#61
Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:30 PM
#62
Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:38 PM
Hauser, on 23 January 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:
2. The same argument holds for sniping. If you don't help with the focus fire you're not helping much at all.
3. As for scouts, no they should not peak their head over a ridge. They should however discover where the enemy is. Something you can do in other ways then walking straight into the front line.
In addition to the points you mentioned about LRM-Boat Atlases, my beef with the build is that it's simply outperformed by the Stalker. The only reason to boat with an Atlas (in a PuG) is to take advantage of the ECM - but if you're lobbing missiles from long-range, your ECM is at long range, too. On the other hand, if you move in, you expose yourself to interception without the close-range firepower to deal with your enemies. An in either case, the Stalker has more firepower.
#65
Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:43 PM
LarkinOmega, on 23 January 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:
cute. I must be the only who see's the logic of Sun Tzu stating that, winning with the greatest possible ease or leaving the field of strife to return again as valiant and reliable tactics that are anything but cowardly, while others state that tactics like Ninja Capping or fleeing a fight when the odds are clearly NOT in favor for the guy choosing to RUN means cowardice. No, I think it is the majority who think a sound tactical retreat is cowardly have the logic issues.
#66
Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:12 PM
#67
Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:33 PM
Rejarial Galatan, on 23 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:
Feel free to explain how we can "leave the field of strife to return again," other than disconnecting. This is pretty much par for the course with your mistreatment of Sun Tzu, as I've pointed out in more detail already. In fact, feel free to start responding to the thread at any time, rather than railing against nonsense arguments that exist only in your head. You obviously haven't read most of the on-topic posts in this thread - I'm mystified as to why you think misquoting Sun Tzu qualifies you to have an opinoin on posts which you have not read.
#68
Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:06 PM
#69
Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:36 PM
So are we going to bust out Mushashi's 'Book of Five Rings' or Machiaveli's 'The Prince' next to try and blast him for a post that basically comes down to suporting your teammates and making sure you contribute to what is a team game. (I'll apoligize in advance if I misspelled those names, to lazy to check .) Lets just all get along and throw coherent light and high velocity slugs at each other .
#70
Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:40 PM
Tincan Nightmare, on 23 January 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:
So are we going to bust out Mushashi's 'Book of Five Rings' or Machiaveli's 'The Prince' next to try and blast him for a post that basically comes down to suporting your teammates and making sure you contribute to what is a team game. (I'll apoligize in advance if I misspelled those names, to lazy to check .) Lets just all get along and throw coherent light and high velocity slugs at each other .
This could have been completely avoided if PGI wasnt so abusive to the Battletech Genre. What I mean is, it is absurd to think that they think NOT having a fully operational 360 degree radar, as CANON states you SHOULD have as a standard feature is more tactical than having a fully formed picture of just what the hell is going on around your mech. IF they were not so absurd as to basically say: You want your precious 360 degree radar, you have 2 options: pay us real money for MC, then convert your XP, OR take forever to slow grind 15,000GXP. either way, this is abuse to BTU and those of us who want to adhere as close to canon/lore as possible.
#71
Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:43 PM
Sun tzu wrote the 'Art of War' didn't say much about battlefield tactics.
Are you going tell us Von Clauswitz was talking about gunpowder smoke when he spoke of the 'Fog of War'?
or maybe friction meant he was trying to light a match?
And how do you manage 3801 posts and not make sense once?
#72
Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:47 PM
Rejarial Galatan, on 23 January 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:
Well I think the wanted to give more tactical options for suprise and ambush. If we all had 360 radar and could pinpoint targets all the time no one would ever be able to sneak into someones rear and knife them . And honestly in that match me and my other team members screwed the pooch. We got so caught up in the fight to our front, we didn't realize the danger from behind until it was to late. I just mark it up as a learning experience and make sure to check my six more often now.
#73
Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:57 PM
#74
Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:07 PM
Rejarial Galatan, on 23 January 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:
Well I don't disagree with you, mechs are packed with all you listed in the sourcebooks and novels, but it would be fairly difficult to implement in game. And I think one of the Gray Death novels mentioned that mechwarriors can sometimes get overwhelmed by the amount of data and still get suprised by something they missed. You just have to think of MWO as operating under the Double Blind rules. Plus hopefully some new maps will be rolling out, all options look the same when you fight over the same terrain over and over again.
#75
Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:12 PM
Rejarial Galatan, on 23 January 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:
This is you leaving the thread without having once offered anything of value to the discussion. You have not attacked any ideas I actually hold; you have not even attempted to deal with any rebuttal of your false claims, nor have you even acknowledged the empirically false claims you've made (the weapon carrying ability of the Stalker comes to mind.) In short, you have attempted to rely on arrogant vitriol and grandiose pronouncements to carry the day. For my part, I've offered facts in refutation of every criticism you've raised - and you have offered no facts in answer.
