Karagin
07/10/13 09:03 PM
72.178.85.122
|
Code:
BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Dragon HAAAV
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3060
Config: Tracked Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Standard design
Mass: 75 tons
Power Plant: 225 Kurenwor XL Fusion
Cruise Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Armor Type: Ulston 105 Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
5 Para-Ordance Rotary AC/2s
Manufacturer: Naysmith Machine Tools
Location: Katanga, Terra
Communications System: O/P 3000 COMSET
Targeting & Tracking System: O/P 3000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==Overview:==
The Dragon HAAAV is not a pure front line comabt unit, it is a
support/defensive unit. Mission is to take down low fly aerospace units and
conventional aircraft and VTOLs. That doesn't mean it is not an excellent fire
support platform.
Once the bridgehead on Remagin 3 was secure New Terran Republic forces began
to breakout of their postions and slowly started to push Blake forces back
into the hinterlands of Remagin 3. Fighting became very close and personal, as
ambush and hit and run attacks replaced battels of manuever and envolpe.
Seeing the need for a heavy fire suppression vehicle the NTR commanders began
to use their air defense vehicles like the Dragon to provide the high volume
of fire needed to keep Blakist on the run. NTR ground troops loved having
these vehicles around and the requests for their firepower far out paced their
numbers on the ground.
Once the fighting on Remagin 3 was finished, the NTR began to work a version
of the Dragon that was able to do both missions without losing any fire power,
currently testing is still underway.
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Dragon HAAAV
Mass: 75 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 40 pts Standard 0 7.50
Engine: 225 XL Fusion 2 5.00
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 2.50
Cruise MP: 3
Flank MP: 5
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 3.75
Crew: 5 Members 0 .00
Turret Equipment: 0 4.00
Armor Factor: 147 pts Ferro-Fibrous 2 8.20
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 8 30
Left / Right Sides: 8 30/30
Rear: 8 25
Turret: 8 32
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
5 Rotary AC/2s Turret 0 90 6 42.00
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 1 .50
Fire Control Radar Body 1 1.55
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 12 75.00
Items & Tons Left: 8 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 10,023,125 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 1,119 (old BV = 780)
Cost per BV: 8,957.22
Weapon Value: 651 / 651 (Ratio = .58 / .58)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 36; MRDmg = 25; LRDmg = 10
BattleForce2: MP: 3T, Armor/Structure: 0 / 6
Damage PB/M/L: 3/3/3, Overheat: 0
Class: GH; Point Value: 11
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
02/02/14 10:35 PM
24.243.178.124
|
And up to the top it goes...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/02/14 11:06 PM
72.214.204.166
|
At full throttle your tank here has a grand total endurance of...
...
...3 turns...
Well at least ammo explosions are a thing of the past?
|
Karagin
02/02/14 11:14 PM
24.243.178.124
|
And you forget the idea of ammo carriers like the J27s or a similar vehicle.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/02/14 11:24 PM
72.214.204.166
|
I do not forget, but too much dependency is bad on logistics and makes such carriers easy, juicy targets.
|
ghostrider
02/02/14 11:24 PM
66.27.181.51
|
too expensive. thought it would be good about doing criticals on an advancing tank battalion.
|
Karagin
02/02/14 11:25 PM
24.243.178.124
|
10 million is to much? Interesting.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/02/14 11:28 PM
72.214.204.166
|
You could drop a RAC and make it a fuel cell to make it less ludicrous.
|
Karagin
02/02/14 11:32 PM
24.243.178.124
|
I like it with the fusion engine, it has work well in about dozen fights so really no need to change it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/02/14 11:34 PM
72.214.204.166
|
Until you lose one to, say, anything, and have to pay an arm and a leg.
|
Karagin
02/02/14 11:36 PM
24.243.178.124
|
I don't see 10 million as an arm or a leg, so not to worried about losing one.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
02/02/14 11:37 PM
66.27.181.51
|
To my knowledge, (and thats old knowledge) a 75 ton mech is cheaper to purchase then the tank is.
I think an innersphere kraken would do about the same with costing less, but haven't sat down to figure it out.
|
Retry
02/02/14 11:37 PM
72.214.204.166
|
I'd rather have 2 vees with 4 of these weapons than 1 with 5
|
Karagin
02/02/14 11:47 PM
24.243.178.124
|
I would need to check that as well Ghostrider. And Retry if you want 2 with four then go that route.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/02/14 11:50 PM
72.214.204.166
|
You clearly love overpriced tanks, why not upgrade to XXL?
|
ghostrider
02/02/14 11:52 PM
66.27.181.51
|
atn loves overpriced tanks.
