Mech I just cannot get to work

[aswitz87]

I’ve used most of the non assaults in the game now, and some I hated at first and have come to love. But one mech I cannot figure a way to use them even half-way effectively.
The Locust
Every other light has higher armor (except the Fleas but their loadouts are infinitely better and their melee is adorable).
Most other lights get higher evasion via jump jets (I play with a house rule of only JJ on mechs that could have them).
I’ve tried using it as a spotter, but that requires sprinting all the time; it then is taking a spot that any other mech could take to both spot and deal damage.
Even with sprinting I’ve had too many Locust killed at max evasion by a PPC legsplosion.

Is it just a bad mech chassis and I’m hoping for too much?

 

[ReKoR]

I am in the same situation than you, so I shall listen to the others

 

[stjobe]

It's one of the two lightest 'Mechs in the game; it's never going to be good, but it can be made to work if there's nothing else around - even a Locust is preferable to an empty slot in the lance.

If you want some more tips, I actually did a campaign run where I started with just five Locusts: A Plague of Locusts. I think my main take-away was: Upgrade as soon as you can because anything and everything else you can get is straight up better (even the mighty Spider 5V felt like a huge upgrade), and the best Locust load-out is 1xML, 2xSL, and an extra ton of armour.

Edit: Oh, and @Edmon might have some insight as well - after all, he's the one that runs 5-skull missions with only lights. I'm not that crazy good.

 

[Divine Decoy]

Try 4 LRM locus for giggles, other wise mech is trash. The vanilla game gives you a spider and a locus, and no one lets Decker die in a locus.

 

[Divine Decoy]

oh, melee locus is decent if it (or they) can finish something without being sneezed on

 

[Jolly Joker]

Well. You have only 7 usable tons with a Locust, which isn't much. Generally, there are only two ways to use a Locust. The first one is the easiest, using them as LRM-turrets. If you do that, you keep the poor things as far back as possible. Missions that involve enemy turrets will be dangerous due to possible sensor-locking, but this works quite well (when you have to use a Locust). Unfortunately, this is possible only with the S&M versions. 2 LRM-5s plus 1 ammo will leave two tons of armor and no JJs (which you won't need anyway). You may go for 2 tons of ammo, when you envision more than 10 combat rounds, leaving 1 ton of armor, which will be enough to stop a few LRMs erring your way, but that's it.
Using the E&V versions gives you 1/4 Energy and 3/2 support HPs, which means, you need to be close. Locusts have 15 melee damage, but when you have a V-model, the question is whether the 1 ton for an ML is really worth it, since you have to close in to support weapon range anyway. So a V can equip 3 SL, some JJs and some armor, say 5 JJs and 3 tons of armor or 2 tons and the ML. With this one, you'll wait in cover, until all enemies have moved, move or jump in, fire (and melee, preferably in some back), then the next turn (maybe with the help of Vigilance), sprint/move the hell away into cover again and hope for the best.
The E version can equip up to 4 ML plus 2 support weapons (preferably SLs). The trouble here is, that this setup runs really hot and has just 2 tons left for armor and JJs. A more sensible loadout are 3 MLs. I'm not really sure whether JJs are such a good idea on this one. 3 MLs and 2SLs plus 3 tons of armor, will allow you to hover in a somewhat safe distance to wait, close in to just ML range and then move away the next turn, always having many evasion pips.

 

[samz812]

Something that you should consider is that the locus was never actually designed for mech on mech combat, its more of a scout and anti-infantry platform than anything else as is the same for a number of other designs in game.

 

[stjobe]

Something that you should consider is that the locus was never actually designed for mech on mech combat, its more of a scout and anti-infantry platform than anything else as is the same for a number of other designs in game.

