Author Topic: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads  (Read 5744 times)

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« on: 21 May 2018, 08:44:55 »
Hypothetical:

If we assume that your proposing a design (or several designs) from a clean sheet for purchase by a major house, in the likely foolish hope that you can sell -a lot- of them, and we want to focus on survivability (intended doctrine is to use mech forces mobility and resilience to fix enemy formations for destruction by flanking attack, artillery, airpower, or some combination thereof)...

What does a 3150 or later designer propose?  Lets go crazy for a moment, assume that the board is green for tech of any type or any source -

Bipeds?  Classic.  Roomy.  The default for a hundred good reasons.  Osteon is a great example of what can be done here.

Quads?  Does the Turtle lead the way?  Space is sooo cramped, but hull down/partial cover quads with maybe some smoke to cover them as they leapfrog back or forward from one firing position to another could be very hard to shift.  Again though - space.

Tripods?  Seem to be almost too good, but -having- arms reduced the value of partial cover, and ‘one MP to 360 facing’ coupled with the turret like behavior of the torso is a lot of utility for a small tonnage cost, it seems.

Superheavies?  No special muscles or structure or gyros or a lot of neat special tricks.  But good god the available volume.  Maybe in combination with quads to relieve the space burden?  Biped or Triped models toting the Long Toms around? 

While we are at it, where do we put our Artillery, and what type?  The easy answer is ‘yes’ and ‘all of it’, but... vehicles/superheavt mechs with heavy pieces for range?  Lighter more mobile units with Arrow IV?  Arty or Arty Cannons as a major design element?  On-board Arrow IV isnt a terrible main gun, and the idea of having all the forces across a multi-hexmap front being able to directly support whichever unit is in contact is tasty - but ammunition consumption would be ruinous...

To further muddle the issue - how much value is there in, logistically, in standardization?  Can we get away with 5 different weapons max?  Or less?  At what cost?  Can we look at standardizing armor types and engines?  The 300 (or 300XL) can be a prime mover for a whole host of weight classes with reasonable jobs and speed.  Or 375 XLs for a 3/5 Super Heavy Assault and a 5/8 ‘Modern’ Heavy Main Battle Tank Equivalent...

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: 21 May 2018, 08:49:15 by marcussmythe »

Firesprocket

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2945
  • Broke the Bandwagon
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #1 on: 21 May 2018, 21:20:00 »
Tripods have far more benefits than negatives.  Slightly more space than a biped and the majority of benefits of a quad.  The only thing a quad has is the benefits to partial cover due to the leg placement on this hit table.  The obstacle of selling such a machine is fighting centuries of bias and the cost of a training program that has to be started from the ground up.   Assuming I can conqueror the stigma of something completely different and convince a realm(s) of the long term value, I'd go with the tripod.  That's a hard sale though and only a few companies could afford such an endeavour.  So Biped is the same and logical course.

Railan Sradac

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 211
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #2 on: 21 May 2018, 22:51:52 »
Tripeds gain only a couple of usable crits relative to a biped, and they take a tonnage penalty both in the leg's internal structure and in the actual armour for that leg. I think bipeds are still king for fire support roles where your turning ability isn't such a large factor and you'd instead want the extra tonnage, but for closer-in roles like troopers and brawlers you might get a lot of mileage out of the tripod's sidestep and cheap turning.

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3970
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #3 on: 21 May 2018, 23:39:44 »
Well, we're talking blue skies here, right?

I propose a insect- or spider-based design (6- to 8-legged) between 105-150 tons and 155-200 tons, respectively.  The very idea of tripods makes me sick - where in nature do find such a thing?

I debated this on the forum, ironed out most of the issues with other interested people, even wrote fluff for them and included it my AU.  Worked out pretty good, even with the changes needed to the hit location chart.  I'd rather take one of them to that nonsense CGL came up with.  Besides, you can link as many of the 8-legged units into a single 'Centipede' design, so mine is cooler.   8)
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4242
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #4 on: 22 May 2018, 00:12:14 »
Slow equals death. Which is why superheavies and most assaults don't work for me. A medium or low-end heavy would by my weight class of choice.