For the third time, keep your word and be gone. The Black Knight routine was really only funny once.
#76
Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:13 PM
Void Angel, on 23 January 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:
Simply put, caution becomes cowardice when it overrides the needs of the mission. If you'll recall, nowhere do I advocate running at the enemy in a drooling display of moronic recklessness. But too many times (particularly at Coward's Ridge in Frozen City) I see a movement to contact degenerate into a piecemeal sniping match until one side or another gets their act together and moves in force - and that side usually wins. What I'm trying to do here is teach people how to be on that side.
You make a fair enough arguement, I should have mentioned my Raven only has a top speed of 101 kph, 113 w speed tweak. (I traded max speed for improved defense, and maximum sensor range.) I am well aware that as a recon unit, I will be avoiding direct contact, but I do like to have cover fire in the event I have to make a tactical retreat. (say a strong guard is posted at my infiltration point.) I can understand where you are coming from as far as Coward's Ridge, especially in regards to the importance of manuevring in modern warfare. but from my own experience, moving over that ridge in force only works when your opponents aren't coordinated, if they have a strong defense in place, the force that charges over the ridge is liable to get decimated; Unless you are intimately familiar with the playstyles of the people on the opfor, you have to assume that they are competent. (underestimating your opponent is the worst thing a commander can do after all.)
Overall, cresting the ridge is generally a bad idea, due to the lack of cover, the fact that most mechs are not generally capable of "hull-down" manuevring, and the general assumption that the ridge is the most likely avenue from which your opponents will attack. I've actually seen rushes from the tunnel and Jenner alley that were highly successful because the other side didn't anticipate the possiblity of a massed attack from those directions.
And I do agree with you, anyone who thinks an Atlas is an effective missile boat deserves to be shot.
#77
Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:21 PM
#78
Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:23 PM
#79
Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:33 PM
Tincan Nightmare, on 23 January 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:
Even the "canon" materials contain instances of 'mechs being able to sneak up on each other. Although surprising enemy 'mechs often employs the use of deep water, camouflage and shutdown, or special countermeasure equipment, other instances can be found - notably the use of terrain, especially in an urban environment. Again, these are all in the "supporting" materials - entertainment novels and flavor text. The actual ruleset (specifically the Double Blind rules you mention) does indeed contain means whereby a 'mech can sneak up on another machine - and Guardian ECM systems certainly do interfere with nonvisual sensor spotting. The rulebook wavers always, er... wave away this fact; usually they claim that it's somehow not relevant or deflect by flaming some other poster. But the empirical fact is that the rules do contain nearly the same effect as MWO on sensor spotting. Given the generally accepted fact that not all the rules can be slavishly copied into a realtime, first-person format, book-wavers then have to asnwer a question: By what standard do they determine which rules must be exactly copied for "authentic" BattleTech? I've yet to find one that even attempts the question.
#80
Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:45 PM
Vanguard319, on 23 January 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:
You make a fair enough arguement, I should have mentioned my Raven only has a top speed of 101 kph, 113 w speed tweak. (I traded max speed for improved defense, and maximum sensor range.) I am well aware that as a recon unit, I will be avoiding direct contact, but I do like to have cover fire in the event I have to make a tactical retreat. (say a strong guard is posted at my infiltration point.) I can understand where you are coming from as far as Coward's Ridge, especially in regards to the importance of manuevring in modern warfare. but from my own experience, moving over that ridge in force only works when your opponents aren't coordinated, if they have a strong defense in place, the force that charges over the ridge is liable to get decimated; Unless you are intimately familiar with the playstyles of the people on the opfor, you have to assume that they are competent. (underestimating your opponent is the worst thing a commander can do after all.)
Overall, cresting the ridge is generally a bad idea, due to the lack of cover, the fact that most mechs are not generally capable of "hull-down" manuevring, and the general assumption that the ridge is the most likely avenue from which your opponents will attack. I've actually seen rushes from the tunnel and Jenner alley that were highly successful because the other side didn't anticipate the possiblity of a massed attack from those directions.
And I do agree with you, anyone who thinks an Atlas is an effective missile boat deserves to be shot.
Don't worry; they will be. =) I seriously recommend that you consider upping your speed as a light chassis, though. Particularly with today's patch removing much (though not all) of the lag shields, you're going to see a lot of fast lights, so you'll need to be able to keep up with them in order to fight their specialized light hunters. If you do choose not to go that route, just tell the team your Raven is slow right now - if they have any brains they'll understand when you stick close to the team.
Edited by Void Angel, 23 January 2013 - 10:59 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users