Make Combat Vehicle to the battlemech level asset/suppot 'tank destroyer' style

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I was think about that before and have an idea.

First off, the goal is make the combat vehicle with a fusion engine, as the viable choice as much as a battlemech. I don't care for lesser ICE/Fuel Cell vehicles, for they are just the chipshots, as same as the lesser Retromechs. But fusion engine is different. As proper battlemech uses fusion engine, it should be good as much as on the vehicle as well.

What I aim is, to make combat vehicle that is surely win against the battlemech with same tonnage, if the battlefield have no terrain feature and battlemech is not engage the CV in melee. Thus, in the real games, battlemechs can abuse the terrain feature and/or melee attack to beat the vehicles(in conclusion vehicles are still not so good against battlemech on the real games), while vehicle is not the only 'lesser' asset as long as you pay for a battlemech-level of techs and gears.

The idea is, to Combat Vehicle with fusion engine(of all types, such as XL and XXL);
-Change the space to 9+(tonnage÷5), instead of 5+(tonnage÷5). So a 22 ton VTOL may carry up to 13(9+[22÷5]= 13.4->13) items of equipments, instead of 9(9+[22÷5]= 9.4->9). While a 45 ton hovertank may carry up to 18(9+[45÷5]= 18) items of equipments, instead of 14(5+[45÷5]= 14).
-Change the weight of internal structure by 5 percent(10 percent if superheavy) of the vehicle's tonnage, instead of 10 percent, rounded up to the nearest half-ton. For example, the weight of the internal structure of a 45-ton Combat Vehicle is 2.5, instead of 4.5.
-Turret have no extra tonnage; items mounted on the turret adds no further weight at all. For weapons does not mounted on the turret, see 'quality of life change for tank destroyer' below.
-Fusion engine's weight is same as battlemech; it does not gets +50% increased weight.
-Weight-Free Heat sinks is 20, rather than 10.
-Armored Motive System(283, TO), Limited Amphibious(302, TO) and Environmental Sealing(303, TO) adds no weight at all.
-Fully Amphibious costs 1 ton per 25 tons of total unit weight(rounded up to the nearest 0.5 tons).
-Automatically install Combat Vehicle Escape Pod(309, TO) for free.

Well, I don't think that these change makes the vehicle overwhelmingly powerful, and I don't intend that either. But these change makes it powerful as much as the battlemech... perhaps.

---------------------------------------------------

And... for so called 'tank destroyer', that mounts the weapon on the body sections rather than turret, it is usually not worth at all on the construction rules I think. Although making turret makes more parts and makes the more weak spot for this....

I think that all combat vehicles are deserve this treatment, fusion or not.

All Combat Vehicle are have these tweaks;
-All weapons not mounted on the turret gains Accurate Weapon Design Quirk.
-Choose either Front or Rear when construct the Combat Vehicle unit. Reduce the weight of all weapons with 1 tons or heavier on the chosen location by 10%. If apply the 'better fusion CV' above, CVs with fusion engine group reduces 20% of weight instead of 10%, since they don't pay for +10% weight when mount the items on the turret.

Fluffwise? Because they are the vehicle, when mounted on the center of the vehicle it surely stabilized and it requires lesser components to be functional. Since weapons on the turret gains no benefit from this, I don't think that it is required to the unit must not have a turret location to enjoy this. If you need Demolisher II-X, then so be it.

So, it will give you the choice, either put the weapon on the turret, put the weapon on the body to save weight, or mount even bigger weapon on the body instead. But is -10% or -20%(for fusion only) enough reason to forgo turret, or it needs more discount?

The reason of allow to pick either front or rear is because of gun trailer(heavy gauss); Its heavy gauss rifle is aim for the rear, instead of front.

[Hptm. Streiger]

?? well you don't pay heat for ballistics and missiles on a tank sure energy weapons are expensive but this trade of is fair.
Also, a higher load doesn't solve the inherited weakness of tanks - the hit zone. Where a Mech with say 64 points of armor might be able to tackle 7 or 8 rounds of Medium Lasers - same 4 tons of armor on a tank- it dies after the 5th round unless you put all armor front. On the other hand some 25t Mechs get destroyed by a single AC20 while the tank can take the hit without damage.

