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

[Tnarien]

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.

Funny thing is, outside of very specific circumstances (usually involving AC/10s or AC/20s) it's almost always preferable to go for the side arc instead of the rear IMO. The downstream effects of focusing damage on the leg or side torso are, in the absence of single shot K/O, far superior to rolling the dice on the expanded rear arc table.

Plus, for units with their main weapon in the arm, taking that off the board easily makes mid and late-stage combat significantly different.

 

[Thalynos]

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).



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



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.

I don't believe that I've said that at all. Certainly a hunchback could headshot an atlas. That doesn't make a hunchback better than an atlas.

 

[Fab555]

Isn't there a skill that allows you to move after firing? Thought I had seen it in a stream. In that case you could take a light mach around the enemy lance out of LoF, push it to the last phase, jump in and fire in the back and then fire again and jump back in cover. At this point the enemy has either the option to take the fire in the back or turn at least one mach around, which would expose his back to your heavier mechs.

 

[Thalynos]

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

I merely meant that unless you want to drop with less than 4 mechs, you won't be able to bring a lance of assault mechs due to cbill restriction and therefore lighter mechs can have a reason to exist in that context.

 

[Kereminde]

I merely meant that unless you want to drop with less than 4 mechs, you won't be able to bring a lance of assault mechs due to cbill restriction and therefore lighter mechs can have a reason to exist in that context.

There's also an "unlimited" option, so you totally can do that too.

 

[Tnarien]

I don't believe that I've said that at all. Certainly a hunchback could headshot an atlas. That doesn't make a hunchback better than an atlas.

And yet, you're sitting here arguing that you shouldn't take the Huncback if the Atlas is available.

You appear to be arguing two mutually exclusive positions.

 

[Thalynos]

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

I've been trying to avoid niche cases like this that are dependent on loadout. This is the reason I try to stick to simple examples trying to get my point across ( and perhaps i've done a poor job at that so far)

My simple example is Centurion Vs Orion because they have the same speed, similar hardpoint variety and quantity (orion simply has more iirc) and the orion obviously has more tonnage for armor and weapons. It is better simply by virtue of being a direct upgrade. The centurion has the advantage of initiative but I can't quantify that advantage to compare it objectively against the advantages the Orion brings.

 

[Conray]

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.

can't wait to be impressed.
even though i was really enjoying the campaign streams so far, i really hope to see some experienced players streaming on the 20th, just to see how much difference it makes
and how much i can be impressed

 

[Thalynos]

And yet, you're sitting here arguing that you shouldn't take the Huncback if the Atlas is available.

You appear to be arguing two mutually exclusive positions.

I don't see that i've argued something mutually exclusive. I've just not conflated "x can kill y" with "x is better than y" because you could defeat a person armed with a rifle by throwing a rock at their head but that doesn't mean a rock is better than a gun because that scenario is very unlikely; somewhat like a hunchback headshotting an atlas.

 

[Thalynos]

I am going to stop here. At this point, I've said all that I have to say and I don't want this to devolve into name calling (not an accusation) and there is no useful purpose for me to argue back and forth forever.

 

[Tnarien]

I don't see that i've argued something mutually exclusive. I've just not conflated "x can kill y" with "x is better than y" because you could defeat a person armed with a rifle by throwing a rock at their head but that doesn't mean a rock is better than a gun because that scenario is very unlikely; somewhat like a hunchback headshotting an atlas.

Except you've replaced "x can kill y" with "x has more useable tonnage than y" and are apparently unwilling to incorporate any additional unit characteristics into your comparison.

You want to take the "better" unit, and seem to think that means taking a heavier one. That's a perfectly valid way to design your lance. But it's not a guarantee of victory, especially against an opponent who knows how to exploit the initiative and turn system.

 

[lordpepper]

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.

Challenge accepted

 

[Kereminde]

And yet, you're sitting here arguing that you shouldn't take the Huncback if the Atlas is available.

You appear to be arguing two mutually exclusive positions.

