Firestarter
12/30/14 01:07 PM
24.94.45.124
|
In the REMLAB mech maker you have the option for RAC 10 AND 20, only available to clans.
So I checked the Sarna wiki and found no such guns. Should I add them or not?
http://remlab.sourceforge.net/remlab30/mech.lab
|
Cray
12/31/14 11:53 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Don't add them. They're fan-made Clan weapons from the fanzine "MechForce UK," and were emphatically avoided when Clan RACs were considered for the game.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Firestarter
12/31/14 01:09 PM
24.94.45.124
|
Ok, but you have to admit they would be fun to mess around with.
No one can deny that.
|
TigerShark
01/04/15 01:50 AM
104.49.175.97
|
Fun for whom..? The expected tonnage is quite un-wieldly. And BV is flat-out incorrect in estimating their value on the field. It would literally be in the 600s per gun, if not more. But they're such "I win" guns, I think the developers flat-out avoided it 
Edited by TigerShark (01/04/15 01:51 AM)
|
TigerShark
01/04/15 01:56 AM
104.49.175.97
|
FYI, the RAC/10 would be 395 BV for the gun with a 4/8/12 range. The RAC/20 would be 710 at 3/6/9.
That's an average of 40 and 80 damage, respectively. That's... silly.
|
BobTheZombie
01/05/15 04:17 PM
184.63.115.89
|
I know that 10s and 20s were included in the MekTek stuff for MW4, but I don't remember them being any good...
|
ghostrider
01/05/15 09:23 PM
75.80.239.165
|
you mean there is a weapon that is good for defensive buildings that would make a mech warrior cry when they are ordered to assault it?
I can see why the developers would not want that in the game. No fun when you die quickly in a scenario.
|
Firestarter
01/06/15 12:51 AM
24.94.45.124
|
Yeah, basically you would have to take it down with LRMs or arti. I mean a RAC/20 would take like 120 points of standard armor off.
120!!! That is a metric -BLEEP- ton of damage.
(hehe see what I did there ^^^)
Yeah a RAC/20 would be WAY to OP.
|
ghostrider
01/06/15 12:30 PM
75.80.239.165
|
Almost certain death for a scout mech if it gets a high damage roll in the first combat round.
Technically 120 damage is 7.5 tons of armor gone. But that's being picky.
But it is funny when you think about it. The armor on alot of medium mechs almost stripped in less then 10 seconds. I guess they didn't want to come up with a table to see if the pilots have as heart attack and the out come from such actions.
But then they should have figured that out before introducing the rac, even though the 10 and 20 were not added. It would seem the logical advancement in future updates.
I would figure they should have some targeting problems, otherwise firing that many shots should mean a refiguring of the ultra cannon. If I remember, the recoil from firing the double shot is why you need to roll on the munitions that hit table. It would be crap to say the racs don't need it, but they fire most shots faster.
|
Firestarter
01/06/15 03:36 PM
24.94.45.124
|
But if it was real life we would definitely use a RAC/20 or RAC/10.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/07/15 03:18 AM
172.56.39.146
|
RAC10 or 20 would be way to powerful. Most but the most heavily armored assault mechs could be taken out in one round. As such you will never see it as cannon.
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
01/07/15 07:19 PM
75.80.239.165
|
I wonder if the developers thought about what happens when you extend the rac to include the 10 and 20 model. As I said, it would be a natural extension.
It would be like introducing a laser, but stopping at medium. The would not make any sense.
Look at all the variants of the ppc now. I guess someone didn't look into the future far enough to consider the problems.
I can see why they avoided adding it, but yet they still put in things like hardened armor. The drawbacks don't seem to offset the power it brings to the field.
I know they are trying to keep it new and fresh, but they are getting into things that are going to make it no fun to play. You need x weapons to damage y armor. Just sounds like more complications then needed, and yes I do believe some of the stuff I have suggested would do the same, so no hypocrocy.
I would think the plasma cannon would be more dangerous then what it is. Then again I still think lasers should hit line of sight, and do some damage. Even if it is just a single point.
