Author Topic: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle  (Read 10840 times)

False Son

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6461
  • Kot Blini
Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« on: 11 June 2014, 23:21:53 »

Bulwark Assault Vehicle, Technical Readout 3145: The Free Wolrds League.  Page 21.
Difficult not to pronounce as "Bowlwerk".  I have what you call "an accent".

Brooks Incorporated has been one of the primary suppliers of light and medium armor to the FWLM for centuries.  They even had a market in the heavy armor category with the Thumper Artillery Vehicle, the most successfull artillery vehicle ever built.  By and large, however, Brooks, Inc kept to the FWLM's line of light combat vehicles like Galleons, Harassers and Main Gauche.  During the Succession Wars and afterward Brooks Inc was maintaining a healthy portfolio of products with both fusion and combustion power plants.  This put them somewhere between the cheap and disposable products of Quickcell and the high quality vehicles of Exeter Organization and later Grumman Amalgamated.

Perhaps it is unsurprising then that Brooks, Inc would shoulder the development the Bulwark Assault Vehicle mentioned in their corporate writeup in Handbook House Marik.  With the Ontos and Partisan Heavy Tanks being the only domestically produced heavy armor chassis built for the FWLM, Brooks, Inc stood a chance of making an excellent reentry into the heavy armor market.  How they do it?  Take the principles of the FWLM's heavy armor doctrine- firepower over protection, and give them something they never had before: heavy hitters.  By taking the road less travelled Brooks Incorporated was able to bypass competition from the Ontos and Partisan in creating a niche previously filled only by Quikscell's Hetzer Wheeled Assault Gun or imports of the Demolisher Assault tank.

The Bulwark came online in 3068, just in time to be fielded by League and post-League forces in a variety of combat situations.  However, the political upheaval led to the early demise of the Bulwark through component shortages.  Brooks, Inc's expansion into the long held domain of the Ontos was sidelined after 3072, not to be realized once again until 3088.  By this time Brooks, Inc had become known for resorting to blatant corporate theft.  Perhaps it was through this method that the modern Bulwark would debut with a slew of technologies never present in the original.

At 85 tons the Bulwark is a competetor to the Ontos in terms of size, but manages to outdo the old workhorse in terms of speed.  A 340 XL fusion engine races past the Ontos's 3/5 MP with a blistering 4/6.  Snicker all you want, assault tanks seldom put in the effort to travel so fast.  Combined with the turret arrangement the 4/6 movement profile gives the Bulwark an amount of operational freedom usually reserved for heavy tanks.

The centerpiece of the Bulwark's construction is the Imperator Titan's Wrath Improved Heavy Gauss Rifle.  That's right, a big gun in the service of the FWLM.  Those are hard to come by, from a domestic production standpoint.  That the Bulwark features two big guns, the second in the form of a Fusigon Strongtooth Heavy PPC is downright Sasquatchian in rarity among the FWLM.  This is an outfit that has prioritized Light Gauss Rifles and Ultra Autocannons over the typically Lyran practice of big gunism.  For the Bulwark to have two guns capable of snapping off a mech's head is a real change is design philosophy.  However, it isn't that much of a stretch.  If the Ontos and Partisan are both examples of gun wagons, so is the Bulwark. 

What makes the Bulwark so well thought out is not only the twin gun arrangement with the HPPC being turret mounted.  The overlapping ranges of both weapons simplifies the use of the tank.  The improved model of HGR also doesn't force the Bulwark's controller to seek out medium range to justify the enormous expense of carrying such a specialized weapon.  Even immobilized at 18 hexes the iHGR is going to put out a 22 point fall check and 15 point hair cut.  The choice to use a HPPC diversifies the risks or catastrophic breakdown.  The HPPC relies on a functioning powerplant to work, but doesn't require ammo or itself explode when struck.  This creates a weakness in requiring the engine to not be hit, but removes a potentially fatal critical hit chance from the turret that plagues the original model's Gauss Rifle.

There were no attempts to outfit this tank with point defense weaponry or fancy defensive systems.  It is just guns and armor.  The modern Bulwark uses 11.5 tons of Heavy Ferro Fibrous armor to manage a 63/45/30/45 profile.  This is almost 30% more protection than the 3053 or Light Gauss Ontos.  All of that protection will be sorely needed.  Opponents generally don't tolerate big guns.  Resisting 3 hits of a standard Gauss Rifle or clan ERPPC in the sides and turret makes the modern Bulwark unimpressive the standards set by some assault tanks.  But, it is fairly impressive for what it is: a mobile assault gun.  If you think of the Bulwark as 2 Hetzers mashed together, maybe even 2.5 Hetzers (let your mind wrap around that one) it gives a better impression of what the Bulwark is meant for.  But, instead of lying in wait for an ambush, the Bulwark can advance on targets with far less concern for it's safety.  Well until quirks are involved.

~

Back in 3068 Brooks, Inc debuted the Original Bulwark previously mentioned in Handbook House Marik.  It featured a standard model Heavy Gauss Rifle and turret mounted Gauss Rifle instead of the Heavy PPC.  This increase in range came at the expense of ammo dependency (2 tons) and the danger of exploding the turret when hit.  Using standard armor rather than Heavy Ferro gives the Original Bulwark an armor profile of 55/40/22/40 while retaining the same movement profile.  This results in a net reduction of battle value to 1681.   The lower BV might make it the more attractive option over the 31st century version thanks to the increased tickle range of the standard Gauss Rifle.  On the other hand, the standard HGR's hitting power won't begin to pay off until the target is within 13 hexes.  The original retains the same 4 tons of ammunition found in the modern version.

Both variants are produced by Brooks Incorporated's Kendall facility.  This allows for sales to all former Free Worlds States, as if location was a problem for Brooks.  Despite being a blatant supporter of the Duchy of Andurien, Brooks sells weapons on both sides of the Duchy border.  The Bulwark, judging by the description in the TRO is no exception to this policy.  However, unlike the Aeron and Moltke, Brooks retains no exclusive variants for ADF use.

