Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Model numbers for the mechs would be helpful as several mechs have different variants and the variant chose can make a difference. There are several Hunchback variants (though they're all close range brawlers) and there's the BNC-3E vs BNC-3S Banshee (a bigger difference as one is slower but has respectable firepower while the other is undergunned)

My general theory/preference for lance building is as follows:
1. Group mechs with similar movement rates together. You don't want one mech getting left behind or outdistancing its buddies and getting into a situation where the buddies can't help, and if it isn't fully taking advantage of its speed, you're wasting tonnage that would have been better spent on more armor/weapons. Generally avoid having mechs that can walk faster than the slowest mech's top running speed in the same lance.

2. Group mechs with similar optimal weapons ranges together (assumes you're fielding more than once lance). This can be quickly done by eyeballing the mechs weapons, but is much better with some of the computer assisted construction tools which provide heat/damage curves. The reason for this is that I want to keep my mechs close together for mutual support and it sucks to be the Hunchback when the rest of your lance has long range weapons. That said, having secondaries with different optimal bands and one mech with a different primary optimal band is ok so you aren't completely helpless if they enemy gets outside of your optimal range.

3. Different weapon types have different roles. Large Lasers/PPCs/AC10s & 20s are for punching holes in your opponent's armor. Medium Lasers & AC/5s are good for dealing with more lightly armored targets and are good secondary weapons. LRMs and SRMs are your crit seekers. Great once you've punched some holes in your opponent and/or great against vehicles due to the vehicle damage table. Small Lasers, MGs and Flamers are situational/anti-infantry. AC/2s are long-range annoyances. I'd recommend against going into battle with full MG ammo loads as most 3025 mechs don't have enough MGs to go through a ton of ammo and it's just an awful ammo explosion waiting to happen. In non-campaign games, I usually dump the MG ammo first opportunity I get.

naxium wrote:

Marik player:
Awesome, Thug, Hunchback, Hermes2
Stalker, Catapult, Trebuchet, Hermes2

The Hermes 2 seems a bit out of place in both lances. While it makes a good spotter/skirmisher, the Hermes 2 can outdistance its buddies and potentially get into trouble. The Hunchback is also a little out of place in the first lance, but I can see it providing close protection so the Thug and Awesome can stand-off with their PPCs. The Catapult, Trenchbucket and Stalker provide the force with an LRM umbrella and have decent firepower up close as well. I'd almost put the Hunchback in the second lance and then have the Awesome and Thug and 2 Hermes 2 as 2 demi-lances.

Kurita player:
Battlemaster, Grand dragon, Jenner, Panther
Jagermech, Quickdraw, Phoenix hawk, Whitworth

I'd do a little bit of re-arrangement here. The Battlemaster, Grand Dragon, Jagermech and Panther as one lance and the Quickdraw, Phoenix Hawk, Whitworth and Jenner as the second. First lance provides stand-off firepower with PPCs and AC/5s which are in the same range band while the second does recon with the Quickdraw and Whitworth capable of providing long range missile overwatch for the PHawk and Jenner. edit: Also, the Grand Dragon is a relatively new design in 3025 and as a result, will most likely be issued to reliable/favored units.

Steiner player:
Banshee, Zeus, Hunchback, Commando
King Crab, Hunchback, Enforcer, Clint

Swap the King Crab and Commando between the 2 lances. Probably do Banshee, King Crab, 2 Hunchbacks for a good close-in lance with the Banshee providing ranged overwatch. The Zeus, Enforce, Commando and Clint acting as your more mobile unit. They'll do a lot of damage up close, but will have some trouble at range.

Merc players:
Guillotine, Grasshopper, Quickdraw, Spider

Archer, Whitworth (2), Trebuchet
Rifleman, Jagermech (2), Clint

Griffin, Phoenix Hawk, Vindicator (2)

A very mobile heavy lance though a bit light on the armor with the Quickdraw and Spider. 2 good fire lances, but you need to remember that a Jagermech has the armor of a light mech and no real punch. Aside from the Grasshopper and Archer, there isn't anything really good at tanking hits. The Guillotine and Griffin have ok armor for a heavy, the Quickdraw and Rifleman have ok armor for a medium mech (while being heavy) so this unit may get into trouble if they get into a dragged out fight. If there were more higher priority/better armored targets, the lighter armor of the Jagermechs, Quickdraw and Rifleman wouldn't be as much of a problem. The medium lance is probably the best configuration of all the units.

There has been a couple discussions about crab, king crab and thugs. I was of the opinion those were primarily comstar pre clan but there could be some out there? so other than if these lances are fluff friendly for 3025 any other critiques opinions or just tidbits of knowledge to offer? I just want to say I truly appreciate everything from you all, the Dakka community has been a great guide and help!

The TR2750/Star League mechs were retconned back into 3025 with downgraded specs in the TR3025 re-print when the unseen were removed.

cannonfodr wrote:


My general theory/preference for lance building is as follows:
1. Group mechs with similar movement rates together. You don't want one mech getting left behind or outdistancing its buddies and getting into a situation where the buddies can't help, and if it isn't fully taking advantage of its speed, you're wasting tonnage that would have been better spent on more armor/weapons. Generally avoid having mechs that can walk faster than the slowest mech's top running speed in the same lance.

