Current Release Mech List?

[Timaeus]

To expand upon what Packrat said (hardpoints being a creation in MW4 to differentiate 'mechs, and levels of customization in TT) hardpoints are also an abstraction of the customization system that exists in TT by selectively ignoring a coulple parts to refits. If the player only has access to A (same type and smaller) and C (any size and/or type)refit levels but ignores class B (different type and smaller) and also removes the the different type qualifier from C the player effectively has hardpoint customization in TT.

 

[MeiSooHaityu]

I'll be honest, I was not a big fan of the Hardpoint system in MW4.

I think it was an admirable attempt, and I do think it was better than what came before it (MW2 and MW3 was a free-for-all), however I think it still had it's flaws. I think the biggest flaw was it caused a lot of mechs to be ignored. The game (like most games) had a OP meta build which was mostly X-LPLasers, PPCs, Gauss, and LBX10s or 20s, and basically any combination of that. With fixed hardpoint sizes, most mechs were left by the way side once mechs could be acquired that could mount the above weapons and in a favorable combination (balancing heat with damage output).

Again, it was a good attempt and better than what other games had attempted. Still, I feel like it also missed the mark a bit. I do prefer the MWO system, even if it can be seemingly abused on occasion, because it allows almost any mech to have an effective weapons combination.

Unfortunately it can also lead to some of it's own abuse with balancing. Despite that, I think I do like it a tiny bit better than MW4 because I can use the mech I want without potentially being at a disadvantage.

 

[Tnarien]

Oh? Please explain to me the difference between a tdr5s, and a 5se. I don't have any references in front of me since I'm at work, but the 5se drops the lrm15 to a 10, adds jumpjets, and drops the machine guns. So please tell me how that is a different chassis? Same kind of power feeds and cabling for the weapons, and making a few holes for the jjs. Seems like they're actually the same dang chassis to me. They don't really have a different "identity" either other then it sacrifices some firepower for maneuverability.

Simple. The 5SE is a completely different design than the 5S. It started out as a field refit of the 5S, but in the early 30th century factory runs of the re-designed chassis were licensed out for production by the ELH as an off the shelf mech.

 

[TaurianMerc]

I would have thought that adding jump jets to a mech not already equipped would be like turning the BAe Hawk into the T45(?) Goshawk. It would need a lot of strengthening to the chassis in order to prevent the jets from tearing off and possible taking some bits of the mech with them.

Personally, aside from the above, I would prefer something similar to TT, although given the limited resources and available equipment aboard the Argo i think engine changes should be beyond us. It's not like you are dealing with the ICE in your car, or even a jet engine from an aircraft. That should require some serious gear to do properly.

 

[Cyttorak001]

Yeah, but Jordan wanted jumping Atlases so here we are.

 

[Barracooda]

And the Argo is BIG I mean how hard would it be to dedicate one of those big storage bays into a fully kited out mech modification bay

 

[Barracooda]

Zero G

 

[Lardaltef]

Yeah, but Jordan wanted jumping Atlases so here we are.

Renard's atlas in MC 2 could jump. And though It's a much later version there is the K3 Atlas.

AS7-K3
A modification of the K2 built in 3083, the K3 removed the two Streak SRM-6 launchers and replaced them with three jump jets and a Streak SRM-4 launcher, giving the AS7-K3 incredible maneuverability.

 

[Tnarien]

It is most definitely not a different design. It's the same chassis with a smaller LRM rack, no machine guns, and JJs. All things that can be added or downgraded in a basic mechbay. Once they started producing the 5se variant, it was still the same base chassis with the different LRMs and JJs, right off the production line. But it's still the same chassis.

Incorrect. It is a distinct, standalone design from the factory floor. It is based on the original ancient 5S chassis yes, but with significant alterations baked in from the beginning.

Pre-2910 it was a field refit. Post-2910 it is not. Lore is explicit about this.

They don't build them by manufacturing 5Ss and subsequently spending weeks on modifications. They simply build 5SEs. The only thing that is identical to the 5S is the right arm. Everything else is different.

 

[KhazadDhum]

Incorrect. It is a distinct, standalone design from the factory floor. It is based on the original ancient 5S chassis yes, but with significant alterations baked in from the beginning.

Pre-2910 it was a field refit. Post-2910 it is not. Lore is explicit about this.

They don't build them by manufacturing 5Ss and subsequently spending weeks on modifications. They simply build 5SEs. The only thing that is identical to the 5S is the right arm. Everything else is different.

