KickStarter BattleTech Pre-Release Thread

[Infinitron]

Ah, Stardestroyer.net!

those guys are fun :D I loved reading the Star Wars vs Star Trek analysis back in the day.

IIRC, Stardestroyer.net is basically the RPG Codex for sci-fi aficionados

 

[GarfunkeL]

Yeah, pretty much that.

 

[gestalt11]

I always kind of assumed the reason to use Mechs was more for superior movement over rough ground and jumpjets. Tanks and stuff exist in battletech and at least in Crescent Hawks revenge they could fuck up a mech pretty good. I dunno about the core rules and gameplay though.

I am not really even sure you can do a great analysis of tanks vs mechs and capture the important movement aspects. Mech have a number of countermeasures on them. Assuming guided large expensive missiles would work is a bad idea. Usually LRM SRM on mechs work because they shoot tons of missiles at once. How would a tank even deal withe Stinger/Wasp/Phoenix Hawk LAM? In Battletech the LAM are generally considered inferior to dedicated aerospace vehicles but they ability to do ok and then attack targets on the battlefield in a versatile manner is supposedly useful.

And aren't a lot of mech style fights mainly smaller battles and not full on wars due to the Feudal nature of the setting? I was under the impression the prevalence of the mech fights was for smaller missions that had less support and needed more verstaility. Generally you are a mercenary with a few lances at most.

 

[Morkar Left]

Battlemechs have such advanced tech and armor that the Inner Sphere wasn't capable to rebuilt it. I guess it's save to say there are alien materials and advanced tech in place which easily overthrow our understanding and ressources we have on Earth. The reactor alone is something we can't rebuild in our modern day.
And people shouldn't confuse range limitations for gameplay and general convenience. You can't compare the effectiveness of Roman soldiers to real ones in the past just because you know their Total War stats.
Therefore I have no problem to imagine that even a modern day army wouldn't stand a chance against an Inner Sphere army with battlemechs as a mainforce.

 

[Darkzone]

Mech supremacy in Battletech relies on insane weights of ICE engines. An in Battletech an ICE engine for M1 Abrams tank weights 32 tons, while in reality it's 1,5 tons + about 2 tons of fuel.
So, a 70 tank with march speed of 4 would need only an about 4 ton "engine". That would leave 28 more tons for armour.

Normal engines cannot supply enough power for the energy weapons and that is the true strength of the Mechs. Also due to the fact that the Mechs need no refuel (at least not for weeks) they are highly mobile. While a normal tank has just an operating range with his 2 tons of fuel of about 600km. The 600 km for a Marauder are just 10 -16 hours on autopilot while the pilot takes a break. A tank cannot drive the 50km/h in rough terrain, while the Mech can. Also equipped with jump jets the faster and lighter Mechs are able to cross small rivers and even jump onto / into buildings, while the tank cannot do it.

 

[Darkzone]

I always kind of assumed the reason to use Mechs was more for superior movement over rough ground and jumpjets. Tanks and stuff exist in battletech and at least in Crescent Hawks revenge they could fuck up a mech pretty good. I dunno about the core rules and gameplay though.
I am not really even sure you can do a great analysis of tanks vs mechs and capture the important movement aspects. Mech have a number of countermeasures on them. Assuming guided large expensive missiles would work is a bad idea. Usually LRM SRM on mechs work because they shoot tons of missiles at once. How would a tank even deal withe Stinger/Wasp/Phoenix Hawk LAM? In Battletech the LAM are generally considered inferior to dedicated aerospace vehicles but they ability to do ok and then attack targets on the battlefield in a versatile manner is supposedly useful.
And aren't a lot of mech style fights mainly smaller battles and not full on wars due to the Feudal nature of the setting? I was under the impression the prevalence of the mech fights was for smaller missions that had less support and needed more verstaility. Generally you are a mercenary with a few lances at most.

