Ever since they introduced custom games played with 5 salvage requirment. You spend more time with your startup mechs and more time with light and medium. Anyway fight a battle and yes an Orion. Have four parts of that can finally send my last Shadow Hawk into storage. Win battle but oohh no it was wrong Orion. Why is it so many mechs with same name? Is it the legal stuff that prevent more different mech names? Cheaper to develop game when can use same look on several mechs?
Why so many mechs with same name?
- Thread starter stavern
- 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.
- Status
because they're differant model numbers. This predates this video game, some (most) of those mech varients have been around for ages, and, unless you're in your thirties are older then you.
They are "variants." Same basic model, but the chassis have completely different hardpoint configurations and they are thus incompatible.
It's not the most intuitive design choice out there from for a video game, but the designations and such have been established by the tabletop game that the game is based on a loooong time ago.
It is also certainly not because they are easier to design. In fact, different variants of the same 'Mech model can look completely different. The prime (LRM) and K2 (PPC) Catapults are probably the most striking examples.
It's not the most intuitive design choice out there from for a video game, but the designations and such have been established by the tabletop game that the game is based on a loooong time ago.
It is also certainly not because they are easier to design. In fact, different variants of the same 'Mech model can look completely different. The prime (LRM) and K2 (PPC) Catapults are probably the most striking examples.
Because in real life (according to wikipedia) the M4 Sherman has spawned 113 veriants in 76 years of service... Imagine what a machine that has been in service for 300 years is going to spawn!
BattleTech has had variants of 'Mech chassis since the mid-80's, so this is simply due to trying to stay true to the game's board game roots.
The name (e.g. "Orion") is the name of the chassis. The variant (e.g. "ON1-K", "ON1-V") tells you specifically what type of Orion it is - i.e. what load-out it has. Sarna.net has all variants of a chassis on that chassis' page if you're interested, although most of the variants are for one reason or another not applicable to this game.
The Hunchback is a good example too; the HBK-4G variant comes with a honking big AC/20 in the right torso, whereas the HBK-4P has no autcannon at all, but has six medium lasers in the right torso.
Generally, unless there's only one variant, the variant designation is preferred when talking about a 'Mech (i.e. "ON1-K" or "Orion K", but not "Orion" since that is ambiguous).
Have a look at the chart in this thread, it is really helpful to see what variants of which chassis is in the game: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...oints-speed-usable-tonnage-melee-etc.1088884/
And yeah, it's frustrating to have four of each variant of a chassis (i.e. eight or even twelve pieces) but no full chassis, but look at it this way: The next Orion you see is guaranteed to give you a completed 'Mech!
I generally use just the chassis name of I am referring to the base/default variant or if variant is irrelevant.
For example, the Commado usually carries a bunch of SRMs. If I mention the Commando, this is the variant I mean. If I mean the large laser variant, I call it the laser Commando or Commando (large laser variant) or some other variation.
I generally don't use the variant designations much. I know most of them, but I'm not real solid on all of them. I don't expect people to readily know the difference between a COM-2D and a COM-1B (even though I realize many of you do know and could tell me exact loadouts for both without looking them up).
For example, the Commado usually carries a bunch of SRMs. If I mention the Commando, this is the variant I mean. If I mean the large laser variant, I call it the laser Commando or Commando (large laser variant) or some other variation.
I generally don't use the variant designations much. I know most of them, but I'm not real solid on all of them. I don't expect people to readily know the difference between a COM-2D and a COM-1B (even though I realize many of you do know and could tell me exact loadouts for both without looking them up).
I do think HBS are going to have to address how you salvage variants at some point. Maybe not now, but if they keep adding mechs and variants, it's going to become frustrating and tilt the salvage mechanic against the player.
Adjusted Mech Assembly mod will combine parts from variants, with the variant you get being either random based on parts ratio used, or decided by the most parts used.
There is certainly an element of truth in this statement. Down the road at some point. We haven't hit that point yet though.
maybe.. but if you wanted assembly a Sherman, you could do it from parts from practically any Sherman variant.... Hull would be same.. tracks etc... they actually differed in small details.. Shermans were either made with cast or welded hull and had either early (small) turret or T23 larger turret... small turret was only good for 75mm gun (but Brits actually mounted huge 17pdr in it) while T23 turret was used with 76mm and even 105mm guns... but overall, you could take parts from one and use them in another..