2. Group mechs with similar optimal weapons ranges together (assumes you're fielding more than once lance). This can be quickly done by eyeballing the mechs weapons, but is much better with some of the computer assisted construction tools which provide heat/damage curves. The reason for this is that I want to keep my mechs close together for mutual support and it sucks to be the Hunchback when the rest of your lance has long range weapons. That said, having secondaries with different optimal bands and one mech with a different primary optimal band is ok so you aren't completely helpless if they enemy gets outside of your optimal range.

At around company level engagements I'd agree, however unless I'm mistaken the idea at this stage is to field a single lance at a time. In this case having a fast and/or jump capable light buzzing around making itself a nuisance can be useful, providing you bear in mind the issues you've highlighted here; keep it moving so that it's hard to hit but don't let it race so far ahead of its lance-mates that it gets killed by volume of fire before its lance-mates are close enough to offer support, use cover to block LOS or make it difficult to be shot. It's also useful to be able to get to downed/KO'd enemies that may have fallen out of LOS, kicked to death by a Locust is a pretty uninspiring end for a Heavy or Assault but it does happen.

Similarly, being in a Hunchback in a single lance is fine if you're working under the support of LRM or PPC armed support mechs. Use your close range mechs to close the gap and get into range whilst your support mechs soften up and distract the enemy, or vice-versa, whilst the enemy are concentrating on killing the close range fighters before they can get in range your support mechs can fire-away largely un-molested. The problem is this doesn't work if you're paired with one of the poorer support mechs, like the Jagermech, which can effectively be ignored until the more dangerous mechs are dealt with since baring fluke-hits the Jagermech isn't likely to be doing much damage.

3. Different weapon types have different roles. Large Lasers/PPCs/AC10s & 20s are for punching holes in your opponent's armor. Medium Lasers & AC/5s are good for dealing with more lightly armored targets and are good secondary weapons. LRMs and SRMs are your crit seekers. Great once you've punched some holes in your opponent and/or great against vehicles due to the vehicle damage table. Small Lasers, MGs and Flamers are situational/anti-infantry. AC/2s are long-range annoyances. I'd recommend against going into battle with full MG ammo loads as most 3025 mechs don't have enough MGs to go through a ton of ammo and it's just an awful ammo explosion waiting to happen. In non-campaign games, I usually dump the MG ammo first opportunity I get.

Good advice in general. The problem with the lighter ACs is that at a design stage there are far better choices. The PPC is a better choice than the AC-5 and much better against lightly armoured targets, the LRM-5 is a better choice than the AC-2 and only slightly shorter ranged, there really is no good reason to pick the AC-5 or -2 for most situations. That said this is where the post-game book-keeping does help prevent players min-maxing, an AC-5 armed mech that you can repair and send out into the field is better than a PPC armed mech that you can't.

Definitely agree with the MG ammo though, I'd allow players to voluntarily under-load their MG bins.

Swap the King Crab and Commando between the 2 lances. Probably do Banshee, King Crab, 2 Hunchbacks for a good close-in lance with the Banshee providing ranged overwatch. The Zeus, Enforce, Commando and Clint acting as your more mobile unit. They'll do a lot of damage up close, but will have some trouble at range.

I assumed that the OP is trying to set up reasonably balanced lances across the board here and the BNC/KGC/HBK/HBK lance would be significantly overweight compared to the other single lance compositions on here, especially compared to the 2x Jagermech support lance which baring lucky hits just isn't going to stand a chance of doing much more than scratching the paint.

2 good fire lances, but you need to remember that a Jagermech has the armor of a light mech and no real punch.

This is why that one especially isn't a good fire lance IMO, half its mechs are pretty poorly armed and armoured, in fact probably the best mech in that lance is the also often maligned Rifleman. I'd take any other single lance listed here over that one any time and I don't think I'd have any significant difficulty dealing with it.

simonr1978 wrote:

cannonfodr wrote:


My general theory/preference for lance building is as follows:
1. Group mechs with similar movement rates together. You don't want one mech getting left behind or outdistancing its buddies and getting into a situation where the buddies can't help, and if it isn't fully taking advantage of its speed, you're wasting tonnage that would have been better spent on more armor/weapons. Generally avoid having mechs that can walk faster than the slowest mech's top running speed in the same lance.

2. Group mechs with similar optimal weapons ranges together (assumes you're fielding more than once lance). This can be quickly done by eyeballing the mechs weapons, but is much better with some of the computer assisted construction tools which provide heat/damage curves. The reason for this is that I want to keep my mechs close together for mutual support and it sucks to be the Hunchback when the rest of your lance has long range weapons. That said, having secondaries with different optimal bands and one mech with a different primary optimal band is ok so you aren't completely helpless if they enemy gets outside of your optimal range.

At around company level engagements I'd agree, however unless I'm mistaken the idea at this stage is to field a single lance at a time.

