Achzarit

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
ghostrider
04/19/16 02:01 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One spot says 3 tons equals 4 infantry squads.
The overwhelming majority says 1 squad equals 1 ton.
Now for this being hard to understand, it would suggest a typo in the spot where it claims 3 tons is for 4 infantry squads.
There is no where it says an infantry squad takes up 3/4 ton. With all the past statements made, the letter of the rules is all.

So until it is PRINTED in the rules an infantry squad weighs .75 tons, the math for a platoon is wrong.

I dislike fractional accounting, but it is part of the game. With this new infantry weight, that means any unit that uses it is still considered canon.

I will agree the 3060 tro supports the garbage of an foot infantry platoon weighing 3 tons as the heavy infantry apc carriers 2 and has the weight set for 6 tons.
Akalabeth
04/19/16 05:17 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

So until it is PRINTED in the rules an infantry squad weighs .75 tons, the math for a platoon is wrong.



Tech Manual has infantry construction rules. If you had that book, you could create a 7-man team and see how much it weighs. I'm not going to do it for you.
Karagin
04/19/16 06:00 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So since we do not have a single source that tells us what it is, I am leaving the bay at 5 tons. Allows for the user to outfit their infantry as they want. Wait simple and easy way around what is not an issue.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/19/16 06:39 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There are multiple sources that tell you what it is if you actually owned them or cared to seek them out.

Anyway if you want to make a design that doesn't fit the canon that's cool, pretty common place on these boards.
Karagin
04/19/16 08:54 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It fits the canon well enough and it is useful enough. And did actually look through those I have on PDF and I can not find a solid ruling, so again I am happy with the infantry bay as it is since again it allows for those pesky things like spare parts and extra items the infantry may need like ammo etc...things that are so easily over looked by the rules.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/19/16 02:22 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
How much tonnage infantry requires is determined by the weight of the unit, which itself is dictated by the infantry construction rules. There's not going to be any rules that say X platoon-type weighs Y tons.

The only infantry which weighs 5 tons in 3085 for example are under-strengthed, specialized motorized platoons of firefighters & engineers. Units which technically already have their own vehicles which provide 3 and 2 MP respectively.

From what I can tell though you don't have any 5-ton unit in mind to work with the vehicle. Though the engineers might make sense as the bulldozer blades seem to make it more of an engineering vehicle than an APC given that the blades would only really benefit other units.
CrayModerator
04/19/16 05:27 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

So how much does battlearmor weigh again?



For transport purposes, battle armor's weight is handled in the mass of the BA bay regardless of individual armors' weights.

For construction purposes (see Tech Manual and preceding BA rule sets), BA can range from about 100kg (?) for a PA(L) to 2 tons for an assault-class battle armor.
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
04/19/16 05:31 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So the 5 ton bay works for the Clan type BattleArmor, which works well enough for most folks to use my design so there is no issue here. Moving on.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/19/16 05:45 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Tech Manual has infantry construction rules. If you had that book, you could create a 7-man team and see how much it weighs. I'm not going to do it for you.
How much tonnage infantry requires is determined by the weight of the unit, which itself is dictated by the infantry construction rules. There's not going to be any rules that say X platoon-type weighs Y tons.

So we are being told to waste our time looking up rules that aren't there.
Is this not contradictory information from the same source?

And explain why the Kestrel vtol, a canon unit, has 3.5 ton infantry bay, as it fits the dragons LRRP unit, but nothing else?
With the statement the unit made determines the weight sounds like something that should tell the reader saying a specific weight for infantry is set.

I know under the thread this started from, it was suggested engineers would use a vehicle like that.
As fractional accounting has been used in canon sources, they should have used the foot squads weight instead of rounding to the next half ton.
Akalabeth
04/19/16 05:46 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Aren't these your words mate?

Quote:
BUT when you share your ideas in a public setting, you should be adult enough to take the comments good or bad and go from there.



Two different people tell you that body-mounted weapons are illegal and you get hostile with them. "Show me the rule"

I tell you the cargo bay doesn't make sense for an inner sphere design and you declare it's a non-issue. "Show me the rule"

You're not taking comments, just looking for any excuse to dismiss them.
ghostrider
04/19/16 06:00 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Could you explain how you got hostile from the statement of Show me a rule in a rule book and I will change it.
It is a simple request for information. If you took it as hostile, then that is the issue.
There is no foul language or anything that threatens others. It is a simple statement and what do you know. He changed it when it was shown to him.