~

The most important reasons for my writing this article are the Bulwark's quirks.  The presence of the Exposed Weapon Linkage quirk has not sat well with me since I first read it.  This is a potentially fatal quirk, the kind that discourages players from either using quirks or using the Bulwark.  Okay, fine, not all quirks are good.  But the payoff?  Accurate Weapon: iHGR.  Nice, but not exactly an even trade.  What bothers me, however is the internally contradictory nature of what we know about Gauss weaponry.  Gauss ammunition is inert.  It is the weapon that explodes.  So why is it that the artwork for the Bulwark features the iHGR with an exposed ammo feed?  The rest of the gun appears well protected, at least from the angle presented.  Maybe it is less armored on the other side, I don't know.  It is a bone of contention I don't expect everyone to share.  However, it is a potentially fatal quirk, especially when a well known tool for combating tanks is the LBX AC cluster round.  With matching ranges, the LB10X AC becomes a truly worrying threat.  Use of quirks in the Bulwark's case fatally undermines the BV it pays for so much armor protection.

Another sticking point is the lack of concrete deployment dates.  No offense intended to Moonsword and the other MUL staff, but the posted introduction date of the Original Bulwark being 3098 contradicts the TRO's date of 3068.  Granted, that is the prototype date, which is further obscured by the TRO's statement, "Heavy Gauss rifle shortages during the Jihad meant that none were built between 3073 and 3087, and the latest version didn’t come to market until 3114."  Therein lies a suggestion that the Original Bulwark was indeed built between 3068 and 3072.  While it may not have the official stamp of approval to field in those years, if you sat at my table i'd say there's a good case to be made for fielding Bulwarks in a Jihad era conflict.

~

Deploying a Bulwark isn't overly difficult.  Stick the gunny end toward the enemy and strive for the best to-hit numbers.  Ok, not exactly.  The armor is robust for a mobile gun platform.  But, it if quirks are in play every hit to the front hit location is going to risk triggering an iHGR explosion.  This is a tricky prospect, because the front is the gunny end.  The Bulwark is too expensive to have it blow up in your face without hobbling an enemy target or at least absorbing enough firepower to breach the armor.  You may want to use the same tactics that are old hand for Hertzers and other heavy AC platforms: ambush.

In the event you can't ambush, or you succeed in the destruction of your initial target the Bulwark is still more resilient than Hetzers and some of their ilk.  Prudent movement is the name of the game and an open battlefield is the Bulwark's least favorite environment.  If you are using Bulwarks in a team, they create a potent area denial tool.  Other effective teammates include LRM platforms like Ontos and Partisan Heavy Tank, LBX tanks like both Partisan chassis, or another Brooks Incorporated product: the Moltkes M2 and M3.  These will allow your armored forces to capitalize on the huge holes punched through the armor of those smug battlemechs and their fancy internal structure points.  Other teammates you might want to consider is another gun wagon, the DI Schmidt to cover the minimum ranges of the Bulwark's weapons. 

Combating the Bulwark depends on what rules are in play.  If quirks are being used, dig out your cluster weapons.  It's time to go hunting.  At the the same time, while you might be tempted to pepper the Bulwark with LB10Xs the Bulwark's iHGR gets the accurate weapon quirk providing the same to-hit adjustment.  At that point you are begging the question of who gives in first?  If quirks aren't in play the LBX route is, as ever, productive.  Flanking the Bulwark severely cuts down on the amount of chin music it can project from the side.  Immobilizing the Bulwark and staying out of the iHGR's arc is always a good idea.  Flanking makes both easier.  Conventional infantry and to a lesser extant battle armor are effective counters because of their reduced vulnerability to the Bulwark's weapons.  Fast VTOLs can fly nape of the earth to get in close, and the combination of infantry transport and VTOL movement are doubly effective.

More information concerning the Bulwark Assault Vehicle and it's Alpha Strike stats can be found over at the MUL.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #1 on: 12 June 2014, 11:23:54 »
A nice article on a 'quirky' unit. Well, duh, that was a bad one....
Quote
At that point you are begging the question of who gives in first?
I'd say you are raising the question.  :P

The tank is certainly capable of taking some heads, literally, with it's combination of speed and heavy hitters. Agreeably devastating quirk, though.
If it just blew the weapon, fine. Or not, but at least it lives.
But I'm not actually sure if it has CASE. No books at hand, and I didn't see you mention it.
Going boom all by itself is a daunting prospect; I think I'd rather have HVACs, then.  [blank]
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

JadeHellbringer

  • Easily Bribed Forum Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21696
  • Third time this week!
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #2 on: 12 June 2014, 11:40:02 »
No CASE listed in the TRO entry either. Eeeek.

Now, I don't know the quirk rules, but if the exposed ammo gets hit, that normally causes an ammo explosion (derp). Here, does it just nerf the ammo bin and that's the end, or do you have a chance of the rifle itself exploding? Because combine that with the lack of CASE, and this thing is a bomb.

Other than that though, this is a solid tank actually. I'd gladly use these in conjunction with some Partisans- punch holes with Bulwark, fill holes with yummy LBX shots from Partisans, lather rinse repeat. I'd LOVE a miniature of this so I can paint that ammo feed- dumb of an idea as it is for the vehicle, it sure looks cool.

Now that I think of it, I wonder if swapping the HPPC for an LB-10X and just letting it do its own crit seeking wouldn't be a bad idea for a variant?
"There's a difference between the soldier and his fight,
But the warrior knows the true meaning of his life."
+Larry and his Flask, 'Blood Drunk'+

"You know, basically war is just, like, a bunch of people playing pranks on each other, but at the end they all die."
+Crow T. Robot+

martian

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8311
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #3 on: 12 June 2014, 11:55:50 »

Now that I think of it, I wonder if swapping the HPPC for an LB-10X and just letting it do its own crit seeking wouldn't be a bad idea for a variant?

It would work, but you would lose the big strong suit of this model - powerful energy weapon that can't run out of ammo.
And honestly, if you can deliver 37 damage with just two shots up to 18 hexes, you don't need to worry about citseeking too much.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #4 on: 12 June 2014, 11:59:40 »
I like the vehicle, it found it a hardy vehicle to have in as support unit while my big brusers Mech get up close with enemy. 

I wish Hardened Armor was available when they built the Bulwark, give it chance to survive motor hits perhaps little better.   Only thing needs to be remembered, is to make sure there close-in brawler keeps units getting too close to the Bulwark.   I was using both variants, found once they got into spitting range, Bulwark has trouble surviving the encounter.

I have agree with the other posters about the quirks.  Pretty challenging flaw, but least the thing won't cause the Vehicle to explode. I wish the vehicle had more than one ammo bin, least all the vehicle's ammo won't be tanked.

Nice rightup, False Son!
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

False Son

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6461
  • Kot Blini
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #5 on: 12 June 2014, 12:11:44 »
No CASE listed in the TRO entry either. Eeeek.

