Author Topic: Mech of the Week: ZEU-** Zeus (Read 33095 times)

Savage Coyote · « **Reply #30 on:** 20 May 2013, 10:47:01 »

Quote from: A. Lurker on 20 May 2013, 04:18:39

Edited to add: ...and then of course my actual physical printed copy of Historical: Operation Klondike chooses to list the ZEU-6S, formally introduced only in 2898 according to the MUL, on its Pentagon Powers RAT. Go figure. ::)

Could also represent downgraded tech due to Pentegon degeneration or something.... or could be errata worthy!

gyedid · « **Reply #31 on:** 21 May 2013, 23:51:12 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 19 May 2013, 14:15:25

But as part of a team, a Zeus can be a very difficult opponent for even a tough Clan force to deal with. I've faced them repeatedly in my time, and they never get any more fun to deal with. The recent 'X' versions only make things even more frustrating. ;)

JadeHellbringer, as a Falcon player who often fights Steiner...take a look at the Jupiter. Is that 'Mech basically not two Zeuses in one?
Even the name suggests a connection...whatever the case, with the Jupiter and Bane 4, the Falcons have managed to out-Lyran the Lyrans ;)

cheers,

Gabe

RyuWanderfalke · « **Reply #32 on:** 22 May 2013, 03:15:39 »

Big accomplishment when you're using Clan-tech...

SCC · « **Reply #33 on:** 22 May 2013, 04:14:12 »

Really the names sort of a give away, and I wonder why they used it, the names of Gods are normally used for vehicles by the Clans

gyedid · « **Reply #34 on:** 22 May 2013, 04:25:49 »

Quote from: SCC on 22 May 2013, 04:14:12

Really the names sort of a give away, and I wonder why they used it, the names of Gods are normally used for vehicles by the Clans

Psy-ops? As a message to the Lyrans that "we've one-upped* your iconic 'Mech" ?

*well, really two-upped, but...

cheers,

Gabe

Savage Coyote · « **Reply #35 on:** 22 May 2013, 07:07:14 »

I'd hope a 100 tonner of any tech could one up an 80 ton IS 'Mech... ::)

Colt Ward · « **Reply #36 on:** 23 May 2013, 20:22:00 »

Clan vehicles are typically named for gods, goddesses and demi-gods/goddesses of war, not just dieties.

With that said, yes I think it is best to play this as a heavy just as you would any of the 3025 4/6 80s.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #37 on:** 24 May 2013, 12:01:59 »

My favorite memory using a Zeus was when I used a 9S during a Clan Invasion scenario to beat the tar out of a Thor.

Guess we found out who was the real god of thunder...

Col.Hengist · « **Reply #38 on:** 24 May 2013, 12:08:25 »

Quote from: Savage Coyote on 20 May 2013, 10:47:01

Could also represent downgraded tech due to Pentegon degeneration or something.... or could be errata worthy!

Very errata worthy. 2882 is long after Kerensky left the IS. Of cource, the original intro date for the Zeus in my old 3025 says it was produced before the mackie so....

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #39 on:** 24 May 2013, 18:12:29 »

According to the MUL, the first Zeus was the ZEU-5T model, introduced in 2787.

Col.Hengist · « **Reply #40 on:** 24 May 2013, 19:59:09 »

According to the 3025 original printing the first Zeus rolled off the production line in 2411. They were effective in the war with the Draconis combine on Hesperus II in 2407. This has since been eratted away but that is the origunal date if the Zeus.

Savage Coyote · « **Reply #41 on:** 24 May 2013, 20:05:02 »

Right... I just figured the 6S was a downgrade IF some went to the Pentegon.

Alexander Knight · « **Reply #42 on:** 24 May 2013, 20:09:33 »

Quote from: Col.Hengist on 24 May 2013, 19:59:09

According to the 3025 original printing the first Zeus rolled off the production line in 2411. They were effective in the war with the Draconis combine on Hesperus II in 2407. This has since been eratted away but that is the origunal date if the Zeus.

No. That was a mistake in a book filled with mistakes. 2407 and 2411 are prior to the deployment of the Mackie, and prior to the Lyran Commonwealth having ownership of Defiance Industries

Ergo, it is flat-out impossible for the Zeus to be built by the Lyran company of Defiance Industries in 2407.

Col.Hengist · « **Reply #43 on:** 24 May 2013, 20:49:06 »

Quote from: Alexander Knight on 24 May 2013, 20:09:33

No. That was a mistake in a book filled with mistakes. 2407 and 2411 are prior to the deployment of the Mackie, and prior to the Lyran Commonwealth having ownership of Defiance Industries

Ergo, it is flat-out impossible for the Zeus to be built by the Lyran company of Defiance Industries in 2407.

Did you at least read my whoie statement before you jumped on me?

Quote from: Col.Hengist on 24 May 2013, 19:59:09

According to the 3025 original printing the first Zeus rolled off the production line in 2411. They were effective in the war with the Draconis combine on Hesperus II in 2407. This has since been eratted away but that is the original date if the Zeus.

I bolded the part that matters.

Alexander Knight · « **Reply #44 on:** 24 May 2013, 20:53:08 »

Quote from: Col.Hengist on 24 May 2013, 20:49:06

Did you at least read my whoie statement before you jumped on me?

No, the part that "mattered" was your claim that it was the original date for the Zeus. That is incorrect.

Col.Hengist · « **Reply #45 on:** 24 May 2013, 20:55:19 »

ok, man. lol it's not worth it. have a great day.

