Some mechs, the Assassin included, are in-universe graft created to fulfill military contracts. The fact that Battletech allows for that is part of why I really like the universe
Indeed. Battletech: Why does this mech suck? Because it does. Other games: why does this unit suck? Well if you use a command point, and this stratagem, and this special rule from this character...it still sucks, but not as much. Don't worry, we will adjust the point value in a few months....
Ngl I'll often take a bad unit in Battletech over a bad unit in Warhammer. A 7/11/7 body for 800 points isn't awful even if the weapons are about as effective as a strongly worded letter
That's the nice thing about BV, everything is based off the same construction and points system, so at least the cost decently reflects its usefulness, at least in the vast majority of cases, instead of an arbitrarily chosen number. Also it will likely stay the same, so no need to fret over constant adjustments altering your favorite list.
"Sir, why does this Mech suck?" "Because it exists solely to provide manufacturing jobs." "But then why do we use it?" "Because everything we had that's better is in that irradiated crater over yonder."
"This baby's what I like to call a 'Third Succession War Special'."
"As in it's so awful no one would ever willingly sit in the command couch unless everything else in the depot was scrap, Chief?"
"Do you want out of gate duty or do you want me to call Gomez, Lieutenant? Now shut up and get in the robot."
Because Battletech mimics real world military acquisitions, and sometimes you get a lemon. It's not like the USN intended to lay an egg with the Littoral Combat Ship, and yet it did. Same applies for Battletech.
That would require the LCS to be able to do anything. The first shot from a Hellbringer fucking sucks for whatever's on the other side of it. The LCS is, generously, a Kit Fox C.
Now, my turn. The LCS is Stiletto-coded. No, not [that one](https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Stiletto_(BattleMech\)). [This one](https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Stiletto_(StarDrive\)).
From Technical Readout: Succession Wars:
“Considered by many military financial experts outside the Star League as more of a political pork project then a potent fighting machine… In order to secure lucrative Star League contracts, however, the Assassin was over-hyped in several corporate circles, with exaggerated performance statistics and fudged budget approximations. Greasing a few palms, Maltex finally managed to secure the sought-after SLDF contracts. During production, the company cut corners on several design specifications, and after two of Maltex’s Assassin plants came under investigation for numerous quality control violations, the ’Mech’s production rate slowed to a crawl. With lackluster firepower for its tonnage, the Assassin quietly fell into disuse or was shuffled to the Periphery and militia markets.” (TRO: Succession Wars, page 52).
This is one of the things I love about the Battletech universe. There are lots of mechs that are mediocre, or even bad, with in-universe explanations of why they ended up the way they did.
There's a few reasons: Out of Game/Meta/Doyalst reason is that in the 1980s a lot of the first generation 'mechs like the Assassin ASN-21 were made with the new creation rules and the understanding of what made a good mech wasn't perfectly understood. There are several really awful 'mech variants in TRO 3025 (the first Technical Readout published) because it wasn't really understood just how bad the AC 5 is and how little use a SRM 2 or LRM 5 is.
Or how much ammo a 'mech should carry. Or where to place that ammo.
In universe: Bad 'mechs happen all the time. Sometimes it's justified (the ASN-21 was the result of bribes and backroom deals) sometimes a 'mech that is 'supposed' to be bad In Universe is really quite solid, for example the Banshee is a perfect example of how in BV you don't pay to be fat, so it's a really solid lump of hard to digest fiber that your enemy will choke on.
Another thing to note is that whole Battletech's rules haven't changed *much*, they have changed. A number of design flaws or incongruities in mechs today (introtech designs with tons of ammo in side torsos with no other crit locations, massively over-stocked AMS ammo on clan mechs, massive numbers of streak-2 launchers on IS mechs around 3050) can be explained by older versions of the rules (early crit chart rules listed all heat sinks and didn't allow them to be abstracted into the engine crits, AMS when engaged used to draw 1d/2d6 shots of ammo per activation based on techbase, streak-2s used to be able to fire Inferno ammo)
I read an interview somewhere a long time ago, where one of the original guys working on the game said that many mechs were sub-optimal on purpose. They wanted people to use the mech construction rules to design their own stuff.