Every 'Mech is designed for 'Mech on 'Mech combat, even the Locust:

"One of the smallest 'Mechs ever built, the Locust was designed exclusively for reconnaissance and quick strike missions, using its then-phenomenal speed to outrun most enemies. In a situation where it was unable to outrun its enemies, the 'Mech did have a light array of weapons with which to defend itself, but the Locust lacked the firepower or staying power to be a true front-line combatant and as a result few MechWarriors enjoyed piloting Locusts. Within its weight-class though the Locust was considered an excellent 'Mech, overshadowed as a scout only by designs which mounted jump jets. Often when a Locust engaged in combat it was as a holding action until reinforcements could arrive, although when operating in groups of three they could swarm lone enemy 'Mechs that were separated from friendly support."​

- sarna.net entry for Locust​

Was it designed primarily to take out other 'Mechs? No, it was primarily designed for recon, but recon on a battlefield composed of, among other thing, 'Mechs.

 

[Timaeus]

Every 'Mech is designed for 'Mech on 'Mech combat, even the Locust:

Yup. Even the anti-infantry 'mechs. Like the Vulcan with its AC2.

 

[ntw]

See, one of the things I love about the setting is that as designed...some of the stock mechs *are* dreadful!
It fits with my head-canon of mechs being scarce and commanders being forced to use whatever is available.

 

[stjobe]

See, one of the things I love about the setting is that as designed...some of the stock mechs *are* dreadful!
It fits with my head-canon of mechs being scarce and commanders being forced to use whatever is available.

One should also rememeber that we don't really have a combined-arms battlefield; that 'Mech that is "dreadful" for the anti-'Mech role might be extremely potent as an anti-air 'Mech, an anti-infantry 'Mech, or a deep recon 'Mech (e.g.: OstScout, 35 tons armed with a single ML) - tasks which we have no use for, and when these 'Mechs get pressed into the anti-'Mech role they of course won't be as effective as a 'Mech designed primarily as a line 'Mech.

And then there's the Charger, an 80-ton 5/8/0 heavy scout armed with five small lasers. Even in-game it's seen as "an example of abject failure in BattleMech design". However, when you drop its engine down to heavy 'Mech speeds (CGR-1A5), it actually turns into a very potent assault 'Mech, sporting an AC/20, two SRM-6s, a ML, a SL, and five tons more armour than the CGR-1A1.

I guess what I want to say is that yes! One of the things that make the BattleTech universe interesting is that not everything is min-maxed for 'Mech-on-'Mech combat, not everything is optimised, and there are some white elephants out there.

But in the end, any 'Mech is better than no 'Mech - we are, after all, talking about the Kings of the Battlefield

 

[Marauder3D]

I think the best use of Locust mechs are spotting and finishing--both with the highest evasive chevron count you can manage.

Better to have a 4th Mech as a Locust than nothing at all--but definitely don't put it too far in harms way. If you take more than two medium laser hits, you need to back off. More than that and you'll start losing components.

I would strongly recommend the E version with lasers, and a pilot with the Sure Footed skill. It is fun to make one useful, and always adds a bit of excitement, because there is a fine line between success and failure (death!). When you do get that kill with a Locust, it is one of the best feelings you'll get in game.

It feels better to get an Urbanmech kill in a Locust, than to headshot an Atlas with a Marauder in the endgame!

 

[Divine Decoy]

I think the best use of Locust mechs are spotting and finishing--both with the highest evasive chevron count you can manage.

It feels better to get an Urbanmech kill in a Locust, than to headshot an Atlas with a Marauder in the endgame!

This. So true. Love melee killing mediums on assassination missions early on in locus. So long as the pilot lives, the trash locus earned me money. Have done all urbanmech missions just for giggles. Somethings are just fun even if not profitable.

 

[ntw]

One should also rememeber that we don't really have a combined-arms battlefield; that 'Mech that is "dreadful" for the anti-'Mech role might be extremely potent as an anti-air 'Mech, an anti-infantry 'Mech, or a deep recon 'Mech (e.g.: OstScout, 35 tons armed with a single ML) - tasks which we have no use for, and when these 'Mechs get pressed into the anti-'Mech role they of course won't be as effective as a 'Mech designed primarily as a line 'Mech.

