Jump Jet

[Nightbringer]

So...since game does not think that showing critical information is cool or to write it in wiki is cool enough for it, I have to ask it here.

Why the ♥♥♥♥ I need so many jump jets? What they do? Do they add 1 movement point per jet? Can I then remove all, but 1 of them. Will it work for jumping up and down the cliffs vertically?

[Wantoomany]

Yes, it's one movement point per jet. Mechs can have a maximum number of jets equal to their walking speed. And yes, one jet will allow you to hop one hex up or down cliffs.

[Twelvefield]

The more jumpjets you have, the farther you can travel. JJ's will get you up and down cliffs. You can also perform a Death From Above DFA attack, where you jump on an enemy mech. Finally, jumping farther adds to your Evasion stat, which makes you harder to hit, same as sprinting.

You don't need jumpjets, you can get rid of as many of them as you like. The fewer jets you have the less distance you can jump. Or not jump at all, if you get rid of them all. I don't know if it's one jet one hex, I don't much care, either. I like to max out the jets because then I get better evasion and more tactical options, like DFA, or jumping in behind a mech to take out its back armour.

[DasaKamov]

Also note that not all jump jets are equal. Heavy mechs require "Jump Jets - Heavy", as other JJs are not powerful enough to lift 75+ tonnes off the ground.

[Nightbringer]

Thanks for help.


Heh, I find it highly amusing how they decided to rate tonnage. Armoured beasts capable of shrugging off main cannon hits from tanks and being far bigger than them weights just...20 to 70 tons! Even futuristic space tanks weight 35 tons. By today's standards this is a light tank. Our MBT nowadays goes upwards to 70 tons and above in some rare cases!

[DasaKamov]

Tonnage levels are based on the board game. ;)

Also, in the sci-fi world of Battletech, mechs are constructed with futuristic metal alloys which weigh much less than and are much more durable than today's materials.

[Grimmrog_SIG]

Originally posted by Nightbringer:

Thanks for help.


Heh, I find it highly amusing how they decided to rate tonnage. Armoured beasts capable of shrugging off main cannon hits from tanks and being far bigger than them weights just...20 to 70 tons! Even futuristic space tanks weight 35 tons. By today's standards this is a light tank. Our MBT nowadays goes upwards to 70 tons and above in some rare cases!

well it's battletech logic, it always was a bit strange, tink about that 7t targetting computer :P

[Yuki]

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

Also, in the sci-fi world of Battletech, mechs are constructed with metal alloys which weigh much less than and are much more durable than today's materials.

This!
If you take a look at them, with modern day material we would be looking at like 400 tons for an Atlas, not 100.

Originally posted by Nightbringer:

! Even futuristic space tanks weight 35 tons. By today's standards this is a light tank. Our MBT nowadays goes upwards to 70 tons and above in some rare cases!

Well i take it you are just at the beginning yet ;)
Otherwise you may come to HATE this damn 80T tanks and their 3 PPC...

[Wantoomany]

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

Tonnage levels are based on the board game. ;)

Also, in the sci-fi world of Battletech, mechs are constructed with metal alloys which weigh much less than and are much more durable than today's materials.

Not to mention that battlemechs are not yeagers. Mechs are not all that large, only about 10 to 15 meters. A little taller then a modern MBT if you stood it vertically.

[:WTF: Grendel]

Originally posted by Nightbringer:

Thanks for help.


Heh, I find it highly amusing how they decided to rate tonnage. Armoured beasts capable of shrugging off main cannon hits from tanks and being far bigger than them weights just...20 to 70 tons! Even futuristic space tanks weight 35 tons. By today's standards this is a light tank. Our MBT nowadays goes upwards to 70 tons and above in some rare cases!

yes... but compare the weight of say a Russian T-80U MBT vs a M1 Abrams MBT vs even say a M113 APC or the Bradley Combat Vehicle...

You have to take into consideration that all the tonnage of items/components/weapons/etc were all devised 30yrs ago while some were done around 25yrs ago. BattleTech has been around for 30yrs now lol so don't try and put or find much logic as to why this is that or that is this.

