Retry
10/14/13 10:59 PM
184.2.104.40
|
Omniscient Advanced Recon
Mixed (Base Clan)
5 tons
BV: 22
Cost: 227,500 C-bills
Movement: 25/38 (VTOL)
Engine: 75 XL
Internal: 5
Armor: 0 (Heavy Ferro-Fibrous)
Internal Armor --------------------------------------
Front 1 0 Right 1 0 Left 1 0 Rear 1 0
Weapon Loc Heat ----------------------------------------
Clan TAG FR 0 Equipment Loc ----------------------------------
Drone (Remote) Operating System BD
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Omniscient Advanced Recon Platform is little more than a RC engine strapped to a rotor. An XL engine propels the VTOL at a speed of roughly 380km/h maximum, virtually the fastest any VTOL has ever reached. That makes up a whopping 60% of the weight! Another 20% is dedicated to the Drone Operating System. The fact that the VTOL can't even tolerate a direct hit from a light vehicle MG bursts necessitates this feature, as it would be a deathtrap to any pilots utilizing this. The VTOL also has a TAG added on as an afterthought, allowing the helicopter to help coordinate indirect fire.
Variants:
Armor-The VTOL exchanges the TAG for a light TAG OR recon camera and half a point of Heavy Ferro-Fibrous Armor.
Ground Attack-The VTOL exchanges the TAG for an ER medium laser.
Mixed Role-The VTOL exchanges the TAG for a light TAG and an ER small laser.
|
ATN082268
10/15/13 07:22 AM
69.128.58.222
|
O.K. If you put on any armor, you have to downgrade to Light TAG. I don't think you can use Heavy Ferro on a VTOL. Here is what I got punching it into HMP:
BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Recon
Tech: Clan / 3072
Config: V.T.O.L. Omni Drone
Rules: Level 3, Custom design
Mass: 5 tons
Power Plant: 75 XL Fusion
Cruise Speed: 270.0 km/h
Maximum Speed: 410.4 km/h
Armor Type: Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
1 Light TAG
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Recon
Mass: 5 tons
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 5 pts Standard 0 .50
Engine: 75 XL Fusion 1 1.00
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 .50
Cruise MP: 25
Flank MP: 38
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Controls: 0 .50
Crew: 1 Members 0 .00
Drone Remote Equipment & Sensors: 1 1.00
Rotor Equipment: Main/Tail Rotors 0 .50
Armor Factor: 10 pts Ferro-Fibrous 1 .50
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 1 2
Left / Right Sides: 1 2/2
Rear: 1 2
Rotor: 1 2
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Light TAG Front 0 1 .50
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 0 .00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 4 5.00
Items & Tons Left: 2 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 350,000 C-Bills
Battle Value: 8
Cost per BV: 43,750.0
Weapon Value: 0 / 0 (Ratio = .00 / .00)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 0; MRDmg = 0; LRDmg = 0
BattleForce2: MP: 25, Armor/Structure: 0 / 1
Damage PB/M/L: -/-/-, Overheat: 0
Class: VA; Point Value: 0
Specials: omni
|
Retry
10/15/13 06:37 PM
184.2.104.40
|
HFF can be used on VTOLs. See the article for the DI Multipurpose VTOL for such an instance.
I don't find armor worth downgrading to a light TAG and the increase in cost. Anything that's a small laser and larger will still down it in a single shot.
|
Shadrak
10/15/13 08:30 PM
64.134.197.147
|
What is the advantage of that much speed that can't be gained by going with a fuel cell engine and making the drone craft more disposable...
Doesn't the target movement modifier top out at +4?
Combine that with the relatively close range of the vehicle, the nature of how quickly it would be killed, I think that, it being a drone, disposibility might be more advantagous...
You could even booby trap it with a ton of MG ammo and turn it in to a flying bomb...
And with a fuel cell at that weight you could still get the +4 and be able to move from outside of range to within range in a single turn.
This seems more like a vehicle to serve as a proof of concept or for civilian/racing applications as opposed to a practical military vehicle (at least per Battletech rules).
1.5 ton fuel cell engine could put the craft at 19/29 for .5 extra tons and a lot less cost...29 is outside of the range of almost every battletech weapon. For the .5 ton savings and the extra c-bill cost you get to push the speed up 9 movement points at flank, and you can mount an energy weapon (which might get used 3 or 4 times before the vehicle is killed).
