Vehicle of the Week: Glory Fire Support Vehicle

[Moonsword]

Vehicle of the Week: Glory Fire Support Vehicle

Another one of the early RAC vehicles, the Glory was developed by Johnston Industries, long the manufacturer of the Goblin.  As the only company to submit a fire support design, something the AFFS was looking for to round out their forces, Johnston's Glory was readily approved for testing just on the eve of the Federated Commonwealth Civil War.  The need for existing hardware forced them to sideline the program until early 3067 with production only beginning to reach the Syrtis Fusiliers, with plans for further production to meet demand despite some enigmatic incidents believed to be sabotage.  Critics have protested that the Manteuffel and Ajax make the Glory superfluous, although the lower cost compared to the Ajax could easily give it a niche... if it has the time to get into it, of course.  Exactly how badly derailed all of this was by the Jihad is unknown but judging from one of the dossiers in the Dark Age, Johnston apparently managed to keep production going on, with units serving in both the AFFS and the Coalition.  Exactly how is an open question at this point.

At 85 tons, there's only two choices, treads or naval vessels, and we're not talking about a boat.  The Strand 255 fusion engine, probably best known for its long history on the Stalker series, offers it the typical 54 kph top speed of vehicles this size.  It's also nicely cheap compared to the vehicles it's been compared to, something that the Treasury probably appreciated.  Overall, Johnston borrowed a lot of component designs from the Goblin, but engineered something much different.  The armor, Durallex “Heavy” (read: branded standard) Ferro-Fibrous, is considerable, getting nearly to being twice as thick with 14 tons arranged 60/50/31/60.  You're far from indestructible, of course, but it's going to take a reasonable amount of pounding to put you down.  The turret holds a class 5 rotary autocannon fed by only two tons of ammunition and a pair of 15 tube LRM racks linked to Artemis IV modules with four tons of ammunition between them.  To provide some sort of utility as your ammo goes low, a pair of ERMLs were fitted to the front, and a Guardian ECM suite gives you considerable electronic defenses.  For those interested, there's 35.5 tons of gear in here with a 30 ton capacity turret; the Ajax has 42 tons of pod space and a 35 ton capacity turret along with heavier (standard) armor, so it's really not coming off as badly in terms of basic design against the Ajax.

The only known variant was the original prototype design, employing a light Gauss rifle instead of the lasers.  While the range is useful to a fire support platform and it does decently well against heavy 'Mechs as part of a fire lance, the lack of close-in firepower on a vehicle that can't even pretend to control the range against most threats isn't precisely reassuring.  Being completely ammo dependent isn't really something I like to see on fusion-powered units, either, although with an LGR's ammo endurance, that weapon is likely to suffer for it more in campaigns than individual battlefields.

This one operates like a lot of other slow assault tanks: Get into your firing position and be prepared to stay there.  You want at least 14 or 15 hexes of clear firing possibilities to exploit the LRMs and LGRs.  In practice, the firepower works well, especially if someone forgot to bring ECM to blunt the Artemis suites.  Have a plan to deal with close-range fighters, even if it's just a Hetzer parked nearby to sprint at someone trying to close.  The original has my usual caveats about RAC fire rates and tempting Murphy (no rapid shots on 12s, etc.).  Try to keep the LGR model back a bit.  The reach it has can give it a surprising amount of use against brawlers and snipers.

There's a right way and a wrong way to counter Glories.  The right way involves disabling them (crit-seekers, especially LB 10-Xs or SB Gauss rifles, will aid considerably) and massed fire.  The wrong involves letting them get into position, then sit there and thunder fire at you without evasive maneuvering or attempts to beat them down.  That never ends well.  They're not invincible.  They're not even necessarily hard to kill, although you'll need to bring enough firepower to do it.  But they're 85 ton tanks, they have plenty of guns, and they will break things and hurt people if they're given a chance to do it.  Charging the variant isn't a bad answer as long as you can get close enough but trying it against the original may just be setting you up for a 6 shot welcome call from the RAC.

