Karagin
01/11/14 09:30 PM
24.243.178.124
|
I have posted VTOLs, several of them, though tastes as to what folks want out them vary.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
01/11/14 09:54 PM
67.239.109.174
|
They don't work very well.
The only superheavy vehicle I can envision working out(compared to lighter units that can do the same job) is a superheavy WiGE or hovercraft. Though, personally, I haven't gotten one to work yet.
|
ghostrider
01/13/14 01:35 AM
66.74.188.170
|
No one likes to run a unit that tends to die on the first or second hit. The rotor of vtols is just to weak for most combat. It should be allowed to have more armor on it.
But the price was one of the things Karagin has been argueing with atn about. The clans would never waste the resources on tanks like it, even if they don't seem bothered by prices. Well not for a front line unit. They MIGHT for a defensive unit, but doubtful there. It is a semi moble quick base. It may be used to deter pirates, but that is streching it.
|
TigerShark
01/13/14 02:31 AM
68.190.197.104
|
Eh? 1 hit? Rotors take 1 damage per hit, regardless of the actual damage. That means it takes (usually) 5 hits (2 armor + 3 internal) to rip off a rotor. Not very fragile.
|
ghostrider
01/13/14 09:30 AM
66.74.188.170
|
They must have change that in a newer book. Last I knew Rotors took full damage from what ever weapon they are hit by.
Vtols have their use. Just not as front line combat unless necesary.
And it looks like we are getting off topic again. sheesh.
Edited by ghostrider (01/13/14 09:31 AM)
|
Retry
01/13/14 06:50 PM
67.239.109.174
|
See my Mirage Multipurpose VTOL for a frontline helicopter concept.
Anyways, yeah, oversized unit for serious combat.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/13/14 09:21 PM
172.56.15.167
|
To my knowledge VTAL rotors have always taken one point of damage no matter what hits it with the exception of a solid object like the ground which automatically destroys it.
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
01/13/14 10:28 PM
67.239.109.174
|
No, the VTOL rotors take X/10 damage, X being the value of the hit, rounded up. And that is a relatively new rule.
Ferro-Lamellor rotor armor makes rotors stupidly durable to a ridiculous extent, enough to turn them to light mech's worst nightmare from a flying tin can.
|
ATN082268
01/14/14 12:51 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Quote:
It has the same weapons, similar load out and moves faster and has equal amount of protection for far less of a price and is more likely to be built. Thus in the long run it is a better take on your super heavy bunker. As for the issue you find to be over weight, simple fix...95 ton tank and shave a bit of the AMS ammo. Done and fixed, which unlike yours would still get built.
As before, not quite... I ran the numbers on a 90, 95 and 100 ton version of the Maus and they lack armor endurance, not only armor points per side but also having two less facings to be hit (see designs below). What you attempted to do in your design was skimp a bit on the ammunition and make the armor Ferro-Fibrous, desperately trying to give the illusion that your design had the equivalent in protection to the Maus. It does not...
You seem to be unaware that Hardened Armor provides a benefit beyond its mere armor points. Hardened Armor helps a unit equipped with it resist special effects from stuff like Armor Piercing rounds and Taser attacks but more importantly it gives extra critical hit resistence that vehicles so badly need.
And despite what you (and perhaps some others might think), what you like or dislike has absolutely no effect on whether something might show up canon wise in the Battletech universe or not.
