Two questions about mech layout philosophise
- Thread starter Bugnr01
- Start date
-
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.
Given that most of the best Stock table top mechs are mixed range (Wolvering-6m, Grasshopper, Thunderbolt, Battlemaster) i'd argue mixed range is a great way to go...although....The Awesome....
The AWS-8Q is also better with mixed range loadout 
Given MWO hardpoints, drop 1 PPC for 4 MLs (yes, ML is always the way to go) and 3 HS: Overheat alpha down from 36 to 27, max dmg up from 150 to 200, sustained dmg without creating any overheat from 100 to 150. Not counting the SL in in any case
Given MWO hardpoints, drop 1 PPC for 4 MLs (yes, ML is always the way to go) and 3 HS: Overheat alpha down from 36 to 27, max dmg up from 150 to 200, sustained dmg without creating any overheat from 100 to 150. Not counting the SL in in any case
I was actually thinking of taking an Awesome 8Q and downgrading the PPCs to LLs
My combat philosophy is about cracking armour and pouring as much fire into those cracks as possible.
For that reason I'll probably have one 'Mech with a PPC (or two) to do said armour cracking at range, another with LRMs to pour fire into said cracks at range, and another with SRMs to pour fire into said cracks if they manage to close distance. Fourth will either be a scout/spotter, or some kind of mid-range skirmisher/brawler to pick up what falls through (I'm leaning towards the latter).
For that reason I'll probably have one 'Mech with a PPC (or two) to do said armour cracking at range, another with LRMs to pour fire into said cracks at range, and another with SRMs to pour fire into said cracks if they manage to close distance. Fourth will either be a scout/spotter, or some kind of mid-range skirmisher/brawler to pick up what falls through (I'm leaning towards the latter).
I'm squarely in the mixed-range camp; I tend to hail the Centurion as the pinnacle of trooper 'Mech design - it can start hitting you at max range with its LRM-10, when it gets closer it'll add the AC/10 to the mix, and at optimal range it can add two MLs to that mix before the LRM minimum range means its damage curve goes down again.
For the same reason the Thunderbolt is also a favourite; LRM-15 out to max range, LRM-15+LL when you get closer than that, and if you are brave enough to get into close range, there's a trio of MLs and a SRM-2 to dissuade you of your idea of glory. The ultra-close range dual MGs are just there to add insult to injury if you get into knife-fighting range - or in this game to add some crit-seeking to a 65-ton melee attack
I also tend to favour 'Mechs with at least some LRMs on them - if all you have is direct-fire weapons, you'll do zero damage if there's no line of sight. With LRMs, there's always the possibility of indirect fire (or Sensor Lock in this game).
I'm quite happy that the oft-maligned mixed-loadout 3025 stock designs seem to be much more viable in this game than in some other incarnations of the BattleTech universe; it warms the cockles of an old BT nerd's heart to see a game where it's not always optimal to min-max everything
For the same reason the Thunderbolt is also a favourite; LRM-15 out to max range, LRM-15+LL when you get closer than that, and if you are brave enough to get into close range, there's a trio of MLs and a SRM-2 to dissuade you of your idea of glory. The ultra-close range dual MGs are just there to add insult to injury if you get into knife-fighting range - or in this game to add some crit-seeking to a 65-ton melee attack
I also tend to favour 'Mechs with at least some LRMs on them - if all you have is direct-fire weapons, you'll do zero damage if there's no line of sight. With LRMs, there's always the possibility of indirect fire (or Sensor Lock in this game).
I'm quite happy that the oft-maligned mixed-loadout 3025 stock designs seem to be much more viable in this game than in some other incarnations of the BattleTech universe; it warms the cockles of an old BT nerd's heart to see a game where it's not always optimal to min-max everything
Given the nature of the initiative system , it seems to make (some anyway) sense to run armor cracking guns on medium mechs and crit seeking weapons on assault mechs.
.png){kind=avatar}
Will light mechs have any role in lances later on or will it be all about building from medium upwards?
With good positioning you can always reserve your mediums down into the assault phase. And if your pilots have Master Tactician in the later game you can act in the heavy phase and pre-empt any OpFor assaults on the field.
It's gonna be dependent on which mech(weight) and how your lance will ideally function. Something like a Atlas will probably work better with a Bracket range build and almost anything light(fast) will benefit more with a single range bracket. But have defined roles for your mech and building towards that will work the best. I would rather have a Dedicated LRM boat than having a LRM on each mech due to how the pilot skills work and then you don't lose a chunk of your damage just cause you got too close.
Mechs like a Quickdraw or something that can move fast(lots of JJs) will definitely work well with very close range weapons and one could just run 4 quickdraws and go super melee or something ridiculous. But having a do everything mech is almost always a bad idea unless you have the tonnage for it(assaults). Now almost everyone will be able to get away with run bracket builds throughout the entire Campaign but Specialized mechs working in unison with a plan will always win against a do-all builds
Mechs like a Quickdraw or something that can move fast(lots of JJs) will definitely work well with very close range weapons and one could just run 4 quickdraws and go super melee or something ridiculous. But having a do everything mech is almost always a bad idea unless you have the tonnage for it(assaults). Now almost everyone will be able to get away with run bracket builds throughout the entire Campaign but Specialized mechs working in unison with a plan will always win against a do-all builds
One design philosophy rule I try to follow is to always give an ammo dependant mech at least one energy weapon as back up.