Now, I don't know the quirk rules, but if the exposed ammo gets hit, that normally causes an ammo explosion (derp). Here, does it just nerf the ammo bin and that's the end, or do you have a chance of the rifle itself exploding? Because combine that with the lack of CASE, and this thing is a bomb.

Hits the weapon.  Ordinarily that isn't a major problem.  Because this is a Gauss weapon...

Quote
Now that I think of it, I wonder if swapping the HPPC for an LB-10X and just letting it do its own crit seeking wouldn't be a bad idea for a variant?

I personally prefer the dedicated hitting power of dual heapcappers.  That way I am not tempted into trying things like shooting down VTOLs or crit punching tanks.  The Bulwark is there to smash things with big hits.  Also, adding an explosive ammo makes it a little more vulnerable.  As they are presently, no Bulwark can be destroyed by ammo hits.

And to put it in context, this is a gun wagon in the service of Free Worlds states.  Producing crits shouldn't be a concern between Partisans, SRM Carriers, the numerous LRM platforms, SRM Harassers or the huge swathes of infantry for which the FWLM was known.  For the ADF in particular, having the Moltke M3 is nice pairing.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #6 on: 12 June 2014, 12:19:54 »
It would work, but you would lose the big strong suit of this model - powerful energy weapon that can't run out of ammo.
And honestly, if you can deliver 37 damage with just two shots up to 18 hexes, you don't need to worry about citseeking too much.

You'd be able to fit an additional four tons of ammunition though, which more than makes up for the general susceptibility of ballistic weapons to running out of shots.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Kojak

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4610
  • Melancon Lives!
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #7 on: 12 June 2014, 12:34:07 »
The Bulwark is a tank that the FWLM has been in dire need of, frankly. Properly deployed (which is to say, in six-tank platoons) these'll be knocking down Steiner assault 'Mechs like bowling pins.


"Deep down, I suspect the eject handle on the Hunchback IIC was never actually connected to anything. The regs just say it has to be there."
- Klarg1

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40753
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #8 on: 12 June 2014, 12:42:30 »
Sadly, the FWLM only uses those 6-tank platoons in their light forces. That being said, a company consisting of an even mix of Bulwarks and Moltke-M3s with perhaps some Ontos-LGRs or Merkavas thrown in for support would be a true terror to behold. :o
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

martian

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8311
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #9 on: 12 June 2014, 12:43:31 »
You'd be able to fit an additional four tons of ammunition though, which more than makes up for the general susceptibility of ballistic weapons to running out of shots.

That's true, but I think I would still prefer Heavy PPC.

If we talk about domestic combat vehicles, I would pair it with the Partisan Air Defense Tank from Loyalty (that variant with twin LBX-10s and twin AC-2s).
If we talk about 'Mechs, I would take either the homegrown Carronade with its SB GR, or imported Malice (either -XP or -XT variants).

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40753
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #10 on: 12 June 2014, 13:09:24 »
I'm with Martian on this one. (:o)

The FWL already has lots of clustercannons on a variety of platforms. Rock-solid hole-punchers are another matter entirely.

Another good use for Bulwarks: A lot of factions have been deploying battlesuits with truly insane levels of armor lately. Even a single Bulwark can quickly reduce many of these squads and points to a mere fraction of their original strength, and long before they get close enough to deal their own damage. Given that the FWL's frontiers are starting to be populated with things like Wargs, Fenrir IIs and Ravagers, that's far from a bad thing.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

JadeHellbringer

  • Easily Bribed Forum Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21696
  • Third time this week!
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #11 on: 12 June 2014, 13:51:37 »
I'm with Martian on this one. (:o)

The FWL already has lots of clustercannons on a variety of platforms. Rock-solid hole-punchers are another matter entirely.

Another good use for Bulwarks: A lot of factions have been deploying battlesuits with truly insane levels of armor lately. Even a single Bulwark can quickly reduce many of these squads and points to a mere fraction of their original strength, and long before they get close enough to deal their own damage. Given that the FWL's frontiers are starting to be populated with things like Wargs, Fenrir IIs and Ravagers, that's far from a bad thing.

"BOOM! Get up from THAT, Clanner! I bet- oh, he did. What did you say those things are called, Golems?"
"There's a difference between the soldier and his fight,
But the warrior knows the true meaning of his life."
+Larry and his Flask, 'Blood Drunk'+

"You know, basically war is just, like, a bunch of people playing pranks on each other, but at the end they all die."
+Crow T. Robot+

False Son

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6461
  • Kot Blini
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #12 on: 12 June 2014, 14:03:47 »
Battle armor with Reactive Armor are also appearing these days, displacing Brooks Incorporated's Thumper Artillery Vehicle.  Even a Sniper Gun Trailer or Arrow IV Vehicle are going to need to find it difficult to remove Wolf Empire Xiphos from the field.  So yeah, a Bulwark can work in that duty.  Reflective Armor is not as widely distributed in the League zone, so the HPPC doesn't suffer as much reduction.

The article was a strange one.  There's not much to the Bulwark in terms of tactics.  It was more about digging into the design itself.  I'm fairly satisfied with Brooks's efforts on this one.  Not only because its Brooks, but also because it still feels like a FWL take on a HGR platform.  Without a turret the Bulwark could fit a 2nd HGR like an Alacorn.  Instead it opts for the flexibility of a turret and not being marganialized by Ballistic-Reinforced Armor.  The added speed is also a nice touch.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #13 on: 12 June 2014, 14:14:38 »
"BOOM! Get up from THAT, Clanner! I bet- oh, he did. What did you say those things are called, Golems?"

Even a Golem isn't getting back up again after an iHGR hit, so I'd say that works well enough. ;)

JadeHellbringer

  • Easily Bribed Forum Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 21696
  • Third time this week!
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #14 on: 12 June 2014, 14:30:54 »
Even a Golem isn't getting back up again after an iHGR hit, so I'd say that works well enough. ;)

Well, I was thinking more of the HPPC in that regard, but yeah, if a suit ever gets designed that shrugs off an iHGR, I'll be seriously impressed. And concerned. And freaked out. And considering purchase of a new Warship to clean the production site from existence.