References: The Master Unit List has yet to include TRO3067 units, waiting on a Catalyst record sheet to be released, but the BattleTech Wiki has an image of it along with the dossier on the unit.  The miniature on display at CamoSpecs is for the 42nd Avalon Hussars.

[Greyhind]

To be honest, I'm not terribly impressed. I like my assault tanks to be a bit more like the Ontos in terms of raw firepower. I like my support tanks to be a little bit more disposable. Fire power is all right, armour is more than generous but it needs more speed.

There are places it could skimp a little. The ECM is nice but not that nice (having it on a variant or just assigning a bodyguard would do). The armour is a bit too strong considering that it has been cast in the fire support role. A drop in tonnage and price and possibly a rise in speed (or, as I suspect, impossibly) could be just what the doctor ordered. An I.C.E. or fuel cell engine might have been good but on an assault tank its very much apples and oranges in regards to feel and actual board game usage so I'm not too fussed in that regard.

The RAC could use a couple of tons more ammo, the ERMLs aren't doing much. Hint, hint. I like the LRMs (yeah, yeah. I know I've just been suggesting ways to lower the weight but arty is a nice system when used well and the enemy doesn't have ECM) and I like the amount of ammo they have just as much.

I approve of the LGR model both as a concept and in how well done it is. That doesn't change the price tag, unfortunately. Or the fluff. Both of which might prompt me to not use it.

I suppose the entire thing comes across as a flavour unit, to be used when I've already worked out the rest of my Davion combined arms force. Otherwise price (BV, not C-Bills) and utterly forgettable fluff have damned the unit to the eternal greyness that hundreds of other unts inhabit and which most never escape.

[Neufeld]

Thanks for the article.

I think Greyhind nailed most of the issues. Another design that is somewhat similar to the Glory, is the Winston due to both being heavily armored 3/5 tanks with dual LRM15s and some support weapons. Doing a comparison makes the lack of CASE on the Glory stand out.
 

[fltadm]

I wounder if insted of seeing it as a Tank one should look to it as part of a Suport Coy. in a Mech Inf. Rgt.

[Diablo48]

I have never used it myself, but it looks like one of the many designs out there that should deliver a solid but unspectacular performance if you decide to  bring it to the table which is perfectly fine by me when you consider the cost.  Really the only tweak I can see to make is swapping the ECM for CASE and another ton of ammo for the RAC, although being able to make a nice defensive ECM bubble for your allies is always nice.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

I wounder if insted of seeing it as a Tank one should look to it as part of a Suport Coy. in a Mech Inf. Rgt.

Given the ammo I'd consider them to be primarily missile boats, with a 'self escorting' option.  Instead of three missile boats and a Demolisher to punish anyone trying to get in under the minimums, buy four Glories and give them a RAC metal hailstorm if they try and rush you.

[Istal_Devalis]

I'm a bit peeved about this tank. Not because of its capabilities or fluff, but because of the need to CONSTANTLY correct the newcomers when this thing got made into a MW:DA unit.

"It's the GLORY, Fire Support vehicle, NOT the GLORY FIRE, Support Vehicle! Get it STRAIGHT already!"

[Moonsword]

I think Greyhind nailed most of the issues. Another design that is somewhat similar to the Glory, is the Winston due to both being heavily armored 3/5 tanks with dual LRM15s and some support weapons. Doing a comparison makes the lack of CASE on the Glory stand out.

CASE on vehicles is actually not as large a problem as it is on 'Mechs.  I don't like it, mind you, but vehicles don't suffer ammunition hits as often as 'Mechs do in my experience.

That aside, the Winston has several differences you need to keep in mind: It's an LFE-powered design with a targeting computer, less LRM ammo, and no Artemis IV.  They're comparable but the differences are important.