The only real disadvantage is the limited arc of fire. Currently there are zero reasons to build stupid things like the Puma or Behemoth with huge parts of their weapons in the hull... move everything into the turret.
So the accurate weapon might be something.. although it seems "counter-intuitive" to give a CV with dozens of MML3s in the hull a "accurate" quirk.

I know its not part of the ruleset - but what about reducing the size of the tank.
For example:
 a turretless tank with the standard arcs ignore the damage that is rolled on 12s (the criticals still count)
if you reduce the firing arc further you can ignore the 11 (criticals count)
and if you really could shoot the line in front of your tank you can even ignore the 10

[idea weenie]

I'd go with the following:

• Vehicles have have enough heat sinks to handle firing all their weapons at once (standard rules)
• Vehicles can mount double heat sinks
• Vehicles get half benefit (but FRU) from mounted heat sinks due to their smaller surface area (so they will prefer low-heat weapons)  17 SHS = 9 heat dissipation
• Vehicles get 50% higher armor per ton due to their compact shape
• Flame-based attacks halve the effect of vehicle heat sinks while the flame weapons are inflicting heat damage (so a single Mech Flamer would cause the effect for the next turn, while an Inferno attack could cause the trouble for 3 turns).  So if 9 heat dissipation, the vehicle now only has 5 heat dissipation

With these changes, vehicles become tough little bricks that need to be shot at by incendiary attacks to reduce their effect, and need to be dealt with via crits instead of slamming through their armor.  Since missiles (especially SRMs) are a fairly easy way to get the multiple hits needed for crits, vehicles wind up wanting more AMS installed.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

?? well you don't pay heat for ballistics and missiles on a tank sure energy weapons are expensive but this trade of is fair.
Also, a higher load doesn't solve the inherited weakness of tanks - the hit zone. Where a Mech with say 64 points of armor might be able to tackle 7 or 8 rounds of Medium Lasers - same 4 tons of armor on a tank- it dies after the 5th round unless you put all armor front. On the other hand some 25t Mechs get destroyed by a single AC20 while the tank can take the hit without damage.

The only real disadvantage is the limited arc of fire. Currently there are zero reasons to build stupid things like the Puma or Behemoth with huge parts of their weapons in the hull... move everything into the turret.
So the accurate weapon might be something.. although it seems "counter-intuitive" to give a CV with dozens of MML3s in the hull a "accurate" quirk.

I know its not part of the ruleset - but what about reducing the size of the tank.
For example:
 a turretless tank with the standard arcs ignore the damage that is rolled on 12s (the criticals still count)
if you reduce the firing arc further you can ignore the 11 (criticals count)
and if you really could shoot the line in front of your tank you can even ignore the 10

Sure if strictly allows DHS tanks should track heats just as battlemech does. But because tanks are not so good at durability in the game rules, so at least it needs to be better at firepower - but it is not even good at mount the weapons. Even with these tweaks I don't think that it will become something impossible to beat with the battlemechs with same tonnage.

Still its durability is not so increased well. But at least it is allowed to pick more freedom of choice; increased slots and removing ridiculous +50% weight on fusion engine will lets them to pick the better armor such as heavy ferro fibrous, and put the maximum armor points easier, without much burden.



The reason of think about accurate on the hull mounted weapon is, because it may stabilized better, and more importantly, aiming hull mounted weapon requires the tank to turn around thus it reduces accuracy already. So, I think that it is mainly for the ambush attempt; usually such so called 'tank destroyer' prefer to ambush the enemy because they lacks a turret, and their gun is stronger than normal tanks with same tonnage. More accurate weapon will helps its role better.

An another solution is add Narrow/Low Profile design quirk to all combat vehicle. Perhaps except superheavy combat vehicle seems more reasonable, though. Compared by around 10m tall battlemech, their lower height gives them enough reason to have it by default I think.

