Author Topic: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT  (Read 16127 times)

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« on: 15 August 2011, 12:50:16 »
Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT

(Author's Note: Mainly because it appeals to me, this article uses the TRO: Prototypes nomenclature "Mk." throughout.)

The modern trend, fad, or whatever you want to call it for tough, powerful, high-end assault tanks goes back to two designs in TRO3058, the Challenger and the Alacorn.  The Alacorn is a triple Gauss monstrosity known to MechWarriors as a tank that's not only meant to fight 'Mechs but to flat-out kill them, superior technology be damned and cost right along with it.  It's actually not quite as nerve-wracking to tanks - Gauss rifle single-shot kills aren't that much more likely than AC/10 shots against most designs and in a lot of ways, the weapon is less dangerous to a heavy or assault tank than an LB-X is because it's less likely to immobilize the tank.  Challengers hold no truck with this specialization, mounting a broad range of weapons that give them options specialists tend to lack and the ability to respond effectively to most armored units.  Introduced by the cooperation of General Motors and Kallon Industries, the design was an effort to avoid competition by working together to build the sort of assault tank that could face down 'Mechs one-on-one.  Despite production on three worlds, supply never kept up with demand, a demand that has seen the tank become the backbone of the FedSuns heavy armor corps and also common in Lyran hands.  More recently, an effort by Major Jymm Sortek to develop "the ideal main battle tank" produced an effective but massively expensive prototype.  AFFS responses to the price were less than enthusiastic to put it mildly and GM went back to the drawing board, producing the Mk. XV, the first really affordable, low-cost Challenger, somewhat less heavily armed but tougher and carrying more ammunition than the prototype XVc did.  While Kallon's Kirklin plant continues to produce the Mk. XI and XII, the Mk. XV is the only product of GM's two production lines (Salem and an unstated location that's probably going to be Kathil).  I don't normally comment on notable units but the "Sanitarium" is the sort of grisly legend you just have to talk about.  First assigned to the Eighth FedCom RCT in 3057 and following them off of Second Chance when they retreated in the wake of Guerrero, trading hands between the sides in the FedCom Civil War a dozen times and finally landing with the Tenth Lyran Guards.  No crew has survived more than one battle in the tank, three crew members committing suicide "...while at least half a dozen others perished in “training accidents” and “firearms mishaps.”"  If Hellbie's Dice had a tank, Sanitarium would be it.  Personally, I'm not sure whether to suggest an exorcism or just setting the tank on fire, dousing the burning wreck in holy water after a few hours, then burying whatever's left in a sealed ferrocrete vault.

The original Challenger, the Mk. X (possibly a reference to the Challenger Mk VIII from World War II), was originally seen in TRO3058.  At 90 tons, this is one of the bigger tanks out there, and with a GM 270 XLFE, it's one of the more expensive ones, too.  (That said, see the Mk. XVc below if you really want your mind blown.)  The 54 kph speed is enough to evade the infantry and Elemental attacks that it's described as if the tank is in open ground.  To preserve the investment in the design, 14 tons of Kallon Unity Weave ferro-fibrous was layered on 57/50/36/57, an armor spread shared by most of the Challenger series.  The weapons arrangement reads a little like someone emptied a parts bin but it works decently in practice.  The primary armament is in the turret - the Poland Main Model A Gauss rifle that's mounted on most Challengers, an Imperator Code Red LB 10-X, both them with two tons of ammo, and a Federated 10-shot LRM rack with a single ton and an Artemis IV module.  The turret has a MainFire AMS package, blunting missile fire or possibly stopping a Thunderbolt.  The weapons mix is a punishing amount of long-range fire for Spheroid units.  The front mounts a pair of Martell MPLs to help deal with fast-moving opponents; not the most efficient weapons but they're handy sometimes.  Off each side is a Federated Super Streak SRM 2, more useful for crit-seeking or harassing hovers trying to poke your sides.  Personally, I'm not really convinced they're all that helpful, but they do occasionally manage something.  The stern has an ExoStar SPL; at the time, I'm not sure this wasn't more about using the heat sink capacity without going over than anything else but it'll peel infantry off your tail.  The weapons load means you generally have an option for doing something effective about an opponent's actions, even if it's not perfect, and in groups, the combination of LB 10-X, Gauss rifle, and supporting weapons can be devastating.  At the moment it appears that the Mk. X is out of production but there's no doubt plenty of them left despite the type's vulnerability to minor little problems like ammo explosions.

