105 replies to this topic

[Soviet Alex]

BerryChunks, on 09 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

"a tax/reward rate that encourages lighter mech use for all but the most important tasks, as sending assaults to every task becomes too expensive to manage, perhaps on an exponential scale.

Or,

Fully destructible mechs, leading to gains being made for the team that can only field cheaper light units and focusing on killing assault mechs, losing battles, but leading to high attrition for the other side of those expensive machines, and sending them back to equal footing."

We already know that our mechs will never be totally destroyed, the Devs have said it on several occaisions. So I don't think your 2nd idea has legs. But I do like the idea of better rewards for lighter mechs, whether it's more C$, XP or even Loyalty Points. That would provide a counterweight to the "Moar Tonnage!" pressure from previous games, which is what most of us want to avoid.

(The misspelling is deliberate; it's a word I picked up on this forum)

Edited by Soviet Alex, 09 April 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[BerryChunks]

what misspelling? And just because they said full destruction doesn't exist (read: yet), doesn't mean it could be implemented later. Especially if other methods of trying to "tax" heavier units don't pan out.

[Adridos]

Dihm, on 09 April 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

lol, no heat, ER PPC and Heavy lasers.

Satisfied?

Edited by Adridos, 09 April 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[Gigaton]

Adridos, on 05 April 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

You misunderstood it. The right example is a diference between a tank, which can be taken out by an RPG and bigger tank that has no problems with such a weapon.

Nobody in the world in running around with tanks proof against modern RPGs outside frontal arc. Even (or especially?) considering real world, cost-effectivness, utility and economy of force are very real detractors of assaults.

[Adridos]

Gigaton, on 10 April 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Nobody in the world in running around with tanks proof against modern RPGs outside frontal arc. Even (or especially?) considering real world, cost-effectivness, utility and economy of force are very real detractors of assaults.

Challenger 2.

[Gigaton]

Adridos, on 10 April 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

Challenger 2.

People really overestimate the protective level of western MBTs (those limited scale wars vs. low tech opponents have left their mark on public imagination)... It has sturdy frontal armour, but it can't exactly take RPG-29s on the side like it's nothing. Rear is right out.

But since CE side protection is bit muddied subject, consider the Swedish MBT LAW (adopted as NLAW in UK). It's an RPG-like top attack ATGM. Chally's roof armour is more or less cheese versus top attack ATGM's just like every other tanks'. You can still try to jam it or evade it or shoot it from the sky or pray it doesn't get a good hit on the top. But point being, if somebody build a Z proof against X, then build a bigger or more clever X.

Edited by Gigaton, 10 April 2012 - 03:56 AM.

[Adridos]

Gigaton, on 10 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

But since CE side protection is bit muddied subject, consider the Swedish MBT LAW (adopted as NLAW in UK). It's an RPG-like top attack ATGM. Chally's roof armour is more or less cheese versus top attack ATGM's just like every other tanks'. You can still try to jam it or evade it or shoot it from the sky or pray it doesn't get a good hit on the top. But point being, if somebody build a Z proof against X, then build a bigger or more clever X.

... and that is exactly what I said. Bigger is better in real world. Not always, but...

[Dihm]

Adridos, on 09 April 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Satisfied?

Nope: MWLL, coolant flush, horrible Mauler pilot.

[BerryChunks]

Dihm, on 10 April 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

Nope: MWLL, coolant flush, horrible Mauler pilot.

Additionally, lets see how that works out 12v12.

[Gigaton]

Adridos, on 10 April 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

... and that is exactly what I said. Bigger is better in real world. Not always, but...

If you aren't going to fight against modern tanks, then RPG-29 is just excess bulk when compared to RPG-7. I wouldn't be suprised if RPG-29 had bit worse post-penetration effect as well (that issue existed with RPG-2 to RPG-7 switch). NLAW is nutty expensive when compared to RPG-7.

But continuing on subject of tanks themselves... 40 something ton Japanese Type 10 and 60 something ton Merkava 4, which of the two is the better tank? I'm betting the Type 10 is better tank for Japan and Merkava 4 is the better tank for Israel.

[LordDeathStrike]

Soviet Alex, on 09 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

BerryChunks, on 09 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

"a tax/reward rate that encourages lighter mech use for all but the most important tasks, as sending assaults to every task becomes too expensive to manage, perhaps on an exponential scale.

Or,

Fully destructible mechs, leading to gains being made for the team that can only field cheaper light units and focusing on killing assault mechs, losing battles, but leading to high attrition for the other side of those expensive machines, and sending them back to equal footing."

