|
|
|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Yffer
Clan Ghost Bear
Point Commander
Joined: 04-Jul-2006 00:00
Posts: 11
|
 Posted: 10-Dec-2006 15:07 Post subject: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
  |
|
I've been playing Battletech since 1985, and I've always wondered why so many mechs are so lame (poorly designed). I've been wondering about this for 21 years, and I have my own theories, but I want to hear what other's think.
First, I'll start with my defintion of what I think is lame. First, we all know that battlemechs are expensive, so one would think survivabilty would be a key issue. So wouldn't it make sense for most or all mechs to carry more armor. The poor design is obviously on purpose. Take the Cicada for example. At 8-12 movement the mech is fast, but has virtually no armor. If the mech was change to 7-11 movement, it could carry the same weapons load and more armor, and actually be a decent mech. Same with the Charger - lighten it to 75 tons, and it can be a wonderful scout.
Virtually all assualt mechs that move 4-6 are lame. An Orion would blow most of them to pieces.
Many mech have more weapons than they can use, but are low on heat sinks and armor.
IS 3050 designs with XL engines are lame beyond belief because they carry so little armor to protect that big engine.
Many of the S.L. mechs are just as lame or worse.
Does anyone know why. I understand that for color you want to have a few failures, but why so many failures?
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Nightmare
Lyran Alliance
Kommandant-General
Joined: 03-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 2214
|
| Posted: 10-Dec-2006 17:09 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-10 15:07, Yffer wrote:
Does anyone know why. I understand that for color you want to have a few failures, but why so many failures?
|
|
Because those lame mechs were designed with a certain role in mind? A role that might no longer exist in the 31st century? A mech is still a mech, and ordinary people fear them.
_________________
A tree fall in the forest, and no one is around, and it hits a mime. Does anyone care?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
CO_17thRecon
Kell Hounds
Major
Joined: 10-Sep-2002 00:00
Posts: 1297
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 10-Dec-2006 19:08 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
I agree with Nightmare. Many 'Mechs are dedicated specialists and have little else going for them. The whole XL engine blow up in 3050, I have no idea about. I think 'Mech designers have calmed that one down though. I also think it meant a little less then since XL 'Mechs were usually fighting XL 'Mechs.
_________________
Jarylan Blackwell
"What the...?! Where did you get THAT?!"
"Creative aquisition."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Stinger
The Knights of Chaos
General
Joined: 30-Apr-2002 00:00
Posts: 1833
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 10-Dec-2006 21:29 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
Quote:
| Many mech have more weapons than they can use, but are low on heat sinks and armor. |
|
You have to remember that nothing but alphastriking boats are well, lame. The high weapon to heatsink ratio means that most of these are designed to be bracket fighters, which require dicipline to use. As far as armor goes who knows. I myself prefer mechs with full armor.
_________________
Stinger
If it's "creepy" to use the Internet, military satellites, and robot aircraft to find a house full of gorgeous young models so I can drop in on them unexpected, then FINE, I'm "creepy". Howard Wolowitz. BBT.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sleeping Dragon
Draconis Combine
Tai-i
Joined: 06-Apr-2005 00:00
Posts: 4820
Location: Czech Republic
|
| Posted: 11-Dec-2006 03:34 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
Fluff, fluff, fluff the stupid design...
Well, as the other people already said there are specialists and many 'Mechs have something that makes them special. Of course that there are machines (like AS8-K) which are poorly designed, but some of them work. I don't know why so many designs were made ... differently in older TROs, but it is usually explained by technology boom combined with the rush to upgrade more machines to deal with clan threat (well, it's a retrospective explanation and a poor excuse IMO). Some machines are probably designed with flaws to make the game a little more interesting, but it's hard to see which 
I can't agree with you in statement that all 4/6 assaults suck. New Berserker (from 3055 upgrades), Grand Titan (I don't like it, but it isn't that bad), Kodiak, Scylla, Warhawk, Executioner, Battlemaster, Thug, ... They aren't that bad.
_________________
The dragon NEVER sleeps!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Pinhead
The Bloody Clans
Joined: 25-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1258
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 11-Dec-2006 07:54 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
The game wouldn't be much fun with a series of high end missle boat mechs, or mechs that can instantly kill the other guy if you roll a 10 or better.
One of the very interesting things about the game is the need to take a less than optimal weapon load against a mech of a different size, or speed.
I like the weaknesses of the 3025 mechs. I detest the new mechs that try to put the inner sphere on the same level as the clans. They take alot of the weaknesses out, and simply add to the randomness of die rolls versus skill in movement and planning.