The next iteration of the Challenger to emerge was the Mk. XI, developed to use the Combine's then-new C3 technology based on systems provided by Wunderland.  Designed as a tough, powerful C3 master for a lance, the Mk. XII replaces most of the weapons, augmenting the retained Gauss rifle with a twin, feeding them with four tons of ammunition.  The forward lasers are gone entirely for an ERML, with no replacement for the side- or aft-firing mounts.  Naturally there's a C3 master but the joker in the deck is the targeting computer.  That's right, a targeting computer linked to two Gauss rifles tied into a C3 network.  Those of you who don't think that's enough are welcome to use the TAG to provide spotting.

A couple of years later, as the Civil War raged on, the Mk. XII rolled off the lines as a counterpart to the Mk. XI.  The electronics are less ambitious, just a Guardian ECM suite and a C3 slave, and the weapons load is a little more familiar.  The forward lasers are replaced by two ERMLs.  In the turret, they left the Gauss rifle intact, upgraded to an LRM 15 with the same Artemis enhancement, mounted a Streak 4 rack to go with it, and then added in a RAC/2.  The Gauss rifle and LRM launcher have three tons of ammunition each, the Streak one ton, and the RAC 2 tons.  I'm not really that fond of the RAC but it can get the job done.  As usual, tailor your fire rate to your chance of getting a good return on the risk of jamming.

Stepping off the beaten path (and probably into the deep end) is the Mk. XIVs in RS 3085: Unabridged Old is the New New.  A lot of you are probably aware of the various amphibious and alternate environment models in that book and the Mk. XIVs is the Challenger's entry into the underwater arena.  The environmental sealing is tying up a lot of tonnage.  To save a little, they shifted to 13 tons of HFF and shaved a point off the front, rear, and turret.  The weapons arrangement is sort of the made for TV movie version of the Mk. X's armament package.  Up front are a pair of four-tube launchers, one for torpedoes, the other for SRMs, each with its own dedicated ton of ammo.  The Streaks are still on the sides.  In the rear, they left the SPL in place - not a great move.  The reason for that is the turret loadout was switched for AMS, an LB 10-X, an MML 7, and an ERLL, making this the only Challenger without a Gauss rifle.  The MML and LB-X have two tons each while the AMS has a single ton.  For the purposes of being an alternate environment tank, it's okay.  Not great in my opinion but it gets the job done.

In 3075, Major Jymm Sortek launched his ambitious project, described for posterity in XTRO: Davion.  The outcome was certainly impressive but doesn't come anywhere near justifying the resources necessary to put it into production; leaving aside the cost, which is over 60 million C-Bills, investment in the infrastructure to produce the engine in any real numbers is probably impossible for GM and judging from the AFFS's response, not something the Treasury is going to be funding, either.  The armor is slightly lighter than older Challengers but use of HFF improves things to 57/57/39/57.  On the front is a Thunderbolt 15 fed by four tons of ammunition.  Two tons supply the turret mounted Gauss rifle and SB Gauss.  Each side-mounted sponson holds a pair of Magshots sharing a single ton of ammunition.  I won't argue with the assertion that it's a good assault platform.  It certainly is.  But you can get the same basic performance (without the little problem of being vulnerable to AMS) out of an Alacorn and you can fit that Alacorn with HFF while you're putting the SB Gauss on.  The Magshot sponsons are handy sometimes but not really overpowering.  If you're going to be this pricy, you'd better bring more to the table than the Mk. XVc does.

