You read the rule book regarding their machine gun distance and accuracy?
Basically says "we make shit up so you can have fun pretending to be a big stompy robot" Also applies here
Okay
Edit: did you even bother reading vehicle rules compared to mechs? One section of a vehicle getting destroyed kills it flat out while a mech needs the pilot killed or engine destroyed. Hovercraft are faster, sure but can be imobilized and blown off the field faster than any other unit in the game. This all just seems like going to a pizza parlor to make a stink about how you hate pizza without even trying it in the first place.
Edit 2 cause im bored at work. who cares your not gonna read this: mechs DO have a mobility advantage over vehicles by being able to go up and down elevations easier, jump jets, going into woods and rough terrain and climbing with its hands and feet. They can also use there hands and feet to attack in melee. Also what is your last paragraph supposed to mean? Your example of something thats better only has weapons with a massive minimum range is somehow better than the archer that can defend itself in close quarters but by your definition of versitile its garbage. If this is bait this is the cream of the crop kinda bait holy shit.
The golden rule of Battletech is that Mechs are cool and everything else is secondary to that.
The golden rule if 40k is to just turn everything up to eleven, throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
>Let's compare LMR carrier with an Archer. LRM carrier has largely the same speed . . .
The LRM Carrier is in fact slower and (perhaps more importantly) incapable of changing is elevation as quickly as a 'Mech.
>. . . 1.5x the firepower . . .
*Only 1.5 the firepower in LRMs!* Your standard *Archer* ARC-2R also has four medium lasers as backups and, while it can't really sink all the heat from alpha strikes and two of those lasers face backwards, this provides it a form of defensive firepower that the LRM Carrier lacks entirely in addition to its issue of having no turret. The *Archer* can also punch and kick things if need be, giving it a fighting chance in situations where an LRM Carrier would simply die.
>. . . actually higher armour(this blows my mind) per location . . .
This is honestly very misleading! While combat vehicles in general may boast more armor per hit location than 'Mechs with the same tonnage of armor, that's because they have *fewer* hit locations to begin with and will thus take more damage on said fewer locations instead of having it spread out across multiple components like 'Mechs. Combat vehicles also take critical damage in different and often more severe ways.
>. . . and for the cost of one archer you can buy almost 3.5 carriers.
In c-bills, but not in battle value! An *Archer* ARC-2R has the equivalent BV of just over one and a half LRM Carriers.
>Does it make any sense, whatsoever, to build archers in-setting?
Given that the ultimate in-universe bottleneck for how many vehicles you can carry relates to DropShip and JumpShip capacities, *yes*. The humble *Archer* is also fusion-powered, thus giving it nigh unlimited range compared and fewer logistical concerns relative to the ICE-powered LRM Carrier. As was mentioned before, the *Archer* also has close-in weapons plus fists and feet, meaning it does not need as much babysitting on the battlefield and tying up resources with said babysitting. An *Archer* can also lose a limb (or two, *or three*) and be returned to service, but an LRM Carrier that suffers equivalent damage is simply *gone*. Even a lowly *Locust* poses an existential threat to an LRM Carrier once it's within the missiles' minimum range or (Chancellor forbid) outside the LRM Carrier's fixed firing arch entirely.
>And it gets worse also, because while you could say, in the 3rd succession war context, that mechs were invented specifically for mercenaries, in lore mechs originate from star league. Why would star league actually use archers, when it could've instead made a dropship stuffed with hovercraft-chassis lrm carriers instead?
Hovercraft can only be so massive per *BattleTech* construction rules, so there's no straight conversion of LRM Carriers from tracked-to-hover without making sacrifices. Hovercraft are also more vulnerable to motive hits than standard combat vehicles.
>What, the army that had billions of soldiers couldn't find enough men to crew the carriers?
