Firestarter
07/24/15 12:04 AM
67.251.72.165
|
I feel like my post on top five favorite assault mechs kinda got off topic so I made a new thread.
I'm adding the previous conversation:
Donkey:
I dont really like the published assault mechs. They are heavy just to be heavy they did not really take all that much advantage of their size. I think that the writers did a FAR better job on the heavy class mechs than on the assault class of mechs.
Basically all of the assault class mechs would need to be modified either slightly or entirely to really be what an assault mech should be, something that would make one to need to change ones shorts when the assault mech comes within sight.
Ghost:
Heat is the biggest thing that seems to destroy the assault mechs ability to do much. Being slow doesn't help. A warhammer has good firepower compared to alot of the assault mechs. The armor is the main thing I can see, since I would take it over a Zeus or Banshee any day.
Interesting thought struck me with this one. Both mechs are lyran signature mechs and both are undergunned because of the movement.
The battlemaster is an issue with long range duels, even with maxed armor. In close it is tough to beat. I would think for the money, I would take the warhammer or marauder over it as well.
Retry:
Basically what Ghostrider said, the high heat murders IS tech level 1 assaults. The SHS tonnage adds up real quick, and the weapon packages you can equip usually generate lots of heat. The ones that don't generate significant amounts of heat (AC/2, AC/5) are just too heavy for their usefulness anyways.
KJ:
The Battlemaster gains an edge over the Mad and the Whammy with its heat control and much heavier armour. With the exception of highly unfavourable terrain, the Battlemaster obliterates either of them in a duel, possibly without even taking Internals, mainly because they don't have the heat control to sustain firepower while maintaining range. Once the Battlemaster gets inside 6 hexes, its over. In fact, against an inexperienced player, I'd take a Battlemaster against one of each and expect a reasonable chance of victory.
Things are different in a pitched battle. All three designs, if properly handled, should be able to play to their full strength.
Of course, the whole "for your money" is a key phrase. Owing to its larger engine, thr B-Master has a significantly higher price tag. However, with its greater durability, over multiple battles it should easily out-survive its cost in Whammies, thereby being the cheaper option in the long run.
Of course, the 75-ton Battlemaster would probably prove even more cost-effective.
|
ghostrider
07/24/15 02:02 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Sorry for jacking the thread.
To answer kj some, a 75 ton battlemaster would lose alot because of the lack of weight to have the massive armor with the shorter range firepower and sinks to use it.
I am not saying its a horrible design, just feel it lacks the long range firepower an assault almost needs to be a threat.
With the double heat sinks, that changes some of the perameters of the assaults. They can now actually use more smaller weapons in close, but it looks like more go with the ranged weapons. The speed seems to be why. Once close, you can not really get away. They take more punishment, but when you can't really score the big hits on the faster units, they tend to surround you and you tend to lose. Not saying it happens all the time, or that you are alone, but it is easier to have the faster ones get behind you and do some damage.
And I like assaults. I just agree they have issues that are hard to overcome when against an opponent that knows how to deal with them.
Might be the love of the ac 20. Don't know.
Edited by ghostrider (07/24/15 02:03 AM)
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/24/15 02:34 PM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
To answer kj some, a 75 ton battlemaster would lose alot because of the lack of weight to have the massive armor with the shorter range firepower and sinks to use it.
I am not saying its a horrible design, just feel it lacks the long range firepower an assault almost needs to be a threat.
Actually, you lose very little dropping the B-Master to 75 tons. Battlemaster carries 232 points of armour, max armour for 75 tons is 231. You save 10 tons combined on Engine, Gyro, and Structure by dropping the weight. All you lose is a few Internal Structure points, and reduced Physical Attack damage. Try it.
Quote:
With the double heat sinks, that changes some of the perameters of the assaults. They can now actually use more smaller weapons in close, but it looks like more go with the ranged weapons. The speed seems to be why. Once close, you can not really get away. They take more punishment, but when you can't really score the big hits on the faster units, they tend to surround you and you tend to lose. Not saying it happens all the time, or that you are alone, but it is easier to have the faster ones get behind you and do some damage.
And I like assaults. I just agree they have issues that are hard to overcome when against an opponent that knows how to deal with them.
Might be the love of the ac 20. Don't know.