The Challenger Mk. XV from TRO: Prototypes is a strange juxtaposition of the familiar and the bizarre for a Challenger veteran, rationalizing the Mk. XVc into a vastly more affordable design.  The big change to cut cost was pulling the extra-extra-light engine and replacing it with a fuel cell.  While it lowers the cost to a little under 4.8 million per unit, it needs fuel and is probably vulnerable to fuel tank explosions; MegaMek thinks so and, personally, I'm inclined to agree, but the rules themselves aren't clear on the results of a fuel tank explosion critical for non-fusion, non-ICE engine types even when dealing with support vehicles.  Something to note if you use quirks is the Poor Performance quirk, meaning you need to spend a turn at no more than Cruising MP when you first start moving before you can go to full Flank MP.  Whether the acceleration problems indicated by the quirk are an issue for just the Mk. XV or something that's endemic to the Challenger series as a whole is unknown.  What you get for that price and engine performance, though, is worth the price of admission.  Thanks to the use of an additional 1.5 tons of armor in combination with a switch to heavy ferro-fibrous, the armor protection is improved by over 20% to a total of 307 points arranged 65/64/57/57 - the only place that didn't see an improvement was the already well-armored turret and the rear thickness nearly doubled.  Since CASE won't actually contain a weapon explosion on vehicles, like the Mk. XII, the lack of it isn't an issue.  The weapons load saw a cut but the end performance is, in my opinion, quite sufficient for a much lower-cost platform - two Poland Main Gauss rifles, one the same Model A from the Mk. X and one a Model X SB Gauss.  The standard Gauss rifle needs no introductions at this point in time, of course.  Backstopping them are sponson-mounted Magshots, two to a side and fed by two tons of ammunition.  Magshots lack the infantry-killing potential of the APGR and are less powerful but make reasonable options in light of the lack of CASE and a fusion engine.  The SB Gauss has taken a certain amount of flak in some circles for not being a Gauss rifle or not being an ammunition option the way LB-Xs get to treat cluster ammo.  Say what you want about it in general, here on the Mk. XV, the SB Gauss has turned in a solid performance for me to date.  Up to 15 pellets out to 22 hexes in combination with the Gauss rifle is just plain rude.  Your weapons load isn't as diverse (or as difficult to use together in many cases) as the others tend to be but what's there works quite effectively in most situations, which is what's important, and the non-elite formations who are receiving the Mk. XV are getting one hell of a budget tank for their money.  Those looking to employ the XV, keep in mind the errata on the rules level - this is a standard rules tank under the guidelines in Prototypes, not an advanced one.

Your best defense when running a Challenger is a good offense and I don't just mean kill the other guy first.  They're vulnerable to infantry that manages to close and several aren't great against battle armor.  With the rise of the artillery cannon, both of those problems can be made to go away, and there are other equally effective short-range options, so layering your tanks with Challengers and similar types at the core of a defense intended to let them remain mobile while providing their massive firepower to their defenders is valuable.  The C3 models are invaluable for that.  Medium 'Mechs, which have less to fear from the way infantry and battle armor deal damage, may also be useful as flank protection, as can battle armor.  My recommendation is IS Standard suits with LRRs - they kill infantry at a reasonable range, they're annoying to 'Mechs, and they can keep up with the tanks to some extent without having to hitch a ride.  Grenadiers loaded down with Infernos are a slower but more devastating option if you can afford the transports to move them around.  Your defensive ruminations also need to include the problem of dealing with flankers.  While the cluster guns carried by most Challengers are a good start, some pulse laser-armed fast-moving types are also handy.  Once you've got your forces, point them at the enemy, using faster moving units to steer or draw enemy forces into the path of the assault tanks for an old-fashioned hammer-and-anvil approach.  The Challenger series is, when massed and operated well, a devastating sledgehammer.

