Karagin
03/04/02 05:24 PM
63.173.170.83
|
What would you put on a close support tank to make it effective in supporting infantry and other forces?
What would the ideal weight be for this tank?
Of the existing vehicles, which is a good base to start with on making a close support version of?
Also what House or power in the game would use these?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
03/04/02 05:33 PM
134.121.157.14
|
Since infantry never moves faster than 3, I'd have to go with a 100-ton tank.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Close-Support." If you mean short-ranged weapons, obviously SRMs and variant SRMs and AC/20s and variant AC/20s are your best options.
But that doesn't really SUPPORT infantry in any meaningful way. It overlaps them and drowns them out.
Which brings me to who would use them: Nobody.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/04/02 05:48 PM
209.202.47.12
|
Well, for starters, I think some sort of infantry transport would be useful...gets the infantry where they're going at high speed, provides cover while they disembark, then adds supporting, mobile fire while the infantry fire from stationary cover. That said, I think something like the Maxim would be a good start...fast hover tank with transport ability. I would suggest the slowest speed possible that meets the engine size requirements, in order to maximize carrying capacity. For armament...probably SRMs and LRMs, possibly MGs to keep enemy infantry away. Give me a bit...I'll try to build one when I have a chance
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Bob_Richter
03/04/02 06:02 PM
134.121.157.14
|
Uh....to keep enemy infantry from swarming it?
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Karagin
03/04/02 06:04 PM
63.173.170.88
|
Ok, you have one for the infantry now what about one that can support other tanks or mechs?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
03/04/02 06:09 PM
134.121.157.14
|
Waste of ammo.
OTOH, if you assign three infantry platoons to crowd in with each Negotiator, it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for enemy infantry to swarm you.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/04/02 06:11 PM
12.91.129.165
|
I would use a tank with a PPC or ER LL+2 SHS, and 2 SRM 4s. Or an SRM 6 for carnage and an SRM 2 for roasting with Infernos.
Ideal weight: about 25-40 tons.
Existing vehicles to base this off of: Myrmidon, Goblin, Scorpion.
User: Shoot, anyone who uses the Myrmidion, Goblin, or (Super) Scorpion. Capellans, I guess.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
03/04/02 06:13 PM
63.173.170.88
|
Interesting weight choices...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/04/02 06:13 PM
209.202.47.12
|
In a strictly suporting role, I would have to say the SRM/LRM Carrier, or something similar...you wouldn't need the speed or cargo space just to support other vehicles, and the SRM Carrier, IIRC, mounts the most firepower/ton of any tank. Variations on the general idea can easily be whipped up for whatever speed might be considered "necessary"
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Karagin
03/04/02 06:15 PM
63.173.170.88
|
I can follow you on this, but given the LRMs minimum range wouldn't that be more of a draw back then a helpful things? Close support units would need to be able to bring all of their weapons to bare on to the targets without having to worry about being in side the minimum of their primary weapons.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/04/02 06:18 PM
12.91.129.165
|
The weight choices are based on...
1) Speed. You can get good speed without much trouble at those weights.
2) Cost. You can get a lot at those weights without a lot of trouble.
3) Loadout mass fraction. You can get good armor and weapons at those masses and speeds.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
03/04/02 06:20 PM
63.173.170.88
|
What wouldn't you suggest going on these kinds of tanks? By this I mean, what weapon types are not well suited to this role?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/04/02 06:29 PM
12.91.129.165
|
Gee. For a close support tank...
It depends how you combine things. For example, LRMs and medium lasers are great. LRMs and PPCs are not.
Universal no-nos at L1-L2 for close support vehicles:
Pulse lasers
Small lasers
Autocannons
Gauss Rifles
ER weapons except ER LLs
Good weapons for close support vehicles...
An SRM 2 with Infernos is magnificent at L1-L2 for anti-vehicle roles.
An MG or 2 is magnificent at L1-L3 for anti-infantry work.
Medium lasers for any reason
PPC or ER LL+2 SHS for general purpose long range fire support (lean toward ER LLs for their short range utility)
Clusters of LRM 5s for laying down Thunder munitions or long range fire support against light targets
SRMs for short range punishment
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Hellbringer
03/04/02 06:44 PM
192.195.234.26
|
In that case you wouldn't want to put PPCs on it either.
"But it SHOULD be a spectacle! It should be grand and exciting to us all! I'd hate to think that we've become so jaded that we find even our greatest tiumph, resurrecting the Star League, simply one more obligation."
-General Victor Steiner-Davion (First Prince and Archon in exile) 3064
|
Hellbringer
03/04/02 06:46 PM
192.195.234.26
|
What about a tank to defend against Elementals?
"But it SHOULD be a spectacle! It should be grand and exciting to us all! I'd hate to think that we've become so jaded that we find even our greatest tiumph, resurrecting the Star League, simply one more obligation."
-General Victor Steiner-Davion (First Prince and Archon in exile) 3064
|
Karagin
03/04/02 06:49 PM
63.173.170.88
|
That would be what this would cover as well...I think I stated that in my main posting...if it is supporting infantry it would be defending them against Battlearmor and it would be doing the same for other units as well...or do you want something that is sole setup to take on elementals? If that is what you are after the Komondo mech and the Ontos tank 3058 version would be something for you to check out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
03/04/02 06:52 PM
63.173.170.88
|
Yes and no. IMHO, the PPC is a better choice over LRMs since you can risk the shot without using up ammo that you may need later on.
Plus if you hit with the PPC you are going to do a 10 point hit instead of average damage form the missiles, if they even hit.
Plus 3 for being in the minimum range or a plus 6...the trade of is favoring the PPC.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Diablo
03/04/02 07:57 PM
206.186.185.6
|
well, I'd start with the fifty ton tracked tank. keep it down to 4 MP cruising. give it, 2 SRM 6 racks, 2 LRM 5's, 2 Med Pulse Lasers, 6 MG's, 2 flammers and put the rest in armour and HS. it works well because:
-flammers and MG's kill infantery and prevent swarming
-LRM's provide LR punch and thunder mines
-SRM's provide AT/AB punch and can mount inferno ammo
-Lasers kill infanry + AT/AB
-Tracks don't break down.
-4MP allows it to just out distance enemy infantry and again prevent swarming.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/04/02 11:53 PM
209.202.47.12
|
OK, so primarily an SRM Carrier, although I wouldn't be opposed to adding maybe 2 or 3 LRM 5s for token long-range firepower, and the rest of the available tonnage to SRMs. (I have a distinct aversion to a design that can't shoot farther than 9 hexes  ) Of course, If you build a SRM Carrier variant with a fusion engine, a PPC is always good to complement the SRMs...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Karagin
03/04/02 11:59 PM
63.173.170.227
|
Interesting...now this an idea I will have to work on. Very interesting. PPC and a lot SRMs....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/08/06 12:47 AM
70.123.166.36
|
Thought this could stand another go around.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|