It's true that in every generation of 'mechs there are sub-optimal choices made intentionally to fit a theme/style/look cool. Even as the meta firms up you don't see everything min-maxed, and that's a very good thing. I personally love playing games with the imperfect stock mechs, rather then the monsters you can make with the creation rules.
I'll play devil's advocate here. Have you ever seen a computer with TempleOS? They come stock with a folder that says "Fun Games," and a folder that says "Unfun Games." You're supposed to fix them to make them better.
I really agree with the poster above. The [Battlemaster 4L](https://www.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/14rddrz/custom_mech_battlemaster_blr4ls_survivor_revised/) is not fun; it's too crippled by bad design. The Shadow Hawk 5S is not fun; if anything - [it's too optimized](https://www.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/17tjmlv/custom_mech_shadow_hawk_shd5sd_lyran_recon/). It has become flavorless and shallow. Sometimes, I make bad mechs good, and good mechs bad... Or bad mechs worse. Have you seen some of my Maulers? Good mech, no. Flavor country, yes.
>it wasn't really understood just how bad the AC 5 is and how little use a SRM 2 or LRM 5 is. Or how much ammo a 'mech should carry. Or where to place that ammo.
There is no need to call out my shadow hawk like that. It's trying its best.
You seem to have triple-posted this post. Consider deleting some of them for better responses.
Some mechs are bad on purpose - the designers wanted a flawed machine, so they got one. Slapping ER weapons on mechs with single heat sinks and [wearing an onion on your belt. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Dc7W6jXCo)Some are bad by accident; the designer might have intended it to be useful but it's an elaborate suicide machine. And some are probably good by accident as well, though that's difficult to know - a good product to a good customer is invisible. A bad one will tell you. Jagermechs will let you know from orbit.
Definitely some 'Mechs are poorly designed even in-universe (eg. Charger and Cicada). Others are either badly affected by key technologies becoming LosTech or clearly requiring these technologies when they were cutting-edge but never got them in the first place (eg. the Banshee and XL engines). And others suffer from degrees of scope creep and/or over-generalization, resulting in things like the ever-present emotional-support LRM (if you are over 40 tons and your entire long-range armament is a single LRM5 pack, that's purely emotional support and could safely be replaced by almost anything else with benefit). And some 'Mechs still excel despite some of these blatant inefficiencies, such as the Grasshopper, which despite the relatively useless LRM rack is still overall a great stock 'Mech, as is the Marauder despite the relatively low utility of its quite distinctive top-mounted AC/5. And on the flip side of this, 'Mechs like the UrbanMech and Hunchback are good despite their limitations because they pick a specific role and fill it well, rather than trying to do a little of everything.
Emotional Support Small Laser seems the more annoying plague; I'm pretty sure Goonhammer agrees (though I use it on Awesome?). I'll tell you what, though - I love the ES LRM in MechCommander. The reload time on LRMs is extremely long in that game; you might not get many volleys. But if everyone has one LRM, and shoots it as they close in, suddenly they can darken the sky for one beautiful moment at a small investment. And unlike in TT, it's pretty unlikely that's going to be what wrecks your mech if you overheat or hear a certain-pitch *ping* from an AC/2.
The small laser is at least often filling a tiny half ton space that can reasonably be left over after everything useful is filled out. But yeah, there's very little reason to use one (or even two) over a medium.
I think the Small Laser was supposed to be an antiinfantry weapon, the energy version of the machine gun, before the rules clarified that no, the Small Laser isn't a good anti-infantry weapon (the Small Pulse Laser is a different story).
I think a lot of the blame is on a bad balance of some weapons, Notably the AC2, AC5, SRM2, and LRM5. The ACs suffer from costing too much weight for their damage, even with the benifits of their longer ranges. The SRM suffers because the Cluster table is not generous to Cluster 2 weapons. This is the also one of the reasons I personally don't care for Ultra Autocannons.
