BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Articles => Topic started by: GreekFire on 29 May 2015, 07:53:30

Title: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: GreekFire on 29 May 2015, 07:53:30
(http://i.imgur.com/XbJMgg3l.png)(http://i.imgur.com/CtUPA8Zl.png)
Look at them, in all of their glory. They're beautiful.
From Era Digest: Dark Age

~ ~ ~

Ladies. Gents. We have it - the ultimate in BattleMech technology. Unsurpassed by anything we’ve ever seen before, its insurmountable dominance will last for decades to come. Clanners quiver in fear at the very name of this ultimate machine of unyielding devastation. Elite Kuritan MechWarriors commit seppuku at the very thought of facing one in combat. Even terrifying Manei Domini cyborg soldiers crumble beneath the greatest BattleMech to ever be made: the Raider. Ed- I picked up these delusional ramblings from a drugged-up door-to-door salesman a few weeks back. Since we still don’t know much about Bannson or his overarching goals in the Republic, I’ve decided to include this briefing to commanders operating within his theater. I’d take most of what’s written here with a grain of salt - I’ve never seen such a brainfried person in all of my years working for you.

The 3130s brought Jacob Bannson (capitalist extraordinaire) onto a destined path laid out to him by the stars of fate. Channeling the finances gifted to him, his legions of followers would follow the vision of their great president and toil together to create a ‘Mech that would be free of the limited thinking of those unable to see his light. Ed- this near-Capellan manner of propping Bannson onto a pedestal is a bit unnerving, to say the least. In Linguo Sane-o, Bannson ordered the construction of a BattleMech that was independent of any existing supply lines outside of his direct control. Although we don’t yet fully understand why he needed such a machine, our current analysts believe that he wanted to create his own small kingdom in Prefecture IV. This scenario would obviously require him to be able to last through any Republic-enforced sanctions on him or his companies - and thus the Raider was born.

The JL-1 Raider would eventually come in at 50 tons - the perfect middle ground between zero and one hundred. Not satisfied with this already-impressive feat of technological engineering, a 200-rated ICE engine would propel it at the same speed as many mighty and renown ‘Mechs that had come before it: such as the Warhammer, the Marauder, and the Orion, just to name a few. Ed- You didn’t misread that - the Raider is a slow ‘Mech, and one powered with an ICE engine on top of that. Talk about a drawback…but I believe our snakes-oil salesman talks about the engine again later on. Standard components would reduce costs to absurdly low amounts, while the inclusion of Triple-Strength Myomer would make the Raider a fearsome foe in close combat situations. 7 tons of armor cover the Raider, giving it highly respectable and nearly peerless durability. Ed- for a light ‘Mech, maybe, but certainly not a 50-tonner - and as they say, a best defense is a good offense. The Raider takes this to heart. Ed- Uh huh...

The true strength of the Raider is apparent in its weapon selection. A Dual Saw is capable constant and brutal attacks regardless of any potential actuator hits. This devastating weapon can deal nearly the same amount of damage as the fabled Clan ER Medium Laser, itself nearly half the strength of a Heavy PPC, enough to decapitate your typical ‘Mech!! Imagine: all of that headcapping power condensed in such a small saw-shaped package. Ed- Cutting through the crazy talk and fantastic leaps of logic, the Dual Saw is a terrible choice on a combat design. The TSM doesn’t even increase its melee effectiveness even at its optimal level, and our studies show that it deals roughly as much damage as a Hatchet would on a 35-ton ‘Mech. Heck, this “weapon” has even been shown to be less accurate in ‘Mech-on-‘Mech engagements than the said Hatchet.

Supporting this mighty brawling weapon are two Medium Range Missile-10 packs. These weapons can positively saturate an area with high-charge missiles, blowing away the opposition before they can ever react. A generous 12 rounds feed each launcher. That’s more ammo than the fabled Atlas had for its missiles, or Hunchback had for its autocannon. Talk about lasting firepower. Ed- I’d nearly forgotten just how terrible these weapons are…the inherent inaccuracy of MRMs make the missiles stupidly hard to land on a target, and you can just forget about using them at longer ranges. Combine those with the pilots that Bannson was finding? Yeah, they weren’t hitting much. And that whole schpiel about its “lasting” firepower? Yeah, bullcrap. That might be a good thing, though, there’s no CASE on this walking abomination. Oh, and those weapons? They’re all the Raider has. A Targe is more intimidating.

Of course, even the ultimate ‘Mech has its flaws. Some might wildly claim that the Raider has its share of heat woes. But what ‘Mech doesn’t? Anyone who’s ever seen a Tri-Vid on those old Succession Wars ‘MechWarriors knows that you have to push the heat scale hard in order to win the biggest battles. Don’t worry, though - that supposed "weakness" is actually a great strength: remember, the Raider has Triple-Strength Myomers!! Push the heat up, and your foes will regret ever picking a fight with you. Ed- “Heat woes” might be the understatement of the century. I’ve never seen a ‘Mech run as hot as the Raider - ever. Running with one pushes the heatsinks to the limit. Shooting both MRM-10s increases the heat load to unmanageable levels, and forget about fine-tuning that TSM. It’ll never happen. End result? If the Raider stands still and shoots an MRM rack, it’ll take twenty seconds before the heat is fully dissipated. Disgusting.

Combine the worst heat management possible with loads of explodable ammo AND an ICE engine filled with volatile fuel and you’ve got something dangerously awful. Those MRMs? Lets see how much they hit once the heat truly starts kicking in. A single SRM-2 loaded with infernos is enough to completely ruin the Raider beyond recognition. It’s that bad, and there are no hidden features that can save it. I wholeheartedly recommend scrapping each and every part of the Raider we might salvage in combat.

The only variant that we have on record goes by the JL-2 “Raider Mk II”. It’s somehow better by being worse - let me explain. It only uses a 150-rated engine this time around, moving it at speeds reminiscent of ancient Atlases. This does let the Raider Mk II mount more armor, with an additional 3 tons giving it the semblance of average protection and the ability to take a Gauss slug (and more) anywhere on its body without having it going internal. The MRMs are dumped (thank God) for a single RAC/2 with two tons of ammunition. This cool-running RAC (helped out through its surprisingly efficient Improved Cooling Jacket) lets the Raider Mk II better micromanage its overheating, while its range and battlefield durability are both increased as well. It’s still terrible, though. A jammable RAC/2 and a farmers implement on a 50-ton BattleMech? What is this, the Dark Ages? Even King Arthur would be ashamed.

~ ~ ~

Master Unit List
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6955/raider-jl-1
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6956/raider-mk-ii-jl-2
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Scotty on 29 May 2015, 07:59:40
I... wow.  That's some beautiful engineering right there.  I don't think I've ever seen something quite as genuinely useless.  Weirdo, you're up!  I've got nothing.

My God, it's worse in Alpha Strike!  No damage, one overheat, slow, melee.  And the Mk II is somehow capable of doing literally zero damage.  Not even minimal (0*) damage, just a flat nothing, no overheat.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 29 May 2015, 08:53:13
Cute 'Mech. Reminds me of some uselessness I've produced on purpose on occasion... ;)

What actually mostly kills it isn't even the dual saw as such or the MRMs on the original version. It's the simple lack of heat sinks. It can only just cope with its own movement heat (which, being an ICE-powered Battle- rather than IndustrialMech, it still builds up normally), so any weapons fire on top of that will slow it down right quick...which will prompt its pilot to run more to compensate...which will then actually keep the uncomfortable heat level exactly constant. Or getting steadily worse if the pilot's dumb enough to fire more shots or if further heat comes in from elsewhere, of course.

This is the sort of 'Mech you purposefully let your enemies steal in hopes that they'll fall for it and try to use it against you next time you do battle. Although I suspect that even old "Mad" Max Liao would have seen through this one. :D
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Empyrus on 29 May 2015, 09:52:27
lol

The Raider seems to have two good things:
1) It looks quite nice, in the art at least.
2) Hordes of these as enemies would be kind of funny in a scenario. Maybe. Assuming bad enough pilots, for quantity has a quality of its own, as the saying goes.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: AldanFerrox on 29 May 2015, 10:08:09
I asked myself about the Raider Mk.II: Why use a RAC in the first place? Why not use an AC/5 instead? And why not replace the Saw with some Rocket Launchers, Machine Guns and Heat Sinks? But this would've been too sensible, I guess.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 29 May 2015, 10:19:32
I asked myself about the Raider Mk.II: Why use a RAC in the first place? Why not use an AC/5 instead? And why not replace the Saw with some Rocket Launchers, Machine Guns and Heat Sinks? But this would've been too sensible, I guess.

