A balance feature that could give meaning back to light mechs.

[Thalynos]

Folks are exquisitely underestimating what one can do from the side arc with an appropriately kitted Light or Medium unit. Not to mention the options it provides for initiative manipulating shenanigans.

Medium mechs are not, in general, much faster than mechs larger than themselves. I cannot comment on the impacts of initiative as that won't become apparent until I've played the game personally. (which may be why it has not been discussed as much. The effects are difficult to quantify.)

 

[Tangman]

I've seen some crazy Firestarter play where you delay, jump in last and blast flamers, go first next round and blast flamers. Boom overheat called shots. Its nice, its awesome, but if that were to fail, you're probably dead. There's also the whole +30 Heat from whatever trait it was of piloting skills. I mean I don't know, gotta play and see what happens. I definitively want to try some fancy shenaningans of lights delaying and jumping in to backstab like that.

 

[Thalynos]

I mean, if you had every mech 4x in the game. Would you really bring a Jenner, Firestarter, Hunchback and Panther? Or would you bring in a bit heavier weaponry? I mean, I'm by no means a Battle Tech expert, but bigger is usually better. You can still put sensor locks on heavy mechs too, its not explicit to sub 40tons.

I like LRM boats, I plan to use LRM Boats. I plan to make a King Crab LRM boat eventually, why? Simply because bigger is better. I got these stops on the way. Maybe it starts with a Commando, then it becomes a Centurion, then it becomes a Trebuchet, or maybe Stalker, but the goal is King Crab. Why? Well simply cos it can carry a metric ton of missiles to destroy you with. Ontop of other fancy tools that a Commando can't, to open up its tools for combat.

And the reason in cannon that all of those mechs exist concurrently without making the others obsolete is that fielding heavier mechs costs more. The problem is that this is not reflected in the game at the current time.

 

[Kereminde]

I mean, if you had every mech 4x in the game. Would you really bring a Jenner, Firestarter, Hunchback and Panther?

Yes I would.

Never, ever, underestimate the amount of havoc one can push with something like a Jenner moving around a flank. In tabletop a Light with good armaments getting in behind something means it stays there unless someone else can shoot it off. You are going to lose that Atlas to the Jenner in the back. Firestarters go one notch harder, as they can heat-lock something to where its only viable move is "oh god oh god oh god heat gauge go down please".

In this game, well, I've beat up 25mil lances with two Jenners and two Panthers in the Beta Skirmish. Not without losses, but . . .

And the reason in cannon that all of those mechs exist concurrently without making the others obsolete is that fielding heavier mechs costs more. The problem is that this is not reflected in the game at the current time.

No, the reason they exist concurrently is because 'Mechs aren't found at WalMart and you can't just get anything - you work with what you have.

 

[Tnarien]

Medium mechs are not, in general, much faster than mechs larger than themselves. I cannot comment on the impacts of initiative as that won't become apparent until I've played the game personally. (which may be why it has not been discussed as much. The effects are difficult to quantify.)

Initiative impacts arent difficult to quantify at all. They're the difference between your Shadow Hawk having a fighting chance, and your Grasshopper being cored out in front of you while you watch helplessly.

Knowing how to manipulate the initiative system to achieve the unit turn order you want is a high skill-ceiling maneuver, but it's what separates experts from regular players. In the right hands it allows a force that is, on paper, categorically outmatched to slaughter a heavier opposing lance.

 

[Thalynos]

Perhaps I can explain this another way. By the fact that they exist concurrently, the battletech universe tells us that there is value in having and fielding smaller mechs in significant quantities. However, this creates narrative dissonance when the gameplay we are presented with implies that an Orion makes a centurion obsolete. (this is an example)

This breaks immersion because it makes us question "Why would people have/buy/make Centrurions if Orions are objectively better in every way?"