Not a bad design, just doesn't seem too practical....how much damage does a booby trapped vehicle carrying 1 ton or .5 tons of MG ammo do-- 1 ton of ammo would be equal to a 50 point area affect explosion and .5 tons of MG ammo would do 25 points to the hex (adjacent hexes also suffering damage)...pretty impressive, and more expensive than a long tom or sniper round, but probably cheaper and easier to deploy than a cruise missile.
|
Retry
10/15/13 11:26 PM
184.2.104.40
|
I chose an XL over a fuel cell to max out my speed for the most rapid deployments. That doesn't mean a quick refit could mount a similar sized but less powerful fuel cell for more disposability, perhaps used in the role of a spotter as opposed to as a scout where it probably won't survive. The XL engine is simply the default type.
(Maximum movement mod is +6 at 25 hexes moved. A VTOL moving makes this +7.)
|
ATN082268
10/16/13 07:38 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Quote:
HFF can be used on VTOLs. See the article for the DI Multipurpose VTOL for such an instance.
I don't find armor worth downgrading to a light TAG and the increase in cost. Anything that's a small laser and larger will still down it in a single shot.
You're right. I just had the wrong HMP setting. Here is what it looks like:
BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Recon II
Tech: Mixed Tech / 3072
Config: V.T.O.L. Omni Drone
Rules: Level 3, Custom design
Mass: 5 tons
Power Plant: 75 XL Fusion (C)
Cruise Speed: 270.0 km/h
Maximum Speed: 410.4 km/h
Armor Type: Hvy Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
1 TAG (C)
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Recon II
Mass: 5 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 5 pts Standard 0 .50
Engine: 75 XL Fusion 1 1.00
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 .50
Cruise MP: 25
Flank MP: 38
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Controls: 0 .25
Crew: 1 Members 0 .00
Drone Remote Equipment & Sensors: 1 1.00
Rotor Equipment: Main/Tail Rotors 0 .50
Armor Factor: 5 pts Hvy Ferro-Fibrous (I 3 .25
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 1 1
Left / Right Sides: 1 1/1
Rear: 1 1
Rotor: 1 1
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 TAG (C) Front 0 1 1.00
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 0 .00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 6 5.00
Items & Tons Left: 0 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 355,469 C-Bills
Battle Value: 5
Cost per BV: 71,093.75
Weapon Value: 13 / 13 (Ratio = 2.60 / 2.60)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 0; MRDmg = 0; LRDmg = 0
BattleForce2: MP: 25, Armor/Structure: 0 / 0
Damage PB/M/L: -/-/-, Overheat: 0
Class: VA; Point Value: 0
Specials: omni, tag
|
Shadrak
10/16/13 10:24 AM
128.211.178.12
|
Quote:
I chose an XL over a fuel cell to max out my speed for the most rapid deployments. That doesn't mean a quick refit could mount a similar sized but less powerful fuel cell for more disposability, perhaps used in the role of a spotter as opposed to as a scout where it probably won't survive. The XL engine is simply the default type.
(Maximum movement mod is +6 at 25 hexes moved. A VTOL moving makes this +7.)
This is my point. A vehicle only needs to move at a cruise rate of 17+ to receive the highest level movement modifier (+6) at flank speed. Beyond this, you are simply investing in extra speed to:
a. Cover distance on the map sheet to get you from outside your opponent's maximum range into close range to use your weapons.
b. avoid the flank speed modifier (+1) to in attacks.
I am thinking b. is your intent. If so, then you must play without regard to BV or cost, which is fine, just not the way I play; I don't use BV, but I try to create force scenarios that mimic what would be available in reality to two different forces. If your organization uses XL fusion engines for everything and it is so common that not using it would be unusual or cost-ineffective, then using an XL fusion engine on a vehicle that has a life span of 2 or 3 turns makes sense. I guess the military force that is using this equipment is supported the same way the U.S. DoD is, lol, where it is very high expenditure with regard to resources in order to maintain overwhelming military superiority.
|
Retry
10/16/13 07:02 PM
184.2.104.40
|
I don't use BV. That is true. I do take regards to cost, however. It's mostly the choppers with the XL(and in some cases XXL) engines as they aren't treated quite as disposable as they are in BTech, but act as high-tech flying platforms capable of inflicting great damage(such as a RL Apache). Considering it's small niche will not require many VTOLs of this type to, say, quickly scan a large forest for enemy mechs with little danger of getting shot down, since it's role doesn't require a lot of those small XL engines and it only results of a 50% markup compared to a fuel cell(with a better top speed for scouting) it doesn't seem to warrant an engine downgrade IMO.