Both of these are correct, Currently the players are trying to build 2 lances to start with. Likely only fielding one at a time until the campaign advances a bit. Some players are already working on building up company style lance whilst others are more concerned about self sufficient lances as you can see in each different players examples. The lances provided are what has been supplied to me by them thus far. I don't know all of the specific load outs yet since not all of them have the TRO and are just using the box set but ill supply what I can to help you all give me the most informed imformation possible. As it stands here is what I have from them.

Marik player:
Awesome AWS-8Q, Thug THG-10E, Hunchback HBK-4G, HermesII HER-4K
Stalker STK-3H, Catapult CPLT-C4, Trebuchet TBT-5N, HermesII HER-4K

Kurita player:
Battlemaster BLR-1D , Grand dragon DRG-1G, Jenner JR7-F, Panther PNT-9R
Jagermech JM6-S, Quickdraw QKD-4H, Phoenix hawk PXH-1D, Whitworth WTH-1S

Steiner player:
Banshee BNC-3M, Zeus ZEU-6S, Hunchback HBK-4G, Commando COM-2D
Atlas AS7-D, Hunchback HBK-4G, Enforcer ENF-4R, Clint-1-2R

Merc players:
Guillotine GLT-4L, Grasshopper GHR-5H, Quickdraw QKD-5A, Spider SDR-5V
Quickdraw QKD-4H, Dervish DV-6M (2), Assassin ASN-21

Archer ARC-2W, Whitworth WTH-1 (2), Trebuchet TBT-5N
Rifleman RFL-4D, Jagermech JM6-A (2), Clint-2-3T

Griffin GRF-1S, Phoenix Hawk PXH-1, Vindicator VND-1R (2)
Highlander HGN-733, Victor VTR-9B, Wolverine WVR-6M, Hatchetman HCT-3F

naxium wrote:

Steiner player:
Banshee BNC-3M,

...

Archer ARC-2W, Whitworth WTH-1 (2), Trebuchet TBT-5N
Rifleman RFL-4D, Jagermech JM6-A (2), Clint-2-3T

The BNC-3M is a Free World's League / House Marik produced Banshee variant. It depends on how strict you intend to be about faction specific units of course, with border skirmishes, raids, sales to mercenary units, etc mechs tend to move throughout the Inner Sphere so there's no reason one might not have found it's way into Steiner service, although the BNC-3S would be more likely in a Lyran unit.

As a broad generalisation the last letter of the suffix can be used as an indicator of faction specific variants, S=Steiner, M=Marik, D=Davion, L=Liao, K=Kurita. It's not a hard-and-fast rule by any stretch, but it's often the case, although it obviously doesn't help with mechs that don't fit that pattern.

Now to contradict myself slightly having slated the AC-5, the RFL-4D has serious heat management issues, IIRC even more so than the RFL-3N version and whoever uses it will almost certainly struggle to keep it from overheating and will probably need to spend quite a bit of time not firing most of its weapons in order to cool down, although as a slight bonus at least there's no ammunition to cook-off.. The RFL-3C version with twin AC-10s is an interesting alternative IMO and may add some much needed closer range punch although once it's fired off its ammo it's almost defenceless.

The JM6-A is a better version than the AC-5 one, although that does again leave that force overall to be very over-reliant on LRM fire, once any opponents get under the 6 hex range boundary their fire is going to quickly become ineffective with that many mechs so dependent on LRMs.

Questions on a few of both of your explanations and comparisons

Firstly why would you compare the AC5 to a PPC as opposed to the AC10? I've always thought to compare damages myself. An AC5 does have significant appeal over a med laser from a player stand point (obvious ammo disadvantages excluded).

With the obvious flaws in the "typical" Jagermech what other options would you suggest? The common discussion I have seen in favor of the Jager is that it contributes more efficiently at picking off lighter/faster threats as opposed to the missile boats which seem to be the only options for a ranged game. Of course situations are theorycraftable to the dirt such as line of sight, indirect fire, expenditures for ammo upkeep etc etc.

I think the reasoning behind the quickdraws for my players is they're looking for heavier/more firepower options that are quick and mobile enough to keepup with the lance designs they are putting together. I myself cant ever recall seeing a quickdraw in play in my past experiences so I appreciate the feedback on that option.

Would you recommend Warhammers in lieu of rifleman or something else?

I'm trying to figure out how to keep the game from being unenjoyable for players who want to play the long range game as opposed to my laser boat players since I can foresee upkeep/ammo tax and the like taking its toll on them over the course of the campaign. advice?

The PPC seems a more appropriate comparison for the AC-5 since the two share practically identical range profiles, as such they're likely to be used in similar circumstances, so if I was designing say a medium mech and wanted a direct fire weapon capable of hitting out to 18 hexes I have a choice of the AC-5 or a PPC plus a few heat sinks which will do twice as much damage, won't run out of ammo or cause an explosion killing the mech. It's not a tricky choice IMO. For the same reason the AC-10 is better compared to the Large Laser, although there the two are much closer when comparing the pros and cons. I wouldn't compare a AC-5 to a Medium Laser since they've got such radically different range profiles they're likely to be used in different circumstances, plus for the same tonnage as an AC-5 you could fit out a mech with a battery of 4 or 5 Medium Lasers plus heatsinks.

