8 replies to this topic

[Skribs]

The alternate title for this thread would have been: why buy a model that is rendered obsolete by other available options? Please note that in this thread I'm not looking at stock mechs, but rather what a mech has the potential to become based on the hardpoints (including locations), potential for JJ/ECM, number of modules, torso/arm twist/pitch, and any other factors that would differentiate the model from another within the same chassis.

I've been looking through the models lately, and noticed that there are a lot of options out there that have very similar hardpoint loadouts, except one mech drops one or two hardpoints (without moving them around or gaining any in return). Sometimes this accompanies the ability to put in a bigger engine, or a greater degree of pitch/twist with the torso and/or arms, an extra module slot or two (in comparison), or some other bonus to make it worthwhile if you desire that particular bonus.

However, two models stand out to me as particularly redundant: the Stalker 3H and 4N. Compared to the 3F or 5S, they have less hardpoints. The "better" two have 4 missiles and 6 energy, the 3H drops 2 energy slots and the 4N drops one missile slot. In addition, they give up the extra twist of the 3F and the extra AMS slot (if so desired) from the 5S.

I'm trying to figure out why these two models would be a better choice than the others. If your build only includes 3 LRMs and 4 medium lasers, you can do those builds with no penalty on a 3F. However, if you decide you want to add an extra medium laser and a SRM6 to help with your short game, you can't do that unless you're on a 3F or 5S (or, in this scenario, a 5M).

Is there any reason to pick what I consider the lesser models? Or are these thoroughly redundant?

[GeorgieBoy39]

The 3F has the potential to be a better LRM boat because there are more missle tubes on the arms (20) but the 4N is actually completely obsolete

[Skribs]

How much difference does that really make?

[BGrey]

Skribs, on 25 February 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

How much difference does that really make?

I quite like my 3H, for some reason people dont seem as concerned when its only one blob of LRMs flying at you, by the time they realize its 40 LRMs guided by artemis they are usually in trouble. Firing in one volley also reduces the cycle time as it otherwise doesnt start the reload until all of the missiles have been fired in however many volleys that would take.

The build I have been using is basically the stock setup (2xLRM20, 4xML, 2xSRM6) with one ML switched to a TAG and the frame upgraded with endo/DHS/artemis.

The 4N however is absolutely pointless with nothing that sets it apart from the other stalkers except its missing missile hardpoint.

[Skribs]

Interesting, didn't think about the recycle vs. firing duration bit.

Most of the sites I look at don't discuss how many missile ports there are for each chassis. Is there somewhere I can find this information better laid out?

[BGrey]

Skribs, on 25 February 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Interesting, didn't think about the recycle vs. firing duration bit.

Most of the sites I look at don't discuss how many missile ports there are for each chassis. Is there somewhere I can find this information better laid out?

Its listed for the specific mechs next to the hardpoint numbers at http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab, not sure about anywhere else. The other arguement for firing in one volley is the effect of AMS, if your LRM20 is strung out in 3 groups then AMS has more time to shoot down missiles.

[Krazy Kat]

From a previous post:

3F + Better torso twist than all other variants. Big plus.
- None.

3H + 20 missile tubes in arms. Can fire 2 LRM20's in a single volley.
- No energy hard points in side torsos.

4N + Command console (useless at the moment.) Might be useful in the future.
- One less missle hardpoint in left arm.

5M + Replace 2 side torso energy hard points with 1 CT hard point. Better for zombie.
+ add a 5th missile slot to left torso but it only has only 1 tube.
- One less energy hardpoint. And CT hardpoint can't be PPC.

5S + Double AMS. Not sure how useful that is.
- Expensive. If you drop the XL engine then it was a waste of cbills.

[BGrey]

Krazy Kat, on 25 February 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

5M
+ add a 5th missile slot to left torso but it only has only 1 tube.

The one tube part doesnt really matter since any launcher uses the total number of tubes in the location, the left torso can fire 7 missiles at once instead of the 6 that the right torso fires. I think that the hardpoints used to be assigned to their set of tubes at some point but that was before I played, but as it stands 2 SRM6 in the left torso with 7 total tubes will still fire in one salvo (instead of one SRM firing the full volley and the other shooting one missile at a time through the narc tube).

[Skribs]

Of course, if you're doing a LRM boat with a bunch of LRMs, would it make a difference whether the arms are doing 20 or 10? The 6 holes on the torsos would slow your fire anyway. Now if you do 2 LRM 20s and 2 SRM 6s...