If you bring a full lance and the opponent brings 1 Assault, you'll win.
Gee whiz what a great argument in favor of light mechs, in a game where you don't get more units just because they have less tonnage.
A balance feature that could give meaning back to light mechs.
- Thread starter Panpiper
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
If you bring a full lance and the opponent brings 1 Assault, you'll win.
Gee whiz what a great argument in favor of light mechs, in a game where you don't get more units just because they have less tonnage.
My apologies, I forgot to address this in my previous post.
This is a valid point to make. Accuracy bonuses are a quantifiable increase; though pinning down that value is a bit more complicated because the value of +5% accuracy is dependent on what your accuracy is before hand.
Simply to illustrate that point, going from 5% to 10% doubles your accuracy, so you could say that it effectively doubles your firepower in that circumstance. going from 90% to 95% is an increase in effective firepower of about 5.6% ( 95/90 = 1.0555555 etc). So if we compare an Orion with an AC20 and 2 tons of ammo (17 tons iirc) vs a Centurion with the same, then in the two examples, comparatively the centriion's AC could be valued at 34 tons in the first example or 17.94444 etc tons in the second example (compared, i will remind, against the Orion's AC valued at 17 tons.)
I think we will agree that both are extreme cases and the value of the accuracy is somewhere between those two values in reality. I think a general evaluation would be considering going from 50% to 55% (55/50 = 1.1) so the relative value of the Centurion's AC is now 18.7 vs the Orion's at 17.
If we compare the difference and add it to the Centurion's available tonnage, it is plain to see that this does not close their gap in potential firepower by much.
Again, I think you've made excellent points but it is my desire to be able to quantify things because I understand them better that way. I find it easier to compare that way.
This is exactly what I've been trying to do.
I do thank everyone who has been participating in this conversation in good faith.
The main reason I think it is useful to give some extra in game reason to use lighter mechs, is that without the AI actually using the initiative system effectively, and I see absolutely zero evidence of that, there is no reason to deploy units in expectation of them doing so. I may wish to deploy lighter units myself in order to exploit the potential that the initiative system offers me, and I expect that will in fact be the norm. I expect I will see heavies deployed against me long before I can deploy a lance of heavies. I expect to see assaults deployed against me long before I am able to field assaults myself. I will usually have lighter units than the heaviest I see used against me.
The tactic I will likely use is to use superior fire power to strip away the lighter units from their flanks, to permit me to properly exploit the initiative advantage I have over the heavier units. Then there are any number of tactics to use against them. You being able to maneuver against their position without them being able to do the same is utterly devastating, especially if your lighter units have jump to get behind cover on the next turn before the heavier units can act.
I expect the heaviest lance I will ever deploy will be a lance of three Orions and an LRM boat which 'might' be an assault. The Orions would be the close assault mechs with jump. As 75 tons heavies, Orions out initiative assault mechs. That's three Orions picking their position and fire on one assault that just happens to have a full bar of instability (that LRM boat). The first Orion puts the assault on the ground with an alpha, the second and third pour on called shot alphas. If I make one of those Orions a Grasshopper, things get even more funky. That's one dead assault for zero risk, two at minimal risk (with the Grasshopper).
The same trick of course could be used by mediums (or lights) versus heavies, or lights versus mediums. And that is just the basest of tricks.
The problem is that the AI will never do any of this, so it is perfectly feasible to ignore this level of tactics and just power through with weight and fire power. At least till it isn't anyway, when five skull missions are matching your firepower, your weapon quality, your pilot quality, and your armor quality. If you haven't learned these tricks by then, things may indeed get dicey.
By giving a reward to players who bring lighter units to a battle than they otherwise could, it gives an incentive to players to try it, an incentive without which, they might never even consider. All other things being equal, bigger is always better. Things are not equal in Battletech, but the ways in which they are not equal are very subtle and almost certainly to be missed by most newcomers if they aren't incentivized to learn how to make it work.
The tactic I will likely use is to use superior fire power to strip away the lighter units from their flanks, to permit me to properly exploit the initiative advantage I have over the heavier units. Then there are any number of tactics to use against them. You being able to maneuver against their position without them being able to do the same is utterly devastating, especially if your lighter units have jump to get behind cover on the next turn before the heavier units can act.
I expect the heaviest lance I will ever deploy will be a lance of three Orions and an LRM boat which 'might' be an assault. The Orions would be the close assault mechs with jump. As 75 tons heavies, Orions out initiative assault mechs. That's three Orions picking their position and fire on one assault that just happens to have a full bar of instability (that LRM boat). The first Orion puts the assault on the ground with an alpha, the second and third pour on called shot alphas. If I make one of those Orions a Grasshopper, things get even more funky. That's one dead assault for zero risk, two at minimal risk (with the Grasshopper).