Now if you are lucky(unlucky) depending on which end you are on, even the most normal armored units wouldn't survive. I want to say an Atlas almost dies when hit by 4 ac 20 shots to the front center torso. Full shots hitting that location would end the atlas's pilots day quickly. Not spread out it is bad, but allows them the change to curse, crap their pants and hopefully run.
|
KamikazeJohnson
01/08/15 04:03 AM
207.161.146.219
|
I don't see the RAC/10 and RAC/20 being that bad. Don't recall the exact specs for the RAC/2 and RAC/5, but IIRC, they are heavier/bulkier than the standard ACs, and also have shorter range, which, combined with ammo and heat considerations, weakens the heavier RACs considerably.
Consider the RAC/10. Call it 15 tons, 10 crits. At full rate of fire, you get less than 2 shots per ton of ammo, so you'd want to mount at least 6 tons of explosive death. Range of 4/8/12 means it's tough to get a prime shot. 18 heat for a full volley means limited supplemental weapons. Sure, averaging 4 hits at 10 points each is nasty, but a 3025 Awesome would probably be a greater threat under most circumstances.
Now the RAC/20...would be at least 18 tons, 14 crits? At full rate of fire...35 heat, and more than a full ton of ammo each round...you'd need what, 10 tons of ammo? Between the weapon, ammo, and DHS, it would pretty much be the only weapon. Range of 3/6/9, or possibly less? Very limited usefulness. Sure, you could take out pretty much anything with a single volley...IF you can get a shot...and your staying power would be severely limited. You might do well in a duel vs something with movement 3/5 or less, but anything faster than that with any range would tear you apart.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Firestarter
01/08/15 02:05 PM
24.94.45.124
|
I got the spec off of REMLAB, all the other stats are correct so I'm hoping that these are correct.
HEAT DAMAGE MIN RANGES TONS CRITS AMMO
Rotary AC/10 2 10 - 1-6 7-12 13-18 14.0 7 10
COST BV
350,000 250
Rotary AC/20 6 20 - 1-4 5-8 9-12 16.0 10 5 500,000 400
|
KamikazeJohnson
01/08/15 02:30 PM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
Firestarter writes:
I got the spec off of REMLAB, all the other stats are correct so I'm hoping that these are correct.
HEAT DAMAGE MIN RANGES TONS CRITS AMMO
Rotary AC/10 2 10 - 1-6 7-12 13-18 14.0 7 10
COST BV
350,000 250
Rotary AC/20 6 20 - 1-4 5-8 9-12 16.0 10 5 500,000 400
Ok...those are clearly Clan spec, whereas I was thinking IS.
Still, a couple oddities.
IIRC, the Clan UAC/10 was 3 heat/shot, not 2...could be wrong on that, sincecI rarely use Clam anything, but if I'm not wrong, the RAC should be the same heat/shot as the Ultra.
Tonnage: not too bad. I'd expect them to take up more crit space, particularly the 20.
Range is where I really have an issue. The IS RAC/2 and RAC/5 bith have reduced ranges relative to the base AC specs, while these have identical range to the UACs. It's not like the Clans had 300 years to improve on Star League tech here, they copied an IS innovation, they just had a superior base item (Clan UACs). So giving the RAC/10 range brackets of 5/10/15 woukd be expected. That would I would consider somewhat overpowered, especially since a Clan Heavy could probably mount 2 of them...
The RAC 20 is ridiculous with 4/8/12 range brackets, although heat and ammo supply would still be prohibitive.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Firestarter
01/08/15 02:39 PM
24.94.45.124
|
I didn't see any stats for IS RAC 10 ans 20s
|
Firestarter
01/08/15 02:40 PM
24.94.45.124
|
*and
|
Cray
01/08/15 06:18 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I wonder if the developers thought about what happens when you extend the rac to include the 10 and 20 model.
I said they did earlier in the thread.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
01/08/15 11:26 PM
75.80.239.165
|
Just curious, but why add in the 2 and 5 then? If they know where the logic leads, why even put it out there?
Guess putting one's hand in the fire isn't a big deal with developers.
This is for alot of games in general. They tend to kill their games getting bigger and badder with each new game.