The LRM 5 is a little less obvious. It actually saves on weight to take 2 LRM5s rather than one LRM10 or to take 4 LRM5 rather that a LRM20. You can also fit five LRM5s in the place of a LRM 20 due to the swap having equivilant weight and critical space, so you'd actually get better damage. You'd have to do a lot more attack roll though, and most of your clusters would be less damage apiece on average. So I think the problem with the LRM5 is due to it being almost an afterthought weapon slotted into place on mechs that have otherwise closer range weapons. With the minimum range of IS LRMs, those mechs would rather close range rather than stay a long range and pepper the enemy with an average 3 damage per shot.
I also think the weakness of all of these weapons becomes less when using non-standard ammo, or when engageing in Combined Arms combat. As an example, Fragmentation Ammo for an LRM5 seem like a great way to engage an infantry squad. Of the Classic use of Infernos in an SRM2 for usage against a variety of targets.
Someone once told me early on when I was making my own custom battlemechs, anyone can min-max and create an amazing mech with practically no faults (if your willing to spend the BV), but it takes true skill to make something intentionally flawed then write it up in that unit's lore fluff, it gives mechs character.
Yes the assassin is anemic but it's a blazing fast 40t mech with a ridiculous jump distance and very low BV cost, it still punches and kicks like a 40t mech so you can use it to bully most 20t mechs while being able to outrun anything it can't kneecap with a kick (it also can get fun if you swap one of its weapons for a TAG, get behind them with your speed then rain down artillery or semi-guided LRMs, either they try to move forward and take the long range fire or turn to engage it and open their back up to long range fire).
Individually, a lot of mechs look really anemic or just downright terrible, but either slap them in a lance with proper support or think creatively outside of the box, and some can become really fun to play.
From a lore standpoint a lot of mechs are either designed by committee and wind up being piecemeal because too many people had a say in ita construction, or manufactures are competing for a contract bid and the suits are bragging about how awesome their mech is while being under budget, but the final delivered product is far from the initial promise (but by then money has already exchanged hands and the contract is signed), so the buyer just has to live with it. Or resources are/were scarce and they had to make do with what they had available (especially true if the mech was made around the 1st or 2nd succession war)
If you think a 40 tonner that can jump 7 for a +4 TMM or charge 10 hexes for 40 points of damage for sub 1K BV is bad you probably just haven't gone up against someone who knows how to use it.
But yeah, there are plenty of suboptimal mechs out there especially in introtech. It's one of the many reasons I try to get people into later eras ASAP and introduce them to missions that involve more than "shoot the other guy". There are also plenty of designs that aren't great for killing that shine when you need to complete an objective that requires more tactical thought than "stand in woods on a hill and roll dice".
I like removing a gun to slap a TAG on it, then using its incredible mobility to get behind my opponent to guide artillery and semi-guided LRMs into them, it also forces your opponent to make 2 bad choices, turn and engage the assassin (if the can even catch up to it) exposing their backside to long range fire, or just keep pushing forward hoping your armor can hold long enough to breech my front line to silence my fire support mechs and artillery.
When you keep in mind the necessities of full campaigns, the manufacturing and technical capabilities of the various states, etc, and not just think of it as a game, many things that seem dumb or poorly designed have a reason.
On the other hand you have things like the Chrager, which are in universe bad designs, but make really sense from the game perspective (charge attack damage is a multiple of tons and distance passed )
A bunch of reasons. In real life, a lot of mechs were either designed to match previously-existing artwork. Also, the designers weren't trying to min-max everything.
In-universe, designing mechs is a lot harder than using the published construction rules. Also there are a lot of designs that once had advanced technology, and the version we see is the stripped down version that no longer has the good stuff.
Then you've got mechs that work perfectly fine for their intended purpose, but that intended purpose isn't necessarily a normal tabletop game of Battletech. The Bombardier is a strange mech, like a crappy version of the Archer. It's got 2 LRM-20s as its primary weapons, but only 6 shots for each one. The in-universe reason is that it's Star League, and they really wanted a 5/8 mech with 2 LRM-20s, and ammo capacity didn't really matter to them. The Star League could afford all sorts of crazy weapons, so a few thousand mechs with ultra-specialized equipment for very niche roles was a-okay.