[Twelvefield]

A logic probe would flay this game apart like something I can't think of right away but it would be very susceptible to being flayed apart, remarkably so even.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ba7b6075-ab30-42ed-ac24-6249f7981519

[:WTF: Grendel]

Originally posted by Twelvefield:

A logic probe would flay this game apart like something I can't think of right away but it would be very susceptible to being flayed apart, remarkably so even.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ba7b6075-ab30-42ed-ac24-6249f7981519

The logical choice would have been to use another engine other than Unity lmfao

I've played other games with Unity, mind you the physics side of Unity can be great... but everything else feels forced into the game unless you're really good at modeling, graphical optimization, coding efficiently... and ultimately... testing that on several setups to benchmark your product. But... what do I know... I'm just a old-school game tester lol

[jmvbento]

Originally posted by Twelvefield:

A logic probe would flay this game apart like something I can't think of right away but it would be very susceptible to being flayed apart, remarkably so even.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ba7b6075-ab30-42ed-ac24-6249f7981519

Yeah, BT and logic do not mix, starting with "'Mechs are a ridiculously stupid idea" and going off from there.

[Nightbringer]

Well, concept of mech is viable, depending on available technology. While walkers provide inherently less stability, has natural weakpoints and takes up more space than more efficient designs, largely because their vital parts need to be spread apart. Legs and engines there. Reactor, heart in the chassis. Weapons on shoulders and in arms, pilot in the head on top of all. Yet, at the cost of all of it, walkers are by far more agile and maneuverable on land. They can bypass obstacles simply by stepping on them where tank will literally try plowing through it or will get stuck in it. Furthermore, it passes through issue of water as walker could just walk into the lake.


The largest animals ever had lived on land are estimated to weight over 200 tons. That is more than enough mass for heavy armour and weaponary. This apparently is not too much of weight to sink into the ground due to high ground pressure. Such walkers would prove superior in terms of fire control. Not only they could control their fire angles with more freedom, they would also gain immense fire view advantage. Typical tank can not shoot more than 1 kilometer on the battlefield due to some bush constantly getting in a way. Walker will simply ignore all such terrain. In addition, walker will be able to exploit terrain more effectively, instead of just sitting there and getting shot, it could use mountains as a person would cover. It would reveal its head and gun, fire and get behind the mountain before effective fire could be returned. If said mechs can be made maneuverable like a person, it would have immense tactical advantage as it could effectively use jump packs to hop from cover to cover, use various terrain like hiding in lakes to conduct devastating ambushes, etc.


In conclusion, in real life mechs would not be superior in terms of effectiveness. Standard tank will always have more armour and firepower per weight and cost. Mechs are very inefficient in that regard since they are far more complex machines and as you get more and more complex machinery, price grows as we see it grow today for military equipment. Yet, mech can potentially receive MORE firepower and armour, through for far greater cost, than a tank if technology allows it, because mech can maintain functional movement with far bigger weights. Tanks on the other hand would become extremely unwieldy if we would try to up-armour and up gun them to same standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte


As you can see with Ratte, walkers or Titans are natural logical progression for increasing scale of armaments. Why such things cannot be done with tanks read article about Ratte. Viability of such mechs depends on tech development as in order for them to exist, they require dominance of defensive technologies to exist over offensive ones. When you achieve superiority in defence, smaller units become far less efficient in taking down bigger beasts due to simply being unable to penetrate their armour. You can see this and in this game, mechs have so much armour and are capable of withdstanding multiple hits from guns equal to modern battlecannons which AC/5 should be similar to 105 mm cannon. If mech could not sustain such hit, then imagine how viable they would be if your mech could die from a single lucky shot from a tank.

[Nightbringer]

It is how reptiles tend to balance their forwards leaning body with backwards weight. Humans on the other hand has far more advanced methods of standing still. Seriously, our capability to balance on two legs are so complex that even after generations of researches we are still are barely capable of stimulating functional 4-legged movement! If we can nail down human capability to stand upright and to move, essentially creating a massive robot human who would scale up mountains instead of cliffs and be able to navigate its body as a clumsy human, that would be an immense edge over any conventional ground based weapon.

[JebKerman]

Originally posted by Munithe EXT:

Animals have tails to help them keep balance so I wonder why mechs never have tails to make them more stable.

I suspect organic tails are much more efficient than mechanical ones, especially given how inflexible the 'mechs seem to be, I think they use gyroscopes instead. For a modern example none of Boston Dynamics's bots have tails:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKZ_n8QW4w