Video games tend to do that alot. And once the player gets it, they have to come up with something more powerful. Fighting for your survival, I would think the innersphere would have started dropping nukes and such. Or at least one of the generals getting over run.
I will agree If they kept the ranges, the weapons are too powerful. Even the amount of damage is beyond sane. I would think they would start miniturizing capital weapons so they can fire at moving things like mechs and vehicles.
|
Karagin
01/09/15 01:35 PM
70.118.139.48
|
The same could be said of the normal autocannons, why did they stop at 20? Why didn't they keep going? Given how some of the weapons we see currently in the game via all the new stuff, I am not seeing Clan RACs as a bad thing, but like anything they can be abused.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Firestarter
01/09/15 07:07 PM
24.94.45.124
|
LOL That reminds me when I was 6.
I made an AC/200 and put it on a Summoner.
#LittleKidLogic
|
ghostrider
01/09/15 10:12 PM
75.80.239.165
|
Isn't that a naval 20 cannon?
Though I am guessing they stopped at 20 to avoid having anti capital ship weapons that could fire on advancing targets smaller then a drop ship.
Which makes me wonder why they didn't make clan grade capital weapons. I think clan snow raven would have done research into that despite the other clans thinking it useless. That would give the ravens even more of an advantage in space combat.
But back to the rac's. Still think they should have a firing penalty for aim. The kickback from firing so many rounds should throw off shots like the ultra does. Not just a jam.
|
Akalabeth
02/12/15 05:05 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I wonder if the developers thought about what happens when you extend the rac to include the 10 and 20 model. As I said, it would be a natural extension.
It would be like introducing a laser, but stopping at medium. The would not make any sense.
Look at all the variants of the ppc now. I guess someone didn't look into the future far enough to consider the problems.
I can see why they avoided adding it, but yet they still put in things like hardened armor. The drawbacks don't seem to offset the power it brings to the field.
I know they are trying to keep it new and fresh, but they are getting into things that are going to make it no fun to play. You need x weapons to damage y armor. Just sounds like more complications then needed, and yes I do believe some of the stuff I have suggested would do the same, so no hypocrocy.
I would think the plasma cannon would be more dangerous then what it is. Then again I still think lasers should hit line of sight, and do some damage. Even if it is just a single point.
Problem with battletech is not that new tech is introduced, the problem is that new tech is introduced which is designed to be roughly on par with the older stuff. Because while new stuff is created, they also want older technology and units to remain in circulation indefinitely. This means that the pool of technology is always increasing.
RAC/10 and RAC/20 sound like powerful weapons, but if armor actually advanced on par with weaponry then the amount of damage these two weapons could do would be proportionality less. Instead armour is effectively unchanged for 300 years of history. Only the Age of War era technology is completely outclassed. That and single heat sinks (in most circumstances).
Hardened Armour sounds like some advancement but it isn't. It causes a piloting penalty and all it does is allow you to buy twice as much armour as you normally would. So a Grand Turtle can take a huge amount of punishment but it also has the armament of a light mech so really is not that impressive.
There's one new type of armour I can't recall the name of which sounds like a straight improvement but it seems to be the only example.
Doesn't make any sense for example that, Clan LRMs have 0 minimum range and can fire indirect but so-called Advanced Tactical Missiles have both a minimum range and are unable to fire indirect.
Similarly, Heavy Lasers have a +1 penalty to fire. But Improved Heavy Lasers lose this penalty but instead explode like Gauss Rifles when hit. It's not improved, it's just trading one downside for another.
Either way take a modern tank and pit it up against a WW2 tank and the WW2 tank would get absolutely trashed. Take a 155mm or whatever the Abrams mounts and pit it against a Crusader I's 2pdr gun and the difference is obvious.
Yet in 3092 Clans created the Mongrel with an AC/5, same gun that was used on the Wolverine 300 years earlier.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mongrel_%28BattleMech%29
|
ghostrider
02/13/15 12:03 AM
76.89.120.217
|
Problem is, when you introduce powerful new weapons, then up the armor so they aren't as powerful, the old weapons become obsolete. It is a very harsh reality with games.
