55 replies to this topic

[Monky]

Anti-Missile systems are available in the time period we're talking about (LAMS - Laser Anti Missile System is not however), however they are considered a 'ballistic weapon' for all intents and purposes, merely used defensively rather than offensively.

This brings up an interesting point - in Mech Lab, we have an 'equipment' tab alongside weapon and ammunition tabs. Should AMS (assuming they make the cut) be considered a hardpoint based weapon system, or simply a piece of gear you can mount on any mech?

Possible pros and cons;

If it IS hardpoint based - This will give added reason to choose mechs with ballistic hardpoints, and since an AMS is light weight (0.5 tons for the AMS, 1 ton for ammo w/ 12 rounds) it is well within range of lighter mechs with ballistic hardpoints to mount, giving you a reason to choose them if you don't particularly like AC2 and Machineguns. Additionally, this provides a set limit of possible AMS that you can bring to prevent/minimize a 'missile shield' build.

The cons would be that you would obviously have to sacrifice potential offensive firepower AND tonnage/space rather than just tonnage/space, and it would hamper mechs without ballistic hardpoints, possibly making them more likely to be targetted by support mechs.

is it ISN'T hardpoint based - Then you can mount if on anything you want, giving you added flexibility if you can find the space for it. It is possible the devs might limit to a certain amount max if this style is chosen so LRM players aren't left out in the cold, since AMS is much more weight effecient than LRM, even though it doesn't necessarily kill all of the missiles. You also have to consider what the effect of stacking 10 AMS would be against a missile salvo - would likely be able to obliterate it.

However, the con would be a lot more energy mechs either detonating themselves or being blown up by enemies critting that AMS ammo, meaning they could be a liability if on your team as it would take 2 tons to add an AMS, Ammo, and CASE, meaning 2 tons of precious heatsinks gone.

What are your thoughts?

[SuomiWarder]

Can't answer without knowing the hard point specs of the Mechs. If most mechs have an extra slot or two of whatever weapons they carry then it can be treated like a weapon. It needs ammo after all. And that would keep people from putting an anti-missile system in a leg - which somehow feels wrong.

But in the long run I don't think it matters either way.

[Xaks]

One of the things I was ALWAYS a big believer in, when building a new mech, was AMS. It just saves too much damage from hitting you. For a half-ton? Cheap at twice the price. Essentially, in tabletop, it was a staple of my mechs....along with max armor and at least SOME jump jet capability.

We'll see how they make it work, in-game, mechanics-wise. Is it under-powered? Over-powered? Who knows. But I'll be looking on with very, very close interest.

[Mike Silva]

Xaks, on 11 May 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

One of the things I was ALWAYS a big believer in, when building a new mech, was AMS. It just saves too much damage from hitting you. For a half-ton? Cheap at twice the price. Essentially, in tabletop, it was a staple of my mechs....along with max armor and at least SOME jump jet capability.

We'll see how they make it work, in-game, mechanics-wise. Is it under-powered? Over-powered? Who knows. But I'll be looking on with very, very close interest.

I always thought the AMS was worthless. For the ton and a half minimum buy in for an AMS you could have 24 points of armor instead. At best a single ton of ammo AMS (IS) can stop 36 points of damage... which can only happen if you only ever roll maximum for missiles shot down and minimum for ammo used. At worst you wasted a ton and a half to stop a single point of damage.

For a Clan system the numbers are better, maybe worth using, but I tend to prefer the flexibility of being able to stop any kind of damage.

*edit* - but I read more carefully and think.... you say that you always go for max armor..... so I guess it is a good addition to your builds.

Edited by Mike Silva, 11 May 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[Xaks]

Mike Silva, on 11 May 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

*edit* - but I read more carefully and think.... you say that you always go for max armor..... so I guess it is a good addition to your builds.

Yep.

Another is above average movement speed to go with the jump jets, AMS, and max armor.

In tabletop, I was almost always the last (or one of the last) to go, and I pissed off everyone that was trying to kill me. I usually also led the damage done or kills column, as I hung around a lot longer than most and as such, just chipped off more armor points.

Plus, in game, it's basically unheard of for me to not be moving at maximum forward speed. More often than not, those one or two points per roll that you end up missing the to-hit try would add to my longevity.

*brofist

[Monky]

Exactly, AMS is a pretty handy tool when you use it the way it's meant to be used - to maximize your longevity. I can see it being very handy on a Dragon or Cicada that have been retooled for max armor. Combine speed, survivability, and long range striking power in the open or short range striking power in tight spaces, and you're a force to be reckoned with.

But it makes a rather huge difference as to how it would play out if it's hardpoint based vs considered as a standard piece of equipment you can just plop on there.

[Orzorn]

I think a big issue is whether AMS will fire at missiles not coming at you. If so, people can mass AMS systems (this happens sometimes in MWLL) to form an almost impenetrable bubble.

Not saying its a bad issue, but it is a consideration.

[Monky]

Orzorn, on 12 May 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

I think a big issue is whether AMS will fire at missiles not coming at you. If so, people can mass AMS systems (this happens sometimes in MWLL) to form an almost impenetrable bubble.

Not saying its a bad issue, but it is a consideration.