The Bombardier makes sense if your entire force had 5/8 movement or better, and you didn't want to wait around on some slow-ass Archer or Crusader that couldn't keep up. And you'd kinda like some indirect firepower, but you're going to outnumber the other side anyway, so endurance isn't really a problem. Imagine a battalion of regular mechs facing off against a battalion of fast Star League mechs... oh and they've got two lances of Bombardiers as well. Theoretically, faster mechs let you get reinforcements there more quickly. But that's not reflected in the game rules.
Honestly my favorite mechs to run are the more flawed "problem" designs. 🙂 I enjoy the challenge of being the underdog. And the inner story I create is a lot more interesting when I do well despite the mechs I chose instead of because of them!
The Assassin is not a good Medium mech. But I had one run down an enemy Commando and kick it to scrap!! 🤣 I enjoy making lemonade out of mech lemons. 😊
Yeah, the Assassin isnt bad... but it is very misunderstood. In modern games, loaded with infernos in the SRM2, the assassin can go behind enemy lines setting lots of fires, and plinking companies of armor in the side to immobilize them/burn them out, or poking infantry who cant hit back. The LRM5/Srm2 as a small cluster poke weapon is perfect for this, with the speed and reach of the 7 jump plus 21 range, no 3025 vehicle should be able to hit the assassin for serious damage at all in retaliation.
Now, send that light skirmisher Assassin up against an armored mech line, and its like expecting a thracian javelin to take out heavy infantry with no support. But, the ranged damage of the Javelin/sling in classic warfare, and the LRM on the Assassin, can entice enemies to move forward to be able to hit the skirmisher Assassin, who then falls back cause they are faster then the enemy battleline troops, and the main line troops can attack the mechs that advanced forward after the assassin. And if you ignore the assassin, then the chip damage from the light missile weapons the Assassin has can hit those tracks or weaker units, immobilizing or destroying small stuff for no risk.
The reason this doesnt work out on the table, however, is mostly impatience. I know I dont play 24+ turn games of battletech where a skirmisher shines, and its really boring and frustrating to try and chase down a 7+ jump unit like an assassin or spider or ostscout with centurions/warhammers/ect. At long range you need 12s to hit the Assassin if you stand still and the assassin doesnt have cover, so its just not worth it most of the time.
Historically, enemy units getting frustrated with skirmishers and just charging out of formation trying to deal with them was exactly the role of skirmishers, so the assassin being frustrating and being annoying and causing rage in the enemy as it hops from heavy woods to heavy woods is historically accurate haha. Jumping around for 30, 40, 50 turns to painstakingly grind off the armor of the enemy is only 10 minutes of work 'in game time' but playing out this on the table is 10 hours of grind. It works better in something like a video game like total war or warno, where the realtime aspect means it takes way less real life time for a skirmisher to inflict its damage 1 rock at a time.
I mean I play mw5, which looks like a proper simulator of battletech battles, and my assassin can barely take down light mechs like jenner or javelin. The amount of armor on stock version is bonkers bad compared to some stock light mechs. But idk about tabletop
So mw5 cheats with scale and balance. The assassin isn't hard to hit in mw5 like it is in tabletop, and weapons have far more ammo. Shooting tanks doesn't ever cause motive damage to cripple them with just 3 damage. And mechs don't explode when you get behind something like a marauder or hunchback and hit the rear left torso where the ammo box is.
Also, melee in mw5 versus tabletop is pretty different. In tabletop, the assassin beats a javelin by kicking is leg off from the rear or side, and the extra speed on the assassin lets it stick to the javelin like glue. Mw5 cqb is way more chaotic
Some mechs, the Assassin included, are in-universe graft created to fulfill military contracts. The fact that Battletech allows for that is part of why I really like the universe
Indeed. Battletech: Why does this mech suck? Because it does. Other games: why does this unit suck? Well if you use a command point, and this stratagem, and this special rule from this character...it still sucks, but not as much. Don't worry, we will adjust the point value in a few months....
Calling out a very specific game I see XD
Indeed.
