Do jump jets need a nerf?

Discussion in 'Campaign - Skjaldborg Saga' started by MagnusEffect, Sep 11, 2013.

  1. MagnusEffect

    MagnusEffect Administrator Staff Member Jarl SC Huscarl

    Messages:
    9,655
    Likes Received:
    6,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ætt (Clan):
    Huscarls
    A lot of people have lamented about my Shadow Hawk's "jumping bean" tactics that make it extremely difficult to hit. Now before we get too deep into this, make sure you understand that using my mech as the main point is a fairly extreme example:

    My mech is highly tuned to doing what it does; high Tactics Skill + Jumping Jack + 5 jumpjets (having less than 5 doesn't work as well) is a powerful combination, but it only really works well if you have all three. Remove any one of those three factors and my mech becomes far less dangerous. Also, I need to stress that using 5 jump jets or more when jumping is the main reason I am so hard to hit. It isn't the jumping jack ability nor the jumpjets themselves... it is the fact that every time I jump 5 hexes (and I do that almost every turn), it adds a +3 modifier for anyone shooting at me (that is HUGE).

    Check the Attack Modifiers Table here to see the details:
    http://www.uobgaming.com/showthread.php?5628-A-Beginner-s-Visual-Guide-To-Battletech-Mechanics

    If I could jump 7 hexes, it would actually increase to +4, but this is difficult to do without serious sacrifices. In the opposite direction, if I only had 3 jump jets, I only gain a +2 evasion modifier... which might not seem like a huge difference, but it CAN be... trust me on this. So basically, my mech is highly tuned to jumping around a lot to evade fire. Most jump capable enemies you will face, however, cannot do this as effectively.

    So with that said, let's take an unbiased look at the general pros and cons of jump jets:

    Pros:
    Excellent for city maps, maps with heavy cover or broken terrain; ignore terrain up to the same number of hexes as your walking speed.
    Give evasion modifiers for enemy fire (same as distance moved on foot but with an additional +1 modifier)
    Ideal for quick maneuvers, escapes, and attacks on vulnerable targets; highly recommended for short range brawlers with a good tactics skill.
    Odd numbers of JJs (3/5/7) give better evasion bonuses (max number is limited by your walking speed).
    Very easy to fit and better utilized on Medium & Light mechs (only .5 tons each).
    Heat output negligible on heavy and assault mechs.

    Cons:
    VERY high BV; adding JJs is a sure fire way to seeing you outgunned by opponents in even BV drops.
    Dangerous to use for pilots with poor piloting skills; JJs can get you killed quick if you fail a PSR check at the wrong moment.
    Completely useless underwater and indoors; this can mean a significant reduction in firepower sometimes (depends on the number of JJs equipped).
    Far less useful on more open and flat maps; in these conditions, simply running will often give the same evasion bonus for less sacrifice in tonnage and heat.
    Even numbers of JJs (4/6/8) give less efficient evasion bonuses; this could be a limitation on your mech selection if you want to maximize your evasion potential.
    High heat output for medium & light mechs; 1 heat per jumpjet (ex. they use up 25% of my Shadow Hawk's total heat disipation when used)
    Quite heavy for 90-100 ton mechs (2 tons each).
    Equipping less than three JJs is fairly useless; you can climb 2 levels at a time without the aid of JJs and attack/evasion maneuvers are extremely limited with only 2 or less jump MP.

    After tallying up the pros and cons.... I'm not sure if I can really justify nerfing JJs. I readily admit they can be a very powerful tool, but only if you specialize in their use... and that can greatly limit your loadout options. I'm pretty sure JJs are by far most effective on short range brawlers with high tactics skill... which just happens to be what I'm playing I guess. :disturbed:
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2013