And then there's the Charger, an 80-ton 5/8/0 heavy scout armed with five small lasers. Even in-game it's seen as "an example of abject failure in BattleMech design". However, when you drop its engine down to heavy 'Mech speeds (CGR-1A5), it actually turns into a very potent assault 'Mech, sporting an AC/20, two SRM-6s, a ML, a SL, and five tons more armour than the CGR-1A1.

I guess what I want to say is that yes! One of the things that make the BattleTech universe interesting is that not everything is min-maxed for 'Mech-on-'Mech combat, not everything is optimised, and there are some white elephants out there.

But in the end, any 'Mech is better than no 'Mech - we are, after all, talking about the Kings of the Battlefield

Exactly, I love that the tools we use are designed for different things, but circumstances force us to adapt and improvise and make do.

 

[ranger101]

On using Locust's they are fast recon mechs. They are not designed to slug it out with other mechs. Put a pilot with sensor lock in them, that is a job they do well. With their speed always get the maximum number of movement chevrons possible and target back arcs.

Locust M - 2 LRM5s & Med Laser, should have 3 energy hardpoints, 65 possible points of damage, remove LRM5s & ammo, install 2 medium lasers & 3 tons of armor, 75 possible points of damage.
Locust V - 2MGs & Med Laser, 55 possible points of damage, remove MGs & install 2 Small Lasers & 1 ton of armor - 65 possible points od damage.
Locust E - 1 MG & med Laser in each arm, always loses arm & weapons first, can't think of any mods, possible 80 points of damage.
Locust S - 2 SRM2s & Med Laser, possible 57 points o damage.
Locust 3E - (mods only if I remember correctly) 2 MGs & 2 Med Lasers center torso, 80 points possible damage.

Remember Locusts are recon mechs & back shooters. If they stand still they are dead mechs & arms are the first to go on them. Have fun with them.

 

[Aotrs Commander]

The locust (a mech of which I have more of than any other single mech on TT) suffers more than the other light mechs due to the limitation of "only once lance." (I'm not disagreeing that was the direction to take, but it does cause this problem.)

On TT, you can get away with cheaper, paffy units like the locust, because you can take advantage of numbers. A full lance of locusts can be pretty effective - but NOT, really, on a one-to-one basis with other mechs. It's like playing a tank game where you can only have four tanks, and expecting a scorpion to be able to pull its weight in a predominantly-combat-focussed scenario with a challenger 2, a leopard 2 and BMP-T. The game, by its nature, doesn't deal with recon especially well (where the locust would shine) - at least I don't THINK there's any mission were the goal is just "find where the enemy are, but don't fight then."

And, while HBS have made a sporting attempt to have missions that gravitate away from the inherent concentration-of-force-is-better-so-assaults dynamic, there's only so far you can bend that under the limitations of "no more than four player-controlled units" and no combined arms. Which means that locusts do rather get the short end of the stick in this system, unfortunately, and bit more than the other lights.

 

[Panzer-Killer]

...
On TT, you can get away with cheaper, paffy units like the locust, because you can take advantage of numbers. A full lance of locusts can be pretty effective - but NOT, really, on a one-to-one basis with other mechs.
...
The game, by its nature, doesn't deal with recon especially well (where the locust would shine) - at least I don't THINK there's any mission were the goal is just "find where the enemy are, but don't fight then."

And, while HBS have made a sporting attempt to have missions that gravitate away from the inherent concentration-of-force-is-better-so-assaults dynamic, there's only so far you can bend that under the limitations of "no more than four player-controlled units" and no combined arms. Which means that locusts do rather get the short end of the stick in this system, unfortunately, and bit more than the other lights.

As a matter of fact, FASA has always meant TT Battletech to be a tabletop Point Value game of lance vs lance TACTICAL 'Mech combat, given that any featured 'Mech had a Battle Value (B.V.) specifically designed for lance vs lance combat only, so much that when they decided to abide with the fan base request of larger scale engagements they released a quite different and very simplified rule set called "Alpha Strike" purposefully built in order to allow for up to company strength battle engagement.

From this logical stand point, HBS' BATTLETECH is an outstanding video-game adaptation of the TT version.

