Author Topic: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle  (Read 10400 times)

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« on: 09 May 2011, 07:25:51 »
Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle

After the Jihad, Pandora 'Mech Works of Terra found itself in a bit of a bind.  Producing only the Puma, a 95 ton tank originally built for the Star League Defense Force but now unfortunately associated with the Word of Blake despite centuries of service with the SLDF and later the ComGuards.  To avoid the economic consequences, Pandora began work on the new Stone Main Battle Tank, but nearly blundered into disaster anyway with Devlin Stone's refusal to have a military machine named for him.  Fortunately, Paladin Steiner-Davion was impressed with the design and interceded, suggesting that Pandora change the name and try again.  After renaming it after Winston Churchill, a famous war leader and statesman of the British Empire, the company submitted it.  As of 3085, the Procurement Office of the Republic Armed Forces had not issued any purchase orders but it was expected to fare well.  I'd note that the combat trials described aren't really talking about 'Mechs of similar firepower when you look at the details - at range, a single standard Winston has perhaps a touch more firepower than both of the 'Mechs described put together, and it has AMS to blunt at least one of the Dervish's launchers.  The LAC variant alongside it was just gravy.  Combine that with the Winstons' heavy armor and you have a situation where trying to play around at range is the exact last thing that Dervish should have been doing.

The Winston was originally categorized as a main battle tank but honestly, that's not really a designation I'd be happy hanging off of it.  It's more of a fire platform, closer to an assault design despite being only 70 tons.  A Pitban 210 light fusion engine powers the tank, leaving it with the top speed of only 54 kph.  The armor is, to be honest, overkill.  14.5 tons of heavy ferro-fibrous was layered on in a 65/58/50/54 arrangement that's heavier than the armor on a Demolisher II, which frankly needs the protection significantly more than a Winston does.  CASE is here, too.  The phrase rolling bunker may never have been more appropriate.  You're going to get disabled long before you're blown up under most circumstances, so get used to the idea of being a stationary target.  The weapons load is a bit of a grab bag on first glance but there's a certain method to madness - this is a direct fire-support platform intended as the anvil for more mobile units to slam enemies against, such as using Kinnols as hunting hounds.  The turret houses a pair of Donal light particle cannons, trading sheer penetration for a ton of space and a smaller turret along with the TRO's argument of redundancy and they're mated to a targeting computer for additional accuracy.  A pair of Holly LRM 15 launchers are fed by three tons of ammunition.  The forward end of the tank has a Streak SRM 6 for close-in fighting and a Buzzsaw Anti-Missile System for additional defense, each with their own ton of ammunition.  I'm still really not quite sure what the overall intention behind the design really was but the Winston's firepower is reasonable on paper and the armor is very likely going to outlast the LRM ammo in a lot of situations.

A variant was supplied and mentioned above.  It removes the particle cannons and LRMs along with the targeting computer for a pair of LAC/5s and MML 7s, each supplied by three tons of ammunition that are more than adequate for the LACs (even with specialty ammo) and run a bit short sometimes on the MMLs.  Explicitly intended as an urban brawler, this unit is quite well supplied for the job and is extremely well protected against anything other than infantry, so attach some infantry-killing battle armor or a machine gun platoon to keep them clear, although you could use a couple of Demon Medium Tanks as roving manpower disposals.  You might want to pair them with Demolishers, though, for additional close-in firepower to open someone's armor up.  In slightly less in-your-face situations, Zhukovs can do a good job.

The Winston, in operational terms, heavily depends on the type.  The primary model is a mid- to long-range attacker, while the secondary model is intended for closer ranges, apparently under heavy fire.  In testing, I have to say that there's a real problem with lacking heavy, concentrated punch, so against 'Mechs with plenty of armor, you're well suited to ablating it, but punching into it quickly is going to be problematic.  Something with some heavier weapons (Schreks and Manticores both come to mind in addition to the units suggested above) can be helpful.  Move into whatever firing positions are advantageous early if you're facing significant fire - a Winston simply doesn't have enough MPs to deal with even minor MP loss gracefully and tanks are going to suffer it sooner or later.  Special ammo (especially for the LAC model's autocannons) can be enormously helpful.

While you certainly can take on a Winston with firepower alone and do the job - I did just that with a couple of Catapults in a test match, and the LAC model wasn't disabled - it works better if you disable it first.  The usual range of crit-seekers is useful, and as usual, they're led by the LB 10-X.  Once that's done, concentrate fire if you want to punch the armor out quickly.  Against the primary model, charging in at it can work, but you're mainly defending against the LRMs unless it's already in a constrained position - the LPPCs' minimums are more workable and the Streaks are just getting in to range.  Do not try that against the LAC variant unless you're trying to give the other guy an excuse to spray you down with every weapon on the tank.  Given the option, stand off and poke it at range rather than closing into a storm of SRMs and the LACs.

