Karagin
01/18/14 10:17 PM
24.243.178.124
|
New AFFS vehicle that has begun to make inroads into their military and supporting commands.
Code: BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
* CUSTOM WEAPON
Type/Model: Hooper
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3132
Config: Wheeled Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Standard design
Mass: 60 tons
Power Plant: 280 VOX XL Fusion
Cruise Speed: 54.0 km/h
Maximum Speed: 86.4 km/h
Armor Type: Lt Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
2 Light AC/5s
3 MML 5s*
2 ER Medium Lasers
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Hooper
Mass: 60 tons
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 30 pts Standard 0 6.00
Engine: 280 XL Fusion 2 8.00
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 4.00
Cruise MP: 5
Flank MP: 8
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 3.00
Crew: 4 Members 0 .00
Turret Equipment: 0 2.50
Armor Factor: 169 pts Lt Ferro-Fibrous 1 10.00
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 6 40
Left / Right Sides: 6 34/34
Rear: 6 21
Turret: 6 40
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
2 Light AC/5s Turret 0 40 3 12.00
3 MML 5s* Turret 0 72 4 12.00
2 ER Medium Lasers Turret 10 2 2.00
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 1 .50
1 Trailer Hitch Rear 1 .00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 14 60.00
Items & Tons Left: 3 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 7,062,250 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 1,099 (old BV = 739)
Cost per BV: 6,426.07
Weapon Value: 842 / 842 (Ratio = .77 / .77)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 22; MRDmg = 16; LRDmg = 5
BattleForce2: MP: 5W, Armor/Structure: 0 / 7
Damage PB/M/L: 2/3/1, Overheat: 0
Class: GH; Point Value: 11
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/18/14 10:28 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Too little armor for an XL vehicle platform.
|
Karagin
01/19/14 09:24 AM
24.243.178.124
|
Not seeing how 10 tons of LFF is too little. Also don't see this vehicle sitting still slugging it out either, but YMMV.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/19/14 11:57 AM
166.147.104.41
|
10 tons of LFF is about 10 and a half tons standard. That amount would be inadequate for many medium MBTs. HFF would be a better choice on a XL engine machine.
|
ghostrider
01/19/14 08:36 PM
66.74.188.170
|
what's the difference between the armor carried by this tank, and the normal armor for a mech in this weight?
not knowing the full specs of the light ac 5s, only real change i could see is using ppcs with double heatsinks, It would increase the price dramatically if that happened.
The xl is costly, but not much can be done there.
|
Retry
01/19/14 09:00 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Seeing as you don't realize that double heat sinks can't be used on vees, you must not use them yourself very often.
|
Karagin
01/20/14 11:31 AM
24.243.178.124
|
I disagree, I think the armor is enough to do the job. And again the cost of the XL engine should have by 3145 dropped not stayed the same as it was from day one for the Inner Sphere rediscovering the tech and the Clans should be making them for next to nothing, fusion tech should be common place for such an advanced tech group as them.
Not sure how you use tanks and such in your game Retry, but I normally don't play the Battle of Kursk where tanks are ramming tanks, more battles of hit and fade with things mixing it up at range then fading away to trying again. So the armor seems about right for the tank.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
01/20/14 01:39 PM
66.74.188.170
|
Not every tank should be used like the very popular demolisher, or the less popular hertzer. Only real way to use them is keep them out of sight until they can fire their main guns. They are close assault.
Now you wouldn't use the same tactics with an lrm launcher. Going point blank and maybe even ramming with it, just isn't done unless you are desperate.
The double heats sinks. Yeah. I forgot they can't be used in vehicles. Been a real long time since I went to make one.
I agree with the cost of equipment. The innersphere should have enough competitors to bring down the prices. The clans should have enough resources to not be as frigid about experimenting with things.
|
Retry
01/20/14 02:15 PM
166.147.104.33
|
Still, it isn't an ICE or a SFE, just because they are more common now doesn't mean you should be lenient on armor.
So it is a one trick pony, hit-and-runner/hider? Why bother with the LACs and ERMLs when they are effective only at medium ranges?
I'd bargain it would take two of my Mirage Helis to take down one of these safely with little chance of casualties.
|
Cray
01/20/14 02:58 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
10 tons of LFF is about 10 and a half tons standard. That amount would be inadequate for many medium MBTs.
I don't agree. 40 armor points on key locations is about the point where crits become the bigger killer (unless you run into a lot of Hunchbacks and King Crabs.)
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
01/20/14 07:03 PM
24.243.178.124
|
Retry, I am glad you are very fond of your home made machines, and I am sure in a face to face engagement the out come would come down to who had better luck. And again I am not trying to build the best of the best, that I leave to those who want to power game, I like the vehicles that have some flaws, not major ones like ATNs, but some small minor ones that get in the way from time to time but you learn to use and can find ways to get them to work for you.