On that premise, quads have the best mobility imho. I somehow just love lateral movement but you need 5/8 min to really make use of quad mobility.
Less room isn't much of an issue since my preferred weight class isn't too heavy to begin with and fast 'Mechs need big (heavy) engines, which doesn't leave much tonnage for weapons and incidentally often gives extra "crits" via engine-internal heat sinks.
No torso twist is the only real drawback, but one I can live with.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3970
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #5 on: 22 May 2018, 01:17:12 »
Slow equals death. Which is why superheavies and most assaults don't work for me. A medium or low-end heavy would by my weight class of choice.

Yup.  Which is why, faced with massive super-heavies, the other groups in my AU designed the Arrow tandem-charge warhead and hovercraft drones designed to ram the legs of these things.  Hilarious, frankly.  Nearly a hundred armor points, and >BOOM< - dead.  The age-old race between weapon and armor continues.
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #6 on: 22 May 2018, 06:02:57 »
Tripods omniis would be my choice.  Regular ones would be ok, but you want max out your possibilities.  We've only seen one canon non-Superheavy, it's good Archer-like mech.  Tripods cut down on cost of turns, it's more stable, doesn't have Quad's blind spot (which can fixed a rarely used mech quad turret), and has arm actuators where Quads don't.  Regular designs are still king, but Tripods have alot possibilities to them.
"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

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #7 on: 22 May 2018, 06:24:23 »
Thank you for all the thoughts, guys!  Im leaning towards ferro-lammelor tripods. Hardened Armor Quads are still whispering to me, and I surely miss the torso cockpit on a quad - but hardened wrecks your warload, and quads are ruined past about 6o tons by crit limitations (imhoymmvm2c)

The only thing between me and Omnis is that I like designing units (else Id not be here) - and if its Omnis, I get to design less.  :) 

Thoughts on Powerplants?  ‘300 Vlar XL in everything’ is tempting - because its so elegant.  3/5 100, 4/6 75, 5/8 60, 6/9 50, 10/15 30.

Visually Im either way on the Trikes.  If I do art for them, I may make ‘rules’ tripods that are ‘fluff’ quads-with-arms, or maybe hexa pods... Ill note that the 3025 Goilath and Scorpion were quads in art only.  And I visually like more legs and lower slung for ‘tanks with legs’

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #8 on: 22 May 2018, 08:32:45 »
Slow equals death. Which is why superheavies and most assaults don't work for me. A medium or low-end heavy would by my weight class of choice.

On that premise, quads have the best mobility imho. I somehow just love lateral movement but you need 5/8 min to really make use of quad mobility.
Less room isn't much of an issue since my preferred weight class isn't too heavy to begin with and fast 'Mechs need big (heavy) engines, which doesn't leave much tonnage for weapons and incidentally often gives extra "crits" via engine-internal heat sinks.
No torso twist is the only real drawback, but one I can live with.

In your opinion, how fast is ‘fast enough’ for an MBT equivalent main line of battle unit?  Is 5/8 enough?  Is 6/9 required?  Do we go down the rabbit-hole and pursue 5/8/8 with IJJ and maybe even more?  Partial Wings for TMMs and jump distances that make your foes weep, coupled with an ER LLas so we outrange most people and those who can shoot miss?  What would a ressurected CLPS do for this unit?  Will anyone play with me anymore after I pile the modifiers up to +6 or more for this supertech version of ‘hunt the spider/griffin?’  :)

What does this look like compared to the alternate path of hull down/partial cover woods/smoke/Void Signature System?

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4242
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #9 on: 22 May 2018, 10:36:10 »
Since you're looking for an "MBT" and not explicitly a flanker, I reckon 5/8 ground speed is enough. More is desirable, but would put an undue strain on weapons & armor in the 50-65 ton weight range I'm aiming for.

