Century Tank T-1NT-CT

Pages: 1
Zaku
07/17/22 06:08 PM
82.40.9.192

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Century Tank T-1NT-CT

Mass: 60 tons
Movement Type: Tracked
Power Plant: 180 ICE
Cruising Speed: 32.4 kph
Maximum Speed: 54 kph
Armor: Hardened
Armament:
2 AP Gauss Rifle
1 LB 10-X AC
1 Medium Chem Laser
Manufacturer: Unknown
Primary Factory: Unknown
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3150
Tech Rating/Availability: F/X-X-X-E
Cost: 2,778,400 C-bills

Type: Century Tank
Technology Base: Clan (Experimental)
Movement Type: Tracked
Tonnage: 60
Battle Value: 976

Equipment Mass
Internal Structure 6
Engine 180 ICE 14
Cruising MP: 3
Flank MP: 5
Heat Sinks: 0 0
Control Equipment: 3.0
Power Amplifier: 0.0
Turret: 1.0
Armor Factor (Hardened) 100 12.5

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front 6 25
R/L Side 6/6 20/20
Rear 6 15
Turret 6 20


Weapons
and Ammo Location Tonnage
Trailer Hitch Rear 0.0
2 AP Gauss Rifles Sponson 1.0
Medium Chem Laser Front 1.0
LB 10-X AC Turret 10.0
Vehicular Sponson Turret Body 0.5
Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle Ammo (40) Body 1.0
Medium Chemical Laser Ammo (30) Body 1.0
CASE Body 0.0
LB 10-X AC Ammo (30) Body 3.0
Armored Motive System Body 6.0

Design Quirks
- Easy to Maintain
- Rugged (2)
- Modular Weapons

A relatively new weapon to the clan arsenal. The Century Tank was built in 3150 by Clan Wolf in preparation for the coming conflict with Clan Hell's Horses. Knowing that such a conflict would eventually set them against pitched armoured columns, the Wolves funnelled resources into a tank that could hold the enemy in place while also being low maintenance, easy to field, and easy to manufacturer. The Scientist Caste did not disappoint.

A ruggedly dependable design utilizing a easy to modify frame and one that could be mass produced, the vehicle could be kept running in almost all theatres with its ICE engine, which accepted almost all forms of combustible material as a form of fuel. Armed modestly with a LBX-10 as its primary armament, it boasted decent range and good accuracy, as well as a deep ammo well that would allow it to fire continuously for five minutes of sustained fire. With a belly mounted chemical laser and 2 AP Gauss Rifles the tank could sweep streets as it moved down it and bring its firepower into its forward arc when needed.

Alternate builds

Century Tank T-2NT-CT
The first major offshoot of the Century Tank, the 2NT was made with the intention of a heavy infantry hunter. While losing the AP Gauss Rifles on its Sponson turrets, and its LB-10X, the vehicle gained 2 Protomech AC/8 with 4 tons of ammo. This deep well was often supplemented by flechette ammo or armour piercing ammo. While not s effective as a series of machine guns, the weapons longer range helped to neutralise entrenched enemy safely from range.
Cost: 2,516,600 C-Bills
BV: 890

Century Tank T-4NT-CT
A simple field refit for the Century Tanks, which have lost their main weapon. Upping the armour on the turret to 24, increasing the armour to 13 tons, the tank replaces the LB-10X and Medium Chemical laser with 2 ER medium lasers in the turret and 1 ER small laser in the front arc. This simple rebuild removes all forms of explosive ammo and while lacks impressive range, is a small tanky design that is logistically simpler to supply.
Cost: 2,228,400 C-Bills
BV: 1000

Notes

Okay so for those who cannot tell with the weapon layout and sponson turrets the Century Tank is based on the 40K Leman Russ MBT for the Imperial guard.

Despite that the Century Tank is a durable and BV wise, cheap tank for the clans with good durability and low C-Bills cost for all the XL using tanks. Made with the intention as a good tank for clanners to take on campaign. It has deep ammo wells, excellent armour, with the hardened armour halving almost all weapon systems, while also reducing critical hits and those which do get through are often movement penalties, which are also reduced by the armoured motive system. The tank is therefore very hard to knock out, and will keep on coming.