There are places it could skimp a little. The ECM is nice but not that nice (having it on a variant or just assigning a bodyguard would do). The armour is a bit too strong considering that it has been cast in the fire support role.

The armor is basically where it needs to be for the design from my own experience - not ridiculously thick but tough enough to stop fire long enough that you've got a good chance of shooting off most of your LRM ammo.  ECM is not something I'm fond of removing, either, although I'm not as against it.  Sure, in the base game it may not be doing anything, but with two suites, you can tune one to ghost targets and the other to keep jamming.  That's useful to have.

A drop in tonnage and price and possibly a rise in speed (or, as I suspect, impossibly) could be just what the doctor ordered. An I.C.E. or fuel cell engine might have been good but on an assault tank its very much apples and oranges in regards to feel and actual board game usage so I'm not too fussed in that regard.

Speed increases are not going to happen readily on an 85 ton tank, not without XLFEs or similarly expensive measures.  ICEs are going to cut immediately into weapons or armor tonnage.

The RAC could use a couple of tons more ammo, the ERMLs aren't doing much. Hint, hint. I like the LRMs (yeah, yeah. I know I've just been suggesting ways to lower the weight but arty is a nice system when used well and the enemy doesn't have ECM) and I like the amount of ammo they have just as much.

In my experience, the RAC is not useful enough to remove your only energy weapons.  It's nice but by the time you're ready to crank the fire rate up, the ERMLs are shooting at decent numbers, too, and they can do it without ammo or jamming risks.

To respond to your entire post, what you really seem to be looking for is something more like the heavy NLRM carrier in TRO Prototypes.  The ammo isn't quite as plentiful but the armor and cost are much more in line with what you're describing.  The Glory is in an odd middle ground between mid-range fighting (where you need the armor) and long-range fire support (which the heavy NLRM carrier is better for if you pick your shots).

I have never used it myself, but it looks like one of the many designs out there that should deliver a solid but unspectacular performance if you decide to  bring it to the table which is perfectly fine by me when you consider the cost.  Really the only tweak I can see to make is swapping the ECM for CASE and another ton of ammo for the RAC, although being able to make a nice defensive ECM bubble for your allies is always nice.

That modification is doable (and from a design standpoint, pragmatic) if you're after it, although it's a factory-level job by the book.  Solid but unspectacular describes the whole thing pretty well.

Given the ammo I'd consider them to be primarily missile boats, with a 'self escorting' option.  Instead of three missile boats and a Demolisher to punish anyone trying to get in under the minimums, buy four Glories and give them a RAC metal hailstorm if they try and rush you.

I've found two of the LGR model with two of the RAC variant give you a nice long-range sniping power without sacrificing that too badly.  If someone closes, the LGRs fall back while the RACs move in and point their fronts at them, then unload on them.

[A. Lurker]

CASE on vehicles is actually not as large a problem as it is on 'Mechs.  I don't like it, mind you, but vehicles don't suffer ammunition hits as often as 'Mechs do in my experience.

True enough up to a point. You basically have to hit a ground vehicle in the rear or turret (if one exists) to have a chance of an ammo hit at all, and the turret is functionally fairly crit-packed and padded against that, barring that roll of 11 coming up naturally.

That said, if I have the tech and especially a fusion-powered vehicle that already doesn't have to worry about fuel tank brewups anymore? CASE goes in. I don't need the lawyers of whatever the 31st-century descendant of OSHA might be at my door... ;)

[Moonsword]

Yes, it's definitely worth doing for the crew survivability, but vehicle crews are also generally less likely to die than MechWarriors are in my experience.  Exactly how representative that experience is, though, isn't something I'm really in a position to judge.

Like I said, I don't like it and I put it on when I have the opportunity, but it's not as large a problem as it is for 'Mechs, nor is it as useful to vehicles.  Given how rare it is, I'm also not really inclined to get too picky when I'm looking at canon designs simply because of how heavily it restricts your options.  Not everyone's in a position to send them back to the factories for major modifications like that.  (Granted, I don't like that particular ruling in StratOps, either.)

