Achzarit

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Karagin
04/12/16 10:28 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Code:
           BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
* CUSTOM WEAPONS

Type/Model: Achzarit
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3060
Config: Tracked Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Standard design

Mass: 45 tons
Power Plant: 180 Medessa MkIV I.C.E.
Cruise Speed: 43.2 km/h
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h
Armor Type: Dura Weave Lt Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
1 LeSalle Grenadier Grenade Launcher
1 DMI MM Mk1 'Mech Mortar/1
4 DMI Sure Shot Magshots*
Manufacturer: Dyan Military Industries
Location: Dyan
Communications System: Datacom 60
Targeting & Tracking System: Meiji Multispec TargetTrack

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Achzarit
Mass: 45 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting

Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 20 pts Standard 0 4.50
Engine: 180 I.C.E. 0 14.00
Cruise MP: 4
Flank MP: 6
Heat Sinks: 0 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 2.25
Crew: 3 Members 0 .00
Armor Factor: 182 pts Lt Ferro-Fibrous 1 10.73

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 5 50
Left / Right Sides: 5 44/44
Rear: 5 44

Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Grenade Launcher Front 0 1 .50
1 'Mech Mortar/1 Body 0 24 2 3.00
2 Magshots* Front 0 50 3 2.00
1 Magshot* Left 0 1 .50
1 Magshot* Right 0 1 .50
1 Bulldozer Front 1 2.00
Infantry Bay Body 1 5.00
Tank telephone Body 1 .02
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 12 45.00
Items & Tons Left: 2 .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 689,403 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 658 (old BV = 292)
Cost per BV: 1,047.72
Weapon Value: 196 / 196 (Ratio = .30 / .30)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 7; MRDmg = 2; LRDmg = 0
BattleForce2: MP: 4T, Armor/Structure: 0 / 7
Damage PB/M/L: 1/1/-, Overheat: 0
Class: GM; Point Value: 7
Specials: tran5, eng
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Drasnighta
04/12/16 10:56 AM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Gesundheit.

CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
Retry
04/14/16 08:50 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't believe 'Mech Mortars can be body-mounted.
Karagin
04/15/16 05:09 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Retry show me the rule and I will change it.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CarcerKango
04/15/16 07:57 AM
73.4.87.73

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't think any weapons can be body mounted as they have no arc of fire that way, sorry.
Karagin
04/15/16 08:02 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Show me a rule in a rule book and I will change it.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CarcerKango
04/15/16 07:19 PM
73.4.87.73

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't know, I just know that none of the design programs allow it. And what arc of fire would it have if it was body-mounted?
Karagin
04/15/16 11:43 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Actually the Official Vehicle Design Program for Battletech called Heavy Metal Vee does allow, and the arc of fire would be up and then over to land somewhere around the vehicle.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Shadrak
04/16/16 09:55 AM
70.199.5.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What is a tank telephone?
ghostrider
04/16/16 11:20 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It is a car phone that the crew used to contact their deities when they get ordered to hold the line so the commanders can run from the battle?

I wondered about the tank telephone myself, but didn't want to be the one to ask.
Best real guess, just miscellaneous things to show cargo space.

Though a retrofit of the 70's cell phone found in a museum might also work.
Retry
04/16/16 12:38 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Actually the Official Vehicle Design Program for Battletech called Heavy Metal Vee does allow, and the arc of fire would be up and then over to land somewhere around the vehicle.



That's nice.

Now show the rule that weapons mounted in the body "firing arc" behaves in any way resembling what you claim.
Akalabeth
04/16/16 04:32 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Retry show me the rule and I will change it.



Howabout trusting someone at face value and looking up the rule yourself instead of asking them to do the work for you?

Tech Manual page 107
Items mounted in the vehicle's
"Body" - indicating a central position on the unit - may not
have a firing arc at all; only items that are not weapons (such
as ammunition and sensors) may be placed in this area.
Karagin
04/16/16 10:22 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well Akalabeth since many around here claim the rules don't allow something all the time asking them to prove it is a nicer way of saying other things that come to mind. And I don't trust anything on the Internet, since wait it's an open source of information that anyone can post what they want and people will believe it.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
04/16/16 10:25 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Shadrak writes:

What is a tank telephone?