Yes they can pretty much fuck up a Mech in the Battletech board game. There are tanks with 3 PPKs that can be shot every round. The heavies tanks can take on a the heaviest Mechs. But due Mechs score on tanks faster critical hits and render a heavy tank very fast immobile. But then still the tank is a fortress, that has not to be taken lightly.
This is where the Aerospace fighters come in with their bombs. Mostly people think of BattleTech as only a Mech game and that is the problem, because you have tanks, artilery, airsupport, Mobile Headquarters, Landingships and etc. This is not a kind of stupid military that only think that they are Knights on the battlefield and other are just "Schlammhüpfer" (mudjumpers), they are pros that can fullfill different kind of mission. And don't get me on the Clans.
The LAMs are difficult to handle from a certain perspective, because they can loose very fast their ability to transform. But they can be used to support the aerospace fighters in dogfights, then drop bombs on ground units, strafe some ground units, then transform and support the Mech units on the ground and in their hybrid mode they are fucking dangerous, because of their mobility (jump distance 3x). So a Phoenix Hawk LAM in hybrid mode can jump 15 hexes and a Stinger LAM 18. In my opinion and i love LAMs this are the most versatile and useful Mechs.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Except any Mech would stand out in either radar or IR sensors like a christmas tree and be thus targeted by guided weapon systems from either beyond their engagement range or from hidden positions. ATGMs are already a headache for tanks, now make that tank 10 meters or 20 meters tall instead of just 3. It doesn't matter if it can move 50 km/h or 100 km/h off-road - hell, modern MBTs can do 60-70 km/h off-road, just not on rough terrain and putting legs on a tank won't change that. Why do you think the game mechanics only allow retardedly short ranges and make most SRM-LRM packs dumb rockets instead of guided missiles?

Again, it's a cool setting. Don't over think it and don't try to justify their existence by claiming that they make sense in an combined arms, industrialized military conflict.

 

[Lhynn]

Well, they are shown to be particularly effective against guided missiles, Surely if they are from outside their engagement range there is more time to react, and if its hidden nothing but trying to outmaneuver it long enough to get rid of it will help.

 

[Beastro]

Mech supremacy in Battletech relies on insane weights of ICE engines. An in Battletech an ICE engine for M1 Abrams tank weights 32 tons, while in reality it's 1,5 tons + about 2 tons of fuel.

So, a 70 tank with march speed of 4 would need only an about 4 ton "engine". That would leave 28 more tons for armour.

There are other factor is strategic considerations like unlimited battlefield mobility akin to the distinct advantages nuclear submarines have to diesels. A tank has to refuel, a mech never does. Even if the engines weigh weights were closer to a tanks it would offer a whole new world of opportunities to exploit for both pilots and planners.

Well, they are shown to be particularly effective against guided missiles, Surely if they are from outside their engagement range there is more time to react, and if its hidden nothing but trying to outmaneuver it long enough to get rid of it will help.

That would then force a change in guided munitions to swamp them with cheap weapons. Decades ago guidance packages were expansive and inaccurate enough that they needed to be powerful, now it's becoming increasingly common to put them packages on bomb shaped pieces of concrete and have the kinetic energy of having 500 pounds of it landing on the top of a tank taking them out now that guidance packages are dirt cheap.

It's the reserve of the problem with anti-ship missiles today where the only affordable ones in numbers are older types that can be easily shot down by modern air defences while modern ones that can defeat said defences are so expansive even top tier countries can't afford to deploy enough to swamp ship formations.

Going up against a mech one would easily drop a dozen or two concrete bombs from difference approach vectors that would then force mechs into formations like warships for mutual defence.

"Land Battleships" indeed.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Normal engines cannot supply enough power for the energy weapons and that is the true strength of the Mechs. Also due to the fact that the Mechs need no refuel (at least not for weeks) they are highly mobile. While a normal tank has just an operating range with his 2 tons of fuel of about 600km. The 600 km for a Marauder are just 10 -16 hours on autopilot while the pilot takes a break. A tank cannot drive the 50km/h in rough terrain, while the Mech can. Also equipped with jump jets the faster and lighter Mechs are able to cross small rivers and even jump onto / into buildings, while the tank cannot do it.

Wouldn't running in rough terrain force pilot to do piloting tests that would sooner or later end with the mech crashing?

I agree about energy weapons. There are ACs/LRMs/SRMs left, though.

