Karagin
01/06/14 08:21 PM
24.243.178.124
|
Code: BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: M-825 FAST (Fast Attack/Scout Tactical)
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3060
Config: Hydrofoil
Rules: Level 3, Standard design
Mass: 25 tons
Power Plant: 50 DAV Fusion
Cruise Speed: 86.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 129.6 km/h
Armor Type: Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
1 PPC
2 SR Torpedo 2s
2 Machine Guns
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: M-825 FAST (Fast Attack/Scout Tactical)
Mass: 25 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 15 pts Standard 0 2.50
Engine: 50 Fusion 0 1.50
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 .75
Cruise MP: 8
Flank MP: 12
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 1.25
Crew: 2 Members 0 .00
Lift Equipment: 0 2.50
Turret Equipment: 0 .70
Armor Factor: 77 pts Ferro-Fibrous 2 4.30
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 3 21
Left / Right Sides: 3 15/15
Rear: 3 10
Turret: 3 16
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 PPC Turret 10 1 7.00
2 SR Torpedo 2s Front 0 50 3 3.00
2 Machine Guns Front 0 100 3 1.50
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 9 25.00
Items & Tons Left: 1 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 690,444 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 642 (old BV = 497)
Cost per BV: 1,075.46
Weapon Value: 268 / 268 (Ratio = .42 / .42)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 14; MRDmg = 7; LRDmg = 2
BattleForce2: MP: 8N, Armor/Structure: 0 / 3
Damage PB/M/L: 2/2/1, Overheat: 0
Class: NS; Point Value: 6
And a variant:
Code: BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: M-825 FAST (Fast Attack/Scout Tactical) A
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3060
Config: Hydrofoil
Rules: Level 3, Standard design
Mass: 25 tons
Power Plant: 50 DAV Fusion
Cruise Speed: 86.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 129.6 km/h
Armor Type: Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
1 PPC
2 Machine Guns
1 LRM 5
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: M-825 FAST (Fast Attack/Scout Tactical) A
Mass: 25 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 15 pts Standard 0 2.50
Engine: 50 Fusion 0 1.50
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 .75
Cruise MP: 8
Flank MP: 12
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 1.25
Crew: 2 Members 0 .00
Lift Equipment: 0 2.50
Turret Equipment: 0 .70
Armor Factor: 77 pts Ferro-Fibrous 2 4.30
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 3 21
Left / Right Sides: 3 15/15
Rear: 3 10
Turret: 3 16
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 PPC Turret 10 1 7.00
2 Machine Guns Front 0 100 3 1.50
1 LRM 5 Front 0 24 2 3.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 8 25.00
Items & Tons Left: 2 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 707,778 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 653 (old BV = 508)
Cost per BV: 1,083.89
Weapon Value: 278 / 278 (Ratio = .43 / .43)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 11; MRDmg = 9; LRDmg = 4
BattleForce2: MP: 8N, Armor/Structure: 0 / 3
Damage PB/M/L: 1/1/1, Overheat: 0
Class: NS; Point Value: 7
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/07/14 12:34 AM
172.56.31.219
|
Of your naval designs I only like this one and sorta the M-830 Piranha
What I don't like about all of them is that all of them are quite expensive. You dont have something that is inexpensive and that one can buy a good number of them to defend mutable sea cities and coast line
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!!!
|
TigerShark
01/07/14 04:07 AM
68.190.197.104
|
700,000 isn't "cheap?" It's around the same as a J. Edgar and about 50% more expensive than a Scorpion Light Tank. For the same price as an ARC-2R Archer, you can have 9 of these things.
I'd say that's "cheap."
|
Retry
01/07/14 05:41 PM
67.239.109.174
|
I'd sacrifice the MGs for extra armor.
|
Cray
01/07/14 06:28 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
700,000 isn't "cheap?" It's around the same as a J. Edgar and about 50% more expensive than a Scorpion Light Tank. For the same price as an ARC-2R Archer, you can have 9 of these things.
I'd say that's "cheap."
Seconded.
I would look into a LRT 5 over a pair of SRT 2s. You don't want this thin-skinned boat getting close enough to a real threat to use SRTs. The MGs make sense, though, for getting rid of pirates, dockside rioters, and other PBI-type threats.
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.
|
Retry
01/07/14 07:10 PM
67.239.109.174
|
If the MGs are kept it should be turret mounted, shouldn't it?
|
Cray
01/07/14 10:26 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
If the MGs are kept it should be turret mounted, shouldn't it?
Turrets would be ideal for tournament-grade designs, or sponsons for advanced/experimental designs. Lacking the tonnage for either, I'd recommend side mounts rather than bow mounts. A boat is more likely to be caught broadside against threats an MG can deal with than with its nose toward them.