Every facing but the rear can take a 15 point strike and not worry about the armor breaching, that alone is more then enough given the level of fire power on the battlefield.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
01/20/14 08:38 PM
66.74.188.170
|
actually retry has pointed out something most have not bothered with.
The ice engine.
Why has there been not research into making it lighter or better. It is used in most civillian vehicles to my knowledge in the battle tech universe. It would benefit alot of tanks to have an ice worth a damn.
Fusion has the xl, and now the light version. Why not the ice?
As for combat, this tank can handle 2 normal gauss shots in everything but the back location. I have seen the super heavy armored beasts die from a single lrm or mg hit to them. As ive said in other threads half of the criticals that can happen kill the crew.
You missed one of the biggest killers if that runs out of ammo too quickly. The dreaded hunchback II. Dual ultra 20's are nasty, 5 shots of ammo is a saviour to those that suvive the only 3 volleys. (two double shots, one single shot).
There are a few others as well, but can't think of the name right now.
Main difference between this and a mech this size is the tank doesn't have a punch or kick it can use.
|
Retry
01/20/14 09:13 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Am I the only one who uses armored chastises on vehicles?
|
Karagin
01/20/14 09:47 PM
24.243.178.124
|
I know the crits kill vehicles long before they lose all their armor, point I am going for is that vehicles need to be used smarter.
Ammo is an issue, planning comes into play there but each person plays differently.
I agree IC engines should be lighter, but folks will point all the options vs common sense that technology would have made the ICE lighter and why no endo-steel frame for vehicles? Oh wait mechs are king...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/20/14 10:21 PM
67.239.109.174
|
It's funny how if every option for mechs are available on vehicles, the vehicles would sealclub the mechs all day.
|
ghostrider
01/21/14 12:04 AM
66.74.188.170
|
Mechs are king for several reasons. They are so much more superior in mobility then vehicles could be. They aren't likely to lose equipment on every hit against them. It is the name of the game.
Now vehicles have been used for centuries before mechs were even invented, but yet remain so far behind the times.
Without crits and other factors, tanks would run rampant over mechs, with the exception of being able to halo drop them, load and unload out of dropship faster, and handle almost any terrain without issues.
Without the ram, which mechs have physical attacks and take no damage from, tanks are screwed even more up close.
Vehicles are supposed to be cheap enough to lose, but strong enough to make it worth while. Mechs are not supposed to outnumber the vehicles in combat. The game was set up for a balance. Most people don't want to play with tanks. I get that. People trying to phase them out of the game, is a bad idea.
Now if they tank uses max armor like you want, wouldn't that be giving it the options for mechs? Without an armor peircing shot or other critical, a straight up, no physicals being used, shooting match would favor the tank. Less areas to put armor on. More wieght for weapons and such.
If you like the tank design but want more armor, pull off a laser or mml, and put that tonnage towards armor. redesign the whole thing. In the battle of economics, this tank still beats the 101+ tonnage tanks...
|
Karagin
01/21/14 06:26 AM
24.243.178.124
|
Actually tanks have only 5 hit locations and mechs have 11 hit locations before either technically have to worry about internal hits, yeah not seeing the armor as a boon for the vehicles given that the damage is going end up hitting one location far more often on a tank then a mech.
And I still do not see how giving vehicles endosteel is going to swing the balance of power towards the vehicles favor, but we are swinging off topic again.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/21/14 10:04 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Until you get hit by a heavy gauss at short range and have a guaranteed limb chopped off for your light.
Only in battletech is an increased area to be hit in is a good thing...
|
ghostrider
01/21/14 01:48 PM
66.74.188.170
|
most of that is because losing a single limb normally doesnt disable the unit entirely. Besides a turret, any location lost on a vehicle means its toast. Period. No continuing on from its current location.
And Karagin, you actually helped the arguement for having more area. With only 5 locations, you are more likely to have shot concentrate on those locations. That should say you need MORE armor there.
But you are correct about us going off subject.
|
Retry
01/21/14 03:21 PM
72.214.204.166
|
No, I believe a dead turret means vehicle destruction as well.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/22/14 03:08 AM
172.56.38.235
|
Way to expensive!
You could buy two lances of affective tanks for the cost of this one tank.
I would ditch the XL engine. Drop the overall weight. And split the weapons into multiple vehicles.
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!!!
|
Retry
01/22/14 10:17 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Yeah, 80% sure dead turret means dead tank. Else everything I used would have 2 turrets. Sucking up shots and such.
If designed right it could be worth the cost. It just doesn't seem to fit...
Hmm... Perhaps replace the LACs and lasers with a snub nose PPC. Even a capacitor if that would fit.
|
Cray
01/22/14 07:05 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Way to expensive!
You could buy two lances of affective tanks for the cost of this one tank.
That's not always how military procurement works, though. You could buy 4 to 10 late model F-16s for the price of 1 F-35, but you don't see the US military running out to buy 9,600 to 24,000 F-16s instead of 2,400 F-35s. Likewise, the block 3 model of Eurofighter costs as much as 9 or 10 F-16s, but the various operator nations haven't replaced it with a bunch of F-16s or Gripens.