Ok, hardened armor. Don't have the rules for it, but it sounds like it prevents the normal 'thru armor critical' ie roll of 2 on the to hit locations table, This means you have to destroy the entire armor of the torsos to get a hit. Most of the games I have played ended up with one of those strikes being the deciding factor of a game, such as gyro hit or engine damage. You may not have dealt with this. On a vehicle if it prevents crits would be a tremendous advantage for the huge tanks. And handling double the damage sounds liek the loss of damage points isn't as bad as is sounds.
The lrms do 1 point of damage per missile hit. Srms do 2. Now if you can do 2 points at a range of 21, i would think not firing indirect isn't a loss. Honestly, the idf of lrms is out of proportion to artillery, and needs work.. As for a minimum range, ok, that might be an issue, if you have units moving to physical range. Now one side note is there is no difference between innersphere ammo for the lrm and clan ammo. Figure that out.
The heavy laser example is point of view. I would rather hit more often, and worry about explosions when armor gets breached. If it is like the gauss, I believe you can shut it down avoiding explosions, but means it is not functional. Yes, it is trading one downside for another, but usefullness is the key.
Now the issues with using weapons that are ancient is dependent on what you are using them for. A crossbow is still very effective against non armored targets. Amors have changed as well as what they are made of. Now the issue with using those guns comes down to another issue. The projectile used. It is just about the same thing that was used every since the gun was made popular. The 16 inch gun on a world war one battleship is the same one used today. The 30 mm chain gun on the a-10 still rips tanks apart today. Some weapons become obsolete, while others still remain effective.
Might be something to look into, is why some are dropped.
|
Akalabeth
02/13/15 01:01 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Problem is, when you introduce powerful new weapons, then up the armor so they aren't as powerful, the old weapons become obsolete. It is a very harsh reality with games.
Ok, hardened armor. Don't have the rules for it, but it sounds like it prevents the normal 'thru armor critical' ie roll of 2 on the to hit locations table,
No. It applies a -2 modifier to such critical chances but doesn't prevent them entirely. What it does prevent is specialty ammo from getting their crit chances (ie armor piercing autocannon ammo). Aside from that it also reduces the running speed and causes piloting penalties, so it has plenty of drawbacks.
Quote:
Now the issues with using weapons that are ancient is dependent on what you are using them for. A crossbow is still very effective against non armored targets. Amors have changed as well as what they are made of. Now the issue with using those guns comes down to another issue. The projectile used. It is just about the same thing that was used every since the gun was made popular. The 16 inch gun on a world war one battleship is the same one used today. The 30 mm chain gun on the a-10 still rips tanks apart today. Some weapons become obsolete, while others still remain effective.
Does it? Can an A-10 rip apart an M1 Abrams?: The M1 Abrams allegedly has foot-thick armour. Its own gun cannot penetrate its armour so why would a popgun from an a10?
16" Guns aren't used today. No battleships are in service. The entire class and the guns themselves are obsolete by anti-ship missiles and aircraft. Even if the exact gun from WW2 is still used, I imagine the ammo is different and if it is not it's because there's no need for it since it's only useful in bombardments.
Anyway, point is if you advocate realistic LoS laser ranges, you must also advocate realistic operational lifespans. And if that was the case, weapons and machines in BT would be taken out of service on a regular basis. Not upgraded indefinitely.
The only machines that are really taken out of service are the ones that the Devs don't like, notably Land-Air Mechs, Jump Tanks like the Kanga, etcetera. LAMs in particular were virtually erased from existence entirely until WoB introduced some new models.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/13/15 01:03 AM)
|
Retry
02/13/15 01:52 AM
76.7.225.145
|
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
Quote:
Now the issues with using weapons that are ancient is dependent on what you are using them for. A crossbow is still very effective against non armored targets. Amors have changed as well as what they are made of. Now the issue with using those guns comes down to another issue. The projectile used. It is just about the same thing that was used every since the gun was made popular. The 16 inch gun on a world war one battleship is the same one used today. The 30 mm chain gun on the a-10 still rips tanks apart today. Some weapons become obsolete, while others still remain effective.