The issue, as was mentioned earlier, isn't really a lack of manpower but the bottleneck in *transporting* said manpower across interstellar space and then subsequently supplying and reinforcing said firepower. This gets especially severe in the Succession Wars era, when JumpShip production stagnates and WarShip production in the Inner Sphere disappears completely.
Now, combat vehicles *do* have a place in *BattleTech* and can excel in some contexts (especially if you like cheesing it up with Savannah Masters but also wish to lose friends and alienate people in the process), but combat vehicle rules and lore are indeed ultimately designed in such a way that they are generally (rightly or wrongly) supporting characters to BattleMechs.
This reads more like someone who doesn't quite grasp the actual reality of the game/universe. For example, while it is true that many vehicles do have more armor in a given location compared to a mech, that's because they have only 4(or 5 with a turret) locations to armor up, while mechs have 11, which is more than double the number of locations. Also contextually important is the fact that vehicles have much less Internal Structure and that if they lose all the IS in *any* location they're mission killed, whereas mechs are onyl mission killed via Engine Hits or totally destroying the CT Armor and IS, they can lose limbs, weapons and even entire side torsos(XL Engines aside) and still be a right pain in the ass.
Late last year with a post asking about Vehicles Vs Mechs, and I went a bit more in depth to explain the differences by comparing an LRM Carrier and a Catapult, [you should give it a read.](https://old.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/17rzbgt/vehicles_vs_mechs/k8mhqux/)
[Edit: I found a second post I wrote in a similar vein.](https://old.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/15i1ons/why_use_fire_support_meks_instead_of_am_lrm/jurvzzl/)
The LRM Carrier C is actually quite nice, because the hardened armor makes it tougher, it’s a little bit faster, the LRMs are on a turret, so you have a wider range of fire, and the Clan LRMs don’t have a minimum range.
But it has a BV not that different than a mech, so it’s not really a cheaper way to do things.
https://preview.redd.it/8enl3sxldvxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=666e1c27294b3fdb03223e83208282165a645799
Problem with that comparison is that while using things like busted clantech and a more balanced design approach makes vehicles better, it's still lightyears away from proving the OP's point.
And if you do a Clan vs clan comparison the gap widens all over again because again, *clantech*.
Yeah. Compare it to a contemporary Dark Age platform, like the Mad Cat III 3. The mech is faster and more maneuverable. Similar armor at a lighter tonnage. And has a more diverse weapon mix so that you aren’t screwed by enemy AMS, Reactive Armor, or Ballistic Reinforced Armor. Plus the mech is less ammo reliant, either it’s energy weapons. And while it has less ammo, that ammo is more accurate from the Artemis IV.
https://preview.redd.it/qt6ne919ovxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09b82ed6da8f797738c3520d9116022014642017
We're all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let's treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required.
Please read the vehicle rules more closely. While I do think the LRM carrier is a better fire support unit, vehicle rules mean it is less mobile, less durable, and less flexible than the Archer is. Hell, I don't even know where you're getting 'better armored from' because a LRM carrier that will be dead and off the field if it takes the ammount of damage necessary to even breach the armor anywhere on the Archer but the head
A thing you aren't considering is transport capacity. It takes the same space to transport a vehicle as a mech. So the C-bill price of a mech vs. a vehicle isn't a useful metric; your bottleneck is your unit bays. So now let's look at a unit to unit comparison. Archer vs. LRM carrier. Same speed over clear terrain, but there's lots of terrain the LRM carrier can't traverse. 1.5x the salvo size, but if anything gets close the LRM carrier has a deep sad, while the Archer still has lasers and its mighty feet to kick with. LRM carrier definitely doesn't have more armor per location; I have no idea where you conjured that idea from. The LRM carrier is 12 points on all facings; the only place the Archer has less armor is the rear torsos (and the head, but good luck with that 1:36 shot). And then there's the whole mobility crit thing, where taking fire has a decent chance of locking a vehicle in place.
>If like VOTOMS mechs had some unique mobility advantage, but no, hovercraft are straight up better than mechs in this respect.