Well, that depends. HVSS and VVSS suspensions, and their related tracks, are completely incompatible. You wouldn't be able to mount a 17pdr into a normal early war Sherman turret as the turret had to be modified to fit the gun and the radio at the same time, as well as a having a different mantlet in order to accept the larger gun. Plus, not any 17pdr could be used. Fireflies had specially designed 17pdrs with heavily modified breeches and barrels because the standard 17pdr was too big to fit into the Sherman even with all the modifications to the turret. A Firefly's turret would also be incapable of mounting a 75 of a 76mm gun without considerable modification. The physical hull itself, along with the engine and powertrain, would likely be compatible across most variants with the possibly exception of some of the postwar variants, but the differences between many of the variants are still enough to limit parts compatibility or make it outright incompatible.
In the same vein, if you have the RT of a Hunchback 4G, you're only going to be able to assemble a Hunchback 4G without needing to make significant modification to the RT in order to fit the SRMs of a 4SP, or the lasers of a 4P. Or, if you have the LT of a 4G and you want to make a 4SP, you have to design and fit an entire housing, recoil management system, heat venting system, ammunition feed, etc into the LT in order to mount the SRM6 and have it actually work (which basically requires you to have a mech factory on hand).
Actually... 17pdr WAS mounted into early war Turret... Thats why US declined 17pdr Shermans for own use.. there was just not enough of space in it.. US had T23 turret developed for M6 Medium, which was eventually canceled and its turret was used as an upgrade for Late Shermans... so technically, you could take early Sherman turret and mount 75 or 17pdr in it.. after all, Israel in 1948 even mounted old french 75mm field howitzer in it because they did not manage to get anything else... and those were early war Shermans... Later they managed to get some M4A3/76, which they later modified into M50 by adding French 75mm gun from AMX-13 tank.. which funny enough was practically a copy of German 7.5cm KwK42..
One of the biggest advantages of Shermans was actually their interchangeability of parts... you did not needed special parts for different versions of Sherman.. they were built to the same standard by all factories.. only exception were diesel Shermans for Russians and US Marines... (M4A2 and M4A4) US Military did not wanted to ship different variants of part around the globe.. so they demanded interchangeability... at the other side, Germans had so many different subversions of their tanks, that sometimes 6th tank on the manufacturing line had completely different parts.. which caused huge problems for troops in the field as they could not repair tanks without proper parts, and could not salvage other tanks because most of the time parts would not fit....
One of the biggest advantages of Shermans was actually their interchangeability of parts... you did not needed special parts for different versions of Sherman.. they were built to the same standard by all factories.. only exception were diesel Shermans for Russians and US Marines... (M4A2 and M4A4) US Military did not wanted to ship different variants of part around the globe.. so they demanded interchangeability... at the other side, Germans had so many different subversions of their tanks, that sometimes 6th tank on the manufacturing line had completely different parts.. which caused huge problems for troops in the field as they could not repair tanks without proper parts, and could not salvage other tanks because most of the time parts would not fit....
Greetings Mechwarriors,
Topic is Battletech, mechs there-in.
There is an OT and a History forum for the RL tangent.
This is of a type that experience tells us spirals.
Please stay on topic.
Thank you.
Topic is Battletech, mechs there-in.
There is an OT and a History forum for the RL tangent.
This is of a type that experience tells us spirals.
Please stay on topic.
Thank you.
[Mod edit: RL tangent despite mod request]. While that rings true of many mechs in BT as well, some variants change the base design so radically that they no longer have that high parts commonality. Again, I'll use the example of the Hunchback 4SP, which drops the RT mounted AC20 in favor of mounting an SRM6 in each side torso and an extra Medium Laser in each arm. Modifying the arms to mount an extra laser isn't terribly hard, and modifying the AC20 mount to feed an SRM is difficult, but not impossible. Modifying the normally empty left torso to mount an SRM6 and all the systems required to make it function, such as its ammo feed, requires considerably more effort than your average merc company is capable of. With the Argo at full functionality it would be possible, considering the thing is a flying mech factory, but in the Leopard, or in the Argo without all of the mechbay upgrades to bring the factory components online, you'd probably have better luck convincing a Clanner that Stefan Amaris did nothing wrong
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status