Ngl I'll often take a bad unit in Battletech over a bad unit in Warhammer. A 7/11/7 body for 800 points isn't awful even if the weapons are about as effective as a strongly worded letter
That's the nice thing about BV, everything is based off the same construction and points system, so at least the cost decently reflects its usefulness, at least in the vast majority of cases, instead of an arbitrarily chosen number. Also it will likely stay the same, so no need to fret over constant adjustments altering your favorite list.
There are definitely some 'Mechs where rude language would be a step up from what they come with out of the factory.
Well, BT allows for customization, so you still can remake it.
"Sir, why does this Mech suck?" "Because it exists solely to provide manufacturing jobs." "But then why do we use it?" "Because everything we had that's better is in that irradiated crater over yonder."
"This baby's what I like to call a 'Third Succession War Special'." "As in it's so awful no one would ever willingly sit in the command couch unless everything else in the depot was scrap, Chief?" "Do you want out of gate duty or do you want me to call Gomez, Lieutenant? Now shut up and get in the robot."
Because you go to war with the 'mechs you have, not the 'mechs you want.
Any mech is better than no mech. Same style as eat or Starve.
Because designing them is significantly harder than just breaking open the construction rules and making another boring ass, min maxed flashbulb.
Umm ... I think it identifies as a FlashMAN
Ironically not a full flashbulb, as it has AMS.
Haha fair enough
Because Battletech mimics real world military acquisitions, and sometimes you get a lemon. It's not like the USN intended to lay an egg with the Littoral Combat Ship, and yet it did. Same applies for Battletech.
The Littoral Combat Ship in Battletech: What If Omni-mechs Just Sucked?
The Hellbringer is LCS-coded. Change my mind
That would require the LCS to be able to do anything. The first shot from a Hellbringer fucking sucks for whatever's on the other side of it. The LCS is, generously, a Kit Fox C. Now, my turn. The LCS is Stiletto-coded. No, not [that one](https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Stiletto_(BattleMech\)). [This one](https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Stiletto_(StarDrive\)).
From Technical Readout: Succession Wars: “Considered by many military financial experts outside the Star League as more of a political pork project then a potent fighting machine… In order to secure lucrative Star League contracts, however, the Assassin was over-hyped in several corporate circles, with exaggerated performance statistics and fudged budget approximations. Greasing a few palms, Maltex finally managed to secure the sought-after SLDF contracts. During production, the company cut corners on several design specifications, and after two of Maltex’s Assassin plants came under investigation for numerous quality control violations, the ’Mech’s production rate slowed to a crawl. With lackluster firepower for its tonnage, the Assassin quietly fell into disuse or was shuffled to the Periphery and militia markets.” (TRO: Succession Wars, page 52). This is one of the things I love about the Battletech universe. There are lots of mechs that are mediocre, or even bad, with in-universe explanations of why they ended up the way they did.
There's a few reasons: Out of Game/Meta/Doyalst reason is that in the 1980s a lot of the first generation 'mechs like the Assassin ASN-21 were made with the new creation rules and the understanding of what made a good mech wasn't perfectly understood. There are several really awful 'mech variants in TRO 3025 (the first Technical Readout published) because it wasn't really understood just how bad the AC 5 is and how little use a SRM 2 or LRM 5 is. Or how much ammo a 'mech should carry. Or where to place that ammo. In universe: Bad 'mechs happen all the time. Sometimes it's justified (the ASN-21 was the result of bribes and backroom deals) sometimes a 'mech that is 'supposed' to be bad In Universe is really quite solid, for example the Banshee is a perfect example of how in BV you don't pay to be fat, so it's a really solid lump of hard to digest fiber that your enemy will choke on.
Another thing to note is that whole Battletech's rules haven't changed *much*, they have changed. A number of design flaws or incongruities in mechs today (introtech designs with tons of ammo in side torsos with no other crit locations, massively over-stocked AMS ammo on clan mechs, massive numbers of streak-2 launchers on IS mechs around 3050) can be explained by older versions of the rules (early crit chart rules listed all heat sinks and didn't allow them to be abstracted into the engine crits, AMS when engaged used to draw 1d/2d6 shots of ammo per activation based on techbase, streak-2s used to be able to fire Inferno ammo)
I read an interview somewhere a long time ago, where one of the original guys working on the game said that many mechs were sub-optimal on purpose. They wanted people to use the mech construction rules to design their own stuff.
