BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Articles => Topic started by: Jellico on 12 April 2013, 20:58:04
-
And here it begins. The first of a series of special early otWs based on TRO3145.
In the Nagasawa the Sea Foxes have a sleek and deadly new product for sale. First launched in 3115 they were theoretically built to protect the Foxes’ ArcShips but the merchants have been trading them to any Clan willing to buy them. The effect is that we can expect this to be a “common” Clan assault ship in the Dark Age.
So just what does the Nagasawa offer that the Clans don’t have already? The Nagasawa is 60% bigger than the Noruff with 70% more protection. Thrust and firepower are remarkably similar. The key difference is the Nagasawa is in production while the Noruff doesn’t have seemed to have survived the Reaving. The other contender is the Isegrim. More than twice the size but with less armor the big Wolf DropShip has 60% more firepower. It seems the two ships have very different roles. While the Isegrim is obviously about firepower in large amounts, the Nagasawa at times feels anemic. On the other hand it is undoubtedly hard to kill. Highly mobile with heavy AMS batteries and armor normally seen on ships three times its size means the Nagasawa is more likely to be disarmed than outright killed. This brings up an interesting problem noted in testing. With three weapon bays per arc, the Nagasawa seems uniquely vulnerable to weapon crits. Mostly this isn’t a problem; few enemies can crack a 50 point threshold. But a foe armed with Sub-Capital weapons has a chance of an easy mission kill.
Too small to effectively mount Sub-Capital weapons the Nagasawa makes use of lightweight, Clantech, super weapons. The centerpiece of the offensive package is the RAC5 bay. 100 points of ballistic damage coming your way. Testing has shown it to be vulnerable to jamming so picking a lesser rate of fire may be advisable. All of the weapon bays are high damage with the biggest concentrated in the nose. The aft batteries are long and extreme ranged discouraging tail gating.
Finally I should mention the ancillary features. The cargo bay is reasonably sized. Unlike the Noruff there is a Small Craft bay meaning the mother ship doesn’t have to be risked in boarding actions. No marines are carried but given the most likely Small Craft (the NL-45) uses a Battle Armor Bay it can maintain its marines for extended periods using the Nagasawa’s resources. The Nagasawa can’t enter atmosphere so no 300 point strafing runs.
So, how to use a Nagasawa? On its own or with aerospace fighters a Nagasawa can have some difficulty achieving a quick kill. It’s all about persistence and using the high thrust rating to keep nailing those vulnerable angles. As part of a task force it is a little more interesting. Compared to an Aesir the Nagasawa clearly falls into the cheap and expendable range. In aerospace combat you can’t physically stop an enemy but you can irritate them so badly they have no choice but to engage. With its zombie nature a Nagasawa can annoy even a WarShip so the high value/high firepower units can engage and retreat unopposed.
How to defeat a Nagasawa? Clan weapons and heavy armor make this DropShip terrifying, but it is still a 3000 ton DropShip. In combat testing a pair of Lung Wang P2s were able to defeat a single Nagasawa simply because they had the firepower to inflict heavy, bracketed, Sub-Capital damage while the Nagasawa could never quite get the quick kill it needed to even the battle up. Exploit that vulnerability ruthlessly. Deny it a quick kill and wear the Nagasawa down.
-
Actually, I was surprised that the Nagasawa was just a plain old assault dropship and not a pocket warship. Good ship but I do think it could use more firepower.
-
Actually, I was surprised that the Nagasawa was just a plain old assault dropship and not a pocket warship. Good ship but I do think it could use more firepower.
I think that's the secret behind it being sold- it's not too powerful or too useful, but it's a jack-of-all-trades that appeals to everyone and anyone without threatening the Diamond Foxes.
-
I don't know about fighting PWS with a Nagasawa, but maybe you could counter fighters with it? With that massive forward bay I'd think you could wipe most fighters from the sky quickly, which would be handy for protecting more expensive assets.
-
It is a three thousand ton DropShip.
246 tons goes to weapon systems, 90 tons to armor and 1464 tons to engines.
The lightest Clantech Sub Capital weapon system is the Piranha. The missile launcher weighs 100 tons and is required to carry ten 10 ton missiles. A 200 ton weapon system.
The closest comparison I can think of is the two thousand six hundred ton Lung Wang P2.
932 tons goes to weapon systems. 46 tons goes to armor and 845 tons to engines.
Those three SCL3s weigh 250 tons each.
