Retry
03/07/14 08:32 PM
76.7.238.202
|
This upgrade was more difficult than the rest of them. Namely because the engine wasn't all that heavy in the first place, so the fusion engine didn't free up much weight. So I just added a few energy weapons, including a flamer upgrade from the Mk.II
That was the Mk.III, but then I realized with some rearranging I could get the feel of the Axel PLUS a large pulse laser coaxial to the AC/20. Quite a nice city buster if I do say so myself, as long as it doesn't run into infantry...
----
Axel Heavy Tank Mk 3
IS TW non-box set
65 tons
BV: 1,053
Cost: 2,941,125 C-bills
Source: Clan Invasion
Movement: 3/5 (Tracked)
Engine: 195 Fusion
Internal: 35
Armor: 179 (Ferro-Fibrous)
Internal Armor
Front 7 40
Right 7 36
Left 7 36
Rear 7 25
Turret 7 42
Weapons Loc Heat
LRM 10 TU 4
AC/20 TU 7
Flamer TU 3
Medium Pulse Laser FR 4
Medium Pulse Laser FR 4
Ammo Loc Shots
LRM 10 Ammo BD 12
AC/20 Ammo BD 5
AC/20 Ammo BD 5
AC/20 Ammo BD 5
AC/20 Ammo BD 5
LRM 10 Ammo BD 12
Axel Heavy Tank Mk 4
IS TW non-box set
65 tons
BV: 1,078
Cost: 2,924,625 C-bills
Source: Clan Invasion
Movement: 3/5 (Tracked)
Engine: 195
Internal: 35
Armor: 188 (Ferro-Fibrous)
Internal Armor
Front 7 45
Right 7 38
Left 7 38
Rear 7 25
Turret 7 42
Weapons Loc Heat
AC/20 TU 7
Large Pulse Laser TU 10
LRM 5 TU 2
LRM 5 TU 2
Ammo Loc Shots
AC/20 Ammo BD 5
AC/20 Ammo BD 5
AC/20 Ammo BD 5
AC/20 Ammo BD 5
LRM 5 Ammo BD 24
|
ghostrider
03/07/14 08:36 PM
66.27.181.33
|
as was said about another tank for city combat.
Why the lrms?
Would think srms would be the idea.
|
Cray
03/07/14 08:52 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
as was said about another tank for city combat.
Why the lrms?
Would think srms would be the idea.
I'd prefer indirect fire capabilities in a city unless you were dueling a Solaris VII urban-themed arena. With a few buddies in combat beside you, an LRM system allows you to provide an assist from a distance without blasting through buildings.
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.
|
ghostrider
03/07/14 09:05 PM
66.27.181.33
|
I would think you could use indirect fire with any non energy based weapon. Especially with srms.
And since they added the idf for lrms into the game, artillery seems to have been pushed to the side.
Yes, artillery is not a good thing for defenders to use in a city, and depending on what you are after, it is not great for assault either.
I would think being able to use lrms for idf would be determined by the heigth of the buildings near you as well as by the target. For maxiumum range, the missiles can not be launched straight up. And for short range, there are a few tanks the launcher could not launch high enough to avoid wiping out the building it is next to.
I know speed of playing the game is why they don't answer physics sometimes.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/07/14 09:32 PM
50.72.218.68
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I would think you could use indirect fire with any non energy based weapon. Especially with srms.
LRMs can do indirect fire because they follow an arch trajectory, not a direct trajectory, unlike MGs, GRs, ACs, and SRMs.
Quote:
And since they added the idf for lrms into the game,
IDF has been around since at least 2nd edition.
Quote:
artillery seems to have been pushed to the side.
Yes, artillery is not a good thing for defenders to use in a city, and depending on what you are after, it is not great for assault either.
The unique benefit of artillery is the ability to fire from several boards away; in most battles, the artillery units are essentially immune to return fire, just a little extra thunder brought down onto the battlefield by either side or both. Same with air support doing strafing runs.
Quote:
I would think being able to use lrms for idf would be determined by the heigth of the buildings near you as well as by the target. For maxiumum range, the missiles can not be launched straight up. And for short range, there are a few tanks the launcher could not launch high enough to avoid wiping out the building it is next to.
A L4 building is 4 x 6m = 24m tall, an hex is 30m in diameter. An LRM mounted on top of a tank will be firing at max 45 degrees to clear a L4 building in the adjacent hex. As far as I know, the fluff has responded to a lot of "physics" and "real world" criticisms by saying it's not that the LRMs have limited range, it has to do with the targeting systems, and the ability to actually strike a designated target at that range.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
03/07/14 09:47 PM
66.27.181.33
|
problem is you are talking about more control over lrms then the game allows.
You can have them land on something after firing over a building, sometimes in minimum range, but yet they can't be controlled enough when fired directly at something?
They can not be controlled enough for use with a targeting computer?
Or hit with more missiles with a c3 system?
There is a +1 to hit, but no penalty on how many can hit.
The example you show is basically claiming you are at the far end of the hex. Almost all of the time you are considered in the middle of the hex.
I do understand that most units have the ability to lift the missile racks into firing positions.
Somehow the logic of lrm idf in a city doesn't sound right.
Maybe it is just the ludicracy of the mechs comps to be able to figure out a firing solution to a person on the radio relaying information, but can't figure out how to hit a tank at medium range.
|
ghostrider
03/07/14 10:01 PM
66.27.181.33
|
Actually this could be extended into multiple woods as well. Why bother with the +2 or more penalty for someone hiding it the second set of woods, or behind a ridge in partial cover when you could idf the area?
Same with dealing with ecm.
|
Cray
03/07/14 10:58 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And since they added the idf for lrms into the game
Which was about in 1988? I've got the indirect fire rules for my 1990 BattleTech Compendium and I know it was in the game earlier.
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.
Edited by Cray (03/07/14 10:59 PM)
|
Retry
03/07/14 11:20 PM
76.7.238.202
|
The original Axels had LRMs and I elected not to touch that part of them.
|
Karagin
03/08/14 10:16 PM
70.118.139.48
|
So you re-invented the Rommel/Patton tanks...since the Axels were IC Engine variants of the same said tanks...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/08/14 10:18 PM
76.7.238.202
|
Basically.
|