I'd go with the following:

• Vehicles have have enough heat sinks to handle firing all their weapons at once (standard rules)
• Vehicles can mount double heat sinks
• Vehicles get half benefit (but FRU) from mounted heat sinks due to their smaller surface area (so they will prefer low-heat weapons)  17 SHS = 9 heat dissipation
• Vehicles get 50% higher armor per ton due to their compact shape
• Flame-based attacks halve the effect of vehicle heat sinks while the flame weapons are inflicting heat damage (so a single Mech Flamer would cause the effect for the next turn, while an Inferno attack could cause the trouble for 3 turns).  So if 9 heat dissipation, the vehicle now only has 5 heat dissipation

With these changes, vehicles become tough little bricks that need to be shot at by incendiary attacks to reduce their effect, and need to be dealt with via crits instead of slamming through their armor.  Since missiles (especially SRMs) are a fairly easy way to get the multiple hits needed for crits, vehicles wind up wanting more AMS installed.

Well, although DHS is allowed in this rule, but since it also says the effect of each heat sings are halved so I don't think that these two options are required. It have no difference with the current ruleset I think. Else what you mean is 'DHS is allowed, but the effect of non-free heat sinks are halved?'

And yeah, they should get more armor. Not much as twice but 50% seems quite reasonable. Also still they are susceptible to crits.

[worktroll]

And... for so called 'tank destroyer', that mounts the weapon on the body sections rather than turret, it is usually not worth at all on the construction rules I think.

Thing is, the tank destroyer concept - although you're really talking assault gun, like the Archer, Stug III, or Hetzer - were only worthwhile in the very limited concept of
a) Losing a total war, or
b) desperately trying to field effective weapons against a technically superior foe.

US army doctrine in WW2 used turreted tank destroyers, where speed was seen to substitute for armour. Most of these vehicles ended up performing direct fire support of infantry.

Assault guns are meant to be cheap and simpler to construct, so tend to represent a defensive mindset. The lack of turret traverse means you more or less have to wait for the enemy to blunder in front of you, or go out exposing your weak flanks hunting for targets. In BT terms, I'd see the Regulator as a "tank destroyer" in the classic US sense. and the Hetzer (duh!) in the cheap defense case.

BTW, if you really want vehicles to be kings of the battlefield, find a reason not to play with 'Mechs - eg. never invented, or increase their BV x10 to represent scarcity. You're effectively breaking the rules in your inherent interest, with the deliberate intent to overpower vehicles. By definition, that ain't balanced.

Not stepping on your dream - but our mileage may value.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Thing is, the tank destroyer concept - although you're really talking assault gun, like the Archer, Stug III, or Hetzer - were only worthwhile in the very limited concept of
a) Losing a total war, or
b) desperately trying to field effective weapons against a technically superior foe.

US army doctrine in WW2 used turreted tank destroyers, where speed was seen to substitute for armour. Most of these vehicles ended up performing direct fire support of infantry.

Assault guns are meant to be cheap and simpler to construct, so tend to represent a defensive mindset. The lack of turret traverse means you more or less have to wait for the enemy to blunder in front of you, or go out exposing your weak flanks hunting for targets. In BT terms, I'd see the Regulator as a "tank destroyer" in the classic US sense. and the Hetzer (duh!) in the cheap defense case.

BTW, if you really want vehicles to be kings of the battlefield, find a reason not to play with 'Mechs - eg. never invented, or increase their BV x10 to represent scarcity. You're effectively breaking the rules in your inherent interest, with the deliberate intent to overpower vehicles. By definition, that ain't balanced.

Not stepping on your dream - but our mileage may value.

Making combat vehicle king of the battlefield is not my goal at all - unless the era is 25th or less, when vehicle was the only option. Seriously, I prefer human-shaped biped walker over typical vehicles as well.

