Karagin
02/08/05 05:58 PM
65.133.242.13
|
Okay let's comapre the 3025 Longbow (not the Project Phoniex versions) to the 3025 Stalker. All variants of that time frame can be considered for these mechs.
What makes getting one better versues the other one? Let's here your thoughts on why.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
02/08/05 06:32 PM
216.14.192.234
|
In personal preference I would look at the Stalker over the Longbow though I can see several advantages of the Longbow over it.
The Longbow (through both name and weapon loadout) is effectively a indirect or at the back mech, which is not designed for the long haul. At 85 tons you would need the mech to fire more than 12 volleys (which its heat sinks can handle with ease) before becoming useless. Sure the Stalker only has 12 shots with its LRMs but by then it would be mixing it up with the opposition slow units and carving them a new armour layout.
Technical problems include the complete lack of up-close firepower, the placing of LRM5 ammo in the CT and no short-ranged weapons for rear protection (either in the arms or back like the Archer).
Technical problems for the Stalker include poor back armour and nowhere near enough heat sinks to demolish enemy units. What the Stalker provides in spades though is rear protection weapons (flipping arms) and the ability to configure range-brackets/weapon damage to fight the good fight.
Unless the force you are using is company-sized or bigger the stalker will always be more of an asset than the longbow in my opinion. In 3058 they overcame this up-close problem ... by a fair margin too 
Perhaps if they had done something instead of adding those pair of LRM5s (Large Laser in the CT perhaps like the Upgrade) then I would look more favourably on the mech. Unfortunately you end up spending assets trying to protect the unit rather than using them on the enemy, unlike the stalker which can fight at any range.
|
Nightward
02/08/05 06:34 PM
203.214.145.59
|
The Stalker is the better of the two.
Longbows work well as support units, but they need a bodyguard to protect them up close. A Stalker can inflict serious damage at any range, and most people will be reluctant to chance closing with it, since it features dual Large Lasers, quad Medium Lasers, and a pair of SRM-6s for crit seeking.
Both move at 3/5, but the Longbow has much weaker armour than the Stalker. Since they cannot generate much in the way of a movement modifier (being at the break even point for movement), they must rely on armour alone for protection.
In a standup fight, the Stalker is evidently the superior choice.
However, a Longbow deployed solely for missile support, hidden away and firing indirectly, is nothing to be sneered at, either.
But then, if I were simplyafter fire support, I would take an Archer.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Greyslayer
02/08/05 07:01 PM
216.14.192.234
|
If I was purely after fire-support I would take a tank  .
Heavy LRM Carrier 80 tons 4 LRM20s in a turret... hmmmmmm
or perhaps the Partisan LRM Variant etc etc
|
Nightward
02/08/05 07:15 PM
203.214.145.59
|
Well, missile support on a 'Mech, any way.
I've always had a soft spot for Archers. Archers, Marauders, Shadow Hawks, and Wolf Hounds.
Only problem with tanks is the ridiculous chance of blowing them away on a hit location and their vulnerability to fire. As you know, I'm an Inferno junkie...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Greyslayer
02/08/05 07:23 PM
216.14.192.234
|
Quote:
Only problem with tanks is the ridiculous chance of blowing them away on a hit location and their vulnerability to fire. As you know, I'm an Inferno junkie...
Well if you look at it from a C-Bills perspective then you really are only losing a few million C-Bills compared to several million for a large mech .
Heavy LRM Carrier 2.94 million C-Bills
LRM Carrier 1.87 million C-Bills
Archer ARC-2R 6.38 million C-Bills
|
Nightward
02/08/05 08:57 PM
203.214.146.164
|
OTOH, 'Mechs are more durable and can cover mor terrain types. It comes down to whether or not you intend to expose your fire-support units to heavy enemy fire or not, and how much of a risk you're willing to take with them.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
chez
02/08/05 10:48 PM
62.173.81.122
|
A strange question to ask as I can only see one role where the longbow outdoes the stalker (indirect bombardment). The stalker seems a much more rounded weapons platform whilst the longbow is just asking for something quick yet punchy (maybe a Jenner) to get inside LRM range and then go to work.
Truth be told I have never seen a longbow in a game situation but my lasting memory of the stalker is meeting one on a cold world (heat sinks count as double). How the GM laughed as he told us he could still generate heat.