*ahem*

Anyway. I do owe an apology- I forgot all about the Moltke, which of course pairs up well with the Bulwark. So removing the HPPC is definitely not needed after all- that double-punch will do just nicely. Perhaps back a platoon of these things with a platoon of LGR Ontos and finish the company with something quick to follow up with... late-model Galleons are nice and Marik-y, though I'd rather go with something SRM-capable like the Plainsman.
"There's a difference between the soldier and his fight,
But the warrior knows the true meaning of his life."
+Larry and his Flask, 'Blood Drunk'+

"You know, basically war is just, like, a bunch of people playing pranks on each other, but at the end they all die."
+Crow T. Robot+

Deadborder

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7881
  • Technical Victory!
    • Elmer Studios Blog
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #15 on: 12 June 2014, 18:15:12 »
It's the Lyranest tank made in the FWL. Great vehicle, and one that I've allready had a lot of fun with. And again, points for being falvourful.

I'm in agreement with Martian; pairing it with the Carronade has had some lovely results. The pair of them share a movement curve and similar engagement ranges to boot, which makes for a lovely team.
Author of BattleCorps stories Grand Theft Agro and Zero Signal



How to Draw MegaMek Icons the Deadborder Way. Over 9000 so far. Determination or madness?

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9544
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #16 on: 12 June 2014, 18:24:06 »
A good vehicle but I keep thinking of that RPG scene in Red when I see those exposed shells in the artwork ;D

Maybe I was too quick to kill off my old RP characters, I would love to reenact that scene in AToW.
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #17 on: 12 June 2014, 18:36:58 »
Another sticking point is the lack of concrete deployment dates.  No offense intended to Moonsword and the other MUL staff, but the posted introduction date of the Original Bulwark being 3098 contradicts the TRO's date of 3068.  Granted, that is the prototype date, which is further obscured by the TRO's statement, "Heavy Gauss rifle shortages during the Jihad meant that none were built between 3073 and 3087, and the latest version didn’t come to market until 3114."  Therein lies a suggestion that the Original Bulwark was indeed built between 3068 and 3072.  While it may not have the official stamp of approval to field in those years, if you sat at my table i'd say there's a good case to be made for fielding Bulwarks in a Jihad era conflict.

You rang? O:-)  More seriously, we're looking at the matter internally.  Since it's still under review, I'm not going to comment further.

On another note, great article.  I probably wouldn't bother with the quirks myself, but that's at least partially because I generally don't play with them much anyway.  Also, in my experience as the Vee of the Week guy for a while, lack of CASE on vehicles is depressingly common.  It's more notable to see one that has it than one that doesn't.

oldfart3025

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 240
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #18 on: 12 June 2014, 18:44:15 »
As a multi-role AFV, I'm not fond of the Bulwark. It's basically an overgrown "big gun" carriage like the Hetzer or Fortune. And in BT, a "pure" gun carriage is best used in areas with plenty of cover, where support isn't far away, and ranges favor the vehicle.


In defense (or on the offensive) in built up areas, this machine would be a potential headache. Critical economic targets that are a nightmare for offensive military planners to contemplate (like refineries, industrial megaplexes, etc) would be an example. Traditionally, in our games, this was the domain of often maligned vehicles and Mechs, like the Hetzer, Urbanmech, or tracked SRM Carrier. Situations where the best in Battletechnology don't mean shit when facing specialized units in their element. The Bulwark, with decent gunners (see my points on the minimum range issue below), would do well in these venues, as well as urban assault/defense.


The vehicle's armor, while underwhelming in tonnage for this weight class, would be sufficient for the aforementioned roles. But it has some issues.


As with a tiny few of other units from the faction that once leaned toward generalism (often with good results), the designers seemed to be undecided what they wanted the Bulwark to be. A field assault tank or a CQB assault AFV? That's how I see the rather odd weapons choices for the main production model.


The HPPC packs a punch, for that double-shot boost to the chances of shiny new kill markers on the hull. However, the HPPC is plagued with the same minimum range issue as the time-tested PPC. Which is a major no-no for a vehicle/mech that should excel in a close quarters venue, thanks to it's main gun. I will concede that the HPPC makes a great building-buster. And with good gunners, isn't overly hurt by the minimum range problem. But with the lack of other secondaries, the turret mounted weapon should be more flexible in CQB. And not all vehicular gunners on a mapsheet are above average.


On the flip-side, I don't consider the HGR, improved or otherwise, as a good "field" piece on anything other than a well-rounded generalist unit (such as the classic Von Luckner). Something, to be frank, the Bulwark isn't. Not by a long shot.


Another issue is the lack of CASE for an AFV carrying a gauss weapon of this power level in it's loadout. It's not as big an issue for most 'Mechs as for AFVs, since it's not quiet the same as a full load of missile/MG ammo. But since we are talking about an AFV, with it's game related internal structure limitations......


If I were to use the Bulwark for serious social work, in a hot night on the town, I would lose the HPPC for an ERPPC (no minimum range modifier, save a little weight for something else useful). In the field, one could squeak by with the stock model. However, an option is to go with a standard gauss rifle over the iHGR, using it as a combat support unit. The only problem with that is losing an effective close range defensive weapon, which would hurt in situations where it's excellent mobility for it's tonnage cannot be used to full advantage. So, an ERPPC might make more sense in that regard, from my POV.


Overall, the Bulwark is serviceable in a game scenario. But I'm not liking some of the design choices, especially in it's somewhat limiting combat loadout.


 
« Last Edit: 12 June 2014, 18:50:08 by oldfart3025 »
"That which I cannot crush with words alone, I shall crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"~Lord Solar Macharius

martian

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8311
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #19 on: 13 June 2014, 11:01:17 »
I think I can't agree.

1) I don't know why you say that the Bulwark is "a multi-role AFV". It isn't.

The Bulwark is the "Assault Vehicle". Its purpose is not doing many things on the battlefield - its mission is to reinforce attack of  FWL assault and heavy lances. As you probably know, the old FWLM had a problem with domestic Assault 'Mechs, especially in the heavies weight range - the Albatross and Grand Titan had their own serious problems, Goliath lacked ammo for its primary weapon, many Emperor's weapons lacked range, Longbow, Grand Crusader and Stalker were fire-support platforms.

So it's nice that some innovative officer in the LCCC made decision to support those reliable AWS-9M Awesomes, BLR-3M BattleMasters and THG-11E Thugs with a heavy vehicle armed with two hard-hitting guns. And the Bulwark is good in its job. It sports strong armament and comparably thick armor, and yet it's fast enough to keep pace with 'Mechs it was designed to accompany.

2) "The vehicle's armor, while underwhelming in tonnage for this weight class, ..."

If you say A, say B too. Many Assault Class tanks with stronger armor are slower and move 3/5, as they invested tonnage in armor, so they use smaller and weaker engines.

