BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Articles => Topic started by: JadeHellbringer on 06 April 2015, 14:03:35
-
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/d/d1/JES_III.jpg/800px-JES_III.jpg)
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/c/c9/JES_III_Missile_Carrier.jpg)
Joint Equipment Systems had a rocky start in the missile-carrier business, as tank fans are well aware. The JES I packed a massive punch in the form of an impressive set of SRM racks, but with all but one mounted forward, combined with shockingly poor movement for a hovertank, it was a very mixed bag to say the least. The same mistake was made then with their enormous JES II- while the forward mounting of a battery of LRMs isn't as problematic as for a close-fighting SRM-carrier, the speed of the unit was so poor as to make it nearly useless for offensive operations, and even in a defensive role it was prone to being overrun. It seems this trend was noticed by JES engineers enough to warrant a new unit, but one that makes only the most passing attempt at fixing the problem.
At 60 tons, the JES III comes in at just under 2/3 the size of its older cousin in the fire support role. By using a smaller chassis, the engine can give more speed without having to be massive (the reason a Rifleman moves the same speed as a Banshee 3E, but has so much greater firepower). The result is a pretty clever move by JES- while the new tank is smaller than its cousin, it gains speed AND keeps the same forward-facing firepower. By any standard, that's pretty impressive stuff.
By opening up the hood, so to speak, we find the JES III's using an XL fusion engine (the JES II used a standard fusion model). More weight savings, despite an increase in cost- I'm always a fan of using an XL if the cost (and vulnerability on a Mech) allows the unit to do things that it wouldn't be able to accomplish otherwise, and trying to build the JES III without this just doesn't work. The speed isn't anything spectacular- at 3/5 you'll still struggle to keep up with a running battle- but at least it's competitive with other heavy fire support units, and leaps and bounds better than the Annihilator-esque crawl of the JES II. Note however that the JES III marks JES' foray into using wheels, with all the benefits and drawbacks that can provide- tracks would have been much nicer, overall.
Fire support vehicles sometimes feature designs that feel a bit light on the armor- designers apparently figure that since it's sitting behind the front lines, there's no need to go all crazy and add on things like protection from weapons fire. The JES III surprisingly makes that kind of choice- while the II had a pretty hefty skin to protect it from return fire, a III taking fire won't last long. Eight tons of Starshield armor are oriented mostly in a 'point this end at the enemy' configuration, with the fore able to take two hits from the VotW test cannon before breaking. The sides take twenty-one points each, while the rear follows with a 20-point shell covering the rear- enough to survive a chance encounter with a Saladin. The... turret? Wait, this has a turret? On a JES design? What heresy is this? There's 26 points there, anyway.
A turret. JES finally figured out what customers had hated about the first two in the series. Sure, the JES I had one of its SRM racks (out of seven) in a turret, but that's not going to dissuade most attacks. The JES II tried putting a couple of missile racks on the sides for cover, but that's little consolation if someone gets behind it, especially with its plodding movement. Here though, we have a fire support unit that can actually bring its weaponry to bear outside the front arc. Well done, JES- it took over half a century to figure it out, but here we are at last! Four big FireFire LRM-15 racks sit in an angular setup, fed by a total of six tons of ammo for... well, it's not GREAT battlefield endurance, but the accepted minimum at least of twelve turns of fire. Nothing to sneeze at- that's a lot of muscle to throw at someone, and with the LRM being as flexible of a weapon as it is these days with specialty ammunition types one can make a real mess with a JES III's weapons. Minefields? Guided munitions? Narc? Smoke? Whatever- this is just a premier example of what a fire support tank can be. And remember, that's sixty warheads flying off the racks every turn- on a fairly mid-weight vehicle! A pair of boring old machine guns share half a ton of ammo and are in forward mountings (the art suggests they're in ball-turrets, but we go off stats here), in case infantry pop up. If infantry are attacking your JES III, you don't deserve to have your tank anymore anyway- switching this out for an AMS and a ton of ammo would be a much better kit.