I also remember a variant that removed the LRM 10s for another large laser, some heat sinks and armour, lethal once in range.
If only the longbow did something a bit more useful with the tonnage it spends on the LRM5s but I concede that could turn it into an 85 ton Archer.
chez
"In order to stab someone in the back it is first necessary to get right behind them" Sir Humphrey Appleby
|
Greyslayer
02/08/05 10:58 PM
216.14.192.234
|
Obviously you are talking of a custom 3025 stalker. The other variants are:
Remove 1 LRM10 and 1ton LRM10 ammo for 6 heat sinks
or
Remove LRM10s and Large Lasers and Add LRM20s each only with 1 ton ammo.
|
chez
02/09/05 12:45 AM
62.173.81.122
|
Yeah , it was a custom variant.
Wasn't there a PPC variant as well? (Apart from my books at the moment)
chez
"In order to stab someone in the back it is first necessary to get right behind them" Sir Humphrey Appleby
|
Greyslayer
02/09/05 05:11 PM
216.14.192.234
|
Quote:
Wasn't there a PPC variant as well? (Apart from my books at the moment)
Later, Davion released a version which isn't truly a Stalker (more like a 85ton slow Warhammer). ER PPCs a few pulse and couple of Streak 4s and Targeting Comp. Since I don't purchase more recent books I don't have the sheets if any level 1 technology versions exist from that time.
|
Nightward
02/09/05 06:34 PM
203.214.144.177
|
That one's in RS: U.
A nastier Stalker would be one that traded the SRMs down for LRM-15s, armour, and some extra heat sinks, IMO.
There's also one ridiculous 3025 variant that removes the dual Large Lasers. The fluff from TR: 3025 said that the internal structure of Stalkers was too stressed by the weight of the weapons and armour on board.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
chez
02/11/05 12:17 PM
62.173.81.122
|
I know we have just discussed the merits and demerits of these two designs but fundamentally I feel both machines I would never use myself. The main reason is they are just too damn slow and end up being walking pillboxes.
BT is "armoured warfare in the 31st century" and the current mission statement of the US armoured corps goes something like:-
"to destroy the enemy through fire , maneouver and shock effect" (apologies now for what is certainly a misquote but the last 6 words are correct)
I don't doubt the firepower of assault mechs or the shock effect of 85tons of nasty strolling around the battlefield however the maneouver part at 3\5 is pretty redundant. So to throw away one third of your mission statement before getting near a battlefield is not how I perceive armoured warfare.
I can see a use for 3\5 assaults but they are for "bruiser" situations where you accept that you are going to be hit and hit often but you must keep grinding forward to achieve an objective. if that is the case I would rather be 100tons with more armour and more weaponry as size\profile doesn't come into the "to hit" equation, only movement.
As a commander , if you are reduced to that sort of "bruiser" assault then you have failed. I believe the US Army tells it's officers " if it's a fair fight you haven't done your job right". Having to walk several million C-Bills worth of ponderously slow equipment into withering fire probably falls into this category.
Of course this is extrapolating 21st century thinking into 31st century thinking so could quite easily be a load of donkey's nadgers but it is my opinion and I am entitled to it (and will throw my toys out of the pram if anyone disagrees)   
chez
"In order to stab someone in the back it is first necessary to get right behind them" Sir Humphrey Appleby
|
Nightward
02/11/05 06:04 PM
203.214.144.234
|
The Stalker was introduced during the Reunification War and was built to assualt fortified enemy positions. It's an SLDF machine, and the most common Assualt 'Mech ever built.
It performs that role admirably well, but the value of the 'Mech itself depends on the setup of the mission or tournament at hand. If you're spending 85 tons on something, it may as well be a Stalker- probably the LRM-20 variant-since the other options at 85 tons (BLR, ZEU) are not as dangerous.
The BLR falls down because of lack of weaponry; the ZEU falls down because of a lack of armour and ammo.
Ultimately, it depends on what you need to do and why. Missile support belongs to the Longbow, so long as you can bodyguard it. But in an open-field encounter (ie, not much terrain), the Stalker would be a frightening proposition to confront, since it has so many options and weapons available.
It can play the range game and whittle people down with the LRMs, it can dominate the long-to-medium bracket with the dual Large Lasers and LRMs, then it can close in to deliver the killer blow with the Medium Laser and SRM battery.
