BattleTech: When are IS XL Engines OK? | Classic BT Strategy & Tactics

[@lweaver2988]

"Everytime, if you aren't a coward." -BNC-8S pilot

[@AlexDenton0451]

IS XL engines are really solid when you actually use them to increase the mobility of a mech significantly. Turret mechs often arent worth XLing, which is part of why I think XLs are so reviled by the community. When you're able to take advantage of cheaper units running significantly faster, XLs really tend to pay off.

[@TheManyVoicesVA]

Counterpoint: sniper mechs shouldnt be getting shot much. This means that their lack of durability isn't that bad. Especially on mechs with expensive long range weapons, the BV discount is nice.

[@StarlightSocialist]

Personally, I revile them for being shoehorned into every freaking mech that included a gauss rifle. When its a design compromise, sure, its valid. (And like you I think theyre best utilized to push a mechs speed higher) But When you give a mech an XL engine so you can give it a SECOND TON of Streak SRM 2 ammo, when it has only two launchers, and "Upgrade" the large laser to a Pulse version, and then use SINGLE HEATSINKS to burn the last three tons, that, thats why I hate XL engines. King Crab 001, it's inefficiency is absolutely disgusting. Gauss rifles are apparently such a sin that only a crippling drawback can "ballence" the mech. (These mechs are still expensive in BV though) The Caeser, and the Devastator are both gauss/XL mechs that come to mind. Both are totally unnecesarry inclusions, they don't go faster and the weight savings can be made up on the Devastator by switching to Endosteel and making up 4 tons by either dropping heatsinks or (Preffrence) switching the PPCs to ERLL. The Caeser gets fixed by endosteel and dropping the heatsinks that it can only use if it fires both its front AND rear weapons simultaniously. No, i don't hate XL engines, not really. Sigh. Theyre just the very visible and most egregious display of the design philosophy of the cannon mechs. Thats what I truly find so objectionable, so awful. We, as players, are apparently not allowed to have nice things, regardless of what the construction rules very easily allow. And any mech that exceeds in one area has to be hamstrung in another.

[@Logajam.]

​@TheManyVoicesVA 47. Don't expect the enemy to cooperate in the creation of your dream engagement. Shouldn't and "I'm quite adept at head hunting" are two different things.

[@TheManyVoicesVA]

@@Logajam. If the enemy brings fast flankers you should be intercepting them with your cavalry, Id hope you can keep them off your rear units. Plus Im not saying take a jagermech here. Take something with decent armor if it has an XL. Some of the later Marauders are a good example.

[@memecat57]

Certified Hollander moment

[@ObiwanNekody]

Before watching video: I really like how the IS XL engine has a substantial downside. It makes it a much more interesting choice. I haven't played much in the way of BV balanced games tho. Usually Cbill or narrative focused, and usually tonnage as a kid.

[@SBMM425]

Battletech Tabletop Rookie Here: What’s the thoughts on light mechs with XL engines? My thought was that’s a solid way to add more firepower to those mechs. Once a 20-30 ton mech takes enough damage to bring the XL into play, it’s already toast.

[@hermes7587]

Light Mechs are in general very squishy. If you are playing with a tech base that allows XL engines it also allows weapons like pulse lasers, ER-PPC and LB-X and gauss cannons or targeting computers that can make quick work of light Mechs. The increased vulnerabilty of the XL engine does not make the situation for a light Mech much worse because there are many other ways to go down before losing a side torso. The only real defense a light Mech has is mobility. If the XL engine is used to give it very high speed, it is a good choice. The reason why speed is a good defense is that the opponent will usually find something that is easier to hit and will not target the fast Mech. If you take an already slow light Mech and use the XL engine just to make room for more weapons, the Mech will die faster, because it has become a greater threat and is easier to destroy. An experienced player will usually prefer to shoot at targets that are a great threat and comparatively easy to destroy. Taking out units quickly also offers initiative benefits. For these reasons I would use XL-engines for more speed and not for more weapons. If you are looking for more weapon payload, try saving weight on structure, armor and heat sinks.

[@TheManyVoicesVA]

Great video! Side note: the Venom that actually has armor is quite good. 10 armor on the legs and torsos means it doesnt just instantly die to a PPC shot. The one you showed with 4 pulse lasers is an absolute walking coffin lol.

[@TrailblazerBT]

@@TheManyVoicesVA Yeah the C3 one with DHS is even better

[@TheManyVoicesVA]

@@TrailblazerBT also true. I think Id still rather have a wraith. 11 damage kicks are super satisfying for stomping toads.

