Author Topic: artillery cannons? (Read 13110 times)

Weirdo · « **Reply #30 on:** 09 July 2011, 00:03:04 »

Correct. Even when fired indirectly, they'll still land in the same turn they're fired.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #31 on:** 09 July 2011, 00:11:58 »

They're ballistic weapons, not artillery.

Marveryn · « **Reply #32 on:** 09 July 2011, 00:24:48 »

Quote from: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 July 2011, 00:11:58

They're ballistic weapons, not artillery.

true but they call snub arti so i just want to be sure how much arti rules still applied to them. I got somewhat confuse when i first glance at the arti rules so i wanted to be sure

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #33 on:** 09 July 2011, 01:41:26 »

Never hurts to check.

truetanker · « **Reply #34 on:** 09 July 2011, 13:36:11 »

Question... I have been scratching my head as of late and it's not lice. :P

I have been trying to find out what the stats, I do not even know them, of the new and improved Mobile Long Tom. I have the old 3025 and the new 3039 TROs. What I want to know is does anyone have an idea what the LT-MOB-50 looks like?

I'm playing it off the RMC-3050 LevCar Cargo Variant ( 188 tons ), http://www.sarna.net/wiki/RMC-3050_LevCar, being pulled by the Nolan, http://www.sarna.net/wiki/RML-447_Nolan.

But what do I do with the remaining 93+ tons? Can anyone help? Like in a design of it?

TT

Moonsword · « **Reply #35 on:** 09 July 2011, 14:29:57 »

By implication, it's a self-contained system, not a rail car, and not anywhere near that size. Since we don't have rail-mobile combat vehicles as anything but cargo, it's an advanced support vehicle. If you want a simple answer, treat it as an LT-MOB-25 system that goes 3/5 or 4/6 but follows the rail vehicle rules in TacOps.

If you want a complicated answer, someone's going to have to do some math and the appropriate place for it is Fan Designs, not in here.

truetanker · « **Reply #36 on:** 09 July 2011, 14:41:56 »

I understand that, and I do have one posted up in that thread as well.

But what stumps me, is the fact I have 93+ tonnage leftover.... I already have a boatload of ammo out of my wassoo! Plus the LevCar itself has 2 turreted LRM-15s and 6 in ammo + a Foot Platoon already. The 15's get upgraded to 4- 20's with artemis and I can tripple the ammo for them, even throw on some clan SRM-6 w/ Artemis on the sides to boost. I can even double the Armor as well... but again, it leaves me with about 70+ leftover.

TT

chanman · « **Reply #37 on:** 09 July 2011, 14:48:59 »

Quote from: truetanker on 09 July 2011, 14:41:56

I understand that, and I do have one posted up in that thread as well.

But what stumps me, is the fact I have 93+ tonnage leftover.... I already have a boatload of ammo out of my wassoo! Plus the LevCar itself has 2 turreted LRM-15s and 6 in ammo + a Foot Platoon already. The 15's get upgraded to 4- 20's with artemis and I can tripple the ammo for them, even throw on some clan SRM-6 w/ Artemis on the sides to boost. I can even double the Armor as well... but again, it leaves me with about 70+ leftover.

TT

It's beer.

Moonsword · « **Reply #38 on:** 09 July 2011, 15:01:16 »

Quote from: truetanker on 09 July 2011, 14:41:56

But what stumps me, is the fact I have 93+ tonnage leftover.... I already have a boatload of ammo out of my wassoo!

I'll tell you exactly why. You're mounting 70 tons of combat vehicle (aggregate) into a 188 ton support vehicle without an engine, so we can toss 7 tons of engine out, meaning you have right under three times as much tonnage available for the support vehicle. The 12 tons of armor isn't going to be significantly heavier even if you're using BAR 10; if you're not using an armored chassis, it's actually going to be lighter.

You're also, as described, well over the space limits. Since there's no way to mount a Long Tom into anything under 250 tons (and that's without any space for other weapons), this problem is only going to get larger. It's also basically unarmored and has a crew of 25 per the TRO3025 description someone modified for TRO3039. (Oddly, the crew size isn't out of whack considering the support vehicle rules wouldn't be developed for about twenty years at that point.) On the other hand, since your tonnage isn't going to anything silly like weapons or armor, you might as well put in a ridiculously outsized engine and enough ammo stowage to fire off a half-dozen Crocketts and still sustain fire for ten minutes (that's 30 tons).

truetanker · « **Reply #39 on:** 09 July 2011, 15:15:59 »

I was going to fluff a Sl-era Holotank, aka portable HPG, along with Command and Communication quarters, maybe a light vee bay for scouts / Donar.