I will say that this partially occurs because as players, we are rarely faced with the costs of acquiring new mechs and so the fact that the purchase cost of a centurion is lower than that of an orion is not presented to the player. Because our primary means of acquiring mechs is salvage, how expensive the mech is is irrelevant. The only costs we experience are the cost to keep a mech in a ready state ( 6000 cbills per mech, regardless of tonnage) and repair costs (which may vary by tonnage, I'm not sure. But the best way to avoid paying any repair costs is to simply field bigger mechs)

 

[Red_Legion]

What the OP is proposing is a giant game mechanic change with 9 days until release. It's not gonna happen.
Moreover, it isn't necessary. There's already a mechanic in the game, that many people have seen if they paid attention, that solves this problem: a mission timer.
On a few missions, the player has been tasked with holding a base for X number of turns. That means that mission timers already exist and are incorporated into the game. All HBS needs to do is include more missions with narrow time limits...limits that only a fast light 'Mech force (or even a single 'Mech!) could accomplish.

You see the mission description "fast recon," or such and you know you need your light 'Mech.

If the devs are creative, I'm sure they can figure out other ways of forcing the player to use light 'Mechs. If not, then what we'll get is the usual race to the assaults.

I hate mission timers in a tactical game. To me it is a cheap gimmick that lazy devs use to increase the difficulty. There are some exceptions like the base defense you mentioned. But the X-Com style timed missions, I.E. You must destroy the enemy commander before he can escape, even though they are not alerted to your presence and have no reason to think an attack is imminent.

They just limit your ability to play a game tactically and to make decisions based on the situation, map, etc. And no they do not mimic real life heat of the battle decisions. Why? Becasue we would of done a recon, planned out our movements, rally points, avenues of approach, etc. before we crossed the LoD. Since most games do not allow for this type of planning and recon than adding a turn limit/timer just limits your ability to strategize effectively. The only game I ever played that did pre-mission planning right was the original Rainbow 6.

 

[Thalynos]

Initiative impacts arent difficult to quantify at all. They're the difference between your Shadow Hawk having a fighting chance, and your Grasshopper being cored out in front of you while you watch helplessly.

Knowing how to manipulate the initiative system to achieve the unit turn order you want is a high skill-ceiling maneuver, but it's what separates experts from regular players. In the right hands it allows a force that is, on paper, categorically outmatched to slaughter a heavier opposing lance.

Ok, tell me numerical value of going first. Tell me how much firepower its worth. "difficult to quantify" means "hard to translate into a numerical value". Numerical values are easy to judge, qualitative values are harder to judge.

I am not disputing that initiative is valuable; I am simply saying that it is hard to say how much that is worth.

If a shadowhawk having better initiative could help it defeat a grasshopper, then would it be easier/better to just bring an atlas? ( or an Orion, since it has the same initiative as the grasshopper.)

 

[Tnarien]

Ok, tell me numerical value of going first. Tell me how much firepower its worth.

Simple: double the outgoing damage of the more responsive unit, plus the capacity to call shots.

 

[Thalynos]

I hate mission timers in a tactical game. To me it is a cheap gimmick that lazy devs use to increase the difficulty. There are some exceptions like the base defense you mentioned. But the X-Com style timed missions, I.E. You must destroy the enemy commander before he can escape, even though they are not alerted to your presence and have no reason to think an attack is imminent.

They just limit your ability to play a game tactically and to make decisions based on the situation, map, etc. And no they do not mimic real life heat of the battle decisions. Why? Becasue we would of done a recon, planned out our movements, rally points, avenues of approach, etc. before we crossed the LoD. Since most games do not allow for this type of planning and recon than adding a turn limit/timer just limits your ability to strategize effectively. The only game I ever played that did pre-mission planning right was the original Rainbow 6.

I agree. While I'm sure the tense situations depicted by missions with time limits did/do occur in real conflicts, I am also sure that such events are rarities. I think a more generally applicable solution is the wiser course here.

 

[Tnarien]

If a shadowhawk having better initiative could help it defeat a grasshopper, then would it be easier/better to just bring an atlas? ( or an Orion, since it has the same initiative as the grasshopper.)