The obvious answer is 'because Bannson's factories weren't making those weapons'. Cop-out, probably, but the idea was to build something that could be built within Bannson's private 'kingdom'. If he's not building rocket launchers, no rocket launchers go on the Mech. (Obviously that means he WAS producing MRM racks and rotary autocannons, based on that line of thinking- if that's not the case, well, I have no idea).

This thing sucks on toast. I REALLY want to try a small horde of them out now.  ;D
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Orin J. on 29 May 2015, 10:23:46
those hazardous location industrialmechs not turning a profit? slap some weapons on them and get some sweet government money! (in theory)

i'm gonna defend the MRMs here. they're good at three things, ambush tactics, shock and awe, and cheaply supplying forces you don't expect to get any results with firepower. and this is pretty much the definition of the third. besides, at point blank, you might push enough damage to knock your opponent over, and then you can throw TSM kicks into them- which is literally the only way this is going to deal meaningful damage.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Natasha Kerensky on 29 May 2015, 10:43:40

Jacob Bannson is no Tony Stark.   Even with its big rig exhaust pipes, the Raider sucks plasma.

That said, I recall that the Raider's development was also limited by Republic restrictions on military-grade technology/equipment, which could explain a lot of the design choices in-universe.

Game-wise, the Raider is probably one of the cheapest ways to deploy a TSM-enhanced, one-punch-kill unit.  Thanks to its 50-ton weight and TSM, the Raider can run 8MPs and throw 10-point punches.  This theoretically threatens any mech within 8 hexes with a head-mounted cockpit and 9 points or less of head armor (which is nearly every mech ever made).

The Raider is sort of like the Hetzer.  Usually slow, poorly armored, and lacking in secondary weaponry.  But if you let the Raider get close enough, you run a decent chance of losing something vital to its primary weapon.  And as others have already mentioned, this is even more true if there's a lot of Raiders on the board.

It's too bad a variant was never developed that traded in the goofy melee weapons and less-than-effective MRMs for another battlefist, Apollo FCS, SRM packs, and/or massed RL-10s.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 29 May 2015, 11:36:16
hmm.. i can't devil's advocate this. it's just that bad.

that said, this thing is still better than many of the canon industrial mech MOD's from the period of unrest in terms of combat ability. it's only real flaw compared to the industrials is the heat issues.

frankly, that dual Saw is a pointless waste of tonnage. if i was ever stuck piloting this mech i'd have that pulled, and the mass reinvested in heatsinks. 7 extra standards would make this thing better. if your really fixated on getting the TSM some use, 5 standards and 2 more tons of armor. (with the resulting 7 dissipation, you could run and fire both MRM's for only 3 heat.. which means that with the right fire pattern and careful movement you could stay in that TSM sweetspot.)

though at least you could put it in a cool paintscheme..    O0

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/017/471/MEGAS_XLR___Action_pose_by_wilkowwc.jpg)
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Decoy on 29 May 2015, 11:37:10
So, if I'm hetzering these, I spring the Raider from an ambush position, use its built up heat and activated TSM to fall back  to a new position, let it cool down and then spring it from ambush again?
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Scotty on 29 May 2015, 11:38:27
More probably you miss all your MRMs and die on the first ambush.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 29 May 2015, 11:41:10
it would have been interesting if the design had gotten a real makeover later on in the MWDA period, after Bannson's group no longer had to operate so covertly.. switching to a SFE or at worse a Fuelcell engine could free up a ton of space for fixing this mech's flaws.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 29 May 2015, 11:51:05
This is a thing of beauty. Nothing else, but at least it's got that going for it. ;D
Never heard of them before.
How come the RAC translates to no damage in AS?
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Decoy on 29 May 2015, 11:52:15
More probably you miss all your MRMs and die on the first ambush.

.....and? The Raider probably costs just as much as modern Hetzers.  Quick question. Does the MRMs allow the Raider to clear minefields? I'm kinda envisioning a Combat Engineer role for these.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 29 May 2015, 11:58:32
I don't normally mind MRMs all that much. I may use them more for fluff and giggles, but when they do hit, they hit firmly enough.

They're just decidedly hamstrung by the Raider's heat woes. MRMs work best for me when I can use them as close-range bombardment weapons -- keep a steady stream of them pointed at the enemy and eventually even they will start to connect, and it's not like two hundred and forty individual missiles to the ton don't give me ammo to burn. But the Raider can't do that because of, again, its measly two-point heat dissipation capacity; it'd basically push itself into shutdown check range with the second volley and up to risk of potential ammo or engine explosion with the third.

Quick question. Does the MRMs allow the Raider to clear minefields? I'm kinda envisioning a Combat Engineer role for these.

Nope. It's a quirk of the rules -- a single MRM 20 rack could do it, but not paired 10s because it comes down purely to the size of the individual launcher.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Fallen_Raven on 29 May 2015, 12:02:30
The combination of MRMs and TSM does give you one small role in combat, bunker busting. Unload the MRMs on a building, then use the TSM to kick the weakened door in. (Or wall, whatever works for you.) Its not a great plan, you'd be better off sending Girl Scouts to infiltrate with cookie robots, but its better than trying to fight head on.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 29 May 2015, 12:13:49
More probably you miss all your MRMs and die on the first ambush.

But just think of all the gunfire you're absorbing that isn't hitting Bannson's Cygnus! You're a HERO!  ;D
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 29 May 2015, 12:17:00
This is a thing of beauty. Nothing else, but at least it's got that going for it. ;D
Never heard of them before.
How come the RAC translates to no damage in AS?
probably because of heat issues.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: YingJanshi on 29 May 2015, 12:26:54
The Raider is sort of like the Hetzer.

That's an insult to Hetzers everywhere! :D
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Scotty on 29 May 2015, 12:47:33
probably because of heat issues.

Close.  Well, yes, but that's not the whole reason.

The RAC doesn't do a full point of damage.  Specifically, the RAC/2 does 0.8 points of Alpha Strike damage.  Normally, being greater than or equal to 0.5 points would round up to one.  However, here the heat issues steal it away, and because there was never a full point of damage to take away in the first place, it gets no OV value either.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 29 May 2015, 13:02:29
Wow, it's like an actual canon BubbaMech...
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Alanith on 29 May 2015, 13:10:03
Honestly, In universe I'd almost rather drive down to the local Quicksell branch with a couple briefcases full of thousand-cbill notes and buy however many of their fine, fine vehicles I can afford for however much Bannson sunk into the R&D and production costs for this... this... technological terror. Or at least order my engineers to pull the same trick the IJN did with their Mogami-class cruisers and deliberately design it to be exceptionally easy (comparatively speaking) to swap in a combat rated fusion engine and some ER Mediums or whatever later on.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Wrangler on 29 May 2015, 13:18:37
Effective at nothing? Yesh, i think these were effective in the clicky game rules verse here.

Well, these things weren't exactly intended to go toe to toe for with BattleMechs.  SecurityMechs, MilitiaMechs (maaybe) but not frontline combat.

I think the Industrial TSM would be useful in lifting swag captured in a raid. Heck's it's Brannson's brigade is called Raiders.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 29 May 2015, 14:11:15
was it regular or industrial TSM?

Industrial has some perks to it the regualt doesn't, like not needing to watch heat.. but IIRC it can only be mounted on industrials, which i do not believe the Raider is ruleswise.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Natasha Kerensky on 29 May 2015, 14:13:24
I think the Industrial TSM would be useful in lifting swag captured in a raid.

I'm pretty sure the TSM is military-grade (and sarna confirms, FWTW).

Oh, and don't forget the searchlight!

Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Empyrus on 29 May 2015, 14:32:00
It seems the Raider isn't really an industrial mech, rather it is a real Battlemech built with some industrial parts? I mean, it has standard structure according to Megameklab, not an industrial one.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 29 May 2015, 14:48:44
Correct, it's a BattleMech with an ICE engine, not an armed IndustrialMech.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: AldanFerrox on 29 May 2015, 14:57:34
I bet a Lance of Quasits would easily slaughter a Lance of Raiders.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: roosterboy on 29 May 2015, 15:20:07
Obviously that means he WAS producing MRM racks

Bannson was the Victor Kiam of MRMs.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Nahuris on 29 May 2015, 15:32:13
Actually, I threw 2 of these, one of each variant into a battle with a friend..... I expected that they would die, and get out of the way..... instead, the RAC, firing in double mode hit with one shell on a floating crit and took out a cockpit... while the MRM version rushed up to a Rommel Tank, and proceeded to pillbox it, before mauling a light mech with missiles, 2 turns later ---- both had 6/6 pilot gunners, and they were inspired.

They did die, and it really didn't take much to do it, and it helped that they were ignored for most of the early battle..... but oddly enough, they CAN surprise you.

Nahuris
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Empyrus on 29 May 2015, 15:41:49
Correct, it's a BattleMech with an ICE engine, not an armed IndustrialMech.
Makes me think it would be kind of OK if it were an industrial MOD but it is not so...
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: gyedid on 29 May 2015, 16:12:15
Correct, it's a BattleMech with an ICE engine, not an armed IndustrialMech.

And it has no heat sinks...?  (yes, I know ICEs don't get free heat sinks)

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 29 May 2015, 16:37:51
And it has no heat sinks...?  (yes, I know ICEs don't get free heat sinks)

cheers,

Gabe

As far as I'm aware it has exactly two (and yes, they're in addition to the engine). Single ones, at that. Basically one for walking and the other for running -- any token amount of actually cooling off will only happen if it walks or stands still while conscientiously not shooting at anyone. Can still use its dual saw like that, I suppose...
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: iamfanboy on 29 May 2015, 16:56:27
Would this have worked better had it been built as an IndustrialMech, instead of some weird crossbreed Battlemech with an ICE engine? I don't have my book handy on me so I can't run the rough math myself.

And didn't Habeas once say that "we don't intentionally set out to design bad 'Mechs"? That's what he replied when I insinuated the Grigori was crippled from the start as a 4/6 design...

It does look pretty sweet, though. Maybe running it with, say, the Watchman's stats or something similar would work out.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Pa Weasley on 29 May 2015, 17:00:59
Much of these designs came from the MWDA fluff which flat out states that it's a BattleMech with an ICE engine plus much of the other stats. There twernt too much salvaging possible after that point I suspect.  :-\
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: iamfanboy on 29 May 2015, 17:40:06
Much of these designs came from the MWDA fluff which flat out states that it's a BattleMech with an ICE engine plus much of the other stats. There twernt too much salvaging possible after that point I suspect.  :-\
Background material should be a guide, not a chain. Hell, one could have said that calling it a real Battlemech was nothing but a calculated lie from Bannson to intimidate his enemies - "See, I can make 'Mechs just like the real nations! FEAR ME AND MY INDUSTRIAL MIGHT!" Not as though the actual clickytech stats made any difference between a real 'Mech and an IndustrialMech... aside from real 'Mechs being just plain better. I never had one of these, so I have no idea if the tabletop stats matched closer to a real 'Mech or a MOD. 

But... well, too late now. :-\


I will say this, though: I laughed so hard reading this that the infants I'm caring for at the moment started laughing too. There's nothing cuter than babies laughing in chorus.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: gyedid on 29 May 2015, 17:47:25
As far as I'm aware it has exactly two (and yes, they're in addition to the engine). Single ones, at that. Basically one for walking and the other for running -- any token amount of actually cooling off will only happen if it walks or stands still while conscientiously not shooting at anyone. Can still use its dual saw like that, I suppose...

I remember this old joke about how the designer of the Urbie must've graduated from engineering school with a D average.

What about the designer of the Raider...?

I know, I'm being unfair.  Bannson wanted BattleMechs, but clearly didn't have the ability to produce 'Mech-grade fusion engines, thanks to the Republic's policies.

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: AldanFerrox on 29 May 2015, 17:48:55
I would take most MOD's over the Raider. Look at the Buster Mech (AC). Carries an AC/5 and an LRM/10 plus 5 Heat Sinks. Not exactly heat neutral, but still pretty good. Even the infamous Quasit is much better.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Alanith on 29 May 2015, 18:45:07
I remember this old joke about how the designer of the Urbie must've graduated from engineering school with a D average.

What about the designer of the Raider...?

I know, I'm being unfair.  Bannson wanted BattleMechs, but clearly didn't have the ability to produce 'Mech-grade fusion engines, thanks to the Republic's policies.

cheers,

Gabe

Honestly, given how Bannson's supposed to be the richest person in the Inner Sphere, to the point where it was a serious possibility that he was the one behind the Blackout, I kind of have trouble believing he *couldn't* get his hands on at least a small source of Mech grade fusion engines. Maybe not enough to build the small horde of these thing's he was apparently building, but certainly enough for some real boy battlemechs. Everything's for sale if you've got enough money after all. Go purchase some floundering mech factory or something, outside the Republic if you have to.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: cavingjan on 29 May 2015, 19:14:42
The back story for this was pretty good and I would prefer the story with a crappy unit than a slightly better unit has lost its uniqueness.

It was designed as a straight up battlemech but they were behind schedule on building the fusion engine for it. It was supposed to be a regular engine and not an ICE. They salvaged the frame by resorting to an ICE. Did it cripple it? Yep. Did they start with an ICE in mind? Nope. Is it worthless? 99% yes. But it is unique and looks fabulous. Just don't make me drive one.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Nahuris on 29 May 2015, 19:24:35
I have to partially agree with Cavingjan --- it is a nearly worthless design, if anyone pays attention to it..... but, as I found out, if your opponents ignore it, and go for your "real" battlemechs, then yeah...... it can do something. Besides, if privately owned mechs were as rare as the early Dark Age books make them out to be, then the fact that he had mobile mechs, that could fire weapons for the cameras, was already a victory for Bannson.

Face it, if you are a bunch of people rallying around an old Scorpion Tank, and your opponent can suddenly produce a mech --- especially with one carrying a violation of the Aries Conventions concerning infantry, weapon, then it has a good fear value.

Nahuris
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 29 May 2015, 19:29:28
hmm.. i wonder what they did to the design when they swapped the engine specs to an ICE. did they shave a bunch of armor and weapons off? or was it originally going to have the same tonnage of fusion engine, and they just slowed it way down?

sounds to me that we really need a Design thread for this one, see what we can do to polish this excrement..
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: chanman on 29 May 2015, 19:36:59
Wow, it's like an actual canon BubbaMech...

Hah! Yes! Bubbamechs live!
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Weirdo on 29 May 2015, 20:23:00
The combination of MRMs and TSM does give you one small role in combat, bunker busting. Unload the MRMs on a building, then use the TSM to kick the weakened door in.

This exactly. This thing isn't meant to fight military or even militia units, it's meant to cow civilians and shoot up the police cars that stand between it and a bank vault. Use your real 'mechs to draw off the militia, then send these things in. They trudge up to their target, scare the crap out of everyone with a couple salvos and look all fearsome for the newsies, then they kick in the door to the treasure room so the foot-thugs can loot it. Odds are they'll do this while wearing false colors, so that Bannson can show up a week later with one of his more 'respectable' units, parade into town, and finagle a juicy garrison contract out of the terrorized rubes. Remember, these are folks who grew up during the Pax Stone, so the vast majority of them haven't seen a single BattleMech in their life. Without a proper 'mech to demonstrate how useless they really are, Raiders look terrifying.

My ideal use for this would be a hold the line scenario. The defenders are Bannson's real military forces, trying to hold off the militia or other planetary forces long enough for the raiders to get to their target and bust it open. The attackers are trying to get through that line so they can stomp the Raiders flat, but they have to at least be intact enough when they get there that even the Raiders' pitiful firepower can't hurt them.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Alanith on 29 May 2015, 21:10:27
It was designed as a straight up battlemech but they were behind schedule on building the fusion engine for it. It was supposed to be a regular engine and not an ICE. They salvaged the frame by resorting to an ICE. Did it cripple it? Yep. Did they start with an ICE in mind? Nope. Is it worthless? 99% yes. But it is unique and looks fabulous. Just don't make me drive one.