There is nothing more useless than a missile mech that runs out of ammo and is left with just melee as a last option. Even a measly medium laser would have been better than trying to melee all the time.
There is nothing more useless than a missile mech that runs out of ammo and is left with just melee as a last option. Even a measly medium laser would have been better than trying to melee all the time.
I think devs mentioned some kind of "Extract VIP" mission where you need to get into a certain point of the map and then get out to the evac. Maybe lights will turn such contracts into free money. Unless your contract includes a bonus for eliminating all the opposition, thus presenting more of a time/money question to the player.
Aside from this long-range support is a risky but somewhat viable option. Something like use jump jets to skirt enemy lines and get some back shots. It's all debatable and up to a player of course. Problem is - lights don't pack a strong punch and avoidance tactics may not be relevant to your current map/contract. This will make another medium+ mech a more favorable choice at least for me.
I'll probably swap my scout to a shadowhawk or other medium at the first opportunity. Don't trust the evasion.
I think that I would like to have some sort of mixed range capability/mixed loadout capabilities. Mechs with LRMs and ballilstics for range and stability(direct and indirect), SRMs for damage and stability, and lasers for damage in general.
If I do specialize with one mech, I think I would like another mech to specialize in what that mech is lacking, and keep the others mixed. Essentially, if I have a mech like a Grasshopper or Black Knight that is focused on direct fire energy, I might want to back it up with a Catapult C1, and have some other mechs like a Thunderbolt or something similar that has a mixed loadout.
I like the idea of being flexible on the battlefield, and having mechs working in tandem, instead of specializing and finding out I have left myself open to taking damage without dishing it out.
From what I can tell from Cohh's streams, it looks like roughly 15 rounds of ammo should be good. I don't think I would want to go as low as 10 myself.
If I do specialize with one mech, I think I would like another mech to specialize in what that mech is lacking, and keep the others mixed. Essentially, if I have a mech like a Grasshopper or Black Knight that is focused on direct fire energy, I might want to back it up with a Catapult C1, and have some other mechs like a Thunderbolt or something similar that has a mixed loadout.
I like the idea of being flexible on the battlefield, and having mechs working in tandem, instead of specializing and finding out I have left myself open to taking damage without dishing it out.
From what I can tell from Cohh's streams, it looks like roughly 15 rounds of ammo should be good. I don't think I would want to go as low as 10 myself.
Since this game is fairly close to TT, I'm going with my TT experience which puts me firmly in the 'mixed range' camp for a couple reasons: 1) You're always putting damage out, you almost never have a mech that can't fire something. 2) You're minimizing luck, every "shot" is a die roll, the more times you roll, the less a single 'bad' roll will hurt you and the better chance of getting that 'lucky' roll.
From watching the Cohh stream, here are my thoughts as a BT novice (although I did play the first MW computer game a million years ago):
- Having 2 up front and 2 support mechs seems like a good idea
- A good mix for support mechs could be one missile build and one sniper/PPC build. Both need JJs. One could have sensor lock. Lighter armor loads, and very light back armor.
- For front line mechs, a good mix might be one brawler/tank type with max armor, and one jack of all trades with good armor, multiple weapon types, multi targeting, and bulwark. No JJs
- Cohh has too much armor on his mechs now, especially on the legs
- Having 2 up front and 2 support mechs seems like a good idea
- A good mix for support mechs could be one missile build and one sniper/PPC build. Both need JJs. One could have sensor lock. Lighter armor loads, and very light back armor.
- For front line mechs, a good mix might be one brawler/tank type with max armor, and one jack of all trades with good armor, multiple weapon types, multi targeting, and bulwark. No JJs
- Cohh has too much armor on his mechs now, especially on the legs
I agree. I am a little conflicted on JJ for the tanks. I know that I will almost never use the JJ, but it's only 2 tons. It looks like the AI will not try to swarm the tanks, but what if it does? The battlefield might be too scary for me to not bring JJ. Otoh, we can always just retreat.
There's no such thing as "too much armor" - once you get into internals, repair times and costs go way up.
If you want to tackle more an advanced fitting plan - there is. Your armor is just a buffer to go through. Armor will not force enemy fire to glance off if you strap on a lot of it on the mech.
So, the main idea is balancing your damage output with survivability.
Totally agreed, you fit as much armour as you can, given your load-out - I do agree that there might be situations where I'd sacrifice armour to fit another heat sink or weapon system, but again I'd fit as much armour as I could given the load-out I wanted. Hence the "no such thing as too much armor" quip
Didn't someone post the numbers for armour/internal repairs somewhere? I seem to recall it was a huge jump in both time and cost once you go internal.
I usually have two range brackets my mechs have weapons for. I always have some sort of close range weapon, ml and the like. For on there I either have long range stuff like ppcs or lrms or I have medium range stuff I can use up close like Ac10s or LL. In TT I try to make sure I have enough heatsinks to fire the range bracket with little or no heat bracket.