So we could say that the Bulwark is actually quite fast in its weight class. If we count Assault tanks, only the Fury has comparable speed (and much weaker armament). Similar tanks such as Demolisher (twin GR), Kelswa or Alacorn Mk.VI have comparable armor and armament and yet they are slower.

3)  "HPPC is plagued with the same minimum range issue as the time-tested PPC. Which is a major no-no for a vehicle/mech that should excel in a close quarters venue, thanks to it's main gun."

Actually, nobody says that the Bulwark should excel in CQB. Its HRG or iHGR has minimum range too.

Quite on the contrary, I think it wouldn't be too wise to take a vehicle where both weapons have minimum range into a fight where such vehicle would have to face enemies in the point-blank range. Don't take longbow into a phone booth fight and take a vehicle where weapons have no minimum range into CQB.

That's how I see it.

False Son

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6461
  • Kot Blini
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #20 on: 13 June 2014, 11:41:33 »
2) "The vehicle's armor, while underwhelming in tonnage for this weight class, ..."

If you say A, say B too. Many Assault Class tanks with stronger armor are slower and move 3/5, as they invested tonnage in armor, so they use smaller and weaker engines.

So we could say that the Bulwark is actually quite fast in its weight class. If we count Assault tanks, only the Fury has comparable speed (and much weaker armament). Similar tanks such as Demolisher (twin GR), Kelswa or Alacorn Mk.VI have comparable armor and armament and yet they are slower.

I might be alone on this one, but tonnage really doesn't matter as a metric after the chassis crosses the heavy vehicle bay threshold.  The Bulwark is fast for it's tonnage, yeah.  Not the best at being armored for it's tonnage, yeah.  Neither of those facts really "matters".  The Ontos is heavier, slower and has thinner armor, and the FWLM has been schleping along with it for decades.  Why?  Because it packs a tremendous punch at a BV that isn't high.  So the Bulwark's tonnage relative qualities should be viewed with a grain of salt.  Does it have enough armor for the BV?  That's a more relevant metric to me.  In the case of the Bulwark, I'm not entirely sure.  Fairly robust armor, but the BV is sort of high.  The quality of the armor can only go so far, however, as the iHGR or HGR are front mounted.  No matter how much armor your tank has, even without quirks, there is a chance the iHGR is going to get TAC'd eventually.  If the Bulwark was sporting 100% armor coverage i'd actually be less impressed.  Wasted BV on armor that is going to make a nice looking coffin for the shredded crew does nothing.

Quote
3)  "HPPC is plagued with the same minimum range issue as the time-tested PPC. Which is a major no-no for a vehicle/mech that should excel in a close quarters venue, thanks to it's main gun."

Actually, nobody says that the Bulwark should excel in CQB. Its HRG or iHGR has minimum range too.

Quite on the contrary, I think it wouldn't be too wise to take a vehicle where both weapons have minimum range into a fight where such vehicle would have to face enemies in the point-blank range. Don't take longbow into a phone booth fight and take a vehicle where weapons have no minimum range into CQB.

That's how I see it.

I agree to some extent.  One of the huge problems I have with tanks like the Manticore that attempt to do everything, ala battlemech is the non matching weapons.  There isn't a single IS weapon I can think of that has no minimum range I would trade for the HPPC.  2 attempts to slam a mech's head off has a tremendous psychological advantage over 1 attempt and an additional poker.  Also, if the Bulwark should becomes movement critical'd the enemy will want to get out of the front arc.  Having 1 headchopper turret mounted means more than all the medium lasers ever made.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

God and Davion

  • Excelencia Steiner
  • Administrator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • This place for rent
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #21 on: 13 June 2014, 16:09:13 »
As a multi-role AFV, I'm not fond of the Bulwark. It's basically an overgrown "big gun" carriage like the Hetzer or Fortune. And in BT, a "pure" gun carriage is best used in areas with plenty of cover, where support isn't far away, and ranges favor the vehicle.


In defense (or on the offensive) in built up areas, this machine would be a potential headache. Critical economic targets that are a nightmare for offensive military planners to contemplate (like refineries, industrial megaplexes, etc) would be an example. Traditionally, in our games, this was the domain of often maligned vehicles and Mechs, like the Hetzer, Urbanmech, or tracked SRM Carrier. Situations where the best in Battletechnology don't mean shit when facing specialized units in their element. The Bulwark, with decent gunners (see my points on the minimum range issue below), would do well in these venues, as well as urban assault/defense.


The vehicle's armor, while underwhelming in tonnage for this weight class, would be sufficient for the aforementioned roles. But it has some issues.


As with a tiny few of other units from the faction that once leaned toward generalism (often with good results), the designers seemed to be undecided what they wanted the Bulwark to be. A field assault tank or a CQB assault AFV? That's how I see the rather odd weapons choices for the main production model.


The HPPC packs a punch, for that double-shot boost to the chances of shiny new kill markers on the hull. However, the HPPC is plagued with the same minimum range issue as the time-tested PPC. Which is a major no-no for a vehicle/mech that should excel in a close quarters venue, thanks to it's main gun. I will concede that the HPPC makes a great building-buster. And with good gunners, isn't overly hurt by the minimum range problem. But with the lack of other secondaries, the turret mounted weapon should be more flexible in CQB. And not all vehicular gunners on a mapsheet are above average.


On the flip-side, I don't consider the HGR, improved or otherwise, as a good "field" piece on anything other than a well-rounded generalist unit (such as the classic Von Luckner). Something, to be frank, the Bulwark isn't. Not by a long shot.


Another issue is the lack of CASE for an AFV carrying a gauss weapon of this power level in it's loadout. It's not as big an issue for most 'Mechs as for AFVs, since it's not quiet the same as a full load of missile/MG ammo. But since we are talking about an AFV, with it's game related internal structure limitations......


If I were to use the Bulwark for serious social work, in a hot night on the town, I would lose the HPPC for an ERPPC (no minimum range modifier, save a little weight for something else useful). In the field, one could squeak by with the stock model. However, an option is to go with a standard gauss rifle over the iHGR, using it as a combat support unit. The only problem with that is losing an effective close range defensive weapon, which would hurt in situations where it's excellent mobility for it's tonnage cannot be used to full advantage. So, an ERPPC might make more sense in that regard, from my POV.


Overall, the Bulwark is serviceable in a game scenario. But I'm not liking some of the design choices, especially in it's somewhat limiting combat loadout.

  I'm usually impressed by your tactical analysis but today I think you missed the point of the tank. It is not a perfect tank and you nailed the problems it has. A 3/5 with more armor and short range weapons may be better. A lot better. However, it doesn't fit the intended use of the tank and would lack the flexibility required for FWL job and... personality.