I'd probably use an Active Probe, but I'm not 100% sure how they work. For example, if you moved up 30 spaces with an Active Probe equipped unit, does the probe only detect things at the points where you began and end, or everything in between as well?
Edited by Retry (10/16/13 07:16 PM)
|
Cray
10/16/13 09:49 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Yep, HFF is valid on VTOLs. See p. 206 Tech Manual: it's available for any combat vehicle.
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
10/16/13 10:19 PM
24.243.178.124
|
I think the idea of cost of the BV. BV does nothing to really show the true worth of a unit, where as cost is what actually matters. A lot of the BV machines folks like would never be bought by a military do to their cost and lack of real showing. Somethings BV doesn't take into account.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ATN082268
10/17/13 06:10 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Quote:
I think the idea of cost of the BV. BV does nothing to really show the true worth of a unit, where as cost is what actually matters. A lot of the BV machines folks like would never be bought by a military do to their cost and lack of real showing. Somethings BV doesn't take into account.
Isn't Battle Value (BV) supposed to gauge (at least roughly) a unit's combat effectiveness? A unit can certainly have a high C-Bill cost and relatively low BV and likewise there are units which have a relatively low C-Bill cost and high BV. In my opinion, cost is one of the worst ways to gauge combat effectiveness.
|
Karagin
10/17/13 06:23 AM
24.243.178.124
|
And in mine BV is the worst way to gauge anything as far as how a mech will preform. What good is the BV value if you don't have the ready cash to buy the item or the mech? Who is to say the SRM2 is better or worse then the ER Small Laser? Yet that is what the BV is saying.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
10/17/13 10:23 AM
206.29.182.233
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think the idea of cost of the BV. BV does nothing to really show the true worth of a unit, where as cost is what actually matters. A lot of the BV machines folks like would never be bought by a military do to their cost and lack of real showing. Somethings BV doesn't take into account.
Isn't Battle Value (BV) supposed to gauge (at least roughly) a unit's combat effectiveness? A unit can certainly have a high C-Bill cost and relatively low BV and likewise there are units which have a relatively low C-Bill cost and high BV. In my opinion, cost is one of the worst ways to gauge combat effectiveness.
It has nothing to do with combat effectiveness. It has everything to do with economic effectiveness. The less resources you put into one area the more of the same resources you can put into other areas.
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!!!
|
Shadrak
10/17/13 08:21 PM
70.194.67.114
|
Quote:
I don't use BV. That is true. I do take regards to cost, however. It's mostly the choppers with the XL(and in some cases XXL) engines as they aren't treated quite as disposable as they are in BTech, but act as high-tech flying platforms capable of inflicting great damage(such as a RL Apache). Considering it's small niche will not require many VTOLs of this type to, say, quickly scan a large forest for enemy mechs with little danger of getting shot down, since it's role doesn't require a lot of those small XL engines and it only results of a 50% markup compared to a fuel cell(with a better top speed for scouting) it doesn't seem to warrant an engine downgrade IMO.
I'd probably use an Active Probe, but I'm not 100% sure how they work. For example, if you moved up 30 spaces with an Active Probe equipped unit, does the probe only detect things at the points where you began and end, or everything in between as well?
The problem is that bt rules dont allow for an apache...apaches are 1 hit killera...bt is liie real life. Itcsucks, but that is how it is
|
Retry
10/17/13 09:52 PM
76.7.226.208
|
Certainly not. It doesn't mean you can't make a good one which can compete against mechs.
Actually VTOLs seem to be the only viable way to compete against mechs. Fast, not terrain hindered, and there's fewer 1 hit motive system disabling hits.
A well made VTOL, IMO, can make light mechs obsolete.
Edited by Retry (10/17/13 09:52 PM)
|