R Variant and i like that it is a very flexible Mech, it has Energy Hardpoints in Arms and Torso, also some Ballistic and Missile Hardpoints. I used to play big energy weapons in the arms with an MRM 40 launch on the shoulder, but atm im enjoying a double Ultra AC 20 build, and the fact that you can do both with the mech is amazing. So basically your question narrows down to durability versus flexibility imo, pick what you need.

Edited by RedZetkin, 05 February 2019 - 08:15 AM.

[Veolfen]

Mister Maf, on 05 February 2019 - 08:02 AM, said:

Warhammer is not nearly as tough as people make it out to be. Roughneck is way more durable and IMO easily the better mech.

People who find the Warhammer "amazing" are the one who go full dakka and play second line (even tho they have a heavy).

If you're used to use heavies for the frontline (like i do), warhammer don't feel that amazing lol.

[Phoenix 72]

Well, obviously the Warhammer is not remotely as sturdy as the Roughneck, which can take surprising amounts of damage and survive. Especially when you use a dead side. I like the Warhammer more, because it has more build versatility (due to the weight) and I do not like asymetric builds. Otherwise I would play the Marauder, not the Warhammer or the Roughneck.

I play it with 2 LBX10 and 4ML or 2 AC10 and 4ML. I prefer the first build, because you have enough weight to keep an AMS active as well. I tend to play on the front line, but I do not charge in. I tend to try to trade, but stay close to the front line, ideally rotating into the front line and back out of it. If we are a couple or so kills ahead and I still have good armour, I tend to lead pushes, which explains why my surviveability is a good bit higher with the Marauder than the Warhammer.

I think the Warhammer is a good solid mech and I enjoy playing it more than the Roughneck. /shrug It is not amazing, though. I think the only mechs I own that I feel are amazing are my Crabs and Bushwackers (though not all chassis from them).

***EDIT: I think one of the major problems these days is that nobody wants to be on the front line... Everybody is playing second line mechs... Unfortunately, someone has to be at the front... Which is why I enjoy the Crab and Bushwacker so much.***

Edited by Darakor Stormwind, 05 February 2019 - 12:53 PM.

[Acersecomic]

Darakor Stormwind, on 05 February 2019 - 12:46 PM, said:

***EDIT: I think one of the major problems these days is that nobody wants to be on the front line... Everybody is playing second line mechs... Unfortunately, someone has to be at the front... Which is why I enjoy the Crab and Bushwacker so much.***

I tend to die among the first in the team if I die in the match because I play frontline even in my lights and mediums, let alone heavies and assaults xD Death comes from the team still being such cowards that not only they do not follow behind me, they hide everywhere! Cowards... no mech warrior in them.

[justcallme A S H]

Mister Maf, on 05 February 2019 - 08:02 AM, said:

Warhammer is not nearly as tough as people make it out to be. Roughneck is way more durable and IMO easily the better mech.

If this were true why is the WHM the premier winning mech in many 1v1 tournaments and no one brings RGH?

Hitboxes.

[Tesunie]

justcallme A S H, on 05 February 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

If this were true why is the WHM the premier winning mech in many 1v1 tournaments and no one brings RGH?

Hitboxes.

I always thought the Roughneck (due to health quirks) was considered more durable, but the Warhammer has good durability (from good hit boxes) combined with better average weapon hardpoints and options.

AKA: Hit boxes are probably part of the reason, but weapon options is probably the main reason (when combined with hit boxes).

---

Personally speaking, I don't like the Roughneck because of how it looks. The Warhammer elbows bug me a bit, but besides that they each seem like solid mechs. Warhammer, as mentioned above, is probably the better mech because it tends to have better weapon options.

[Mister Maf]

justcallme A S H, on 05 February 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

If this were true why is the WHM the premier winning mech in many 1v1 tournaments and no one brings RGH?

Hitboxes.

Dunno, fam. I don't watch or particularly care about 1v1 tournaments and I have a hunch the OP doesn't either. In quickplay my Roughnecks can take a beating and come out on top six ways from Sunday where the Warhammer just dies unless I sit in second line, which is just not how I play.