SCC · « **Reply #46 on:** 24 May 2013, 21:32:40 »

Quote from: Col.Hengist on 24 May 2013, 19:59:09

According to the 3025 original printing the first Zeus rolled off the production line in 2411. They were effective in the war with the Draconis combine on Hesperus II in 2407. This has since been eratted away but that is the origunal date if the Zeus.

Just checked my copy of 3025 and these are the numbers in it, however they also place the Zeus' first combat BEFORE it started being produced, did FASA have an aversion to fact checking?

CitizenErased · « **Reply #47 on:** 24 May 2013, 21:40:06 »

Quote from: SCC on 24 May 2013, 21:32:40

Just checked my copy of 3025 and these are the numbers in it, however they also place the Zeus' first combat BEFORE it started being produced, did FASA have an aversion to fact checking?

In a word? Yup. In a really long word? Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

Col.Hengist · « **Reply #48 on:** 24 May 2013, 21:57:28 »

If you read carefully you see the first reference is to the 2 prototypes. The 2411 date is when they went into full production... "according to the original 3025" . I put that in quotes so every one understands that I also realize the date is incorrect and that date is impossible and has been errated to a later date.

Alexander Knight · « **Reply #49 on:** 24 May 2013, 22:52:21 »

If you know that date is wrong, why do you keep repeating it?

Col.Hengist · « **Reply #50 on:** 24 May 2013, 23:13:45 »

Because it's the origunal printed date. Until the errata came out for it it is the correct date. Why is this upsetting you so much? You're like a dog with a bone and you're just not getting what I'm sayin and I've explained myself a few times now. If you have a problem with what ive said please report me to the mods and i'll discuss it with them.

Alexander Knight · « **Reply #51 on:** 24 May 2013, 23:20:26 »

Sigh. Just because it was printed didn't make it correct even when it was printed. Or do you insist that the St. Ives Armored Cavalry was originally a House Kurita formation?

Col.Hengist · « **Reply #52 on:** 24 May 2013, 23:27:57 »

Quote from: Alexander Knight on 24 May 2013, 23:20:26

Sigh. Just because it was printed didn't make it correct even when it was printed. Or do you insist that the St. Ives Armored Cavalry was originally a House Kurita formation?

I have never said in this conversation that the printed date was the correct date. I said that is what it said in the original 3025. do you understand now?

Alexander Knight · « **Reply #53 on:** 24 May 2013, 23:33:39 »

Quote from: Col.Hengist on 24 May 2013, 23:27:57

I have never said in this conversation that the printed date was the correct date. I said that is what it said in the original 3025. do you understand now?

Okay. How's this. The data in the original 3025 is irrelevant. Nothing in that book should be accepted unless confirmed by another source. Stating that the original date for the Zeus is 2411 is like stating "Well the original texts said the Earth was flat."

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #54 on:** 25 May 2013, 01:05:08 »

Continuously repeating the incorrect date that was printed in the original TRO 3025, especially given that you already know it's incorrect, is neither useful nor relevant to the discussion.

Gryphon · « **Reply #55 on:** 16 June 2013, 01:41:38 »

I noted earlier that someone said they had always finished their fights with an intact Zeus...

I lost THREE of the damn things in ONE damn fight!

Two ammo criticals (one a TAC on a pristine unit, and another torn apart by 9 separate LRM volleys, five of which were LRM-5 too), and another with a cored out head due to an AC/10 and a Small Laser combo, off things!

I have never used one since, and it isn't because I blame the mech either, I blame the godz of luck, and their very, very clear announcement that I shall not use the Zeus ever again!

Which sucks, since I really, really wanted to pound some sucker with an armored LRM 15... >:(

martian · « **Reply #56 on:** 16 June 2013, 01:57:52 »

Quote from: Gryphon on 16 June 2013, 01:41:38

I noted earlier that someone said they had always finished their fights with an intact Zeus...

I lost THREE of the damn things in ONE damn fight!

Two ammo criticals (one a TAC on a pristine unit, and another torn apart by 9 separate LRM volleys, five of which were LRM-5 too), and another with a cored out head due to an AC/10 and a Small Laser combo, off things!

I have never used one since, and it isn't because I blame the mech either, I blame the godz of luck, and their very, very clear announcement that I shall not use the Zeus ever again!

Which sucks, since I really, really wanted to pound some sucker with an armored LRM 15... >:(

If you have problems with ammo crits, take ZEU-10WB Zeus, then. It's an all-energy zombie 'Mech.

E. Icaza · « **Reply #57 on:** 17 June 2013, 19:34:39 »

Quite probably my favorite Assault 'Mech, which is saying a lot since I don't generally like Assault 'Mechs. Probably a great deal of my love for them is due to the fact that the Zeus is more of an overweight Heavy than an Assault. They are a mainstay of almost any Lyran force that I build and frequently find their way into other forces as well. As for favorites, that would be the 6S for 3025 play and the 9S for 3050 and onwards. I've never used any of the "X" variants, so I can't comment on them. I never cared for the 9T because, with the additional armor, the "feel" of the Zeus was gone and replaced by what felt like yet another nearly max-armored Assault 'Mech.

hive_angel · « **Reply #58 on:** 18 June 2013, 13:41:20 »

I have a hard time considering using the Zeus because of its weapon arrangements and not a true DCMS unit (I think). However, the whole idea of looking at the mech as a heavy assault mech really opens the mind up.

Col.Hengist · « **Reply #59 on:** 18 June 2013, 16:22:11 »

It's not a DCMS mech, it's built by the Lyrans.it's not a heavy assault mech either.