As one would expect, several variants exist. The most basic removes one ton of ammunition (come on, take the MGs instead!) to gain a C3 slave module, making for a tank that can make life truly miserable from a distance with the right network... but only for ten turns. It's a great idea, just not the best sacrifice to gain that ton it needed- the MGs and ammo for the C3 and an ER small laser would have been a vast improvement.
JES listened on the next idea- with the MGs and ammo removed, the weight was put into the engine, making for a faster JES III at 4/6. Ohhhhh yes. A pair of useless anti-infantry weapons lost to be able to move that much faster is ALWAYS a good thing on a platform like this, and should be utilized by players at every opportunity over the standard version if the option is available. EDIT: Brought to my attention, this version utilizes an XXL engine, which wasn't mentioned in the record sheet. This makes for a VERY expensive platform in terms of C-bills, so if you're loaded, use this. If not, ask yourself if that extra speed is worth a massive hit to the wallet- if not, you can buy a few slower versions for the price of one of these.
Returning to the original engine (and bringing back the MGs) is a version that trades out the LRM racks (you monsters!) for a quartet of MML-9s (...insult redacted). On this the MGs make more sense- an MML carrier likely gets into body-punching range for the SRMs more than the dedicated LRM versions will, so it might actually encounter enemy infantry more. However, while the ability to fling 36 SRMs in someones face is a scary prospect, that's also the problem- it's scary, and so people want it to go away quickly. And the armor is the same as ever- enough to withstand a few hits at fire support ranges, but not enough to stop a dedicated attack at closer ranges- the kind that this would probably find itself at. My advice is to hold these back as bodyguards for standard-issue JES IIIs and discourage anyone from pushing at your fire support lines too hard- nothing tells that visiting Dragonfly or Plainsman where to stuff it quite like a few dozen SRMs to the face. EDIT: Again, the record sheet didn't tell the full story. Two more tons of ammunition are added here along with a pair of ER medium lasers. Not that this really changes much about the unit, mind you, but it's a little more endurance and a couple of added treats for the enemy to think about. And I always appreciate a unit using a fusion engine that uses those free heat sinks!
Finally, another fairly simple switch is a version that drops the LRMs (you monsters!) for a quartet of Thunderbolt-10s (...insult redacted). This is a gamble- you only have nine rounds per launcher, the range isn't as far, and an AMS makes your day suck. But... that's a lot of concentrated muscle. I'm not personally a fan of this version, myself, but I see the appeal for many players. Let your instincts guide you- if you're a T-bolt fan, this is going to be fun. If not, stick to one of the other setups. (The author found himself wishing this version was based on the speed variant, losing the MGs again to go up to 4/6 to compensate for the shorter range of the launchers here. The author has harped on the machine guns too much in this article.)
JES IIIs were originally built for the Republic, but as with their previous offerings it's now hard to find a military that doesn't use them to make enemies miserable- it's likely quite common to see JES IIIs lobbing salvos at each other on worlds across the Inner Sphere under every flag imaginable. So if you're reading this, it means that your faction of choice uses this thing- and so do your enemies. So learn this vehicle well- you never know when you'll find yourself looking at an unfriendly JES III through your crosshairs... or through those of your own JES III.
-
Never used any of them, though I can definitely see the appeal. Some good variants. As for the Thunderbolt, yes, AMS can screw up one of your missiles. Maybe. But you're firing four. Very few 'Mechs pack more than one AMS, so unless you're firing on one of those oddities, you're only looking at a 25% reduction of incoming throw weight. And the guy's still gonna take a piloting roll and a half worth of incoming fire. I'd say that's acceptable.
-
I'm not quite that sanguine on the Thunderbolt variant, personally. AMS only factors in after the to-hit rolls are resolved, so if you don't have good targeting numbers, it suddenly becomes a much larger problem. Of course, not that many 'Mechs or vehicles carry AMS to begin with and since the Thunterbold model only has nine rounds per launcher and acceptable armor, you don't want to waste rounds on bad numbers anyway.
In general, I think of the base model as giving me what I wanted on a fancier LRM carrier: More armor to survive the attention it'll attract, more ammo to exploit that armor, and a turret so it's not always fixed forward.
