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.

Hey guys,

I've started playing Battletech again, hopefully going to make it a weekly thing as much as possible. Played the first game of this new session last week, and should be playing again tomorrow, and already I'm having a lot of fun.

So anyway, on to the topic at hand. I know a lot of lances and companies have a large variety of different mechs that all fulfill different purposes, but I was wondering if it is common to have several of the same mech at the lance level or (probably even more likely) at the company level? For example, I know there's a poster here who uses tons of Archers, and I'm not necessarily talking about going with all of one type. But would it be commonplace and/or effective to have several of the same mechs in a game? For example, a "Brawler" type lance that had a couple Hunchbacks and then two other short range mechs. Or a support lance with two or three Catapults, or Archers, or whatever, and one or two of something else? Or maybe even two Catapults and two Archers, or some Jagermechs. Or an Assault lance with a couple Banshees, an Atlas or a Cyclops, and maybe an Awesome to give some covering fire on the approach.

So basically, do you often use multiples of the same mech in a game, or see other players often use multiples? It seems like it would make sense from a background standpoint too, especially for mechs that are common for a certain faction (Like Combine lances with multiple Panthers, Jenners, or Dragons, for example).

Any input is appreciated!

Thanks,

Hordini

A poster here who uses tons of Archers...gee...I don't know who you mean...

Anyhoo, if you've ever read Michael Stackpole's Warrior trilogy (Warrior: En Garde, Warrior: Riposte, Warrior: Coup), many of the units in that series, even at the company level, are made up of the same 'Mech. There's a company of Liao Cicadas, a battalion of Davion Stingers, a company of Goliaths, several companies of Kurita Panthers, a company of Marauders, a battalion of Davion Valkyries and Firestarters, etc.

Logistically, it just makes sense. All units use the same parts and ammo so resupply and repair is easier.

Tactically, the units can have real synergy together as they all share similar strengths. On the other hand, they will also all share the same weaknesses so be prepared for their combined shortcomings.

Asthetically, I just like the ordered look of similar units marching in step together rather than a hodge-podge rabble of different units.

It's up to the player. I've had a lot of success with Archers but I usually do back them up with spotters, like infantry, battlearmor, hovertanks, or helicopters.

I see no problem with it, hell ive done it several times in games. Only thing to be aware of is each designs limitations/weaknesses. A lance, unit, etc of all the same mech will have certain vulnerabilities to be aware of.

During the Star League, it was doctrine that lances were made up of all the same battlemech because of logistics. So using teams of the same mech is no big deal.

In the fluff it occurs on occasion.. I wouldn't call it overly common.

In the game it is very uncommon. Sure, it makes sense for a campaign and logistics, but I've don it before and it has one really big drawback:

It is incredibly boring to play.

One of the joys of Battletech are the ungodly number of chassis and variants available. Why limit yourself?

Mattlov wrote:Why limit yourself?

Because of your complete love for one chasis.

And I'm looking at you, Urbanmech. If you were a woman....

robertsjf wrote:

Mattlov wrote:Why limit yourself?

Because of your complete love for one chasis.

And I'm looking at you, Urbanmech. If you were a woman....

I a big fan of the unseen Warhammer and Battlemaster myself (and the project phoenix Battlemaster is also dead sexy, and yes I know the unseens are ripoffs, but they'll still among the best looking units in Battletech, as well as some really awesome loadouts).

robertsjf wrote:

Mattlov wrote:Why limit yourself?

Because of your complete love for one chasis.

And I'm looking at you, Urbanmech. If you were a woman....

Dude, I own 36 UrbanMechs. I know.

Mattlov wrote:Dude, I own 36 UrbanMechs. I know.

and what part of that is boring?

Trying to get them into effective range?

Generally speaking you can limit where multiples of the same mech design is seen to some conditions:

1. They're Capellan. Prior to 3028 many Capellan units prefered to deploy whole companies of the same design. Not excluding heavy and assault mechs. Most house militaries considered this inefficient. This ceased after the Fourth Succession War, though whether it was due to a change of doctrine or lack of mechs is up for debate.

2. They're Kuritan. The Draconis Combine produces remarkably few mech designs. They have lots of different mechs, but mostly family hand me downs keep for centuries. However they compensate with numbers of designs with numbers of Panthers and Dragons. While a warrior is expected to die for the state, a family mech is not. So if you want a suicide attack you provide mechs for the job, any semi functional write offs at first, then followed by multiples of common designs, see 3. below.

3. Common designs. Nominally Vindicators and Panthers, though not necessarily for the reasons listed in the previous two points. Also to a lesser extent Commandoes, being by far the most common light mech produced in the Lyran Commonweath. Also the Locust and Stinger with the slightly less common Wasp, which are made in large numbers by almost all factions including the Periphery states.
All of these mechs are used to make up the numbers. Stingers in particular because while they areweak can act as a placeholder in any company and frequently do. It was rare for one of the published Company scenario packs not to include a pair of Stingers or a Locust and a Stinger, even those with a heavy proportion of assault mechs.
Capellans and Kuritans benefit also from one size fits all medium (or honourary medium) mechs in the form of the Vindicator and Panther. The Capellan Confederation especially would normally replace any lost mech, in any non-light lance with a Vindicator, regardless of role. As the underdog of the Successor States they often had no choice, but by and large it was a sound doctrine. The Vindicator is a decent workhorse mech capable of all duties except fast scouting.
To a lesser extent Dragons and Grand Dragons 'creep' into heavier DCMS lances as replacement mechs, though this is due to a manufacturing disparity rather than any doctrine per se.

4. Urbanmechs. Not only a common design but unique within the arsenal of the Inner Sphere. The Urbie just doesnt mix well with any other mech except another Urbie. Though a lance could fairly consist of two Urbies and two other light mech designs for militia duty, normally Wasps or Stingers.