By all means bring an Atlas. I'll bring a Firestarter and a pair of Locusts instead and turn your pilot into a jellied mess, then walk off with the unit without having done more than scratch the paint.

 

[Thalynos]

Simple: double the outgoing damage of the more responsive unit, plus the capacity to call shots.

I would like to ask for your math on that. By this you imply that a shadowhawk has more effective firepower than a battlemaster, which I doubt.

 

[Kereminde]

Perhaps I can explain this another way. By the fact that they exist concurrently, the battletech universe tells us that there is value in having and fielding smaller mechs in significant quantities. However, this creates narrative dissonance when the gameplay we are presented with implies that an Orion makes a centurion obsolete. (this is an example)

. . . this is the same gameplay where two lances can fold in on someone and force them into a rough spot, right?

I can't speak for what your immersion is, or what others' immersion is, but I know the lesson I took away from a few streams was "one lone Lance is in a world of hurt if they have to face superior numbers, even if those are potentially lighter". Bear in mind, once you have the opportunity to salvage Orions you will have to be killing Orions or finding their parts for sale. Both are not cheap prospects, as in the first example you'll have to foot the repair bill and in the second you're going to need to spend roughly six months of operating expenses to get it. I know that's on my mind "I could pay my outfit for six months, or pick this up" is a significant question.

(I mean, unless you intentionally break the economic side.)

Here's the thing, when you field a lance full of Heavies and Assaults you should absolutely be able to stomp a single lance of Mediums/Lights (or some mix of) into the ground. However, facing two of those should give you pause. Facing two of those and having turrets in the mix, or vehicles? Definitely should give you pause, as neither of those two need to worry about heat issues. (And can drop Sensor Locks to strip your evasion, so you're going to get hit.) If you bring four Orions against six Centurions, you are more than likely going to lose.

 

[Thalynos]

By all means bring an Atlas. I'll bring a Firestarter and a pair of Locusts instead and turn your pilot into a jellied mess, then walk off with the unit without having done more than scratch the paint.

You're now making an asymmetrical comparison of one mech vs multiple mechs.

Our lance size is fixed at 4, you cannot simply choose to bring 3 lights instead of one assault. So, I'll bring 4 assault mechs of my choice and you bring 4 light mechs of your choice and if we can eliminate for the possibility that you are better than I am, we might have scientifically significant data.

 

[Kereminde]

You're now making an asymmetrical comparison of one mech vs multiple mechs.

Our lance size is fixed at 4, you cannot simply choose to bring 3 lights instead of one assault. So, I'll bring 4 assault mechs of my choice and you bring 4 light mechs of your choice and if we can eliminate for the possibility that you are better than I am, we might have scientifically significant data.

You can absolutely drop with less than 4 in PvP Skirmish, and you're never going to eliminate the possibility of skill getting in the way of chance or vice versa.

 

[Thalynos]

. . . this is the same gameplay where two lances can fold in on someone and force them into a rough spot, right?

I can't speak for what your immersion is, or what others' immersion is, but I know the lesson I took away from a few streams was "one lone Lance is in a world of hurt if they have to face superior numbers, even if those are potentially lighter". Bear in mind, once you have the opportunity to salvage Orions you will have to be killing Orions or finding their parts for sale. Both are not cheap prospects, as in the first example you'll have to foot the repair bill and in the second you're going to need to spend roughly six months of operating expenses to get it. I know that's on my mind "I could pay my outfit for six months, or pick this up" is a significant question.

(I mean, unless you intentionally break the economic side.)

Here's the thing, when you field a lance full of Heavies and Assaults you should absolutely be able to stomp a single lance of Mediums/Lights (or some mix of) into the ground. However, facing two of those should give you pause. Facing two of those and having turrets in the mix, or vehicles? Definitely should give you pause, as neither of those two need to worry about heat issues. (And can drop Sensor Locks to strip your evasion, so you're going to get hit.) If you bring four Orions against six Centurions, you are more than likely going to lose.

I agree. But you're missing the point that we can only field 4 mechs. If you could field any 4 mechs, there is no incentive to use anything but your best mechs.