-
That was my experience with the T-bolt carrier- if I need 7s to hit, I'm looking at (roughly) 50/50 odds. So say that means two missiles hit. Now I lose one of those missiles to an AMS? Suuuuuuuck. But... not having to roll how many missiles hit and just smack someone for the full ten points to one place? That's pretty handy.
-
Against anything not AMS equipped, the T-bolt 10 is going to do slightly better than average unaugmented LRM-15 damage (10 points versus 9), with the benefit of being grouped into bit hole punching shots. An AMS is still only going to shoot down your missile half the time - the other half it does absolutely nothing. Hitting on 7s you're still going to be forcing a PSR more often than three times in four. I'd call that pretty good odds, and significantly better than an LRM-15 will have you looking at after AMS.
-
I think this thing has some good potential, if your given limited choices. It's heck, it's alot better than alot of the older carriers aside from the other JES carriers. Such as Light SRM Carrier and Heavy LRM Carriers, which have speed/armor issues in some cases.
In defense of the JES I, there was a variant (3082) which fixes the speed, so it's not so bad along you get choice choosing it verses the base model.
I have to agree with T-bolt launcher comments, I've not used one these but limited ammo makes it not as attractive. If you limit yourself to 2 volleys a turn against a AMS protected unit, it may prolong the fight little bit. I do think though as AMS is more around, it's not as fitted on many base from the Dark Age era. I think other tanks have them now than Mechs do.
I do wish aside from speed, that Boosted C3 or Angel ECM was available for the JES III. Jamming more often a hamper to the older C3 networks than not in Dark Age era.
Thank you for great and amusing write up, JadeHellbringer!
-
An unfortunate and redundant waste of TRO and RS space. We've had a lightly armored, 3/5 tank that can throw 60 LRMs from four turreted launchers with a couple MGs up front since the Succession Wars. It's called the Partisan (LRM). And the Partisan (LRM) has an ICE engine and is tracked, so it's cheaper while being more mobile. The JES III has not only failed to advance the few-hundred-years-old state-of-the-art in mechanized missile support, it's actually gone slightly backwards from there. Heck, we've also had the 60-LRM throwing Ontos (LRM) since the Succession Wars, and a Partisan (Fuel Cell LRM) upgrade that thickens the armor and adds C3 and AMS. Maybe the MML and T-bolt variants might have some utility, but there's little point to the JES III's LRM models. When a new design is added to the canon, it should add something new (in this case greater speed, advanced armor, Artemis accuracy, more missile tubes, etc.), not copy an existing canon design in detail.
-
While I won't argue your point, I will point out that the Ontos has been a pretty FWL-centric unit for the most part over the years (I know, the League broke up during/after the Jihad for a while, you know what I mean). And in both cases, it's entirely possible following the Jihad and the disarmament that followed that neither the Ontos nor the Partisan's LRM configs are being produced anymore. So, in steps JES, seeing a role that isn't being filled in modern armies the way it used to, and offers a fresh solution- that it happens to be the same old solution is irrelevant, it's that this solution is AVAILABLE that makes it attractive.
(And let's be honest, with the enormous number of units out there for use in Battletech on the whole, the LRM support unit is going to feature a lot of overlap anyway. How much variety are you really going to get from 'stick a few LRM racks on a vehicle and point it at the enemy', at the end of the day?)
-
The JES III isn't a new addition to the canon. It was originally done by WizKids for MWDA.
-
that it happens to be the same old solution is irrelevant, it's that this solution is AVAILABLE that makes it attractive.
In-universe, that may be the case. (Although, given the longevity of military hardware in the BT universe, the Partisan and Ontos are probably still available, even if they're no longer in production.)
But I'm making the out-of-universe point that when I buy a new TRO or RS, I'd rather not spend money on canon designs that, for all practical intents and purposes, copy canon designs that I've already paid for in a prior TRO and RS.
(And let's be honest, with the enormous number of units out there for use in Battletech on the whole, the LRM support unit is going to feature a lot of overlap anyway. How much variety are you really going to get from 'stick a few LRM racks on a vehicle and point it at the enemy', at the end of the day?)