Significant alterations? Putting on a slightly downgraded LRM launcher, and JJs is significant? The concept is no different than a production line in a car manufacturer where one has a moonroof, and an upgraded sound system.
It's STILL the same chassis of car though. And if I bought the "lesser" model, I could still have a decent repair shop install a moonroof, and the upgraded sound system. It's the exact same idea with the 5s and 5se. One is simply made off the production line with all the mods right off the bat instead of the original equipment.

 

[MeiSooHaityu]

Also (although this is probably obscure to many)... MechWarrior "Jackrabbit" from the Hyper RPG Show "Death From Above: Renegades" pilots an Atlas by the name of "Big Larry" (A.K.A. The Axelas) equipped with 2 Large Lasers, an A/C10, and Jump Jets as well as carrying a large Axe for melee.

It's not canon, but it is a Table Top RPG show that was fairly popular on the old BattleTech Forum. The first 2 main seasons even had Harebrained Schemes employees playing in it.

 

[Lardaltef]

Significant alterations? Putting on a slightly downgraded LRM launcher, and JJs is significant? The concept is no different than a production line in a car manufacturer where one has a moonroof, and an upgraded sound system.
It's STILL the same chassis of car though. And if I bought the "lesser" model, I could still have a decent repair shop install a moonroof, and the upgraded sound system. It's the exact same idea with the 5s and 5se. One is simply made off the production line with all the mods right off the bat instead of the original equipment.

So a 1981 chevy corvette is the same as a 2017 corvette? Got it.

 

[Tnarien]

Significant alterations? Putting on a slightly downgraded LRM launcher, and JJs is significant? The concept is no different than a production line in a car manufacturer where one has a moonroof, and an upgraded sound system.

Moonrooves don't require avionics and a direct tie-in with a fusion reactor plasma feed without breaching containment, differentiated gyro programming and targeting system alterations.

I'll say it again: lore is explicit that the 5SE is a fundamentally different design than the 5S, being manufactured in different facilities off of a different template. You can disagree with the "magnitude" of the equipment alterations on the stat block all you want, but the lore is unambiguous on the point that it is a different design.

 

[Tnarien]

So a 1981 chevy corvette is the same as a 2017 corvette? Got it.

In this case the analogous argument is that a 1987 and 2406 Corvette are identical. And no, it doesn't make any more sense that way either.

 

[Lardaltef]

In this case the analogous argument is that a 1987 and 2406 Corvette are identical. And no, it doesn't make any more sense that way either.

I agree with you that outwardly the 5S and SE may look the same and interchangeable but internally they could are probably far different with how stuff is placed designed. Like strengthening the skeleton for jumping is probably included in the weight of the jumpers same with adding weight for the channels (engine exhaust) and cables for the controls. The computer is probably much different and not just a patched version of the OS. Probably rewritten. I think I read in one of the books It's not always a good idea to patch a mech OS with aftermarket additions. Course that may have just been plot.

 

[Malek Deneith]

But yeah, let's ignore years of lore.

So, on that subject, I've been reading up on Sarna on some mechs on the list in this topic, to refresh my memory, and guess what I've run into

The Enforcer's biggest flaw though was its limited ammunition stores, though when possible a truck-and-crane reloading system is used during less-mobile battles. Attempts were made to replace the small laser with another ton of ammunition, however there were complicated linkage problems in getting the ammo from the left torso to the right arm, increasing the rate of jamming or reducing the rate of fire to unacceptable levels. What's more the rounds had to be routed along the 'Mechs back where its armor was weakest.

If making changes to a mech is supposed to be as easy to make as you propose, then how come something seemingly as trivial as taking out a small laser and adding a ton of ammo was too difficult to acomplish?

Let's find some more, shall we?

However, the left-arm system, where the Holly-5 and one of the HoverTec-6 launchers are located, is extremely complex, requiring the entire arm to lock in place for three seconds while reloads stored in the torso cycle through. Sudden movements can cause the SRM system to jam, which usually requires an hour to clear before it is usable again, although jams for the LRM launcher are very rare. As yet the reason for this difference in performance between the two systems has not been determined.

Ah, Battlemech technology at it's finest. A system so complicated that it locks up entire arm in place during a reloading cycle, and can cause jams of the SRM but not LRM. Why? Who knows, it goes unfixed. Not sure about you but I wouldn't risk asking my techs mucking with something like that for fear of breaking the system completely.

Lang Industries had technically introduced the Shadow Hawk many years prior to 2550, but this version of the 'Mech suffered from a debilitating fault in its armor plating. The line was recalled and a major overhaul was accomplished in 2550 without any difficulties which solved the issue for most (but not all) Shadow Hawk models.