The Nagasawa can throw 251 points foward to 20 hexes.
Because it is a spheroid the Lung Wang can manage 154 at the same range. Closer in it can manage 178. It is a more accurate because of the sub capital weapons, but it has no chance of controlling the range.
So, what is the lesson? Clantech is insanely, brutally effective. At these weights trying to be a PWS is a downgrade rather than a positive. You don't have the spare mass to carry enough weapons to make sub capitals useful.
More interestingly the Nagasawa shows the limits of up-armoring. It is undergunned. It can't kill a peer in a sensible period of time. This is well worth remembering when desigining your own bricks for tactical and fun gameplay reasons.
-
I like the Nagasawa, but I don't it's a weird one.
The more I look at it the more I think - perfect escort ship - put three of these with a convoy and don't worry about it unless a big WarShip interferes. Those Laser AMS bays providing excellent cover while the DropShips themselves can chase down fighters and enemy DropShips.
As a strike ship though you seem to need two or three of them to really make a move against Pocket WarShips.
I look at some of the modern Pocket WarShips and think I can kill... I look at this one and think I could chase that, I could avoid that, I could peck at that
-
I see her as escort, powerful and less expensive than a heavy artillery firing Pocket WarShip.
Thing is, i don't think when people play in a time period, that they take into account how common support certain units. Nagasawa's weapon systems (aside from the Clan RACs) are pretty common weapons produced by the Clans.
Where you have the Lung Wang P2s and Isegrims who are armed with Sub-Capital weaponry which are rare. Or you'd think so in this age of downsizing forces. Making ammunition like Sub-Cap missiles being rather expensive to produce. But Were still in age of FASAnomics, so anything goes I guess.
-
Well, PWS are still cheaper than actual warships.
This Article actually kinda spurred my interest in buying the new TRO, which flew completely beneath my radar.
-
...More interestingly the Nagasawa shows the limits of up-armoring. It is undergunned. It can't kill a peer in a sensible period of time. This is well worth remembering when desigining your own bricks for tactical and fun gameplay reasons.
This makes me wonder how a star of these acting as a wolfpack would work in a larger battle. With five of them working together they should be able to gut most small vessels in short order while their speed and armor let them get very aggressive even with large vessels in play.
-
How the dithers did it end up with the Un-streamlined quirk?
-
It's not usable in atmosphere anyway, so does it matter?
-
The Un-streamlined quirk is what makes it unable to enter the atmosphere.
-
Ah.
-
Doesn't that quirk make it difficult for dropships to... drop things? Or for Aerospace fighters to actually have 'Aero' functionality?
-
Yup. Fortunately, the Nagasawa needs to do neither, being strictly a space superiority platform.
-
To be honest, I'd want my assault DropShip to be able to enter the atmosphere and support the troops, just in case, but I can see why the Sea Foxes wouldn't think that's needed (IIRC, a couple of the "assault" DropShips have been fluffed as being unable to enter the atmosphere, perhaps due to the need to reconfigure the interior when they get into the atmosphere).
I was going to say that the biggest flaw with the Nagasawa is its heat capabilities. With an Aerodyne, especially in the world of heavily armored Pocket WarShips, you really want to be able to put all your forward guns on a single target. The Nagasawa can't seem to do that without using advanced heat rules.
Fortunately it can. While the TRO entry seems to be in error with regards to the wing arc heat, the actual record sheet is not.
And so the Nagasawa can fire all 3 forward arcs at a single target when it lines up just right. There's even enough spare heatsinks to get an extra round of firing from one of your AMS if you're so inclined.
-
I don't think this thing has any 'Mech bays, so it entering the atmosphere is pretty pointless
-
... You have obviously not received the 'love' an assault dropper can rain down. Much riskier, and arguably not as cool as Ortillery, but quite pants-wettingly terrifying all the same.
-
Which may be why OOCly a bunch of the Assault Droppers are fluffed as not being able to handle the atmosphere. A couple of passes by an assault DropShip might make things messy.
Hmm. When Striking and Strafing, does a DropShip use individual weapons, or is it done by bays?
-
The more important question is whether the same 20 points of damage cause a lawn dart roll? To find targets worth a DropShip means defended targets that can easily lawn dart you.
-
The more important question is whether the same 20 points of damage cause a lawn dart roll? To find targets worth a DropShip means defended targets that can easily lawn dart you.