Most of the canon Assault design gain by using DHS, then throw away those gains with ERPPCs and ER Large Lasers. Granted, the improved weapons are nice, but you end up with almost the same heat problems on a lot of designs. Plus, at 3 crits each, DHS can make it very difficult to mount enough, especially with crit space taken up by XL Engine, Endo Steel, and Ferro Fibrous Armour.
Whatever the tech level, balance is the key to building an effective Assault 'Mech. Tonnage, Speed, Heat, Firepower, Armour. If you're going to sacrifice one to increase another, you better make sure it's worth it.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/25/15 01:38 AM
207.161.146.219
|
Another set of points from me:
Assault 'Mechs are BIG. And EXPENSIVE. If a 'Mech is designed at 80 tons or more, its capabilities must justify the expense. So what advantages do Assault 'Mechs bring to the table?
1) Raw Tonnage. In theory, Assaults can mount more (and heavier) weapons than the other weight classes. If you're going to waste that tonnage on an oversized engine ('Mechs 85 tons or heavier have LESS spare tonnage with movement 4/6 than a 75-ton 'Mech mounting the same equipment), you'd better have a good reason for doing it. Otherwise, save the tonnage, move 3/5, and load it up with a boatload of blazing death, and armour plating a mile thick.
2) Max Armour capacity. The single most significant advantage of an Assault 'Mech. I'd happily trade a couple auxiliary weapons for an additional 3 tons of armour. If you're not going to mount more armour than a 75-tonner can carry, just build it at 75 tons.
3) Physical Attacks. Assault 'Mechs kick **** in this category. Literally. Able to rip a leg off many Medium 'Mechs (and go Internal on most Heavies) with a single kick, close quarters with these monsters is to be feared. OTOH, a pair of Medium Lasers are more useful than 3-4 extra points on a kick, unless you can land that kick a LOT. Equip a fast Assault 'Mech with weapons that complement a Grappling strategy. And for Bob's sake, if you're piloting one of these goons...USE IT AS INTENDED.
The original TRO:3025 states directly that "most early Assault 'Mechs simply emphasized tonnage." In other words, "yes, we know most of these suck."
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Retry
07/25/15 02:01 AM
76.7.237.17
|
Assaults work well as the spearheading force in a dropship drive. Mech Bays can carry battlemechs weighing up to 100 tons, but it can't carry, for example, two 50 tonners. Put mechs over 80 tons in these bays for the biggest bang for your buck, and when the landing zone is secured, unload your heavies, mediums, and lights from any generic cargo bay.
Honestly, I myself rarely work with assaults. 85 tons is about the edge of what I consider practical, past that and you need some specialization for its expenses. I've made 2 85 tonners, a 90 tonner, and a 100 tonner, with the 90 tonner I'm actually about to post being the most conventional of all of them, all of which are quads. Although, I have experimented making an energy boat 100 tonner utilizing a 400XL.(which was extremely expensive, obviously.)
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/25/15 02:20 AM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
Assaults work well as the spearheading force in a dropship drive. Mech Bays can carry battlemechs weighing up to 100 tons, but it can't carry, for example, two 50 tonners. Put mechs over 80 tons in these bays for the biggest bang for your buck, and when the landing zone is secured, unload your heavies, mediums, and lights from any generic cargo bay.
Honestly, I myself rarely work with assaults. 85 tons is about the edge of what I consider practical, past that and you need some specialization for its expenses. I've made 2 85 tonners, a 90 tonner, and a 100 tonner, with the 90 tonner I'm actually about to post being the most conventional of all of them, all of which are quads. Although, I have experimented making an energy boat 100 tonner utilizing a 400XL.(which was extremely expensive, obviously.)
XL Engines naturally change the whole nature of Assault 'Mechs...4/6 Movement with an XL Engine easily allows max armour, 12-15 DHS, and a heavy load of weapons, making them the best value of a scarce resource like a 'Mech Bay.
3025 era, however...I'd much rather have a Thunderbolt or a Grasshopper in that 'Mech bay than a Cyclops. Even an Atlas can be a poor "Beach head" choice, as its lack of mobility limits its effectiveness. A less potent but more versatile Orion might actually do a better job of securing the landing area and guarding the offloading 'Mechs.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Retry
07/25/15 02:52 AM
76.7.237.17
|
For establishing a beach head, poor mobility isn't a great factor. The goal is to neutralize immediate threats which will be close to your landing zone, and then defend the landing zone as equipment is unloaded, for which you don't have and don't want to move very far away. If mobility is absolutely necessary, one can get an 85 tonner with jump jets for the job.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/25/15 08:21 AM
71.170.164.190
|
I dont agree that an assault mech has to be heavy just to be heavy. Granted vast majority of the published ones are but that does not have to be the case. If you really think of what your doing when you design it an assault mech it can be the terror on the battle field that it should be when backed up with other mechs..
