OBT Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to OurBattleTech.com - A BattleTech Fan Site

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!  (Read 8700 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Centurion13

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
  • Homo Homini Lupus
    • The BattleTech Infantry Primer
Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« on: November 04, 2012, 05:46:30 PM »

This is a unit I believe is new to the game, though (no doubt) some of you have designed something similar in the past.

It is an amphibious assault craft. Now that doesn't mean it's 80 tons or more. But it carries troops (2 squads of Battle armor or one motorized infantry platoon with room for a platoon of foot infantry). It's got an aquadyne hull so it can do the water-crossing thing at decent speed. And it's tracked, so while it may not be as fast as a hover, it's not as vulnerable to motive system hits and can handle more types of terrain.

Oh, and it's armed with some good stuff and fairly well-armored. And fits nicely into a dropship bay.

Code: [Select]
Type/Model:    Gorgops Medium
Tech:          Inner Sphere / 3060
Config:        Tracked Vehicle
Rules:         Level 3, Standard design

Type/Model:    Gorgops Medium
Mass:          50 tons

Equipment:                                 Items    Mass
Int. Struct.:  25 pts Standard               0      5.00
Engine:        250 XL Fusion                 2      6.50
Shielding & Transmission Equipment:          0      3.50
    Cruise MP:   5
     Flank MP:   8
Heat Sinks:     10 Single                    0       .00
Cockpit & Controls:                          0      2.50
Crew: 4 Members                              0       .00
Amphibious Drive Equipment:                  0      5.00
Turret Equipment:                            0      1.00
Armor Factor:  143 pts Ferro-Fibrous         2      8.00

                          Internal    Armor
                          Structure   Value
   Front:                     5         40
   Left / Right Sides:        5      24/24
   Rear:                      5         15
   Turret:                    5         40

Weapons and Equipment    Loc  Heat  Ammo   Items    Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
2 ER Medium Lasers       Turret  10          2      2.00
3 SRM 4s                 Turret   0   50     4      8.00
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment     Body                1       .50
1 Trailer Hitch          Rear                1       .00
Infantry Bay             Body                1      8.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                          10         14     50.00
Items & Tons Left:                           1       .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        6,101,000 C-Bills
Battle Value 2:    892 (old BV = 526)

The SRMs come with two bins of ammo - smoke and whatever else you want. The smoke is for generating your own cover once you hit the beach. Handy for unloading the troops without getting snuffed. The ERMLs are just to be annoying.

Can anyone tell me if there's a rule someplace about the waterborne amphib being immune to motive system hits from surface fire? The tracks are underwater. I can see a torpedo doing some damage, but if a 'Mech can ignore leg hits when behind Level One cover, I don't see why a swimming infantry carrier can't claim the same. It's essentially hull-down in the water.

Oh, and we're gonna toss in an optional rule of +1 to hit while waterborne for the amphib's weapons. Water being unstable and all.

Thoughts?

Cent13
Logged

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2012, 07:17:44 PM »

first thing you need to do is define the vehicles mission. This sucker is a battle armor carrier clearly, but how is it to be deployed?  is it primarly a ground vehicle that will ford the occasional river? (in which case this is a great start) or are we looking at an amphibious deployment and beachhead establishment, if that is the case we need a full blown hovercraft, possibly a support vehicle to permit larger carrying capacity.

things I notice, and I am approaching this from a Purchasing Agents perspective.

1) no anti infantry defense.  the manufactuer cites the SRMs to be loaded with inferno munitions, however the avaliability and use of such munitions is not always garunteed, either by beurecratic reasons, or the squeamishness of the regimental commander. at least one anti infantry machine gun would be a good addition, and would not over tax the heat exchangers like a small pulse laser would.

2) the XL engine is a massive investment in a vehicle that is designed to fight at short range with no means of quick extraction.  with the number of losses a slower APC would be expected to accrue, the viability of these vehicles in large numbers is questionable if one out of every 8 would have to be replaced per year.