If you want to kill Challengers, you have a bit of work ahead of you.  Disabling them isn't difficult if you brought crit-seeking weapons; as usual, the LB 10-X's all-around capabilities and greater availability make it the winner of best in show but SRMs, SB Gauss, and other weapons are all valid options.  Like Alacorns, Gurties, Demolishers, and any number of other slow vehicles, they don't have very much tolerance to immobilization.  Like a lot of them, Challengers have enough armor that it still requires some effort to beat down, although the sheer number of Crew Stunned results sustained fire can generate will frequently make this safer; whether you're safe from your opponent's murderous thoughts at having his assault tanks locked up like bank vaults when there's a safe cracking convention in town is another problem.  Once they're disabled, beat them down with applied brute force until you either blow the tank up or generate enough crits of the right types to neuter it and keep in mind that if it's not stunned, your opponent is likely to fire every gun they can at you in an effort to neutralize you before you blow the tank.  Another possible option is to use minefields to box the slow-moving tanks in, immobilizing them even if they aren't obliging enough to drive through them.  Artillery is a safe bet at this point if you've got it handy - back your units out of range, send most of them to go do something more productive, and leave one guy to provide spotting.  Pointing and laughing isn't required but some players find it satisfying.

References: The Master Unit List is not updated to include the Mk. XV as of this writing but the rest are right hereSeveral units have their own Challenger Mk. X miniatures immortalized at CamoSpecs.

3rdCrucisLancers

  • SAVAGE
  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
  • Smallest star in the firmament
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #1 on: 15 August 2011, 13:04:56 »
Probably my favorite AFFS tank of all time. Of all time! Solid firepower at all ranges, with the great one-two of an LB-10-X and a gauss rifle.

The original Challenger, the Mk. X (possibly a reference to the Challenger Mk VIII from World War II), was originally seen in TRO3058. 

Pretty sure it's a reference to the FV4034 Challenger II and FV4030 Challenger I, rather than the A30 Challenger; Cruiser Mark VIII was the A27M Cromwell, which the A30 was a development of.
Fighter of the Nightman (ah-ah-ah)
Champion of the Sun (ah-ah-ah)

FedSunsBorn

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2362
  • Avatar by ShadowRaven.
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #2 on: 15 August 2011, 14:25:14 »
While I do prefer mobility over pure armor and firepower, the Challenger MBT is an excellent design that has served me well every time I have used it.
Made by HikageMaru

Ian Sharpe

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2143
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #3 on: 15 August 2011, 17:26:52 »
Tank I want to like but have no enthusiasm for it.  I don't mind assault tanks, XLs or expensive tanks but its just never warmed my cold, cold heart. :-\

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #4 on: 15 August 2011, 20:22:27 »
well, me, I do not care for XL fusion tanks, as it cuts out one of the main reasons TO use a tank over a 'mech: cost benefit. If I'm defending, I can afford EIGHT Demolishers for the price of a single Challenger, or two Demolishers for the same BV.


That being said, I much prefer the Challenger paradigm of tank design to the Alacorn: versatility over specialization. The Alacorn became WAY too popular with a small group of people, so much so that I had to resort to Fire Moth MASC'ed dash'n'drops of Elementals to take them out. 2 Fire Moth A's + 2 elemental squads = the BV of an Alacorn and can shred one in no time even without TAG. Or distract it while the Stormcrows move in...

A Challenger would have been able to defend itself much more ably against such a tactic, if not perfectly.

The fuel cell version interests me, though; a tank this heavy shouldn't venture too far from base anyway (so the range limitation ain't no thang), and the price is right. Never used an SB Gauss but I'm not adverse to trying new things....

3rdCrucisLancers

  • SAVAGE
  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
  • Smallest star in the firmament
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #5 on: 15 August 2011, 21:05:23 »
Never used an SB Gauss but I'm not adverse to trying new things....

Ever used an LB-X autocannon? There you go.
Fighter of the Nightman (ah-ah-ah)
Champion of the Sun (ah-ah-ah)

chanman

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3947
  • Architect of suffering
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #6 on: 16 August 2011, 00:00:14 »
They're named Challengers, but I call 'em Bolos. I've noticed that facing assault tanks requires careful unit selection. Especially with the more durable tracked vehicles, generating enough hits is crucial, especially if terrain makes flank or rear shots difficult.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #7 on: 16 August 2011, 09:24:44 »
Hence the suggestion of escorting them (in larger games, anyway) with units capable of running those units off.