Pin
_________________
"My Blood is not mine to give, it belongs to my Brothers"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Erenon
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Sergeant
Joined: 04-Jun-2004 00:00
Posts: 976
Location: Singapore
|
| Posted: 11-Dec-2006 11:12 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
And the old large pulse targeting computer combo wasn't lame?
The reason for the seemingly poor configurations is too give the game character. Not all mechs are perfectly designed killing machines.
Some are mediocre and reflect how they were designed. Others are house mechs that reflect the preferences of the house that produce them.
_________________
"My job is to keep the majority of people in this country alive. That's it. If fifty-one percent eat a meal tomorrow and forty-nine percent don't, I've done my job." - The Beast (AKA The President), Transmetropolitan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rudel Gurken
Allisters Light Thunder
Major
Joined: 15-Jun-2005 00:00
Posts: 1456
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: 11-Dec-2006 15:08 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
Think of it as an fluff phenomenon!
Like in reality not all military units that make it into production are the best you can/could get!
For Example:
The Messerschmitt Me 210 was produced in full series despite its prototyp failing miserably!
The Luftwaffe trusted Messerschmitt so much that they thought he would work out the problems in short time but it was a long painful way up to the excellent Me 410! A way that wasted a lot of resources!
Another example are the british Battlecruisers of WW I:
They were built with a simple idea in mind: Make them almost as big as the Dreadnoughts, put in the same big caliber guns as the Dreadnoughts and then make them faster! The substantially reduced armor was accepted because they thought that the speed would protect them.
But in the Battle of Jutland (Skagerak-Schlacht in german) the german warships had no problems hitting them despite their high speed and due to their light armor 3 british battlecruisers exploded and sunk (two of them after only 5 hits!)!
On later Battlecruisers (even the ones being under construction that time) the armor was strengthened!
A military that had used countless designes over some hundred years would have bought some models that were "lame" especially in the beginning of Battle Mech production!
I hope i hadn't bored you to death with that rather lengthy post 
_________________
Reality is where the Pizza-man comes from!'Gucken, petzen, verpissen!' (Look at it, squeal it, get the hell away from it!) – Motto of the recon troops'Artillery doesn´t know friend or foe! They only know worthwhile targets!‘ – Kuritan Infantrist
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 11-Dec-2006 17:04 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
Speaking of older designs...
Also did not the German war machine design and produce a tank or two with bad to severe fuel line integrity problems? They were good tanks...just not all there...
Compare the Tiger(?) or other similar German tank to the Sherman. One on one, the Sherman loses at least 6 out of 10 engagements. It had speed over the German tanks but it lacked the mass to mount the thicker armor and larger bore guns.
Cannot, off top of head, remember German tank names. Had 3 when I started typing but they left by the time I got to the part about them... 
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Warhammer: 3025
Freelance
Captain, AFFC (Ret.)
Joined: 29-Jan-2005 00:00
Posts: 1856
|
| Posted: 11-Dec-2006 19:21 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-11 17:04, Seraph wrote:
It had speed over the German tanks but it lacked the mass to mount the thicker armor and larger bore guns. |
|
The two tanks cannot be fairly compared. The Tiger and Panther were Battle Tanks, intended to fight and kill enemy armored vehicles. The Sherman was an Armored-Cavalry Tank; the Army had the crazy idea that tanks like the Sherman would support infantry and exploit breakthroughs, and tank destroyers like the Jackson and Wolverine to tackle enemy tanks (which were expected to attack in blitzkrieg-like fashion: deep penetrations along narrow fronts, which could be more easily defended by smaller number of Tank Destroyers).
You might as well compare a Stinger to a Jenner; they're just too different to be fairly compared.
[ This Message was edited by: Warhammer: 3025 on 2006-12-11 19:58 ]
_________________
Evil is like a bowl of oranges. Only one, instead, is an orange of DOOM. That orange has a fate to rule over the other oranges with an iron fist. That orange is me.
Because sometimes, there are many guards in the castle.
Ya Rl'yeh!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mud
Draconis Combine
Tai-sho
Joined: 23-Jul-2002 00:00
Posts: 1618
|
| Posted: 12-Dec-2006 11:13 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
I'm curious...you bring up the Cicada and Charger, which are probably the worst of the worst, but what about 'mechs like the Rifleman, or the Shadowhawk. Certainly not optimized, but useless?
Just where do you want to draw the line?
[ This Message was edited by: mud on 2006-12-12 11:13 ]
_________________
"The enemy's gate is down."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SaberDance
Federated Suns
Colonel
Joined: 07-May-2004 00:00
Posts: 837
|
| Posted: 12-Dec-2006 12:36 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
On the topic of Mechs, I think I fundamentally agree with everything that's been said.