Again, the JES III could have been faster, employed advanced armor, sported a different number of LRM tubes, and/or added Artemis accuracy. But instead it's the same speed, the same armor, same number of turreted LRM tubes (and even launcher size in the case of the Partisan), and the same fixed MGs as what has repeatedly come before. The only substantive differences between the designs only serve to make the JES II less mobile and more expensive.
Maybe that was all dictated by ClickyTech stats for the JES III that couldn't be adjusted without breaking continuity between the two games. But if not, it's a mistake (replicating designs across TROs and RSes) that shouldn't be repeated.
My 2 C-bills... YMMV.
-
As Moonsword pointed out, it's an MWDA vehicle. In cases like that (and I didn't make the design, mind you), the stats are made to match the look first, try to hold to the dial stats second where possible (though so often those units varied wildly between factions, that must have been a nightmare), and anything after that was a bonus. So, take a look at the JES III. Big missile racks (which I always assumed were MRMs since we had an SRM and LRM JES already), a couple of small weapons on the sides, obviously not as large as the monstrous JES II, usually a bit faster... and what do you know, that's exactly what we got here. It's definitely no-frills, but... where do you get more from on this? We already have an XL motor (and it's not a big one!), we don't have a lot of spare armor we could strip off to gain toys like Artemis... I really don't see how you build it different than it is without a switch to MRMs or something like that (probably not a good idea).
-
I'd much rather "waste" TRO space (what a silly concept; if it truly offends you read the sarna entries after the moratorium) on a vehicle that's workable but similar to an existing vehicle than on a tank that isn't worth its mass in rust and broken dreams. An MRM version would be adamantly the latter.
-
As the stats designer for the Partisan AA, I was disappointed that we couldn't have linked that vehicle and the JES III together. They're very clearly the same chassis, just the JES III overloads it ;) I also have difficulty working out how it fires both sets of LRMs directly to the sides; something like the Nova Shimmy (allowing waistless 'Mechs to torso twist) must be the answer.
And like the Partisan AA, the JES III provides exactly what's on the tin - Macross-level missile spam for long enough to hurt something(s). Yes, the speed and armour combo doesn't allow it to brawl, but if you're brawling in a JES III you're filling in the cliche without me needing to type it.
That said, the C3 version is the obvious pick of the litter, provided it's supported properly. You need either a mixed lance - the C3 Master, two JES IIIs with C3S, and a fast spotter - or you need it integrated into a company, which allows you to drop the spotter and plug in 60 more missiles into the fire net.
W.
-
An unfortunate and redundant waste of TRO and RS space. We've had a lightly armored, 3/5 tank that can throw 60 LRMs from four turreted launchers with a couple MGs up front since the Succession Wars. It's called the Partisan (LRM). And the Partisan (LRM) has an ICE engine and is tracked, so it's cheaper while being more mobile. The JES III has not only failed to advance the few-hundred-years-old state-of-the-art in mechanized missile support, it's actually gone slightly backwards from there. Heck, we've also had the 60-LRM throwing Ontos (LRM) since the Succession Wars, and a Partisan (Fuel Cell LRM) upgrade that thickens the armor and adds C3 and AMS. Maybe the MML and T-bolt variants might have some utility, but there's little point to the JES III's LRM models. When a new design is added to the canon, it should add something new (in this case greater speed, advanced armor, Artemis accuracy, more missile tubes, etc.), not copy an existing canon design in detail.
Heck you missed the classic LRM carrier. Not quite as enduring, but just as fast, tracked, and much, much cheaper.
The JES III is basically an expensive take on that classic. Better protected, both in armor and from infantry. The turret is a nice trick. But still it's slow and it's job is to hide and rain steel from cover.
-
I really don't see how you build it different than it is without a switch to MRMs or something like that (probably not a good idea).
I dunno. Four MRM-20s with Apollo FCS only weigh one more ton in total, which can be offset with ferro/heavy ferro (with some extra armor points to spread around to boot). An MRM/Apollo-based design doesn't have the range of an LRM-based design, but it has the same accuracy and 33% more firepower. More importantly, it adds something new to the variety of canon designs instead of replicating in detail a canon design that already exists.