  The FWL has a tradition of finesse. Martian pointed it pretty well, the FWL needed desperately for... well... a lot of time, a tank that can throw big bricks into the enemy and open big holes. FWL mechs and tanks are a) Faster than average b)They do less big holes than average c)May need more armor than average. This tank is a perfect companion of those tanks and mechs, a great force multiplier for the 3050-3060 units that lack a big gun. 
We are back again... but we never forget Albatross

oldfart3025

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 240
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #22 on: 13 June 2014, 21:30:45 »

I think I can't agree.

1) I don't know why you say that the Bulwark is "a multi-role AFV". It isn't.

The Bulwark is the "Assault Vehicle". Its purpose is not doing many things on the battlefield - its mission is to reinforce attack of  FWL assault and heavy lances. As you probably know, the old FWLM had a problem with domestic Assault 'Mechs, especially in the heavies weight range - the Albatross and Grand Titan had their own serious problems, Goliath lacked ammo for its primary weapon, many Emperor's weapons lacked range, Longbow, Grand Crusader and Stalker were fire-support platforms.

So it's nice that some innovative officer in the LCCC made decision to support those reliable AWS-9M Awesomes, BLR-3M BattleMasters and THG-11E Thugs with a heavy vehicle armed with two hard-hitting guns. And the Bulwark is good in its job. It sports strong armament and comparably thick armor, and yet it's fast enough to keep pace with 'Mechs it was designed to accompany.


I didn't explicitly say the Bulwark was a multi-purpose generalist. But the designers apparently didn't see it that way.


The Bulwark may not fit the mold as a true multirole, but it tries to shoehorn that in with it's loadout (a poor balance between a true assault vehicle, which generally fights in tight quarters or possesses concentrated damage potential at range, and an all-aspect combat vehicle) . It fails as an attempt at a first rate close combat vehicle (minimum range modifiers) and a line tank (no coverage for long and point defense ranges that a true generalist should have).


It's a bizarre hybrid of the Demolisher, Manticore, and Demon. And it doesn't excel like those proven classics. One can also argue that it's a tracked analogue to the Barghest, a niche 'mech at best. A craptastic design, at worst.


As for assault vehicles, you do know that there are assault class tanks/AFVs that lend themselves to multiple roles, yes? The Challenger and Carnivore are two glaring examples of this fact. The Bulwark may not be a true multi-role, but it's not a true assault vehicle either. It's an odd niche design with some illogical planning behind it, as it stands, when everything should scream "assault vehicle" as designed. 


I will agree that the League had some less than stellar generalist Battlemech designs. But they tended to be the exception, not the rule. For every Albatross, there was a Perseus, Thunderbolt-7M (the best of the second generation variants of that chassis), and Tempest. The Grand Titan and Hercules had a couple of glaring flaws, but were solid. And I'm going to disagree with your assessment of the Emperor. It was a very good line generalist.

You already listed some other good designs in that vein.


The "LCCC" and "innovation" are oxymorons. But to give credit where credit is due, the League has deployed some decent specialists vehicle designs in the past.








Quote
2) "The vehicle's armor, while underwhelming in tonnage for this weight class, ..."

If you say A, say B too. Many Assault Class tanks with stronger armor are slower and move 3/5, as they invested tonnage in armor, so they use smaller and weaker engines.


That rule isn't etched in stone anymore, as it was during the Succession Wars. The sacrifice isn't as great due to modern Battletechnology.

If the incompetent Lyrans could produce a 65 ton chassis that has withstood the test of time, with the mobility of a MBT and the largest AC available at that time, and still equip token secondaries and 11.5 tons of armor (a respectable amount in 3025) with Succession Wars era technology, I expect better in the current technological era. Especially in the Republic era when the rule is "quality over quantity".



Quote
So we could say that the Bulwark is actually quite fast in its weight class. If we count Assault tanks, only the Fury has comparable speed (and much weaker armament). Similar tanks such as Demolisher (twin GR), Kelswa or Alacorn Mk.VI have comparable armor and armament and yet they are slower.



The mobility is one of it's saving graces, allowing it to function as a MBT in a manuever engagement in a pinch (i.e. If nothing else is available).

However, your comparisons are somewhat along the lines of apples and oranges. The Fury is a command vehicle. The Mark Six Alacorn and Demolisher gauss variant are old fashioned "gun carriages" geared toward no frills fire support, with the Alacorn also being an ideal ranged assault platform. The Kelswa is a classic FSV in the traditional Battletech sense, from my POV. So, the armor and movement profiles are acceptable.


The Bulwark is something of a different animal.




Quote
3)  "HPPC is plagued with the same minimum range issue as the time-tested PPC. Which is a major no-no for a vehicle/mech that should excel in a close quarters venue, thanks to it's main gun."

Actually, nobody says that the Bulwark should excel in CQB. Its HRG or iHGR has minimum range too.


Nobody else is saying it, true. But I'm saying it, based on it's damage curve which is traditionally associated with close-in assault vehicles.

The iHGR does have a minimum range modifier. But it's awesome damage curve overshadows that flaw a little. Which is why I didn't make an issue of it.

The same cannot be said of the H-PPC.

The ER PPC, on the other hand, would be perfect as a secondary. It would compensate for the range issues, both close range and at longer ranges, of the iHGR. It would move the Bulwark up from "serviceable" and "ultra-niche" to "solid" and "flexible" assault vehicle. It wouldn't warrant any changes in the cooling system and save a little weight for other useful items (like badly needed CASE).

 


Quote
Quite on the contrary, I think it wouldn't be too wise to take a vehicle where both weapons have minimum range into a fight where such vehicle would have to face enemies in the point-blank range. Don't take longbow into a phone booth fight and take a vehicle where weapons have no minimum range into CQB.

That's how I see it.



Which is the basis of my issues with the Bulwark as an assault vehicle, and why it needs better close-in defenses. Traditional assault vehicles are either close assault or ranged assault. This middle of the road crap is best left to traditional line tanks (MBTs in particular). Even if it's just supporting Battlemech formations.





  I'm usually impressed by your tactical analysis but today I think you missed the point of the tank. It is not a perfect tank and you nailed the problems it has. A 3/5 with more armor and short range weapons may be better. A lot better. However, it doesn't fit the intended use of the tank and would lack the flexibility required for FWL job and... personality.