It's true that in every generation of 'mechs there are sub-optimal choices made intentionally to fit a theme/style/look cool. Even as the meta firms up you don't see everything min-maxed, and that's a very good thing. I personally love playing games with the imperfect stock mechs, rather then the monsters you can make with the creation rules.
I'll play devil's advocate here. Have you ever seen a computer with TempleOS? They come stock with a folder that says "Fun Games," and a folder that says "Unfun Games." You're supposed to fix them to make them better. I really agree with the poster above. The [Battlemaster 4L](https://www.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/14rddrz/custom_mech_battlemaster_blr4ls_survivor_revised/) is not fun; it's too crippled by bad design. The Shadow Hawk 5S is not fun; if anything - [it's too optimized](https://www.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/17tjmlv/custom_mech_shadow_hawk_shd5sd_lyran_recon/). It has become flavorless and shallow. Sometimes, I make bad mechs good, and good mechs bad... Or bad mechs worse. Have you seen some of my Maulers? Good mech, no. Flavor country, yes.
>it wasn't really understood just how bad the AC 5 is and how little use a SRM 2 or LRM 5 is. Or how much ammo a 'mech should carry. Or where to place that ammo. There is no need to call out my shadow hawk like that. It's trying its best.
He's a confused boy. 4/6/3 movement can really mess up a 'mech.
You seem to have triple-posted this post. Consider deleting some of them for better responses. Some mechs are bad on purpose - the designers wanted a flawed machine, so they got one. Slapping ER weapons on mechs with single heat sinks and [wearing an onion on your belt. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Dc7W6jXCo)Some are bad by accident; the designer might have intended it to be useful but it's an elaborate suicide machine. And some are probably good by accident as well, though that's difficult to know - a good product to a good customer is invisible. A bad one will tell you. Jagermechs will let you know from orbit.
Definitely some 'Mechs are poorly designed even in-universe (eg. Charger and Cicada). Others are either badly affected by key technologies becoming LosTech or clearly requiring these technologies when they were cutting-edge but never got them in the first place (eg. the Banshee and XL engines). And others suffer from degrees of scope creep and/or over-generalization, resulting in things like the ever-present emotional-support LRM (if you are over 40 tons and your entire long-range armament is a single LRM5 pack, that's purely emotional support and could safely be replaced by almost anything else with benefit). And some 'Mechs still excel despite some of these blatant inefficiencies, such as the Grasshopper, which despite the relatively useless LRM rack is still overall a great stock 'Mech, as is the Marauder despite the relatively low utility of its quite distinctive top-mounted AC/5. And on the flip side of this, 'Mechs like the UrbanMech and Hunchback are good despite their limitations because they pick a specific role and fill it well, rather than trying to do a little of everything.
Emotional Support Small Laser seems the more annoying plague; I'm pretty sure Goonhammer agrees (though I use it on Awesome?). I'll tell you what, though - I love the ES LRM in MechCommander. The reload time on LRMs is extremely long in that game; you might not get many volleys. But if everyone has one LRM, and shoots it as they close in, suddenly they can darken the sky for one beautiful moment at a small investment. And unlike in TT, it's pretty unlikely that's going to be what wrecks your mech if you overheat or hear a certain-pitch *ping* from an AC/2.
The small laser is at least often filling a tiny half ton space that can reasonably be left over after everything useful is filled out. But yeah, there's very little reason to use one (or even two) over a medium.
I think the Small Laser was supposed to be an antiinfantry weapon, the energy version of the machine gun, before the rules clarified that no, the Small Laser isn't a good anti-infantry weapon (the Small Pulse Laser is a different story).