[@TrailblazerBT]

@@TheManyVoicesVA Well yeah I'd rather have a Wraith than pretty much any mech that isn't 1500+ BV

[@TheManyVoicesVA]

@@TrailblazerBT ya it's a goodun. What's kinda whack is that it would be a "better" mech if it was 50 tons i think? It could get more armor at a slightly lower weight class. But 11 damage kicks are so good tho...

[@TrailblazerBT]

@@TheManyVoicesVA Yeah I have made a couple different 50 ton Super Wraith designs in my day

[@samuelbaldwin2184]

I love the trade-offs between IS XL and standard engines. Although I wish XL engines were cheaper C-bill wise. In MekHq they are almost never worth it since you can have 2 mechs for the price of 1 mech with an XL engine. The only time I've made it work was when I had a cracked out pilot with a half dozen SPAs.

[@jaredbutcher3791]

Some mechs would really stand to gain from getting an XL engine to add the crit slots to the side torso, the like Marauder MAD-R3

[@ChrisZestyJesty]

Also, if you're playing without floating critical hits, they always hit the center torso, whereas if you're playing with floating critical hits you're also likely to pop an engine slot significantly more likely versus a standard engine. So if you're playing without floating critical hits you may as well bring the XL since those extra engine slots are almost impossible to crit before getting through the armor.

[@ObiwanNekody]

@@ChrisZestyJesty you can crit side torsos without floating crits. It's just not a likely occurrence as it's from a very limited arc.

[@ChrisZestyJesty]

@ObiwanNekody yea, you have to be in the side arc, it's still less likely to occur, and a reason to bring them in non-floating crit situations.

[@MrJack556]

*not playing with floating crits* Ew

[@ZacharyChristy-Aronson-wg5ki]

Good summary. XL engines are not bad. You just need to evaluate the Mech they are in. I barely had problems with one if it’s crit-padding is good.

[@jefffreese947]

Agree with AlexDenton. ISXL is completely justifiable if the unit is moving at a movement rate that wouldn't be practical without an XLE. Great example is the Falconer. A 75 tonner moving at 5/8 justifies the XLE because it can act in a cavalry role compared to other 75 tonners. Sticking an XLE in a standard "trooper" or "brawler" mech to add more guns is where you really get in trouble.

[@agentoranj5858]

I came to a similar conclusion a while ago: That XL Engines are most beneficial to the 'Mechs that are already the most powerful in the DHS era, energy weapon boats, and it's a nasty feedback loop. I realised recently that the real reason I spend so much time tinkering with introtech of all things is because designing and playing around single heat sinks is more challenging and fun for me. I want to start branching out by designing mechs that combine advanced technology with single heatsinks like some of the Dragoon and Kuritan designs do.

[@Saucychemist]

IS XL engines are for sure still worth it when the unit is cheap enough in BV, properly armored,, and the XL is buying you worthwhile capabilities like speed or firepower. I think the Avatar Prime is another good example of a surprisingly cheap in BV unit with decent armor and firepower that runs an XL. Great video, love all your battletech talks!

[@Wraithcannon]

IS XL engines are fine if you are playing with the "Forced Withdrawal" rules (which you should be). Losing your side torso under those rules forces your mech to fall back from the battle each turn, and eventually leave the board. So trading off a few turns of reduced firepower for the design benefits is well worth it.

[@TrailblazerBT]

@@Wraithcannon Agree that FW makes them way better. I don't super like the withdrawal rules because I feel like they try to codify something that should be roleplayed in campaign games, and in competitive games they make standard engine mechs too weak

[@spencerjones841]

Light mechs generally benefit from XL engines since they're already so fragile that if they take serious hits they're already probably screwed anyways

[@NotMyGoogleID]

When the XL is on a light mech that will be dead anyway when got hit?

[@ObiwanNekody]

Having watched the video, I agree with your conclusions. Especially on lighter mechs, the XL engine helps them be better at what they are supposed to do. The BV adjustment for the risky engine also helps them be more affordable also.

[@bthsr7113]

While there are debates on XL engines, I'd assume most agree that xXl engines are generally a bad idea.

[@TrailblazerBT]

@@bthsr7113 Haven't played around with them much but I feel like they could be good on a fast heavy ... An XXL doesn't seem much worse than an IS XL if the side torsos are otherwise empty

[@bthsr7113]

@@TrailblazerBT Well it occupies all three torsos, a hit to the engine in either side torso will hurt at least as much as an IS XL's side torso section getting it, you're eating into your mech's heat budget just by standing still with the reactor on, and oh yeah. The big ugly red ink bottle. The price. The thing costs five times as much as its XL counterpart. Or in other words, 20 times the c-bills of a standard fusion engine with comparable output.