Other ideas that could have made the JES III new and different from the Partisan (LRM) and similar units:
Vehicular stealth armor -- Works well on a slow, long-ranged platform like the JES III, and the heat sinks in the XLE are going unused anyway. Drop a ton of ammo and shave a half ton of armor for the requisite ECM.
Enhanced LRMs -- Four NLRM-10s would have reduced the minimums and saved at least six tons vice standard LRM-15s for more speed, more armor, Artemis, and/or different secondary weapons.
Clantech -- Maybe cheesy, but between its Alshain and Republic factories, JES should have access to lightweight Clantech that could boost speed, thicken armor, increase the number of LRM tubes, and/or add Artemis.
Mech Mortars -- Four MM-4s trade evenly with the LRM-15s when the requisite ammo increase is included.
Any of these options would have made the JES III substantively different from the Partisan (LRM) and similar designs, instead of replicating them.
I'd much rather "waste" TRO space (what a silly concept; if it truly offends you read the sarna entries after the moratorium)
Paying twice for the same thing isn't "silly". It's a waste of money.
Regardless, we can't use Sarna entries in games restricted to official Record Sheets.
Heck you missed the classic LRM carrier.
I didn't count the LRM carrier since it's so thinly armored and lacks a turret. I agree -- the JES III is a substantive improvement on the LRM carrier. The issue I raised is that the JES III is almost identical to the Partisan (LRM) and largely replicates other designs. We don't need the JES III to supersede the LRM carrier. The LRM carrier was superseded by these other, similar designs a long time ago.
Again, my 2 C-bills... YMMV.
-
Seen allot wost, Nat. No need to get hung up on the fact there is something better unless you where expecting a Partisan MKII.
-
I am deeply disappointed by the lack of ICBMs, or even IRBMs on this supposed "strategic missile carrier". Not cool JES, not cool.
-
As Moonsword pointed out, it's an MWDA vehicle. In cases like that (and I didn't make the design, mind you), the stats are made to match the look first, try to hold to the dial stats second where possible (though so often those units varied wildly between factions, that must have been a nightmare), and anything after that was a bonus.
Yes, but there's more. The stats of the JESIII were pretty much spelled out by the Broll Wolf Dossier Card.
-
I am deeply disappointed by the lack of ICBMs, or even IRBMs on this supposed "strategic missile carrier". Not cool JES, not cool.
Sounds like you're looking for a Kalki Missile Carrier.
-
Sounds like you're looking for a Kalki Missile Carrier.
No nuclear warheads for Cruise Missiles (a big damn omission really) :/
I detest JESsies. No, no, i have never played with them. But they're so frigging ugly. You can have a nice looking missile carrier, like the Catapult, or the (real) M270 MLRS but the JESsies don't even try, except perhaps this third model. Also, they're everywhere in the Dark Age novels. Ugh. So tired of reading about them.
Looks matter. What's the fun in a miniature game if you can't have nice looking units?
Really think this third one should have been a MRM carrier, since the previous ones were a SRM and LRM carriers, respectively. Regardless of the MRMs' bad rep, and admittedly problematic -1 to hit. A matter of style... 60 MRMs blasting someone is stylish (in an excessive way), and it fits the carrier progression.
(If there's ever a JES IV, it should be an ATM carrier, Clan-spec, of course. And not impossible either, considering the Republic can do Clan-spec stuff.)
-
Seen allot wost, Nat. No need to get hung up on the fact there is something better
The problem is not that the JES III is worse than the Partisan (LRM). (Although it is more expensive and less mobile.) The problem is that the JES III is practically the same as the Partisan (LRM).
unless you where expecting a Partisan MKII
There already is a Partisan (LRM) "Mk II". It's called the Partisan Fuel Cell (LRM). It's similar to the JES III (C3), but also adds Artemis IV and AMS.
FWIW...
-
Well, having established that it's redundant then, let's move on to other discussions. Stories of use, ideas for upgrades, etc.. The deceased equine has been flogged a-plenty.
-
Though it has flaws, the JES III is good machine for the Era it's operating in.
I think one bigger problem Battletech does have is commonality of designs. It won't be such big fuss over this has been done before thing if there was rarity note. Casual game is one thing, running campaign when you need to know what on the shop catalog is another.
JES III certainly can handle itself better, than it's previous models.