The same trick of course could be used by mediums (or lights) versus heavies, or lights versus mediums. And that is just the basest of tricks.
The problem is that the AI will never do any of this, so it is perfectly feasible to ignore this level of tactics and just power through with weight and fire power. At least till it isn't anyway, when five skull missions are matching your firepower, your weapon quality, your pilot quality, and your armor quality. If you haven't learned these tricks by then, things may indeed get dicey.
By giving a reward to players who bring lighter units to a battle than they otherwise could, it gives an incentive to players to try it, an incentive without which, they might never even consider. All other things being equal, bigger is always better. Things are not equal in Battletech, but the ways in which they are not equal are very subtle and almost certainly to be missed by most newcomers if they aren't incentivized to learn how to make it work.
Well, here's the thing: even if Initiative were the pillar to success (and I'm not so convinced)... why not just run Mediums? You can push Mediums into the highest initiative priority with pilot skills + use of a Morale ability. I mean, in the few examples posted, you only need the double move in one clutch instance to grab the momentum, so why am I using garbage trash like Locusts & Firestarters when I could be using a Hunch, Kintaro or Griffin?
Either option sacrifices something. Either pilot abilities, morale and speed or total armor and firepower.
You only need one level of incentive advantage to make these tricks work. More than that confers zero advantage. In high skull missions, the AI throws substantially heavier weight of mechs at you than you are able to bring. However they are invariably a mix of units, a few your average weight, a few heavier, and a good many lighter. Moreover these units tend to engage at their best speed, their lights will charge and reach you first, followed by their faster mediums, then their slower mediums and heavies and finally their assaults. While you could likely use these tricks versus assaults using only mediums (it would be harder), you would not have the time or numbers to do so versus the lights and mediums that will swarm you first, let alone the heavies. You are still going to need good old fashioned weight of fire and armor to deal with the fodder.
I'm not sold on Initiative being a pillar to success, I got into a lot of heavy discussion in the past. But I am very much convinced it is a tool in the box you can use, and if you ignore it - it will bite you when someone leverages it against you. There are a lot of things involved in this which interact, which move together, and are somewhat predictable but not quantifiable in any reliable fashion. Despite this game being a lot of numbers at work, you can't reduce it to just numbers because there's so many other things going on which can hurt you.
The quantifiable and analytical approach is an admirable - I'm going to use the analogy again - it's a tool for us commanders to grab to help measure out a theory and approach it from the angle of "this should..." but sometimes it just doesn't work out in practice. There shouldn't be a way a grossly outnumbered and outvalued team wins against their opponent, but it does happen and is a very real occurrence at the table. Or on the computer.
Those are the engagements which start legends. Like that time a lady from Rasalhague with a modified GRF-1S ripped a Commando in half.
Lol @ people arguing that locust is better than an atlas. Next you'll be arguing that the Earth is flat. 
Btw, that reserve trick would be countered in multiplayer by reserving the other mechs and forcing the locust to go before the atlas.
Btw, that reserve trick would be countered in multiplayer by reserving the other mechs and forcing the locust to go before the atlas.
Lol @ people arguing that locust is better than an atlas. Next you'll be arguing that the Earth is flat.
Btw, that reserve trick would be countered in multiplayer by reserving the other mechs and forcing the locust to go before the atlas.
Who's arguing the Locust is better than an Atlas, beyond scouting capabilities? Please quote that straw-'Mech before I go any further on this.
Lol @ people arguing that locust is better than an atlas. Next you'll be arguing that the Earth is flat.
Btw, that reserve trick would be countered in multiplayer by reserving the other mechs and forcing the locust to go before the atlas.
I agree that the scenario given is dumb, because it assumes an opponent who will just herp derp up to 4 lights without thinking (it also assumes a 100% hit rate on DFA, when in reality DFA is going to be hitting about 70% of the time. Woe be unto this 'strat' in those 30% of games where DFA whiffs), but that's a bit besides the point:
A 4-light lance will beat an Atlas. No question. Even if there were no initiative track, I'd expect 4 lights to beat an Atlas.
It's just a dumb scenario, because BattleTech doesn't work like that. There's no reason I couldn't run 4 Atlas against those same 4 Lights, or an Atlas with supporting Mediums / Heavies. The lights go to gang-up on your Assault, you delete them one by one with a Hunch. They go for the Hunch, your Assault cores them out with an AC/20 or a Jaeger snipes them or a Cat sandpapers them to death.
Lights are bad mechs that you just run for flavor, period. It's always been that way. Unfortunately, HBS doesn't seem to have fixed this issue.