55-tonners are in a sweet spot for jump jets and should mount 3-5. IJJs for very long jump distances should be weighed carefully against possibly using the tonnage to up the engine for another MP of walking speed. I'm not terribly fond of them, but truth be told haven't ever actually used them so my judgement here is armchair level.

Many players consider speed as a defensive measure - I get the same vibe from you when you're asking about "the alternate path of hull down/partial cover woods/smoke/Void Signature System".
In my gameplay, speed isn't so much evasion as it is positioning. Slow 'Mechs and even 4/6 units tend to lumber into some nice place with heavy woods, partial cover and a good view of the countryside, and adopt a "stand and deliver" stance. At least in my hands it mostly plays out thusly.
Not so with 5/8 or faster 'Mechs. When they win the initiative, they can move to a sweet spot, often side or rear location, and go to town. Or simply overrun entrenched enemy positions which aren't so good anymore once the enemy is in the other direction. I've had boatloads of fun with in-your-face tactics using Phoenix Hawks and Jenners.

Smoke is great, but all you need for that to work its wonders is a LRM-5.

Void Signature I have no experience with, but its heat burden seems to render units using it pretty useless for sustained fire.

My admittedly armchair-based opinion on hardened armor, void sig, any most other defensive systems is that they unduly diminish the offensive capabilities. Which boils down to being unable to kill your enemy, but taking longer to die in turn. Not attractive to me.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #10 on: 22 May 2018, 10:51:40 »
On that premise, quads have the best mobility imho. I somehow just love lateral movement but you need 5/8 min to really make use of quad mobility.
I'd like lateral movement if it cost only 1 MP instead of 2, but as it is if you want to use it more than once in a row (which I usually do) you'd use just as much or less MP by changing facing and moving.  At 2 MP a shift the "extra" mobility feels marginal and often inconsequential.

Also, Tripods can lateral shift just like quads and have additional mobility benefits (1 MP for any facing change) while lacking the limited firing arc of a quad, so tripods objectively have better mobility.

garhkal

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6605
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #11 on: 22 May 2018, 14:37:12 »
Well, we're talking blue skies here, right?

I propose a insect- or spider-based design (6- to 8-legged) between 105-150 tons and 155-200 tons, respectively.  The very idea of tripods makes me sick - where in nature do find such a thing?

I debated this on the forum, ironed out most of the issues with other interested people, even wrote fluff for them and included it my AU.  Worked out pretty good, even with the changes needed to the hit location chart.  I'd rather take one of them to that nonsense CGL came up with.  Besides, you can link as many of the 8-legged units into a single 'Centipede' design, so mine is cooler.   8)

I've often wondered IF/when we might get official rules for 6 or 8 legged mechs..

It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #12 on: 22 May 2018, 15:48:11 »
I've often wondered IF/when we might get official rules for 6 or 8 legged mechs..

Well, until we do, I think Ill use tripod w/quirks.  Something to make piloting even easier (to represent the multi-legged stability) and another to represent the individual fragility of the legs - I recall there being one where you didnt want to kick/dfa, and the legs could be easily damaged by physical attack.  Must go read more.

Railan Sradac

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 211
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #13 on: 22 May 2018, 15:51:29 »
Thoughts on Powerplants?  ‘300 Vlar XL in everything’ is tempting - because its so elegant.  3/5 100, 4/6 75, 5/8 60, 6/9 50, 10/15 30.

While I'll put a Clan XL in literally any mech, the IS XL for me is only to be used building something that can't be made with anything else (things like the Falconer or Blitzkrieg); that means any XL engine rating below ~350 is a no. I'll consider bending that rule for dedicated fire support mechs, but in general I much prefer LFEs.

I haven't been able to work out a satisfactory single engine rating that can fill all the roles you'd expect in a modern force. The 300 SFE is great as always, but your force is going to be considerably slower by weight than your peers'. The 350 LFE is solid for a 5/8 cavalry mech but it's a bit inefficient for smaller sizes; the 7/11 50-tonner could gain several tons by sizing down a little.

