Splitting Armor

[Rhodium]

I imagine the weight you'd have to sacrifice to fully armor both front and rear would preclude it from becoming the default loadout for most mechs.



You ignore defensive stances when attacking from the rear, so it's always beneficial. And there are still armor caps.

It'll be precluded from all default loadouts because stock mechs were built in a system where this wasn't allowed.

 

[kvetcha]

It'll be precluded from all default loadouts because stock mechs were built in a system where this wasn't allowed.

Sorry, I meant 'default' in a meta-sense. Players aren't necessarily going to rush out to fully-armor their mechs if it means losing heat sinks and weapons.

 

[Rhodium]

I mean, you can just get another heavily armored assault mech. There's plenty of them. And letting you cram your maximum armor value onto both your front and rear isn't going to change the fact that the Atlas has the most potential armor out of any mech in the game save for the King Crab

But it does mean you can get a Stalker to that armored sweet spot that the stock Atlas occupies, where you can shrug off attacks from heavies long enough to give your forces time to crush the enemy. Don't misunderstand me, I know relatively speaking the Atlas will still have the most armor, but this isn't a relativistic issue, there's a certain finite level of armor a mech needs to fill the Juggernaut Role effectively, and you hit around about 95-100 tons precluding this armor change. Believe me, I've got 500+ hrs in the beta and I've been testing all this stuff ALOT.

 

[Rhodium]

To be honest, I think the best way to think about this change (if you play MWO) is that you should imagine yourself frontloading your armor, like you always do in MWO, but then because this is a turn-based game, you kind of need that back armor back, but you don't want to change your mechs role by pulling of frontal armor. Well now you can do that, you just got to lose a heatsink or something.

 

[AncientRaig]

But it does mean you can get a Stalker to that armored sweet spot that the stock Atlas has where it can shrug off attacks from heavies long enough to give your forces time to crush the enemy. Don't misunderstand me, I know relatively speaking the Atlas will still have the most armor, but this isn't a relativistic issue, there's a certain finite level of armor a mech needs to fill the Juggernaut Role effectively, and you hit around about 95-100 tons precluding this armor change. Believe me, I've got 500+ hrs in the beta and I've been testing all this stuff ALOT.

I played a considerable amount of the beta as well, and I have some TT experience to drag in as well. You can use an 85 tonner as a tank and with options like the Stalker, Banshee, King Crab, and Highlander that's roughly half the confirmed assault unit list that fills the Juggernaut role effectively. These mechs are brick houses. Taking them out of the equation takes a large degree of concentrated firepower even though some of them don't have max armor stock.

 

[AncientRaig]

To be honest, I think the best way to think about this change (if you play MWO) is that you should imagine yourself frontloading your armor, like you always do in MWO, but then because this is a turn-based game, you kind of need that back armor back, but you don't want to change your mechs role by pulling of frontal armor. Well now you can do that, you just got to lose a heatsink or something.

That takes out a decent part of the strategic play in the mech lab. If I can dump a heat sink, or some excess ammunition, in order to bump my rear armor up by a ton or two without reducing my frontal armor, especially on mechs that already have thick armor and either run cool or have too much ammunition for certain weapons, there's no real reason not to, where as before you have to weigh splitting your front armor vs your rear armor and how much you want to have that "safety net" of back armor to let you move into riskier positions vs how much you want to be able to tank the majority of the fire coming your way.

 

[Rhodium]

I played a considerable amount of the beta as well, and I have some TT experience to drag in as well. You can use an 85 tonner as a tank and with options like the Stalker, Banshee, King Crab, and Highlander that's roughly half the confirmed assault unit list that fills the Juggernaut role effectively. These mechs are brick houses. Taking them out of the equation takes a large degree of concentrated firepower even though some of them don't have max armor stock.

They might be able to take a lot of damage because they are Assault Mechs, however damage plays out a little differently here than it does in TT, mostly because of damage buffed ACs, missile groupings being tighter rather than being entirely random, and firing from the side having odds skewed even further towards hitting only that sides leg, arm, and side torso.

The Stock Atlas is in a tier all it's own in terms of weathering enemy fire in the end game, and through this armor change, you can bring other mechs down to about 80 tons up to that tier, giving that role greater variety among its optimum setups.

 

[AncientRaig]

They might be able to take a lot of damage because they are Assault Mechs, however damage plays out a little differently here than it does in TT, mostly because of damage buffed ACs, missile groupings being tighter rather than being entirely random, and firing from the side having odds skewed even further towards hitting only that sides leg, arm, and side torso.