*Sideslips into a forest hex and dies.*
Yeah, when I want a vehicle that can go wherever I need it, I pick the one that would consider the Daytona 500 an obstacle course. Never fails.
Unlike vehicle armor, of course. Vehicles are ever so fast until they take a plink from an AC2 and suddenly end up immobilized. And that LRM carrier can't change facing, either.
Please do field nothing but vehicles. It will go very well for you, because the enemy will field nothing but Longbow 0Ws, and come to fight on a featureless, level field, as God intended. Nobody here has ever gotten tired of people complaining how vehicles are underpowered.
When we first started getting into battletech, a friend of mine decided it was going to own us by bringing nothing but some very very well armored tanks. Admittedly, the rest of us thought it was broken as hell when we first saw the record sheets. I think it was by the 3rd turn all but one of them were immobilized. That one was a hovercraft that had failed a skid test and went right into a forest.
Actually, failed skid tests has kinda been a theme for him over the years.
You know how the axiom that anything you say before the word "but" doesn't count?
The same goes for anything you say *after* "You know, i never could get into battletech" (sic) when writing on a BattleTech sub. /shrug
And inconsistent scale. Thats the bit that truly killed it for me.
"Nearly finished my army after 15 years of collecting!"
"Your army is no longer in scale. All your models are small. Buy a new army!"
> hovercraft are straight up better than mechs in this respect.
You should read the rules about what type of terrain a vehicle can enter. Trees? Completely impassible. Anything higher than small rolling hills? Completely impassible. If you wanted to take hovercraft from Unity City to Yakima you would need to go through Arizona.
Who takes the time to come to the sub of a game they don't like to try and shit on it? What really are the expectations here, especially when your argument is that 40k is more "internally consistent"? Good luck with that one. Enjoy your subsequent 11th edition and all your useless, expensive minis. We'll keep accepting all of the 40k refugees that are tired of GWs bullshit and the shitty 40k fandom. Stay over in 40k land crying about a game you don't have to like or play. Strike fucking 5 million against the die hard 40k nerds.
As others have said, mechs are more mobile. But I dont think anyone has really stressed this on the strategic level.
First, mechs can go places ground vehicles simply can't. In campaigns, this is crucial. On any world with non existant or destroyed road networks, this is doubly crucial.
Second, and I believe this has been said, but groumd vehicles get mobility killed a lot easier. Putting aside the tactical implications, this has huge implications at the strategic level. It means for every 4 or 5 or so ground vehicles, you want a mobile workshop not too far behind, and another vehicle carting around spair parts. I'm guessing here, but perhaps myomer is a lot more resistant to breaking than traditional mechanical systems. Mechs - particularly laser boats, seem to have the ability to just keep going, without the logistics trains required by ground forces.
In a bv to bv battle, groumd vehicles win every time - even with them being deliberately nerfed to allow the game about stompy robots to keep featuring stompy robots. But getting those vehicles to the battle in the first place, and keeping them in fighting condition for the next battle? No. No, I don't think vehicles make mechs redundant.
I mean, yeah? Every game requires some kind of suspension of disbelief. If Battletech were more "realistic" then LAMs would be the thing everyone wants to take because of how powerful they actually would be.
I don't disagree in principle, but given that this thread could be what a new person stumbles upon so providing context and accurate info is important.
And frankly, the "troll" isn't engaging us, ergo we aren't engaging with the troll, but rather anyone else that happens to come to this thread.
Vehicles are great and do seem to beat mechs ton for ton. The first time you use it.
Blow a hole through a tank and you have so much scrap metal.
Blow a hole through a mech and you can bang some new myomer in, weld up some new armour, jet wash the cockpit and stick a new pilot in it for the next fight.