Flipping arms, heavy armour, and massive firepower also make Stalker dangerous in cities with longer streets.
The Stalker and Longbow are both ultimately better viewed through the lens of the 3025 designs, because later 'Mechs certainly do their jobs better.
Hell, look at the Viking- at just 10 tons heavier than the Longbow it utterly shames that 'Mech for fire support duties...
As for "mobile warfare", it doesn't really work that way at a large scale for BT. Individual engagements, yes, but on a strategic and operational level, the main tactic of BT is "attack in force, make the enemy react".
Besides, the US's current tactics fly in the face of their stated mission goals, so using them as an example...ain't so great.
The Australian SAS has a much more workable motto: "Who dares, wins."
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Greyslayer
02/11/05 06:15 PM
216.14.192.234
|
I was going to post a long-winded post into the advantages and disadvantages of 3/5 movers, but after going through most of it I found the information would be a waste without looking at the base of your post:
US Military Tactical Doctrine, why is this here? 10:1 ratio with a far higher technology advantage is not battletech, either that or have all troops 5/6 believing they are 0/0 .
|
Nightward
02/11/05 07:20 PM
203.214.144.234
|
5/6?
More like 7/8. The US couldn't even find our Collins-Class, and one of their anti-sub Destroyers got schooled because of it.
n008s.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Wraith
02/11/05 07:40 PM
129.101.55.124
|
Knocking the US armed forces is a good way to start a flame war, and is not very relevant to the discussion of Longbow vs Stalker.
-Wraith
|
Nightward
02/11/05 08:12 PM
203.214.144.234
|
Except that Chez stated he wanted to "use the US military's ethos". The US military doesn't even use its own "ethos".
The incident I'm referring to is the Collins-Class Submarine, in use by Her Majesty's Royal Australian navy. This is widely accepted to be the WORST SUBMARINE EVAR, and can be more or less be detected by senile deaf people without SONAR.
The US Destroyer was assigned the task of hunting down and taking out the Collins, but were comprehensively OWNED when the Australian vessel lay in wait for the destroyer. The American vessel was touted to be the most capable vessel of its type, crewed by the best possible personnel.
Having the best toys and overhwelming numbers does not make for the best possible military. Royal Australian Armed Forces units routinely operate with equipment that is dated by modern standards, yet we consistently outperform the Americans during training excercises and combat deployment.
Our SAS were amongst the first into Afghanistan and Iraq, saw some of the heaviest combat, and yet reurned with minor casualities and, IIRC, no deaths (I believe they lost one trooper in Iraq).
Our F-111s are still in service, and have been used to demonstrate the inadequacies of more modern Bomber aircraft and training regimes in the US.
During Vietnam, our troops were not rotated out as were US forces. Further, the Viet Cong referred to Australian troops as "Mah Hrung"- Forest Spirits.
That is the point at hand. "Largest and best-equipped" military does not automatically with "the best available". Tactical ability, skill level, morale, support, and a whole host of other factors are vitally important.
Nobody will ever out-do the Romans and Spartans for military ability in the forseeable future.
Chez's "ethos" is far more in line with our military doctrine.
See this link:
http://d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Greyslayer
02/11/05 08:28 PM
216.14.192.234
|
For the record it has been known for Larger armies to suffer serious competency issues. The Chinese Army is by far the largest and quite ordinary per member. Still the ratio of troops would more than make up for this in this issue.
|
Nightward
02/11/05 08:32 PM
203.214.144.234
|
Ditto Indonesia. I keep hearing that if they decided to invade us, we would run out of ammo before being able to fend them off.
I'm unsure as to the veracity of that anecdote, but the RADF would be hard-pressed to defend our shores by themselves, and the Reseres aren't huge, either.
OTOH, the modern field doesn't call for big massive armies often, either.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Greyslayer
02/11/05 08:49 PM
216.14.192.234
|
'OTOH, the modern field doesn't call for big massive armies often, either. '
Defensively it does. A small army defending many objectives would lose far more easily than even a fairly ordinary army that is huge.
Offensively a large army usually has large Armoured, VTOL and Air Force as well as Navy. These can certainly be handy in an assault.
To give you a real life example was when I was doing vehicle recognition.
Instructor: This is a T-72, distinctive due to these features *censored*
Instructor: This is a T-80, if you see this tank you have just gotten past a division of T-72s.