There are other factor is strategic considerations like unlimited battlefield mobility akin to the distinct advantages nuclear submarines have to diesels. A tank has to refuel, a mech never does. Even if the engines weigh weights were closer to a tanks it would offer a whole new world of opportunities to exploit for both pilots and planners.

What kind of opportunities, though?

 

[GarfunkeL]

Well, they are shown to be particularly effective against guided missiles, Surely if they are from outside their engagement range there is more time to react, and if its hidden nothing but trying to outmaneuver it long enough to get rid of it will help.

As Beastro said, any system can eventually be countered.

The changes in naval warfare are a good example. Ships were getting bigger and bigger until we reached the ridiculous endgame of behemoths like the Yamato - insanely expensive to build and turned out to be relatively easily countered by the airplane. So then the airplane started to dominate naval warfare, which of course meant bigger and bigger carriers to carry more planes. To counter that, missiles came to play. So now you wouldn't even engage enemy planes, you would shoot missiles from way beyond engagement range, so zero threat to yourself. So the other side came up with sophisticated and powerful sensors (AEGIS) to spot those missiles as far as possible and then built a comprehensive, multi-layered defense network that could deal with massive numbers of incoming missiles. So the other side started making the missiles stealthy so that they wouldn't be spotted and on the other hand making them even faster, so that the defender had less time to react. Which is where we are currently, with stealthy sea-skimmers and ballistic missiles popping through upper atmosphere to gain velocity. This shortened version completely ignores nukes and submarines, by the way, for the sake of simplicity.

So let's say you build a BattleMech that is impervious to small arms and can outmanoeuvre tanks when it's not immediately destroying them. What prevents the other side from firing guided artillery munitions (which have existed for twenty years already)? A Mech would certainly be a valuable, high-profile target that justifies switching from $10 HE shells to $1000 Copperheads. (Numbers pulled out of my ass to give you a sense of scale). Or have a futuristic version of AC-130 flying at a ten klick distance, peppering the easily visible Mech? Sure, maybe it has a number of lasers that can boil incoming missiles. But that system is not going to be 100% proof on its own. Now you need other Mechs around specifically to establish Iron Dome or similar around them and to shoot down aerial threats - or otherwise you can only deploy your Mechs when you have air superiority, which might not be a given on any battlefield. And they have to be Mechs because otherwise they won't be able to keep up with the close combat Mechs on the move - this is the exact reason why during WW2 all countries eventually motorized and armoured all their formations that were supposed to be mobile, not just the tanks themselves.

So you end with an all-Mech force that can handle combined arms battles, except it costs DERPTASTIC amount of money, manpower and resources compared to a conventional force and it's only upside is that it's slightly better mobile in rough terrain. Whoop-de-doo.

 

[Jack Dandy]

Heya guys
Not wanting to shit on your parade, but Front Mission's mechs and setting are the most realistic of them all!

 

[Darkzone]

Wouldn't running in rough terrain force pilot to do piloting tests that would sooner or later end with the mech crashing?

Current rules say that he does not need a piloting skill roll, from the Rulebook side 11:
Making Piloting Skill Rolls When a BattleMech attempts a potentially dangerous maneuver, or when the pilot might lose control of the unit for some other reason, the pilot must make a Piloting Skill Roll (see Piloting Skill Rolls, p. 16 in Movement).
Source:
http://www.aegisoft.be/costa/data/roleplay/CBT_Introductory_Rulebook.pdf

Only on entering a building and water area skill checks are currently required. According the CBT Miniature rules rubble requires a Piloting Skill roles, but not Rough terrain.

I agree about energy weapons. There are ACs/LRMs/SRMs left, though.

Yes there are and this weapons can be used with normal engines.

What kind of opportunities, though?

Nearly no necessary fuel and ammunition logistics. You know the things that fucked the Wehrmacht during the WW2.

 

[Lhynn]

So you end with an all-Mech force that can handle combined arms battles, except it costs DERPTASTIC amount of money, manpower and resources compared to a conventional force and it's only upside is that it's slightly better mobile in rough terrain. Whoop-de-doo.

Wouldnt call it slightly better, as it literally blows it out of the water in terms of mobility and survivability. But i guess costs more than make up for that edge, so i see your point.

