Wolverine II

[Drewbacca]

I know not every design needs to be optimized, but given the tech available to the Star League, the Wolverine II seems to be a bit underwhelming for a Royal Mech. It seems to be laking in punch at ranges and in contrast to many mechs seems to have too much cooling capaity. Maybe it is just me, but it seems below standard compared to some of the other Royals. I would say even the Royal Sentinel is a bit better given its harder punch, though that one is mighty squishy.

[Empyrus]

It is a tougher Wolverine, a better Wolverine. Don't see what's bad about that. It has better range overall and more firepower at 10+ hexes. Better close range firepower, and since the it is a 5/8/5 design, it has no major issues keeping that range. More armor and CASE is good.
Royals don't need only the best weapons (like loading Gauss rifles to Sentinels), they also need toughness, cavalry options, whatever. Compared to many others, the Wolverine II is an affordable upgrade.

I figure that if one likes the base Wolverine, like i do, then one likes the Wolverine II. It is a no nonsense upgrade.

[Drewbacca]

It is a tougher Wolverine, a better Wolverine. Don't see what's bad about that. It has better range overall and more firepower at 10+ hexes. Better close range firepower, and since the it is a 5/8/5 design, it has no major issues keeping that range. More armor and CASE is good.
Royals don't need only the best weapons (like loading Gauss rifles to Sentinels), they also need toughness, cavalry options, whatever. Compared to many others, the Wolverine II is an affordable upgrade.

I figure that if one likes the base Wolverine, like i do, then one likes the Wolverine II. It is a no nonsense upgrade.

I guess my main problem is the Ultra AC/5. Never been a fan of that weapon.

[Phocion]

As a a straight upgrade to the AC5, the ultra is it.  I wouldnt consider the LBX5 an upgrade as such, more of a sidegrade.  Rotary AC5 is great, but also much later tech, with attendant weight and reliability issues.

The Wolverine is my favorite mech, its just a shame that there are relatively few earlier (3055ish) upgrade variants that really capitalised on those SW era designs successes.  The 7D was decent, although the XL engine is a liability and the MPL didnt make much sense, an ERML would have improved the chassis.  Also Streak tech was slow to be introduced to IS designs, and Wolverines like many fast cavalry designs, with limited tonnage for ammo would have benefitted, although theres a hefty weight premium to be paid for upgrading an SRM6 to a streak 6 pack.  Artemis is decent, but still ammo inefficient for something that can only carry a single ton of ammo.

My current favorite variant is the 9M, although thats a point in the FWL’s favor, not the FedSuns’, despite it being ‘their’ design.  Although it breaks the ballistic main armament tradition, it does so for the best of reasons.  A strong main punch from the HPPC, a streak 6 pack, and an ERML (yay!).

With all that in mind, the Wolverine II seems like a natural all round improvement.  It does everything the original 6R did, only better. Yes, its oversinked but the Wolverine variants benefit massively from jump and being able to jumping alpha strike to your hearts content is a powerful option. Still got a stupid pulse laser though!!!!  ???

[Empyrus]

Still got a stupid pulse laser though!!!!  ???

Given that during the Star League era the Wolverine II shouldn't have major issues maintaining a close range to the target (EDIT I'm assuming the prey is something slower probably), the pulse laser is pure upgrade. More damage and better or no loss of accuracy. Beyond the pulse laser range, you can always double tap the AC and maintain the original Wolverine's firepower. (And regular pilots will have difficulties hitting at long range bracket anyhow.)

[Phocion]

Given that during the Star League era the Wolverine II shouldn't have major issues maintaining a close range to the target (EDIT I'm assuming the prey is something slower probably), the pulse laser is pure upgrade. More damage and better or no loss of accuracy. Beyond the pulse laser range, you can always double tap the AC and maintain the original Wolverine's firepower. (And regular pilots will have difficulties hitting at long range bracket anyhow.)