-
I don't mind the Thunderbolt carrier variant honestly. 9 rounds per launcher actually is almost the amount of ammo that it needs to equal the amount of time is probably is going to live from experience using it. Though there is the magic of putting two JES III T-bolt carriers in a single hex and throwing 8 of the things at someone. It is not exactly a very expensive unit in terms of points at 995 pts, sure there are things cheaper but still tossing a pair of them onto the board for less than the cost of a single modern top end heavy mech, yeah... the appeal is there.
It's speed does not bother me, I tend to throw them (and other cheap missile spammers that were mentioned) in with mechanized and motorized infantry formations so it blends in nice for combined arms/non-mech focused units. Got used to using them in MW:DA and always wrote it off as being 'Well, guess they finally shut down the ancient Katyusha factory and gave me a new model Katyusha launcher to play with'. It is the mid 3100's after all.
If using some of the optional rules, toss on an AA targetting system on it because nothing say I hate you more than putting 4 thunderbolts into the bottom of a strafing fighter or annoying VTOL. Suddenly the T-Bolt JES III starts to look pretty nice as a deterrent vehicle to help support other AA platforms in making certain parts of the map no fly zones.
-
If using some of the optional rules, toss on an AA targetting system on it because nothing say I hate you more than putting 4 thunderbolts into the bottom of a strafing fighter or annoying VTOL. Suddenly the T-Bolt JES III starts to look pretty nice as a deterrent vehicle to help support other AA platforms in making certain parts of the map no fly zones.
I hereby declare this the 'NO WEIRDOS ALLOWED' tactic. Take thy aerospace forces and BEGONE, sirrah. ;D
(Also, got a message chiding me for not including the DA image of the unit in the article. Updating the main article, apologies for the oversight...?)
-
With regards to the argument of trying to put Artemis IV on the LRM-15's on this carrier: Don't.
I personally think it takes away from the straight-up flexibility that a standard LRM-15 gives you. As JHB said in his article, you can use so many more types of ammo. And while I suppose that you can be flexible when assigning different ammo-types to the Artemis equipped LRM launchers, that Artemis equipment essentially becomes a ton of dead weight when you do.
-
Strangely, nearly all the variants of this RAF missile boat play nicely with the Republic's Quirinus Battle Armor and that handy built-in TAG.
-
You know, putting a single Thunderbolt 10 in the turret but leaving the three LRM-15s might make for some interesting possibilities.
-
Keep thinking of a Arrow IV variant, just because.
-
The Thunderbolt variant has one thing going in its favor that no other missile carrier has, the 10 point grouping on an indirect shot. That might not be a winner by itself, but the ability to open holes in armor without being hit in return can be a big advantage. Especially if you have BA/infantry spotters who are in a position to crit seek as a follow up.
-
Strangely, nearly all the variants of this RAF missile boat play nicely with the Republic's Quirinus Battle Armor and that handy built-in TAG.
The Thunderbolt variant has one thing going in its favor that no other missile carrier has, the 10 point grouping on an indirect shot. That might not be a winner by itself, but the ability to open holes in armor without being hit in return can be a big advantage. Especially if you have BA/infantry spotters who are in a position to crit seek as a follow up.
I wonder.... *goes read the BAotW for Quirinus*
There ain't that many units that utilize the T-Bolts as primary weapon, are there? Even as secondaries, they're not terribly common. Definitively a more unique variant, that T-Bolt Jessie.
-
Team it up with a Marksman tank and go to town O0
-
Team it up with a Marksman tank and go to town O0
Does the Republic have any home grown Omnimechs for carrying the Quirinus around? Can't remember...
Homegrown for the sake of flavor. No doubt they have other Omnis, but since the Marksman, Quirinus and JES III are Republic units...
-
Does the Republic have any home grown Omnimechs for carrying the Quirinus around? Can't remember...
Homegrown for the sake of flavor. No doubt they have other Omnis, but since the Marksman, Quirinus and JES III are Republic units...
You mean besides the Doloire, arguably one of the best Assault OmniMechs ever designed?
-
Believe the Republic are also buying Savage Wolves and Mad Dog IVs from Clan Sea Fox.