I'm not sure he is, he seems to be arguing in lieu of people who would make that statement (in error) and presenting some interesting analysis as to why there may be a point.

I've been trying to avoid niche cases like this that are dependent on loadout. This is the reason I try to stick to simple examples trying to get my point across ( and perhaps i've done a poor job at that so far)

My simple example is Centurion Vs Orion because they have the same speed, similar hardpoint variety and quantity (orion simply has more iirc) and the orion obviously has more tonnage for armor and weapons. It is better simply by virtue of being a direct upgrade. The centurion has the advantage of initiative but I can't quantify that advantage to compare it objectively against the advantages the Orion brings.

Well, I'm getting your point (I think), I just don't agree with it after you start digging down into the specifics. Generally, and from just a surface appearance, you might be able to point to these things and make a case. Once you get down to business, and a deeper analysis . . . it starts having cracks here and there. But let's look at the Orion vs the Centurion, because you have an interesting point here. (I'd also say a similar case is in the Panther vs Griffin 1N.)

The Centurion has an arm-mounted Autocannon vs a torso-mounted Autocannon; there is, I believe, an aim bonus to that. It also is, for the most part, better at managing its heat than an Orion. If we assume we abandon stock loadouts, then we run a risk of having the analysis spin off all sorts of directions culminating in the following statement. It is true you can mount more in an Orion than a Centurion, but it will be in different locations and that may matter. There is a considerable danger in arm-mounted weapons being stripped, but I expect there is a much more dangerous case to be made for torso weapons getting stripped (along with arm mounted weapons)

But there is one detail which is important. The Centurion gets to act, almost universally, before the Orion does. The Centurion, therefore, does get to set more of the engagement pace in the hands of someone who knows how to leverage that. The Orion can still take the pace of the engagement back, but it then takes a knowledge of what the Centurion can do through its initiative turn. In the hands of someone else who has done a lot with the initiative, in a one-on-one within the mission parameters I'd still put money on the Centurion for taking out the Orion as there's the chance to be really devastating due to having the option of moving first.

This all starts going out the window when you look at it beyond one-on-one, and start looking at lance mechanics and design principles, since you're not fighting a lone duel. While you're messing with a Centurion, the Centurion's buddy the Commando has begun a missile barrage into the rear flank with your Autocannon.

 

[Tnarien]

Challenge accepted

Here's how the battle goes down (all of this is of course assuming I don't get lucky and simply cut your cockpit in half with my first DFA):

Turn 1: Reserve down to the Assault phase. Use one of my locusts to draw out your Atlas. You go, maybe you get an LRM shot off at one of my units. Then I drop a Firestarter DFA on you, push you into ID territory and the Unsteady state.

Turn 2: In the Light phase I use the Firestarter to shut down your Atlas, plus put you at the edge of a knockdown. Locusts swarm in for MG volleys to the head. You'll take 1 pilot wound (minimum).

Turn 3: You've powered back up. I drop a second DFA on you (minus the flamers) to knock you down. That's 2 pilot wounds (minimum). Locusts swarm around for more MG-mechwarrior-pureeing funsies. Three pilot wounds, possible pilot kill.

Turn 4: Melee strike from the Firestarter, with Flamers this time. I push you back into ID territory, possibly into a second shutdown. Locusts swarm in for side-arc kicks to put you on your butt again. Pilot kill.

If you're lucky you'll down one Locust. Being outnumbered is a critical disadvantage, especially if your opponent is packing support weapons.

 

[Spartakus]

I've been trying to avoid niche cases like this that are dependent on loadout. This is the reason I try to stick to simple examples trying to get my point across ( and perhaps i've done a poor job at that so far)

My simple example is Centurion Vs Orion because they have the same speed, similar hardpoint variety and quantity (orion simply has more iirc) and the orion obviously has more tonnage for armor and weapons. It is better simply by virtue of being a direct upgrade. The centurion has the advantage of initiative but I can't quantify that advantage to compare it objectively against the advantages the Orion brings.