Certainly straight price tags are a major consideration for merc units, but governments work differently.
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
01/22/14 08:44 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Are the jets even that different? I'm just wondering, considering air combat nowadays is basically who can get the first missile lock...
Huh. Nowaday jets aren't as fast as I imagined. The F-16 is only 3x as fast as the P-51 at high altitudes. Not that I would expect them to be FTL, of course not. But only 3 times faster...
I tell people that pilots aren't just throwaway just because life is cheaper than tech. But they don't listen to me, no sir.
More on topic, I play with the crit-reducing vehicle tac ops rule "vehicle effectiveness" so anything larger than a jeep will not be critted to death nearly as often. That may be the source of my bias for maximized armor. Even then, from an in-universe perspective more armor means there's less a chance for the XL engine to be blown up via a vehicle getting destroyed, so even if your crew dies you will have a better chance to get your expensive, high-tech engine back.
|
Karagin
01/22/14 09:18 PM
24.243.178.124
|
The cost of the XL engine should be far less then it is given that the IS and Clans should be making them as easily as the do normal fusion engines etc...but again the idea of stuff changing cost wise is not something TPTB seem to care about when they don't even follow the same rules the players have to when it comes to building armies or merc units etc...
As for the tank needing more armor, sure all of them do, but you are missing the point of a tank, it's a trade off of speed, armor and weapons, something has to be loser of the compromise in order to have some kind of advantage. As for it living longer with more armor, it might, but note the crit table, there are those pesky kill hit one there, from dead crew, to dead engine to BOOM dead tank when ammo or fuel is hit hard to shrug those off even with a lot of armor.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/22/14 11:10 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Regardless, XL engines will be considered by many to be a waste of resources that should be used by mechs. The SFE is considerably less complex to build than the XLE.
The point of a tank is to tank. Many tanks I've seen are simply too fast for their weight class, especially 3025 ones with their I.C.E engines.
This is not one of them. In fact you could very easily speed it up or size it up. But the armor is a letdown.
If you don't use vehicle effectiveness quirks in tac ops, there is little to no reason to not design a mech instead.
|
Karagin
01/22/14 11:25 PM
24.243.178.124
|
Guess we don't play the same with the vehicles there Retry. To me a design doesn't need to min/maxed and the character comes in the fluff and the intended use of the vehicle, not silly quriks that belong in the fluff as flavor and character not more things to hinder something that the rules are already bias against. So really why build any custom units all then since none of them will change an outcome of battle or how the BT universe plays out, so why don't they just do away with the ability to make player made designs and stick with just book mech?
XL engines are a waste given their asinine price and how would they be so complex for a group like the Clans that never lost the ability to make them? Again the logic that TPTB cling to for the price doesn't add up but that is another topic all together.
Okay so the armor isn't to your taste, doesn't mean the vehicle won't do it's job or fight well enough for someone who needs something for a battle. Many of the mechs are let downs in terms of what they offer, doesn't mean folks won't use them.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/23/14 12:24 AM
67.239.109.174
|
Since when do clans other than Hell's Horses give a rat's **** about conventional vehicles, especially XL engine equipped ones?
And yes, it's still considerably more complex to SFEs, even if it's not as seemingly complex as before.
You didn't fluff it as possessing less armor than desired, which it does.
|
ghostrider
01/23/14 12:29 AM
66.74.185.8
|
technically sending any unit into combat is writing it off.
Now with reduce crits going on, then yeah, more armor is better.
As with all vehicles, cost is always an issue when losing units. Honestly, it would be cheaper to run nothing but small light vehicles, since replacing a dozen or so jeeps would be cheaper then one medium tank.
I can understand that xl engines were designed for use in mechs. Ice engines weight to much to really be of use. It just occured to me that there is no chance for a fusion engine to take a single hit in a tank without blowing up. Mechs can have 3. hmm... that should mean the fusion engine in a tank should be lighter, since they dont have the extra shielding.
The use of units based on their ability to survive is never a question of military. They use what they have.
Honestly, any assault force would be stuck with jump capable mechs and power armor that has jets. Anything else would be difficult to drop. Strap on jets only work so long. Also, loading up a unit of tanks vs a unit of mechs. Speed should say tanks arent worth it.
Honestly, tanks probably shouldnt use anything but ice. It is to their advantage to use only missle and ballistic weapons since they dont build heat. But that is if you go with pure logic.
The price of items can be seen as something simple. It cost so much to avoid civillians from owning them. Nothing like your disgruntled tax payers being able to shoot your limo with a home made ppc.
|
Karagin
01/23/14 12:34 AM
24.243.178.124
|
Quote:
You didn't fluff it as possessing less armor than desired, which it does.
In your opinion, which is fine for your style of building things, I think the armor is fine for what the vehicle is designed to do.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|