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
07/25/15 11:48 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Assault are good for static defense, especially guarding things that would allow fast reloading and not have to go that far. I agree with donkey on the heavy to be heavy. It is difficult to play them any other way though. Speed is the issue there. And most people with an assault mech will play keep away with an assault, since they would normally lose in a stand and shoot match. This is good when time is needed. The longer they take, the better for the defender.
And with mech forced into a static defense, ie protecting a camp or factory, the assaults tend to move the defenders out of the way by sheer staying power, except the over heat problems. But I guess how you use them is the key here.
Really. What would you prefer to see when you round the corner in the city? A locust or an atlas?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/25/15 10:04 PM
172.56.30.148
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Really. What would you prefer to see when you round the corner in the city? A locust or an atlas?
That depends, has the Atlas used up its AC-20 ammo?
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Retry
07/26/15 12:24 AM
76.7.237.17
|
Even if the Atlas is completely out of ammo for all systems, it packs a much deadlier punch on a far more durable platform than the Locust.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/26/15 03:11 AM
71.170.162.49
|
"IF" its within punching range and "IF" it hits. The above scenario stated you round a corner in a city and see it Ghostrider did not say that your within punching range of the mechs. It can be twenty or more hexes away and still have the above scenario be accurate.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
07/26/15 03:27 AM
76.89.121.69
|
The fact that the only energy weapons the atlas has it 2 forward firing lasers makes this kind of a wash. The 2 rear firing does help when you get behind it, but there are variants of the locust that can match this.
Now the lrms and srms make it a little more dangerous even without the ac 20 having ammo. Still almost as much armor on it as the locust weighs does give it some extra scare factor.
The physical range. Well hope you have some clean shorts.
|
RockJock
08/09/15 03:55 PM
70.173.233.84
|
One thing I think that is worth noting is the pre Star League Civil War era takes a different approach. You had a Thug over a Warhammer in SLDF units because you could. Better tech, plus more money to put into a design lets you have a design that is just better one on one then the lighter, more common version. A good example using only lvl 1 tech is the Hunchback versus the Victor. If you have the money to spend the Victor is a better mech. The Victor beats the Hunchy in all three categories of firepower, survivability and maneuverability really just because the SLDF could afford a heavier chassis. A similar example is a Stinger?Wasp versus a heavier Falcon, or even Ostol versus Flashman. I know the last two are not Assaults, but they are good examples of the bigger is better line of thought used in the era.
Basically, many of the Assault design flaws evaporate if you have the money to spend on them. Here is a lvl 1 example lance, with the assault replacement to the right.
Hunchback-Victor
Crusader-Shogun
Marauder-Marauder II
Thunderbolt-Battlemaster
I know this may not be fair because of the Dragoon machines in the mix, but if you have the lance on the left, and have the C-Bills for the one on the right instead, why would you not?
|
Retry
08/09/15 05:51 PM
76.7.232.58
|
Simple. Mobility is a thing. Only one canon assault mech has really good mobility that I know of, and that is the Charger. To get good mobility out of an assault mech while retaining useful armor and weapons you need to custom-make it.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/10/15 07:33 AM
71.170.162.49
|
Rockjack
The
Hunchback 50 tons
Crusader 65 tons
Marauder 75 tons
Thunderbolt 65 tons
are not assault mechs. Your comparing apples to oranges.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
RockJock
08/10/15 12:02 PM
70.173.233.84
|
My point was why you use assaults.
|
ghostrider
08/10/15 12:33 PM
76.89.121.69
|
I love using assaults because of the fights I have been in. They were slugfests, not the maneuvering fights alot of the others do. I very much understand the simple fact, you can not destroy something if you can not hit them. A well played lance of mobile medium mechs could very well take down a lance of assault mechs if you have the mobility to hit and run.