After all, the train will be Engine and maybe 2 other cars + this LT-MOB-50.

TT

Cowdragon · « **Reply #40 on:** 09 July 2011, 17:03:54 »

did they change the stats for the Long Tom? This is getting really fascinating!

Moonsword · « **Reply #41 on:** 09 July 2011, 17:35:05 »

Quote from: Cowdragon on 09 July 2011, 17:03:54

did they change the stats for the Long Tom? This is getting really fascinating!

Since TacOps? No. What we're talking about is that unstatted rail variant of the Mobile Long Tom that's been floating around since TRO3025. It's kind of telling that RS3039 Unabridged doesn't include it despite being stuffed every variant without a home of anything in there anyone's ever heard of other than this one. We may wind up with one sooner or later but it's going to be a mess to sort out because the construction rules don't actually work that way.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #42 on:** 10 July 2011, 23:00:23 »

Okay, I've got a question- how exactly does the Long Tom Cannon on the Transit work against airborne targets? Is that even legal?

Moonsword · « **Reply #43 on:** 10 July 2011, 23:04:39 »

They function as autocannons and cannot hit adjacent hexes; they're still dealing AE damage, though, so getting tagged with one isn't going to do someone with reflective armor any good.

Liam's Ghost · « **Reply #44 on:** 10 July 2011, 23:05:24 »

I believe it's treated as an "autocannon" when used against other aircraft.

Also, SQUEEE!!!

Weirdo · « **Reply #45 on:** 11 July 2011, 10:28:25 »

Reflective armor takes extra damage from AE hits? I thought it was only physical attacks, and collisions with things like units, buildings, or planets? ???

Moonsword · « **Reply #46 on:** 11 July 2011, 10:41:35 »

TacOps page 281: "In addition, damage from area effect weapons (such as artillery) is doubled against locations protected by Laser Reï¬‚ective Armor."

TigerShark · « **Reply #47 on:** 11 July 2011, 14:51:06 »

Quote from: Weirdo on 11 July 2011, 10:28:25

Reflective armor takes extra damage from AE hits? I thought it was only physical attacks, and collisions with things like units, buildings, or planets? ???

That's another flaw in Reflective Armor which makes its BV just not worth the hassle. With as many negative quirks (in a real sense and RP) this type of armor has, it actually hinders more than it helps. lol Should be a discount in BV.

Dread Moores · « **Reply #48 on:** 11 July 2011, 15:59:02 »

Not sure if I'd agree on that one. Considering that energy boats are very well represented (or even just main weapon packages on a given design) post 3050, there's still some solid value in reflective armor. Once you delve into 3085 (various PPC type love all over the place) and beyond, it pays off even more, I think.

truetanker · « **Reply #49 on:** 11 July 2011, 16:04:29 »

Reflective is great against energy... but it is the hurts when you get ballistics applied against it.

TT

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #50 on:** 11 July 2011, 16:05:21 »

Quote from: Dread Moores on 11 July 2011, 15:59:02

Not sure if I'd agree on that one. Considering that energy boats are very well represented (or even just main weapon packages on a given design) post 3050, there's still some solid value in reflective armor. Once you delve into 3085 (various PPC type love all over the place) and beyond, it pays off even more, I think.

Hard to argue with. With nasty versions of energy boats becoming more and more common (Marauder IIC, Awesome, Black Knight, Nova Cat, Hellstar, Hellstar, OH GOD THE HELLSTAR!), it's not as useless as it seems at a glance.

That said, I'm not a fan. Too many big 'ifs' to make it something I want to invest in- if I use it and end up fighting something like a Cygnus or Thunder Hawk, I've done nothing to help myself and plenty to hurt myself. Even against an energy boat, I'm simply making trade-offs.

Weirdo · « **Reply #51 on:** 11 July 2011, 16:09:53 »

Quote from: truetanker on 11 July 2011, 16:04:29

Reflective is great against energy... but it is the hurts when you get ballistics applied against it.

By ballistics, you mean thrown physical weapons, DFAs, and artillery, right? Because Autocannons, Gauss Rifles, and missiles of any kind treat reflec armor as if it were standard armor.

truetanker · « **Reply #52 on:** 11 July 2011, 16:14:37 »

Yes. And pit traps, collapsing buildings and the effects of Santa Annas and Orbital near misses.