Everything you said makes sense, and the Wolverine II is objectively better overall.  However the pitiful range on the MPL as well as the lack of ammo for the UAC5 on the other UAC armed variants, such as the 7D, reduces that option somewhat.  I have also found that the ERML gives you better tactical flexibility and brackets better with the UAC5.  It means you dont have to close, to use more of your weaponry.  The MPL definitely has advantages, and on other Wolfy variants it makes perfect sense, the 7K or 7M, for example, which are both knife-fighter designs.  Neither the 7H or 7D struck me as close in designs given their use of the UAC5 as primary weapon. 

Whilst we are on the subject.  One thing I dont quite get is whether the 7H was actually the same chassis as the other Wolverine variants.  The 6R at least uses the Crucis-A chassis as, I assume, do other variants - cant see anything on Sarna or MUL to say otherwise.  But it is significantly different in appearance as well as armament placement - the laser is above the head, for example, rather than the chin mount of the other Wolverines, and the SRM is buried in the torso, not over the shoulder.  So there is a possibility that it used a different chassis to the rest.  Not sure if that makes any objective difference, its just that if you took the tech of the 7H and stuffed it into an existing post Clan-invasion Wolverine chassis, as a custom upgrade, you would get the same performance on a different looking mech.  Not sure if, when they had the tech to start to reproduce old star league era designs, they would reproduce the appearance as well...... 

[Empyrus]

Everything you said makes sense, and the Wolverine II is objectively better overall.  However the pitiful range on the MPL as well as the lack of ammo for the UAC5 on the other UAC armed variants,

I'll note i was talking only about the Wolverine II, not the others. No comment on them.

Whilst we are on the subject.  One thing I dont quite get is whether the 7H was actually the same chassis as the other Wolverine variants.  the 6R at least uses the Crucis-A chassis as, I assume, do other variants - cant see anything on Sarna or MUL to say that says it wasnt, but it is significantly different in appearance as well as armament placement - the laser is above the head, for example, rather than the chin mount of the other Wolverines.  So there is a possibility that it used a different chassis to the rest.  Not sure if that makes any objective difference, its just that if you took the tech of the 7H and stuffed it into an existing post Clan-invasion Wolverine chassis, you would get the same performance on a different looking mech.  Not sure if, when they started to reproduce old star league era designs, they would reproduce the appearance as well......

The Wolverine II uses Crucis-XL per Historical: Operation Klondike.
The write-up there describes other changes too, the Wolverine II is a complete re-design. It is in the name really to boot, no other Wolverine variant is called "II".

(Fun historical note, the Wolverine II actually originates in the original Star League book, it was a throwaway mention along the Atlas II.)

[SteelRaven]

I guess my main problem is the Ultra AC/5. Never been a fan of that weapon.

Yeah, that makes or breaks the design for many.

[The_Livewire]

Oh she's a beautiful looking machine, I prefer her over the new-seen Wolverine actually.  Loses a bit too many quirks I think (should have the torso twist extension trait).

I rarely fire the Ultra in practice, my dice seem to hate Ultra cannons.  But she's cool running and a good heavy scout.  The ability to (in theory) throw two five point shots out against the bug mech's also makes her a good scout hunter to keep them from getting away.

[Luciora]

People can house-rule out the jamming, you won't get your gaming license and gaming paraphernalia taken away by force you know.

[Colt Ward]

The Wolverine II IMO suffers from having to slot in between the WVR-6R and the WVR-7D/7M/7K so you cannot really go radical with it.  A single ballistic main gun, single medium laser and single short range rack . . . this is what you end up with following those guidelines.  The design choices were very specific to create something that was similar to the 'recovered' WVR-7D which was closest to the Star League's Wolverine but still different because of the Helm tech.  Whoever designed it did a excellent job IMO since it is easily placed in the logical progression and avoids the power creep of some Royals.

Someone mentioned the LB-5X earlier, but it was not available in the Star League era as were other choices to make it 'different.'

[Nastyogre]

People can house-rule out the jamming, you won't get your gaming license and gaming paraphernalia taken away by force you know.