Does it? Can an A-10 rip apart an M1 Abrams?: The M1 Abrams allegedly has foot-thick armour. Its own gun cannot penetrate its armour so why would a popgun from an a10?
I'm not sure if it's fair to compare the A-10 Chaingun's effectiveness against one of the best armored main battle tanks in the world. But yeah, it's not unfeasible that the A-10's GAU-8 Avenger can damage or even render a M1 Abrams disabled.
Firstly, the gun fires 70 rounds every second. These rounds are often going to be high-explosive or armor piercing. Whatever the case, one accurate strafe to the side of an Abrams will probably detonate a whole lot of it's Explosive Reactive Armor which is a significant component of the Abrams defense strategy, just due to the sheer number of shells making contact with it. With so many shells flying around, it's rather probable that numerous hits to the tracks or even the gun barrel itself will damage either component, both hits would render the M1 inoperable.
In addition, the M1 Abrams's armor isn't literally feet thick. The thickness given is in RHAe, Rolled Homogenous Armor Equivalency, which is an estimate for the armor's effectiveness. Basically, the M1's front armor is the equivalent of about 5 Tiger Is. This is at it's maximum, as side and rear armor values aren't given. Neither is the top armor value or the rear turret armor value. Basically, it's very likely that the GAU-8 will be hitting armor that's much thinner than you've been lead to believe.
The nearly 70mm penetration at 500 meters value given for the A-10 30mm cannon is before you take into account that the A-10 can fly at about 250 meters per second, adding that velocity to that of the cannon, increasing the shell's velocity and with it armor penentration.
Velocity is more important than caliber when it comes to armor penetration. The T-34/57 had more armor-piercing potential than the T-34/85. In fact, during the second world war smaller calibers tended to have significant piercing power, with the exception of the REALLY small stuff like 20mm and 37mm.
Either way, a A-10 Warthog's cannon would be intended for lighter tanks with less armor or soft targets such as trucks, not top-of-the-line MBTs. The missile carrying pylons are dedicated for the most extremely hardened targets such as those, as they should. Just because it can't bust every single tank in the universe doesn't make the GAU-8 less of a tank buster.
|
ghostrider
02/13/15 03:37 AM
76.89.120.217
|
Ok with that information, projecting into the 'future'... they had to redo alot of the considered normal weapons.
The re engineered laser. Makes me wonder why this didn't come out before the hardened and reflective armors. Not sure if it does more damage to normal armors either.
Would half think that was how the heavy laser came about.
Now I do have a question on the abrams example.
Does the armor hold off multiple runs on the same location?
I know people will say it's not possible to hit the same exact location, but my limited understanding of the armor is they are like plates on the tank. would like 3 strafes penetrate the armor? I am sure the government wouldn't release that info, but an educated guess might end this line...
|
Akalabeth
02/13/15 04:38 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
Either way, a A-10 Warthog's cannon would be intended for lighter tanks with less armor or soft targets such as trucks, not top-of-the-line MBTs. The missile carrying pylons are dedicated for the most extremely hardened targets such as those, as they should. Just because it can't bust every single tank in the universe doesn't make the GAU-8 less of a tank buster.
Yes but the point is that technology marches on. Armour advances. Guns advance. Etcetera.
The Hawker Hurricane had 40mm cannons for taking out tanks. Later, planes like the Typhoon had rockets and so forth. Then eventually we get the A-10 with gatling cannon and missiles, etcetera.
Weapons become more effective, units become outclassed and retired and so forth.
Another simple example from WW2 is the British Cromwell tank and the Centaur. They're the exact same tank, but when first introduced the engines weren't available so the Centaur got older Liberty engines and when the Cromwell came out it had the Meteor Engine. Same engine fit in the same chassis with same guns and armour but provided much greater speed.
Meanwhile the Crusader was relegated to an AA or training role. Tanks like the Valentine were refitted into Archer tank hunters and then withdrawn. Other tanks were relegated to training or scrapped altogether.
That to me illustrates one of drawbacks of battletech, this sense that most technology maintains a rough parity with what came before (aside from the clan weapons). Units and chassis are refitted over and over and are still in service hundreds of years past their expiry date. That combined with some of the conflicts not having any real impact on the political landscape helps give the impression of a static universe where things don't really change.