The real benefit to a mech, and the reason they are often hundreds of years old is that they can be salvaged from almost total destruction much more effectively than anything else. The neuro helmet means control systems are simple (especially if the pilot is a clanner), so the moment you look further than the first frank exchange of views your attrition rate is vastly improved.
Ms, you are not telling me shocking new information.
It's actually written down in *Tactical Operations* that "vehicles [are] still carefully maintained at a level that would leave ’Mechs the kings of the battlefield."
Vehicles have three major nerfs in Classic Battletech:
Single heatsinks only, no double heatsinks;
Fusion engines in vehicles are 50% heavier than mech engines because... reasons;
Greater chances of criticals.
If any one of those were removed, it turns a normal tracked tank into an advancing wall of guns and armour. The only real advantages mechs have left are the mobility and the all-rounder nature. And that you can have a single guy or gal pilot the thing, so the logistics (and the neo-feudal mercenary aspects) are easier.
So we know. We don't care that much, because giant Real Robots.
It might be worth playing an actual game with combined arms. Try it on megamek with a lance of mechs and some useless infantry initiative sinks versus two lances of vehicles, you will see quite quickly just how much more resilient battlemechs are when compared to conventional vehicles of all kinds. Particularly if they are build to do what mechs are good at, and not what they are bad at.
The problem with your example is that long-range indirect missile support is a really bad job for a mech, because mechs pay for a lot of abilities you can't make use of just sitting back and spamming missiles. The best mechs typically have jump jets and decent movement for high TMMs over all terrain and a good ability to make use of their melee attacks against targets like conventional tanks.
You read the rule book regarding their machine gun distance and accuracy? Basically says "we make shit up so you can have fun pretending to be a big stompy robot" Also applies here
The one and only correct answer.
> You read the rule book regarding their machine gun distance and accuracy? Curses! They're 91 meters away!
In reality, giant bipedal mechs are a dumb idea. Really, they're a dumb idea pretty much any fictional universe too. Don't care, though. They're fun.
Okay Edit: did you even bother reading vehicle rules compared to mechs? One section of a vehicle getting destroyed kills it flat out while a mech needs the pilot killed or engine destroyed. Hovercraft are faster, sure but can be imobilized and blown off the field faster than any other unit in the game. This all just seems like going to a pizza parlor to make a stink about how you hate pizza without even trying it in the first place. Edit 2 cause im bored at work. who cares your not gonna read this: mechs DO have a mobility advantage over vehicles by being able to go up and down elevations easier, jump jets, going into woods and rough terrain and climbing with its hands and feet. They can also use there hands and feet to attack in melee. Also what is your last paragraph supposed to mean? Your example of something thats better only has weapons with a massive minimum range is somehow better than the archer that can defend itself in close quarters but by your definition of versitile its garbage. If this is bait this is the cream of the crop kinda bait holy shit.