5. Factory world garrisons. Got a factory producing mech x, then for various logistic benefits that mech will heavily function in the local defence forces. Factories attract mechs like flies to dung anyway.

6. Fire Lance mechs. In the Inner Sphere 'artillery' is normally a reference to LRM's, preferably paired racks of LRM10 or larger. This need not mean duplicate mechs, only a duplicate fighting methodology. However as some state has its own prefered or available missile armed mechs it is not uncommon or unreasonable to see mulitple twin LRM mechs in lances. The Free Worlds League makes use of the Locust M, which is only viable as a fast retreating peltast operating in front of or in immediate support of other more survivable units. The Capellans, again, like to make up lances of Catapults. And unlike the Marauder or Goliath based units which are relegated to history the CapCon's Catapult lances persist even into the jihad timeline. Especially the upgraded ones with Arrow IV, which make sense as a battery, though normally the lance includes or has attached a Raven or two to act as spotter.
Lances of Archers are equally viable, though not a known doctrine in canon, as mentioned earlier someone does it hear, though for aesthetic reasons.
However outside of the Locust M or House Liao owned Catapults, most Fire lances take whatever comes in relation to LRM's. Thre popular fire support designs, Whitworth, Trebuchet, Catapult and Archer all have the same elements in common, fairly average speed, with or without jump, two large LRM racks and a backup of medium lasers. They are essentially the same mech, and while listed in increasing tonnage and broadly increasing quality each can stand in for the other. If four Archers take a loss and bring in a Whitworth to replace you have essentially the same lance as before, just with a little less throw weight. Nevertheless because of the specific ranged support role four Archers or other in a lance makes a lot more sense than say four Hunchbacks or four Hatchetmen.


While it appears that logicistically there are advantages to having multiples of the same design in general this is only of benefit if the design is in common supply. A lance of Locusts is fine because it can run together and share components. A lance of Assassins is not. The latter are rare and when the lance takes damage it may not be possible to obtain the parts to keep them going fast enough. It is fair to suggest that 'bootleg' copy components for any mech in operation with the state can be obtained, but with less frequency or reliability than components fully produced locally, or ultra common.
Also in the thinking of the Inner Sphere you lose a lot of tactical versatility, even if you gain with matched mobility by not having the diverse weaponry options of a mixed lance. Some designs bring in versatility of themselves, by being multi role like the Vindicator, or for that matter the Assassin, but while one if a filler mech that can add to a lance and keep adding if needs must, the other should not.

Orlanth wrote:While it appears that logicistically there are advantages to having multiples of the same design in general this is only of benefit if the design is in common supply. A lance of Locusts is fine because it can run together and share components. A lance of Assassins is not. The latter are rare and when the lance takes damage it may not be possible to obtain the parts to keep them going fast enough. It is fair to suggest that 'bootleg' copy components for any mech in operation with the state can be obtained, but with less frequency or reliability than components fully produced locally, or ultra common.

Although for your example, if you've got a bunch of Assassins you still have greatly simplified spare parts as that one spare leg you get can go on any of them. Plus if one gets blown up and the others damaged, you can scavenge the wreck for parts...

Balance wrote:

Orlanth wrote:While it appears that logicistically there are advantages to having multiples of the same design in general this is only of benefit if the design is in common supply. A lance of Locusts is fine because it can run together and share components. A lance of Assassins is not. The latter are rare and when the lance takes damage it may not be possible to obtain the parts to keep them going fast enough. It is fair to suggest that 'bootleg' copy components for any mech in operation with the state can be obtained, but with less frequency or reliability than components fully produced locally, or ultra common.

Although for your example, if you've got a bunch of Assassins you still have greatly simplified spare parts as that one spare leg you get can go on any of them. Plus if one gets blown up and the others damaged, you can scavenge the wreck for parts...

True but the Inner Sphere salvage mentality is not have four 'mechs, lose two build one from two to get three. Instead its have four 'mechs, lose two, keep two in bits and get the parts to build two to make four. The only time you write off a 'mech is if the torso is gone, or you need the third mech right now or you like in the deep periphery and there is nowhere to go for supplies. Even marginal peripghery states like the Outworlds alliance would try and keep all their mechs and source the parts. The whole is worth more than the sum of the spare parts and a lot harder to build. Many many mechs have refit or scavenged or bootleg components. While a mech is supposed to have 'that' actuator in its arm, you only get 'that' if you have the 'that' factory. 'This' one will do.
Doubly so with wunderwaffe like the Assassin. Ultra fast, jump capable and with mixed range weaponry, the Assassin is not a mech you can afford to lose. Stingers are attrition mechs because it doesnt really matter if you lose one, Centurions are attrition mechs because thats their job, asnd is built to get away with it, though you would multiple up the former are and scavenge as you said, but try to keep the latter, each and every single one.

Frankly there are only four expendible 'mech designs. Locust, Stinger, Wasp and Urbanmech, scavenging a disabled version of any is a fair idea. Joined in the Lyran Commonwealth only by the Commando, and in the Draconis Combine by the Panther, and I am not sure about either being fairly expensive and worthwhile to keep other than as filler or militia fodder. In fact I am not even sure about the Wasp, its somewhat less common than the Stingerand considered a superior design. However they even go as far as hand out Stingers to the police in some parts.

Orlanth wrote:Also in the thinking of the Inner Sphere you lose a lot of tactical versatility, even if you gain with matched mobility by not having the diverse weaponry options of a mixed lance.

That is the most common reason for not doing it. Fire lances maybe all the same or 3 fire mechs with 1 spotter. Try thinking of each lance as a combined arms force. Have your long range mech, close range mech, your slugger, and your flanker...or any other way you want to do it.