The original Anderson 21 model jump jets tended to break down over prolonged use, venting into the machine's interior and overheating the 'Mech. A general recall in 2566 to replace the 21s with improved Anderson 25s solved the issue, though some Catapults never received this retrofit.

Again, if making modifications to mechs is supposed to be easy, why do mass recalls of those mechs? Wouldn't it be cheaper and faster for the producer to make retrofit packages and send them to owners of mechs, let their techs carry the retrofit?

Speaking of jury-rigging things:

When the Battle of Tukayyid was arranged, the upgrades were purposefully designed as field refits that were quick and easy to apply within a few months with ComStar's resources at the time.

ComStar, which at the time was still most technologically equipped part of IS had "quick" refit packages... that took months to apply. We're not ComStar. We'll have neither resources nor the tech-savvy they had, nor proper installations.

--------

That's just things I spotted going through entries on Sarna. I'm sure someone bored enough could go through TRO's and dig out more examples like this. Bottom line: BattleMechs aren't easily modifiable. Never were supposed to be. Ease of modification is Omnimech thing, if BattleMechs were easy to change up then Omnis wouldn't be consider such a technological jump. The fact that we are getting even the hardpoint-based customization ability is already a concession in favor of gameplay as it is.

 

[Tnarien]

I am done with this conversation now because it's like talking to a brick wall with some who only want to justify a silly mechanic that was invented to prevent laser or gun boats.

You asked a question as to how two different units were, well different. I provided an answer.

HBS:BT mechanics aren't a part of this conversation.

 

[Jade_Rook]

All weapons are displayed on the mechs. Each has a different appearance, is shown in the correct location, and produces the correct firing animation, including origin of the attack and proper direction for where it hits/misses, when attacking.

An Urbanmech has 21.5 tons of free space. That means that it can mount 21 medium lasers. It doesn't matter if this is a good idea or not, it is a thing that could be done. Further, these medium lasers could be mounted anywhere on the mech. I might want them all on the right side of the mech. Someone else might put them all on the left. Another could start in the legs. Every location can have medium lasers.

Combining full modifications with display of equipped weapons means that there needs to be a spot to display every single one of those medium lasers. They have to all fit somewhere. Once the graphics team has all of the medium lasers showing up properly they have to move on to the next weapon. Different weapons have different sizes, so we can't quite reuse all of the medium lasers locations when we get to SRM 2s. There will be some overlap, it will really just take some time to get through all of them. Eventually the art team will get everything worked out, but that is just for the Urbanmech. There are still another 35(?) mechs that need the same treatment.

Then there are the UI issues. Did you know that in the beta, the status display for an enemy Battlemaster doesn't include the PPC? It has so many other weapons that the PPC got pushed under where we can see it. That is with 10 weapons. What do you think it will look like with 20+ weapons?

Gameplay balance may be the main reason for hardpoints, but it isn't the only reason.

 

[KhazadDhum]

Sure, but it still boils down to prefference.
Animations are difficult enough, and having to do custom animations for every possible variant and custom loadout would be impossible. It just justifies a mechanic that the lore says is possible.
No one would make an urbie with 20 lasers, it wouldn't just shutdown after one volley it would self destruct. I've never maintained that any such build would be viable anyways.
So we're up to three reasons hardpoints have "value" which to me still doesn't justify years of lore just for a video game mechanic.
My opinion anyways.
It doesn't really matter now since we're stuck with them, and I plan on moddifying jsons for a particular mech anyways, I just said it would be nice to have stayed closer in this respect to the original game for the reasons I've given.

 

[Amechwarrior]

Sure, but it still boils down to prefference.
Animations are difficult enough, and having to do custom animations for every possible variant and custom loadout would be impossible. It just justifies a mechanic that the lore says is possible.
No one would make an urbie with 20 lasers, it wouldn't just shutdown after one volley it would self destruct. I've never maintained that any such build would be viable anyways.
So we're up to three reasons hardpoints have "value" which to me still doesn't justify years of lore just for a video game mechanic.
My opinion anyways.
It doesn't really matter now since we're stuck with them, and I plan on moddifying jsons for a particular mech anyways, I just said it would be nice to have stayed closer in this respect to the original game for the reasons I've given.

Actually with how heat is tracked you'd shutdown for a single round for sure but you could probably one shot just about anything if you hit them from the side. Well worth it to take down 9+million assaults w/ a sub 3mil unit in a single turn. I might mod this in for a match to see how it works.