Diplominator

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1193
  • Tactful Tactician
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #8 on: 16 August 2011, 10:01:33 »
I like the Challenger series a lot, expensive as they are. The C3 models work very nicely together, and the the XV is a pretty nasty customer, especially for the price.

I wonder if we'll ever see the XIII or XIV.

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4884
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #9 on: 16 August 2011, 16:10:14 »
Its an effective tank, possibly slipping into the ranks of "brutally effective" when you take into account things like double Gauss on a c3 link (imagine a mixed company with Gunslingers).

I have to wonder if the Challenger really needed 6 variants though.  Did the Davions really need yet another version of an already great tank?

And I think the XIVs should just give up the underwater gig and stick to hostile environments. I don't really want to toss an assault tank into the water with just an ERLL and SRT4 to defend itself while the rest of the weaponry requires dry land.

3rdCrucisLancers

  • SAVAGE
  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
  • Smallest star in the firmament
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #10 on: 16 August 2011, 16:16:16 »
I have to wonder if the Challenger really needed 6 variants though.  Did the Davions really need yet another version of an already great tank?

Yes.
Fighter of the Nightman (ah-ah-ah)
Champion of the Sun (ah-ah-ah)

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #11 on: 16 August 2011, 16:18:27 »
Its an effective tank, possibly slipping into the ranks of "brutally effective" when you take into account things like double Gauss on a c3 link (imagine a mixed company with Gunslingers).

Or modifying three of the Mk. XVs with slaves.  That's just not right.

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #12 on: 16 August 2011, 16:38:20 »
Did the Davions really need yet another version of an already great tank?

Yes.

 [stupid]
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25163
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #13 on: 16 August 2011, 16:52:23 »
Would it be worth it to deploy the lance of XI/XIIs in a chaos campaign/warchest merc campaign? I've been toying with idea of employing one when they became available, but i'm not sure employing them is worth the bv costs and likely out come. Expensive salvage if they are salvagable.
"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

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #14 on: 16 August 2011, 17:00:24 »
The real question under the Warchest is how likely are they to be be unsalvageable by those rules (which differ from those in StratOps) and how attractive is the considerable discount vs. purchasing similar 'Mechs to you?

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #15 on: 16 August 2011, 18:55:11 »
The Mk. XIV wasn't designed to fight underwater. It was one of the designs from the ONN that was intended to be able to traverse water to get to the primary target. It has some underwater capable weapons, but the main goal is to allow it to cross water obstacles without going around.


-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.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25163
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #16 on: 16 August 2011, 19:04:33 »
The real question under the Warchest is how likely are they to be be unsalvageable by those rules (which differ from those in StratOps) and how attractive is the considerable discount vs. purchasing similar 'Mechs to you?

Unfortunately, were using the standard salvage rules, so likeliness is that fire support tank lance is likely going to be toast if their hit too hard. 

This why i've not been a huge fan of armored vehicles as much as would like them, its just too expensive in realistic standard campaign.  All they are is salvage to be sold for scape iron. 
"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

Dread Moores

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2201
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #17 on: 16 August 2011, 19:10:51 »
The real question under the Warchest is how likely are they to be be unsalvageable by those rules (which differ from those in StratOps) and how attractive is the considerable discount vs. purchasing similar 'Mechs to you?

Warchest doesn't differ drastically from StratOps, IIRC. Warchest is "if one location is completely destroyed, it's Truly Destroyed." Much like a Mech or any other unit, it's all about knowing when to withdraw.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #18 on: 16 August 2011, 19:58:07 »
...so it is.  That's a really annoying classification for vehicles.  It makes them extremely difficult to salvage.

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #19 on: 16 August 2011, 23:08:15 »
Warchest doesn't differ drastically from StratOps, IIRC. Warchest is "if one location is completely destroyed, it's Truly Destroyed." Much like a Mech or any other unit, it's all about knowing when to withdraw.