Ahh, that's fair enough then. From what I could piece together it was sounding like it had been deliberately designed with a ICE engine from the start.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: cavingjan on 29 May 2015, 21:36:03
Raider preview can be found here.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040302012715/http://www.wizkidsgames.com/mwdarkage/mw_article.asp?cid=38616&frame=technicalreadouts (https://web.archive.org/web/20040302012715/http://www.wizkidsgames.com/mwdarkage/mw_article.asp?cid=38616&frame=technicalreadouts)
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Nahuris on 29 May 2015, 22:51:53
You do know that when the fig comes out, I am going to have to get some, paint them up in semi-gloss black, with chrome, especially the pipes, and put mudflaps with chrome silhouettes of naked women on the back of the legs......etc.  LOL

Nahuris
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 29 May 2015, 23:19:28
too bad the wizkids details came out before the advent of Primative mech rules. the oversized, reduced efficiency fusion engines from those rules probably would have been within Bannson's grasp..
ditto for Fuelcell engines.. :)
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: chanman on 29 May 2015, 23:26:51
You do know that when the fig comes out, I am going to have to get some, paint them up in semi-gloss black, with chrome, especially the pipes, and put mudflaps with chrome silhouettes of naked women on the back of the legs......etc.  LOL

Nahuris

And truck nutz
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Nahuris on 29 May 2015, 23:27:43
And truck nutz

Ok, that's an image I didn't plan on.......LOL

Nahuris
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: SteelRaven on 29 May 2015, 23:43:58
I found the preview text from the old WizKids website.

File: Jacob‘s Ladder
Section: 77R42q
Security Level: Delta Green
Authorization: Jacob Karlson
This is a summary review of the Jacob‘s Ladder project.
On 7 April 3131, this office received an order, countersigned by Jacob Bannson, to begin an assessment of the feasibility of building a BattleMech. Due to the extreme security measures that this office felt necessary to implement during the feasibility assessment stage of the project, a full report didn‘t reach Mr. Bannson‘s hands until 23 October. On 2 November, Mr. Bannson met with me, along with those directly involved: Ben Keller, Denise Harlson, Jim Harding, Susan Lollar, and Kit Smithson. Following that meeting, Mr. Bannson‘s directive was to proceed with Jacob‘s Ladder – build a BattleMech.
Our current facility was simply beyond the scope of such a project, and so we were moved to a remote location. On 2 February 3132 at a newly constructed underground facility, the project started in earnest.
The next year and a half would see triumphs and spectacular failures in equal measure. Jim Harding, much to our anguish, perished in an explosion following our eighth unsuccessful attempt to balance the plasma field within a military-grade fusion reactor. (Like all of us, Jim had no family to speak of, so only we are left to remember the man and his accomplishments.)
By September 3133, it had become painfully obvious that our facility was simply not capable of producing a military-grade fusion reactor. Though all other aspects of the project had exceeded expectation on all levels, it became apparent that almost two years had been wasted in building a ‘Mech that would be able to house only an internal combustion engine.
Though I personally submitted numerous requests for a salvaged fusion reactor, the reply was always the same: Salvaged engines are used to replace damaged reactors on existing BattleMechs. Our task was to build a brand-new BattleMech from the ground up.
A task we have failed.
Nevertheless, what we have created is a BattleMech in every aspect, except it mounts an internal combustion engine (colloquially known as a ―lowtech ‘Mech‖). The Raider MkII should not be confused with a modified IndustrialMech: It has a standard internal structure, as opposed to the double-weight, reinforced structure of IndustrialMechs. In fact, our team has managed to perfect numerous systems that previously were considered prototypes, such as the jump pack and the light autocannon.
The attached videos graphically demonstrate that not only can the Raider hold its own against some light BattleMechs, but more importantly, it is also far superior to any modified IndustrialMech currently in use.
This, I believe, is still a measure of achievement, and the Raider (we have begun to move forward with full, though limited, production – this facility was never designed with mass production in mind) can and will support Bannson troops in the field. Nevertheless, in the end, my team failed to achieve our directive, and so I‘m tendering my resignation effective immediately.
{{{Intercepted message; video was corrupted beyond recovery>>> }}}
Good fluff for such a design.
The Raider was Bannson's comical attempt to build a army rather than buy one.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 30 May 2015, 00:44:37
I do believe that I would rather be issued a bicycle with a PIAT tied to the handlebars than one of these mechs.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 30 May 2015, 01:03:25
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/hybenamon/LAND/INFANTRY/WW%20Antitank%20Weapons/ANTITANK%20RIFLES/TB41-2.jpg)
Swiss Tb.41 (Tankbusche 41) towed by bicycle
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: marauder648 on 30 May 2015, 01:05:25
Someone should team this mech up with its big brother the Thunderbolt with the ICE that the Taurians made.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Colt Ward on 30 May 2015, 01:07:49
Honestly wish the fluff had followed the Jacob's Ladder report, I have been waiting to see what was done with this design since they started releasing the 3145 series.

The date is different, by the time they were moving solidly into development stages the Republic is no longer in control and getting some of the previously restricted tech for reverse-engineering should not have been hard . . . And what about the jump pack for the mech?

Honestly, if I was a merc in the early 3130s it would not be something too bad to pick up.  Like some battlemechs it is more designed to deal with armor, BA and infantry rather than other mechs.  Biggest thing is pull that stupid saw for anything else.  Honestly, for mercs it should be a 'starter' mech, somethng your techs are tinkering with putting whatever you can build easily (Rockets! and Machine Guns!) or what salvages into for a supporting mech (AC/5 off a Scorpion!).
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 30 May 2015, 01:35:28
Machine guns could be a Raider's best friend, true. Heat-free damage extending just a touch beyond physical attacks, always still a classic against infantry...I guess they might just be lacking the dual saw's sheer primal intimidation factor. (Let's face it, you have to learn to be afraid of guns, otherwise they're just these things people use to make noise at each other on TV. Some metal giant swings what looks like a giant monstrous claw with spiky metal bits your way, on the other hand...that goes straight to the hindbrain.) ;)
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 30 May 2015, 01:38:01
i repeat..

sounds to me that we really need a Design thread for this one, see what we can do to polish this excrement..
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: roosterboy on 30 May 2015, 01:53:13
Honestly wish the fluff had followed the Jacob's Ladder report

It did.

Quote
The date is different

The dates are the same.

Quote
And what about the jump pack for the mech?

Mentioned in the BT fluff.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 30 May 2015, 02:10:03
Someone should team this mech up with its big brother the Thunderbolt with the ICE that the Taurians made.

The what now? ICE T-Bolt?
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Colt Ward on 30 May 2015, 02:19:59
Really?  What light mechs can the Raider defeat?

As I do not have the PDF, I can only look at the intro date on Sarna.

With that said, this reminds me that PDF exists and I wanted to pick it up . . . off to DriveThru!
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 30 May 2015, 02:41:17
The what now? ICE T-Bolt?

I assume he's referring to the ICE thunderbolt that appeared in a fan TRO a bit back (though that was actually Canopean).
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 30 May 2015, 02:56:35
And hey, while I'm here, thought I'd mention that ICE powered mechs don't generate heat from ground movement. So... maybe that helps a little?

Now I must go, my cultists require a fuel cell powered Raider Mk III.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 30 May 2015, 03:14:34
And hey, while I'm here, thought I'd mention that ICE powered mechs don't generate heat from ground movement. So... maybe that helps a little?

Now I must go, my cultists require a fuel cell powered Raider Mk III.

As I believe I've already mentioned, that holds true for ICE-powered IndustrialMechs. BattleMechs with non-fusion engines including ICE explicitly build up movement heat as normal.

So, yeah; that's one area in which a "mere" armed IndustrialMech would have a small advantage.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: marauder648 on 30 May 2015, 04:31:21
I assume he's referring to the ICE thunderbolt that appeared in a fan TRO a bit back (though that was actually Canopean).

