8 replies to this topic

[Gierling]

I have seen some comments about different weight classes being "Bad" or strictly inferior due to the fitting rules in Battletech.

Particularly in regards to say an 85 ton mech vs an 80 ton mech. Or a 65 Ton mech in comparison with a 70 ton Mech.

Can anyone enlighten me about how these efficiencies pan out?

[Redshift2k5]

The idea is, if you bring a Medium mech, the enemy team has a Medium mech.

If your medium mech is 40 tons and the enemy's medium mech is 50 tons, he's got an additional 10 tons worth of stuff.

Compare: If you have an Awesome and the other guy has an Atlas, if you have a Cicada and the other guy has a Centurion, etc

I'm not saying lighter mechs are worse, but many people will always choose the top of the weight class to get as many advantages(in raw tonnage) as they can.

There are also efficiency curves in regards to engine size compared to weight compared to preferred top speed

Edited by Redshift2k5, 21 November 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[Gierling]

Yeah I'm real curious about the chassis weight engine size free space efficiencies here.

[Joseph Mallan]

It's probably a feel more than a math thing. There are just some sweet spot tonnages that seem to have all the good models. As I said in another thread 70 tons is one of those good ones. 85 ton is another good one. for instance, at 70 tons you have Warhammers, Archers, Grasshoppers, Phracts, Caesar. 85 ton you have the Battlemaster, Stalker, Templar, Longbow, Showgun. All very respectable builds.

[Vapor Trail]

One way of looking at it is, if playing by yourself (as opposed to a premade), is to be able to solo a mech at your weight or higher, based on what you consider average skill.

I've taken down Dragons and Centurions solo in my Cicada, (despite being the worlds second suckiest light-mech pilot... which translates to the Medium Cicada because it's really just a fat Jenner) so I feel confident of being able to do so at need, or at least being able to deal crippling damage to one before I go.

Another is to look at it as whether or not you can solo multiple mechs lighter than your weight class. This is the general design philosophy behind the StreakCat. It tears lights up, while still doing good damage to heavier mechs (including being able to solo mechs in it's own weight class). My Cicada's built as a light hunter. Lots of go-go-go, and lots of armor. Well run StreakJenners are what usually give me the most trouble from the light end, since they can still pelt me with missiles if we get in a turning fight.

The reason I say I'm the worlds second suckiest light-pilot?
Because if it's on the battlefield, I hit it.
Head-on.
At full speed.

Objects and me just don't get along. I fear for my sanity when knockdowns come back in (And I still say they need to come back!).

[Mahershalalhashbaz]

I believe, if I have interpreted your question correctly, that you are asking which 'Mech tonnages are better, based on the fixed Engine to Speed ration from the Tabletop. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

It's true, in the TT game, Classic Battletech (CBT), some tonnages, depending on the speed profile you want, have better "efficiency" because they have better "weight of compulsory stuff" to "space left over" ratio. This, I have also noticed, has been carried over to MWO somewhat. Although the ability to use a range of engines, as opposed to a fixed rating like in CBT, changes things up somewhat I guess.

A link is as follows: http://tekeli.li/bat...h/optimech.html

It's not my work. But I still play CBT so I occasionally do fire up that awesome page just for reference.

To elaborate: For example, an 80 tonner with a speed profile of 4/6 (that's walking at 42.5 and running at 64.8 km/h) will, after the compulsory components (engines/gyro etc.) are added, have 42.5 tons left over for other things (like weapons/ammo/armour). The problem there is that, looking up the list, one would realise that a 75 tonner with the same speed profile will have the same amount of tonnage left over for stuff. Hence, making a 75 tonner with a top speed of 64.8 km/h would be more efficient* than an 80 tonner which moves at the same speed.

*: More efficient in the sense that the 75 tonner would be cheaper, but can carry more weapons/ammo. And would have max armour of only 0.5 tons less.

Hope this helps.

Edit: Also, to answer your question. From the chart, it can be seen that regardless of speed profile, a 'mech of 55, 65, 70, 90 and 95 tons has no particular advantage of "free space" over other tonnages. So these are viewed, according to Classic Mathtech, as less optimal tonnages. This, of course, changes if you have an XL or other class engine because they are calculated with slightly different formulae.

Edited by Mahershalalhashbaz, 12 December 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Kobold]

The basic issue is "For any given speed, what mech gives you the most free tonnage"?

If you pick a mech that is too light for the speed, you don't get enough tonnage of weapons (like a stock speed Hunchback or Centurion). If you pick a mech that is too heavy for its speed (harder to do thanks to engine restrictions, but for example, the stock Charger CGR-1A1) you have so little space left over because of the massive engine that you waste all the benefit of being big.

Edited by Kobold, 12 December 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

What Kobold said. It was a quirk of the math for the table top build rules and does not really hold up as well now that we can put any size engine we want provided we stay with the the engine restriction floor and ceiling limits, so you can fine tune your engine size to get speed and available tonnage closest to what you consider ideal. All the stock 'Mechs were built using the formula Chassis weight X desired MP = Engine rating. Back then you could not put that 350 engine in an Atlas, no sir. You want to go faster then by golly you will use that 400 engine or be happy with the speed you have got. Depending on what end of the weight range you went you could end up shy some serious tonnage, and in lights every ton counts because you do not have much to work with in the first place.

[Deadoon]

Nathan Foxbane, on 12 December 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

What Kobold said. It was a quirk of the math for the table top build rules and does not really hold up as well now that we can put any size engine we want provided we stay with the the engine restriction floor and ceiling limits, so you can fine tune your engine size to get speed and available tonnage closest to what you consider ideal. All the stock 'Mechs were built using the formula Chassis weight X desired MP = Engine rating. Back then you could not put that 350 engine in an Atlas, no sir. You want to go faster then by golly you will use that 400 engine or be happy with the speed you have got. Depending on what end of the weight range you went you could end up shy some serious tonnage, and in lights every ton counts because you do not have much to work with in the first place.

I did like what one guy I know did for the running mp mechanics, 1.5X engine rating, divided by tonnage of mech. this would allow for example a 75 tonner with a 200 engine(stupid as **** in know) to run at 4 hexes speed rather than the max of 3 because his walking rating was only 2.

And actually by battletech rules there was nothing actually preventing you from placing that 350 engine in, but that 350 engine would just be wasted space.