The problem with that for assault units (both 'Mechs and tanks) is that retreat is essentially impossible because you are simply too slow to get away from an enemy that does not want to let you go.  When you commit these units to battle they are their to fight until either they or the enemy is utterly destroyed, so if you want the ability to pull back if things are going badly you should be looking at lighter and faster units with the ability to probe the enemies defenses and pull back if things are going badly.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

3rdCrucisLancers

  • SAVAGE
  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
  • Smallest star in the firmament
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #20 on: 16 August 2011, 23:46:06 »
The problem with that for assault units (both 'Mechs and tanks) is that retreat is essentially impossible because you are simply too slow to get away from an enemy that does not want to let you go.  When you commit these units to battle they are their to fight until either they or the enemy is utterly destroyed, so if you want the ability to pull back if things are going badly you should be looking at lighter and faster units with the ability to probe the enemies defenses and pull back if things are going badly.

Davion assault tanks are the anvil, their fast cavalry 'mechs are the hammer. It's the cavalry's job to find and fix the enemy, either holding them for the tanks, or drawing them back upon their guns.
Fighter of the Nightman (ah-ah-ah)
Champion of the Sun (ah-ah-ah)

Dread Moores

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2201
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #21 on: 17 August 2011, 00:17:45 »
The problem with that for assault units (both 'Mechs and tanks) is that retreat is essentially impossible because you are simply too slow to get away from an enemy that does not want to let you go.  When you commit these units to battle they are their to fight until either they or the enemy is utterly destroyed, so if you want the ability to pull back if things are going badly you should be looking at lighter and faster units with the ability to probe the enemies defenses and pull back if things are going badly.

*shrugs* To me, that's what supporting units are designed for. There's plenty of options of other units that can provide distractions and cover for expensive things like Challengers to withdraw. A lot of that will depend on the size of combat you typically find yourself involved in. I tend to play large force sizes, so it's easy to have artillery or VTOLs or minefields or smoke rounds or whatever to support units like the Challenger. At smaller BVs, that's going to be substantially more difficult.

Ian Sharpe

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2143
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #22 on: 17 August 2011, 11:57:59 »
I view assault tanks and Mechs as units for set piece battles or for objectives that must be defended.  Their job is to win through, no matter what, and Challengers should do a pretty good job of that.  And if they lost, well, the Challengers probably allowed me to get everything else out.

Jim1701

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1916
  • "Don't Panic"
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #23 on: 17 August 2011, 13:47:26 »
As to fuel cells exploding, according to the rules they should not.  TacOps says they function the same as Industrial Mechs.  According to TW if a fuel cell equipped mech takes fuel tank damage it does not explode but all remaining fuel is gone.  It does not elaborate but it sounds like a fuel tank hit would be treated the same an engine destroyed hit.  No more movement, no more energy weapons but the turret will still work as well as non-energy weapons. 

TacOps ref:  pg 307
TW ref:  pg 135

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #24 on: 17 August 2011, 17:24:31 »
As to fuel cells exploding, according to the rules they should not.  TacOps says they function the same as Industrial Mechs.

Not quite.  That's a ready idea for handling the problem and suggests what the ruling will actually be once it's made but it's not what the rules actually say.  TacOps says BattleMechs with fuel cell engines follow the same rules as IndustrialMechs.  Combat vehicles only follow the IndustrialMech fuel rules.  The relevant paragraph is quoted before.

Combat and support vehicles using engines other than ICEs and fusion engines are left flapping in the breeze for handling engine and fuel tank hits for everything but combat vehicles using fission engines.  Those rules generally work for CVs but don't actually cover the crew hits properly.

Quote from: Tactical Operations, page 307
Game Rules: BattleMechs with fuel cell engines follow the same rules as IndustrialMechs with fuel cell engines (see p. 126, TW). Both BattleMechs and Combat Vehicles using fuel cell engines also follow the IndustrialMech fuel consumption rules (see p. 68, TM).

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #25 on: 17 August 2011, 17:31:14 »
Davion assault tanks are the anvil, their fast cavalry 'mechs are the hammer. It's the cavalry's job to find and fix the enemy, either holding them for the tanks, or drawing them back upon their guns.