Image Reference: The artwork can be viewed at the MUL along with BV and availability.  I'm not aware of any painted miniatures, but the basic design can be seen at Iron Wind Metals' website.
« Last Edit: 17 June 2011, 11:50:10 by Moonsword »

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40910
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #1 on: 09 May 2011, 09:47:19 »
I definitely agree that this is no MBT. In my forces, it'll definitely see service as a fire support tank, grouped with things like JES IIs or Morgans, or as the support tank in a Kinnol or Marksman platoon. The LPPCs do seem odd, and for quite a while after '85 came out I rather disliked the tank for that mismatched weapons mix, until it hit me. The Winston is not armed with LRM-15s and LPPCs. Instead, it's armed with twin LRM-20s, where 25% of the missiles trade away a bit of range and their IDF ability for the ability to harness a TarComp and become effective streaks. If you look at it that way, it suddenly becomes an effective support tank, able to lay down heavy fire at long range while still capable of engaging fast skirmishers or defending itself at close range.
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

Peacemaker

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • Highest MUP Quotient on the forums.
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #2 on: 09 May 2011, 10:24:31 »
Did anyone else think it was named after Ariana Winston?

Stormcrow

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5069
  • Art by Shimmering Sword
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #3 on: 09 May 2011, 10:35:50 »
Yes
Commandant Otto Maurus, ARWH-1Z ArcHammer, Maurus' Minutemen
Captain Obadiah Sykes, OSR-5FCR Ostroc, Second Filtvelt Citizens Militia

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. - Confucius
Noli Timure Messorem
May God defend me from my friends; I can defend myself from my enemies. - Voltaire
Wielder of the Ferro-Carbide Bat of DOOMâ„¢

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #4 on: 09 May 2011, 13:07:08 »
The Winston was another of those tanks we had certain existing data we had to work with. This included the name,  the visual make-up of the turret and even rough weapons loads (dual PPCs, LRMs and SRMs). So creating the story for the vehicle was an interesting concept. We also knew it was not the most common tank in the RAF, so we couldn't make it too good.

You have to read the fluff behind the Marksman (In TRO:3085s) you will get the other half of the story.

We did have a lot of fun with the designing the MML variant.

As for the name- Catalyst did not posses information on what the original name was intended to be a reference to. However, based on many factors, it was decided to refer to a historical figure instead of a relatively contemporary general. The Republic was not trying to restore the Star League, but trying to forge something new and more based on statesmanship than combat.
-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.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6128
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #5 on: 09 May 2011, 16:45:26 »
Well I like it simply because it is different. So many tanks take the big gun, some missiles and some sundries approach. There is nothing wrong with that, its basically how you get a good ballance of HS usage and damage on a tonage limited heavy tank.
The attraction of the Winston is it tries something new. And yes its problems are obvious. Lack of MPs to ablate and the lack of a put down weapon. To be honest, short of a gauss rifle you aren't going to get a solid put down weapon on a heavy tank, and a gauss really limits your secondary weapons.
So does the Winston work? Against 'Mechs it suffers a bit. Against tanks it clusters em up good. Against infantry or BA the clustering effect and firepower overwhelms. Will the concept be repeated? The lack of MP hurts too much on a MBT, so unless a lighter way of doing it can be found, or the Republic invests in aircav Tonbos, this is probably going to remain a unique concept.

Peacemaker

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • Highest MUP Quotient on the forums.
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #6 on: 09 May 2011, 17:27:45 »
As for the name- Catalyst did not posses information on what the original name was intended to be a reference to. However, based on many factors, it was decided to refer to a historical figure instead of a relatively contemporary general. The Republic was not trying to restore the Star League, but trying to forge something new and more based on statesmanship than combat.

BattleTech has far too many twentieth-century references IMHO, but I appreciate that you guys thought things through and have a plausible reason for naming it after Winston instead of Ariana.

Iron Mongoose

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1473
  • Don't you know, you're all my very best friends
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #7 on: 09 May 2011, 18:05:51 »
I would argue that it has too many 19th Century refrences (relitively few people in the Battletech universe are the decendants of emagrants from the United States, yet the American Civil War tends to crop up quite often, no doubt in large part thanks to a key author being a big Civil War buff).  In this perticular case, despite Welshman's arguments against Ariana, I think  Winston Churchill rings a bit hollow, since its more common to use the last name rather than the first, and there is alrady an excelent Churchill tank to serve as the historical basis for the name as well.