Ahh yes sorry forgot that was a fan TRO not a canon one (but it was good enough to be a canon one if ya ask me :p)
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Pa Weasley on 30 May 2015, 07:35:32
And hey, while I'm here, thought I'd mention that ICE powered mechs don't generate heat from ground movement. So... maybe that helps a little?

Now I must go, my cultists require a fuel cell powered Raider Mk III.
ICE powered IndustrialMechs don't generate movement heat. BattleMechs on the other hand, I give you TacOps p. 308
Quote
• Non-fusion-powered BattleMechs generate heat in the same manner as BattleMechs (including heat for Walking and Running movement);
ICE-powered ‘Mechs must check for heat-induced explosions (see p. 160, TW).
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 30 May 2015, 15:54:21
ICE powered IndustrialMechs don't generate movement heat. BattleMechs on the other hand, I give you TacOps p. 308

Oh, wow, that both sucks and makes no sense.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 30 May 2015, 16:11:35
Oh, wow, that both sucks and makes no sense.

I imagine it's because IndustrialMechs just aren't built to combat spec. BattleMechs can't shed heat quite as easily because they're all vacuum-tight and protected against battle damage to the best of their ability even underneath the armor while IMs have looser tolerances and frequently lack even what environmental sealing they can optionally have. So basically they don't build up the one or two points for movement (plus the occasional one for getting up after falling down, I imagine) because they just "breathe" more easily.

That only works for IndustrialMechs with internal combustion and, I hear, fuel cell engines, though. Fission- and fusion-powered ones build up movement heat just like BattleMechs; of course, those then also have the built-in heat sinks to cope.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: SteelRaven on 30 May 2015, 18:16:40
Has anyone tried swapping out the engine?
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Alanith on 30 May 2015, 18:42:44
Has anyone tried swapping out the engine?

I tried swapping it for a fusion engine last night, and ended up with something like twelve spare tons of space. Problem is that might actually make it something that isn't terrible for everyone involved.

Edit: Actually it's ten and a half tons. Honestly I'd be tempted to shove as many small lasers on there as would fit myself in a hypothetical "Raider III, now with FUSION", since they seem to be used for demolition in a industrial capacity, and wouldn't raise quite as many eyebrows as something like a PPC or Large Laser.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 30 May 2015, 18:52:55
Easy solution, give it a second saw and stock up on MRM launchers.  O0
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: nckestrel on 30 May 2015, 19:03:07
Alpha Strike S/M for Raider should be 0*.  Alpha Strike S/M/L for Raider Mk II should be 0*.  Changes have been entered, card should update within 24 hours.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: SteelRaven on 30 May 2015, 19:07:44
I tried swapping it for a fusion engine last night, and ended up with something like twelve spare tons of space. Problem is that might actually make it something that isn't terrible for everyone involved.
Just wanted to check considering the fluff stated the design was originally attended to be a actual battlemech but what we ended up with was much more entertaining  ;D
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Alanith on 30 May 2015, 19:15:46
Just wanted to check considering the fluff stated the design was originally attended to be a actual battlemech but what we ended up with was much more entertaining  ;D

Well a straight swap still gives you a 50 tonner that moves at 4/6, it's still not wondrously great, but its not Raider level "Wat" either.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 30 May 2015, 19:40:58
Edit: Actually it's ten and a half tons.

Does it have the crit-spaces for that many rocket launchers?
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: smdvogrin on 30 May 2015, 20:08:33
Actually, if you swap the engine, you can equip both model's weapons - the RAC/2 and the MRM-10, and get one point short of max armor.  It feels like the original intended design.  (Especially since a fusion engine that size is left with 2 of it's free heat sinks left outside - corresponds well with the heat sinks on the actual design.)

It's still bad at that point - spending 7 tons on the Dual Saw pretty much ensures that - but it feels much more like a "local resources trooper" than a "horrific waste of research funding".
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 30 May 2015, 20:18:46
I tried swapping it for a fusion engine last night, and ended up with something like twelve spare tons of space. Problem is that might actually make it something that isn't terrible for everyone involved.

Edit: Actually it's ten and a half tons. Honestly I'd be tempted to shove as many small lasers on there as would fit myself in a hypothetical "Raider III, now with FUSION", since they seem to be used for demolition in a industrial capacity, and wouldn't raise quite as many eyebrows as something like a PPC or Large Laser.
if you swap for a near 1 to 1 tonnage of engine, you get a 5/8 with a few spare tons.. or a 6/9 that needs to shave a ton or so off somewhere.

at least if my reverse engineering on MegaMekLab was right.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Heretic on 30 May 2015, 22:47:16
So this is what happens when you let a power hungry, wannabe entrepreneur build a 'Mech. Huh. When I first saw it in the Era Digest, I initially thought this was some backwater Periphery design that those ~~~coo-ray-zee Taurians~~~ cooked up after cobbling together the Toro with what little scraps remained. Now I'm wondering what on earth Jacob Bannson(sp?) was smoking and if he could hook me up with some of it because this thing needs a bit of tweaking. And by a bit I of course mean a freaking lot. More on that later.

To me, this seems like it's built for the sheer fear factor than to actually deal damage. Those saws aren't gonna do any real damage unless it's against the head, but the view from the cockpit of the 'Mech on the other end will totally scare the crap outta ya. Just imagine, if for but a single moment, you're in your Panther or Raven or Wolfhound, and then all of this sudden, you hear over your external speakers this ungodly buzzing noise that's coming straight towards you. Those saws ain't looking so lame now, are they?

Here's how I'd fix the Raider. First, after killing all the lawyers (kudos to you if you get that joke), I'd rip the ICE engine out and plonk a Fusion one in so I'd get more tonnage to play with. Then I'd gut the MRM rack plus its ammo to put an actual weapon there, like a Medium Laser. Add a few more points of armor and some heat sinks as needed and viola! One medium 'Mech that doesn't suck so bad. It now has a chance to actually be able to do some damage before closing in for the uppercut.

And of course I'd keep the saws because here are your options:

1. Eff you I'm Spiderman
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Maelwys on 30 May 2015, 23:27:36
Anyone else find it odd that they're having trouble making fusion engines in the 3130's? Sure, you can argue that they're "Military" or something, and that's the issue, but it just sort of seems sort of odd. I can see them having trouble in the beginning, but to fail completely?
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 30 May 2015, 23:30:12
They're not.  This is a mech who was built by someone who wasn't supposed to have access to military equipment and had to improvise.  Everyone else has access to XXL powered assault mechs.

To me, this seems like it's built for the sheer fear factor than to actually deal damage. Those saws aren't gonna do any real damage unless it's against the head, but the view from the cockpit of the 'Mech on the other end will totally scare the crap outta ya. Just imagine, if for but a single moment, you're in your Panther or Raven or Wolfhound, and then all of this sudden, you hear over your external speakers this ungodly buzzing noise that's coming straight towards you. Those saws ain't looking so lame now, are they?

Is that before or after the light mech pilot realizes they can walk faster than this thing can run when it isn't overheated from firing its weapon?
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 30 May 2015, 23:50:16
this is an embodyment of the Sagan quote; "If you wish to make apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe"

Bannson wanted to have battlemech production for his secret army. he was not allowed to have an official mech factory, and he didn't have access to factories for all the parts.
and he couldn't import parts from anyone not working for him without making it more likely that the republic intelligence agencies would figure out what he was doing.
he was basically having to reinvent the mech, from scratch, and build the infrastructure to produce it.. in such a way no one would notice the project was occurring.

so while he evidently had companies that made MRM's and RAC's, myomers and misc mech parts.. he didn't have any making fusion engines, and the attempts to design one that could be built in secret without a big factory kept failing.

still, even with all those constraints you'd think his design team would have done a better job...
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Fallen_Raven on 30 May 2015, 23:59:56
I don't know, I just tested the Mk II against some Scorpion tanks with much success. Normally a RAC/2 isn't a potent weapon, but you can get some useful engagement range out of it. Especially if you look at it as an opportunity to build heat for a TSM powered kick. The crit seeking nature just improves the odds of parking a tank so you can close in for melee attacks.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 31 May 2015, 00:06:28
still, even with all those constraints you'd think his design team would have done a better job...