That's actually a good point, how would AMS choose targets? I would think it would help its utility if it fired at every enemy missile it could, but like you said you can then do a missile shield if it is allowed to be put on anything in any physically possible number. It could be an interesting lance tactic to have everyone using an AMS and running close directly into the enemy to spoil all their missile fire off the bat, but it would have to be carefully balanced as an AMS alone only weighs 0.5 tons, and you can have multiple feeding off the same ammunition. 2 tons of ammo and 4 AMS totalling 4 tons would fend off 6 salvos (a ton of LRM 20 ammo - 120 damage) pretty effectively I imagine, and a single mech can likely spare that tonnage for a strike lance. So long as you don't stay in the open for too long, you can use that to get across a large area only taking direct weapons fire for the most part. Combine it with a GECM on another mech (so you can all have some combat effectiveness) and you're pretty much an enemy's worst nightmare up close.

Edited by monky, 12 May 2012 - 09:22 AM.

[Aelos03]

I think you could use machine guns to act like ams so there is another reason why to bring machine guns and i don't think it should be able to obliterate whole salvo but lets say you should be able to get few missiles, just my thought.

[Redshift2k5]

Could also be an opportunity for modules

Modules to increase the accuracy of your AMS, and ones to make your missiles harder to destroy!

[neodym]

I think one AMS should shoot down 4 missiles,then when you fire LRM 5 only one hits... when Catapult launch missiles it will lower it from 30 to 26,that would make AMS effective enough to be better than just extra armor that offers protection against everything but not effective enough to make you lrm immune if you dont have like 6-10 AMS systems

[Thom Frankfurt]

It never seemed to fail, everytime I mounted an AMS the OpFor didn't use missiles... Everytime that I didn't mount one, I'd run across something mounting either an LRM 20, MRM 40, or a butt-load of SSRM6's....

I didn't care for the old rules for the AMS, which went through ammo ridiciously fast. But now that the rules have been updated they've made the AMS worthwhile... The less damage you take the better, right?

And aren't there rules for using the AMS like a machine gun somewhere? Tac Ops maybe?

[Mike Silva]

Thom Frankfurt, on 12 May 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

It never seemed to fail, everytime I mounted an AMS the OpFor didn't use missiles... Everytime that I didn't mount one, I'd run across something mounting either an LRM 20, MRM 40, or a butt-load of SSRM6's....

I didn't care for the old rules for the AMS, which went through ammo ridiciously fast. But now that the rules have been updated they've made the AMS worthwhile... The less damage you take the better, right?

And aren't there rules for using the AMS like a machine gun somewhere? Tac Ops maybe?

I think the tricky thing is that it has to be balanced properly to prevent it from becoming extremely overpowered. With the TT rules I think they hit the mark fairly well... on average over time it'll prevent the same amount of damage as if you'd have spent the tonnage on armor, with some times doing better and other times doing worse. Although I would probably argue that given that it only prevents missile damage that it should, on average, prevent a higher amount of damage relative to what you could have gained had used the tonnage on armor.

[Sporkosophy]

AMS becomes even better should we ever run into Thunderbolts.

[Aegis Kleais]

I am not for you being able to pile on more and more AMS in order to destroy more LRMs per salvo. It's simply unfair to those with LRMs for there to be a system in place that could fully neutralize a particular weapon type.

I prefer you equipping AMS and then specifying how much ammo to bring (for AMS, not L/AMS) The AMS would ONLY protect the Mech it was equipped on, and would have the same efficiency or so (takes out about 5 LRM per salvo, making the wearer indestructible to enemies firing a single LRM/5)

[Thom Frankfurt]

If I remember correctly (back in the days of 'The Rules of Warfare') the AMS only engaged the first salvo of missiles that were inbound on the mech equipt with it...

Muchkins would then shoot a SRM2 or LRM5 first followed up with all the big nasty stuff.

[Corbon Zackery]

Its a piece of Equipment it shouldn't be hardpoint based. In fact hardpoints should be removed from the mechlab all together.

How should it work?

I see two ways this system could work.

1. Passive system were it detects incomming missles, and shoots them down when they get close. This would let a light mech run a anti missle screen for the Medium and Heavy mechs using 3 or more AMS.

2. The mech detects a missle lock, and activates your AMS system so it shoots down some of the missles coming towards you. This is the straight fwd. play so every mech needs to have one to be protected.

Those are the 2 ways I think it should work, and you might be able to set it up so you can use it both ways.

Thanks

[Arbhall Sommers]

I like the idea of a lance forming up close together and being able to keep a salvo or two out of the air, it should be able to knock out several together. Yes it may seem unfair to missile users, but those AMS firing every cycle will be using ammo too. Yes the man who took off the back up lasers to fit in more ammo should have an advantage.
And that should apply equally well to AMS users, those who sacrifice armor and back up weapons for ammo should see a benefit. It also means that in a long enough game they will run dry and be completely vulnerable.
I favor the use of hard points for Inner sphere mechs, especially those from highly advanced factions. Who need to produce massive armies of mechs, and legions of technicians that can maintain them. So they have to be uniform and easily repaired.
Smaller nations that need more from their mechs would have looser restrictions on customization for their mechs, and should have more flexible placement options.
But AMS is small, light and relatively simple technology, and should be mountable on any mech. AMS should also have a skill attatched to it, to make it more efficient in skilled users hands.

[Mike Silva]

Corbon Zackery, on 12 May 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Its a piece of Equipment it shouldn't be hardpoint based. In fact hardpoints should be removed from the mechlab all together.

Why should hardpoints be removed from the 'mech lab?

[Sporkosophy]

Mike Silva, on 12 May 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Why should hardpoints be removed from the 'mech lab?

inb4 his reasoning being MW4 grrrrrr.