Topic: To Unseen or not to Unseen? (Read 1132 times)

skiltao · « **Reply #15 on:** August 03, 2013, 02:46:44 AM »

Quote

Engineer 3 "It doesn't look like a Sherman, isn't built like a Sherman, and was designed by the Italians. So why are we still calling it a Sherman? And why did we prioritize it over our own cutting-edge R&D?"

Inner Sphere manufacturing didn't rise to Star League quality in the 3050s, sure. TR:Project Phoenix does say that its 'Mechs use fancier tech and have new appearances, but I don't think it mentions quality of manufacture, and the FedCom Civil War & Jihad both make a lot of noise about harming everything to do with manufacturing. What makes you say quality rose?

More to the point of this thread, it seems to me that 'Mechs optimized for the "modern battlefield" might not scale well to Star League levels of production and organization. (That's not the theory Catalyst went with, but it's as good as any other.)

(Nitpick: individual MechWarriors swapped weapons on the Ostscout, Scorpion, Ostroc and Thunderbolt; a few weapon swaps on the Crusader (and maybe Shadow Hawk-5D) come as kits; the rest of TR:3050's unseen variants were factory only. Not kits. /EDIT: The post-Tukayyid mercenary market did have the rest available as kits, but we're looking at what the Houses built for themselves.)

Quote from: Knightmare on August 02, 2013, 10:07:59 AM

Some of that can be attributed to the downscale, but also things like the Tricentennial Attacks.

Downscaling seems to have been relatively inconsequential outside the Republic. Tricentennial Attacks may have done more damage, but weren't those mostly anti-human and anti-facility events, rather than anti-'Mech?

Lysenko · « **Reply #16 on:** August 05, 2013, 03:44:37 PM »

Quote from: shwagpo on July 22, 2013, 06:43:04 PM

Now, to say that boots on the ground ,and the specialized recon/black ops units do the same things with less expensive equipment is true. It's just the only really viable use I could find for them, as they are FAR too frail to be used as a front line unit one way or the other. And as militaries are prone to do, if they make that strategic plan come together and work, using LAMS, they'll develop a doctrine around them. Plus there's the rule of cool to consider.

This. I see LAMs as the ultimated SLDF project. They had money to spend and could build highly specialized units. Kurita held onto a LAM factor through 3025; how much of the reasoning behind that isn't that they're useful, but that it's "something the Star League had?" That's adding to the aura of First Lord of the Star League that the Coordinator (like all House Lords) covets.

I have a ComGuard L-II (in paper and metal) made up of 6 LAMs used for Recon. Neber used on teh table, however. Maybe one day.

One other thing about LAMs: stealth bombers. Or that role actually. I was happy to see that some of the LAM designs in 3085 had bomb bays. Now if only they could be combied with Omni tech....

Knightmare · « **Reply #17 on:** August 05, 2013, 04:03:48 PM »

Quote from: skiltao on August 03, 2013, 02:46:44 AM

Downscaling seems to have been relatively inconsequential outside the Republic. Tricentennial Attacks may have done more damage, but weren't those mostly anti-human and anti-facility events, rather than anti-'Mech?

The Tricentennial attacks hit manufacturing and research facilities as well as civilians, infrastructure, etc. They were widespread and seemingly designed to spread terror & discord. We don't have any hard numbers, but it was enough to help coincide with a draw down in new production after the 3110s.

As for the draw down, it was not inconsequential outside of the Republic. Almost everyone downsized new production (which can be tracked) while disbanding some excess forces. Where the Republic screwed the pooch was in not stockpiling the disbanded equipment. So when the HPG network fell, states like the Draconis Combine and the Confederation were able to rearm more quickly while their production capabilities geared back up because they squirreled away a lot of excess equipment.

They had the advantage of a jump start when others did not.

skiltao · « **Reply #18 on:** August 06, 2013, 12:19:23 AM »

Ah! My bad, I thought you were talking about surviving regiments, not new production. You're right that the attacks and disarmament would cut into production. (I'm not real clear on whether the draw down actually reduced 'Mech production, or just formally recognized their inability to recover - obviously, industry and infrastructure recovers eventually, but that took decades.)

When I asked about 'Mech numbers on the official forums, I was told that the % squirreled away was a % of the surviving forces. Supposing 15-25 regiments survived in each House, and they squirreled away 5%-15%, well... compared to historic House army sizes, that's not much.

Quote from: Lysenko on August 05, 2013, 03:44:37 PM

how much of the reasoning behind that isn't that they're useful, but that it's "something the Star League had?"

Well, it's 3025, so mostly it's "You can build 'Mechs? BUILD AS MANY AS YOU CAN"

Knightmare · « **Reply #19 on:** August 06, 2013, 02:29:02 PM »

Field Manual 3085 clearly states that some production was abandoned in favor of civilian manufacture. Even with a couple of wars, it looks like production never ramped up, just used cached equipment.

OBT Forum

News:

Author Topic: To Unseen or not to Unseen? (Read 1132 times)

skiltao

Re: To Unseen or not to Unseen?

Lysenko

Re: To Unseen or not to Unseen?

Knightmare

Re: To Unseen or not to Unseen?

skiltao

Re: To Unseen or not to Unseen?

Knightmare

Re: To Unseen or not to Unseen?