In another thread you questioned if someone could trust information given to them yet suggest people trust information without the source. A simple answer of tech manual page 107 would have sufficed. Adding in the rest of the unneeded argument provoking things just causes more issues.

I will say thank you for posting the rule so we can see for ourselves what is there.
Karagin
04/19/16 08:32 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I asked for the rule, because you are nit picking the design just because you are upset that not many are taking your rules lawyering as a good thing, you are also nit picking the design because you have had your ego bruised, and my asking for a source is making sure your's and a few other's are actual truthful not personal comments on the items, since anyone of us can say hey nope this is not by the rules, because of how each player plays the game with in their own group and home rules or interpretations always work their way in.

So again besides your hatred of the infantry bay are you going to add anything that is actually worth while to the discussion or not?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
04/19/16 08:34 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You know what I don't care anymore, since I am the number one heritic around here let me say this hey Moderators how about enforcing the rules here, since so far it still seems I am the sole target of the enforcement and folks like Alakbeth and Retry and others can bend and break them with impunity, so please do your jobs.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/20/16 09:15 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I commented on every aspect of the vehicle.

I said it's too slow to be an APC
Has a cargo bay which doesn't conform to standard inner sphere infantry weights
Too heavily armoured given its role and armament. It's armed to fight infantry or support indirectly but armoured to fight mechs & vehicles head-on.
And it has a dozer blade for no discernable reason since it doesn't enhance its role as APC, isn't useful for combating infantry, and the vehicle isn't fast enough to clear the way for most wheeled vehicles which are as fast or faster.

That's not nitpicking, that's a comprehensive analysis on all aspects of the design.

It might however help if your designs had any sort of description so commentators could judge whether the design fit the intended role or not. If for example you provided a 5-ton infantry group that this vehicle is intended to transport it would eliminate any criticism on that front. Or if you're saying it helps clear the way for the slower Typhoon.

That said if you don't find my input useful I'll withhold it in future for your peace of mind. There are after all dozens of your designs on the front page on which I've provided no feedback at all.



And by the way I've gotten at least 2-3 messages from Cray regarding my conduct in some discussions so to say you're being singled out by moderators is completely false. Cray I think is doing a pretty good job so I would cut him some slack personally, not to mention the fact he's taking the time to answer dozens of user questions in detail.
Retry
04/20/16 11:46 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I (correctly) observe that the Mech Mortar is mounted in a weird place and later get a special mention for "bending and breaking rules".

You'll probably get better feedback in the future if you stop playing the victim card so frequently.

--------------------

I've seen some pretty heavily armed infantry and battle-armor, customs and canon. Even 400kg exoskeletons can carry one AP Gauss Rifle, assault suits can carry medium lasers or a boat-load of LRMs/SRMs. If it's intended to operate in areas where top-of-the-line infantry units exist, the armor protection is about right.
ghostrider
04/21/16 12:22 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is there some place where it is said an apc must weigh so much, have only so much armor, and move at a certain speed?
How about any other unit in the game?
I know light, medium, heavy, and assault categories have weight limits for each, but don't remember seeing where it said they had any specifications to what they could use or how fast they can move, other the engine/weight restrictions.

Besides myself, not many have said anything about being warned, and since the admins can not say if they spoke to others, it is difficult to see if a person was spoken to. Only in the way they deal with things does it even hint something was said.

Now back to the unit.
Is it efficient? No.
Would you be likely to use it given other choices? I don't think so.
Is it different from the cookie cutter units? Yes.
Would soldiers ride in it instead of walking? Yes.

I do agree intended role does help determine what would be a better option, but the storyline behind the game is you use what is there, even if it was not meant for that role.

It is weird to hear a unit is over armored. Don't know why, it just sounds weird.
As to help this along, what would you suggest to do with less weight in the armor?
Larger engine? More weapons?
Karagin
04/21/16 05:38 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The topic here is the Achzarit, I made the correct about the motar, the infantry bay fits what I wanted for the vehicle, now for those who feel it doesn't work for them, adjust it as needed. As for the speed, it's NOT a hover craft, so it's going to be slow.

As for the further comments and baiting attempts by Retry etc...you made your points and have derailed yet another topic, congrats, so let's go back to the topic at hand which is the Achzarit.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.


Edited by Karagin (04/21/16 05:58 AM)
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 203 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 20053


Contact Admins Sarna.net