  The FWL has a tradition of finesse. Martian pointed it pretty well, the FWL needed desperately for... well... a lot of time, a tank that can throw big bricks into the enemy and open big holes. FWL mechs and tanks are a) Faster than average b)They do less big holes than average c)May need more armor than average. This tank is a perfect companion of those tanks and mechs, a great force multiplier for the 3050-3060 units that lack a big gun. 



I'm flattered. And thanks for the compliment.  :)


Short range weapons and slower speeds isn't the key issue. The Bulwark blurs some lines, and suffers somewhat because of it. If an assault vehicle is going to blur those lines, trying to do more than one thing well, it's generally a good idea to have increased tactical flexibility. Some units, like the Alacorn, can get away with this by virtue of the roles they can fill. The Bulwark, like the Demolisher, work best by playing by the rules of thumb (thanks to their respective design choices).



Personality and flavor is good. But it has no truck in my group's games.


From my POV, so-called "head cappers", "hole punchers" and "alpha strikers" are overrated. Engagements (at least on my end; I can't speak for everyone) are about manuever, tactics, accuracy, player adaptability, and anticipation. Quick kills are nice when they happen, and are probably a necessity for the time constrained and pick-up gamers. But for us here at home, generalist and specialist designs have their places. And the units that overly excel at the three concepts I mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph, generally fall into the realm of "specialists".


« Last Edit: 13 June 2014, 21:54:41 by oldfart3025 »
"That which I cannot crush with words alone, I shall crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"~Lord Solar Macharius

False Son

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6461
  • Kot Blini
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #23 on: 13 June 2014, 21:46:11 »
Also, in my experience as the Vee of the Week guy for a while, lack of CASE on vehicles is depressingly common.  It's more notable to see one that has it than one that doesn't.

And yet there are plenty of mechs with XL engines, CASE and explosive crits in the same side toro.  Just goes to show how much the militaries of the Inner Sphere value mechs over tanks.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

Nikas_Zekeval

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #24 on: 13 June 2014, 22:10:49 »
Frankly, this is a 'multirole vehicle.'  It is a super sized Main Battle Tank.  Two big hammers, which are also long range headcappers.  Pretty good armor for the role.

And that makes the exposed iHGR ammo feed the worst idea since the Russians had the fuel tanks in their IFV doors, and an autoloader that would eat unwary gunners' arms.  Rules wise, well something that big and powerful is going to get attention, lots of it.  This is the vehicle the colonel assigns a lieutenant who brought his daughter home at 0200, with her blouse buttoned up wrong.  }:)

Heck, art and fluff wise?  Even without the more explosive issues of the exposed ammo feed, the Chauchat showed why you keep your ammo closed up and away from dirt and other battlefield crud.  Not to mention the angle of the treads, and the split nature probably add to the maintenance nightmares.  And I'm sure the crews 'encourage' this rolling death trap to spend as much time in the mechanic's hands as they can get away with.

Seriously, I'd think this was something the Blakists designed for the FWLM to make them easier to conquer.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #25 on: 13 June 2014, 23:55:10 »
Note: A review of the Exposed Weapons Linkage is in progress. We are reviewing it for possible errata concerning weapons with non-exploding  or no ammo.

Should a change be made, it will be posted in the SO errata thread.

Thank you,
Joel BC
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #26 on: 14 June 2014, 00:28:25 »
Even without the more explosive issues of the exposed ammo feed, the Chauchat showed why you keep your ammo closed up and away from dirt and other battlefield crud.

Amusingly, there's a sentence in that article that makes me now wonder whether the original fluff writer of the Orion was familiar with the Chauchat: "Chauchat gunners were also known to load their magazines with 18 or 19 rounds instead of the maximum 20 in order to avoid the dreaded first-round failure to feed ."

Reads rather like a miniature ancestor of ye olde "temperamental" KaliYama autocannon complete with the same workaround. :)

martian

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8311
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #27 on: 14 June 2014, 03:37:52 »
I didn't explicitly say the Bulwark was a multi-purpose generalist. But the designers apparently didn't see it that way.
You didn't say that say the Bulwark was a multi-purpose generalist? Sorry, I misunderstood, you said that the Bulwark is "a multi-role AFV" ...

The Bulwark may not fit the mold as a true multirole, but it tries to shoehorn that in with it's loadout (a poor balance between a true assault vehicle, which generally fights in tight quarters or possesses concentrated damage potential at range, and an all-aspect combat vehicle) . It fails as an attempt at a first rate close combat vehicle (minimum range modifiers) and a line tank (no coverage for long and point defense ranges that a true generalist should have).
1) Why do you think that "Assault vehicle" must fight only in cities? Nobody in its TRO entry says that and nobody in this thread (except you) says that.
You know, many assaults take place outside the city, in the normal landscape.
2) Ditto for "an attempt at a first rate close combat vehicle". The only person saying it is you. Nobody else says that the Bulwark was concieved as such.
3) If you are so worried about the long range, keep in mind that the original Bulwark can deliver 15+10 points to 20 hexes, and that it was designed to cooperate with Assault 'Mechs (I listed them above) armed with multiple ER PPCs that can protect it (such as that BattleMaster or Awesome) if the enemy gets too close.

It's a bizarre hybrid of the Demolisher, Manticore, and Demon. And it doesn't excel like those proven classics. One can also argue that it's a tracked analogue to the Barghest, a niche 'mech at best. A craptastic design, at worst.
1) What exactly is "bizzare" on a tank capable of moving 4/6, armed with two Gauss Rifles (one with slightly longer range, but weaker, and one with slightly shorter range, but more powerful as it closes to enemy) and protected with almost 200 points of armor?
2) Your analogy with the Barghest is very nice. BGS-3T Barghest has above-average speed in its weight class (similarly how the Bulwark is faster than many other assault class tanks) and its stable Quad chassis allows it to fire its HGR on the move (similarly how the Bulwark can fire its HGR on the move).  Serious firepower in fast, stable and durable package.
If the Barghest or the Bulwark are good in their job, they are "niche" and "craptastic"? I must disagree.

As for assault vehicles, you do know that there are assault class tanks/AFVs that lend themselves to multiple roles, yes? The Challenger and Carnivore are two glaring examples of this fact. The Bulwark may not be a true multi-role, but it's not a true assault vehicle either. It's an odd niche design with some illogical planning behind it, as it stands, when everything should scream "assault vehicle" as designed. 
1) Yes, some assault class tanks are multipurpose vehicles - and some aren't. The Bulwark is in the second group. And what?
2) The Challenger X is slower (3/5) and heavier than the Bulwark. I guess you would have some problems with accompanying FWLM heavy and assault 'Mechs moving 4/6.
3) As for the Carnivore, this is a Clan tank. The superior ClanTech generally lets you mount more armor and weapons. The Bulwark could have mounted MGs or a Medium laser or two, but it would have to sacrifice something (armor, probably) to do so.