The Stock Atlas is in a tier all it's own in terms of weathering enemy fire in the end game, and through this armor change, you can bring other mechs down to about 80 tons up to that tier, giving that role greater variety among its optimum setups.

The stock Atlas is in a tier all to itself and nothing you do can change that without making it not an Atlas. That's the simple fact of having 20 tons worth of armor to play with. That doesn't mean that lighter mechs can't fill the Juggernaut role. The ones that I listed are all counted as "Juggernauts" by the MUL. And even with the increased AC damage and missile groupings being tighter, they are still tough machines. I played the beta as well. I tested plenty of different values and setups. Those mechs still work as Juggernauts.

 

[Rhodium]

That takes out a decent part of the strategic play in the mech lab. If I can dump a heat sink, or some excess ammunition, in order to bump my rear armor up by a ton or two without reducing my frontal armor, especially on mechs that already have thick armor and either run cool or have too much ammunition for certain weapons, there's no real reason not to, where as before you have to weigh splitting your front armor vs your rear armor and how much you want to have that "safety net" of back armor to let you move into riskier positions vs how much you want to be able to tank the majority of the fire coming your way.

I don't think it takes out any mechlab strategy in the slightest. You're talking about mechs with too much cooling or too much ammo, but that's a problem isolated to stock mechs, and a healthy portion of stock mechs are painfully strategically gimped, anyway. If the player being able to assemble a better mech loadout in 30 days where the various great house militaries had 100s of years doesn't break your immersion, why should this?

 

[AncientRaig]

I don't think it takes out any mechlab strategy in the slightest. You're talking about mechs with too much cooling or too much ammo, but that's a problem isolated to stock mechs, and a healthy portion of stock mechs are painfully strategically gimped, anyway. If the player being able to assemble a better mech loadout in 30 days where the various great house militaries had 100s of years doesn't break your immersion, why should this?

I didn't say anything about immersion. I'm talking purely about the considerations the player has to make in the mechlab when he decides how to build a mech. To use an example, say you have a mech that can mount 40 points of armor on its center torso. Normally, using TT rules and the rules followed by every other Battletech product up until now, that means you can split those 40 points of armor between front and rear CT as you see fit. With the system being proposed here, you can put 40 on the front and 40 on the rear at the same time. And even if you don't put all 40 points on both front and rear, you can put all 40 on the front without doing much to compromise your rear armor because you don't have to strip rear armor in order to increase front armor any more.

 

[Rhodium]

The stock Atlas is in a tier all to itself and nothing you do can change that without making it not an Atlas. That's the simple fact of having 20 tons worth of armor to play with. That doesn't mean that lighter mechs can't fill the Juggernaut role. The ones that I listed are all counted as "Juggernauts" by the MUL. And even with the increased AC damage and missile groupings being tighter, they are still tough machines. I played the beta as well. I tested plenty of different values and setups. Those mechs still work as Juggernauts.

Fair enough, I will concede to you the semantic argument that the Master Unit List labels them as Juggernauts, that's the word of God, I won't contest you there. But come down to my level and speak to me using my Lexicon for a moment. My definition of Juggernaut is defined as the role that the stock Atlas plays, it being in a tier to itself among all of the stock mechs, as you've conceded.

This decoupling of front and rear armor pools allows lighter custom Assaults to enter that role and join the stock Atlas: A max armor Stalker for example, sporting 18 SRM tubes, 6 medium lasers, and an LRM15.

At the risk of comparing e-peens, I believe I have tested this specific issue quite (perhaps more) extensively. I've got 700+ hours between the beta and futzing with custom JSON files. Nothing stock besides the Atlas quite achieves the effect of "wow... I'm shooting at this thing, and like nothing is happening... what am I supposed to do?".

 

[Rhodium]

I didn't say anything about immersion. I'm talking purely about the considerations the player has to make in the mechlab when he decides how to build a mech. To use an example, say you have a mech that can mount 40 points of armor on its center torso. Normally, using TT rules and the rules followed by every other Battletech product up until now, that means you can split those 40 points of armor between front and rear CT as you see fit. With the system being proposed here, you can put 40 on the front and 40 on the rear at the same time. And even if you don't put all 40 points on both front and rear, you can put all 40 on the front without doing much to compromise your rear armor because you don't have to strip rear armor in order to increase front armor any more.