I wonder if a Orbital Mass Driver near miss strike would deal double damage? #P

TT

Weirdo · « **Reply #53 on:** 11 July 2011, 16:15:50 »

Most likely.

However, how would a direct hit from a NL orbital strike be treated? It's AE, and energy-based...

truetanker · « **Reply #54 on:** 11 July 2011, 16:20:32 »

Me?

Half damage from the strike itself, but double from the ground burst...

Or 1.5 times the damage of a normal hit! ;D

TT

Cowdragon · « **Reply #55 on:** 11 July 2011, 17:43:29 »

Quote from: Weirdo on 11 July 2011, 16:15:50

Most likely.

However, how would a direct hit from a NL orbital strike be treated? It's AE, and energy-based...

I always figured it wasnt AE cuz of the explosion, but cuz it was just that big around.

TigerShark · « **Reply #56 on:** 11 July 2011, 18:43:16 »

Quote from: Dread Moores on 11 July 2011, 15:59:02

Not sure if I'd agree on that one. Considering that energy boats are very well represented (or even just main weapon packages on a given design) post 3050, there's still some solid value in reflective armor. Once you delve into 3085 (various PPC type love all over the place) and beyond, it pays off even more, I think.

Not at all. The BV spike gives you all manners of ill consequences elsewhere in your force and the unit becomes a tactical liability as it cannot take a single physical.

Your force cannot afford to use a pilot of any skill in this new Reflective Armor unit, since it will drain BV from elsewhere in your force. That means you either bite the bullet and spend an extra few hundred on a unit which breaks like glass when kicked/punched, or you leave a crappy pilot in who might fail a PSR and take double damage once they hit the ground.

Yeah, you take 1/2 damage from lasers. So what? Against IS, you're still being hit more often from a better MechWarrior and the Clans can still put enough damage down range to give you a headache. To me, it's not worth the BV spike at all and in every game I've played with Reflective Armor units, they become a liability on the field rather than a boone.

Dread Moores · « **Reply #57 on:** 11 July 2011, 18:52:02 »

Quote from: TigerShark on 11 July 2011, 18:43:16

Yeah, you take 1/2 damage from lasers.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing on the rest (though physicals aren't as common in my games as they seem to be in yours). Just noting that it's a lot more than just lasers. That's 1/2 damage from all PPCs, plasma weapons, and lasers. On the IS side at least, that's a whole lot of the most commonly used firepower on most modern designs. And it doesn't have a weakness against direct-fire ballistic or missile weaponry, short of those with AE. It's not without its faults, no doubt. Short of the damage from falls though, all of that other stuff (AE, physicals, etc) ranks as far less common than energy weapons in most of the games I play. I imagine its usefulness will change a great deal depending on the era and type of games you run.

TigerShark · « **Reply #58 on:** 11 July 2011, 19:31:34 »

Quote from: Dread Moores on 11 July 2011, 18:52:02

I'm not necessarily disagreeing on the rest (though physicals aren't as common in my games as they seem to be in yours). Just noting that it's a lot more than just lasers. That's 1/2 damage from all PPCs, plasma weapons, and lasers. On the IS side at least, that's a whole lot of the most commonly used firepower on most modern designs. And it doesn't have a weakness against direct-fire ballistic or missile weaponry, short of those with AE. It's not without its faults, no doubt. Short of the damage from falls though, all of that other stuff (AE, physicals, etc) ranks as far less common than energy weapons in most of the games I play. I imagine its usefulness will change a great deal depending on the era and type of games you run.

Depending on the era? It only exists in the Clan Invasion until now...

I can't imagine Reflective Armor being worth a 20% increase (in some cases higher, some lower) for the meager benefits it provides. But that's a matter of taste. ::shrug::

Dread Moores · « **Reply #59 on:** 11 July 2011, 21:35:53 »

Quote from: TigerShark on 11 July 2011, 19:31:34

Depending on the era? It only exists in the Clan Invasion until now...

TRO '75 and '85 add in a large number of energy boats, as they were the first non Upgrade TROs to use the new tech. Particularly with the new PPC spam found in '85's Phoenix section, I've just noticed a whole lot more than in say something like the actual Clan Invasion or Civil War era. Those eras certainly had the energy boats as well, but those two TROs just seemed to add in a great deal more. So, if you're running early Civil War, I'd wager it's not quite as useful as say, late Jihad or early Dark Age. That was my only point there.