If I were building a force with a budget that wasn't "everything", I'd probably build most things on the 300 SFE and then use the cost savings to build one or two specialty grades of engine to cover special cases, using the same chassis as the main line; a 375 XL to upgrade the 75 ton 4/6 trooper to 5/8 heavy cavalry, and maybe a 350 XL for a 7/11 50-tonner.

That gives me:
6/9 50-ton light cavalry
7/11 50-ton striker (like Blitzkrieg)
5/8 60-ton line cavalry (like Ostroc)
4/6 75-ton trooper (like Orion or Marauder)
5/8 75-ton heavy cavalry (like Falconer or Lao Hu)
3/5 100-ton fire support (like Pillager-4Z)

I don't really have a good scout in there, but I could possibly build a 35-ton chassis and stick a 350 XL in it. Alternately, I could build some hovercraft and VTOLs for scouting; they'd need their own engines (optimal engine ratings for fast vehicles are quite a bit lower than for mechs) but FCEs are pretty cheap.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #14 on: 22 May 2018, 16:19:34 »
If any of you are feeling really ambitious, I posted a thread based on this exact concept over in Fan Designs last year, and I'd love to see what you do with that setup. Sadly, it happened around when the forums were crashing, so I was the only one who actually finished it without losing my work(though a couple others came fairly close).

I went a bit crazy with XL engines, but the weapon mix is something I'll stand by, even if it lacks Dark Age toys - Plasma Rifle, LB-10X, MML-7, LRM-15, ERLL, ML, Long Tom, and laser-guided bombs for the fighters, with heavy use of TAGs(all LRMs are semi-guided, plus Copperhead arty rounds) and C3 systems. Great at large-scale coordination, a lot of super-versatile weapons, and a pretty small pile of kit to outfit a whole combined-arms brigade with.

Railan Sradac

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 211
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #15 on: 22 May 2018, 16:33:02 »
If any of you are feeling really ambitious, I posted a thread based on this exact concept over in Fan Designs last year, and I'd love to see what you do with that setup. Sadly, it happened around when the forums were crashing, so I was the only one who actually finished it without losing my work(though a couple others came fairly close).

I went a bit crazy with XL engines, but the weapon mix is something I'll stand by, even if it lacks Dark Age toys - Plasma Rifle, LB-10X, MML-7, LRM-15, ERLL, ML, Long Tom, and laser-guided bombs for the fighters, with heavy use of TAGs(all LRMs are semi-guided, plus Copperhead arty rounds) and C3 systems. Great at large-scale coordination, a lot of super-versatile weapons, and a pretty small pile of kit to outfit a whole combined-arms brigade with.

That weapon mix is pretty similar to what I'd go for, though I have a rather severe hate for the ISERLL (and prefer AIV to Long Toms).

I'm now thinking about doing a top-down design of a whole fighting force in a similar nature for 3025 and then detailing upgrades and field refits over the timeline.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #16 on: 22 May 2018, 17:20:43 »
That weapon mix is pretty similar to what I'd go for, though I have a rather severe hate for the ISERLL (and prefer AIV to Long Toms).

I'm now thinking about doing a top-down design of a whole fighting force in a similar nature for 3025 and then detailing upgrades and field refits over the timeline.

That is an interesting, and realistic, approach.  While a manufacturer can indulge in a perfectly homogenized 'EZ Bake' series of designs, just add C-Bills and Training, a given state doesnt have that option - its got a long, long, long tail of legacy forces, and even if you CAN (for example) make all of your new machines faster, or tougher, or better armed - that makes them harder to coordinate with your (large, existing) forces.