Well A) you can't actually raise that rear armor past 24.
B) I don't think you lose all that much strategic value. Because frankly there is already plenty of opportunity cost elsewhere. This change doesn't lead to broken OP mechs, it just lets Stalkers and BattleMasters fill the same role as stock Atlases without giving them an insane amount of rear vulnerability that would make them non-viable. In exchange, they have to sacrifice range or tight damage grouping that the bigger Atlas gets to keep.

It also lets you build mobile command mechs like Dragons built for speed and armor only, sporting a single PPC and a hard outer shell to protect your commander. In short, you get more vastly more build variety in exchange for some mild loss in arguably redundant oppertunity cost; and it's pretty well balanced.

 

[Gauntlet]

Actually, based on digging around in beta JSON files, I can tell you that the rear armor is always hard-capped at 120 or at the mechs frontal cap, whichever is lower.

Which doesn't change the fact that the rear armor can have the same amount of armor as the front and doesn't require the front/back to pull from the same pool so one of them will be thinner than the other.

You don't notice it on smaller mechs because they can't even get their front armor that high, but on Assaults and Heavies you will notice it. Additionally, you ignore Guarded and Cover states when attacking from the rear.

So you're doing full damage which doesn't matter** because you still, theoretically, have to punch through the same amount of armor as you would from the front.

**Okay it does matter, a little bit, because you'll get through it a bit faster due to lack of damage reduction.

 

[AncientRaig]

Fair enough, I will concede to you the semantic argument that the Master Unit List labels them as Juggernauts, that's the word of God, I won't contest you there. But come down to my level and speak to me using my Lexicon for a moment. My definition of Juggernaut is defined as the role that the stock Atlas plays, it being in a tier to itself among all of the stock mechs, as you've conceded.

This decoupling of front and rear armor pools allows lighter custom Assaults to enter that role and join the stock Atlas: A max armor Stalker for example, sporting 18 SRM tubes, 6 medium lasers, and an LRM15.

At the risk of comparing e-peens, I believe I have tested this specific issue quite (perhaps more) extensively. I've got 700+ hours between the beta and futzing with custom JSON files. Nothing stock besides the Atlas quite achieves the effect of "wow... I'm shooting at this thing, and like nothing is happening... what am I supposed to do?".

Which, to be fair, is a role that's supposed to be fairly unique to the Atlas. Either way, the overall difference in max possible armor between an 85 tonner and a 100 tonner is a single Large Laser's worth of damage. And even accepting that nothing can really compare to the Atlas, that doesn't mean that this is a problem. Or that removing one of the major components of mechlab strategy is the best solution. Lighter mechs shouldn't be as tanky as heavier mechs, otherwise what's the point of them being heavier?

I'm not at my main computer so I can't pull up precise numbers for how much time I dumped into the beta, but I no-lifed it fairly hard. Not to the same level as you, but enough to say I know what I'm talking about.

Well A) you can't actually raise that rear armor past 24.
B) I don't think you lose all that much strategic value. Because frankly there is already plenty of opportunity cost elsewhere. This change doesn't lead to broken OP mechs, it lets Stalkers fill the same role as stock Atlases without giving them an insane amount of rear vulnerability that would make them non-viable.

Or you can just drop a missile launcher or two, or change the weapons loadout to something more focused, to free up tonnage to do the same. Using TT numbers, at a reasonable rear armor of 10 points the difference between the CT of the Atlas and the CT of the Stalker is 52 versus 44. That's not an excessive amount, especially not to the point where it would exclude the Stalker from taking a Juggernaut role.

Also, I thought the OP dug up something saying that the rear armor can mount the exact same total possible amount of armor as the front at the same time? Is this not correct? Because that's how it reads, and how everyone has been treating it.

 

[Rhodium]

Which doesn't change the fact that the rear armor can have the same amount of armor as the front and doesn't require the front/back to pull from the same pool so one of them will be thinner than the other.

It does matter for Assaults and Heavies; if you want max front armor for those you have to have thinner back armor.

So you're doing full damage which doesn't matter** because you still, theoretically, have to punch through the same amount of armor as you would from the front.

**Okay it does matter, a little bit, because you'll get through it a bit faster due to lack of damage reduction.

IT matters a lot considering Bulwork exists, and the Guarded state halves your damage.

So you're saying that an assault mech shouldn't be the only one capable of being an assault mech?

I'm saying lighter Assault mechs should be capable of being assault mechs to the same degree that the stock Atlas was previously capable. Please don't put words in my mouth, it's a bit rude.

 

[SQW]

Guys, the objective is to kill the other side most efficiently, not to test how much you can take it (in the rear).