It's really the dual saw that's gumming up the works more than the engine. A raider II without that could upgrade all the way to a gauss gun and really mess with people's heads, or perhaps some combination of LB10X and AES for the poorly trained pilots.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Heretic on 31 May 2015, 00:10:16
Is that before or after the light mech pilot realizes they can walk faster than this thing can run when it isn't overheated from firing its weapon?

Does it matter? It's approximately several tons of whirring spiky metal that is coming to meet your face in a violent manner oh dear God run to the hills you fool with enough force to do more than a scratch on the paintjob. If it hits you, your day is going to go southward.

And even if it doesn't hit, the psychological damage is already done. You do not wanna tangle with this, you want to run the hell away. Basic logic right there. That hilltop several hexes away looks like good place to snipe this thing with your ~~totally rad~~ ER Large Laser...wait a minute, is that another one? Oh, no, more spiky doom is coming toward your face!


this is an embodyment of the Sagan quote; "If you wish to make apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe"

No wonder all the pies I make always taste funky...I always keep forgetting to cause the Big Bang.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 31 May 2015, 00:16:50
Does it matter? It's approximately several tons of whirring spiky metal that is coming to meet your face in a violent manner oh dear God run to the hills you fool with enough force to do more than a scratch on the paintjob. If it hits you, your day is going to go southward.

And even if it doesn't hit, the psychological damage is already done. You do not wanna tangle with this, you want to run the hell away. Basic logic right there. That hilltop several hexes away looks like good place to snipe this thing with your ~~totally rad~~ ER Large Laser...wait a minute, is that another one? Oh, no, more spiky doom is coming toward your face!

That only works for so long, and against nobody accustomed to fighting in physical combat.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Scotty on 31 May 2015, 00:18:09
Relying on your opponent to be afraid of you based on nothing but scary sounds and looks is a great way to get killed.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 31 May 2015, 00:21:12
It's a tactic that isn't going to work on anyone with any sort of battle experience, that's for sure.

And it's going to be utterly hilarious if this thing winds up facing off against a Valiant or Scarabus.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Colt Ward on 31 May 2015, 00:25:25
Interesting question would be with the weight savings between a ICE to Fusion and for the saw, what single weapon could you have gotten for that weight?
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 31 May 2015, 00:28:40
That only works for so long, and against nobody accustomed to fighting in physical combat.

I'd go so far as to say that it probably doesn't work against anyone in a real 'Mech of their own at all. Even a Wasp pilot is going to have (a) gotten over any serious "OMG it's a 'Mech!" impulse circa in basic training by dint of sheer familiarity and (b) probably encountered IndustrialMechs before -- remember, the unarmed versions of these things are basically fixtures of civilian life on many BT worlds just like mobile heavy equipment serving many of the same purposes is to us today -- and figured out that noisy power tools alone do not a war machine make.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 31 May 2015, 00:40:03
I'm giving it some credit for the environment the Raider appeared in, when slapping a light AC on a lumbermech and sticking a rookie in it seemed like a good idea.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Colt Ward on 31 May 2015, 01:08:53
After playing with HMP . . . to answer my own question, you could put a 3rd MRM10 rack and a RAC/2 with 2t of ammo and the 2 SHS for the production model.  With a bit more armor of course . . . makes something that COULD go after light mechs like Panthers, Wasps and Stingers and a decent chance.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 31 May 2015, 05:36:50
Well, if you are hellbent on replacing the saw, might as well slot in a Gauss Rifle.
Still, the saw is kinda part of the striking visuals.
It's kinda odd they didn't manage to build a proper military version, I mean there are Vibroblades that size.
Edit: If you want to keep the visuals, you could actually replace the Saw with a large Vibroblade stylized after a dual-bladed claw. It might be a bit less prolific at chopping wood, however.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Maingunnery on 31 May 2015, 05:56:35

I did some experimenting and I found a nice refit.

1. Strip all equipment
2. Change to a 5/8 fuel cell engine
3. Install a Light Gauss Rifle
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 31 May 2015, 06:10:11
I suppose the two things the dual saw really has going for it are its ability to clear woods and its 2d6+7 damage against building hexes.

Unless that's specifically what one wants -- and I have to admit there is something about a 'Mech dedicating itself to demolition like that -- it's pretty much pure flavor, and a case could be made that as a "raider" the 'Mech would be better off with its left hand back so it can actually carry off loot and otherwise make itself more generally useful. Could still carry some other and probably lighter physical weapon that doesn't mandate removing the actuator if need be...plus, two punches for 5 damage each (10 with active TSM) aren't exactly something to sneeze at either.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: cavingjan on 31 May 2015, 07:02:20
The question isn't what else could go on it. The question is what did Bannson have existing manufacturing that wouldn't be noticed by the government. No paper trail is the key thing. No payments outside of his companies.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Getz on 31 May 2015, 07:23:49
Restricting myself to only components already used in the design; I'd pull off the dual saw and fit more heatsinks, more armour and more ammo in that order of preference.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: mbear on 01 June 2015, 11:45:45
This exactly. This thing isn't meant to fight military or even militia units, it's meant to cow civilians and shoot up the police cars that stand between it and a bank vault. Use your real 'mechs to draw off the militia, then send these things in. They trudge up to their target, scare the crap out of everyone with a couple salvos and look all fearsome for the newsies, then they kick in the door to the treasure room so the foot-thugs can loot it. Odds are they'll do this while wearing false colors, so that Bannson can show up a week later with one of his more 'respectable' units, parade into town, and finagle a juicy garrison contract out of the terrorized rubes. Remember, these are folks who grew up during the Pax Stone, so the vast majority of them haven't seen a single BattleMech in their life. Without a proper 'mech to demonstrate how useless they really are, Raiders look terrifying.

My ideal use for this would be a hold the line scenario. The defenders are Bannson's real military forces, trying to hold off the militia or other planetary forces long enough for the raiders to get to their target and bust it open. The attackers are trying to get through that line so they can stomp the Raiders flat, but they have to at least be intact enough when they get there that even the Raiders' pitiful firepower can't hurt them.
Another possible use is where you'd use the Patron SecurityMech. Base security, supply convoy protection, infantry support, anti-vehicle use. If you're playing House Kurita, you might use these in a chain gang mission.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Weirdo on 01 June 2015, 14:56:52
I like the Chain Gang idea. Next time some Sandoval launches some raids, respond by dropping psychopaths in Raiders into small towns all across the March.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Terrace on 01 June 2015, 15:43:48
This thing is essentially a 3145 version of the Brigand, given the intended role and how cheaply it's made. The Brigand is better, though. IIRC, that thing is made out of stolen parts and is a 25-ton Light that reasonably good for the era.

I can see some pirate group in former Republic territory getting their hands on a company of these things, since they're not really intended to fight other Battlemechs (at least, not without huge casualties).
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: gyedid on 01 June 2015, 15:48:33
I did some experimenting and I found a nice refit.

1. Strip all equipment
2. Change to a 5/8 fuel cell engine
3. Install a Light Gauss Rifle

Are fuel cells also considered military-grade tech during the "Stone Age"?  I can understand not being able to procure or reverse-engineer a fusion engine, but fuel cells should be well-understood technology for the civilian sector by the 3100s.  It would gimp the Raider a lot less than that ICE.  Unless, of course, fuel cells are off-limits too.

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 June 2015, 16:13:53
Fuel cells were readily available during the time period in question, but rules for them were first published in a book that was released well after the Raider had been created.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 01 June 2015, 16:18:54
Are fuel cells also considered military-grade tech during the "Stone Age"?  I can understand not being able to procure or reverse-engineer a fusion engine, but fuel cells should be well-understood technology for the civilian sector by the 3100s.  It would gimp the Raider a lot less than that ICE.  Unless, of course, fuel cells are off-limits too.

cheers,

Gabe

Honestly, I'm not convinced fusion engines should suddenly be super-secret military tech; they've been around too long for that in-universe. There should in fact, I think, be at least one Jihad-era IndustrialMech available in multiple specialized versions (the Jabberwocky) that uses exactly a 200-rated standard fusion plant that'd probably be about perfect for the Raider...