3) the trailer hitch is nice, but is mounted way to high  ;)  given the vehicles mission it would not see much use.  since cost is minimal and mass is negligable, keep it, but make sure it is unobtrusive to the battle armor bay


my recommendations
1) Get the XL engine off that tank, it's range envelope is too small to justify the expense.  examine a fuel cell in its place if you require the weight savings, or use a wheeled motive type if you are married to the ER lasers.

2) Drop one SRM and a ton of ammo and replace with machine guns and a half ton of ammo to provided point defense weapons against conventional infantry.  at least one should be in the turret and one on the forward hull.  another alternative, though one shot in nature would be vehiclular grenade launchers, which can also be loaded with smoke to block LOS as a defensive measure.

3) as an alternative to the SRMs, I would investigate LRMs to provide bettert covering fire, and allow the squads in question some protection against far off foes.

4) experiment with a single squad infantry bay, since you can only deploy one squad per turn (I BELIEVE, will double check and correct if needed)


4a) Experiment with a 4 ton infantry bay, since you will have to expend 2MP to deploy your Battle armor, slowing your vehicle to a maximum of +1 TMM

for 3067 refits, MMLs are a must for 3070 refits, the use of a single medium variable speed pulse laser would make a  cover fire weapon
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 11:21:09 PM by JPArbiter »
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

Knightmare

  • Terran Supremacist
  • Network Gnome
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,459
  • Taking out the Sphere's trash since 3026
    • Our BattleTech
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2012, 07:37:36 PM »

I guess whether this vehicle is worth the price tag comes down to how you like to deploy your battle armor. Fast hover transports are great for skimming the surface at fast speeds and (hopefully) evade enemy fire. Hits are far more damaging, and I can't remember if Battle Armor can jump off of a hovercraft or not?...However, outside of the jumping bit, Battle Armor are naturally protected from oxygen poor environments, so if said fragile hovercraft takes a trip to Davy Jones' Locker there's a chance the BA are still going to make it ashore.

I've always been a fan of moving my BA fast. This means looking at orbital, sub-orbital and fast ground transport options. All three play to the Battle Armor's sole weakness (IMO) – slow ground speed. So any transport, no matter how well armored, only compounds the problem if it's SLOW. Sitting in water only makes it worse.

That said, if this were a dedicated foot-slogger APC and cost a little less, I'd be all over it. Planets like Carver V *cough*, I mean Liberty, would do well by having a ton of these, or even mountainous world with lots of frozen lakes.

Alternate variants that might do well were the aforementioned MML, and LRM. The new LRM munitions could be very interesting on something like this.

Overall, good stuff. I liked looking at it. 
 
Logged
Quote from: Dragon Cat
WORD (of Blake) is good for two things. 1. Leaving inappropriate notes on other people's work. 2. Adding fake words (of Blake) to the dictionary.

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2012, 07:59:41 PM »

correction to my earlier statement, from Total Warfare pp 225
Quote
Vehicles, including VTOLs, must spend 1 MP to dismount
each infantry unit. If a carrying unit has 0 MP to expend in a turn,
1 infantry unit (2 for Large Support Vehicles and DropShips)
may still dismount per turn, following all the standard rules.

so yea this sucker is going to be moving 3 hexes or 6 at flank

Plus infantry can only dismount in legal terrain, so depth 1 water will kill anything inside unless it has UMUs or are frogmen ala TRO 3085.  so at least on a tactical scale, killing this is a 100% garuntee of taking two squads of battle armor out of the game.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 08:04:05 PM by JPArbiter »
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

Centurion13

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
  • Homo Homini Lupus
    • The BattleTech Infantry Primer
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2012, 09:04:19 PM »

first thing you need to do is define the vehicles mission. This sucker is a battle armor carrier clearly, but how is it to be deployed?  is it primarly a ground vehicle that will ford the occasional river? (in which case this is a great start) or are we looking at an amphibious deployment and beachhead establishment, if that is the case we need a full blown hovercraft, possibly a support vehicle to permit larger carrying capacity.

We're going to playtest it and see how it works in both situations.  Hovercraft are not an option - they are blocked by light woods, something often found in riverine and shore terrain.  Furthermore, they are highly vulnerable to damage as listed on the motive system tables.  Yes, they travel fast - a hover variant of this machine would move 9/14.  But my experience is that most vehicles in a standard BT game are neutralized due to MST effects.  The tracked variant is as proof against that as it can be.  And 5/8 seems to be fast enough - we'll see when we playtest it.


things I notice, and I am approaching this from a Purchasing Agents perspective.

