ghostrider
02/09/17 11:26 PM
66.74.61.223
|
I have seen more then a few people state the game is about mech fighting mechs.
It is more fun then tanks, but the question came up on just how many of these people use tanks in defense or to soften up the enemy?
If you don't play a campaign, the idea of base defense is useless, but for those that do, why bother with tanks for the defense when mechs are so much better?
I would figure turrets would be better to use as they can be done in numbers, if you follow the novels and scenarios of having buildings wired with power in instead of needing a power plant in each.
I see most will have vehicles other then cargo haulers, as well as armored infantry, aerofighters, artillery, even atmospheric aircraft and naval units.
Cost and maintenance isn't really an issue as most don't deal with that. It seems most that post have factories that churn out hundreds of mechs a year, so rarity is out the window.
So how many just hate vehicles when they have to fight them?
|
MJB
02/10/17 12:58 AM
107.199.74.86
|
The old quick and dirty balance ratios definitely made them worthwhile. IIRC, 3025 era vehicles were valued at 25% tonnage.
Plus vehicles move in units of four in initiative. You could hem in non-jumping mechs pretty effectively.
I was never a fan of emplacements, as it surrendered choice of range to the enemy, plus you can't chase down mobile units.
I once ruined an opponent's plan with a lance of Hetzers. He didn't fancy facing AC-20s, so I was able to push his units around and stay at the range of my choosing.
|
Karagin
02/10/17 06:33 AM
72.176.187.91
|
YES, the game is about the mechs, and things like tanks and the rest come in a distant third for many people, but at the same time tanks can give you a lot of options and offer you a wider array of tactics to employ. The old tag line was Battletech was a TACTICAL combat simulation showing warfare in the 31st Century...somewhere that turned into ugh me have mech me rule thinking. I will say it again, 70% of the players do not use any tactical thinking. They turn every battle into a Solaris 7 arena match and the ranges run no more then medium to short. This is where you can use tanks and other vehicles to herd those players to their death quick fast and in a hurry.
I have played in games where we have had trenches and fixed strong-points and other things, and while they do surrender a lot, they offer you a lot as well. It all depends on how well you can read your opponent and figure out what they are going to do or how welded to a certain unit they are and then use all that to win.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
02/10/17 12:14 PM
66.74.61.223
|
I guess the arena match idea has alot of people thinking emplacements are a bad idea. I would think having 2 to 4 emplacements next to say a factory or depot someone is raiding is a better idea then having a single tank or mech. The fact they are not going to run off an leave the area undefended was the mind set when I said something about them.
But this does seem to suggest most do not do more then mobile encounters. Which I can understand. A few lrm towers with an ac 20 in it, does make a difficult target, though the immobile penalties give attackers the advantage here.
I just get the feeling most do not want to face tanks. Or maybe I should say combat vehicles, as vtols and such are used by more then a few.
Some of the vehicles I seen posted looked better then most stock mechs of their weight. Only a few though.
I can see where allowing lrms the idf ability changed some emplacement values. No longer did you have to get into sight of that tower and risk your best units, but send in an observer to sight for you. Box canyons with the bunkers behind the ridge where direct fire was not possible without exposing yourself, or even going over a hill to attack another emplacement.
It just seems the basic thought is people don't want to face tanks. Maybe it is just those I have been in contact with.
And tactics were not really a big thing. Most were the run in there and become a wrestling match. The few times we seen anything approaching a real thinking game was when the rule of if your warrior dies, you start their skills over, did you finally see some thought. No more starting at 4gun/5pilot. You went 8/8. So their 2/2 units would actually hide.
|
MJB
02/10/17 09:27 PM
107.199.74.86
|
My groups never did arena fights.
We often did scenarios, which sometimes included emplacements and/or favorable (to the defender) terrain.
We used a 4' x 8' table. Maps were either pre-chosen (and displayed before units were selected) or of the "you pick, we pick" variety.
Vehicles were often selected; emplacements not so much.
YMMV.
|
ghostrider
02/10/17 10:16 PM
66.74.61.223
|
It wasn't so much done in arenas, but on any terrain map. The units just seemed to run up to each other and blast away with fists and legs flying.
One of the more effective mechs used in this game was a 55 ton mech with a pair of mls. and 18 mgs. He relied on the hit location of 2 in order to destroy his opponents. This was always the tactic. And they would never play on an open terrain. The mech would be targetted first. Finally took a 55 ton mech with 10 sls to melt it down. After that, he refused to play anymore.
But the close to physicals as fast as you can, is what I think of as an arena match. I have yet to see a game where mechs did not touch each other. That would be what I would call a tactics game. Flanking and such.
But it is refreshing to hear someone faught vehicles without insisting only mechs on mechs.
|
csadn
02/11/17 03:36 AM
50.53.22.4
|
I'm one of those who used vehicles in play (tho' being Outworlds Alliance, I used VTOLs rather more than tanks). Tanks have their uses; however, the movement, damage, and design rules are badly based against them, so it was hard to use them as anything besides shot-absorbers or semi-mobile LRM emplacements.
CF
Oregon: The "Outworlds Alliance" of the United States of America
|
KamikazeJohnson
02/11/17 01:02 PM
72.143.237.101
|
I have used tanks in the past, but rarely. Main reason being the scale of the games I typically play...a 4-player (2 vs 2) where each player has 2 units is much more fun with 'Mechs.
Vehicles, Infantry, Artillery, Air Support, etc. are best on larger battles, especially an "objective" scenario rather than an "Annihilate, Kill, Kill!" scenario.
Fact is, the game was designed around 'Mechs. They are the most versatile and most durable units in the game, and (IMHO) that's what makes them individually more fun to play.
I'd love to have a nice Company level fight with full combined arms etc. but my friends and I don't have 3 days to fight it out...maybe when my kids are older and we have room for a dedicated gaming table...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Akalabeth
02/12/17 08:24 PM
75.155.167.106
|
We regularly played company on company level battles with only 1-2 guys per side. When it comes to movement, move entire lances rather than individual units. It will speed the game up immensely. As losses mount, move a third of your force. So if you got 8 guys then move 2/3/3 sort of thing.
|
ghostrider
02/12/17 10:28 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Interesting idea. Maybe that might be the key to speeding the game up.
The side that loses intiative moves all first, then the winning side moves all of theirs. it would keep with the idea of formations being used instead of just a chaotic jumble of units moving differently as the opponent moves.
Well this might work for lances. Units bigger might move one lance, then the opponent, then another lance sort of thing.
I might agree with the mechs being the most versatile units in the game if they hadn't had to nerf the hell out of vehicles do make it that way. As for more fun. That I do agree with. You can't stomp on something when in a tank..
And with that, do they have a weight table of what a mech can pick up and throw? Like maybe use a scorpion as a club?
Yeah, 10 percent of mech weight I believe. But throw it?
Edited by ghostrider (02/12/17 10:29 PM)
|