Tank Phone is a field telephone that is found in a box mounted at the rear of older tanks, and it allows infantry and others to talk to the tank commander and give him more information about what is around them as well as allow the infantry commander the chance to direct the tank to support the infantry. A good example of this is shown in the movie FULL METAL JACKET.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
04/16/16 10:32 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Code:
          BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
* CUSTOM WEAPONS

Type/Model: Achzarit
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3060
Config: Tracked Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Standard design

Mass: 45 tons
Power Plant: 180 Medessa MkIV I.C.E.
Cruise Speed: 43.2 km/h
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h
Armor Type: Dura Weave Lt Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
1 LeSalle Grenadier Grenade Launcher
1 DMI MM Mk1 'Mech Mortar/1
4 DMI Sure Shot Magshots*
Manufacturer: Dyan Military Industries
Location: Dyan
Communications System: Datacom 60
Targeting & Tracking System: Meiji Multispec TargetTrack

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Achzarit
Mass: 45 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting

Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 20 pts Standard 0 4.50
Engine: 180 I.C.E. 0 14.00
Cruise MP: 4
Flank MP: 6
Heat Sinks: 0 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 2.25
Crew: 3 Members 0 .00
Armor Factor: 182 pts Lt Ferro-Fibrous 1 10.73

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 5 50
Left / Right Sides: 5 44/44
Rear: 5 44

Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Grenade Launcher Front 0 1 .50
1 'Mech Mortar/1 Front 0 24 2 3.00
2 Magshots* Front 0 50 3 2.00
1 Magshot* Left 0 1 .50
1 Magshot* Right 0 1 .50
1 Bulldozer Front 1 2.00
Infantry Bay Body 1 5.00
Tank telephone Body 1 .02
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 12 45.00
Items & Tons Left: 2 .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 689,403 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 658 (old BV = 292)
Cost per BV: 1,047.72
Weapon Value: 196 / 196 (Ratio = .30 / .30)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 7; MRDmg = 2; LRDmg = 0
BattleForce2: MP: 4T, Armor/Structure: 0 / 7
Damage PB/M/L: 1/1/-, Overheat: 0
Class: GM; Point Value: 7
Specials: tran5, eng
[\code]
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
04/16/16 10:33 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

That's nice.

Now show the rule that weapons mounted in the body "firing arc" behaves in any way resembling what you claim.



Are you offering anything to the topic or just trying to start a fight? Hard to tell with comments like that.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
04/17/16 01:32 AM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Are you offering anything to the topic or just trying to start a fight? Hard to tell with comments like that.



You demanded a source for weapons not being able to be body mounted, I demanded a source for the claim that it can be body mounted and for some reason have a firing arc of anywhere because "HMP didn't call it illegal".

Akalabeth then did us both a favor and posted the actual rules. You corrected it shortly after.
ghostrider
04/17/16 01:47 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As suggested in another thread, the issue of programs not having everything 100% correct should be moved into it own thread.
And as a friendly reminder, the very topic was a bad slope to play on.
The difference might be the official backing, though it may have been something they didn't test completely. Log it to the programmer and leave it. If it comes up again in the next upgrade, then there is an issue.

And as it was said Karagin would change it when shown the proper information, he did.
Hopefully, this ends the program issue.

Now for some reason, I would think the infantry would have comms sets to be in contact with the tank crews, but then they can't hit anything worth a crap beyond a good throwing range, so what do I know.
100 yards is about 91.5 meters.
So a quarter back can throw a grenade about as far as mgs on units are accurate. Go figure.
Akalabeth
04/17/16 01:53 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Well Akalabeth since many around here claim the rules don't allow something all the time asking them to prove it is a nicer way of saying other things that come to mind. And I don't trust anything on the Internet, since wait it's an open source of information that anyone can post what they want and people will believe it.



Asking someone to prove it is not a nicer way of saying anything. It's just confrontational.
A nicer way would be to investigate the claim yourself, and if failing to find anything, request that someone direct you to the relevant source.
Karagin
04/17/16 03:11 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It would also be amazing if folks would just comment vs finding faults, but that's not going to happen given the current ego issues many seem to have.