There lies the problem. You are thinking of mechs in a Vacuum. In a 1vs1 an Orion will wreck a Centurion 9 times out of 10. But you're having a Lance of mechs and the Centurion is your force multiplier. It moves first so you can control the flow of initiative and deliver a killing blow to a heavy that could have acted once more otherwise.

One Orion will beat a Centurion but 3 Orions and a Centurion will beat 4 Orions.

 

[Conray]

I don't see that i've argued something mutually exclusive. I've just not conflated "x can kill y" with "x is better than y" because you could defeat a person armed with a rifle by throwing a rock at their head but that doesn't mean a rock is better than a gun because that scenario is very unlikely; somewhat like a hunchback headshotting an atlas.

i think you have made your point, clearly and and in a clever way.
you are trying to approach this scientifically, which i admire, i just think you have not been fully understood.

the way i am understanding what you are trying to do is: gain knowledge through reflecting viewpoints back and forth.
but somehow your discussions partners are more interested in making a point and steamrolling over your questions and opinions

 

[lordpepper]

Here's how the battle goes down (all of this is of course assuming I don't get lucky and simply cut your cockpit in half with my first DFA):

Turn 1: Reserve down to the Assault phase. Use one of my locusts to draw out your Atlas. You go, maybe you get an LRM shot off at one of my units. Then I drop a Firestarter DFA on you, push you into ID territory and the Unsteady state.

Turn 2: In the Light phase I use the Firestarter to shut down your Atlas, plus put you at the edge of a knockdown. Locusts swarm in for MG volleys to the head. You'll take 1 pilot wound (minimum).

Turn 3: You've powered back up. I drop a second DFA on you (minus the flamers) to knock you down. That's 2 pilot wounds (minimum). Locusts swarm around for more MG-mechwarrior-pureeing funsies. Three pilot wounds, possible pilot kill.

Turn 4: Melee strike from the Firestarter, with Flamers this time. I push you back into ID territory, possibly into a second shutdown. Locusts swarm in for side-arc kicks to put you on your butt again. Pilot kill.

If you're lucky you'll down one Locust. Being outnumbered is a critical disadvantage, especially if your opponent is packing support weapons.

Of course you are aware that we will play with unlimited vision range, because sanity

 

[Pointyearedgit]

Of course you are aware that we will play with unlimited vision range, because sanity

Wait, we aren’t calculating planet curvature?!?!?

 

[Tnarien]

Of course you are aware that we will play with unlimited vision range, because sanity

By all means. Your lack of a spotter means it won't make a difference. I just need to choose my approach appropriately .

If anything, having sight on your position from the start is a net advantage IMO, largely because it means I can plan said approach with an accurate knowledge of where you are and can avoid your fire arcs accordingly while I close in.

 

[Thalynos]

I'm going to hop in to clarify why i've conducted my argument in the way I have.

This all starts going out the window when you look at it beyond one-on-one, and start looking at lance mechanics and design principles, since you're not fighting a lone duel. While you're messing with a Centurion, the Centurion's buddy the Commando has begun a missile barrage into the rear flank with your Autocannon.

I'm comparing single mech to single mech because each mech you choose in a lance comes at the cost of not choosing any other one(1) mech for your lance.

If we assume we abandon stock loadouts, then we run a risk of having the analysis spin off all sorts of directions culminating in the following statement.

In my discussion, I've not been holding to simply stock loadouts because customization is important. I've been comparing mechs on the basis of objective quantities: speed, armor, firepower. The last two are related, because you can run with less than max armor but for the purpose of comparison I've looked at available tonnage as the quantifier for 'firepower'

I've been trying to concede that initiative is valuable, but I don't know how to put a number on it.

one Orion will beat a Centurion but 3 Orions and a Centurion will beat 4 Orions.

I concede this may be the case but I don't have a tool to measure that. I cannot attest that 3 orions and a centurion is better than 4 orions because I have no method to objectively measure that.

I hope this clarifies some things.