|
ATN082268
01/14/14 12:54 AM
69.128.58.222
|
BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Pretender Maus I
Tech: Clan / 3072
Config: Tracked Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Custom design
Mass: 90 tons
Power Plant: 270 XL Fusion
Cruise Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Armor Type: Hardened
Armament:
1 Arrow IV System
1 LRM 20
1 SRM 6
2 ER Medium Lasers
2 Anti-Missile Systems
1 Angel ECM Suite
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Pretender Maus I
Mass: 90 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 45 pts Standard 0 9.00
Engine: 270 XL Fusion 1 7.25
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 3.63
Cruise MP: 3
Flank MP: 5
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 4.50
Crew: 6 Members 0 .00
Turret Equipment: 0 1.85
Sponson Turret Equipment: 0 .30
Armor Factor: 87 pts Hardened 0 10.88
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 9 24
Left / Right Sides: 9 18/18
Rear: 9 12
Turret: 9 15
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Arrow IV System Turret 0 25 2 17.00
1 LRM 20 Turret 0 20 2 8.33
1 SRM 6 Turret 0 15 2 2.50
1 ER Medium Laser Lf_Spon 5 1 1.00
1 Anti-Missile System Lf_Spon 0 20 2 1.33
1 ER Medium Laser Rt_Spon 5 1 1.00
1 Anti-Missile System Rt_Spon 0 20 1 1.33
1 Angel ECM Suite Body 0 1 1.50
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 0 .00
Armored Motive System Body 1 9.00
Environmental Sealing Body 1 9.00
Cargo Bay Capacity Body 1 .59
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 16 90.00
Items & Tons Left: 7 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 17,723,708 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,257
Cost per BV: 13,384.02
Weapon Value: 1,355 / 1,355 (Ratio = 1.08 / 1.08)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 41; MRDmg = 29; LRDmg = 18
BattleForce2: MP: 3, Armor/Structure: 0 / 7
Damage PB/M/L: 6/5/3, Overheat: 0
Class: GA; Point Value: 13
Specials: ecm, artA
|
ATN082268
01/14/14 12:59 AM
69.128.58.222
|
BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Pretender Maus II
Tech: Clan / 3072
Config: Tracked Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Custom design
Mass: 95 tons
Power Plant: 285 XL Fusion
Cruise Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Armor Type: Hardened
Armament:
1 Arrow IV System
1 LRM 20
1 SRM 6
2 ER Medium Lasers
2 Anti-Missile Systems
1 Angel ECM Suite
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Pretender Maus II
Mass: 95 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 50 pts Standard 0 9.50
Engine: 285 XL Fusion 1 8.25
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 4.13
Cruise MP: 3
Flank MP: 5
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 4.75
Crew: 7 Members 0 .00
Turret Equipment: 0 1.85
Sponson Turret Equipment: 0 .30
Armor Factor: 101 pts Hardened 0 12.63
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 10 30
Left / Right Sides: 10 20/20
Rear: 10 15
Turret: 10 16
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Arrow IV System Turret 0 25 2 17.00
1 LRM 20 Turret 0 20 2 8.33
1 SRM 6 Turret 0 15 2 2.50
1 ER Medium Laser Lf_Spon 5 1 1.00
1 Anti-Missile System Lf_Spon 0 20 2 1.33
1 ER Medium Laser Rt_Spon 5 1 1.00
1 Anti-Missile System Rt_Spon 0 20 1 1.33
1 Angel ECM Suite Body 0 1 1.50
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 0 .00
Armored Motive System Body 1 9.50
Environmental Sealing Body 1 9.50
Cargo Bay Capacity Body 1 .59
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 16 95.00
Items & Tons Left: 8 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 19,708,187 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,286
Cost per BV: 14,586.46
Weapon Value: 1,570 / 1,570 (Ratio = 1.22 / 1.22)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 41; MRDmg = 29; LRDmg = 18
BattleForce2: MP: 3, Armor/Structure: 0 / 8
Damage PB/M/L: 6/5/3, Overheat: 0
Class: GA; Point Value: 13
Specials: ecm, artA
|
ATN082268
01/14/14 01:03 AM
69.128.58.222
|
BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Pretender Maus III
Tech: Clan / 3072
Config: Tracked Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Custom design
Mass: 100 tons
Power Plant: 300 XL Fusion
Cruise Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Armor Type: Hardened
Armament:
1 Arrow IV System
1 LRM 20
1 SRM 6
2 ER Medium Lasers
2 Anti-Missile Systems
1 Angel ECM Suite
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Pretender Maus III
Mass: 100 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 50 pts Standard 0 10.00
Engine: 300 XL Fusion 1 9.50
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 4.75
Cruise MP: 3
Flank MP: 5
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 5.00
Crew: 7 Members 0 .00
Turret Equipment: 0 1.85
Sponson Turret Equipment: 0 .30
Armor Factor: 112 pts Hardened 0 14.00
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 10 33
Left / Right Sides: 10 22/22
Rear: 10 15
Turret: 10 20
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Arrow IV System Turret 0 25 2 17.00
1 LRM 20 Turret 0 20 2 8.33
1 SRM 6 Turret 0 15 2 2.50
1 ER Medium Laser Lf_Spon 5 1 1.00
1 Anti-Missile System Lf_Spon 0 20 2 1.33
1 ER Medium Laser Rt_Spon 5 1 1.00
1 Anti-Missile System Rt_Spon 0 20 1 1.33
1 Angel ECM Suite Body 0 1 1.50
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 0 .00
Armored Motive System Body 1 10.00
Environmental Sealing Body 1 10.00
Cargo Bay Capacity Body 1 .60
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 16 100.00
Items & Tons Left: 9 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 21,841,567 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,308
Cost per BV: 15,933.92
Weapon Value: 1,722 / 1,722 (Ratio = 1.32 / 1.32)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 41; MRDmg = 29; LRDmg = 18
BattleForce2: MP: 3, Armor/Structure: 0 / 9
Damage PB/M/L: 6/5/3, Overheat: 0
Class: GA; Point Value: 13
Specials: ecm, artA
|
Karagin
01/14/14 06:42 AM
24.243.178.124
|
ATN, they OUT preform you super heavy and they can be transported off world, where as your super heavy is limited to the planet is built on. Not something any military wants.