As for the Quickdraw, the problem with the QKDs are that they're a Heavy trying to be a Medium and they're a bit light on firepower for their size, they can punch and kick a bit harder but otherwise they don't really offer much over a good medium mech whilst taking up more tonnage. Warhammers are pretty good, so are Marauders as Heavies although Marauders aren't as good when it comes to heat. Either would be better choices than the Jagermech IMO since although a bit heavier, a fast light mech will notice a couple of PPC hits a lot more than a smattering of AC-5 and AC-2s.

For ammunition, perhaps you could run a few scenarios with a supply convoy as the objective? For every truck knocked out which doesn't explode the attackers get a certain quantity of ammunition. The defender's job is just to get as many trucks off the board as possible, then carry on escorting the survivors on their way.

naxium wrote:
Firstly why would you compare the AC5 to a PPC as opposed to the AC10? I've always thought to compare damages myself. An AC5 does have significant appeal over a med laser from a player stand point (obvious ammo disadvantages excluded).

AC/5 and PPCs both carry the same range profile and similar tonnage profiles. The weight difference between an AC/5 and PPC is a couple tons (if including the minimal ammo), which is easily a couple of Heat Sinks (which you'll need for the PPC's heat increase).

Compare it to the AC/10, whose range is closer to the Large Laser, but 5 tons more weight and more than twice the crit space than a PPC before ammunition is considered.

These considerations (weight and space, and often range) are what make those considerations come to mind.

Tonnage-wise and range-wise, the AC/5 and PPC are comparable, but when compared in a vacuum, the PPC wins due to damage output and lack of ammo dependency. Where the AC/5 actually shines is cost (125,000 c-bills for the gun and 4,500 c-bills per ton of ammo vs 200,000 c-bills for the PPC) and heat. On mechs like the Rifleman and Marauder, the AC/5 provides the ability to deal out some damage while letting your mech cool down. If you're playing by the Solaris VII ruleset where turns are 1/3 of a typical battletech turn, heat management becomes much more of an issue and the AC/5 also has a faster firing rate than the PPC.

The base configuration (JM6-S) Jagermech is good for three things:

1. Picking off critically damaged targets with minimal collateral damage for salvage. Sure a large laser or PPC will probably do a better job of taking out the target, but it might also zero out the internal structure at that location.
2. Sniping pesky VTOLs at range so you don't waste PPC/LRM fire
3. AA fire against conventional aircraft (the Jagermech and Rifleman both receive +1 to hit due to their tracking systems) aerospace fighters are too heavily armored to care, but things like the Mechbuster (flying AC/20) have to be more careful.

Around the same weight as the Jagermech, I like Crusaders and Catapults though they're primarily missile boats. Also take a look at the Ostroc/Ostsol. They sacrifice some range, but primarily rely on lasers so ammo isn't as much of an issue.

Quickdraws sacrifice firepower and armor for mobility. I think you're better off going down a weight class and taking a GRF-1N Griffin for long range work or sacrificing some speed for a Guillotine or Grasshopper all of which give you some punch or even a Catapult. If you want short range firepower, the Phoenix Hawk should give you the same armor and better mobility with similar firepower.

Warhammers are solid choices and can be used as both fire support and as a front-line fighter

For the Steiner lances, I think a Banshee -3S would make more sense than a -3M as the S is the Steiner specific variant and is actually pretty good. Also, the Clint -1-2R is supposed to be very rare with about a total of 20 ever produced. If you want something with a similar configuration, consider a Centurion, while not strictly a typical Steiner design, was common enough to see use by Marik and Liao. There was also a bit of tech exchange between Davion and Steiner after the 3rd Succession War as part of the build-up to the Davion-Steiner alliance and 4th Succession War.

For the Mercs, the RFL-4D is a pretty bad variant due to its poor ability to manage heat. 15 heat sinks, 2 PPCs and 2 Large Lasers. Go with the standard -3N or a Warhammer instead.

Thank you all for the comparison breakdown everyone, I never would have thought to analyze weapons by their internals and or range profiles instead of the damage potentials It makes perfect sense now really, not sure why that never clicked before. I've always had a difficult time choking up the PPC mechs personally, they just never seem capable of consistent alpha striking because of heat especially prior to clan tech. I tend to play too pedal to the metal myself though.

To shine a bit more light on the campaign, I plan on implementing various scenario engagements and want to try to include infantry, vehicles and vtols along with mechs roughly 50% of games. Don't worry though I've no intention of introducing them to Longtoms or savanna master swarms lol.

I've suggested they consider other jump capable mechs like griffs/Phawks/wolvs etc in lieu of the quickdraws, a few will probably just proxy the Quicks for something else since they just have the starter box.

I plan on being fairly lenient on the available mechs so a M variant banshee with the steiner player is fine since it is possible though a full lance of them i'll definitely discourage if not just outright say no. He prefers the 4/6 and lack of ammo over the S which is understandable. I haven't dug into the -1-2R, whats the backstory on that one? I'll try to nudge him to look at other options though.