Just allow jam clearance like a rotary. I don't think it is game breaking. You could add that Ultra's are permanently jammed on a roll of 2 to hit so the rotary still shows an advance with the ability to always clear jams. If that's not a big enough handicap, add that on a 2 to hit roll followed by rolling an 8+ 2 rounds detonate in the cannon, destroying the cannon, dealing 10 points internal damage (with the requisite chance for additional crits) and dealing 1 point of feedback damage to the mechwarrior. Rotaries are still superior to Ultra's but ultra's aren't so dumb and to cripple themselves so often.

Ultra's fixed.

[Retry]

You could add that Ultra's are permanently jammed on a roll of 2 to hit so the rotary still shows an advance with the ability to always clear jams.

Err.... what are you suggesting then?  That's exactly how it works right now.

If that's not a big enough handicap, add that on a 2 to hit roll followed by rolling an 8+ 2 rounds detonate in the cannon, destroying the cannon, dealing 10 points internal damage (with the requisite chance for additional crits) and dealing 1 point of feedback damage to the mechwarrior. Rotaries are still superior to Ultra's but ultra's aren't so dumb and to cripple themselves so often.

Ultra's fixed.

Now I'm really confused.  Your suggestion for "fixing" the UAC is to change the failure mode from jamming itself to uselessness to a failure mode of catastrophic weapon destruction + internal damage + pilot injury?  Is the UAC too good?

Generally I think house-rule fixes should lean on the simpler side, but anyways that little tangent should probably be in the designs portion of the forum rather than here.

I figure that if one likes the base Wolverine, like i do, then one likes the Wolverine II. It is a no nonsense upgrade.

I'm one who likes the base Wolverine (though I really like the variants with the Large Laser) but don't care for the upgrade.

The UAC/5 is a decent, small upgrade to the original 6R model.  But to use it to its full potential requires rapid-firing which also risks jamming, not great.  Otherwise it's a heavier AC/5 with slightly more favorable range brackets.  I'd *almost* prefer a regular AC/5 with special ammo at that point.

The SRM-6 pack gets Artemis IV.  It's a small, marginal upgrade, but only if you load the right ammo, else it's effectively dead weight.  On the Energy Wolverines (6K, 6M) I liked to fill the missiles with specialty ammo like infernos & fragmentations, and use the lasers for everyday fighting, but you can't really do that for the AC/5 boats.  In this case, I'd have much rather had either more missile tubes, or streak tubes instead.

The MPL is okay, strictly speaking it's better than a single ML at ranges 6 and lower.  But at that weight you can get 2 medium lasers, which would be significantly better than the MPL in general, and you could get that by re-arranging the equipment, consolidating the ammo, and losing one of the CASEs.

Basically the Wolverine II is a better Wolverine, but considering it's being built on an endo-steel frame with ferro-fibrous armor and other fancy doo-dads I was hoping for something more than what's essentially a marginal enhancement.

[The_Livewire]

Basically the Wolverine II is a better Wolverine, but considering it's being built on an endo-steel frame with ferro-fibrous armor and other fancy doo-dads I was hoping for something more than what's essentially a marginal enhancement.

It still fills a low heat design in a batch (the royals as a whole) that can get pretty toasty.  I'd have preferred It get the LB10X rather than the Royal Shadow Hawk.  Same range as the AC/5, two tons of ammo for same payload, plus with it being a heavy scout the cluster is heck on scouting VTOLs, vehicles and a bit more useful if you run across infantry. 

[Colt Ward]

The SRM-6 pack gets Artemis IV.  It's a small, marginal upgrade, but only if you load the right ammo, else it's effectively dead weight.  On the Energy Wolverines (6K, 6M) I liked to fill the missiles with specialty ammo like infernos & fragmentations, and use the lasers for everyday fighting, but you can't really do that for the AC/5 boats.  In this case, I'd have much rather had either more missile tubes, or streak tubes instead.