Also the cost is far cheaper for the 90, 95 and 100 ton version which wins over yours since the civilian side of the government, aka the ones who control the money and resources will be more inclined to spend it since they get more for their money.
Every single tank you have posted has both Arrow IV and LRMs, few exceptions, and you seem set on always posting what is a fire support vehicle that has limitations in speed and weight and cost. And none of this seems to be seen by you as an issue, we have pointed out the problems, you stick to your design, which is fine, but even still not a lot of the folks looking for new units to use will be jumping to take a 2/3 185 ton artillery tank that can be tank out with landmines, counter battery fire, aerospace etc..and then there goes your big support unit and a chunk of your BV (if you are using that system) lost to one single attack.
How about you tell us a bit about your take on the BT universe and why you think 110 tons and up super heavy tanks would be the norm or even truly built in more then a one off project that tests out several ideas or theories for design features etc...how about that?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/14/14 07:56 AM
172.56.15.167
|
I still dont understand why anyone would want artillery, long range support and close in fighting weapons in one frame.
Putting the extremely heavy cost and and almost non existing strategic mobility aside you're putting everything on one basket. All it takes is one lucky hit and you just lost everything. If you chop it into three vehicles you have a greater chance that something will survive the battle to be used in future battles.
After dumping 73 million C-Bills into your one tank your going to be lacking any other assets because you used up your resources on this one tank.
With your three lighter tanks you can have all three of them and have 13 million C-Bills to buy other assets.
That same 73 million C-Bills could buy you an entire company of medium battle mechs.
Giving you every advantage one could even think of your one tank will be wiped all over the battle field by 12 Enter Sphere medium battle mechs.
I could take out your tank with one aerospace fighter that costs one tenth of your tank.
Yes, the Clans don't like the concept of the use of money but money is a representation of economic resources that one has available to use. Even the Clans don't have unlimited resources at their beck and call.
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!!!
|
ghostrider
01/14/14 01:14 PM
66.74.188.170
|
Just curious, but isnt the arrow IV artillery type weapon? I would also want my side to have shells dropping on your units, especially if you have a monsterous force and i have like pure infantry.
But donkey has summed it up better in simpler terms.
There is something that should be added. Your arrow IV system needs to have a designator. By the time it can self designate, the example of a company of light mechs would be about to runs the tank.
Kicks make a very effective attack, and since most mechs dont have leg mounted weapons, it just helps them to get through the armor faster.
I would also like to see a transport that would carry this unit. Once the enemy has encountered this once, I would suspect it would be the first dropship or transport to be targetted.
The newer ones look a little more like they might be used.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/14/14 02:47 PM
172.56.15.167
|
Here is a force to go up against your tank.