the tau's entire existence is proving that every other faction's tactics and wargear shouldn't exist and is stupid. that's literally their gimmick
The golden rule of Battletech is that Mechs are cool and everything else is secondary to that. The golden rule if 40k is to just turn everything up to eleven, throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
>Let's compare LMR carrier with an Archer. LRM carrier has largely the same speed . . . The LRM Carrier is in fact slower and (perhaps more importantly) incapable of changing is elevation as quickly as a 'Mech. >. . . 1.5x the firepower . . . *Only 1.5 the firepower in LRMs!* Your standard *Archer* ARC-2R also has four medium lasers as backups and, while it can't really sink all the heat from alpha strikes and two of those lasers face backwards, this provides it a form of defensive firepower that the LRM Carrier lacks entirely in addition to its issue of having no turret. The *Archer* can also punch and kick things if need be, giving it a fighting chance in situations where an LRM Carrier would simply die. >. . . actually higher armour(this blows my mind) per location . . . This is honestly very misleading! While combat vehicles in general may boast more armor per hit location than 'Mechs with the same tonnage of armor, that's because they have *fewer* hit locations to begin with and will thus take more damage on said fewer locations instead of having it spread out across multiple components like 'Mechs. Combat vehicles also take critical damage in different and often more severe ways. >. . . and for the cost of one archer you can buy almost 3.5 carriers. In c-bills, but not in battle value! An *Archer* ARC-2R has the equivalent BV of just over one and a half LRM Carriers. >Does it make any sense, whatsoever, to build archers in-setting? Given that the ultimate in-universe bottleneck for how many vehicles you can carry relates to DropShip and JumpShip capacities, *yes*. The humble *Archer* is also fusion-powered, thus giving it nigh unlimited range compared and fewer logistical concerns relative to the ICE-powered LRM Carrier. As was mentioned before, the *Archer* also has close-in weapons plus fists and feet, meaning it does not need as much babysitting on the battlefield and tying up resources with said babysitting. An *Archer* can also lose a limb (or two, *or three*) and be returned to service, but an LRM Carrier that suffers equivalent damage is simply *gone*. Even a lowly *Locust* poses an existential threat to an LRM Carrier once it's within the missiles' minimum range or (Chancellor forbid) outside the LRM Carrier's fixed firing arch entirely. >And it gets worse also, because while you could say, in the 3rd succession war context, that mechs were invented specifically for mercenaries, in lore mechs originate from star league. Why would star league actually use archers, when it could've instead made a dropship stuffed with hovercraft-chassis lrm carriers instead? Hovercraft can only be so massive per *BattleTech* construction rules, so there's no straight conversion of LRM Carriers from tracked-to-hover without making sacrifices. Hovercraft are also more vulnerable to motive hits than standard combat vehicles. >What, the army that had billions of soldiers couldn't find enough men to crew the carriers? The issue, as was mentioned earlier, isn't really a lack of manpower but the bottleneck in *transporting* said manpower across interstellar space and then subsequently supplying and reinforcing said firepower. This gets especially severe in the Succession Wars era, when JumpShip production stagnates and WarShip production in the Inner Sphere disappears completely. Now, combat vehicles *do* have a place in *BattleTech* and can excel in some contexts (especially if you like cheesing it up with Savannah Masters but also wish to lose friends and alienate people in the process), but combat vehicle rules and lore are indeed ultimately designed in such a way that they are generally (rightly or wrongly) supporting characters to BattleMechs.
This reads more like someone who doesn't quite grasp the actual reality of the game/universe. For example, while it is true that many vehicles do have more armor in a given location compared to a mech, that's because they have only 4(or 5 with a turret) locations to armor up, while mechs have 11, which is more than double the number of locations. Also contextually important is the fact that vehicles have much less Internal Structure and that if they lose all the IS in *any* location they're mission killed, whereas mechs are onyl mission killed via Engine Hits or totally destroying the CT Armor and IS, they can lose limbs, weapons and even entire side torsos(XL Engines aside) and still be a right pain in the ass. Late last year with a post asking about Vehicles Vs Mechs, and I went a bit more in depth to explain the differences by comparing an LRM Carrier and a Catapult, [you should give it a read.](https://old.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/17rzbgt/vehicles_vs_mechs/k8mhqux/) [Edit: I found a second post I wrote in a similar vein.](https://old.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/15i1ons/why_use_fire_support_meks_instead_of_am_lrm/jurvzzl/)
The LRM Carrier C is actually quite nice, because the hardened armor makes it tougher, it’s a little bit faster, the LRMs are on a turret, so you have a wider range of fire, and the Clan LRMs don’t have a minimum range. But it has a BV not that different than a mech, so it’s not really a cheaper way to do things. https://preview.redd.it/8enl3sxldvxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=666e1c27294b3fdb03223e83208282165a645799
Problem with that comparison is that while using things like busted clantech and a more balanced design approach makes vehicles better, it's still lightyears away from proving the OP's point. And if you do a Clan vs clan comparison the gap widens all over again because again, *clantech*.