We already know that our mechs will never be totally destroyed, the Devs have said it on several occaisions. So I don't think your 2nd idea has legs. But I do like the idea of better rewards for lighter mechs, whether it's more C$, XP or even Loyalty Points. That would provide a counterweight to the "Moar Tonnage!" pressure from previous games, which is what most of us want to avoid.

(The misspelling is deliberate; it's a word I picked up on this forum)

you are overthinking it. smaller mech = go faster. go faster = get to objective and capture faster.

and in the case of 99% of the internet users go faster = run alone into the enemy atlas lance and die faster. but thats just because as a species, people are dumb as ****.

Gigaton, on 11 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

If you aren't going to fight against modern tanks, then RPG-29 is just excess bulk when compared to RPG-7. I wouldn't be suprised if RPG-29 had bit worse post-penetration effect as well (that issue existed with RPG-2 to RPG-7 switch). NLAW is nutty expensive when compared to RPG-7.

But continuing on subject of tanks themselves... 40 something ton Japanese Type 10 and 60 something ton Merkava 4, which of the two is the better tank? I'm betting the Type 10 is better tank for Japan and Merkava 4 is the better tank for Israel.

m1a1 abrams with cermic uranium armor beats them all, and its nearly 120 tons fully loaded for bear. and no enemy currently has a weapon that can kill it, they can only knock off the tracks and run away!

[Gigaton]

LordDeathStrike, on 11 April 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

m1a1 abrams with cermic uranium armor beats them all, and its nearly 120 tons fully loaded for bear. and no enemy currently has a weapon that can kill it, they can only knock off the tracks and run away!

I heard it was 1000 tons with TUSK (modern variants of Abrams use jump jets to avoid problems with ground pressure), and M1A1 Abrams has ceramic uranium unobtainium reinforced obsidian armour with fluffy dice. But the US Navy (sworn enemy of the US Army) can still kill it with their gauss rif... I mean railgun.

(Edit) Though in the event you were serious, Abrams is bit smaller and lighter than Merkava nor is the long outdated M1A1 (base and base HA at least) invunerable against modern top-of-the-line Russian and Chinese man portable anti-tank weapons from any arc (frontal turret might be for HA).

This site has nice collection of estimates for frontal protection in case you are curious: http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm

Edited by Gigaton, 11 April 2012 - 07:43 AM.

[Soviet Alex]

To sumarise (for those not willing to trawl through 5 pages): Some people fear that only assault mechs will be viable in combat, because they have more weapons, more armour, & the Battletech "speed is armour" rules don't transition into a 1st-person shooter. The previous Mechwarrior titles were like that (except MW1, where you could kill an 85-ton masakari in a 20-ton Dasher armed with MGs & small lasers with contemptuous ease). The Devs' talk of all tonnages being valuable isn't universally believed, nor is their talk of Jenner packs & Role Warfare. After all, it's hard to accept that a pack of Jenners is better than a pack of Awesomes. Me, I'm pinning my hope on a matchmaking algorithm that puts the assault companies in one pool (based on total, median or average tonnage), & balanced companies in another. I'd like to see Jenners slaughtering mechs twice their size like they do on the tabletop, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to try.

[Thomas Hogarth]

LordDeathStrike, on 11 April 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

m1a1 abrams with cermic uranium armor beats them all, and its nearly 120 tons fully loaded for bear. and no enemy currently has a weapon that can kill it, they can only knock off the tracks and run away!

So wrong.

http://www.fprado.co.../abrams-oif.pdf

Looks like penetrating hits on pages 7 and 8. I found this in less than five minutes - did you do any research at all before posting this?

[Korin Orrel]

Here is my thought on the whole debate:

Why even bother with Medium and Heavy Mechs if the only things you need are speed or firepower?

The obvious answer is the right tool for the right job scenario. If I am hired to wipe out a fuel depot but NOT paid to take out the defenders I am going to want the fastest mech possible. If someone hires me to kill the defenders, and I know that they are all in heavy mechs I am bringing as much firepower and armor as I can get. If I am not sure what I'm up against I will opt for the versatility of a medium or heavy mech. It all depends.

Given my choice I am gonna have to go with a heavy mech. They can turn a decent amount of speed and still have enough kick to do some real damage.

[Victor Morson]

This really goes back to the weight/BV thread from earlier. Long story short of that thread is this:

Why take a Hunchback over an Atlas?