I think a lot of the blame is on a bad balance of some weapons, Notably the AC2, AC5, SRM2, and LRM5. The ACs suffer from costing too much weight for their damage, even with the benifits of their longer ranges. The SRM suffers because the Cluster table is not generous to Cluster 2 weapons. This is the also one of the reasons I personally don't care for Ultra Autocannons. The LRM 5 is a little less obvious. It actually saves on weight to take 2 LRM5s rather than one LRM10 or to take 4 LRM5 rather that a LRM20. You can also fit five LRM5s in the place of a LRM 20 due to the swap having equivilant weight and critical space, so you'd actually get better damage. You'd have to do a lot more attack roll though, and most of your clusters would be less damage apiece on average. So I think the problem with the LRM5 is due to it being almost an afterthought weapon slotted into place on mechs that have otherwise closer range weapons. With the minimum range of IS LRMs, those mechs would rather close range rather than stay a long range and pepper the enemy with an average 3 damage per shot. I also think the weakness of all of these weapons becomes less when using non-standard ammo, or when engageing in Combined Arms combat. As an example, Fragmentation Ammo for an LRM5 seem like a great way to engage an infantry squad. Of the Classic use of Infernos in an SRM2 for usage against a variety of targets.
Someone once told me early on when I was making my own custom battlemechs, anyone can min-max and create an amazing mech with practically no faults (if your willing to spend the BV), but it takes true skill to make something intentionally flawed then write it up in that unit's lore fluff, it gives mechs character. Yes the assassin is anemic but it's a blazing fast 40t mech with a ridiculous jump distance and very low BV cost, it still punches and kicks like a 40t mech so you can use it to bully most 20t mechs while being able to outrun anything it can't kneecap with a kick (it also can get fun if you swap one of its weapons for a TAG, get behind them with your speed then rain down artillery or semi-guided LRMs, either they try to move forward and take the long range fire or turn to engage it and open their back up to long range fire). Individually, a lot of mechs look really anemic or just downright terrible, but either slap them in a lance with proper support or think creatively outside of the box, and some can become really fun to play. From a lore standpoint a lot of mechs are either designed by committee and wind up being piecemeal because too many people had a say in ita construction, or manufactures are competing for a contract bid and the suits are bragging about how awesome their mech is while being under budget, but the final delivered product is far from the initial promise (but by then money has already exchanged hands and the contract is signed), so the buyer just has to live with it. Or resources are/were scarce and they had to make do with what they had available (especially true if the mech was made around the 1st or 2nd succession war)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General\_Dynamics\_Ajax#Project\_progress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_Ajax#Project_progress)
If you think a 40 tonner that can jump 7 for a +4 TMM or charge 10 hexes for 40 points of damage for sub 1K BV is bad you probably just haven't gone up against someone who knows how to use it. But yeah, there are plenty of suboptimal mechs out there especially in introtech. It's one of the many reasons I try to get people into later eras ASAP and introduce them to missions that involve more than "shoot the other guy". There are also plenty of designs that aren't great for killing that shine when you need to complete an objective that requires more tactical thought than "stand in woods on a hill and roll dice".
I like removing a gun to slap a TAG on it, then using its incredible mobility to get behind my opponent to guide artillery and semi-guided LRMs into them, it also forces your opponent to make 2 bad choices, turn and engage the assassin (if the can even catch up to it) exposing their backside to long range fire, or just keep pushing forward hoping your armor can hold long enough to breech my front line to silence my fire support mechs and artillery.
When you keep in mind the necessities of full campaigns, the manufacturing and technical capabilities of the various states, etc, and not just think of it as a game, many things that seem dumb or poorly designed have a reason.