-
Or Centurion OmniMechs. Or Scapha, R10, or Bolla OmniVehicles. That isn't even scratching the surface of the fantastic dedicated transports.
But that is quite the digression from discussion of the JES III the Quirinus are supporting ...
-
Just struck by something. The jerrycans on the back sides. Fusion XL engine.
So they're not carrying diesel ... I suppose they could be carrying water for crossing the desert, but I prefer to believe it's ethyl alcohol. "For cleaning the ammunition feeds."
Yes. Definitely.
-
Keep thinking of a Arrow IV variant, just because.
That's an intriguing thought, for sure. Particularly in the combined-arms-heavy Dark Age, anything that allows for area-effect damage is a good thing, as is anything that allows you to light up someone with BA-carried TAG. We have better Arrow-haulers available on the market in this era, but not always available to every faction- with this serving in every military out there in respectable numbers, it wouldn't be surprising if someone made such a refit.
I say it every time we do an LRM-heavy unit, but a mortar-hauling version would be intriguing as well.
Just struck by something. The jerrycans on the back sides. Fusion XL engine.
So they're not carrying diesel ... I suppose they could be carrying water for crossing the desert, but I prefer to believe it's ethyl alcohol. "For cleaning the ammunition feeds."
Yes. Definitely.
Why should Alacorn crews have all the maintenance-related hijinks, after all?
-
I am genuinely surprised there's not a version with quad mml 9 racks inthe turret. For a support vehicle the stupid levels of ambush capability combined with still respectable fire support is a boon
Unlike the author i am ambivalent on the turret, tactical benefits aside i would have seen about a larger engine inexchange for the net turret mass
-
I am genuinely surprised there's not a version with quad mml 9 racks inthe turret. For a support vehicle the stupid levels of ambush capability combined with still respectable fire support is a boon
Unlike the author i am ambivalent on the turret, tactical benefits aside i would have seen about a larger engine inexchange for the net turret mass
Er... about that MML carrier... actually, there IS such a version. I covered it in the article. ^-^
-
As for the comment on there being better A4 launchers out there, there are not many A4 launchers geared towards supporting and keeping up with mechanized and motorized infantry in terms of speed. Most launchers as faster than the units they would be supporting, good I guess but when you are playing with a infantry heavy force, speed tends to fall by the wayside quickly so having a JES III A4 variant, nice slow and plodding like the units they are supporting does not sound that bad.
Then again, I have gotten used to the idea of speed 3/5 as not being that detrimental when played intelligently.
-
Er... about that MML carrier... actually, there IS such a version. I covered it in the article. ^-^
I'm surprised we didn't see one with extended LRMs. The slow speed doesn't matter as much then, it'll practically be a mini artillery variant.
-
I'm surprised we didn't see one with extended LRMs. The slow speed doesn't matter as much then, it'll practically be a mini artillery variant.
That hadn't occurred, but... I don't have the books handy, but I think one can make twin ELRM-20s work without any trouble. Interesting, but needs SERIOUS protection- anyone got a spare old Demolisher around?
-
Twin 20s will be a bit much, 18 tons per rack, but 15s are only 12 tons a rack. So switching to those frees up 4 tons, and keeping the ammo the same gives you 18 rounds per rack. Still, range brackets of 12/22/38 are nothing to sneeze at.
-
This is a fairly new unit, perhaps there will be spot for one more variant in a update record sheet book. Having ERLRMs or even N-LRMs would be nice for something like this.
-
OK, what am I missing on the MML-Variant?
The Launchers are a ton lighter each, so there should be some space to go around.
Sarna mentions twin medium lasers, but it also mentions 2 less tons of ammo, so that doesn't lead anywhere. Standard engine? ???
-
OK, what am I missing on the MML-Variant?
The Launchers are a ton lighter each, so there should be some space to go around.
Sarna mentions twin medium lasers, but it also mentions 2 less tons of ammo, so that doesn't lead anywhere. Standard engine? ???
The 4 tons are used for 2 ER medium lasers in the turret and another 2 tons of ammo.