*************************
A battery of four artillery
cost 980,000 CBills
tech level IS 3
chassis track
tank weight 40
engine 120 ICE 8t
cruse speed 3
Flank speed 5
control 2t
IS 4t
Armor 36 4t
Front 4/24
LT/RT 4/15
Back 4/10
Weapons/ammo
Long tom 15t
Long tom ammo (35) 7t
**********************************
A squadron of 12 VTALs for air support
cost 347,589 CBills
tech level IS 3
chassis VTOL
tank weight 11
engine 70 3t
cruse speed 15
Flank speed 23
Lift/rotor/other 1.1t
control .55t
IS 1.1
Armor 36 2.25t
Front 2/15
LT/RT 2/7
Back 2/5
rotor 2/2
Weapons/ammo
3x Med Lasers front 3 3
****************************
A company of long range support
cost 408,250 CBills
tech level L2
chassis Wheeled
tank weight 30t
engine 100 ICE 6t
cruse speed 4
Flank speed 6
control 1.5t
IS 3t
Armor 104 6.5t
Front 3/54
LT/RT 3/20
Back 3/10
Weapons/ammo
Light Gauss Rifle front 12t
LGR ammo (16) 1t
*****************************
A company of heavy APCs
cost 383,300 CBills
tech level IS 3
tank weight 20
chassis type track
engine 100 fusion 4.5t
cruse speed 5
Flank speed 8
Lift/rotor/other none
control 1t
IS 2t
Armor IS/Armor 84 5.25t
Front 2/30
LT/RT 2/15
Back 2/8
Turret 2/16
Weapons/ammo placement weight
Large Laser turret 5
MG front .5
MG ammo (50) body .25
Infantry Squad body 1t
*****************************
A company of medium APCs
cost 275,415 CBills
tech level L1
chassis Wheeled
tank weight 15t
engine 55 Fusion 2.25t
cruse speed 5
Flank speed 8
Lift/rotor/other n/a
control .75t
IS 1.5t
Armor 88p 5.5t
Front 2/25
LT/RT 2/15
Back 2/10
Turret 2/23
Weapons/ammo
3 med lasers turret 3.3t
mg front .5t
mg ammo (40shots) .2t
infantry squad 1t
************************
My reinforced battalion comes up to just under 21 million C-Bills. That is 52 vehicles up against your one tank and I spent about 28.5% of what you would spend on your one tank.
All I really need to do is to set up my artillery up out of range of your tanks Arrow VI system and send in a VTAL to spot out of range of your LRM-20 and just pound you. All it would have cost me is 280,000 C-Bills in Long Tom ammo. Your AMS is useless against artillery shells..
Say I run out of Long Tom ammo. That is unlikely since I have 140 rounds and all it takes is seven hits in one location. But say I do. I can either just sit there and wait to be reloaded with ammo. Or I could send in the rest of my forces to finish you off.
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
01/14/14 03:24 PM
72.214.204.166
|
You wouldn't need a battalion of anything, If you can get a few flights of Meteors laden with RLs or HE bombs, AP AC ammo(the only time it ever shines is on hardened armor) and tandem charge SRM ammunition. Hardened armor arguably makes vehicles more vulnerable to AP than normal because in effect it hits twice as hard as normal ammo, even though it loses a (marginal) crit opportunity. In terms of personnel, it is highly likely the conventional fighter force wins even in that regards.
Environmental sealing? Armored motive system? At the same time? Just take a mech!
P.S. Making the lighter models crappy does not make your superheavy look cool.
P.P.S they are still better than your superheavy.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/14/14 05:32 PM
172.56.15.167
|
Yes I know that. One aerospace fighter with a full bomb load should do the job.
I was showing what could be bought instead of that money pit of his.
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!!!
|
Karagin
01/14/14 09:02 PM
24.243.178.124
|
Infantry with SRMs could take it out it's slow enough or Battlearmor even the worse designed Battlearmor could take out this 185 ton waste of resources.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
TigerShark
01/14/14 10:43 PM
68.190.197.104
|
Quote:
Infantry with SRMs could take it out it's slow enough or Battlearmor even the worse designed Battlearmor could take out this 185 ton waste of resources.
The designer already stated that his design is more for flavor than min/maxing. Why do you continue on, repeating the same b.s.?
your replies in other threads have stated that you dislike min/maxing. Let's define terms, though, before you wiggle away: Minimizing the flaws // maximizing the capabilities. Wouldn't that be what you suggested?
Quote:
With my 90/95 ton version you could 4 of them for the same price as ATN's single Uber toy.
Let's follow this with a reply from you in the thread aptly entitled "MUNCHKINS":
Quote:
No I am not confused...it's simple if you taken all of the flaws out of a mech then it's no longer balanced thus it falls into the Munchkin line of thinking, the must win with all the new toys at all cost.