If we had a drop limit of 400 tons but we could field any number of mehs, then you might have a point. Maybe 8 mechs of mixed tonnage is better than 4 atlases ( as an example.) and it probably would be, but that is not the situation we are presented with.

 

[Tnarien]

I would like to ask for your math on that. By this you imply that a shadowhawk has more effective firepower than a battlemaster, which I doubt.

You would be incorrect. You're simply not looking at the equation correctly.

Applied appropriately a lighter unit can make two actions in the time it take a heavier unit to act. That means two turns of uninterrupted fire on a target. Which is something that a heavy will almost never pull off, and an assault flat out cannot (as an assault is locked into a single initiative phase).

So, I'll bring 4 assault mechs of my choice and you bring 4 light mechs of your choice and if we can eliminate for the possibility that you are better than I am, we might have scientifically significant data.

No, you have a single data point based on random variables. Which isn't remotely statistically significant.

I agree. But you're missing the point that we can only field 4 mechs. If you could field any 4 mechs, there is no incentive to use anything but your best mechs.

Again, you're equating tonnage with qualitative value. If that were the case, there is no way, for instance, one could take out a quartet of Atles with a quartet of Locusts.

Except it's been done. Quite easily in fact.

 

[Thalynos]

You can absolutely drop with less than 4 in PvP Skirmish, and you're never going to eliminate the possibility of skill getting in the way of chance or vice versa.

But you can't drop with more than 4. So again. I'm not choosing between 1 assault and 3 lights. I'm choosing 4 mechs of any type vs whatever the opposition might be.

Also, this discussion, if i'm not mistaken, is focused around the campaign. In skirmish mode you build a lance to a budget and therefore there is plenty of reason to bring cheaper mechs, because they are meaningfully cheaper.

 

[Thalynos]

Simple: double the outgoing damage of the more responsive unit, plus the capacity to call shots.

You would be incorrect. You're simply not looking at the equation correctly.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...oints-speed-usable-tonnage-melee-etc.1088884/

"Double the outgoing damage of the more responsive unit"

In the chart in the OP of the link provided we can see a number for usable tonnage. If we "Double the outgoing damage of the more responsive unit." and compare a shadowhawk to a battlemaster, based on the process you describe, the shadowhawk has more firepower.

If this is not what you meant, please clarify.

 

[Kereminde]

I agree. But you're missing the point that we can only field 4 mechs. If you could field any 4 mechs, there is no incentive to use anything but your best mechs.

Of course there's an incentive, it's "do I want to field this thing which isn't completely armed while I do missions for the cash or parts?" or "do I want to take this Awesome on a mission where the heat dissipation is going to be crap?" . . . I know I would totally take the 8Q for a spin in a polar biome, but on a moon or in the desert it's staying home. And arguably, the 8Q is the best 'Mech in the game right now.

But you can't drop with more than 4. So again. I'm not choosing between 1 assault and 3 lights. I'm choosing 4 mechs of any type vs whatever the opposition might be.

Also, this discussion, if i'm not mistaken, is focused around the campaign. In skirmish mode you build a lance to a budget and therefore there is plenty of reason to bring cheaper mechs, because they are meaningfully cheaper.

Actually? In Skirmish Mode there isn't a lot of reason to drop without using all your budget, which usually means not bringing too many Lights. There's also no pressure over lost units, so you can afford to run them groin-first into whatever is out there if you need to draw fire - you don't have to pay to repair them, and you don't have to worry about what happens after Beta takes an AC/20 to the face. All you need to worry about is the tactical chess match and what you can buy with your queen sacrifice . . .

I daresay @Tnarien and @Spartakus both know exactly how to employ a Light in a combat role in this game, while Sidestrafe, Cohh, and even the NGNG crew don't quite get how a Spider in the back can be a bad day for people. Once you can see some of the people on this forum who have played this game or tabletop before streaming, I really think you'll see some inspiring uses of Lights and/or Mediums.