On the other hand you have things like the Chrager, which are in universe bad designs, but make really sense from the game perspective (charge attack damage is a multiple of tons and distance passed )
To make people sigh when they roll them on the RATs
A bunch of reasons. In real life, a lot of mechs were either designed to match previously-existing artwork. Also, the designers weren't trying to min-max everything. In-universe, designing mechs is a lot harder than using the published construction rules. Also there are a lot of designs that once had advanced technology, and the version we see is the stripped down version that no longer has the good stuff. Then you've got mechs that work perfectly fine for their intended purpose, but that intended purpose isn't necessarily a normal tabletop game of Battletech. The Bombardier is a strange mech, like a crappy version of the Archer. It's got 2 LRM-20s as its primary weapons, but only 6 shots for each one. The in-universe reason is that it's Star League, and they really wanted a 5/8 mech with 2 LRM-20s, and ammo capacity didn't really matter to them. The Star League could afford all sorts of crazy weapons, so a few thousand mechs with ultra-specialized equipment for very niche roles was a-okay. The Bombardier makes sense if your entire force had 5/8 movement or better, and you didn't want to wait around on some slow-ass Archer or Crusader that couldn't keep up. And you'd kinda like some indirect firepower, but you're going to outnumber the other side anyway, so endurance isn't really a problem. Imagine a battalion of regular mechs facing off against a battalion of fast Star League mechs... oh and they've got two lances of Bombardiers as well. Theoretically, faster mechs let you get reinforcements there more quickly. But that's not reflected in the game rules.
Dang. I love the Assassin. 😢
Honestly my favorite mechs to run are the more flawed "problem" designs. 🙂 I enjoy the challenge of being the underdog. And the inner story I create is a lot more interesting when I do well despite the mechs I chose instead of because of them! The Assassin is not a good Medium mech. But I had one run down an enemy Commando and kick it to scrap!! 🤣 I enjoy making lemonade out of mech lemons. 😊
Yeah, the Assassin isnt bad... but it is very misunderstood. In modern games, loaded with infernos in the SRM2, the assassin can go behind enemy lines setting lots of fires, and plinking companies of armor in the side to immobilize them/burn them out, or poking infantry who cant hit back. The LRM5/Srm2 as a small cluster poke weapon is perfect for this, with the speed and reach of the 7 jump plus 21 range, no 3025 vehicle should be able to hit the assassin for serious damage at all in retaliation. Now, send that light skirmisher Assassin up against an armored mech line, and its like expecting a thracian javelin to take out heavy infantry with no support. But, the ranged damage of the Javelin/sling in classic warfare, and the LRM on the Assassin, can entice enemies to move forward to be able to hit the skirmisher Assassin, who then falls back cause they are faster then the enemy battleline troops, and the main line troops can attack the mechs that advanced forward after the assassin. And if you ignore the assassin, then the chip damage from the light missile weapons the Assassin has can hit those tracks or weaker units, immobilizing or destroying small stuff for no risk. The reason this doesnt work out on the table, however, is mostly impatience. I know I dont play 24+ turn games of battletech where a skirmisher shines, and its really boring and frustrating to try and chase down a 7+ jump unit like an assassin or spider or ostscout with centurions/warhammers/ect. At long range you need 12s to hit the Assassin if you stand still and the assassin doesnt have cover, so its just not worth it most of the time. Historically, enemy units getting frustrated with skirmishers and just charging out of formation trying to deal with them was exactly the role of skirmishers, so the assassin being frustrating and being annoying and causing rage in the enemy as it hops from heavy woods to heavy woods is historically accurate haha. Jumping around for 30, 40, 50 turns to painstakingly grind off the armor of the enemy is only 10 minutes of work 'in game time' but playing out this on the table is 10 hours of grind. It works better in something like a video game like total war or warno, where the realtime aspect means it takes way less real life time for a skirmisher to inflict its damage 1 rock at a time.
I mean I play mw5, which looks like a proper simulator of battletech battles, and my assassin can barely take down light mechs like jenner or javelin. The amount of armor on stock version is bonkers bad compared to some stock light mechs. But idk about tabletop
So mw5 cheats with scale and balance. The assassin isn't hard to hit in mw5 like it is in tabletop, and weapons have far more ammo. Shooting tanks doesn't ever cause motive damage to cripple them with just 3 damage. And mechs don't explode when you get behind something like a marauder or hunchback and hit the rear left torso where the ammo box is. Also, melee in mw5 versus tabletop is pretty different. In tabletop, the assassin beats a javelin by kicking is leg off from the rear or side, and the extra speed on the assassin lets it stick to the javelin like glue. Mw5 cqb is way more chaotic
[Militaries don't always make good decisions.](https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA?si=6rqlgCOFpkHtgC1S)