After looking over the Warhammer variants it's hard to "like" any of them, in my opinion at least but the 3N definitely seems like the cream of the crop there, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I haven't had a chance to look in to the Shogun but my missle boat merc player has mentioned it. I can't recall ever seeing one but I thought those were one of the Wolfs dragoon exclusives similar to the flea and imp?

The Shogun is a Wolf's Dragoon's exclusive so unless your pilot was a former (or undercover like Cranston Snord or Dechan Fraser) Dragoon, it's going to be hard to justify.

From Sarna, the -1-2R Clint is the original prototype version with an AC/10. Fluff-wise, there were problems with the internal structure handling the AC/10 so they downgraded to the AC/5 and added a medium laser as compensation. The surviving prototypes were believed to have accompanied Kerensky in his exodus.

Between the Archer -W, the Clint and if they have a Shogun, I think you may want to consider being a splinter group from Wolf's Dragoons (undercover or otherwise).

Yeah, you aren't going to find a Shogun outside of Wolf's Dragoons. They are Dragoons exclusive, no one else is even going to have parts for them. Hell, in 3025ish, most people in the Inner Sphere won't even have SEEN one, except maybe in a holovid!

The Falcon, Flea, Firefly, Hoplite, Shogun, Annihilator, and the Imp were all Dragoon exclusives, as was the Marauder II until after the 4th Succession War.

Look at Longbow variants if you want an assault level Missile boat, or the LRM 20 Stalker.

That's what I thought, I was a bit hesitant on the highlander but I figured they could have procured one of them in some form or fashion but Wolf Dragoon mechs are a different story in my opinion. He's settled on a stalker proxied with a catapult for now. I didn't realize the Archer -W was more of an exclusive either so that takes care of two birds with one stone.

Also quick clarification on the Raven, I know they're in the 3039 tro but they were actually around prior to that right? they just didn't have the advanced tech? or were they never really fielded prior?

According to Sarna the RVN-1X entered Liao service in 3024, it mentions quite a lot getting captured by Davion forces in the third Succession war and refitted to the RVN-2X configuration. Depending on what point your campaign is starting they should be either Liao exclusives or also available to Davion forces and Davion affiliated mercenaries, but as a brand new design they should be fairly uncommon.

naxium wrote:
That's what I thought, I was a bit hesitant on the highlander but I figured they could have procured one of them in some form or fashion but Wolf Dragoon mechs are a different story in my opinion. He's settled on a stalker proxied with a catapult for now. I didn't realize the Archer -W was more of an exclusive either so that takes care of two birds with one stone.

Also quick clarification on the Raven, I know they're in the 3039 tro but they were actually around prior to that right? they just didn't have the advanced tech? or were they never really fielded prior?

The original Raven had experimental ECM and Communications equipment, was slow, under armored, and under gunned.

Anyone in the 3025 time would have no problems getting Locusts, Stingers, or Wasps for scouting and recon needs. The Capellans would have some of them, the Davions would have fewer from salvage, but they'd be cannibalizing them to keep others running. It would be a dwindling, very finite supply of Davion Ravens. And the odds of them getting into mercenary hands would be slim. Being a new design, I'd guess more than half of those Ravens were being dissected and studied by Davion scientists.

cannonfodr wrote:
Tonnage-wise and range-wise, the AC/5 and PPC are comparable, but when compared in a vacuum, the PPC wins due to damage output and lack of ammo dependency. Where the AC/5 actually shines is cost (125,000 c-bills for the gun and 4,500 c-bills per ton of ammo vs 200,000 c-bills for the PPC) and heat. On mechs like the Rifleman and Marauder, the AC/5 provides the ability to deal out some damage while letting your mech cool down. If you're playing by the Solaris VII ruleset where turns are 1/3 of a typical battletech turn, heat management becomes much more of an issue and the AC/5 also has a faster firing rate than the PPC.

75,000 C-Bills difference is pretty trivial overall. When looking at some roughly comparable mechs (GRF-1N, WVR-6R and the SHD-2H) they all come in between 4.5 - 5 million per mech and realistically in most cases if you replace the primary weapon from an AC-5 to a PPC that becomes roughly twice as effective. Heat only really swings things in favour of the AC-5 IMO if you're looking at mounting more than two, when you factor in the extra weight of ammunition, since the weight difference plus the 10 free starting Heat sinks goes some way to mitigate the far greater heat build up of the PPC. It's also worth pointing out that the AC-5 is bulkier, 4 critical slots (5+ if you include at least one tonne of ammo) rather than 3 so it's more likely to be hit and destroyed and need replacing in the first place (Or the whole mech if the ammo goes up).

I don't deny that the AC-5 does allow mechs like the Rifleman and Marauder a chance to carry on firing and at least do some damage whilst resting their energy weapons but only really as a secondary weapon system, I wouldn't fit a mech out with it as its main armament though.