This is exactly why I prefer PWSs for orbital bombardment rather than assault ships for direct ground attack. Sure you get lots of style points and make a mess of whatever you go after, but it is far too easy to loose the very expensive dropper in the process (unless you had a ship with enough armor to survive a failed lawn dart roll).
-
(unless you had a ship with enough armor to survive a failed lawn dart roll)
Pretty sure the Nagasawa falls under that category. If I can crash a Corsair with only moderate damage and te fighter remaining combat-effective afterwards, I'm pretty sure something as tough as a Nagasawa can handle it if you do it right.
(Hint: Velocity at the time of crash ia a big part of crash damage.)
-
Just do not smoosh Alcatraz on the way down.
-
Doesn't that quirk make it difficult for dropships to... drop things? Or for Aerospace fighters to actually have 'Aero' functionality?
I think the fluff in (strat ops, was it?) explained that originally, the "drop" in dropship came from the fact that it was dropped from the JumpShip, rather than having the cargo be mostly stowed on board or in small craft bays.
Fluff-wise, the Nagasawa is a scaled-up Noruff, so it makes sense that this design, like that one, is incapable of entering the atmosphere. Frankly, even for space superiority droppers, I like the flexibility of being able to land for repairs or even to hide out.
What about fighter interdiction? A Nagasawa has less firepower than you'd think, but more than enough for dealing with fighter squadrons, especially heavies which can't out-maneuver it but also can't go toe-to-toe. It has the maneuverability and armor, certainly. The AMS is incredibly useful for screening both itself and others. By the same logic, it doesn't take a lot of damage to kill many transport DropShips. Keep your PWSs and fighters fighting one another, while your Nagasawas have the thrust and survivability to dart in and culling the targets. The battle taxi only drives this home.
Haven't tried one in practice yet, so this is pure theory. I miss the Noruff, so I'm glad something is filling its niche. And while I like subcaps, I'm glad there's something that doesn't carry them.
-
Might I suggest the new dropship classification of... unAerodyne? :D
-
Hmm. When Striking and Strafing, does a DropShip use individual weapons, or is it done by bays?
Unless I'm missing a "but" or "In this case" for Striking and Strafing, it seems everything is done by the Bay. Ouch.
-
Sorry to sound confused. I've played my balance of AT2 games from WarShips, DropShips and Fighters (those deadly Squadrons from beginning of the rules.) What heck is the Lawn Dart Check?
-
Long story short: If you're on the Low Altitude Map or Ground Map and you get hit by anything at all, you must make a control roll at the end of the turn or lose 1d6 altitude levels. Most ground attacks must be done from Altitude 5 or lower, so you can see the hazards here, and why it's called the Lawn Dart Check. This is why avoiding AA is so important. Also why for ground AA units, range is far more important than actual damage, since simply hitting the target can often do the trick.
If this fills you with dismay, fear not. It's not as bad as it sounds. the control roll isn't actually all that hard. Also, there's an optional rule in StratOps that allows you to ignore any hits that do not beat your armor's threshold.
-
If this fills you with dismay, fear not. It's not as bad as it sounds. the control roll isn't actually all that hard. Also, there's an optional rule in StratOps that allows you to ignore any hits that do not beat your armor's threshold.
Really? For a Regular pilot (5 skill) the base TN starts at 7 (5+2 for being in the atmosphere) doesn't it?
Its not hard, but I wouldn't call it easy.
I do like the SO rule that changes it so you only make the Control roll if the damage exceeds the Threshold, or if an Avionics or Control hit is taken. Though that can be an issue with things like HAGs and LB-Xs. "I hit you with two HAG 40s, but I never thresholded you..."
-
When my group was playing, we usually used the optional rules that used the Radar Map, which simplified things bit. When we had to do attack, it was usually a Strike instead of a strafing run. My pilot had natural attribute (aerospace pilot) so i was rolling three dice instead of the usual 2D6.
On the other hand, it was kinda frustrating doing any kind of attack, since my group tend gets confused with Altitude (half-hexes) and the ground defender not having deal with the movement of the fighter, only usually (I'm aerospace fighter bonus) protecting me from being outright shot down.
-
Really? For a Regular pilot (5 skill) the base TN starts at 7 (5+2 for being in the atmosphere) doesn't it?
-1 for ASFs and Shuttles. Makes for a bit of nerve-testing when you throw the dice, but not too bad at all for my tastes. My rules is to avoid any AA that could possibly make that worse through crits or 20+ damage whenever possible.