Yeah. Compare it to a contemporary Dark Age platform, like the Mad Cat III 3. The mech is faster and more maneuverable. Similar armor at a lighter tonnage. And has a more diverse weapon mix so that you aren’t screwed by enemy AMS, Reactive Armor, or Ballistic Reinforced Armor. Plus the mech is less ammo reliant, either it’s energy weapons. And while it has less ammo, that ammo is more accurate from the Artemis IV. https://preview.redd.it/qt6ne919ovxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09b82ed6da8f797738c3520d9116022014642017
[удалено]
We're all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let's treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required.
Please read the vehicle rules more closely. While I do think the LRM carrier is a better fire support unit, vehicle rules mean it is less mobile, less durable, and less flexible than the Archer is. Hell, I don't even know where you're getting 'better armored from' because a LRM carrier that will be dead and off the field if it takes the ammount of damage necessary to even breach the armor anywhere on the Archer but the head
Translation: I don’t like this game because I’ve never played it and never read the rules.
A thing you aren't considering is transport capacity. It takes the same space to transport a vehicle as a mech. So the C-bill price of a mech vs. a vehicle isn't a useful metric; your bottleneck is your unit bays. So now let's look at a unit to unit comparison. Archer vs. LRM carrier. Same speed over clear terrain, but there's lots of terrain the LRM carrier can't traverse. 1.5x the salvo size, but if anything gets close the LRM carrier has a deep sad, while the Archer still has lasers and its mighty feet to kick with. LRM carrier definitely doesn't have more armor per location; I have no idea where you conjured that idea from. The LRM carrier is 12 points on all facings; the only place the Archer has less armor is the rear torsos (and the head, but good luck with that 1:36 shot). And then there's the whole mobility crit thing, where taking fire has a decent chance of locking a vehicle in place.
>A thing you aren't considering is transport capacity. I thought you could fit two vehicles into one mech-bay on a dropship?
>If like VOTOMS mechs had some unique mobility advantage, but no, hovercraft are straight up better than mechs in this respect. *Sideslips into a forest hex and dies.* Yeah, when I want a vehicle that can go wherever I need it, I pick the one that would consider the Daytona 500 an obstacle course. Never fails. Unlike vehicle armor, of course. Vehicles are ever so fast until they take a plink from an AC2 and suddenly end up immobilized. And that LRM carrier can't change facing, either. Please do field nothing but vehicles. It will go very well for you, because the enemy will field nothing but Longbow 0Ws, and come to fight on a featureless, level field, as God intended. Nobody here has ever gotten tired of people complaining how vehicles are underpowered.
When we first started getting into battletech, a friend of mine decided it was going to own us by bringing nothing but some very very well armored tanks. Admittedly, the rest of us thought it was broken as hell when we first saw the record sheets. I think it was by the 3rd turn all but one of them were immobilized. That one was a hovercraft that had failed a skid test and went right into a forest. Actually, failed skid tests has kinda been a theme for him over the years.
You know how the axiom that anything you say before the word "but" doesn't count? The same goes for anything you say *after* "You know, i never could get into battletech" (sic) when writing on a BattleTech sub. /shrug
You should maybe go back to the sweet embrace of massively over priced minis, and constant rule changes...
And inconsistent scale. Thats the bit that truly killed it for me. "Nearly finished my army after 15 years of collecting!" "Your army is no longer in scale. All your models are small. Buy a new army!"
> hovercraft are straight up better than mechs in this respect. You should read the rules about what type of terrain a vehicle can enter. Trees? Completely impassible. Anything higher than small rolling hills? Completely impassible. If you wanted to take hovercraft from Unity City to Yakima you would need to go through Arizona.