The base configuration (JM6-S) Jagermech is good for three things:

1. Picking off critically damaged targets with minimal collateral damage for salvage. Sure a large laser or PPC will probably do a better job of taking out the target, but it might also zero out the internal structure at that location.

In my personal experience, you're unlikely to be able to afford this luxury. The tactic I've always favoured and which has worked well for me is that if an enemy mech is seriously damaged you finish it off as quickly as possible and worry about what you can salvage after you've won, if you pull punches like this it's much more likely that the enemy mech then has the time to get some shots in before it's destroyed and maybe even kill one of yours. If the mech is sufficiently damaged that you can afford to completely ignore it, then it can be left till the very end and the pilot offered a chance to surrender rather than be killed in a futile gesture of defiance. You're also much more likely to get to the point of having a critically damaged target in your sights all other factors being equal if you're fielding something like a Warhammer or Marauder (Or a whole host of other Heavies) rather than a Jagermech.

This role however is where having a fast, preferably jump capable light in your lance comes into its own. Use your lights to pick out cripples and finish them whilst your heavier firepower is concentrated on the greater threats. This way as well if your target has fallen or retreated behind cover, a fast light can still use its superior manouevrability to get the downed mech in its LoS.

The flip side as well as a broad general rule is that the more critical hits you put into a mech, the more likely you are to hit an ammo bin and then you'll end up with nothing worth salvaging.

2. Sniping pesky VTOLs at range so you don't waste PPC/LRM fire

Again from personal experience so yours may differ, but against VTOLs you're probably not going to get many hits on them (Assuming you're going up against an even vaguely competent opponent) and if you are shooting at range the likelihood is you'll need to be very lucky to hit it at all, so those hits that you do score you want to count. Most 3025 VTOLs are going to be seriously hurt by a PPC hit anywhere on the fuselage if not killed outright, they're much more likely to survive a light AC hit and carry on fighting or withdraw.

3. AA fire against conventional aircraft (the Jagermech and Rifleman both receive +1 to hit due to their tracking systems) aerospace fighters are too heavily armored to care, but things like the Mechbuster (flying AC/20) have to be more careful.

This is the one area that it does have a small advantage, although even there I'd favour the Rifleman over the Jagermech personally.

naxium wrote:

After looking over the Warhammer variants it's hard to "like" any of them, in my opinion at least but the 3N definitely seems like the cream of the crop there, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Really? The standard WHM-6R is a good, solid choice IMO. It's got average speed for its size, twin PPCs provide decent firepower at range, it's got enough heat sinks to give sustained fire from them and it's got a good battery of short ranged weapons for dealing with targets up close. Its armour isn't the best, especially on the legs IIRC, but if you bear that in mind and take advantage of partial cover you can mitigate that yourself to a degree and the legs are less likely to be hit than the torso or arms in any case.

Remeber though that cost is important in-universe wise. Fixing an AC/5 (or any autocannon) was easy, with parts readily available. PPCs are far more complicated and difficult to maintain and repair. That's why you see so many AC/5s in 3025 variants instead of PPCs.

Yes, the PPC is superior in every way on the battlefield, but when it came to keeping those things functioning, it was far more difficult.

Additionally, having an ammo dependent primary weapon meant that when you ran out, you left the battle. You decreased the risk of destroyed 'Mechs if they were forced to retreat. It's why the Succession Wars dragged on instead of having many conclusive combats until the 4th War.

Old school fluff had the Free Worlds League having parts and PPCs available almost only for their Awesomes, even though they had a factory that BUILT Warhammers!

naxium wrote:

After looking over the Warhammer variants it's hard to "like" any of them, in my opinion at least but the 3N definitely seems like the cream of the crop there, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Really? The standard WHM-6R is a good, solid choice IMO. It's got average speed for its size, twin PPCs provide decent firepower at range, it's got enough heat sinks to give sustained fire from them and it's got a good battery of short ranged weapons for dealing with targets up close. Its armour isn't the best, especially on the legs IIRC, but if you bear that in mind and take advantage of partial cover you can mitigate that yourself to a degree and the legs are less likely to be hit than the torso or arms in any case.

The Marauder didn't compete well with a Warhammer, despite the fact they both have 2 PPCs.

The Marauder has fewer heat sinks, and terrible armor placement. The 3R variant also has the DEATH BOMB of a left torso.

A Warhammer D is one of the best heavies in terms of fire power you can get in 3025, also with excellent heat efficiency and armor.

IMO compared to the alternatives you've listed there the WHM-6R outguns both the OTL and RFL, the CPLT fulfills a slightly different niche as an LRM missile boat. The Lancelot is about the closest comparable mech but IIRC was supposed to be pretty rare in the Inner Sphere.

I disagree that the Marauder is more flexible, it's definitely a long range direct fire mech with just a pair of medium lasers as back up, the WHM-6R can almost match it at range and significantly outguns it close up, matches it for speed and can sustain its PPC fire much better (18 Heat Sinks Vs. 16 for the Marauder). The MAD-3R also IIRC has fairly weak side torso armour for its size. The Black Knight is also well known for struggling with heat management. The BNC considerably outweighs the WHM, the Awesome lacks close range firepower and if the Warhammer can get in close it has a bit of an edge there, the Zeus is a decent but somewhat uninspiring Assault IMO, the Thug is a pretty solid mech although the standard 3025 version IIRC has the same number of heat sinks as the WHM-6R so will have the exact same issues with heat management. Sarna mentions that the Thug was designed to counter the Warhammer in the first place.

