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)?