This is the summary of the several last pages of strawmans being pulled in this thread. It is obvious that assaults>heavies>mediums>lights be it campaign or multiplayer, but several people insist on arguing for the sake of arguing.
The only "valid" reason for not improving this situation that i saw in this thread was "i dont care".
How to counter a light.... 2 lrm15s. Enough of the missiles will hit to cause stability and you will likely cripple the mech with the 2nd salvo. 3rd salvo will destroy it. And that is vs a light in cover with 4 or 5 evasions. They simply dont have that ability to survive vs what just a trebuchet can toss at them.
Lights do need a place and cost efficiency by incurring higher expenses on heavier mechs combine with armor replacement costs would be the best way to make them a consideration. Second and perhaps more imoortant route is to make missions where the objectives are far less combat and much more about recon and speed. Lights however will never be able to overcome the survivability issue. They cant. If they could survive sustained combat vs heacies and assaults it would massively imbalance the game. If I can take 4 locusts and beat 4 thunderbolts in a brawl why take the thunderbolts ever?
Uh . . . huh.
And here I thought I was bringing viable points to the table, now I know I was just making strawmen arguments. This is good to know, thank you for enlightening me on what I actually am saying.
Because Thunderbolts can weather an absolutely stupid amount of punishment for their weight, even stock, and can mount a lot more variable weapon systems than a Locust? I mean, even if I could beat four TDRs with four LCTs, I wouldn't say that makes the Locusts "better" or the Thunderbolts "worse". I think the concept of "well we could take those Assaults with Lights in a fight" doesn't mean one is better or worse than the other. It's very - very - situational, and I don't think I could personally reliably replicate a match where I would take four Locusts and beat something much heavier.
I do know it was a challenge for the Beta Skirmish set out by one of the developers, and people did manage to take out a 25mil Lance with four Locusts. I do know in canon the aforementioned pair of Jenners and pair of Panthers was regarded as something of a dangerous Light Lance. But there are often reasons to take Lights over Assaults, and it usually depends on factors outside of "how well do these fare in a straight-up fight".
And I do know if my mission is to intercept and stop a convoy of units which move . . . oh . . . 5/8 or 6/9 then I'm probably not better off taking units which top out at 4/6 and would be making long shots the entire way. Because I won't catch them and I'd run the risk of not destroying them quickly enough. I know if my mission involves fighting a large amount of targets, I'm probably going to want to prioritize survivability and longevity (i.e. please don't take one bin of AC/10 ammo).
Saying as a generalized statement "Assaults are better than Lights for combat" is one thing, and I won't necessarily argue that (except for some outlying options such as ambush or flanking tactics). Saying "Lights are useless" or "Assaults are always better than Lights" . . . I can't agree with, because there are often reasons Light 'Mechs are useful to mission objectives, or specific tactics which are viable enough. Not only that, but you won't always have the option to take the "best" for a situation - either because it's not available to you (campaign) or you can't afford it in your budget (skirmish).
It's your call on how you want to play, and whether Lights fit into your style of play. My final words on this topic are simple - discount the potential use of Lights at your own peril. Either in the campaign or in skirmishes.
Greetings Mechwarriors,
Please avoid aggressiveness and dismissive snark posted at others.
Everyone should be able to share their perspective, and to disagree respectfully.
So please avoid aggressively hammering at others as a substitute for presenting reasons for your own perspective.
Please post with civility and respect even in disagreement.
Please dont reply to disrespect, rather use the report feature to allow Forum staff to de-escalate friction.
Thank you.
Please avoid aggressiveness and dismissive snark posted at others.
Everyone should be able to share their perspective, and to disagree respectfully.
So please avoid aggressively hammering at others as a substitute for presenting reasons for your own perspective.
Please post with civility and respect even in disagreement.
Please dont reply to disrespect, rather use the report feature to allow Forum staff to de-escalate friction.
Thank you.
I was thinking about using a similar tactic with Ace Pilot, but it occurred to me that you can't reserve beyond the assault phase where assault Mechs act by default (so even the AI will be using it). So now you reserve your light to the final phase, move in and unleash your first attack, then get cored by the assault Mech before the round ends and you can take your second action.
Is there a way to wait until after another unit moves inside an initiative stage? How is the order within a phase determined? Even if you get lucky and their assault goes first,b wouldn't a second assault still move after you?
The AI in my game is going to use the initiative system. It's a single edit to turn on AI reserving and you can tweak it in several ways after.
If you reserve the light last in the heavy phase, and all he has left is an assault he must move it next, and then the light will move.
The system makes Players alternate moves when possible.
you mean an individual pilot initative? or a force turn based on weight?
Ok, so still viable as long as the enemy only has one assault on the field. Otherwise, they can choose not to move the closest assault until after you're forced to move your light.