1) no anti infantry defense.  the manufactuer cites the SRMs to be loaded with inferno munitions, however the avaliability and use of such munitions is not always garunteed, either by beurecratic reasons, or the squeamishness of the regimental commander. at least one anti infantry machine gun would be a good addition, and would not over tax the heat exchangers like a small pulse laser would.

Good point, and one that goes beyond the fluff.  This might actually matter on the tabletop.  So I fashioned a variant carrying two SRM-4s with two tons of ammo, an AMS and three small pulse lasers. That should cover pretty well.

2) the XL engine is a massive investment in a vehicle that is designed to fight at short range with no means of quick extraction.  with the number of losses a slower APC would be expected to accrue, the viability of these vehicles in large numbers is questionable if one out of every 8 would have to be replaced per year.

Sorry, I don't care about the credit cost unless it is excessive relative to the value it brings to the machine's performance.  In this case the Gorgops Medium would be impossible without the XL engine, so it stays.   The BV is what I pay mind to, and this one is about right for an infantry carrier that plays second banana to the main act.

3) the trailer hitch is nice, but is mounted way to high  ;)  given the vehicles mission it would not see much use.  since cost is minimal and mass is negligable, keep it, but make sure it is unobtrusive to the battle armor bay

The trailer hitch is gone.  It was a leftover from the original design,  which was 90 tons, moved 4/6 and carried four BA squads.

The SRMs are intended primarily as smoke projectors.  They light several hexes up with smoke rounds - +2 to opponent's shots into it or through it - and drop off the infantry under that cover if no other is available - or even if it is.


for 3067 refits, MMLs are a must for 3070 refits, the use of a single medium variable speed pulse laser would make a  cover fire weapon
 

'Cover fire' only works if you are intent on keeping your opponent's head down.  The game does not support it even if the fluff does.  I like reading fluff as well as the next man, but am reluctant to let a fictional setting impede the design of a machine that performs well. 

The best way to discourage opponents from shooting at you is to shoot them first, have high movement modifiers, present a more attractive target or force them to move (thus adding to their firing modifiers and possibly driving them from line of sight). 

My method of distracting the enemy is to put a hurt in their backfield quick, fast and in a hurry.  Like this:

Code: [Select]
       
Type/Model:    Distractor
Mass:          50 tons

Equipment:                                 Items    Mass
Int. Struct.:  25 pts Standard               0      5.00
Engine:        265 XL Fusion                 2      7.00
Shielding & Transmission Equipment:          0      3.50
    Cruise MP:  10
     Flank MP:  15
Heat Sinks:     10 Single                    0       .00
Cockpit & Controls:                          0      2.50
Crew: 4 Members                              0       .00
Lift Equipment:                              0      5.00
Turret Equipment:                            0      2.00
Armor Factor:  126 pts Ferro-Fibrous         2      7.00

                          Internal    Armor
                          Structure   Value
   Front:                     5         35
   Left / Right Sides:        5      25/25
   Rear:                      5         16
   Turret:                    5         25

Weapons and Equipment    Loc  Heat  Ammo   Items    Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Gauss Rifle            Turret   0    8     2     16.00
2 Small Pulse Lasers     Turret   4          2      2.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                           4          8     50.00
Items & Tons Left:                           7       .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        8,420,667 C-Bills
Battle Value 2:    1,286 (old BV = 1,000)

I am sure something like this exists in the game already.  Get it on the beach and on the enemy's flank or backfield (10/15 should permit that).  The threat of taking a gauss slug up the tuckus will tend to draw their attention away from my approaching landing craft. 

At least, it does in the games *I've* played.  Tactics like that earned the Huron Warrior a lot of respect around here.  Your mileage may vary.  You can attribute these conclusions to my smoking my own kool-aid or something - but that's the thought-process behind this particular design. 

Take it to the tabletop and see what happens.  It's what we're gonna do.  And I won't hesitate to change it if it fails in any way.  Meanwhile, keep up the feedback, folks.  I can't think of everything - and some of this stuff might not work out as advertised!