What I want is, making the vehicles in my lance/company nothing less than the battlemech, for they shares the same slot. I perfer battlemech and it takes most of my lance if I make one, sure, but taking some vehicles gives me more option. Rather than six battlemechs, around four to five battlemechs, two or one vehicle(s) and some battle armors mounted on the vehicles seems better fit for me.

And more importantly, let battlemechs to use your brain, rather than expecting dumbly walk and shoot to win. Battlemech's strength over vehicle must be their legs, never be 'superior armament enough to easily crush the vehicle with same tonnage' - it just means battlemech is better because it have more weapons, but isn't it just making us dumb? The strength is not inherited - it is earned. And since both fusion tanks and battlemechs are shares the same engine, why not to make them equal? They are the same grade weapons, after all.

----------------------

Yes, TD on our world was either the result of experiment model(like as aircraft carrier with GUN on WWII era) when our ancestors are yet to found the best way to make the CV, or desperated measure to keep send the bigger guns with all they had. But as you know, even on 31th century we had some TD styled models. Perhaps they are right - CV with ICE is no more than the cannon fodder in the era, and using them to the ambush attempt seems one of the best solution for them. Else, they may need a big punch, that is expected to be escorted by the other units.

[idea weenie]

Well, although DHS is allowed in this rule, but since it also says the effect of each heat sings are halved so I don't think that these two options are required. It have no difference with the current ruleset I think. Else what you mean is 'DHS is allowed, but the effect of non-free heat sinks are halved?'

And yeah, they should get more armor. Not much as twice but 50% seems quite reasonable. Also still they are susceptible to crits.

What I meant was that vehicles can mount DHS, and all heat sinks are halved in effect.  So if a fusion plant provides 10 standard heat sinks to the vehicle, the actual effect is only 5 pts of heat dissipation (10 halved).  Add 5 more standard heat sinks (total 15), and the vehicle can dissipate 8 pts of heat (15 halved, FRU).

If the fusion plant has 10 DHS, and 4 more DHS are added, the total number of DHS is 14, so it would have a potential of 28 heat dissipation (if this was on a Mech).  But if you are using my rules then since they are on a vehicle the heat dissipation rate is 14 (28 halved).

[Natasha Kerensky]

What I aim is, to make combat vehicle that is surely win against the battlemech with same tonnage

Can’t be done without fundamentally changing the rules that make combat vehicles much less survivable than battlemechs.  See:

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/ground-combat/hammer-mech-anvil-heavy-vees-tactics/msg1648704/#msg1648704

if the battlefield have no terrain feature and battlemech is not engage the CV in melee. Thus, in the real games, battlemechs can abuse the terrain feature and/or melee attack to beat the vehicles(in conclusion vehicles are still not so good against battlemech on the real games), while vehicle is not the only 'lesser' asset as long as you pay for a battlemech-level of techs and gears.

The idea is, to Combat Vehicle with fusion engine(of all types, such as XL and XXL)

Negating mech advantages in terrain, physical attacks, and tech doesn’t change the fundamental problem that vehicles die more easily and more quickly than mechs under the existing and prior rulesets.  Mechs are the kings of the battlefield, and the rules for vees ensure that.  See above.

[kaliban]

What makes vehicles weaker is the high chance of critical hits. If you want to make them stronger, just limit the critical hit change to a roll of 2 like with the mechs (maybe 12 for a critical rotor or turret hit, re-rolled if you have no turret or rotor).

There are so many ballistic and missile weapons available that you can skip energy ones and have your vehicles with Fuel Cells.

No need to change the construction rules.

But maybe you need to find another name for the game because you will not see any Battlemech in play anymore and people will not recognize the game.

[Col Toda]

Warrior S9 from the prototype TRO . 30 tons doing back shots to any 30 ton mech . Normally a dead mech . Regular pilots short range of 12. Any Kamakiri VTOL 3145 TRO  will normally  crush a mech it's tonnage . Those are published stock no need to design what you want.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

What I meant was that vehicles can mount DHS, and all heat sinks are halved in effect.  So if a fusion plant provides 10 standard heat sinks to the vehicle, the actual effect is only 5 pts of heat dissipation (10 halved).  Add 5 more standard heat sinks (total 15), and the vehicle can dissipate 8 pts of heat (15 halved, FRU).