Again, just from my experiences, but I've always found the Warhammers to be a thoroughly solid choice and with 18 Heat sinks you can park it on a hill or in cover and fire off both PPCs for quite a few turns before you have to rest one to cool off, or alternate fire as you move in close on your target.

I wasn't going off of any fluff related facts just theory crafting what's on the papers, the fluff surely points to the WHM.

The MAD-3D for example can actually sustain due to 20 HS with a slightly higher dmg output thanks to being able to alternate the LL to cool down a turn, same movement profile and more armor for example. The CPLT-K2(2 PPC, 3 mlaser) 20 HS stands out the most as competition for the job at least to me. I think the THG-10E presents itself being a good runner up as well if you have the extra tonnage since it has a lot more armor and nearly the same heat/damage setup.

On paper there just seems to be plenty of competition for the role it fills.

True, there is some decent competition, I tend to assume "standard" variants unless stated otherwise as there's just so many variants even if you limit yourself to 3025 (Seriously, I'm sure that there's an official variant for almost any combination of weight and armament out there, I'm also pretty confident they deliberately designed sub-par or just plain bad mechs for variety).

If you're considering the MAD-3D though then it makes sense to compare it to its more or less direct counterpart, the WHM-6D which sacrifices some of its close range weaponry for extra heat sinks and armour. (As an aside, among some 3025 purists apparently House Variants such as these (Both are Davion variants) are a bit frowned upon as they're generally a bit more optimised than their general standard counterparts)

Either way, I wouldn't discount the Warhammer. As I said, it's a pretty solid heavy mech.

simonr1978 wrote:
True, there is some decent competition, I tend to assume "standard" variants unless stated otherwise as there's just so many variants even if you limit yourself to 3025 (Seriously, I'm sure that there's an official variant for almost any combination of weight and armament out there, I'm also pretty confident they deliberately designed sub-par or just plain bad mechs for variety).

If you're considering the MAD-3D though then it makes sense to compare it to its more or less direct counterpart, the WHM-6D which sacrifices some of its close range weaponry for extra heat sinks and armour. (As an aside, among some 3025 purists apparently House Variants such as these (Both are Davion variants) are a bit frowned upon as they're generally a bit more optimised than their general standard counterparts)

Either way, I wouldn't discount the Warhammer. As I said, it's a pretty solid heavy mech.

I'm sorry for not clarifying the variants sooner, I can see how that definitely affects the view point. I agree with you on the sub-par mechs and variants. A few I've come across even have me scratching my head with "what were they thinking".

That's a fair point for comparing the 3D to the 6D they are pretty close. I was never aware that people frowned upon variants, Thankfully I've never come across that attitude that I am aware of. I prefer the diversity and variety, It spices the game up too much for me not to enjoy them.

The WHM definitely fills it's intended role, I'm not trying to discredit that. I can just see arguments being made for other mechs in it's place.
For example what would you argue in place of a jenner? or maybe a highlander?

naxium wrote:

I'm sorry for not clarifying the variants sooner, I can see how that definitely affects the view point. I agree with you on the sub-par mechs and variants. A few I've come across even have me scratching my head with "what were they thinking".

You can have quite a bit of fun with custom mechs as well providing people don't abuse it too much. One of my favourites was a 100 tonner I made up with twin AC-20s. Not that exceptional really except they were rear facing. Gave my opponent quite a shock when he jumped a Phoenixhawk in directly behind it. Definitely a bit of a one-trick-pony though.

That's a fair point for comparing the 3D to the 6D they are pretty close. I was never aware that people frowned upon variants, Thankfully I've never come across that attitude that I am aware of. I prefer the diversity and variety, It spices the game up too much for me not to enjoy them.

It's thankfully not an attitude I've encountered in person either, only annecdotally, my old group used to be quite liberal with home-brews too, although we had to put a system in place to vet them since there were a lot of mistakes made.

The WHM definitely fills it's intended role, I'm not trying to discredit that. I can just see arguments being made for other mechs in it's place.
For example what would you argue in place of a jenner? or maybe a highlander?

I'm not sure about alternatives to the Jenner, the Javelin is the closest I can think of off hand in terms of a fast jumping light with SRMs. I like the Commando as well, but it's definitely pretty fragile and lacks jump-jets.

The 3025 Highlander was never a mech I was particularly impressed by personally, the Zeus in either its standard configuration or the 6T with a PPC is a good counter. You wont find many direct counters as jumping assaults are pretty rare. I'd imagine the Grasshopper could fulfill the same niche fairly well though and leave you with some tonnage left over.

simonr1978 wrote:

naxium wrote:

I'm sorry for not clarifying the variants sooner, I can see how that definitely affects the view point. I agree with you on the sub-par mechs and variants. A few I've come across even have me scratching my head with "what were they thinking".