As for Arrow IV vs. Long Tom.. I think the Long Tom shines as the number of units on each side and the size of the battlefront climbs.  The massive reach of the Long Tom lets Brigade and Regimental Arty support a much wider space, and the increased delivery times matter less if there are very large concentrations of force.. theres more likely to be something there to hit.  On the gripping hand, Arrow IV is much lighter for the same throwweight, and can be mech-mounted.  I like Long Toms for 'medium' tech, combined arms forces, mixed with some Arrow IV.  For higher C-Bill applications (where I'm eschewing vehicles for various reasons), Im more inclined to build a heavy with 2 Arrow 4s and do my arty work from much closer to the battlefield.
« Last Edit: 22 May 2018, 17:24:06 by marcussmythe »

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #17 on: 22 May 2018, 17:50:30 »
i'm intrigued by tripods. i have an assembled triskelion but i haven't trotted it out yet.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #18 on: 22 May 2018, 18:17:30 »
On the gripping hand, Arrow IV is much lighter for the same throwweight, and can be mech-mounted.
You can stuff a Long Tom on a 'Mech chassis if you make it a superheavy.  Tricky to transport in an offensive operation, but otherwise a fun way to take the Superheavy concept.

You could theoretically do it for any chassis too: Superheavy Bipeds, Quads, or Tripods.  I've only tried the 1st one though, what's "best" in this case is probably a matter of preference.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #19 on: 22 May 2018, 18:50:01 »
-nods-  Im avoiding the Superheavies here - while I adore the idea of a 4xThumper homage to the Monster, I dont want to rebuild my dropships to transport a handful of Superheavies - and for defensive operations, well, thats why we have vehicles.

Outside of Arty Specific applications, what niches if any exist for Superheavies?  They lose access to so much, but get double internal volume - which says ‘Gods Flashbulb’ to me.  But can you get enough advantage over the big 3/5 assaults to justify the Supers?

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #20 on: 22 May 2018, 19:04:41 »
The few times I faced a super heavy I wasn’t super impressed. It’s a magnet for incoming fire and while it can smoke a lot of mechs in one salvo, they tend to fight very bravely and die very quickly. The main reason to field one is that they look amazing painted on the table

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #21 on: 22 May 2018, 20:18:47 »
-nods-  Im avoiding the Superheavies here - while I adore the idea of a 4xThumper homage to the Monster, I dont want to rebuild my dropships to transport a handful of Superheavies - and for defensive operations, well, thats why we have vehicles.

Outside of Arty Specific applications, what niches if any exist for Superheavies?  They lose access to so much, but get double internal volume - which says ‘Gods Flashbulb’ to me.  But can you get enough advantage over the big 3/5 assaults to justify the Supers?
Yeah, the lack of superheavy 'Mech bays existing at all kind of sucks.  You can technically carry one or several Superheavies in some regular Dropship's cargo bays (something like an Assault Triumph has the cargo to carry a full lance of a lighter Superheavy, and the Duat is supposed to be the ferry for RotS Superheavy Tripods) but it's just not a versatile way to do so.

Other than decent-speed, nearly all-terrain arty platforms, it's difficult to find niches for 'em.  You probably don't want them in a front-line position just because they're so easy to see and hit, except perhaps one variant as an IS pseudo-Hellstar like you suggest.

So one could make a superheavy a Command 'Mech, like an oversized Battlemaster, especially a tripod one since making that a designated command unit yields +2 initiative bonus by itself.  Add the Command 'Mech or Battle Computer quirk, 7+ tons of Communication Equipment, and you have yourself a powerful command unit, albeit a big fire magnet.  Mounting a C3M is optional for coordinating a full Company for the sole purpose of defense of the Command 'Mech.

Other than that, as an AA 'Mech, like an oversized Rifleman.  Especially with a C3M, so you can coordinate a full company of Partisans or such spread out over an area while keeping good to-hit numbers on any aircraft passing over the whole company.

Maybe you can get the Arty, AA, and Command 'Mech as an all-in-one if you pack Arrow IVs.

But that's getting away from the topic.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #22 on: 22 May 2018, 20:34:04 »
But to bring it back to topic - am I the only one who found the idea of putting unit commanders in special, identifiable, command mechs to amount to putting a ‘kill this mech to disrupt unit’ sign on the thing?

If we want command units, with special command only capabilities - it seems to me that the thing to do is to make it under the hood.  Use a quirk for some command functions.  Mount a command console by pulling out some armor or ammo or a heat sink or two - so your opposing force cant tell which one belongs to the commander.