[Ian Sharpe]

One of the few slower tanks I like.  Its ranged firepower is only fair, but useful and can do IDF, and it can reasonably defend itself even if the ammo is a bit light for the RAC.  The ECM is more valuable for ghost targets than anything else, and can aid in it avoiding being hit.

[Jim1701]

As a cheaper alternative I'd look at a variant that drops the SFE and the lasers for a FCE.  You could add another ton or two of ammo for the RAC and probably add some armor.

A 255 SFE will cost you 19.5 tons with shielding.  A 255 FCE will only cost 16 tons.  Throw in the lasers and that gets you another 5.5 tons for upgrades.  You gotta love those fuel cells.  [rockon]

[Diablo48]

As a cheaper alternative I'd look at a variant that drops the SFE and the lasers for a FCE.  You could add another ton or two of ammo for the RAC and probably add some armor.

A 255 SFE will cost you 19.5 tons with shielding.  A 255 FCE will only cost 16 tons.  Throw in the lasers and that gets you another 5.5 tons for upgrades.  You gotta love those fuel cells.  [rockon]

That would work.  I am thinking CASE and another ton of ammo for the RAC would be a good place to start which leaves four tons which could be used in a lot of ways.  The easiest is to throw on a SRM 6 to make up for the loss in close range firepower, but I would also consider an anti-infantry Machine Gun/LMG blanket with at least one gun front, rear, left, and right with a half-ton of ammo and maybe more guns on the turret, however more armor, more LRM or RAC ammo, and a C3 Slave would also be good investments.  No matter what you decide to go with the price goes down, the survivability goes up, and the RAC can fire away without worrying about the ammo so it is a win no matter what you go with.

[Hellraiser]

I've found two of the LGR model with two of the RAC variant give you a nice long-range sniping power without sacrificing that too badly.  If someone closes, the LGRs fall back while the RACs move in and point their fronts at them, then unload on them.

That sir, is a nasty formation,   I approve !   [rockon]

I like the tank, I own 2 of the minis, 1 BT, 1 MWDA, and they are remarkably similar in size.  (A rarity w/ MWDA minis)

I'd like it to have CASE, and I always wonder about a RAC on a 3/5 unit.
But as part of a force I think it fits right in, the ECM protects everyone around it, the LRMs are a solid ranged choice, and anyone getting close has to deal w/ the RAC and ERMLs.

Nitpicks are minor really the CASE and the Front MLs, they would IMHO, be better off w/ a Turret mount which fits fine, or, even split them to L/R facings to act as crit absorbers.

[Welshman]

I've never used this unit, despite playing a lot of Davion formations. I always saw the RAC and slow movement combo as a major liability. Nikas_Zekeval may have just nailed it on the head. I look at the RAC as the primary weapon when it really is the backup weapon.

Use it as an LRM unit with it's own close defense and it makes a lot more sense.

Must give it a try.

[Moonsword]

That sir, is a nasty formation,   I approve !   [rockon]

I stumbled into it by mixing them to get a lance out there for testing.

[Diablo48]

I've never used this unit, despite playing a lot of Davion formations. I always saw the RAC and slow movement combo as a major liability. Nikas_Zekeval may have just nailed it on the head. I look at the RAC as the primary weapon when it really is the backup weapon.

Use it as an LRM unit with it's own close defense and it makes a lot more sense.

Must give it a try.

I am a big fan of pulling that trick in design.  People tend to look at big guns like a RAC or LB 20-X AC and see it as the big threat on a 'Mech or vehicle, but a slow long range assault machine can afford to grab one as a secondary weapon to draw attention away from the mass of LRMs, ERPPCs, and maybe even a Gauss Rifle (although this tends to draw unwanted attention) that you are really looking to kill them with so they will keep themselves at arms reach for you and think they are doing a good job staying away from your big gun.