Now Australia has 1 Regiment of tanks, is that enough to take out a division of T-72s? Even a regiment of the latest equipment would struggle and the russians back then had several divisions. Numbers are handy as you can see .
|
Nightward
02/11/05 08:52 PM
203.214.144.234
|
Yes, but numbers don't always carry the day, either. See Alexander The Great.
There's always something you can do to even the score. Merely posessing one or two advantages doesn't automatically give you victory, but it's an assumption I see all the time- especially when people talk about the US' armed forces.
A bit too much Jongoism, propaganda, and parochialism, methinks.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Greyslayer
02/11/05 10:00 PM
216.14.192.234
|
Quote:
A bit too much Jongoism, propaganda, and parochialism, methinks.
This also, though, leads to another important aspect. This is morale. A good morale to me is reinforced through being patriotic which leads to being parochial. Propaganda helps maintain or take away from this (depending on the side using it).
All this of course has nothing to do with the question except you would have to wonder of the morale of a light unit attacking a Stalker
|
Karagin
02/11/05 10:38 PM
65.129.222.37
|
Guys let's get back on topic please.
Thanks.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
chez
02/12/05 11:04 AM
62.173.81.122
|
First of all I would like to point out that I am English and it is no secret that man for man the British Army is without question the best army in the world (well done Carruthers!)
So when I touted the US Armoured's mission statement I was not doing so out of some misplaced patriotic jingoism but because I believe "by fire manoeuver and shock effect" best sum up the way to plan an armoured assault.
What US Navy ships and HMAS Submarines have to do with anything I don't know 
The Australian SAS good as it is , is a copy of the SAS (a British unit) hence the need to differentiate by adding the prefix "Australian".
The SAS has the motto "Who dares , wins" and I believe it's beginnings were in North Africa in WW2 under a man called David Stirling hence the SAS's barracks in Hereford called Stirling Lines.I think the Aussie SAS were a splinter group after the war.
The rest of your post was just US bashing. It's not big and it's not clever.
To get back on track
" This is a T-80 , if you see this tank you have just gotten past a division of T-72s"
The key words are "gotten past" - the best way to get past a division of T-72's would be to out-manouever them. You'd better be big, mean, nasty and prepared to take casualties if you want to go through them.
And crucially a really good manoeuver is performed at speed and a Stalker at 3\5 is just about the slowest thing around and therefore will outmaneouver almost nothing. Ta-dah QED etc
The only reason these monstrosities exist at all is that there are no one-shot-one-kill weapons in BT due to BT's magic armour (Cray's words)
As for "Guys lets get back on topic please"
Karagin - you posted the original question and then have taken no further part in the debate. As far as I am concerned everything else is just thread drift and justified
raargh, come on ,get some 
yours belligerently,
chez
"In order to stab someone in the back it is first necessary to get right behind them" Sir Humphrey Appleby
|
Greyslayer
02/12/05 05:36 PM
203.61.73.27
|
Quote:
First of all I would like to point out that I am English and it is no secret that man for man the British Army is without question the best army in the world (well done Carruthers!)
So when I touted the US Armoured's mission statement I was not doing so out of some misplaced patriotic jingoism but because I believe "by fire manoeuver and shock effect" best sum up the way to plan an armoured assault.
Again, this doesn't necessarily work in Battletech. Perhaps basic 'Armoured' tactics of Pin and Hook work within this game but it wasn't designed with the scope of working the same as it does in real life. If you wanted fast units to strike a spot you have hovercraft, vtols, aerospace and aerodyne dropships. Mechs just don't measure up to the same level here. As a comparison to assault mechs they do but how are light mechs going to go against striking an armoured position? They will get chewed up and spat out. At least units that have the armour and firepower to strike back would be doing something.
Quote:
What US Navy ships and HMAS Submarines have to do with anything I don't know
Because Nightward is/was always a civvie, as such the less newsworthy articles about say our special forces vs their best where the aussies walked in completed their objective and returned to their lines before the yanks realised what happened isn't plastered up on page 4 even of the local newspapers.
Quote:
The Australian SAS good as it is , is a copy of the SAS (a British unit) hence the need to differentiate by adding the prefix "Australian".
The SAS has the motto "Who dares , wins" and I believe it's beginnings were in North Africa in WW2 under a man called David Stirling hence the SAS's barracks in Hereford called Stirling Lines.I think the Aussie SAS were a splinter group after the war.