The Design quirks are more meant to reflect the rugged durability of the Leman Russ tank and are not quirk neutral.
Karagin
07/17/22 07:06 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So how is the Sponson working on the turret, and which rule book allows that?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Zaku
07/17/22 07:10 PM
82.40.9.192

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Page 348 in Tactical Operations
Karagin
07/17/22 09:09 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Thanks. Another example of someone in the writers' and playtester pools who had NO idea what sponsors were for.

Sometimes I wonder if they put any actual effort into the add-ons when they were throwing things out from 1998 to 2014...

Also, did you base this off the Star Wars Century Tank?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
07/17/22 10:35 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Does the tank have Harjel on it?
As I don't know the situation in the 3150 era, I have to ask if the chemical laser really fits a clan vehicle? I am assuming they do not have the resources they used to after the RoTS time, so normal clan lasers would be left for mechs.

With the hardened armor, The Harjel might not be needed.

Does modular weapons do the same thing as omni tech?
Zaku
07/18/22 04:23 AM
82.40.9.192

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I based it on the Leman Russ, it just has the same name as the Century Tank because well coincidence. I called it that because Leman Russ is not set to be born for 27000 years in BT.

The tank does lack harjel, because you cannot mix harjel with any armour that is not primitive, industrial, heavy industrial, standard or ferro.

Also the clans invented chemical lasers. They were made for clan vehicles. The reason for chemical lasers is they do not require heat sinks or power amplifiers. When I put it in the vehicle the weight of the weapon and ammo weighs together is 2 tons. If I was to put a clan laser in, say a ER laser I would need to put in the laser, then 5 heat sinks (because vehicles cannot dissipate heat like mechs, they need all the maximum amount of heat sinks), and then 0.5 tons for power amplifiers. As such a ER laser would weigh 6.5 tons. So weight savings.

Also Hardened armour provides a +2 to any critical hit roll requiring a opponent to roll a 10 rather than a 8 to crit. Lessening the chance of a critical hit. Harjel doesn't reduce critical hits, it prevents flooding and the more advanced systems like Harjel II and III can fix mechs and cannot be put on vehicles. So unfortunately no Harjel would not improve the tank.

And to a degree, Modular weapons quirk essentially halves the time to swap weapons on a combat unit. Where a omni mech lessens it to a hour or half a hour I forget which, modular weapons halves the time and I think gives it a +1 to the rolls needed to do it. I think. It was essentially the forbear to omni tech - I would not make this a omni vehicle though due to costs and you cannot omni hardened armour. Though in this case its more about costs. Its meant to be a cheap tank, by clan standards.
Karagin
07/18/22 08:27 AM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think I posted my take on the Lemon Russ around here somewhere at one point.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
07/18/22 09:26 PM
104.136.113.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Thanks. Another example of someone in the writers' and playtester pools who had NO idea what sponsors were for.



The sponson turrets were intended to duplicate the sponsons of the British Mk IV tank, the Leman Russ, and battleships' wing turrets. How do TacOps' sponson turrets fail to meet your understanding of sponsons?
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.


Edited by Cray (07/18/22 09:29 PM)
CrayModerator
07/18/22 09:32 PM
104.136.113.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
I have to ask if the chemical laser really fits a clan vehicle?



Despite my strenuous arguments during the writing of TacOps, chemical lasers were introduced as advanced Clan technology. I'd suggested that they be primitive tech weapons, abandoned as energy-based lasers replaced them in the 22nd and 23rd centuries. However, there was a need to give the Clans some new toys, too.

I think in general the Clans got stiffed with their post-3050 gear. ATMs are inferior to MMLs, Streak LRMs become direct fire weapons, chemical lasers are a curiosity, heavy lasers are less effective than existing Clan pulse lasers, etc.
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
07/18/22 10:00 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Quote:
Thanks. Another example of someone in the writers' and playtester pools who had NO idea what sponsors were for.



The sponson turrets were intended to duplicate the sponsons of the British Mk IV tank, the Leman Russ, and battleships' wing turrets. How do TacOps' sponson turrets fail to meet your understanding of sponsons?