Cent13
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 09:27:14 PM by Centurion13 »
Logged

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2012, 11:04:22 PM »

see you did not mention woods being a primary obsticle, so now using a tracked vehicle makes a lot of sense, rock on.  this was why I specifically asked for the mission profile of the vehicle.

you aversion to machine guns is understandable in mechs, but makes next to no sense for vehicles, since you are rocking SRM and AMS ammunition already.  machine guns are cheaper in BV and tonnage then a small pulse laser and do not tax a vehicles heat sinks.  give them a try.

my perspective of cover fire in game is "provide a threat where team mates cannot."  in the case of an APC it needs to serve two purposes, it's range needs to be longer then 3-6 hexes (effective range, not maximum) and it needs to protect against other infantry.  this is what makes the Maxim and Goblin (3058) so effective as infantry carriers.  your vehicles armament protects well against battle armor and vehicles, but does nothing against infantry of any kind, which are just as much of a threat against vehicles, particularly in built up areas like river deltas, where you can hide a battalion along the shoreline.

the trailer hitch thing was a joke.

with how much you rely on SRMs for everything they CAN do, you should consider reducing to 2 racks rather then 4, so that way you free up more tubes for different purposes or if utlizing the same ammo in a volley can saturate areas more widely (4 hexes of smoke is less then 8.)
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 11:15:01 PM by JPArbiter »
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2012, 11:31:17 PM »

in the case of your distractor, there is a canon vehicle like that... it is called a regulator, though I prefer the Fulcrum.  if you want to be really technical, your distractor is a regulator II without as much armor coverage, less ammo, and two meaningless small lasers that would have been better uses for ammuntion and armor.

as I said in covering your TRO, when you set out to make a custom unit, you should first make sure you are doing something that is not covered by extant machines.  your APC does so, your hovercraft fails.

a better distractor would be the Mantis VTOL as it is blindingly fast, nothing can hide from it thanks to the active probe, gets 5 shots as opposed to your 2, can dictate pace and direction of a skirmish, and has five shots to your distractors 1.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 11:35:27 PM by JPArbiter »
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

Centurion13

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
  • Homo Homini Lupus
    • The BattleTech Infantry Primer
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2012, 11:54:21 PM »

in the case of your distractor, there is a canon vehicle like that... it is called a regulator, though I prefer the Fulcrum.  if you want to be really technical, your distractor is a regulator II without as much armor coverage, less ammo, and two meaningless small lasers that would have been better uses for ammuntion and armor.

Yes, I know.  This was just thrown out as an example of something I would use as a distractor, not a serious attempt to make a new machine.

as I said in covering your TRO, when you set out to make a custom unit, you should first make sure you are doing something that is not covered by extant machines.  your APC does so, your hovercraft fails.

And as mentioned, it was thrown out there as an example.  I believe I even stated it probably existed somewhere already.  And I was right, but I didn't want to spend the time digging it up.

a better distractor would be the Mantis VTOL as it is blindingly fast, nothing can hide from it thanks to the active probe, gets 5 shots as opposed to your 2, can dictate pace and direction of a skirmish, and has five shots to your distractors 1.

This is a perfect example of why I playtest.  I have run Mantises quite a few times on the tabletop.  No one gives a **** whether it is in the back field or not.  It gets five shots - too bad no one fears the small laser of doom, always supposing they hit (mine rarely did, as I was constantly moving to keep from getting wasted).  The last time I fielded one with any success, I killed a jeep.  I am now known in SoCal as the 'Butcher of LaCroix'. 

They have their place on the battlefield, no doubt.  This ain't it.

A gauss rifle, on the other hand... no one ignores that.  Or if they do, only once.  I have concrete, hard-won experience on the tabletop of that.

Actually, come to think of it, the Saladin would make a serviceable distractor - 9/14 with an AC/20.  Pimp it with precision ammo and sent it in.  Sure, the armor sucks.  But I bet they won't turn their back on those.

