ATN082268
08/10/13 04:25 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Code:
BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Cheap 200 tonner
Tech: Clan / 3072
Config: Tracked Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Custom design
Mass: 200 tons
Power Plant: 200 I.C.E.
Cruise Speed: 10.8 km/h
Maximum Speed: 21.6 km/h
Armor Type: Hardened
Armament:
2 Arrow IV Systems
4 LRM 20s
4 Anti-Missile Systems
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Cheap 200 tonner
Mass: 200 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 80 pts Standard 0 40.00
Engine: 200 I.C.E. 0 17.00
Cruise MP: 1
Flank MP: 2
Heat Sinks: 0 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 10.00
Crew: 14 Members 0 .00
Sponson Turret Equipment: 0 4.60
Armor Factor: 425 pts Hardened 0 53.13
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 20 95
Front L / R Sides: 20 75/75
Rear L / R Sides: 20 60/60
Rear: 20 60
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Arrow IV System Lf_Spon 0 30 2 18.00
1 Arrow IV System Rt_Spon 0 30 1 18.00
2 LRM 20s Lf_Spon 0 40 3 16.67
2 LRM 20s Rt_Spon 0 40 2 16.67
2 Anti-Missile Systems Lf_Spon 0 40 3 2.67
2 Anti-Missile Systems Rt_Spon 0 40 2 2.67
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 0 .00
Cargo Bay Capacity Body 1 .60
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 14 200.00
Items & Tons Left: 31 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 16,816,198 C-Bills
Battle Value: 3,572
Cost per BV: 7,729.27
Weapon Value: 3,678 / 3,678 (Ratio = 1.76 / 1.76)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 70; MRDmg = 60; LRDmg = 44
BattleForce2: MP: 1, Armor/Structure: 0 / 31
Damage PB/M/L: 10/9/9, Overheat: 0
Class: GA; Point Value: 21
Specials: if
|
Maurer
08/10/13 04:33 AM
142.11.67.185
|
Well it is cheap, but still a slow slug. For 16 million, might as well go for a heavy mech with an XL engine.
"Captain! We're completely surrounded on all sides." - Kiff, Futurama
..."Excellent, then we may attack in any direction." - Zapp Brannigan, Futurama
"A fool fights a war on two fronts; only an idiot defends on one." - Fusilier
|
ATN082268
08/10/13 05:34 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Quote:
Well it is cheap, but still a slow slug. For 16 million, might as well go for a heavy mech with an XL engine.
If that's what you want, no one is stopping you 
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/10/13 07:47 AM
208.54.4.142
|
It would be a lot better and cheaper to split this into four tanks. Two tanks having one Arrow IV system each and two tank with the LRM-20 each.
There is no reason for a artillery piece to have any where near that much armor. It should not see to much incoming fire to worry about needing heavy amounts of armor protection.
At how slow this thing is it would be easy to out flank and to destroy. Not to mention that it is incapable of keeping up with the flow of combat. BT is about maneuver than an out right slug fests.
With everything else I am sure this will go in one ear and out the other and you will keep beliving that there is some place for your 200 ton targets.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ATN082268
08/11/13 04:53 PM
69.129.18.69
|
Quote:
It would be a lot better and cheaper to split this into four tanks. Two tanks having one Arrow IV system each and two tank with the LRM-20 each.
There is no reason for a artillery piece to have any where near that much armor. It should not see to much incoming fire to worry about needing heavy amounts of armor protection.
At how slow this thing is it would be easy to out flank and to destroy. Not to mention that it is incapable of keeping up with the flow of combat. BT is about maneuver than an out right slug fests.
With everything else I am sure this will go in one ear and out the other and you will keep beliving that there is some place for your 200 ton targets.
It would be cheaper to split this design into four tanks so long as each one is around four million c-bills Whether it would be better is subjective and debatable. Sure, you are taking a risk of losing all your firepower with a single vehicle but you are far more likely to lose one of the four smaller vehicles which means the loss of twenty-five percent of your firepower.
If slugfests weren't happening in Battletech, then you wouldn't see the larger units. This 200 ton design has Artillery but it also has LRMs, so I would argue the heavy armor is justified for survival on the battlefield. It seems to me that you (and possibly others) have envisioned scenarios where the enemy has deployed only one 200 ton unit and the other side has conveniently a larger number (and BV) of units to fight it. You also seem to mistake disagreement with not listening...
|
Karagin
08/11/13 05:26 PM
72.178.85.122
|
Wow...really. You think that your 200 ton tanks would actually get the chance to slug it out? Wow...
If you were listening to us you would have seen and understood a long time ago that the 200 ton tanks are not worth the time or effort. You would also see that four or five smaller tanks aka 80 tons and below can do the same job as these 200 ton range targets and you would have given up on them and moved on to building other things. YET you still keep making the same tank over and over again with a new name. So no you are not listening to anyone about this.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/11/13 07:15 PM
208.54.32.237
|
Quote:
It would be cheaper to split this design into four tanks so long as each one is around four million c-bills
That would be VERY easy to do.
Quote:
Whether it would be better is subjective and debatable.
No its not. there is no question that it would be better.
Quote:
Sure, you are taking a risk of losing all your firepower with a single vehicle but you are far more likely to lose one of the four smaller vehicles which means the loss of twenty-five percent of your firepower.
No. You are more likely to lose this monstrosity because it cant maneuver to react to the enemy than I would at losing one of my tanks. Even if I do lose one tank that is just 25% of my weapons. When you lose your tank you lose 100% of your weapons.
Quote:
If slugfests weren't happening in Battletech, then you wouldn't see the larger units. This 200 ton design has Artillery but it also has LRMs, so I would argue the heavy armor is justified for survival on the battlefield.
One of the things that BT matches in real life is that maneuverability is life. Your monstrosity is a sitting duck it cant do anything to put its self into a good position to react to the enemy's maneuvering of his forces. The only thing it can do is sit there and let the enemy have their way.
Quote:
It seems to me that you (and possibly others) have envisioned scenarios where the enemy has deployed only one 200 ton unit and the other side has conveniently a larger number (and BV) of units to fight it.
I could have a force with half of the BV of your monstrosity and wipe the battle field with you. You cant even grasp the extreme basics of battle field tactics.
Quote:
You also seem to mistake disagreement with not listening...
No. There is no question what so ever that you think that your right and out right refuse to listen to anyone else.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Karagin
08/11/13 08:27 PM
72.178.85.122
|
What battlefield are you fighting on? One that has other super tanks creeping up on yours where a single round is fought over 15 map boards as short range? You really have NO idea what you are talking about do you? Do you even play Battletech?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Reiter
08/13/13 01:16 PM
142.11.67.185
|
Quote:
What battlefield are you fighting on? One that has other super tanks creeping up on yours where a single round is fought over 15 map boards as short range? You really have NO idea what you are talking about do you? Do you even play Battletech?
A virtual battlefield, on the 1/\/t3r\/\/3b$ (<-- interweb if you can't read that). ATN most likely would fit the category of a video gamer...from playing games I have come to the conclusion most of these guys like to play what ever has the most hitpoints and biggest guns (what ever lets them live longer and kill the opponent faster). It gets boring and stale, which is why I find 99% of his things boring to look, got a few that where interesting. If he could make a tech 1, IS, and under 70 tons (that's not 60% armor) I would be more impressed.
|
Karagin
08/13/13 07:09 PM
72.178.85.122
|
I too agree IF he could build something NON-Clan, under 60 tons and and not be munchkined and min-max it would be interesting to see.
And you are right he is most likely a video gamer who discovered the board game and hasn't been taught that there is a major difference between the two.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|