Sponson on turrets, that's what fails; those would either be secondary turrets or Remote Weapons Mounts like the CROW System in use today. But again, Cray, this game has a pintel mount for a weapon on a vehicle for a crew member to use, weighing in at what close to half a ton? All so, an AP weapon can be mounted on a coupla, which is extra weight.

If the idea of the sponsons were to be like the side-mounted weapons on the old British WW1 tanks where they had the 6 pounders and MGs, then y'all really did lose sight of that. Those were precursors to turrets. They gave the tank a way to carry big guns and MGs into the fight; then folks figured out turrets work FAR better.

The Lemon Russ is a mix of the WW1 and Inter-War tank ideas, kind of like that tank in the third Indiana Jones movie.

Sponsons should be nothing more than left or right side firing point that allows an extension of the arc of fire. And it should also be limited on what can go in it since it's like the old shot trap on the turret of a tank aka a weakness just waiting for a shell to slam into it or an ATGM to hit it.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
07/19/22 07:44 AM
136.226.19.185

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thanks. Another example of someone in the writers' and playtester pools who had NO idea what sponsors were for.



The sponson turrets were intended to duplicate the sponsons of the British Mk IV tank, the Leman Russ, and battleships' wing turrets. How do TacOps' sponson turrets fail to meet your understanding of sponsons?



Sponson on turrets



BT's sponsons are mounted on the vehicle's body, not on turrets. Notably, they're covered by the side armor of the vehicle. For examples of how BT's sponsons are body-mounted, see: Galleon Maxwell, Myrmidon (Anti-Infantry), Myrmidon (Tate), Thumper Maxwell, Challenger Mk XV, Hetzer Jagdpanzer II, Destrier,

How did you get the idea that they were turret-mounted? I'll submit an errata to fix any confusing language in TacOps.

Quote:
Sponsons should be nothing more than left or right side firing point that allows an extension of the arc of fire.



That's what they do in BT: they extend the side arcs of a vehicle. See p. 107 of TacOps for the extended side arcs.

Quote:
Cray, this game has a pintel mount for a weapon on a vehicle for a crew member to use, weighing in at what close to half a ton?



Half ton? "Pintles—available under these rules to Small-sized Rail Support Vehicles—may mount only Light and Medium weaponry. The weight of a pintle mount is equal to 5 percent of the weight of all weapons and equipment mounted within it (rounded to the nearest kilogram)."

There are examples of 1- to 2-kilogram pintles in TacOps.


Edited by Cray (07/19/22 08:03 AM)
Karagin
07/19/22 09:17 AM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:


How did you get the idea that they were turret-mounted? I'll submit an errata to fix any confusing language in TacOps.




Vehicular Sponson Turret Body 0.5

That is right for the write-up on this vehicle, again why I have asked for a standard FORMAT for things.



Quote:
Cray, this game has a pintel mount for a weapon on a vehicle for a crew member to use, weighing in at what close to half a ton?



Half ton? "Pintles—available under these rules to Small-sized Rail Support Vehicles—may mount only Light and Medium weaponry. The weight of a pintle mount is equal to 5 percent of the weight of all weapons and equipment mounted within it (rounded to the nearest kilogram)."

There are examples of 1- to 2-kilogram pintles in TacOps.



They should not be weighing that much, clearly which every one of you at the time of the writing of the core rule books never had to use a pintle mount. It weighs at the most 6 pounds, and the only part fixed to the vehicle is the tube that the pintle mount fits into since the actual mount detaches along with the machine gun. It is as if you guys threw numbers at everything to justify having them on vehicles or in the rules.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
07/19/22 03:44 PM
136.226.19.185

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
It is as if you guys threw numbers at everything to justify having them on vehicles or in the rules.



It's a matter of addressing different questions that players have asked over the years. Pintle weights are particularly important because they're used on small support vehicles where every kilogram is measured.

Much as you said below, BattleTech's pintles are only a few kilograms because they're limited to light and medium weapons. Most pintles would be under 2kg / 4 pounds because most medium weapons are under 40kg. The heaviest pintle mount would probably be for the support particle cannon, an 1800kg / 4000lb weapon, which would have a 90kg pintle.