So moving this back on topic, if you have comments about the tank, please post them, save all the other crap for PMs.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
04/17/16 06:21 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Shadrak writes:

What is a tank telephone?



Historically, infantry and tanks work closely together. Infantry will huddle up behind the mobile fortress while covering its blind spots, especially in urban situations whether the sum of infantry and tank is much greater than its individual parts. To communicate easily with a buttoned-up tank, armies stick telephones on their butts.

Telephone:
http://www.xenophon-mil.org/milhist/marinemuseum/p1030400s.htm
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/738/21116704365_897c4795ab_o.jpg

Infantry close to tanks:
http://media.dma.mil/2013/Jun/26/2000027233/600/400/0/130620-M-XZ121-299.JPG
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesick-cyborg/files/2014/10/ww2-Sherman-troops.jpg
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.
Akalabeth
04/18/16 02:06 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well the tank seems too slow as a battlearmour carrier given the mobility that many battle armour have and why does it have a 5-ton bay rather than a 4-ton bay? Or if it's not a battle armour carrier, what sort of formation is it carrying? Two foot platoons is 6 tons not 5, and most other infantry types pose the same mobility problem that makes it ill-suited to carry BA.

It also seems over-armoured given its role as an IFV / support vehicle.
ghostrider
04/18/16 03:02 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Something the game does not deal with is fatigue of units. So most don't bother thinking about it.
Even with the battle armors movement, the troops still has to do the actual walking which may be a mile, 10 miles or across have the world. I would assume even elementals would like a break once in a while, especially if they are going to a battle. Instead of being tired, they rested in the transport. is it as efficient as say a hover or vtol? Probably not.

Another reason for a large by might be extra equipment or maybe specialist going with the unit. Again, the game does not really deal with this. Even extra ammo to reload in the field can fill the extra space.

And just because the game runs certain sized units, does not mean people don't have their own units with more/less people. Not easy to deal with, but it does happen.

Then again, it may be something to be different with. Karagin was one to say not all units should be min/maxed.

Now the over armored thing might be good if they need to deploy in a city. Give the troops some change to survive long enough to get out of the unit.
Karagin
04/18/16 06:00 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So how much does battlearmor weigh again? Normal suit is 1 ton...so let's 5 elementals would be 5 tons. Now since I am not on my computer at the moment, silly POS Korean smart phone, could you tell me Akalabeth which book stats clearly for once, how much infantry weighs to be carried in vehicles, since over the years we have seen some amazing numbers and very odd ball takes on this even from canon designs and sources. SO your math is 14 guys are going to weigh 6 tons, now is this 14 troopers with gear and rifles and their support weapons? Is this 14 guys with nothing but weapons? Is this a heavy platoon?

Over armored, how so? Given that it has to make it through a hell storm of PPCs, ACs, RACs, Missiles, Lasers and Gauss fire among other things, just to do it's job, so how is it over armored? And I am not in the habit of min/maxing which I think we have covered before, so how is it over armored to bring it's main weapon the infantry or battlearmor to the fight?

Yes it is not a hover craft, it is a IFV that can do other things, it is built to fight in cities or in rough terrain, hence the tracked part. It is not a tank, nor is it going to be used, I hope no one would think to use it as such, as one. The Magi, in case you didn't know about it, is a canon vehicle with a similar role, so the idea is not new for the game. And given that the game doesn't allow hover vehicles to have the abilities of things like dozer blades etc...yeah limits what can be used and still have something for the infantry.

So please let me know which sourcebook you used to get your infantry information and I will look it over, but I am happy with the infantry setup for this IFV, but would still be interested in seeing how you came up with your math.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/18/16 06:32 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Medium Battle armour typically weighs 1 ton.
Inner Sphere squads are 4 troopers. Hence 4 tons.
Comguard formations have 6 troopers, hence 6 tons.
You have an Inner Sphere vehicle with a 5-ton bay, which is tonnage typical of a clan formation.