Ever read Mecha Ace CYOA? I remember it making a good case for the deployment of mechas, i also remember pilots had to take a reflex enhancing drugs coctel to be able to keep up with the mobility provided by the mechas, it was a fairly well developed setting, a lot more than im used to.

 

[Ulminati]

I don't get all this clan hate. But then, my only forays into the series were Mech Warrior 2, Ghost Bear's Legacy, MW: Mercs and MW3. i paticularly liked the chicken walkers (Vulture, Timber Wolf/Mad Cat, Stone Rhino, Daishi).
I never got into the novels or setting beyond that. They were some nice stompy games though. I remember paticularly liking MW3 because it allowed you to aim arm slots without moving the torso. and you could do some cheeky stuff in multiplayer by exploiting lag. (Wait for LRMs to get lock-on through an obstacle. Flick mouse cursor up anf shoot before lock breaks to launch them in a ballistic arc that anti-missile systems can't intercept).

 

[Darkzone]

Concerning the BattleTech vs early 21 century USA / Russia / China army. My estimations are concerning the innersphere technology, but if we look at the Clan Mech technology, then i would state that the Laser Anti-Missile-System puts it to their favor. Normal Innersphere Anti-Missile-System would run very fast out of ammo.
Also it is more likely for modern tanks with a 120 smooth bore cannons to have a penetrations up to (L-44) 760 mm and (L-55) 810mm of steel with APFSDS ammunition even at distances of 2km. That would translate to a AC-10, if i use the previous example of the Merkava tank. The 2 km can a Mech with 64 km/h speed transverse within a minute, so the tank is within 30 second in fire range of the Mech. A normal MBT should have a maximum fire rate of around 6 round/minute so a M1A2 or Leopard or LeClerc or the T90U (bit lower fire rate) should be able to at least fire 3 shots at a Mech before the Mech could respond, in BattleTech rules.
How this would transfer to the real world? I don't know.
But normally a Laser that can cut through a tank within 1km should also be able to so major damage at a range of 2km. And a gauss shot that is capable of penetrating 1400mm of steel at 1km should be able to penetrate 700mm of steel at a range of 3 km if not even at the range of 6 km.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

The main problem with Battletech rules is that IIRC they are canon in the setting.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Rifled tank guns can engage targets at 4 km reliably and at 5km with decent chances. Mech is a much bigger target than a tank, which favours them in an open area, long range engagement.

 

[Ninjerk]

lots of reactive armor?

 

[Beastro]

What kind of opportunities, though?

That fact that operational ranges are no longer to be worried about allowing pilots and planners to drop that from the back of his mind and make longer, more elaborate manoeuvres without the problem of running out of fuel, while it also simplifies the logistic trail allowing more munitions and replacement parts to be added.

 

[Gord]

As GarfunkeL said, the thing about mechs is that they are cool as fuck power fantasies and therefore fun to play with.
But they are in no way realistic. Every justification along the lines of "they have hyper advanced techs that makes them better than tanks and stuff" is effectively naught, as the same tech could be used to build better tanks/planes/copters/whatever that would again be likely more efficient/effective at their respective role than mechs.
But fuck that, who plays mech games for realism?

 

[Beastro]

But fuck that, who plays mech games for realism?

Faux-realism. Enough to give it bite and substance.

 

[veevoir]

As GarfunkeL said, the thing about mechs is that they are cool as fuck power fantasies and therefore fun to play with.
But they are in no way realistic. Every justification along the lines of "they have hyper advanced techs that makes them better than tanks and stuff" is effectively naught, as the same tech could be used to build better tanks/planes/copters/whatever that would again be likely more efficient/effective at their respective role than mechs.
But fuck that, who plays mech games for realism?

Shush, you're interrupting a pretty decent sperging session.

 

[Renegen]

Faux-realism. Enough to give it bite and substance.

Or else you end up with laser boats popping each other beyond hills, I agree that the strategy of Battletech should be given some realism so that it carries more depth.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Inner consistency once more. When you put in weeaboo Mech ninjas with laser swords that do spinning jump kicks and shoot galaxies at each other, you've jumped every possible species of shark. Big, massive mechs that stomp buildings, sink in water, overheat but can take a ton of punishment = my suspension of disbelief can manage that.