Wouldn't matter which SAS you would talk about. Both are exceptional units. I'm not sure the last time these units went head to head to see which is better, but I doubt it is often as they would need to train new personnel afterwards as both sides would play 'for keeps'. They are certainly hard nuts to crack. Mind you, from experience our reservist 'commandos' I saw in 1992 made me laugh, most came back sick from a simple black hawk ride *shakes head*.
Quote:
The key words are "gotten past" - the best way to get past a division of T-72's would be to out-manouever them. You'd better be big, mean, nasty and prepared to take casualties if you want to go through them.
Its all well and good to say this but being fast doesn't necessarily get you around a 'roadblock' this size. Considering they outnumber you this much by tanks the same would probably exist with the other aspects of the fight (vtols, infantry and fighters). Also remember it takes far less men to monitor than it does to hold ground. Recon assets of a T-72 division can cover a massive area and just being fast doesn't mean you can find them, generally they will find you.
Quote:
And crucially a really good manoeuver is performed at speed and a Stalker at 3\5 is just about the slowest thing around and therefore will outmaneouver almost nothing. Ta-dah QED etc
The only reason these monstrosities exist at all is that there are no one-shot-one-kill weapons in BT due to BT's magic armour (Cray's words)
The Stalker doesn't need to manouver if in a firefight. Which is the whole point of its weapon loadout. Also there are weapons which pretty much become 'mech killers' for lights, there is a reason they are generally used as recon mechs not light assault or light attack mechs.
Quote:
As for "Guys lets get back on topic please"
Karagin - you posted the original question and then have taken no further part in the debate. As far as I am concerned everything else is just thread drift and justified
So lets see are you saying that you were allowed to say about American military doctrine, but if that was beaten down then we were not? Don't mention it unless you are prepared to defend your statements or conceed you overstepped by mentioning it.
No wonder you poms haven't won the ashes since '89. Extremely Evil Grin
|
Nightward
02/12/05 08:17 PM
203.214.146.94
|
BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(And on a lighter note, my spelling sucks. "Jongoism?" WTF? Jingoism, maybe...)
But to return to the topic at hand- the Stalker's speed is sufficient for it to bring its weapons to bear. 3/5 is plenty for it to cover a mapsheet or so (which is all an Assualt should be moving unless it's a Sagittaire or an all-out brawler like the Berzerker) and bring its 21/15/9 weapons brackets into play. All it really needs to do is set up on elevation at or near the middle of the field, because from there no escape exists.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
villagereaver
03/09/05 04:35 PM
24.21.141.201
|
The Stalker would crush the Longbow about 85% of the time. At least until it became lance on lance. BTW has anyone else noticed that the Staler resembles an, err, NM?
Yay first post!
Death to all BT and MW authors. For they are the bane of all that is good about the genre!
|
NileIngrams
03/12/05 08:44 PM
144.138.219.19
|
well... Back to Stalker vs. Longbow
Let's qualifiy it a bit -
STK-3F vs LGB-7Q
I don't want to sound critical, but the STK-3F is a Line Assault Unit, while the LGB-7Q is an
atypical support Assault. It's like comparinig Chalk and Cheese. The Stalker is made to
"Close in for the Kill" while the Longbow is destined to keep "at a distance" while others carry
the fight closer to the enemy.
Here are two example lances that shows units that would mesh well with the two mechs in question -
and at roughly the same BV, it would be a fair and close fight (Also, all pilots are 4/5).
Stalker : STK-3F, ARC-2R,WHM-6R, BLR-1G - 4459 BV
LGB-7Q: LGB-7Q,GHR-5H,MAD-3R, CN9-DB - 4454 BV
NileIngrams NI! - The Killer of Threads!
In the time before the return of the heirs of Kerensky,
when the Successor Lords had tired of bathing worlds in Nuclear Madness,
there was an age of High Adventure!
|
Brandx0
03/13/05 06:24 PM
24.207.43.89
|
Just for the record, BV isn't exactly very good at determining a balanced fight. In this case I think the stalker lance would fare better
|
Nightward
03/13/05 07:32 PM
132.234.251.211
|
Depends on the size of the maps and the terrain. Longbow can walk back 3, so they might be able to swing it.
My money would sill be on the Stalkers, though.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|