Cent13
« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 05:22:25 PM by Knightmare »
Logged

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2012, 12:18:04 AM »

you and I have vastly different experiences with the mantis.  being able to field 4 of them for the price of a average medium mech... 5 lasers become 20 fast, and anyone who does not fear that is a fool.  I also place a high value on volume of fire rather then firepower. if I have 5 chances to hit for 3 damage a pop, but you have one chance to hit for 15 damage, then I am in a much better position then you most of the time.

it is also worth pondering when you last played the Mantis VTOL.  Total Warfare is to VTOLS what the BMR was for hovercraft (remember those nightmares?)  could be worth a second look


for hover craft the Regulator, Fulcrum, Stygian, Saladin, Musketeer, Condor, and Drillson are all viable

we talk about deception as a battlefield strategy and how to properly misdirect an opposing player, and this brings me to the next part of BV and vehicles.  if you use just one of any given vehicle you are a great fool.  whether it is this amphibious APC or a Regulator or whatever.  you REALLY need to bring the BV of this thing down if you are going to haul more then 1 squad. that way you can boost the skills of the platoons you are hauling.

the Karnov comes in at 500 BV, the Cobra at 367, and both less restricted by terrain.  hell, Jump capable infantry/BA do not even need to wait to land.  this vehicle rolls up and stays there, and that can be a problem since a transport staying on station also means evacuation becomes less possible as the battle moves on.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 05:22:07 PM by Knightmare »
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

Epoch Rooster

  • Kavallerist
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2012, 05:47:33 AM »

There is something similar to this in canon, the Prowler Multi-Terrain Vehicle. Admittedly, it doesn't use something as expensive as an XL engine, but I think it gets the job done as well your design.

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit?Name=Prowler+Multi-Terrain+Vehicle

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Prowler_(Combat_Vehicle)
Logged
Commander Cyrus Nickle
ARC-3K Archer
The Disposable Heroes


JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2012, 09:20:13 AM »

the main shortfall of the prowler is that it requires a Heavy vehicle bay to transport in a dropship and be combat ready on landing, and it lacks anti infantry defense.  it does however make up for the lack of long range punch with the LRM 10.
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

Knightmare

  • Terran Supremacist
  • Network Gnome
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,459
  • Taking out the Sphere's trash since 3026
    • Our BattleTech
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2012, 05:25:06 PM »

I'm pretty stoked to see this thing play tested now. I wasn't thinking of rives and wooded shorelines either, so now I'm uber curious.

As for the Saladin...I never thought to load some Precision Ammo for the AC/20. That is just a nasty thought. Coupled with an aforementioned Regulator or Regulator II would be an interesting pairing for pincer sweeps along the edge of the battlefield. Toss in a couple of ELRM launchers and you have yourself a serious party.  ;D
Logged
Quote from: Dragon Cat
WORD (of Blake) is good for two things. 1. Leaving inappropriate notes on other people's work. 2. Adding fake words (of Blake) to the dictionary.

Centurion13

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
  • Homo Homini Lupus
    • The BattleTech Infantry Primer
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2012, 03:22:16 AM »

I'm pretty stoked to see this thing play tested now. I wasn't thinking of rives and wooded shorelines either, so now I'm uber curious.

As for the Saladin...I never thought to load some Precision Ammo for the AC/20. That is just a nasty thought. Coupled with an aforementioned Regulator or Regulator II would be an interesting pairing for pincer sweeps along the edge of the battlefield. Toss in a couple of ELRM launchers and you have yourself a serious party.  ;D

At Hengist's request, I have created a variant:

Code: [Select]
   
Type/Model:    Gorgops Medium Type 4
Mass:          50 tons

Equipment:                                 Items    Mass
Int. Struct.:  25 pts Standard               0      5.00
Engine:        250 XL Fusion                 2      6.50
Shielding & Transmission Equipment:          0      3.50
    Cruise MP:   5
     Flank MP:   8
Heat Sinks:     10 Single                    0       .00
Cockpit & Controls:                          0      2.50
Crew: 4 Members                              0       .00
Amphibious Drive Equipment:                  0      5.00
Turret Equipment:                            0      1.00
Armor Factor:  126 pts Ferro-Fibrous         2      7.00