I'd have expected Bannson and his hired engineers to have had a lot more trouble with other parts of proper BattleMech design since that's presumably indeed a more specialized skilled trade, or perhaps with hiding the fact that they were actually manufacturing heavy weapons...but just acquiring or creating a set of working blueprints for building a basic-by-32nd-century-standards power plant? ???
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: roosterboy on 01 June 2015, 16:21:16
They wanted military-grade fusion engines.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 June 2015, 16:26:09
Also, it might not have been that Bannson couldn't build working fusion engines; they might have been an item that's much easier for Republic intelligence to track and therefore just have been something that he wasn't able to drop off the back of the truck without it being really suspicious.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: gyedid on 01 June 2015, 16:28:18
They wanted military-grade fusion engines.

Which means that even a RetroTech 'Mech was beyond their grasp...?  (i.e. not being able to manage even Mackie levels of fusion tech)  Granted, in many ways the Raider is even more retro than the 1st generation BattleMechs and the Jihad-era RetroTech wave.

cheers,

Gabe

Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 01 June 2015, 16:36:17
They wanted military-grade fusion engines.

Well, at that point we're back to pure fluff, then. I mean, for game purposes there's no meaningful difference between "civilian" and "military" fusion bottles -- if it even meaningfully exists in-universe, it's not reflected in the stats in the slightest. It's not even that modern BattleMechs use "proper" engines while fusion-powered civilian models still toddle around using "primitive" ones or anything like that.

Might as well say the Raider failed because they couldn't secure military-grade fuzzy dice for the cockpit. ;)
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 02 June 2015, 04:26:32
Hey, those fuzzy dice are no jokes.
The Raider's ones have spikes.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: mbear on 02 June 2015, 07:09:21
Now that I think about it some more, if you have enough disposable pilots you could pack the field with these things. Let them get off one or two shots that maybe hit an opponent, but serve as bullet sponges to protect your real 'Mechs. While your opponent is busy slicing down these things, your good 'Mechs are pounding the crap out of him.

And it strikes me as being more like the Arbiter. Not great but good enough for what it does...which I guess is get in a fight and die really fast.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Weirdo on 02 June 2015, 08:15:25
To sum the Raider up, Bannson looked at the phrase "Life is cheap, battlemechs are expensive" and decided that the second half of the statement was the real problem, not the first. :)
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 June 2015, 12:09:28
Well played. O0
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: chanman on 02 June 2015, 12:48:54
To sum the Raider up, Bannson looked at the phrase "Life is cheap, battlemechs are expensive" and decided that the second half of the statement was the real problem, not the first. :)

You know how the saying goes: "You get what you pay for", and for the operators of the Raider, boy do they ever get it right in the face
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: SCC on 04 June 2015, 00:58:20
Where are the engines for these things coming from? ICE is going out of fashion for vehicles, but there have been some powered by 200's IIRC, but 150's don't ring any bells.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 04 June 2015, 00:59:16
Civilian vehicle manufacturing, most likely.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: SteelRaven on 04 June 2015, 01:33:03
Civilian vehicle manufacturing, most likely.
Owed by Bannson Unlimited of course.

With the blackout, it's not like Bannson could just buy engines in bulk and still keep it a secret. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same engine used in a unnamed Bannson Built industrial mech.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 04 June 2015, 01:35:22
I thought of this:

Owed by Bannson Unlimited Acme of course.

And now I can't get the image of Wile E Coyote using one of these out of my head.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 04 June 2015, 01:39:58
I thought of this:

And now I can't get the image of Wile E Coyote using one of these out of my head.

Meh, he's never going to catch the RD-1R in this one, either. :)
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: SCC on 04 June 2015, 02:21:42
Civilian vehicle manufacturing, most likely.
Um, what? These things are using military grade engines, plants would have to be retooled to make them, and retooled at LOT at rather large expense to make something that no one else is going to be interested in buying. Oh, and there's the issue of somehow getting the RotS to sign off on all of this
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: SteelRaven on 04 June 2015, 02:59:35
Oh, and there's the issue of somehow getting the RotS to sign off on all of this
As stated in the fluff, this was all done off the books and in secret so the RotS wouldn't find out.

Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: gyedid on 04 June 2015, 22:27:27

And it strikes me as being more like the Arbiter. Not great but good enough for what it does...which I guess is get in a fight and die really fast.

A company of Raiders vs. a company of Arbiters...who would come out on top of that one?

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 04 June 2015, 23:12:45
Whoever was selling them ammo.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 05 June 2015, 03:16:46
A company of Raiders vs. a company of Arbiters...who would come out on top of that one?

I'd say it would come down to what the objective was. With only a whopping six shots each before running dry, the Arbiters would run out of ammunition long before the Raiders did and as IndustrialMechs couldn't afford to physically mix it up with their opponents (which are fifteen tons heavier each and don't suffer the "make a crit check each time you get hit by a physical attack" problem) afterwards, so in a battle to take the other side down at all costs they'd probably be boned.

Make it a hit-and-run encounter, on the other hand, and the Arbiters' higher base ground speed and ability to move without building up heat for that may just give them enough of an edge to let them inflict more damage than they take in return and retreat in mostly-good order afterwards as well.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Wrangler on 05 June 2015, 10:52:09
A company of Raiders vs. a company of Arbiters...who would come out on top of that one?

cheers,

Gabe

I think it's toss up depending which variant is on the field.  Raider Mk II has Rotary 2 that has nice reach to it, while the Arbiters variant with the AC/5 has reach enough to get to the Raider before those dual chain saws start slicing.

My bets is who hits the ammo bin first!  Though as much i find it hard to believe, i think i'd lean on RAC/2 packing Raider. Only because increase crit chance and industrial/commercial armor the Arbiter usually fitted with does take damage well.  Raider has alot of glaring flaws, but it has standard armor.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 05 June 2015, 11:19:05
Raider has alot of glaring flaws, but it has standard armor.

That part actually makes little difference for two reasons: one, even commercial armor stands up well to 5-point clusters and smaller hits, which is all the Raiders can dish out at range; and two, the Arbiter has "heavy industrial" armor, which is basically just standard plating by another name anyway. The higher chance of inflicting crits on the industrial skeleton underneath is a factor, but you'll have to score a TAC chance or punch through that armor the old-fashioned way first.

And I'd completely overlooked the AC-armed Arbiter variant (I blame it not being included with MegaMek yet). That actually changes the dynamic slightly, since if we're using those instead and they can avoid getting caught at brawling distance they suddenly do have some ammo endurance, plus depending on which Raider models they encounter a weapon that's either more accurate at range or else packs a more concentrated punch than their opposite number's RAC/2 does at fewer heat woes and no risk of jamming. That fight might just end up being one the Arbiters have with some careful management an actual shot at winning.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: SteelRaven on 05 June 2015, 12:19:50
The Arbiter was purpose built while the Raider would be consider by many as a Boondoggle. The Raider's armor, firepower and TSM does help the Raider preform the same task.

Regardless, both mechs make the Quasit look good :P
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Fallen_Raven on 05 June 2015, 12:46:01
I just realized a different aspect of the Raider that makes the Dual Saw much more practical. It can cut a road through the forest for all the vehicles to haul off the loot! Or clear a path for the tanks that do the heavy lifting, which is as close combat effective as we're likely to get without some special circumstances. Either way, a Raider makes a very handy force multiplier if you need to avoid the toll booths.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: chanman on 05 June 2015, 12:57:23
"Why did you choose to become a Vedette tanker instead of taking the mechwarrior opening?"

"My survival odds are better with the Vedette. Have you SEEN the 'mechs' we've been using?"
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: cavingjan on 05 June 2015, 21:10:08
Quite possibly the Raider may be able to blend in with industrial mechs easier. Or at least be moved into position as part of a work crew.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 07 June 2015, 05:11:31
Quite possibly the Raider may be able to blend in with industrial mechs easier. Or at least be moved into position as part of a work crew.

"I'm totally a WorkMech! No, really! ...Those tubes on my shoulder? Um...demolition charges?"
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: cavingjan on 07 June 2015, 06:45:32
Fake searchlight cover
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Weirdo on 07 June 2015, 09:09:25
"I'm totally a WorkMech! No, really! ...Those tubes on my shoulder? Um...demolition charges?"