For the hypothetical force here, Im thinking that the command unit has the commander as the gunner half of a 2 man tripod, and the ‘command variant’ mechs have battle computers (via quirk?) and the only way to tell it from any other mech in the force is to shoot the one with all the antennae.  (Thank you, Team Yankee)

Nightsong

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 556
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #23 on: 25 May 2018, 14:13:03 »
Why am I suddenly imagining a superheavy tripod with quad Improved Heavy Gauss?

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #24 on: 25 May 2018, 14:52:53 »
Why am I suddenly imagining a superheavy tripod with quad Improved Heavy Gauss?

the more important question is to ask why it took one of us so long to think of it

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #25 on: 25 May 2018, 15:13:26 »
I don't think we have much time to dabble with Superheavies. I'm not at my computer at home with Megalab on it.
"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

RoundTop

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1372
  • In Takashi We Trust
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #26 on: 25 May 2018, 16:20:45 »
Why am I suddenly imagining a superheavy tripod with quad Improved Heavy Gauss?

Well... it isn't happening.  The IHG takes 11 crits and can only be torso mounted. This means the most you could do is paired IHGs with a standard engine.  That is 40t of weapons, plus say... 6 tons of ammo (10 shots each). Lets go standard for the arms - add 2 Standard IS Gauss rifles as 15 tons each, with say... 3 tons of ammo, and 7 crits.

Strip the lower and hand actuators... and let's put on CASE II in the arms and torsos. 4 more tons.

So 70t of weapons plus 9 tons of ammo, plus 4 tons of case II (total 83t) taking up 22+14+9 = 45 crit slots of a total of 53 slots available (tripod).

And this is before calculating engine, cockpit, structure, armour.  I get the feeling that 125 tons is a bare minimum here, and even then it will have paper armor.
No-Dachi has a counter-argument. Nothing further? Ok.
Demo team agent #772

Nightsong

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 556
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #27 on: 25 May 2018, 16:45:35 »
Well... it isn't happening.  The IHG takes 11 crits and can only be torso mounted.

Except superheavy crit slots count twice, so only 6 crits per gun, and Superheavies can carry heavies in the arms. (Pg 162 and 163 of Interstellar Ops respectively)
« Last Edit: 25 May 2018, 16:51:25 by Nightsong »

RoundTop

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1372
  • In Takashi We Trust
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #28 on: 25 May 2018, 17:15:40 »
Except superheavy crit slots count twice, so only 6 crits per gun, and Superheavies can carry heavies in the arms. (Pg 162 and 163 of Interstellar Ops respectively)

D'oh! that'll show me for not looking at that.  (Of course I was thinking Tripod, not superheavy, but yeah)
No-Dachi has a counter-argument. Nothing further? Ok.
Demo team agent #772

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Bipeds, Tripeds, or Quads
« Reply #29 on: 25 May 2018, 17:27:07 »
Well... it isn't happening.  The IHG takes 11 crits and can only be torso mounted. This means the most you could do is paired IHGs with a standard engine.  That is 40t of weapons, plus say... 6 tons of ammo (10 shots each). Lets go standard for the arms - add 2 Standard IS Gauss rifles as 15 tons each, with say... 3 tons of ammo, and 7 crits.

Strip the lower and hand actuators... and let's put on CASE II in the arms and torsos. 4 more tons.

So 70t of weapons plus 9 tons of ammo, plus 4 tons of case II (total 83t) taking up 22+14+9 = 45 crit slots of a total of 53 slots available (tripod).

And this is before calculating engine, cockpit, structure, armour.  I get the feeling that 125 tons is a bare minimum here, and even then it will have paper armor.
As the other guy said, didn't account for the compacting effect of a superheavy 'mech.  It's very feasible to stuff 4 iHGRs in the side torsos or 2 in the arms, 2 in the torsos on something near a 200 tonner.

The real issue isn't getting it on a chassis, it's getting any use out of it.  There's a lot of common weapons by the Dark Age that outranges the iHGR and a slow Superheavy is really easy to hit in the first place, so it's liable to die off quickly more often than not.