Quote:
It weighs at the most 6 pounds, and the only part fixed to the vehicle is the tube that the pintle mount fits into since the actual mount detaches along with the machine gun.



Historically and in BattleTech, "pintle mount" is a broader term than just "the little metal posts that carry machineguns on US Army trucks." For example, the British quick-firing 4-inch Mk IXs were sometimes on pintle mounts. The Mk 38 Mounting of the 25mm Bushmaster is also a pintle mount in BT terms. Those are pintles considerably heavier than 6 pounds and would not accompany the gun if it was given a different mount, like a turret.
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
07/19/22 05:42 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is a mixing of things, Cray, the mount for the Bushmaster is a gunmount not pintel, the only time it comes off as if the whole weapon system is being replaced. Normally just the barrel is removed when not in use, bu,t hey as I have said before, TPTB do not care about what the fans point out as issues with their use of terminology or broken points, if they did a lot of this stuff would have been fixed back int the early 2000s.

[url] https://www.spectacserv.com/systems/mk93-mod-2-4-machine-gun-mount [/url]

[url] https://www.modarmory.com/product/mk93-machine-gun-mount-and-universal-pintle-adapter-upa/ [/url]

Tell me again how these will be so heavy to matter on even a support vehicle; oh wait, I forgot we have to have extra construction rules versus unified construction rules set for vehicles. Cray, I worked with this type of thing daily for roughly the last 20 years. They are not something that matters in the weight of the vehicle when it comes to performance. Plus, they are universal for types of weapons. They should not even be counted for weight.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
07/20/22 01:03 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Sorry to continue the thread jacking, but isn't all body mounted weapons part of a sponson system? They have an arc they fire in, and without this, they would only fire straight away from the unit.

Do you have room in the turret for the chem laser? It may be worth moving it there if you do.
CrayModerator
07/20/22 03:16 PM
136.226.19.185

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Sorry to continue the thread jacking, but isn't all body mounted weapons part of a sponson system? They have an arc they fire in, and without this, they would only fire straight away from the unit.



Sponsons are a specific item of equipment introduced with Tactical Operations. They broaden the side arcs of a vehicle, allowing sponson-mounted weapons to fire from straight ahead to straight behind - a good 180-degree coverage. Unlike regular turrets, sponsons are not separate hit locations and instead are covered by side armor.
See: https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Sponson_Turret

Outside of game rules terminology, a lot of non-turreted weapons have firing arcs that suggest casemate, sponson, pintle, and other flexible mounts.
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.
Zaku
07/21/22 04:04 AM
82.40.9.192

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Can I just know if my tank is okay as a fairly easy to deploy Clan tank? Because if people don't like the sponson system you can just stick them in the turret.


Edited by Zaku (07/21/22 04:05 AM)
Karagin
07/21/22 08:02 AM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is this an omni-vehicle or not?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Zaku
07/21/22 08:43 AM
82.40.9.192

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
No, you cannot add hardened armour to omni vehicles
CrayModerator
07/21/22 08:52 AM
136.226.19.182

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Can I just know if my tank is okay as a fairly easy to deploy Clan tank? Because if people don't like the sponson system you can just stick them in the turret.



Your tank is legal, faction-appropriate, and works well. Sorry for the threadjacking.
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.
Zaku
07/21/22 12:31 PM
82.40.9.192

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Thank you, I am very proud of it.

Also its fine, it was a interesting discussion on sponson turrets, but holy hell that went places XD
Karagin
07/21/22 12:41 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Then how can the weapons be modular with a quirk if the vehicle is not omnitech setup from the start?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Zaku
07/21/22 02:02 PM
82.40.9.192

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply

Its a design quirk. Design quirks are a separate rule from omni tech. It is linked fluff wise in the Mercury and Dragoon being early examples of the tech that would lead to omni tech, but rules wise all it denotes is when you modify the vehicle it takes half the time it would unlike omni tech which is usually a hour or so at most: or a few minutes if its just a singular weapon system.

Its meant to represent a vehicle which is very easy to modify.
ghostrider
07/21/22 02:58 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is there a cost incurred with being modular?
I would assume that would mean brackets that accommodate different weapons systems, much like omni set ups have.