As for the tank, I've got the same complaint as everyone else.  Its too slow.  That said, its better than many slow tanks, since big LRM racks are always a good place to start with armor units, in my mind.  TCed PPCs (even light ones) are never a bad back up, though in the modern era the range is more at the long edge of medium than truely long-range.  But, mixing LRMs and SRMs (even streaks) on a modern tank is always a bit frusterating, since trading 30 LRMs for 6 Streak SRMs is generaly a good enough trade that people will still close, where 27 MML tubes would be mighty frightening (its .5 tons less than the LRM/SSRM combo, though you don't gain ammo, which is bourderline problematic).  They almost fixed it with the veriant, but the decision to use light ACs, which everyone but me seems not to loath, ruined it.

Anyway, I'd use it defensively, to guard to anchor a line of nice heavy and assualt units.  But, its just too slow, and too well rounded.
"For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century..."

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #8 on: 09 May 2011, 18:50:43 »
Trying to be subtle, but the name you mention was off the table for any use at the time this TRO was written. Had to come up with another Winston to use.

Best,
WM
-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.

Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1853
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #9 on: 10 May 2011, 08:10:21 »
The Winston is an interesting support design but it lacks the knockout punch a MBT is expected to have. I am not happy about the name myself, but it lead to several jokes in our group here wherew people started to refer to other tanks by first name as well. The Erwin tank id easy to remember but the George gets mixed up with the Georgy a lot.  :D

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1532
  • the one and only
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #10 on: 10 May 2011, 10:48:06 »
What I love about the Winston is -

You have to read the fluff behind the Marksman (In TRO:3085s) you will get the other half of the story.

I love how it clearly is the smaller brother to what I hold to be one of BT's best heavy tanks. Engine and armour type and philosophy, speed, all mesh very well. The other thing to note about the Winston:

I think  Winston Churchill rings a bit hollow, since its more common to use the last name rather than the first, and there is alrady an excelent Churchill tank to serve as the historical basis for the name as well.

The Churchill was "excellent"? ??? But then, this is a Kraut speaking... No, the funny thing is the historic parallel would seemingly back up the reasoning of the Winston's name: just like the Churchill of history, the Winston of BT is very, very well armoured, but slow and fielding rather anemic weaponry...

Heh, with the right ammo, the Light AC Winston could well work as the super-heavy IFV that the Churchill essentially was.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

3rdCrucisLancers

  • SAVAGE
  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
  • Smallest star in the firmament
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #11 on: 10 May 2011, 11:32:27 »
The Churchill was "excellent"? ??? But then, this is a Kraut speaking... No, the funny thing is the historic parallel would seemingly back up the reasoning of the Winston's name: just like the Churchill of history, the Winston of BT is very, very well armoured, but slow and fielding rather anemic weaponry...

Heh, with the right ammo, the Light AC Winston could well work as the super-heavy IFV that the Churchill essentially was.

The Churchill was a phenomenal infantry tank. It was able to scale Hill 112, which the Germans thought impassible to armor, and the A42 Mark VII had thicker armor than a Tiger I. It couldn't penetrate a Tiger frontally, and a Panther only under favorable conditions, but most German tanks in Normandy were Panzer IVs or StuGs, and the Churchill could reliably blow them away. The Churchill-derived A43 Black Prince, which sadly never saw service, would have about blown the doors off of the panzerwaffe, in a delightfully literal sense.

Of course, despite Allied airpower accounting for a staggering 5% of German tanks knocked out, with Allied armor and HV AT guns doing the lion's share of the rest, the British lost in Normandy, so...
Fighter of the Nightman (ah-ah-ah)
Champion of the Sun (ah-ah-ah)

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1532
  • the one and only
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #12 on: 10 May 2011, 14:32:06 »
The Churchill was a phenomenal infantry tank.

Yes, the Churchill was a very good infantry tank. And the Light AC Winston will work well in the same role.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #13 on: 10 May 2011, 17:33:22 »
Well I like it simply because it is different. So many tanks take the big gun, some missiles and some sundries approach. There is nothing wrong with that, its basically how you get a good ballance of HS usage and damage on a tonage limited heavy tank.
The attraction of the Winston is it tries something new. And yes its problems are obvious. Lack of MPs to ablate and the lack of a put down weapon. To be honest, short of a gauss rifle you aren't going to get a solid put down weapon on a heavy tank, and a gauss really limits your secondary weapons.
So does the Winston work? Against 'Mechs it suffers a bit. Against tanks it clusters em up good. Against infantry or BA the clustering effect and firepower overwhelms. Will the concept be repeated? The lack of MP hurts too much on a MBT, so unless a lighter way of doing it can be found, or the Republic invests in aircav Tonbos, this is probably going to remain a unique concept.

Generally, I agree, although I'm not confident on whether the exchange rate of ammo for infantry damage is worthwhile in most situations.