                          Internal    Armor
                          Structure   Value
   Front:                     5         35
   Left / Right Sides:        5      23/23
   Rear:                      5         15
   Turret:                    5         30

Weapons and Equipment    Loc  Heat  Ammo   Items    Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
2 SRM 4s                 Turret   0   50     3      6.00
1 Large Laser            Turret   8          1      5.00
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment     Body                1       .50
Infantry Bay             Body                1      8.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                           8         11     50.00
Items & Tons Left:                           4       .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        5,891,000 C-Bills
Battle Value 2:    782 (old BV = 451)

This addresses the heavier firepower issue, at least to Hengist's satisfaction.  It still has two bins of SRM ammo; one for smoke, which I consider essential to safely unload embarked troops, and inferno rounds, which serve well as anti-infantry weapons.  I still have the variant with the SPLs, but they lack the range I think is needed to deal with all but swarming troops.

Curiously enough, this was the original design, before I had second thoughts on the applicability of the LL.  Only playtesting will sort that out, but we now have several versions we can test. 


Hengist was also calling for a Marian Hegemony variant carrying a metric butt-ton of rocket launchers. 

Code: [Select]
         
Type/Model:    Gorgops Medium Type RL
Mass:          50 tons

Equipment:                                 Items    Mass
Int. Struct.:  25 pts Standard               0      5.00
Engine:        250 XL Fusion                 2      6.50
Shielding & Transmission Equipment:          0      3.50
    Cruise MP:   5
     Flank MP:   8
Heat Sinks:     10 Single                    0       .00
Cockpit & Controls:                          0      2.50
Crew: 4 Members                              0       .00
Amphibious Drive Equipment:                  0      5.00
Turret Equipment:                            0      1.00
Armor Factor:  170 pts Ferro-Fibrous         2      9.50

                          Internal    Armor
                          Structure   Value
   Front:                     5         50
   Left / Right Sides:        5      34/34
   Rear:                      5         22
   Turret:                    5         30

Weapons and Equipment    Loc  Heat  Ammo   Items    Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
8 Rocket Launcher 10 (OS)Turret   0          8      4.00
1 Large Laser            Turret   8          1      5.00
Infantry Bay             Body                1      8.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                           8         15     50.00
Items & Tons Left:                           0       .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        5,810,000 C-Bills
Battle Value 2:    1,001 (old BV = 579)

Not sure how that will play out, but I am open to suggestions.  After all, they figure prominently on the Velite.  Does anyone know if there are specialty round for RLs?

Cent13


« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 03:45:36 AM by Centurion13 »
Logged

Dragon Cat

  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,271
  • Not Dead Until I Say So
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2012, 04:22:29 AM »

Rocket launcher variant would be cool in the periphery, 8 tons of infantry space perfect for taking in looters or more importantly taking away slaves >:)
Logged
My stuff, and my AU timeline follow link and enjoy

http://www.ourbattletech.com/forum/dragon-cat-collection/

The original CBT thread
Dragon Cat on CBT


Really, as long as there is an unbroken line of people calling themselves "Clan Nova Cat," it doesn't really matter to me if they're still using Iron Wombs or not. They may be dead as a faction, but as a people they still exist. It's not uncommon in the real world, after all.

Centurion13

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
  • Homo Homini Lupus
    • The BattleTech Infantry Primer
Re: Amphibious Combat Vehicles... new stuff! For the IP!
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2012, 03:37:43 PM »

There is something similar to this in canon, the Prowler Multi-Terrain Vehicle. Admittedly, it doesn't use something as expensive as an XL engine, but I think it gets the job done as well your design.

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit?Name=Prowler+Multi-Terrain+Vehicle

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Prowler_(Combat_Vehicle)

My design costs just a little more BV and delivers twice the troops at higher speed with more armor protection.  It is not a hastily-converted machine cobbled together in the last days of the Jihad, but an expensive means (half-billion dollar F-22, anyone?) of safely delivering infantry from the sea to the beach, or across rivers, etc.

The question is, are they worth delivering?  http://panther6actual.blogspot.com/2012/11/battletech-infantry-player-offside-view.html

Cent13
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 03:40:54 PM by Centurion13 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up