neven
04/19/04 07:27 PM
152.163.253.5
|
technically, and through fact, the leviathan class heavy batleship is a ship to scare the crap outta ya. and there is no other ship that can even match up to the leviathan, as it carries Armament:
50 ER Large Laser
40 ER Medium Laser
10 ER PPC
20 Large Pulse Laser
40 Medium Pulse Laser
30 Anti-Missile System
16 Gauss Rifle
12 LRM-20 w/Artemis IV FCS
18 Streak SRM-6
80 ATM-12
10 NAC/30
108 NL/55
28 Medium NPPC
4 Medium NGauss
2 Heavy NGauss
6 AR-10 missile launcher
210 tons AMS ammo
150 tons Gauss Rifle ammo
1400 tons ATM ammo
200 tons LRM-20 ammo
84 tons SRM-6 ammo
1000 rounds NAC/30 ammo (800 tons)
400 rounds Medium NGauss ammo (160 tons)
200 rounds Heavy NGauss ammo (100 tons)
175 Killer Whale missiles (8750 tons)
350 White Shark missiles (14000 tons)
700 Barracuda missiles (21000 tons)
now, isnt that enough to convince ya, if not, here is the supplementary info\
Dropship Capacity: 8
Grav Deck: 8 (6 95- and 2 185-meter diameter)
Escape Pods: 150
Life Boats: 150
Crew: 1,995 (195 officers, 764 crew, 211 Gunners, 225 Elemental marines, 600 Bay personnel)
Notes: Equipped with HPG and Lithium-Fusion battery system.
Introduced:3055
Mass: 2,400,000
Length: 1,623 meters
i got this stuff from chaosmarch, but i memorized it, (i still think it is easier copying than typing all of this.
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Cray
04/19/04 08:23 PM
68.200.111.17
|
Oh, the Leviathan 2.
Yes, it's potent for a canon design, but you left off the critical fighter listing (its real strength), and the design is a poor one - far too many types of weapons with overlapping roles, and many inefficient weapon selections, like the NGRs and NLs.
It's not hard for a player to top it.
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.
|
neven
04/22/04 02:44 AM
205.188.116.210
|
hmm, still, its devastating being pounded by 108 n/l 55, it can shred a cameron, or a mckenna class easily.
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Cray
04/22/04 06:22 AM
68.200.111.17
|
Quote:
hmm, still, its devastating being pounded by 108 n/l 55, it can shred a cameron, or a mckenna class easily.
That's not saying much - most canon ships are eggshells, sometimes eggshells armed with hammers. 
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.
|
neven
04/22/04 11:46 AM
142.22.48.13
|
possibly, sacrificing armour for weapons, but the leviathan is very heavily armoured, so are the camerons and mckennas.
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Cray
04/22/04 03:29 PM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
possibly, sacrificing armour for weapons, but the leviathan is very heavily armoured, so are the camerons and mckennas.
I wasn't talking about sacrificing any armor, I was talking about the existing, canon Cameron and McKenna. Only a few of the most recent designs (Mjolnir, Avalon, and Leviathan 2) can actually survive more than one turn of combat against a well-armed design (like the Aegis, McKenna, etc.)
The Cameron's thickest armor is its side armor, which is a piddly 128 capital scale point. 1280 mech-scale points of armor sounds like a lot until you remember warships typically carry weapon bays loaded to do up to 70 capital/700 standard points of damage. Which means a Cameron facing off with an Aegis dies on the second hit in one location from an Aegis's NAC/35 bays (and the Aegis has a lot of NAC/35s); a McKenna only needs to hit the Cameron 3 times on the side with its plentiful HNPPC bays to kill it.
In other words, the Cameron can easily be killed in one turn by another warship.
The McKenna is slightly better, but it's still a one turn-kill for a well-armed warship like the Leviathan 2, Black Lion, Aegis, or another McKenna. 200-250 points of armor just isn't a lot of protection against ships armed with stuffed with a bunch of 60- and 70-point weapon bays.
This is why I said most canon warships are eggshells with hammers (some lack hammers, too). I was talking about canon designs, not stripped down modifications.
You can confirm this by looking at the disparity in armor (typically under 250 capital points) versus weapon output on canon warship designs.
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.
|
Bansee
06/22/04 05:43 PM
64.12.116.210
|
Where are the stats for the Lev 2 listed. I have TRO:3067 and it lists the transport version but not the balls-out Battleship version.
Now as for the question; I will always have a lave in my heart for the McKenna. It may not have the massive anti-fighter capabilities of the Lev but its capital weapons are better chosen. For the same weight all those piddly NL's you could have HNPPCs for less heat and very simmilar damage.
As for non-cannon designs my freinds and I dreamed up a 2.5 million tonner that could destroy everything on a standard mapsheet (unless it could take being punched in he back for 300 dammage). Since shipyards were too smal for it, we said it was build in a hollowed-out asteroid, a very big asteroid; it sounded cool and all, but we were rather drunk.
Edited by Bansee (06/22/04 05:44 PM)
|
Wraith
06/28/04 07:26 PM
129.101.55.124
|
I thought NL 45 and 55 were about the most efficient naval weapons (damage per ton-wise)? I don't have any of my sheets in front of me, but with BS rules I thought they knocked the socks off of NPPCs and NACs, and at Extreme range to boot.
-Wraith
|
Cray
06/29/04 06:10 AM
68.200.111.219
|
Quote:
I thought NL 45 and 55 were about the most efficient naval weapons (damage per ton-wise)? I don't have any of my sheets in front of me, but with BS rules I thought they knocked the socks off of NPPCs and NACs, and at Extreme range to boot.
NL35: 700 tons, 35 standard damage, 20 tons/point, long range
NL45: 900 tons, 45pts, 20 tons/point, extreme
NL55: 1100 tons, 55pts, 20 tons/point, extreme
LNPPC: 1400 tons, 70pts, 20 tons/point, long
MNPPC: 1800 tons, 90pts, 20 tons/point, extreme
HNPPC: 3000 tons, 150pts, 20 tons/point, extreme
NAC/10: 2000 tons, 100pts, 20 tons/point, long
NAC/20: 2500 tons, 200pts, 12.5 tons/point, long
NAC/30: 3500 tons, 300pts, 11.67 tons/point, long
NAC/40: 4500 tons, 400pts, 11.25 tons/point, long
AR10+1 Killer Whale: 300tons, 40pts, 7.5 tons/point, extreme
AR10+10 Killer Whales: 750tons, 400pts, 1.875 tons/point, extreme
LNGR: 4500 tons, 150pts, 30 tons/point, extreme
MNGR: 5500 tons, 250pts, 22 tons/point, extreme
HNGR: 7000 tons, 300pts, 23.33 tons/point, extreme
The weapons have not changed in damage or tonnage since Battlespace. Not counting capital missiles, NACs retain significant damage-per-ton advantages over other capital weapons. This is amplified by their lower fire control tonnages. By having fewer weapons per point of damage than the other weapons, you get to fit in even more NAC lovin' on a warship because less tons are spent on fire control.
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.
|
Wraith
06/29/04 06:34 PM
129.101.55.124
|
hrm, thanks for clearing that up. I ran another spreadsheet, and even with HS and ammo the NACs are still significantly better (takes 3000+ shots per gun for NL and NPPCs to win out). Wonder why I've been misguided all these years... LOL
-Wraith
|
Cray
06/29/04 08:25 PM
68.200.111.219
|
Oops, the NAC/40 range should be medium, not long.
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.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 88 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: 7522
|
|
|
|
|
|
|