Armor favors the assaults, but the weapons packages are close to the same on the mechs you put up as an example. Actually the assaults have more mobility as the marauder 2, Victor, and I believe the shogun as well have jets. Otherwise the speeds are the same. The tbolt has the lrms, and the battle masters ppc create a small range issue, but in the end, I think the ppc would win out over the lrms/large laser combinations. But that is more due to armor and not running out of ammo.
Why not compare your assault lance to say, a lance of griffins or something else? Say something that can move faster then 4 for a walk? I know you tried to keep move and weapons close, which only shows the armor factor. Mobility can more then nullify the armor factor.
Use of assaults when in equal numbers to the other mechs tends to win out, but not when you are limited in time. They are slow, and when you need to be in and out, even most heavies are a liability. The cost and resources put into them can be an issue as well. They are great for alot of applications, but are not the end all of everything.
|
RockJock
08/10/15 07:28 PM
70.173.233.84
|
The issue to me is what is the limiting factor/resource that you are judging? Trained pilots? Transportation? C-Bills? Set/Limited factory output?
I used the examples I did because the Assaults I listed are, in my opinion, significantly better then the mechs they would replace in a lance. Are they worth the C-Bills diffrence? Probably not, but if funds are not a limiting fator and say transportation or pilots is, then the Assault make the obvious choice.
If you need mobilty above say 4/6 or 3/5/3 then assualts don't work for your needs in the 3020s, granted a good chuck of heavies and even mediums can't muster much more.
|
ghostrider
08/10/15 10:53 PM
76.89.121.69
|
I would agree that not having limited funds, the assault last alot longer in static battles. The equal amount of assault verse other units, the assault should win in even skilled units. Granted a mobile pot shot battle might show the speed can be an issue.
Would I take a marauder 2 over a normal one? Hell yeah. But it does have it's limited one what you can do with it. The jets gives it a greater threat factor then the normal one. The large laser removes part of the minimum range issue as well.
If you use funds in a game, then the only way to get an assault is take it down and rebuild it. But given this game does not really base units off money unless you are a merc, it removes a large portion of why use something lighter.
If time isn't a problem, then a battalion of assault verse a battalion of other mechs, I would definitely take the assaults. But they can be brought down by a skilled commander, not necessarily better skilled pilots. Needing a nine to hit the assault verse their needing 12s means I will take the shot. I will hit more often, and baring the critical hits, in the end, I would win against them. You might have more to bear against me, but range is part of the key. Also, firing alot of the heavier weapons loads means overheating, and it takes the one turn away from you. Also with things like the shogun, running out of ammo is more likely if you are potshotting the enemy.
Now this board is very famous for ammo conservation and honestly, the victor would be one of the first 2 mechs to take out. The other would be the shogun. The lrms are the think with the long distance battles.
Yes, the lances are set up with like weapons and speed so the same could be said about the hunchback and crusader.
|
RockJock
08/11/15 01:36 AM
70.173.233.84
|
In the end, the long range firepower of the two lances comes down to a LRM 15 and AC/5 versus 2 more PPCs, and I would take the PPCs and extra armor tonnage for the win. The Victor will also last a lot longer then the Hunchy in an even situation.
Obviously, Assaults don't work for recon/scouting unless you are breaking out into the XL powered eras, but in any 4/6 or slower role they are more expensive, but can work well.
|
ghostrider
08/11/15 04:11 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Honestly, I would take a panther over the victor in a mostly open terrain battle.
But to really sound silly, I would take a talon mech to fight against the assaults in an open field.
Their speed and ppcs would make the assault pilots have nightmares. But I think they use xls, so wouldn't be a good comparison.
|
RockJock
08/11/15 03:11 PM
70.173.233.84
|
One on one with little terrain the Panther has an advantage versus the Victor, or any other short range mech. In their assigned role as urban defense I would take the Victor for a single battle. How does the Panther fair against a Shogun, Marauder II, Zeus, or Battlemaster? The Panther is slightly more nimble then each, but the firepower/armor difference is huge.
A Talon versus a Spartan would be a bit closer based on tech and to a degree even roles. Speed versus durability.
I would very rarely want a force of all assaults outside an actual direct assault mission. That being said, heavier units that do the same job have advantages. If I'm "in game", have the funds, and need to fill a slot for a nimble mech with a backbone I may or may not go with a Victor based on the rest of the unit, but I'll definitely go with a Grasshopper 5N over the Panther.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
2 registered and 122 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 9230
|
|
|
|
|
|
|