KamikazeJohnson
07/25/15 01:45 PM
207.161.146.219
|
Banshee BNC-3L
Code:
Mass: 95 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Succession Wars
Tech Rating/Era Availability: D/X-E-D-A
Production Year: 3025
Cost: 9,673,690 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,661
Chassis: Unknown Standard
Power Plant: Unknown 380 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 43.2 km/h
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h
Jump Jets: None
Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Standard Armor
Armament:
1 PPC
3 Medium Lasers
1 LRM-5
2 Small Lasers
1 Flamer
2 Machine Guns
Manufacturer: Unknown
Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown
================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard 145 points 9.50
Engine: Fusion Engine 380 41.00
Walking MP: 4
Running MP: 6
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: Single Heat Sink 13 3.00
Gyro: Standard 4.00
Cockpit: Standard 3.00
Actuators: L: SH+UA+LA+H R: SH+UA+LA+H
Armor: Standard Armor AV - 288 18.00
Internal Armor
Structure Factor
Head 3 9
Center Torso 30 47
Center Torso (rear) 12
L/R Torso 20 30
L/R Torso (rear) 10
L/R Arm 16 31
L/R Leg 20 39
================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flamer RA 3 1 1.00
2 Machine Guns LA 0 2 1.00
PPC RT 10 3 7.00
Medium Laser RT 3 1 1.00
LRM-5 LT 2 1 2.00
Medium Laser LT 3 1 1.00
Small Laser CT 1 1 0.50
Medium Laser CT 3 1 1.00
Small Laser HD 1 1 0.50
@MG (1/2) (100) LA - 1 0.50
@LRM-5 (24) LT - 1 1.00
Free Critical Slots: 33
BattleForce Statistics
MV S (+0) M (+2) L (+4) E (+6) Wt. Ov Armor: 10 Points: 17
4 2 2 1 0 4 1 Structure: 8
Special Abilities: SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA
===========================================================
The Assault 'Mech discussion got me thinking about the classic 3025 Banshee (BNC-3E). Here's my take on it, working with the points I presented.
1) I'm going to accept that the 'Mech moves 4/6, even though reducing size to 90 tons saves 3.5 tons, and reducing to 80 ton saves a total of 6 tons. Lets make those tons count.
2) With limited tonnage to work with, Autocannons are a no-no. Trading the AC for a LRM 5 reduces average damage slightly, but the longer range makes up some of the difference. 6 tons saved.
3) Excessive heat control when you're short on available tonnage is ridiculous. Original design generates 11 Heat at Long Range, 12 total,plus movement, but carries 16 Heat Sinks. This version generates 12 Heat at range, plus movement, so I'll keep 13 Heat Sinks. 3 more tons saved.
4) Max armour at 90 tons is 279, so in order to justify 95 tons, I need at least 280. I maxed out armour at 288 (18 tons), which means 3 tons spent, 6 remaining.
5) Put those tons to work, giving consideration to the 'Mech's expected use. The Banshee is still under-powered for its weight, so it should be making use of its size and durability to push fr physical attacks, Close-range weapon time. Machine guns (because every 'Mech needs anti-infantry capability) with 1/2 ton ammo, a second Small Laser, then some real punch with 3 Medium Lasers, and a Flamer for general mischief. Flamer can of course be traded for a 4th Medium Laser, pushing the heat curve a bit, but not too much.
Long-range capability is still light for 95 tons, but only a few "specialist" 'Mechs from the era can sustain that level of damage. Short-range damage is significant now, giving the Banshee some real bite to supplement its Physical attacks. Still not what I'd consider "good", but it makes a lot more sense than the original.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Edited by KamikazeJohnson (07/25/15 01:46 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/25/15 10:12 PM
172.56.31.46
|
I would just slow the thing down and increases the fire power.
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!!!
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/26/15 02:51 AM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
I would just slow the thing down and increases the fire power.
1) I 100% agree with you...'Mechs bigger than 80 tons should not move faster than 3/5 using 3025 tech.
2) This design was an exercise in justifying the antithesis of (1). If you want a 'Mech that moves 4/6, and you want that 'Mech to be bigger than 80 tons, you'd better build that design around the unique advantages of an Assault 'Mech, or else you're just wasting money.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/26/15 03:02 AM
71.170.162.49
|
I dont know about 80 tons but unless its a niche mech I would agree more as the bigger it gets.
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!!!
|
ghostrider
07/26/15 03:22 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Actually, swamp the lrm for an srm 6 pack, and the 2 small lasers for an ml, and this is a larger battlemaster without the 2 rear firing mls.
The lrms give it a little more punch at long range them the master, though the 5 missing heat sinks does create a bit of an issue of overheating.
The flamer and 3.5 tons of armor almost gives you the 5 sinks. It is short by .5 tons, and no rear lasers, which should tell you just how little the extra weight seems to actually make in the heavier designs.
And going back to the engine size verse weight issue, the larger engines look like they weight so much to avoid the assault mechs from being the superior machines they should be.
300 engine is 19 tons. the 400 is 52.5.
Since the 100 is 3 tons, and the 200 is 8.5 tons, the increasing by about double would give the assaults the punch they should have instead of being a an overwieght medium mech.
Though this version is definitely better then the ac 5 one.
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/26/15 09:49 PM
24.114.22.9
|
The exponential Engine Tonnage curve guarantees diminishing returns on speed as the 'Mech gets larger. 80 tons is the "sweet spot" for 4/6 movement...the point where you no longer gain available tonnage by increasing the size of the 'Mech. 85 tons gives you the same available tonnage as 75 tons...you gain a bit of damage on Physical attacks, as well as increased durability with a bit more Internal Structure...at a significant C-Bill cost.
Being something of a min-maxer at heart, I don't like designing anything over that "best" tonnage at 4/6 movement.
The difference between 80 a d 85 tons is minimal--0.5 tons I believe--so the increase in physical damage and max armour can be worth it, but you you lose a lot more as you increase to 90 a d 95 tons...really a bad idea to make them go that fast.
This Banshee is simply what I'd do if I was forced to use that tonnage/speed combo. The Cyclops may be beyond saving though...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Headhunter
11/03/16 07:31 AM
24.178.174.73
|
Ah now, here I have played before... My own solution was one mentioned, a Battlemasteresque redesign... simply swapping the AC/5 and ammo for an SRM6 and one ton of ammo and 4 medium lasers. I think I replaced the small laser with more armor and used the last ton for an extra heat sink. Then I gave it a club and let it play with smaller mechs in city fights. Still not something I'd buy, but if you capture a BNC-3E in 3025 era, it at least lets you get some decent use out of it.
|