The real killer here is the speed, but as a support unit or in groups, where massed fire can substitute for concentrated punch, they're not too bad.  Off-beat, sure, but they're fun, too.  Speaking of Gauss rifle tanks (such as the Marksman), those actually aren't bad partners for Winstons in my opinion.

Yes, the Churchill was a very good infantry tank. And the Light AC Winston will work well in the same role.

Actually, sufficiently nasty jump infantry or battle armor wouldn't be a bad way to convince someone to keep their distance a bit from a standard Winston.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6128
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #14 on: 10 May 2011, 18:43:09 »
Trajan anyone?


Interestingly these calls for Marksmen, Kinnols, etc suggest an accidental method to the madness.

Ian Sharpe

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2143
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #15 on: 10 May 2011, 18:45:28 »
Reminds me a little of the Glory FSV, LRM-15s and some direct-fire weapons.  I like the variant better, mainly for its ability to pump out SRMs for crits.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #16 on: 10 May 2011, 18:56:49 »
Trajan anyone?

Interestingly these calls for Marksmen, Kinnols, etc suggest an accidental method to the madness.

It's more that I'm looking for things I know the Republic uses or could be using (the Demolishers and Schreks I mentioned in the article are still on the IS General list, after all, and apparently the Republic can also use Clan Demolishers), but there's certainly some possibilities there to keep things interesting.  The Trajan is a possibility I hadn't considered.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #17 on: 10 May 2011, 22:45:13 »
Trajan anyone?


Interestingly these calls for Marksmen, Kinnols, etc suggest an accidental method to the madness.

It was no accident.
-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.

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6128
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #18 on: 11 May 2011, 01:11:46 »
I'd debate that. The real life origins of the RAF tanks are too messed up to allow a clear docterinal base. Not withstanding later fluff attempts to resolve the mess.

Demos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1602
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #19 on: 11 May 2011, 07:53:46 »
I like the Churchill Winston as very mobile (for a tracked) a fire-support tank.
If some armor had been exchanged for Artemis, ECM or a dual SSRM4 for SSRM6 I'd be a it more happier.

EDIT: Corrected statement. My bad...  :-[ Would be great if I could excuse this mess with a late time of day. But it's only afternoon for me. Maybe I should go home...
Nevertheless, I like this tank. Even with 3/5 Movement  :)
« Last Edit: 11 May 2011, 09:29:04 by Demos »
"WoB - Seekers of Serenity, Protectors of Human Purity, Enforcers of Blake's Will!"

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #20 on: 11 May 2011, 08:11:25 »
I like the Churchill as very mobile (for a tracked) fire-support tank.
If some armor had been exchanged for Artemis, ECM or a dual SSRM4 for SSRM6 I'd be a it more happier.

The tank's name is the Winston, not the Churchill.  It's also not a "very mobile (for a tracked) fire support tank."  That type of design has been 3/5 since TRO3026 came out if you consider the examples of the Pike, Schrek, Partisan, and Sturmfeur.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #21 on: 11 May 2011, 08:50:06 »
I'd debate that. The real life origins of the RAF tanks are too messed up to allow a clear docterinal base. Not withstanding later fluff attempts to resolve the mess.

Granted the lego bits we had to work with constrained us some, but the intent in 3085 was to create a solid base of tanks for the RAF.
-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.

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #22 on: 11 May 2011, 23:45:39 »
Granted the lego bits we had to work with constrained us some, but the intent in 3085 was to create a solid base of tanks for the RAF.

And let Ken' make some sick, disgusting Lyran tank.  ;)
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #23 on: 12 May 2011, 08:10:59 »
And let Ken' make some sick, disgusting Lyran tank.  ;)

*makes a note on who to apportion blame to when the Gurteltier article comes up*

Speaking of blaming you, were you the one behind the Nation of Hastur?

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #24 on: 12 May 2011, 09:20:42 »
*makes a note on who to apportion blame to when the Gurteltier article comes up*

Speaking of blaming you, were you the one behind the Nation of Hastur?

Not unless I was really drunk. Where's that from?
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #25 on: 12 May 2011, 15:04:49 »
Klondike.

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #26 on: 12 May 2011, 15:12:46 »
Klondike.

Oh no, I just did some fact checking. That was all the Chrises.
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Winston Combat Vehicle
« Reply #27 on: 12 May 2011, 20:25:42 »
Granted the lego bits we had to work with constrained us some, but the intent in 3085 was to create a solid base of tanks for the RAF.

They've got one that's distinctly their own along with some access to a lot of our old standbys when you look at the MUL and what factories may well be somewhat intact or reasonably restorable.  My money's on Aldis Industries (Terra) and Cylcops, Inc. (Skye), with a possible outlier on New Earth Trading Company (New Earth).  If nothing else, I'd expect them to rebuild the Karnov line.
« Last Edit: 12 May 2011, 20:27:26 by Moonsword »

 

Register