Sure, the fast moving light 'mechs have a role in this game as recon and harassers. Sure the heavy hitting heavies and assaults have a role as the damage dealers. But what of the mediums inbetween? 'mechs like the Hunchback which moves not much faster than an Atlas, carries a fraction of it's armor and less than half of it's firepower?

What possible advantage is there to a Hunchback over an Atlas without drop limits? That's not even going into things like Tier 2 technology or weight in group fire.. that stuff needs to be addressed but this simple match up sums up the biggest problems first. I've yet to hear a single plausible response so far. It's a serious concern.

[Topsytervy]

An Atlas, no I pine for a Banshe-S or an Awsome. As for the little ones...Commando, Scorpion, and Warrhammer-D.

[Topsytervy]

Victor Morson, on 12 April 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

This really goes back to the weight/BV thread from earlier. Long story short of that thread is this:

Why take a Hunchback over an Atlas?

Sure, the fast moving light 'mechs have a role in this game as recon and harassers. Sure the heavy hitting heavies and assaults have a role as the damage dealers. But what of the mediums inbetween? 'mechs like the Hunchback which moves not much faster than an Atlas, carries a fraction of it's armor and less than half of it's firepower?

What possible advantage is there to a Hunchback over an Atlas without drop limits? That's not even going into things like Tier 2 technology or weight in group fire.. that stuff needs to be addressed but this simple match up sums up the biggest problems first. I've yet to hear a single plausible response so far. It's a serious concern.

The thing alot of people are forgetting is that in the minature game you had wieght limits. Your team was structured with four mechs called a lance. Each lance was classified by wieght and role. Of course the wieght classes are Light, Medium, Heavy, and Assault. The roles where recone/persuite, fire/support, and Assault/command. A full company is three lances. So the Hunchback would be in the medium lance as fire/support (short range), or it could be teamed with other Hunchbacks and form a medium assault lance, or as fire/support (short range) in a heavy lance. Also if the pilot like running you could put in the medium recone/persuite lance. Last if the commander likes the beasty you can find her in the command lance of any wieght class. Its all about what you have and what you can bring to the table.

[LordDeathStrike]

speed is armor in mwo. if your scout mech goes 150 kph, theres no way an atlas should ever get into ac 20 range on you. he cant catch you, you have to blunder into him.

aka if you die in a light mech, its 100% your fault, not the mech, the mech is fully able to be immune to damage by running around at top speed avoiding being in any enemies weapon range.

[Victor Morson]

Topsytervy, on 12 April 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

The thing alot of people are forgetting is that in the minature game you had wieght limits. Your team was structured with four mechs called a lance. Each lance was classified by wieght and role. Of course the wieght classes are Light, Medium, Heavy, and Assault. The roles where recone/persuite, fire/support, and Assault/command. A full company is three lances. So the Hunchback would be in the medium lance as fire/support (short range), or it could be teamed with other Hunchbacks and form a medium assault lance, or as fire/support (short range) in a heavy lance. Also if the pilot like running you could put in the medium recone/persuite lance. Last if the commander likes the beasty you can find her in the command lance of any wieght class. Its all about what you have and what you can bring to the table.

Weight classes were never preset like that in a company. Some regiments have 3 light lances; others have 2 heavy and an assault lance. Some even have 4 lances. Some have 2 with support elements.

Though, weight or BV limits is a good solution to the problem as I mentioned, forcing the overall team to make some choices as to what they pilot. If there are no limits my concern is that there will be zero advantage to a heavier attack-style medium, because they aren't faster than heavies or assaults, nor do they carry the firepower and armor to compete with them. It's skewed so only the fastest lights and heaviest hitters are the only concern at that point, which would be disastrous.

LordDeathStrike, on 13 April 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

speed is armor in mwo. if your scout mech goes 150 kph, theres no way an atlas should ever get into ac 20 range on you. he cant catch you, you have to blunder into him.

aka if you die in a light mech, its 100% your fault, not the mech, the mech is fully able to be immune to damage by running around at top speed avoiding being in any enemies weapon range.

A big problem when discussing rule warfare is that is naturally the argument that is jumped to. While in itself has flaws (12 lights vs 12 assaults would not be pretty for the lights, at all), nobody is saying fast moving lights won't have a role. Or assaults won't have a role.

Again my entire focus is on everything in between. The 35-75 ton range entirely is my main concern, 'mechs depending. For example if a Mauler existed or the Stalker is implemented, I'd have a hard time justifying a Catapult that has similar speed but less armor, ammo, and firepower.

So yeah; my concern isn't the REALLY little guy or the REALLY big guy, but everything in the middle.

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 April 2012 - 05:19 AM.