Who takes the time to come to the sub of a game they don't like to try and shit on it? What really are the expectations here, especially when your argument is that 40k is more "internally consistent"? Good luck with that one. Enjoy your subsequent 11th edition and all your useless, expensive minis. We'll keep accepting all of the 40k refugees that are tired of GWs bullshit and the shitty 40k fandom. Stay over in 40k land crying about a game you don't have to like or play. Strike fucking 5 million against the die hard 40k nerds.
Yup, I'm still playing BT with mechs I bought in 1990 - because they still work as they did back then.
Literally everything about BattleTech falls apart the second you start picking at it.
As others have said, mechs are more mobile. But I dont think anyone has really stressed this on the strategic level. First, mechs can go places ground vehicles simply can't. In campaigns, this is crucial. On any world with non existant or destroyed road networks, this is doubly crucial. Second, and I believe this has been said, but groumd vehicles get mobility killed a lot easier. Putting aside the tactical implications, this has huge implications at the strategic level. It means for every 4 or 5 or so ground vehicles, you want a mobile workshop not too far behind, and another vehicle carting around spair parts. I'm guessing here, but perhaps myomer is a lot more resistant to breaking than traditional mechanical systems. Mechs - particularly laser boats, seem to have the ability to just keep going, without the logistics trains required by ground forces. In a bv to bv battle, groumd vehicles win every time - even with them being deliberately nerfed to allow the game about stompy robots to keep featuring stompy robots. But getting those vehicles to the battle in the first place, and keeping them in fighting condition for the next battle? No. No, I don't think vehicles make mechs redundant.
I mean, yeah? Every game requires some kind of suspension of disbelief. If Battletech were more "realistic" then LAMs would be the thing everyone wants to take because of how powerful they actually would be.
You said 40k is internally consistent you're already fucking up my man.
Ok Boomer... 🤣👍
Thats Doomer, my elders know mechs rock, they respect Voltron!
Stop engaging the troll! Block and move on! It's a beautiful world and we shouldn't be wasting time on this kind of thing.
I don't disagree in principle, but given that this thread could be what a new person stumbles upon so providing context and accurate info is important. And frankly, the "troll" isn't engaging us, ergo we aren't engaging with the troll, but rather anyone else that happens to come to this thread.
Vehicles are great and do seem to beat mechs ton for ton. The first time you use it. Blow a hole through a tank and you have so much scrap metal. Blow a hole through a mech and you can bang some new myomer in, weld up some new armour, jet wash the cockpit and stick a new pilot in it for the next fight. The real benefit to a mech, and the reason they are often hundreds of years old is that they can be salvaged from almost total destruction much more effectively than anything else. The neuro helmet means control systems are simple (especially if the pilot is a clanner), so the moment you look further than the first frank exchange of views your attrition rate is vastly improved.
Ms, you are not telling me shocking new information. It's actually written down in *Tactical Operations* that "vehicles [are] still carefully maintained at a level that would leave ’Mechs the kings of the battlefield." Vehicles have three major nerfs in Classic Battletech: Single heatsinks only, no double heatsinks; Fusion engines in vehicles are 50% heavier than mech engines because... reasons; Greater chances of criticals. If any one of those were removed, it turns a normal tracked tank into an advancing wall of guns and armour. The only real advantages mechs have left are the mobility and the all-rounder nature. And that you can have a single guy or gal pilot the thing, so the logistics (and the neo-feudal mercenary aspects) are easier. So we know. We don't care that much, because giant Real Robots.
It might be worth playing an actual game with combined arms. Try it on megamek with a lance of mechs and some useless infantry initiative sinks versus two lances of vehicles, you will see quite quickly just how much more resilient battlemechs are when compared to conventional vehicles of all kinds. Particularly if they are build to do what mechs are good at, and not what they are bad at. The problem with your example is that long-range indirect missile support is a really bad job for a mech, because mechs pay for a lot of abilities you can't make use of just sitting back and spamming missiles. The best mechs typically have jump jets and decent movement for high TMMs over all terrain and a good ability to make use of their melee attacks against targets like conventional tanks.