Ditching one MG for a coaxial, turret-mounted MG and a hair more armor wouldn't be bad for this design.
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.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/07/14 10:35 PM
172.56.38.133
|
Quote:
700,000 isn't "cheap?" It's around the same as a J. Edgar and about 50% more expensive than a Scorpion Light Tank. For the same price as an ARC-2R Archer, you can have 9 of these things.
I'd say that's "cheap."
For me a vehicle that is more than 500,000 is getting quite pricey.
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
01/07/14 11:26 PM
24.243.178.124
|
Sponsons are failed technology.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/07/14 11:26 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Well maybe it doesn't fit the bill for your human-wave style zerg rush techniques.
|
Cray
01/08/14 06:18 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Sponsons are failed technology.
In the real world: yes. In BT, they're pretty nifty ways of increasing your firing arcs without adding new hit locations (thus sponsons don't dilute armor tonnage), and sponsons aren't vulnerable to jamming like turrets. See MaxTech or Tactical Operations.
You do have to split your firepower between two half turrets, but BT's sponsons have their moments for point defense weapons.
Edited by Cray (01/08/14 06:20 PM)
|
Karagin
01/08/14 07:58 PM
24.243.178.124
|
I don't see there point, but that is my opinion on the matter, and see no point in using them for the most part, though they can add elements to certain types of vehicles but beyond a novelty item I find them to be useless.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
01/08/14 08:04 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
I don't see there point, but that is my opinion on the matter, and see no point in using them for the most part, though they can add elements to certain types of vehicles but beyond a novelty item I find them to be useless.
And while you think that of equipment like sponsons, for some reason you think an obsolete-at-introduction weapon like the blazer is "from munchkin territory."
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
01/08/14 08:05 PM
24.243.178.124
|
The Blazer as the one from the video game or the one we have from the current rule group? Not following you on this one Cray.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
TigerShark
01/08/14 08:32 PM
68.190.197.104
|
You don't see the point to side-mounted weaponry being able to face forward? O.o
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/08/14 09:33 PM
172.56.14.19
|
I kinda side with Karagin on this. That's my .02 H-Bills
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!!!
|
Cray
01/08/14 09:34 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
The Blazer as the one from the video game or the one we have from the current rule group? Not following you on this one Cray.
I was referencing your own post: "Binary Laser and some of the other stuff that has come along kind reaches into the land of munchy and lingers as do some of the prototype/Dark Age Common weapons and tech." That was made in reference to a comment on damage progression in rulebooks, so I doubt you were talking about a non-canon video game.
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
01/08/14 09:59 PM
24.243.178.124
|
It is munchy but I going to go with your comment that to you it is not...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/08/14 10:01 PM
24.243.178.124
|
Quote:
You don't see the point to side-mounted weaponry being able to face forward? O.o
Side mounted weapons ala the way attack helicopters have then in real life yes, door guns managing to fire in the front or forward are yes. side mounted turrets ala some gun trucks ans APC/IFVs yes. Sponsons no.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/08/14 10:57 PM
67.239.109.174
|
If you side mount anything and can spare an extra half ton or two, go with the sponsons. Makes the weapons extra effective and also gives you some crit soaking slots.
|
Karagin
01/08/14 11:42 PM
24.243.178.124
|
If it works for you, I will stay away from something that to me isn't worth the wasted space.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/08/14 11:58 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Yeah. And blazers are munchy.
|
ghostrider
01/09/14 12:26 AM
66.74.101.135
|
Last i knew, blazers were a laser pistol with 2 barrels. Making them for a mech should be nothing more then mounting 2 lasers in the same spot. This should NOT decrease anything about them.
And from what I take on sponsons, they are nothing more then boxes sticking out the sides of a unit that fire forward.
This should mean they are more likely to take a critical then anything else. Now if they allowed fire in both front and side arcs, then it would be worth it. Otherwise, a better design on the units is called for.
But again the thread got jacked. Make a new thread elsewhere.
|
Retry
01/09/14 12:38 AM
67.239.109.174
|
The mech-scale Blazer deals 12 damage for 16 heat.
The sponson turrets are not really a box. Well, kind of. Similar concept, but much more streamlined, not quite jutting out of it. And they don't just fire foward, they fire in a 180* arc. So fowards, left or right side depending on the sponson location, and rearwards. Honestly, what would be the point of a "new" turret on the side that gave the same arc as the front arc?
Hmm... if only I could put sponsons on an ASF... Then no fighter would be safe anywhere...
|