I will agree that the League had some less than stellar generalist Battlemech designs. But they tended to be the exception, not the rule. For every Albatross, there was a Perseus, Thunderbolt-7M (the best of the second generation variants of that chassis), and Tempest. The Grand Titan and Hercules had a couple of glaring flaws, but were solid. And I'm going to disagree with your assessment of the Emperor. It was a very good line generalist.

You already listed some other good designs in that vein.
1) And have you noticed that all those 'Mechs you named (with the exception of the Tempest and one not especially good configuration (P1B) of the Perseus) are unable to deliver more than 10 points on one spot? That the standard Grand Titan was practically harmless outside 10 hexes and the improved model was 100-ton assault 'Mech which was unable to force PSR unless the enemy was in its near vicinity?

I am sure that all those vehicles could use support of a tank such as the Bulwark with its two hard-hitting guns.

2) Yes, the Emperor is a generalist. And it's the slowest 'Mech of all 'Mechs you named. I'd rather have 4/6 Bulwark that can keep pace with the rest of the unit.
Plus, what on my words that its weapons lack range is not true? Its Autocannons have range of 18 hexes, its Large Lasers have even shorter range, and its medium laser and medium pulse lasers are quite short-ranged. The Bulwark's pair of Gauss Rifles can reach farther and they pack quite a punch.

That rule isn't etched in stone anymore, as it was during the Succession Wars. The sacrifice isn't as great due to modern Battletechnology.

If the incompetent Lyrans could produce a 65 ton chassis that has withstood the test of time, with the mobility of a MBT and the largest AC available at that time, and still equip token secondaries and 11.5 tons of armor (a respectable amount in 3025) with Succession Wars era technology, I expect better in the current technological era. Especially in the Republic era when the rule is "quality over quantity".
And you really got something better than the Rommel.
Do you wanna have some secondary weapons on the Bulwark? What would you reduce? Armor? Not a good idea on Assault vehicle. Ammo? As both GRs need ammunition, I would rather make sure that I have enough of it. Speed? Remember, it must keep pace with its 4/6 BattleMechs.

The mobility is one of it's saving graces, allowing it to function as a MBT in a manuever engagement in a pinch (i.e. If nothing else is available).
So, we are finally getting to the point that the Bulwark must be manueverable enough to keep the pace with those heavy and assault FWLM 'Mechs. Thank you.

However, your comparisons are somewhat along the lines of apples and oranges. The Fury is a command vehicle. The Mark Six Alacorn and Demolisher gauss variant are old fashioned "gun carriages" geared toward no frills fire support, with the Alacorn also being an ideal ranged assault platform. The Kelswa is a classic FSV in the traditional Battletech sense, from my POV. So, the armor and movement profiles are acceptable.

The Bulwark is something of a different animal.
1) I explictly mentioned the Fury as example of the only other assault class tank with speed comparable with the Bulwark. And it's armament is much weaker.
2) Yes, the Bulwark is something different than the Demolisher, Alacorn or Kelswa. It's "Assault Vehicle", not "Fire Support Vehicle".
Since the Bulwark was designed to accompany FWLM's 'Mechs, it can't afford to move 3/5. And therefore, it's 4/6 speed and engine weight defines the amount of armor it can carry. And its armament must be sufficiently powerful, so the Bulwark will be an asset for those FWLM's 'Mechs, not a liability.

Nobody else is saying it, true. But I'm saying it, based on it's damage curve which is traditionally associated with close-in assault vehicles.
1) So at first you said something - what nobody else than you asserts - and now you have spent two or three post trying to refutate it? I can't say I understand.

2) So - if I understand you correctly - if some vehicle deals more damage as it closes, it makes it a "close-in assault vehicle"?
When using the Bulwark, it's good to find the optimal range, not too close and not too far.
I can't see what so difficult with that?

The iHGR does have a minimum range modifier. But it's awesome damage curve overshadows that flaw a little. Which is why I didn't make an issue of it.

The same cannot be said of the H-PPC.
Ditto.

The ER PPC, on the other hand, would be perfect as a secondary. It would compensate for the range issues, both close range and at longer ranges, of the iHGR. It would move the Bulwark up from "serviceable" and "ultra-niche" to "solid" and "flexible" assault vehicle. It wouldn't warrant any changes in the cooling system and save a little weight for other useful items (like badly needed CASE).
While it would be perfectly possible to replace its Heavy PPC with ER PPC, the Bulwark would:
a) lose one Headcapper and lose a weapon capable of breaching (or almost breaching) section of enemy's armor
b) gain just another 10-points weapon, identical with those on Awesome, BattleMaster or Thug.
 
Which is the basis of my issues with the Bulwark as an assault vehicle, and why it needs better close-in defenses. Traditional assault vehicles are either close assault or ranged assault. This middle of the road crap is best left to traditional line tanks (MBTs in particular). Even if it's just supporting Battlemech formations.
1) The Bulwark was not designed to operate alone, but with other BattleMechs and vehicles. Keep your Bulwark in its optimal range, in the vicinity of other units, and your BLR-3M BattleMaster or AWS-9M  Awesome can cover minimum range of its weapons, if needed.
2) This brings one quite interesting question: Do you consider AWS-9Q Awesome to be "a middle of the road crap" too, as you do with the Bulwark?
I ask because this AWS-9Q Awesome has a quartet of PPCs with their medium range and minimum range and practically no back-up (one Sm. Laser)?
« Last Edit: 14 June 2014, 03:49:20 by martian »

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #28 on: 14 June 2014, 07:25:23 »
This vehicle spawned way more discussions than I expected it to.  ^-^
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Nikas_Zekeval

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Vehicle of the Mid-Week: Bulwark Assault Vehicle
« Reply #29 on: 14 June 2014, 09:07:50 »
Note: A review of the Exposed Weapons Linkage is in progress. We are reviewing it for possible errata concerning weapons with non-exploding  or no ammo.

Should a change be made, it will be posted in the SO errata thread.

Thank you,
Joel BC

Not quite the death trap if you merely jam the ammo feed.  But still one grenade or chunk of shrapnel from rendering about half your firepower and a quarter the vehicle's mass dead weight.