What I can't figure out though is the speed variant. This variant removes 2 machine guns and 0.5 ton of ammo (1.5 tons combined)
to increase the engine from160XL to 220XL but this should increase the engine weight by 3 tons (4.5 to 7.5).
What am I missing here?
-
The speed variant mounts an XXL engine. I don't have my books in front of me but I believe CASE makes up the remaining weight difference.
-
The speed variant mounts an XXL engine. I don't have my books in front of me but I believe CASE makes up the remaining weight difference.
Thanks this adds up.
Since the CASE and the XXL engine don't appear in the RS I will post it in the errata forum.
-
No! The speed variant uses HFF armor... which is never noted on current vee RS.
-
Discussion in the Lamprey thread has led me to wonder: Given a ton or two of frag missiles, how effective would a JESsie be as a weedeater? :)
-
Feeling a little better about the article now- I couldn't fathom why I missed some of the details on those variants, but the record sheets indeed don't show it- so I didn't mention it. Whew! This one's not my fault! I'll update the main article shortly.
(I still should have done the math, but it honestly didn't occur to me!)
-
This is why I don't trust record sheet only variants. You don't get all the details that went into them when trying to reverse engineer or understand how they worked.
-
Feeling a little better about the article now- I couldn't fathom why I missed some of the details on those variants, but the record sheets indeed don't show it- so I didn't mention it. Whew! This one's not my fault! I'll update the main article shortly.
(I still should have done the math, but it honestly didn't occur to me!)
Nope, entirely the fault of my early senility. Well, maybe not that early.
-
Sorry JadeHellbringer but it seems you need to edit the speed variant again.
According to jymset the 1.5 missing tons come from HFF armor and not XL engine so the RS is surprisingly correct.
Again sorry for the inconvenience.
-
Well, having established that it's redundant then, let's move on to other discussions. Stories of use, ideas for upgrades, etc.. The deceased equine has been flogged a-plenty.
I think going with Stealth Armor on a Liao variant could be interesting, set it in support of the Pixiu.
-
I think going with Stealth Armor on a Liao variant could be interesting, set it in support of the Pixiu.
Simple, too. Not to bring up my favorite change here again, but get rid of those silly MGs and their ammo, there's a ton and a half for Guardian, replace armor with stealth plating, keep the rest as-is, begin making Davion miserable.
I like it. Looks like that comes out pretty cheap, too, compared to a lot of stealth fire-support platforms.
-
Hmm, what about ER or Enhanced LRMs? Do we have too many carriers that use them?
-
Switch MMLs 2 for 1 for ELRM15s, and you got enough ammo to kite them all the way to the bank. Well, maybe combine it with more speed.
All in all, a very solid vehicle with a lot of field refit options. O:-)
-
We tested a JES III Thunderbolt. It is very cheap and a big glasshammer. It ripped of one Catapult with 4 Thunderbolts in the Center Torso. It died in 2 turns of not so much concentrated fire. It is not a line MBT. We believe that it it better to keep it in the back and only bring it into a good position after the main short range engagement has began. Not the best tank of the world but a cheap ugly way to kill things.
-
So you are saying it is best showing up fashionably late to the party?
-
Or hidden until the guy with the BAP goes "Wait, whats th..." >:D
-
An unfortunate and redundant waste of TRO and RS space. We've had a lightly armored, 3/5 tank that can throw 60 LRMs from four turreted launchers with a couple MGs up front since the Succession Wars. It's called the Partisan (LRM). And the Partisan (LRM) has an ICE engine and is tracked, so it's cheaper while being more mobile. The JES III has not only failed to advance the few-hundred-years-old state-of-the-art in mechanized missile support, it's actually gone slightly backwards from there.
There are considerations that work in the JES III's favor. Lower tonnage means being able to cross a larger variety of bridges, less crew, less maintenance for refueling. The JES III also has the unfair advantages of quirks like Easy to Maintain that the Partisan does not by simple virtue of being too old to have Quirks, Improved targeting (long range) isn't bad, either. It opens up the entire 8-21 span for the same to-hit range penalty.
For a national military the JES III makes sense. Pay for it up front, save on the back end as time goes on. In an era of peace the costs of fuel, crew and techs eats away at the cost advantages of a low initial purchase.