Finally, this is a TACTICAL 'Mech combat game, not a STRATEGICAL 'Mech combat game, isn't it?

 

[Aotrs Commander]

As a matter of fact, FASA has always meant TT Battletech to be a tabletop Point Value game of lance vs lance TACTICAL 'Mech combat, given that any featured 'Mech had a Battle Value (B.V.) specifically designed for lance vs lance combat only, so much that when they decided to abide with the fan base request of larger scale engagements they released a quite different and very simplified rule set called "Alpha Strike" purposefully built in order to allow for up to company strength battle engagement.

From this logical stand point, HBS' BATTLETECH is an outstanding video-game adaptation of the TT version.

Finally, this is a TACTICAL 'Mech combat game, not a STRATEGICAL 'Mech combat game, isn't it?

My point also applies to TT BT, but there the mitigating factor in TT's favour being that the limitation is not hard-coded to unit count but points value of one stripe or another, where you get what you pay for and the other guy is on even terms. In HBS BT, the limitation is either flat unit-count or tonnage on some missions, and the OpFor uses different rules, which all conflates towards maximising concentration of power (which means an inevitable bias towards assaults).



That said, the equivilent of more than one platoon of vehicles does not make it a strategic engagement. I'll also point out BT TT was more thorough than most wargames, actually, when it came to adding combined arms, artillery, supply, air support etc. The very early concept might have been just four units per side, but long before I came to BT in the mid 90s, it had expanded to well beyond that scope.

Two or three lances in this version of BT would not make it a strategic game; what it would mostly make it is just LONGER, cumbersomely so, given it is TB.

(BT slightly shot itself hard in the foot from a gameplay perspective by making a lance four mechs in this sole regard; as stuff like X-Com and most CRPGs (and even table top RGs) show, six is usually about the optimum number. (COMSTAR apparently have it right...!) (From a real-world military perspective, there's a good reason why tank plattons are 3-4 tanks, of course, so in every regard but the meta-game small unit play perspective count four is right.)

Eight would be too many, given the multipliers of force required to compensate for the AI dificiencies compared to a human player, but five or six would probably have allowed some more room for mechs that make a better 5th member of the 5-6 man band (the bards of the group, as t'were...)

As I said, I am not saying that HBS made a wrong choice to make it just four units; but that choice comes with its own set of drawbacks, same as the alternatives do (in this case, it means that some units are simply not best used in ths sort of environment).




The problem with Alpha Strike (and its ancestors) is (at least as far as I can see) that what fundementally makes BT BT is the nuts and bolts[1]. Take that away, and Alpha Strike doesn't have anything to offer that other abstracted TT wargames rules don't already do significantly better (unlike a computer game version like MechCommander 2 where you can get away with it and have to). If I'm going to play BT with a dozen mechs, I'm going to play BT, not Alpha Strike.




[1]Let me be clear; I'm far less interested in the politics of the houses than I am in the technical readouts and the histories of the mech designs; the politics is just something to hang the technical readouts on, pretty much as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Harmon Ward]

The Locust LCT-1E is in the game also. I have used it effectively to hunt down enemy light units. I just has to keep moving fast!
This Locust has greater punch with no munition weapons, the LCT-1E Locust was introduced in 2811. Among the least-produced variants, the "Energy" Locust carried an entirely laser-based weapons assortment, with two Martell Medium Lasers and two Magna Small Lasers mounted in the arm "turrets".

 

[Shark7]

Honestly, when it comes to mechs that just don't work, I'd take any Locust over a Cicada 2A at any point in time. I did make a Cicada 2A work once by arming with SLs and replacing the ML with armor and literally just ramming things when I had to use it, but it didn't fair well past 1/2 skull missions, LOL.

There are some really poor designs in BTech (purposely designed to be bad by the TT game) and being forced to use them and figuring out a way to make them work can be a fun challenge...for a short while at least. But um, yeah, sell that 2A and replace it with a Locust, Hornet, Wasp or Stinger as soon as possible...all four of those 20 ton lights are better than the Cicada 2A.