Seriously, why are you exposing your rear so often in the first place that you need to armor the back as thickly as the front?

 

[AncientRaig]

Guys, the objective is to kill the other side most efficiently, not to test how much you can take it (in the rear).

Seriously, why are you exposing your rear so often in the first place that you need to armor the back as thickly as the front?

Having more rear armor lets you make riskier moves without putting yourself in "If this goes slightly wrong I'm losing this mech" territory. If your rear armor is as thick as your front, there's no real reason to not JJ behind that enemy AI even if it exposes you to his teammates because your rear armor is strong enough to take multiple rounds of enemy fire.

 

[Gauntlet]

It does matter for Assaults and Heavies; if you want max front armor for those you have to have thinner back armor.

And you should have to make that choice.

IT matters a lot considering Bulwork exists, and the Guarded state halves your damage.

So you get through it a bit faster but you're still punching through the EXACT same amount of armor as you would be from the front.

I'm saying lighter Assault mechs should be capable of being assault mechs to the same degree that the stock Atlas was previously capable. Please don't put words in my mouth, it's a bit rude.

Yeah, I noticed that. Sorry about that. I did go back and remove it as I saw that it could be construed like that.

I, personally, feel that lighter assault mechs are fine and that the Atlas, being 100 tons, deserves its place as "King of the Battlefield". Most of the 100 ton mechs are equal to the Atlas in staying power, as they should be due to them being in the same weight class. You should suffer a slight decrease in durability. And you do due to the IS/Armor ratio. Allowing for the same amount of armor on the back as the front, without needing to split it, in my opinion, goes against the spirit of the game. And doesn't really add anything to the game but takes away, or severely diminishes, one of the tactical aspects of the game. At least in my eyes.

 

[Rhodium]

Which, to be fair, is a role that's supposed to be fairly unique to the Atlas. Either way, the overall difference in max possible armor between an 85 tonner and a 100 tonner is a single Large Laser's worth of damage. And even accepting that nothing can really compare to the Atlas, that doesn't mean that this is a problem. Or that removing one of the major components of mechlab strategy is the best solution. Lighter mechs shouldn't be as tanky as heavier mechs, otherwise what's the point of them being heavier?

I'm not at my main computer so I can't pull up precise numbers for how much time I dumped into the beta, but I no-lifed it fairly hard. Not to the same level as you, but enough to say I know what I'm talking about.

Supposed to? supposed to by who's standards? clearly not by HBS and the creator of Battletech Jordan Weisman's standards. That difference does matter in practice; it's something I've tested over and over again, obsessively, probably unhealthily waiting for the finished product. Quite clearly lighter mechs aren't as tanky as heavier mechs, all the mechs have had their max armor potential increased; the increase has merely brought more mechs passed the Atlas's sweetspot threshold.

I really rather like this change, the balance feels as nuanced as before, but with more role variety; I think you should give it a chance.

Or you can just drop a missile launcher or two, or change the weapons loadout to something more focused, to free up tonnage to do the same. Using TT numbers, at a reasonable rear armor of 10 points the difference between the CT of the Atlas and the CT of the Stalker is 52 versus 44. That's not an excessive amount, especially not to the point where it would exclude the Stalker from taking a Juggernaut role.

Also, I thought the OP dug up something saying that the rear armor can mount the exact same total possible amount of armor as the front at the same time? Is this not correct? Because that's how it reads, and how everyone has been treating it.

The OP got his information from watching a stream. I got my information from reading JSON files. Trust me, the max rear armor is capped at 120 or the mechs front cap whichever is lower for CT. For the STs it's the same but the hard cap is 110. And in my extensive testing I have found that the difference between 52 and 44 points of armor is a big deal. It's the difference between dying and surviving a hit from a big gun, and then surviving 3 more turns, because RNJesus trolls the enemy.

 

[kvetcha]

I, personally, don't feel that lighter assault mechs are fine and that the Atlas, being 100 tons, deserves its place as "King of the Battlefield". Most of the 100 ton mechs are equal to the Atlas in staying power, as they should be due to them being in the same weight class. You should suffer a slight decrease in durability. And you do due to the IS/Armor ratio. Allowing for the same amount of armor on the back as the front, without needing to split it, in my opinion, goes against the spirit of the game. And doesn't really add anything to the game but takes away, or severely diminishes, one of the tactical aspects of the game. At least in my eyes.

Is there some equivalent in tabletop to the damage reduction provided in HBS BT for standing ground?