I know it isn't, but it feels like and upgraded Po tank. But then an ac carrying 60 ton tank will always seem to be.
It does seem like a thrifty take for a combat vehicle. I assume it was kept slow for not only costs but to prevent it from challenging the mech status in the clan.

Just realized there might be a flaw in the stats.
Doesn't hardened armor slow a unit down by 1?
Karagin
07/21/22 04:49 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Its a design quirk. Design quirks are a separate rule from omni tech. It is linked fluff wise in the Mercury and Dragoon being early examples of the tech that would lead to omni tech, but rules wise all it denotes is when you modify the vehicle it takes half the time it would unlike omni tech which is usually a hour or so at most: or a few minutes if its just a singular weapon system.

Its meant to represent a vehicle which is very easy to modify.



So it's a workaround that can be easily exported by power gamers. Makes a note to self and for group discussion next month with my group. Toss out quirks.

Cool design on trying to bring the Russ to BT stats.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
07/23/22 01:57 PM
174.70.184.145

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Is there a cost incurred with being modular?
I would assume that would mean brackets that accommodate different weapons systems, much like omni set ups have.


Not overtly in terms of BV, just a cost in quirk points if you're balancing those. In which case, if you have too many positive quirks on one unit, it's recommended to take a negative one to balance it.

Quote:
Just realized there might be a flaw in the stats.
Doesn't hardened armor slow a unit down by 1?


It does if you're a Battlemech, but not if you're a tank. I'm... not quite sure why.

Quote:
So it's a workaround that can be easily exported by power gamers. Makes a note to self and for group discussion next month with my group. Toss out quirks.



I'd understand the point if he came in throwing on Battle Computers, Stabilized & Accurate Weapons, & Narrow Designs with no or trivial negative quirks, but singling out the Modular Weapon quirk, specifically, is just slightly more than flavor that yields no real tactical-scale advantages for a power gamer to exploit.

In the case of the modular weapons quirk, specifically, there actually is a non-optional mechanic that a power gamer could utilize that yields an actual tactical-level benefit: Good ol' Omni Techology lets a Battlemech hoist around most BA units for a mobility boost for 0 BV cost (C-Bills or fluff are presumably not important considerations for a power-gamer)

It's optional of course, no need to suffer from anyone actually trying to pull off getting several major tactical bonuses for free, but Modular Weapons just isn't an example of power gaming. Notably, Plenty of 3025-era Battlemechs have attached quirks with much greater tactical-scale benefits, not all of which are Quirk Point balanced. (Cyclops's Battle Computer, Rifleman & Jaegermech's AA targeting, Wolverine's 7-or-so things, Charger's Barrel Fists, etc.)
Karagin
07/23/22 02:01 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The idea of quirks in gameplay OUTSIDE of the RPG side is the point, Retry. We all complain about the gaming taking forever to play or being too complex or having too many extra rules, etc Yet here are things being added just because they allow work arounds. If you want modular, use the OMNI tech, that's what it is there for.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
07/23/22 10:10 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wasn't thinking of BV but added C-bills for those extra parts. Not like it really affects the unit any.
And as with all things, there should be a down side to even the best unit. though It may be nothing more then an uncomfortable seat.

I agree that quirks are optional things. And Retry is correct that it isn't like it has all the bells and whistles.
I also agree that some quirks are overly powerful if they were mandatory. The Javelin's top heavy running speed threw me off when I first read about it in the original TRO 3025. No where in any of the rule books did it say anything about it.
As most people don't run compaigns, the repair and replacement times tend to get thrown out the window, so it isn't that bad for modular weapons.
To be honest, that would pretty much go with the 'open design concept' TPTB had set up for the crit fest in vehicles. It should be easier to replace weapons there.
I do agree that not every unit made should have it.
As they aren't required, I can see tossing them in other group games.
I am not a fan of them per se, but I don't have to deal with them in the group I run with.
AmaroqStarwind
12/28/22 05:00 PM
104.28.202.77

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
If you want modular, use the OMNI tech, that's what it is there for.


Hardened armor. Fluff. Etc.
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 72 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: 6704


Contact Admins Sarna.net