It is pretty hairy for DropShips, which is why I won't use them for close air support unless the fate of my ground forces depends on it, or they give me a truly juicy target, such as a full Binary of Golems in a perfect strafing line.
-
-1 for ASFs and Shuttles. Makes for a bit of nerve-testing when you throw the dice, but not too bad at all for my tastes. My rules is to avoid any AA that could possibly make that worse through crits or 20+ damage whenever possible.
It is pretty hairy for DropShips, which is why I won't use them for close air support unless the fate of my ground forces depends on it, or they give me a truly juicy target, such as a full Binary of Golems in a perfect strafing line.
Deliberately crashing into things is for WiGEs, not droppers that cost a couple hundred times more :)
-
This is a convoy escort, not a major frontline boat. She's a fast, high-slashing-damage ship like an Achilles or a Noruff. An Isegrim is three times the size, and may be as fast but that mass budget means you're going to horribly outgun the thing. And an Ise is loaded with anti-ship rounds; I'd look at them as a coast guard cutter and an FFG in modern parlance. One's loaded with lots of light weapons to deal with pirates, police work, small threats, and whatnot; while the other may not be THAT much bigger (considering aerodyne dropships can get into the tens of thousands of tons) it's still built to take on warships with high-caliber missiles.
Also, side note, has the new Total Warfare said anything about rates of fire rules changing for Aero? I know there's a lot of stuff in the document, but I didn't go through it very well. Jellico's comment about "Testing has shown it to be vulnerable to jamming so picking a lesser rate of fire may be advisable" made me wonder; I honestly don't know.
-
When I see the Nagasawa, I can't help but think of the old clan invasion joke on the Executioner.
"What can accelerate as fast as a Sagitarii, pack more armor than a squadron of Morgensterns, and pack more guns than a squadron of Shivas?"
"I don't know, and you ain't paying me enough to stick around and find out!"
-
More interestingly the Nagasawa shows the limits of up-armoring. It is undergunned. It can't kill a peer in a sensible period of time. This is well worth remembering when desigining your own bricks for tactical and fun gameplay reasons.
This line's bothered me, but I couldn't quite express why until now.
Even if the Nagasawa dropped all its armor, it wouldn't be drastically up-gunned. It is under-gunned against PWSs, but all that lost payload isn't going into armor, it's going into thrust. Even a minor reduction in thrust could vastly improve the weapons load. Though since I don't think PWSs are the intended targets, I'd be opposed to such a change.
When you have a group of Nagasawas operating together, they'll be concentrating their fire. All that armor enables them to resist a combined barrage from several opponents at once. Even the AMS can be shared across adjacent ships, if I recall, allowing them to resist a classic source of critical damage.
But for routine patrols, all that armor means that pirates, raiders, etc. can't simply wear them down. A Nagasawa just laughs and keeps going. At least with a fighter squadron, when you get some hits, people have the decency to die.
-
Also, side note, has the new Total Warfare said anything about rates of fire rules changing for Aero? I know there's a lot of stuff in the document, but I didn't go through it very well. Jellico's comment about "Testing has shown it to be vulnerable to jamming so picking a lesser rate of fire may be advisable" made me wonder; I honestly don't know.
Good catch! I just checked the errata thread and PDF and didn't find anything. As far as I know, this is still the Law of the Land:
Rapid-Fire Weapons: Rapid-fire weapons always fire at their maximum rate, and so players must check for jamming every time they use such weapons (see p. 114).
I'd love to hear differently.
-
Even if the Nagasawa dropped all its armor, it wouldn't be drastically up-gunned. It is under-gunned against PWSs, but all that lost payload isn't going into armor, it's going into thrust. Even a minor reduction in thrust could vastly improve the weapons load. Though since I don't think PWSs are the intended targets, I'd be opposed to such a change.
I would be very careful with that idea. Conventional weapons mean short range fights and a need to get to that range quickly. This in turn means. It is easy to forget the Isegrim is more than twice the mass. An Interdictor is three times the mass. Amongst the small DropShips, low thrust assaults like the Claymore and Kuan Ti are not well thought of.
-
I would be very careful with that idea. Conventional weapons mean short range fights and a need to get to that range quickly. This in turn means. It is easy to forget the Isegrim is more than twice the mass. An Interdictor is three times the mass. Amongst the small DropShips, low thrust assaults like the Claymore and Kuan Ti are not well thought of.