I keep forgetting the newer items that came out. It may not be close anymore.
|
Retry
02/02/14 11:54 PM
72.214.204.166
|
ATN loves oversized tanks.
Karagin loves overpriced tanks.
|
ghostrider
02/02/14 11:54 PM
66.27.181.51
|
if your stats are right on your firedrake, it is around 4.5 mil. I will check any other designs posted here as well.
|
Retry
02/03/14 12:07 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Wait a minute
You would not mind losing this 10 million easy target, but a 4 mill Mirage helicopter from Hell is too much for your taste?
|
Karagin
02/03/14 06:26 AM
24.243.178.124
|
I never said a 4 million VTOL was too much, I am saying that 10 million to a military for a unit is not considered a crazy amount and losing it is part of the risk of being in war.
And the price of an XXL engine is too high even for my ideas of what a military is going to risk, sometimes the cool and wow are weighed against an outrageous cost and the XXL engine is one of those things. And again if you can build the vehicle for less KEEPING the 5 RACs and the same armor and speed then please Retry show us your skills and build it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/03/14 09:51 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Your specifications are ludicrous but it should be finished by the end of today.
|
ghostrider
02/03/14 12:46 PM
66.27.181.51
|
You suggested having 2 vehicles and a fuel cell over one vehicle, retry.
Show Karagin up by making it work 
|
Retry
02/03/14 01:39 PM
72.214.204.166
|
No, I said I would rather have 2 vees, he says keep it as 1 somehow.
|
Cray
02/03/14 07:22 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Until you lose one to, say, anything, and have to pay an arm and a leg.
If it's a government vehicle, then it's not that much of a problem after 3050 (or before 2800).
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.
|
Cray
02/03/14 07:26 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
You clearly love overpriced tanks, why not upgrade to XXL?
XXLs are experimental and hard to find. After 3050 to 3060, XLs are common enough for an elite government force's tanks. A merc might avoid this, but there's no reason for a government with a budget in the quadrillions of CB to avoid a 10 million CB tank. The bottleneck for government military growth in the 31st Century is vehicle/'Mech production capacity, not individual components or budget. When you're building a limited number of regiments per year, get the best that's available and supportable.
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.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/03/14 07:34 PM
172.56.15.163
|
I can understand how mechs can be hard to come by but tanks should be easy to come by because they are not so complicated to build. If you can build civilian tracked tractors you should be able to make tanks of a sort.
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!!!
|
Retry
02/03/14 09:06 PM
67.239.109.174
|
If a government has the money to waste XL engines they may as well waste the XL engines on better designs that aren't made of tin.
At a bit more than half the cost, this design has more armor, an armored chassis and CASE II for safety, and the same everything else as he requested.
Dakkamaster RAC2 Carrier
IS experimental
95 tons
BV: 1,353
Cost: 5,332,275 C-bills
Movement: 3/5 (Tracked)
Engine: 285 Fuel Cell
Internal: 50
Armor: 224 (Ferro-Fibrous)
Internal Armor
Front 10 54
Right 10 45
Left 10 45
Rear 10 30
Turret 10 50
Weapons Loc Heat
Rotary AC/2 TU 1
Rotary AC/2 TU 1
Rotary AC/2 TU 1
Rotary AC/2 TU 1
Rotary AC/2 TU 1
Ammo Loc Shots
Rotary AC/2 Ammo BD 45
Rotary AC/2 Ammo BD 45
Equipment Loc
Armored Chassis BD
CASE II BD
|
Karagin
02/03/14 09:23 PM
24.243.178.124
|
You built it 20 tons heavier, kind of defeats the point really.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/03/14 09:37 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Those 20 tons aren't going to affect it's ability to be carried in a dropship.
Those 20 tons aren't going to cause it to sink into some random extra terrain.
Those 20 tons aren't going to limit it's terrain traversing abilities.
Those 20 tons aren't really hurting it. At all.
What is it the point that is beaten by those 20 tons?(And more importantly, if tonnage is a issue why not DOWNSIZE?!?!)
|
Karagin
02/03/14 09:38 PM
24.243.178.124
|
So where is the 75 ton version that does all of that Retry? Building a bigger version doesn't prove it's better, the challenge was for you to build the SAME vehicle at the same tonnage with all of the same weapons, armor etc...not add 20 tons of stuff to it, so can you build the same vehicle for the same tonnage etc...with your idea or not?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/03/14 09:46 PM
67.239.109.174
|
"And again if you can build the vehicle for less KEEPING the 5 RACs and the same armor and speed then please Retry show us your skills and build it."
5 RACs, check
Same armor? Improved upon. Double check.
Same speed, check.
The only difference is the weight, which is the only thing that can be changed with your strict specifications.. Unless you plan to be riding on glass I wouldn't complain about the heavier fuel cell engine.