Personally I would have preferred for mechs and weaponry to have their day, get refitted a few times and then fade from the spotlight to be replaced by newer machines and technology. But I suppose that would alienate a lot of the fanbase and also be difficult to keep up with new models depending on how fast time passes.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/13/15 04:39 PM)
|
wolf_lord_30
02/14/15 12:01 AM
166.216.165.91
|
To me, it's hard to compare battletech to wwii. Technology stagnated and was lost during the different wars and the disappearance of Kerensky. It didn't start getting back on track until after the clans came back trying to restore the star league in their own way. Now I'm going off of memory here, so my timeline may be off, but then there was the marik civil war, some of the clans tried to push further into the inner sphere, clan jade falcon and clan wolf duked it out and became one eventually. Fed com civil war. In all of these instances, technology may have been trying to improve at some point, but disaster would strike and tear it all down again. They might have been working on a prototype, but heavy losses would cause them to manufacture the same mechs they are already producing. And certain industries would only produce a few mechs, not having the ability to work on creative projects or they would get demolished or stolen by another faction. Yes there are lots of worlds out there, but in this case, technology can only go so far with constant war. At least that's how I justify it for battletech. Honestly, and realistically, you may be right. War does cause advancements in weapons of destruction, but they already have huge metal behemoths, that seems really advanced to me,and game wise that can't happen and keep people like me happy who still love our 3025 mechs.
|
ghostrider
02/14/15 12:03 AM
76.89.120.217
|
I can see part of the problem as they use generic names for weapons. The mg for example might be upgraded regularly, but not change the name. The old ball and cap gun move to the old single fire winchester. Then it upgrades further.
Another part of the problem might be when you started playing Battletech.
The original box set had the story set just before a rennsaince of industry, where you were basically scrapping one damaged mech to try and fix several, as parts were not readily available. Since they started coming out with the other add ons, this changed. The valkyrie and hatchetman mechs were among the newest mechs made in close to 300 years from the fall of the starleague.
The upgrade came when the helm core was found, then the clans showed up. So without changing the tooling of factories, it was easier to change out weapon loads then do full redesigns, though the newer mechs coming out showed that still happened, but nothing like rebuilding say the archer from the ground up. Side note, It would suggest the developers wanted to avoid just upgrades of old mech so people would buy the tros.
Hell, some of the designs should have been scrapped long before the helm core came out, but they didn't have enough trained people to retool mech lines. The dervish mech might be a good example of that. Given a choice, not many people would take a dervish over almost any other mech. Especially if you have the stick with a medium mech. But you use what is given to you.
|
ghostrider
02/14/15 12:06 AM
76.89.120.217
|
This might be a good time to make a new thread if we are going to get off topic even more.
|
ghostrider
02/14/15 03:31 AM
76.89.120.217
|
The last post I did was during wolf lords post, so didn't get to read it.
I agree that it sounds completely stupid that each time the innersphere starts to get ahead, they lost alot yet again. That should mean everytime Germany got into a war, they would have to restart in the stone age.
Now not have the educated people to do alot of work would be an issue for research and repairs, but after a while you would stop allowing people the choice of becoming a car salesman when they have the intellect to design or repair the equipment. Some of the crap of well this scientist doesn't want to move from backwoods planet x would not be allowed.
This would be done in the do or die way of life the succession wars, especially the earlier ones, were.
Now wolf brought up something that it seemed the developers swept to the side. The limited number of mechs that could be made. It seemed to jump from barely any to thousands of mechs per year. Just the 4th succession war, the 3039 war, then the clans.
Without raids and such which is very common in that time, the mechs lost to those battles would have removed a sizable portion of the houses involved in the conflict.
On top of that, mercs would be purchasing units as well. Some how the kell hounds, grey death legion and a few other large merc were able to expand yet only a few hundred mechs spread across the innersphere we made. Liao have very heavy losses they seemed to make up quickly.
And please don't forget simple things like the lack of fusion engines stopped alot of production when trying to answer this.
|