OK good point.... and I agree that you don't want this used in any form as a PWS killer.
What I mean is that the fact that it's a brick isn't what gimps the weapons load. It's the engines.
-
I know the Rotary has better firepower but wouldn't LBXs have suited this thing better if its a fighter hunter or can you not take cluster shots in aero?
-
Damage is averaged from what I understand, so a UAC/10 does something like . . . 13 or 14 per shot. LRM20s do about the same, LRM15s are like 9, and it continues from there. Special ammo does not matter I think.
Wondered the same thing until I heard that, because a LB-5X makes the most sense IMO for a conventional fighter . . . or perhaps a AC/2 or 5 with flak. But it does not work . . . though LBX on VTOLs is still viable.
-
Damage is averaged from what I understand, so a UAC/10 does something like . . . 13 or 14 per shot. LRM20s do about the same, LRM15s are like 9, and it continues from there. Special ammo does not matter I think.
Wondered the same thing until I heard that, because a LB-5X makes the most sense IMO for a conventional fighter . . . or perhaps a AC/2 or 5 with flak. But it does not work . . . though LBX on VTOLs is still viable.
What about a weapon with a native flak bonus? I mean, a bonus that applies even with normal armor?
-
Flak bonuses don't apply for air to air. Only ground to air. The notable exception is VTOL to air.
-
Flak bonuses don't apply for air to air. Only ground to air. The notable exception is VTOL to air.
Note: This rules is currently under review and may be changing.
-
And to think. I was just reading a post about ground to air getting easier and all I could think is how many more crutches to 'Mechwarriors need? Looks like they have trouble with the concept of weapon systems behaving differently at mach speeds as well.
-
Flak bonuses don't apply for air to air. Only ground to air. The notable exception is VTOL to air.
Note: This rules is currently under review and may be changing.
Ahhh... Aerospace rules are still a bit confusing to me. Good to know they're in flux.
-
So, I'm not all that familiar with the aero side of the game, but superficially, this looks like a slightly larger clantech Dragau II. How do they actually stack up? I get that the Nagasawa should outrange and outlast the DII, but what if you're a buyer wih the option to purchase either? Is the price difference worth the capability gap? Etc.
-
Flak bonuses don't apply for air to air. Only ground to air. The notable exception is VTOL to air.
Actually, where is this rule? I've looked all through TW and can't find it anywhere. I mean, I believe you and all, but I'm not finding where it actually comes out and says it. All the references I've seen are to Flak getting a bonus vs airborne aerospace units... but it does not say anything about the firing unit.
Update: Is there anything newer than this (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,19663.0.html)? It seems pretty explicit that Flak does apply in air-to-air, and the errata make it absolutely clear.
Welshman, this is a year-old ruling... is what's being debated removing the Flak bonus for air-to-air?
-
Wow, that's pretty bizarre that they removed the -1 for TCs with the HAG. It doesn't make a lot of sense. I get a -1 bonus for firing a cluster of rounds at a `mech, but I don't get a -1 for firing a cluster of rounds at a VTOL? Its not like the HAG has a different firing mode like a LB-X or anything.
Why change something that's been fine since TW came out? (Clarifying the Flak rules, sure. But changing something?)
-
Catalyst does a constant analysis of the game rules and their impact in game play. We get a lot of input from Demo Team agents and other venues.
The reasons for updating the Flak rules are many and detailed and not something Catalyst will lay out. I can tell you, no rules get changed without a very extensive review.
While you may have not seen an issue with an rule that has been updated over the years, you can assume others have. We don't change rules arbitrarily.
Thank you,
Joel BC
BattleTech
-
You know, this thing might be a very nice "escort" for a fighter strike. It's got the armor that you can't kill it easily, the speed to keep up, and the firepower to make most other small units have to pay attention to it.
-
-1 for ASFs and Shuttles. Makes for a bit of nerve-testing when you throw the dice, but not too bad at all for my tastes. My rules is to avoid any AA that could possibly make that worse through crits or 20+ damage whenever possible.
It is pretty hairy for DropShips, which is why I won't use them for close air support unless the fate of my ground forces depends on it, or they give me a truly juicy target, such as a full Binary of Golems in a perfect strafing line.
This is why I would prefer to use the Strat ops rules, so that the smaller weapons are less likely to cause a lawn dart check.
Though one would think that a dropship would have an easier time of handling an impact than a fighter ~1/20th it's mass...