You can have quite a bit of fun with custom mechs as well providing people don't abuse it too much. One of my favourites was a 100 tonner I made up with twin AC-20s. Not that exceptional really except they were rear facing. Gave my opponent quite a shock when he jumped a Phoenixhawk in directly behind it. Definitely a bit of a one-trick-pony though.

The WHM definitely fills it's intended role, I'm not trying to discredit that. I can just see arguments being made for other mechs in it's place.
For example what would you argue in place of a jenner? or maybe a highlander?

I'm not sure about alternatives to the Jenner, the Javelin is the closest I can think of off hand in terms of a fast jumping light with SRMs. I like the Commando as well, but it's definitely pretty fragile and lacks jump-jets.

The 3025 Highlander was never a mech I was particularly impressed by personally, the Zeus in either its standard configuration or the 6T with a PPC is a good counter. You wont find many direct counters as jumping assaults are pretty rare. I'd imagine the Grasshopper could fulfill the same niche fairly well though and leave you with some tonnage left over.

That sounds like a blast, I'd love that! We used heavy metal pro and just heavily modified our favorite mechs. I used to love my lance of jumping hunchbacks. There was nothing special just standard variants, dropped some excess weight from somewhere for 4 jumps, 2 in each leg. I had a such a good time with them.

My favorite lance I ever ran was in a mercenary campaign, Highlander, Victor, Grasshopper and Wolverine, I Absolutely loved that campaign and lance. Needless to say the Highlander holds a dear place in my heart.

The groups I played with never had problems with using any of the official variations for any of the mechs, but we didn't really like custom mechs, even custom omnimech configs. Though it might have also been due to the fact that we also tried using stuff from Maximum Tech for awhile and things can get a little crazy there with different armor types (reflective, reactive, etc).

As for substitutes, my first thought on the Highlander is the Victor. Both are jump capable assaults and somewhat similar loadout with the Victor better close in (AC/10 vs AC/20) and the Highlander better at range (LRM 20 vs nothing). On the lighter side, in addition to the Grasshopper, there is the Eridani Light Horse variant of the Thunderbolt (again, unit exclusive), but it is jump capable and roughly has the same firepower.

A Jenner is trickier as it is fast, jump capable and pretty well armed for a light mech. A Locust will get you the same speed, but not jump capability or firepower. A Spider gets speed and jump, but not the firepower. A Javelin or Commando give you similar firepower, but lose out on speed.

There really is nothing that compares well to the Highlander, it's a pretty unique 'Mech for the time. The Star League version is a beast, and the Royal version is even better. The 3025 one is solid, a heavy anchor to an assault unit. Several 'Mechs can outgun it, very few of it's tonnage can outmaneuver it. About the only thing that can fight it well is a Marauder II, but that is because it is as close to an optimized 3025 assault 'Mech as they ever made.

For the Jenner, I recommend the Javelin, preferably the "Fire" Javelin (10-F) variant. While it is slightly slower, it has way better armor, jumps farther, and is slightly more heat effective.

If you like your variant Jenners a little more uncommon, grab a Firestarter 9M. It lacks the range, but can handle infantry better, and has fewer heat problems, even when jumping.

simonr1978 wrote:
If you're considering the MAD-3D though then it makes sense to compare it to its more or less direct counterpart, the WHM-6D which sacrifices some of its close range weaponry for extra heat sinks and armour. (As an aside, among some 3025 purists apparently House Variants such as these (Both are Davion variants) are a bit frowned upon as they're generally a bit more optimised than their general standard counterparts)

Up to a point, yeah. One of the beauties of 3025 play and of a lot of the designs is that... well they are anything but perfect. You need to work around their problems an to have a bit of luck. It's not as much "frowned" as that many are a tad too optimized.

And even the "good" designs have blatant flaws: I'm a big fan of the original Phoenix Hawk, for example, and it is a fine design, all told... but the MGs don't have much of an impact in game other than allowing it to blow up spectacularly, and you're always a PPC hit to the head away from oblivion (6 Armor, 3 Internal). Even then, I dearly love playing with one

All the above said, there's nothing wrong about playing with modded/custom designs, particularly not with 3025 tech, IMHO. There's always drawbacks, no matter what you do, and your perfect 'mech my be another guy's mess, so... with the changing eras and tech advance, they seemed to go much more for optimized designs (the Turkina-B, for example, is an unholy terror).

I'm glad to see I am not alone with my view on the game, that's surely reassuring!

After having a bit of a terrain making night last night It got me thinking, What does everyone do for city landscapes and buildings for battletech? I prefer to use scenery over hex maps most of the time and I don't see much in the way of structures that are on the same scale as battletech. Most terrain I come across is 40k scale and I'd rather not resort to the cardstock materials if I can help it. Any suggestions for homemade buildings or affordable premade terrain would be great!

Battletech should be 1/285 or 6mm scale. Check out gcminis.com for some building options. You could also resize and print out the hawk wargames paper buildings for dropzone commander which is 10mm.

I have a bunch of DZC terrain I use. Works fine.