Yeah, and that small moon was equipped with a planetary core sampling device...
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Maingunnery on 07 June 2015, 09:30:21
Fake searchlight cover
Lots of.....
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Rage on 07 June 2015, 18:56:32
Yeah, and that small moon was equipped with a planetary core sampling device...

Oi! It's not the Empire's fault that someone ended up using Tim Taylor Technology in regards to the core sampler! :P
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: SteelRaven on 07 June 2015, 19:43:16
Considering how many converted and unconverted Indy mechs the small rouge factions happen to still be using in combat role at the time, that's now where near a good idea... but it would be funny.     
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: chanman on 07 June 2015, 20:45:23
Oi! It's not the Empire's fault that someone ended up using Tim Taylor Technology in regards to the core sampler! :P

The just take a Clan Jaguarish-attitude towards meddlesome intervening crust/ocean/mantle - namely "Get Out the Way..."
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Issamuel on 11 June 2015, 06:31:13
Alpha Strike S/M for Raider should be 0*.  Alpha Strike S/M/L for Raider Mk II should be 0*.  Changes have been entered, card should update within 24 hours.

Thanks for the update.  :)

For the Raider, and Raider Mk II, I just found my AlphaStrike "trash mob" replacement for the good old Patron PatrolMech PTN-2M  ;D

Guys, out of sheer curiosity since I didn't see it being discussed, how effective would these two units be in a Late Succession War Mad-Max environment in normal Battletech (Not AlphaStrike)?
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: A. Lurker on 11 June 2015, 07:44:31
Guys, out of sheer curiosity since I didn't see it being discussed, how effective would these two units be in a Late Succession War Mad-Max environment in normal Battletech (Not AlphaStrike)?

Not very. Okay, the TSM might surprise some opponents since at the time that technology wasn't widely available, but they just don't have the striking power expected of even SW-era 50-tonners, and where fusion engines just pour out extra heat and finally shut down if damaged, internal combustion ones have this tendency to outright explode -- a Raider going down to CT destruction or just having bad luck on an engine damage check before that point is apt to blow up like a firecracker.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Fallen_Raven on 11 June 2015, 08:28:13
Guys, out of sheer curiosity since I didn't see it being discussed, how effective would these two units be in a Late Succession War Mad-Max environment in normal Battletech (Not AlphaStrike)?

The MRMs would be a nice surprise for exactly one shot if nobody's familiar with them, so you can get a sucker punch. I think the RAC/2 might come as a surprise the first time, if only because nothing mounted enough ballistic weapons to create that kind of long range suppression fire. But people will quickly notice that you're firing a hail of BBs, and proceed to ignore your shots as they trash you with intro tech. Both possibilities rely on people not being familiar with the equipment. Otherwise the big contribution would be as a sponge to soak up shots.

This isn't to say that the Raider isn't useful in these environments, it's just sitting in the same tier as such luminaries as the Vulcan, the Clint, and the Ostscout. All are very capable when considering their specialization, and all are nearly useless in a straight up slugging match against a Warhammer. Given the Raider's focus on low cost and firepower, they would be useful as a low cost bulking unit for a force of more typical 'mechs of the era.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Issamuel on 12 June 2015, 21:58:20
A. Lurker , Fallen_Raven , thanks for the insightful comments. O0

I find it humorous from an out-of-universe perspective, that the in-universe designers came out with a Mech design that was fully and originally intended to be used in a private army, but due to lack of a fusion engine had to make severe compromises that introtech mechs can tear it apart in-universe.

Admittedly, out-of-universe you can always do your own "refits" to make up for it's weaknesses from it's initial design roots.

Still, with all it's flaws, it is one tough workmech (Errr, subjectively!) that has an odd flavor - at least to me and my gaming table. I like it.

Nice Mech-Of-The-Week GreekFire! Been a lurking fan of your articles even if I do not normally comment - please keep it up!
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Alanith on 12 June 2015, 22:35:07
Thanks for the update.  :)

For the Raider, and Raider Mk II, I just found my AlphaStrike "trash mob" replacement for the good old Patron PatrolMech PTN-2M  ;D

Guys, out of sheer curiosity since I didn't see it being discussed, how effective would these two units be in a Late Succession War Mad-Max environment in normal Battletech (Not AlphaStrike)?


Honestly? Most Intro-tech mechs will tear it apart.

Even a Charger or a Urbanmech are more then this thing can handle.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Colt Ward on 12 June 2015, 23:51:11
Except that the designs spread beyond Banson.  Liao, granted kissing cousin, and Dragon's Fury both had Raiders of various marks.  Not sure if they showed up in the book the same way or not.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 13 June 2015, 00:23:36
They also had Industrialmechs with retrofitted missile pods and autocannons.  None of the original factions (except the Highlanders) were official military units so they were forced make do with whatever was available, including turkeys like the Raider.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: kaliban on 25 February 2019, 08:20:19
So, if I'm hetzering these, I spring the Raider from an ambush position, use its built up heat and activated TSM to fall back  to a new position, let it cool down and then spring it from ambush again?

Industrial TSM are always on, no heat needed, but it penalizes your to-hit numbers with a +2 in melee.

I have being trying a few Industrial Mechs design. The one more successful is a little 15ton, fuel cell engined, with no TSM for lowest cost. For some 800kcbill, you have light armor, 2 RL-10, 2 MGs and 5/8 speed. It is effective against infantry and light vehicles .
I also tried a 100 ton design with 2 AC20 and a Hatchet for 40dmg (with industrial TSM). It requires a fusion engine to allow jump jet and to be effective as a urban fighter.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Kojak on 26 February 2019, 16:30:14
Seeing this thread resurrected just bums me out that GreekFire doesn't come around anymore. That guy was awesome.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 26 February 2019, 23:27:30
I finally realized something.  The Raider is the Bob Semple (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank) of mechs.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 27 February 2019, 00:38:49
I finally realized something.  The Raider is the Bob Semple (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank) of mechs.
pretty much. where the other Industrial MOD's are good analogs for Technicals, Guntrucks, and other such vehicles, the Raider's rather severe flaws put it into a category of its own.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Moonsword on 15 March 2019, 13:03:58
I think I missed this article the first time around.  While it's great writing - bravo! - this is indisputably the worst BattleMech design I've ever seen published.  Yes, the Mjolnir is pretty terrible, but at least the Mjolnir doesn't blow up if something with Infernos gives it a stern look and it's fast enough to be at least semi-credible as a scout/spotter, however much you should really avoid using that mace if possible.

pretty much. where the other Industrial MOD's are good analogs for Technicals, Guntrucks, and other such vehicles, the Raider's rather severe flaws put it into a category of its own.

Yeeeeeeep.  The Arbiter - at least the AC/5 variant - is actually not that bad.  It's basically Vedette: The IndustrialMech.  I mean, yeah, Vedettes aren't great, but a lance of them is at least something to use as a cavalry screen and mobile fire support platform.

That's an insult to Hetzers everywhere! :D

Lance-on-lance, I'll take two standard and two LRM or AC/10 Hetzers over two each of the Raider variants, best two out of three.  (The other match, QuikScell quality control means the wheels fall off when the driver swerves to avoid a pothole.)
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: JPArbiter on 23 March 2019, 16:41:11
It’s interesting, but in alpha strike, the useability of the raider mk I goes up dramatically. Consider the following

Thanks to the Juggernaught role, a lance of raiders can be considered an assault lance, and thus have the demoralizer ability.

Tsm dosn’t care what provides mel. You can have a single spike on the head and get mel. So th dual circ saw gets the benefit for a 4 damage melee in addition for a 10 inch move.

You can score this lance for 60 points if they are skill 5. That is the cost of a single Dire Wolf. A nice low cost option for urban psychologial warfare
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 March 2019, 16:45:42
Yeah, but in Alpha Strike, a lot of dumpster fire mechs become usable.
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: JPArbiter on 23 March 2019, 16:46:50
Yes, that was my point
Title: Re: ’Mech of the Week: Raider and Raider Mk II
Post by: Weirdo on 24 March 2019, 01:29:59
Sounds like it's ideal for pirates who want to scare defenders into disarray so they can more easily go after loot.