For regular infantry, previous iterations of the rules have
Foot Platoons @ 3 tons (28 troops)
Jump Platoons @ 4 tons (21 troops)
Motor Platoons @ 6 tons (28 troops)

and one squad of foot infantry (7 troops) weighs 1 ton (see Goblin).

Newer rulesets have tried to maintain these tonnages and for the most part it seems to ring true. Though some heavier support weapons or squads with 2 support weapons instead of one or heavy armour may weigh more. So unless you have a 1 MP battlearmour which is more than 1 ton but less than 1.25, or some other infantry with a specific 5-ton formation, it doesn't fit a lot of canon formations. Unless this is intended to be a low-tech clan unit, but that's not stated anywhere as the vehicle has no description.


The vehicle seems over-armoured because it appears to be an urban tank not meant to face other combat vehicles. It has a token, indirect-fire weapon suggesting indirect combat and 4 glorified machine guns best against infantry and a bulldozer presumably for dealing with rubbled cities, etcetera. On the open battlefield, particularly 3055+ and later it's too slow to perform its combat role of delivering infantry. No amount of armour will save it from getting shot to pieces and any regular 3 Jump MP battlearmour would be better off outside of the vehicle from the start of the battle against everything except artillery.

Against infantry, the armour is excessive as the vehicle will be disabled or destroyed by crits well before the armour is exhausted.

For an urban battle, given the choice I'd rather take an Ignis which is superior against conventional infantry with heavy armour and the same movement profile but for less cost/tonnage. Any battle armour could simply walk alongside or ride with mag clamps if the design allows.

The Magi is poor as an IFV, but does benefit from a higher movement profile (5/8) and heavier armament suitable for supporting infantry against light vehicles, though its role can done cheaper by the Vedette Laser Variant.
ghostrider
04/18/16 08:48 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wow another hole in the game. 1 infantry squad of foot soldiers is 1 ton, yet 4 of them is 3 tons.
I've been out of school for a while, but basic math hasn't changed since then.

The master rules do support the numbers for what the infantry uses, so unless they changed it since then, akalabeth is correct. Though Karagin did asks for the sourcebook used.

The goblin as well as all the infantry carriers in the 3026 with the exception of maxim reserved 1 ton for troops, which shows the vehicles need updating in that aspect. This includes the apcs, which are supposed to carry ANY unarmored infantry.
The maxim shows 3 tons, so platoon size movement.

I do wonder where it is stated that units are supposed to mount less armor on them because they are not supposed to engage in combat?
It is not as efficient as other units, but not everything here has to be extreme efficient.

Now to add a new question to the rant.
How much space does an engineering unit use?
I can see this being used to clear a path for other to follow, or even build a barricade to trap units that can not just push thru things, or narrow down their choices of movement.
But the game does not really have much in the way of rules for things like that style of tactics.
Akalabeth
04/18/16 09:13 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
3 tons / 4 squads = .75 which is rounded up to 1 ton for the one squad since Battletech is .5 or 1 ton increments.

It's pretty obvious.
ghostrider
04/18/16 11:40 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
tell that to the fractional accounting people. Which is quite a few on the boards.
And with the 1 ton per squad, it should be 4 tons by the math. 4*1=4.
No where in anything does it say .75.
It does follow the math for the 4 squads though so another issue that needs to be clarified in the rules.

A stupid thought came to mind with this thread. Battle armor moves thru more terrain, better then this apc does. May not be as fast on roads over the long haul, but again, issues with movement in the game.
Shadrak
04/18/16 11:50 PM
98.101.165.116

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I mean in game...I hadn't seen the equipment as an option.
Akalabeth
04/19/16 01:08 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A foot platoon of 4 squads is 3 tons
A foot squad is 1 ton

3/4 = .75 rounded up to 1

4 squads at .75 each is 3 tons
But the cargo is bought in 1 ton lots so 1 ton = 1 squad.

This is not hard to understand.


Quote:
Shadrak writes:

I mean in game...I hadn't seen the equipment as an option.



I think it's made-up, similar to how in 3026 they often make up some equipment as weighing X amount of tonnage, usually some fractional left over.
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 65 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: 20055


Contact Admins Sarna.net