Karagin
07/27/14 10:09 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Code: BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Gustav Hover APC
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3060
Config: Hovercraft
Rules: Level 3, Standard design
Mass: 10.2 tons
Power Plant: 10 Omni Fusion
Cruise Speed: 86.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 129.6 km/h
Armor Type: Lt Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
2 ER Medium Lasers
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Gustav Hover APC
Mass: 10.2 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 8 pts Standard 0 1.02
Engine: 10 Fusion 0 1.36
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 .68
Cruise MP: 8
Flank MP: 12
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 .51
Crew: 1 Members 0 .00
Lift Equipment: 0 1.02
Armor Factor: 27 pts Lt Ferro-Fibrous 1 1.59
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 2 7
Left / Right Sides: 2 7/7
Rear: 2 6
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 ER Medium Laser Front 5 1 1.00
1 ER Medium Laser Front 5 1 1.00
Infantry Bay Body 1 2.02
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 4 10.20
Items & Tons Left: 3 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 272,525 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 322 (old BV = 260)
Cost per BV: 846.35
Weapon Value: 65 / 65 (Ratio = .20 / .20)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 8; MRDmg = 3; LRDmg = 0
BattleForce2: MP: 8H, Armor/Structure: 0 / 1
Damage PB/M/L: 1/1/-, Overheat: 0
Class: GL; Point Value: 3
Specials: tran2
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
07/28/14 01:05 AM
24.30.141.170
|
10.2 tons? ok. on a fractional accounting kick.
It is alot easier to just go with 11 tons or something like that. But oh well.
It looks like an upgraded savanha master. Something that light should have a turret for the weapons, since it is hard to keep the speed up and have the front point towards the enemy at all times.
Yeah, no weight for the turret.
|
Karagin
07/28/14 06:04 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Turret would be nice, but not everything needs a turret and this is an APC, NOT a tank.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BobTheZombie
07/28/14 03:43 PM
184.21.185.80
|
...I thought the old APCs did have turrets
|
Karagin
07/28/14 08:34 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Some do but most would have a cupola with a LMG in it for local anti-infantry work, something BT doesn't really show that well.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
07/29/14 06:49 AM
24.30.141.170
|
double ermls sound like a waste on an apc without a turret. Then again the cost of the fusion engine sounds like a waste as well.
But having a fast apc to get the troops in and out of battle is always nice.
How does this add up if you went with an ice? That low size shouldn't be that much difference.
Granted that drops the free heatsinks.. maybe not a good idea.
|
Karagin
07/29/14 05:31 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I can try it with an ICE and see.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
07/29/14 07:01 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
I can try it with an ICE and see.
Can't hurt to try an ICE, but fusion has my vote. It bumps up the purchase price but liberates you from fuel supplies while on campaign.
At my last job, I had to do a literature survey on the impact of fuel efficiency on Desert Storm. One of the findings was that improving the M1 Abrams' fuel efficiency 50% would've cut a month off preparation times. Funny thing: the Abrams was only the 6th biggest fuel user out of the top 10 (on a fleet-wide basis). Other than the Apache (#10), all the other vehicles on the top 10 list were logistics vehicles or other support units (e.g., diesel-fired field kitchens). But all those logistics vehicles were there to support the 6th and 10th largest fuel users.
While the APC's price may triple by going to fusion, you'll save money by eliminating supporting vehicles - especially during interstellar warfare, where extra battalions of fuel trucks means extra DropShips and extra JumpShips.
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
07/29/14 10:01 PM
70.118.139.48
|
That is a valid point.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
07/30/14 02:17 AM
24.30.141.170
|
Had forgotten some people actually do the strategic thing as well as the tactical combats.
Funny how it seems most of the game designers never really got into the logistics part of the game when they did things like the fourth succession war. But then again, you don't really see them pushing the fuel tanks on vehicles like they did the aerofighters.
|
Karagin
02/18/20 11:54 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Quote:
Had forgotten some people actually do the strategic thing as well as the tactical combats.
Funny how it seems most of the game designers never really got into the logistics part of the game when they did things like the fourth succession war. But then again, you don't really see them pushing the fuel tanks on vehicles like they did the aerofighters.
That last part about fuel...kind did happen with the "new" vehicle constrution rules for "non"-combat stuff and the hybrd stuff from that rule set.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|