If the fusion plant has 10 DHS, and 4 more DHS are added, the total number of DHS is 14, so it would have a potential of 28 heat dissipation (if this was on a Mech).  But if you are using my rules then since they are on a vehicle the heat dissipation rate is 14 (28 halved).

The end result seems same, then.

-------

Yes durabilty is an issue as well. Adjust crit table by one or two points seems an answer, perhaps? Determining Critical Hits Table of Mechs occurs on a 8+, so change Ground Combat Vehicle/VTOL Combat Vehicle Critical Hits Table by no critical on 2~7 seems an option.

Give the more internal, or merge internal to one but the combined internal have fewer points than the sum of all five, seems doable as well. I was think about to combine the whole internal by one big internal, that have twice of points. So, a Demolisher II(100 tons) have 10 internal points on all five locations, but this tweak merges it by a 20 internal body section. Then, whatever location lost all the armor, the rest of damage reduces body section, regardless the location the attack hits.

[Col Toda]

Amoung the published combat vehicles I mentioned  One is The Kamakiri VTOL . I think it tools around with either an Improved Heavy Gauss or a PPC and 2 Thunderbolt 10s . Superheavy VTOL. Either should make a good showing against a same tonnage mech . It also moves 11/17 I believe.  How is that Not competitive to any 50 odd ton mech?

[Natasha Kerensky]

Amoung the published combat vehicles I mentioned  One is The Kamakiri VTOL . I think it tools around with either an Improved Heavy Gauss or a PPC and 2 Thunderbolt 10s . Superheavy VTOL. Either should make a good showing against a same tonnage mech . It also moves 11/17 I believe.  How is that Not competitive to any 50 odd ton mech?

Because it will die much more quickly than any 50-ton mech.  In addition to all the combat vehicle vulnerabilities that I linked to above, VTOLs are uniquely vulnerable to rotor hits.  Sure, the Kamakiri carries one more big gun (PPC and twin TBolt-10s) than a typical 50-ton mech.  But an old Enforcer or Enfield with an LB 10-X is a dire threat to the Kamakiri.  Cluster ammo gets a total -3 modifier to-hit when doing AA duty, can rack up the motive hits and crits thru multiple damage rolls, and has a shot at taking out the rotor.  The Kamakiri’s 7/11 speed and laser reflec armor can’t stop that.

[Col Toda]

The Kamakiri with the improved heavy gauss varient probably would  exceed any critical exchange , Also the stock version and better initial movement  should dictate short range  back shots if you win initiative.  A single LB X is dangerous true but I still contend that it would be competitive and that is what this whole thead is about . I noticed that the Warrior S9  at 21 ton was perceived as competitive from the get go.  A toss up with the Kamikiri who is luckier as the hardware is evenly matched. Combat vehicles get a BV discount just because they have motive criticals to contend with. The 11/17 movement profile permits the VTOL to dictate range and should it lose initiative be out of range or LOS should it choose to .

In the case of the Kamakri vs the aformentioned LB 10 X presume 5/8 average speed opening range 30 . Mech loses initiative closes by running  8 hexes on a plain terrain the Kamakri turn 1 hex closes 10 hexes by cruising both 4 gunners  the mech has target numbers of 9 for the LB 10 X and 12 for the other big energy weapon . The Looking at 9s for all 3 shots . So like I said whoever is luckier bell curve I figure 3 or 4 possible hits out of 10 shots  while the Kamakri hits with a 10 point shot every round on occation 2 . Or it could play range 18 games with just the PPC whenever the mech moves until he runs out of cluster ammo that 11 or 12 with the -3 so maybe 1 hit out of 10 shots. Like I said very competitive . A 6 /9 centurian would require more finnesse but has lower armor and normally only 1 big gun .