So where is the specifications where you must keep it at 75 tons? You don't specify it, you don't get it. That's what happens when you don't be specific. Either way, weight is less relevant than cost.
Lol, really, your specifications try to do way too much on one vehicle. It's armor and lack of ammunition makes that very, very clear.
|
Karagin
02/03/14 09:53 PM
24.243.178.124
|
And actually yes 20 tons does change things, the vehicle went from a heavy one to an assault one, and thus limiting it's over all usefulness. It's not beaten by 20 tons, what you built is a 20 ton heavy version that again changes the over all role, the idea was for you to either build the same 75 ton vehicle or something better, instead you have chose to go heavier and build something that would not be used with main line forces and would be found stuck around drop ships defending those vs moving with the main line of battle forward to keep some level of Triple A coverage over them as well as provide ground suppression fire if needed, which as the fluff of the vehicle stated it was built to do.
So not sure what you proved with your 95 ton tank but I don't think you proved it's better or more effective then the Dragon HAAAV at its' 75 ton range.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/03/14 09:57 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Tell me three reasons why the abstract class rating increase makes it any less useful.
Tell me how the hell a vehicle's role is changed by 20 tons despite the fact that the armament and speed remains the same. The only thing that changes is armor, and price, and half the price and twice the cost.
There is no reason this cheaper and better armored vehicle would fail to make it to the front lines than your more expensive deathtrap.
|
Karagin
02/03/14 10:02 PM
24.243.178.124
|
I gave my reason, you have your opinions and have offered nothing to show that your ideas improve the vehicle in any form or shape. I am sorry you don't like the vehicle and feel it's is a death trap etc...I find your ideas of improvements not offer much beyond a larger, thus harder to transport vehicle that loses it's cost gain by cutting into the fuel margins of dropships. Again I would like to see your idea of the vehicle built to spec using your ideas at the 75 ton range, or is that not possible?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
02/03/14 10:06 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Saying my vehicle is too obese is hardly a reason, it's closer to a bias.
The 20 tons increase will be neglible for any sort of drophship. It just won't cut in much at all significantly.
And if you don't want to "cut into fuel margins of dropships", you lose the stupidly huge specs and make the damn thing smaller.
Improved the vehicle? How about 50% extra armor tonnage and half the cost?
Once again, the only way it can be "improved" with your awful and strict specs is by a tonnage increase or an addition of an XXL engine. I went with the former. Regardless, it is the same vehicle, just much cheaper.
|
ghostrider
02/03/14 10:39 PM
66.27.181.51
|
A point about lighter tanks. Not all bridges built can support heavier vehicles. Canon supplementals have actually limited some to make sure the heavy units could not advance past a certain point. It is actually a good thing. Nothing over x tons means the area can not be used to support an invasion. Limits the fights to a more prepared position.
I think we were expecting the lighter version with 4 racs instead of one with 5 and a fuel cell. Though at half the price, it appears it would have more buyers. A lighter weight might make it more appealing. The heavier armor looks to be what drove up the wieght.
Though I will say this. Retry stated he would rather have 2 vehicles. For the price he almost can.
|
Retry
02/03/14 11:02 PM
67.239.109.174
|
It's the weapon overload that is standard on weapon carriers. Based on his ludricous design specifications I just could not fit a fuel cell without sizing it up or losing the armor entirely. But doing so still makes the design cost a lot less.
I can make it much smaller by using only two or three RACs, but he just won't budge. It's really a stupid design decision on his part.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/04/14 12:36 AM
172.56.15.163
|
Retry your tank is way over weight. I came up with 102.75 tons
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!!!
|
Retry
02/04/14 12:41 AM
67.239.109.174
|
That's not what I calculated at all.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/04/14 12:41 AM
172.56.15.163
|
Oops I forgot the turret. make that 106.75 tons
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!!!
|
Retry
02/04/14 12:44 AM
67.239.109.174
|
By any chance are you adding any penalties for additional shielding like vehicle fusion engines? Those don't exist on FCEs.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/04/14 12:47 AM
172.56.15.163
|
Fuel cell counts as an ICE aka is the double the weight of a standard fusion engine
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!!!
|
Retry
02/04/14 12:48 AM
67.239.109.174
|
The program I use shows the vee only 5 tons overweight with a SFE, and 13 tons overweight with an ICE, and I am using neither. With all due respect, what are you talking about?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/04/14 12:54 AM
172.56.15.163
|
What the heck is a SFE?
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!!!
|
Retry
02/04/14 12:56 AM
67.239.109.174
|
Standard Fusion Engine. I at first thought you figured I was using a SFE and not a FCE. But it's even more than that far off.
|