I would add that the mechs weren't designed for tactical operations only, nor are they designed for one fight.
Scouts have to cover lots of territory, so while the difference between 8/12 and 7/11 is small across a single map (what, about a half-kilometer square?), it can add up over many miles. When I drive from East Kentucky to West Missouri, even 1 additional mph can cut an hour off the travel time.
With scouts, that can be a lot of time, and if you aren't supposed to engage anyway, what need is there for heavy armor?
In a tactical situation, the scouts shouldn't be getting into to many firefights, but should be marking targets for the big mechs.
There's also a point about battlefield philosophies. Weaker armor but heavier firepower (common in the DCMS and AFFS) reflect a belief in using firepower to overcome defenses (good offense theory), the LCAF and the CCAF use more defensive mechs (best offense is a good defense). We'd all love lots of weapons and lots of armor, but you typically have to choose one.
Me, I'm an armor and distance man, but I'm slowly converting...
In another thread, somewhere around here, I divided mechs into 6 roles: Scout, Light Cavalry, Medium Cavalry, Garrison, Heavy Cavalry, and Support. The Heavy Cavalry was the assault lance, who's job was to shock and smash, and didn't need speed, since most of the time they'd be attacking immobile objects, not chasing down fleeing mechs (which was light cavalry's job. I could rename them the Dragoons).
On the matter of the tanks: Read "The Blitzkrieg Myth" by John Mosier. Short form, the Germans built six or seven different kinds of tanks, for jobs ranging from Infantry Support to "Mailed Fist Breakthrough" to Tank-destroyers. Pretty much everyone except the Russians did the same thing.
Where American tanks were superior was in their numbers and their survivability, and Patton, Bradley, and Ike figured that out pretty quick after Kasserine. While it might take six Shermans to knock out a single Panther, the Panther was dead permanently, and 4 of the six Shermans could be repaired and put back into service.
After the war, everyone realized that tanks were too vulnerable to a variety of different attacks unless supported by infantry, which lead to the rise of MBTs combining fast construction, good spead, good armor, and big guns, lead by the Russion IS series (particularly the IS-III, unveiled in 1947), followed by the American Chafee and Jumbo series, and culminating in the M1, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Leopard III, Merkerva analogs.
_________________
"Politics is the Art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing the problem, and applying the wrong solution."
-Groucho Marx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rudel Gurken
Allisters Light Thunder
Major
Joined: 15-Jun-2005 00:00
Posts: 1456
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: 12-Dec-2006 13:02 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-11 17:04, Seraph wrote:
...
Cannot, off top of head, remember German tank names. Had 3 when I started typing but they left by the time I got to the part about them...
|
|
The german tanks got numbers at most:
Pzkpfw (Panzerkampfwagen; Armored combat wagon) or short Panzer I, II, III, IV
The Panzer V later was called Panther and the Panzer VI was named Tiger (and the "Upgrade" Tiger II "Königstiger" ("Kingtiger")
The huntertank-variants (without turret) were named Jagdpanther / Jagdtiger.
_________________
Reality is where the Pizza-man comes from!'Gucken, petzen, verpissen!' (Look at it, squeal it, get the hell away from it!) – Motto of the recon troops'Artillery doesn´t know friend or foe! They only know worthwhile targets!‘ – Kuritan Infantrist
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Col. Dwight Chandra
Lewis' Executioners
C.O., Alpha Co.
Joined: 15-Aug-2002 00:00
Posts: 170
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 12-Dec-2006 13:05 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
I totally agree with Pinhead that the weaknesses make the game interesting, in that they force the player to adapt to each situation. They also give the game a lot of flavor. Some of the older tech readouts have really nice fluff text that describes really model-specific quirks (I don't have any of them in front of me now, so I can't give details, but they were things like a certain mech having its torso-mounted medium laser mounted a little too close to the engine, with the result that the laser was finicky). I would never do anything like this at a convention because it is too slow, but I have run games at my house where I incorporated that fluff into the game mechanics (so in my made-up example, the mech in question might have to roll a d20 every time it used that laser, and on a roll of 1, the laser would burn-out for the remainder of the battle).
My players hated me
_________________
I'm the guy
who laughs at the guy
who makes fun of the guy
who thinks he's the coolest guy in the room.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 12-Dec-2006 17:41 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
Fluff based quirks...
Orion comes to mind. Where the techs had to load it's ammo bin one salvo short so as the feed mechanism would not jam.
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-05:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