Your replies in this thread have been accusing the design of being useless because it isn't optimized enough for your tastes. Another design is more optimal for the job and more efficient, so it's pointless somehow to post something with an in-universe flavor.
So where's that mirror? Where'd I put that..? 
|
Retry
01/14/14 11:10 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Last I checked I said it could be for flavor, not ATN.
|
Retry
01/14/14 11:17 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Double-checked, nowhere did he say his vehicle was for flavor purposes...
|
TigerShark
01/14/14 11:18 PM
68.190.197.104
|
Quote:
Cost isn't the final determination of whether a design gets built or not in the canon Battletech Universe. There are a lot of canon designs which can be made cheaper and/or alternatives which might be more efficient, among other things. None of that matters though as far as the canon Battletech Universe goes because it simply doesn't operate that way (in general). Some of it, at least in universe, may have to do with transporting smaller number but bigger sized units across the galaxy, politics, etc. Take your pick.
|
TigerShark
01/14/14 11:20 PM
68.190.197.104
|
He used in-universe logic to build the design. Unless I misunderstand what the term 'flavor' refers to.
|
Karagin
01/15/14 06:21 AM
24.243.178.124
|
I would say these are here for flavor as in the humor one gets out blowing them up and watching ATN's whole plan fall apart in front of him.
I think we have all seen the person who pins their entire battle plan on how one or two mechs (etc...) will preform and when that doesn't happen or they are destroyed, they lose sight of things and end up losing the battle.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
01/15/14 12:51 PM
66.74.188.170
|
One more thing with vehicles, unless they changed it in the newer books.
Doesnt fire wipe them out? A flamer or inferno srms would be an extreme danger that cannt be ignored.
The arrows have the same issues as normal artillery. They have to do their targetting unless they have the tag lockon. And I think ecm counters the tag.
|
Retry
01/15/14 05:54 PM
67.239.109.174
|
His in-universe logic seems lacking.
Basically this seems to be a case of someone using the fallacy "there was an exception, therefore the exception is the rule".
Cost isn't the final determinant... but it's going to be one damn vocal one when you can get a bloody assault MECH with an XL engine and likely pay half the price of one of these.(Not to mention how inefficient the thing is in the first place.)
This is especially for the clans. Even the craziest of factions would find this unit a stretch. If I'd use this tank, I'd use it as an AI commander unit whose purpose is to die in a campaign.
Look at every other canon superheavy design. Almost every living soul laughs at 'em in-universe, let alone out of.
Cost sure as hell is closer to the way it operates than abstract concepts such as BV. No sane military in any canon world thinks like that.
Infernos are deadly, but not nearly as much as they used to be. I say good riddance to that, Mechs don't need any more unfair advantages on their side.
Flamers just suck too much to be of use. The only way they'd be halfway decent is if they dealt both damage and heat at the same time. Why don't they?
ECM counters NARC. TAG isn't. It's basically a laser thing, so ECM wouldn't stop it.
THe closest ECM comes to stopping TAG is by helping to conceal the ECM unit from radar. Which is an advantage until you get spotted.
|
TigerShark
01/15/14 06:23 PM
68.190.197.104
|
Except that many units, like those in the XTRO, are "proof of concept." For all we know, it could be a fine example of a failed prototype. Something the Clans tried as a static defense but was ultimately discontinued due to its resource-heavy requirements.
For example, CJF worked extensively on the LAM concept in its Falcon Eyrie complex on Huntress. They threw thousands of man hours and untold resources trying to get an ancient technology to compete with modern, Clan warfare. Though they developed several prototypes, it was found to be too fragile to continue or scale production upward.
I can see the same thing happening here with a super-heavy vehicle.
|
Retry
01/15/14 06:34 PM
67.239.109.174
|
I'm fine with the failed prototype here, but he's not selling it as a failed prototype, he's selling it as a serviceable design, which it isn't.
|
Karagin
01/15/14 09:26 PM
24.243.178.124
|
He is going beyond serviceable design, he is selling it as the win all battles no matter the odds kind of thing. Everyone's designs have flaws, and again while we defend what we post and try to "sell" the rest around here on our ideas, we normally end up at some point going back and looking at things and going okay change these couple of things get me...or we find out in a battle our super awesome wonder toy failed horrible and maybe all the comments about it were right on target, yet ATN doesn't see or get this, and we get the same design, with a different weight and name every time from him.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|