*shrugs* To me, that's what supporting units are designed for. There's plenty of options of other units that can provide distractions and cover for expensive things like Challengers to withdraw. A lot of that will depend on the size of combat you typically find yourself involved in. I tend to play large force sizes, so it's easy to have artillery or VTOLs or minefields or smoke rounds or whatever to support units like the Challenger. At smaller BVs, that's going to be substantially more difficult.

To my mind, and I acknowledge I am amazingly hopeless in tactical games, I would place my Assault Tanks in the centre (ish) of my line, on relatively flat and clear ground and then use mobile assets, like medium 'Mechs, to support them on the flanks and frustrate any attempts to hit them there while hiding weaker support units like LRM Carriers behind them. The thinking being that the Tanks being on optimal ground won't be hampered by their mobility restraints and that the key and crucial advantage of 'Mechs (especially those with JJs) is their all terrain capabilities over and above their firepower and ability to take damage and keep going.
« Last Edit: 17 August 2011, 17:32:54 by DoctorMonkey »
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16602
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #26 on: 17 August 2011, 17:36:54 »
That's pretty much my goal in ideal circumstances although I'm not sure on just sticking the LRM carriers that close.

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #27 on: 17 August 2011, 17:43:42 »
That's pretty much my goal in ideal circumstances although I'm not sure on just sticking the LRM carriers that close.

Define "close" - some way behind the Tanks but close enough that the flank guards and tank guns can protect them and that they can reach out and touch the units the Tanks are punching holes in to Crit Seek

Charlie 6 (US Marine artillerist) recommended viewing LRMs as part of a unit, like a grenadier in an infantry squad with an underslung grenade launcher, Arrow IV as mortars and only tube artillery as being like real artillery in terms of how close they should get to the action. While that is a great reason to use heavier armoured LRM carriers like the Rhino, part of me is just cheap enough to throw some milita troops into the death traps and accept heavier casualties for the greater number of missiles they will let fly (before they die)... besides, all of the money went on buying the cool tanks
« Last Edit: 17 August 2011, 17:46:24 by DoctorMonkey »
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #28 on: 17 August 2011, 18:00:05 »
Someone post a rules question on Fuel Cell engines going boom and send me the link. We'll get it answered.
-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.

Nikas_Zekeval

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1630
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Challenger MBT
« Reply #29 on: 17 August 2011, 18:10:10 »
*shrugs* To me, that's what supporting units are designed for. There's plenty of options of other units that can provide distractions and cover for expensive things like Challengers to withdraw. A lot of that will depend on the size of combat you typically find yourself involved in. I tend to play large force sizes, so it's easy to have artillery or VTOLs or minefields or smoke rounds or whatever to support units like the Challenger. At smaller BVs, that's going to be substantially more difficult.

That assumes they can effectively withdraw at all.  #P

Chances of a tank getting any kind of MP penalizing motive crit is 15% per strike.  Sure it doesn't seem like much, but by the fourth damage location roll you are under a 50% chance of having all your MPs, down to 12% by the twelfth location roll, and 3% by the twentieth.  (85%^n, where n is the number of damage location rolls)

The statistics show why cluster weapons can leave a tank stuck in a hurry, the LB-X series in particular can leave a tank low on MP in only a couple of blasts.  And the Challenger doesn't have that many MP to spare, at 2/3 or less it isn't going to escape any kind of persistent attack or pursuit.  Really at that level of movement the only thing that can save the tank is enough firepower to put down anyone attacking it.  And if you had that much relative firepower on tap why are you pulling out?

The low speed also limits it in maneuver warfare, the hammer blow missing because the anvil can't get into position before the enemy moves out of the trap.

Finally I question the wisdom of sinking this much resources into a single unit, over say a SFE Omni conversion of the Rommel/Patton series and churning them out in large numbers.  Sure a company of Challenger Xs are impressive, but if all you have to backstop them are Bulldogs and LRM carriers because you blew the budget the phrase 'stiffening a bucket of snot with a handful of buckshot' comes to mind.

 

Register