[@TrailblazerBT]

@@bthsr7113 Agree that they're terrible if you're paying attention to the money cost. The heat issue can be solved though if you choose low heat weapons.

[@theangryMD]

i've wondered this a lot and have come to the same conclusions. damn, should have made a video 😅.

[@nerdygunslinger5982]

Ya, I have used the Brahma from the Taurian MUL to very much success, and it has an XL

[@Spartaner251]

having a non XL engine mech being forced to move towards your home edge is very diffrent from just taking it off the board, forced withdrawl just means you can't advance towards the enemy anymore. not that you have to turn your back and run away as fast as you can

[@mathewkelly9968]

If it gets to the point you're losing a side torso it's pretty much all over and is if you're playing forced withdrawal , the XL is usually worth it for the extra armour , speed or firepower

[@mikeheimlich1303]

I find XL engines are not as bad as people think, so long as the side armor and/or speed is substantial. If the mech is Narrow/Low Profile, even better. We do play with forced withdrawal though most of the time.

[@Logajam.]

Strategically, xl engines make mechs more survivable. Yes they may tactically stop fighting sooner, but they do so in a state that can still be repaired. A mech with a standard engine can keep fighting until it is cored out, at which point it's gone; the techs can't put humpty dumpty together again.

[@imasspeons]

I only like IS XLFE on something that's going to crumple under some fire anyway. Never on an assault or battle line mech, maybe a cavalry or skirmisher but probably just for upgunned lights.

[@lordkommissarpetitt8022]

The mechs that I point to thay are good even with IS XL engines are simple, first you showed the wraith a staple in clan invasion lists for me, but there is also the Uziel 8S that same principle more specialized. when i am Taurians the Warhammer 10T is a favorite of mine as its a very durable heavy with 4 evasion and good armor. King Crab 001 is simple gauss boat. And for Ilclan FWL Spider 8X for the meme of dropping Longinus BA with mag clamps from a 10 JUMP mech

[@warhiever1803]

Live fast and die young

[@Finnssssss]

Just run an xxl engined Thug with 2 heavy PPCs and 30 tons of Hardened Armor, have fun

[@DIEGhostfish]

Capacitors too?

[@Grinchpryde]

The worst combination in my opinnion is IS xl engine+gauss/heavy gauss in the sidetorsos. Your whole internal slots are basically filled with "ammo" that deals 15/25 damage which is most of the time enough to kill your mech.

[@DIEGhostfish]

It's hard to cram a heavy gauss or more than one Gauss with a standard or light engine though.

[@hermes7587]

An internal explosion also causes two pilot hits. There is a decent chance that a non-XL Mech might survive a gauss explosion but the two pilot hits render the pilot unconscious which in turn likely causes the Mech to fall (for a third pilot hit) and at that point the unit is also lost. The only benefit is that he victorious side has more potential loot.

[@michaelkimberling7307]

XL engines in light and fast medium mechs are fine. Most are lightly armored so a hit is probably gonna kill it anyway

[@DIEGhostfish]

Useful on mechs that are already stupid vulnerable, mechs that get substntially faster and tougher, and gaussboats for when you have to fight clans on terrain *Not* conjured into existence by Stackpole to hand you a convenient cliff or swamp.

[@ero9841]

Grand dragon is one few mechs that gets xl engines right. If your not adding speed and firepower with an xl engine your doing it wrong.

[@TrailblazerBT]

@@ero9841 I do like the 3050 grand dragon.... Except for the rear lasers! Lancelot is even better IMO

[@ero9841]

@@TrailblazerBT I don't hate Rear weapons. But hey it's a taste thing. Lancelot and dragon pair well together. So I definitely like both of them.

[@weaselwolf]

Dragons have extended torso twist to rear lasers make even less sense lol

[@therealbahamut]

As far as I'm concerned, IXLs are never okay. Light engines or cXLs all day. An IXL means that the only non-critical parts of your mech are the arms; every other location, if destroyed, ends your mech and possibly your pilot, depending on which version of BT/MW you're playing. Maybe tabletop players can make it work but it's a bonus I don't value enough for the risk.

[@downix]

I have held for awhile that the whole advanced tech approach was poorly implemented when compared to primitive tech. If it was me, an XL engine would not take up more criticals, but would lose a hit box, so it can only take 2 hits before going bye bye.

[@hermes7587]

The weight saving of the XL engine can be a huge benefit. Form a game design perspective it must be balance somehow or all standard engine Mechs become obsolete. The side torso engine slots do not only make the engine more vulnerable but also reduce the available space and this a significant downside for heavy and assault class Mechs.

[@downix]

@hermes7587 depends on how it is handled. If we used the multiplier approach in the same manner primitive engines are, rather than a direct weight savings, the impact is different.