What?  You want this thing to have 2 SSRM2s?  You get another single ton & crit to use somewhere- this thing is crit packed btw.  No thanks . . . the standard racks are better than Streaks anyway b/c you can keep them mission adaptable.  I would go for the 2nd, which would be to put 2 SRM4s instead of 6+ArtIV but its not the 'higher tech' Royal that way.


The MPL?  When it gets to close quarters, it allows you to be more accurate in a jumping brawl.

[Retry]

What?  You want this thing to have 2 SSRM2s?  You get another single ton & crit to use somewhere- this thing is crit packed btw.  No thanks . . . the standard racks are better than Streaks anyway b/c you can keep them mission adaptable.  I would go for the 2nd, which would be to put 2 SRM4s instead of 6+ArtIV but its not the 'higher tech' Royal that way.

3 SSRM2s.  Consolidating the ammo to one zone lets you remove 1 CASE which gets you that spare half-ton and crit.

The MPL?  When it gets to close quarters, it allows you to be more accurate in a jumping brawl.

At ranges 1, 2, and 4 only.  Ranges 3 and 5-9 belong to the Medium Laser array.

[SteelRaven]

Keep in mind we have ever other flavor of Wolverine in other TRO's/RS, the Ultra 5 was the only thing not done yet.

[Ruger]

Keep in mind we have ever other flavor of Wolverine in other TRO's/RS, the Ultra 5 was the only thing not done yet.

What about the 7D?

Ruger

[Colt Ward]

3 SSRM2s.  Consolidating the ammo to one zone lets you remove 1 CASE which gets you that spare half-ton and crit.At ranges 1, 2, and 4 only.  Ranges 3 and 5-9 belong to the Medium Laser array.

Yeah, and that is altering the chassis more by moving the ammo- its not a straight swap any more, more like 'it would be better if I could . . . '

The IS MPL still does better at 3 and 5 & 6- at all 3 of those ranges it equals the TH of the Med Laser, but it will do 1 more point of damage.  If its a jumping brawler, the lower TH will offset that jumping about to get in behind & kick or punch.

[SteelRaven]

What about the 7D?

Ruger

I was referring to the 7D as many seemed hung up on the UAC 5.

[Retry]

Yeah, and that is altering the chassis more by moving the ammo- its not a straight swap any more, more like 'it would be better if I could . . . '

Since when has ripping out the original internal exoskeleton to shove in a fancy endo-steel version ever been a straight swap?  That by itself is a class F factory refit without changing anything else, and it almost certainly is an altered chassis, else it'd be another wolverine variant and not a "Wolverine II".  In fact, moving the ammo or weapon location is much easier and only qualifies as a Class A field refit via Strat Ops.

The IS MPL still does better at 3 and 5 & 6- at all 3 of those ranges it equals the TH of the Med Laser, but it will do 1 more point of damage.  If its a jumping brawler, the lower TH will offset that jumping about to get in behind & kick or punch.

One IS MPL does better at 3, 5, & 6 than one ML does.
It's not competing with 1 ML.  It's 2 MLs.  2 MLs beat 1 MPL at 3 and 5-9.  2 MLs will often beat 1 MPL even at 1, 2, and 4, or at least perform close enough to be a wash, depending on the target and whether the Wolverine jumps or not.  Only against very fast runners or faster jumpers can generate the THMs necessary to make 1 MPL consistently more effective than 2 MLs at those specific ranges, but those sprinters/ big jumpers are the ones that will be determining the ranges they attack at, not the Wolverine.

[TigerShark]

Since when has ripping out the original internal exoskeleton to shove in a fancy endo-steel version ever been a straight swap?  That by itself is a class F factory refit without changing anything else, and it almost certainly is an altered chassis, else it'd be another wolverine variant and not a "Wolverine II".  In fact, moving the ammo or weapon location is much easier and only qualifies as a Class A field refit via Strat Ops.One IS MPL does better at 3, 5, & 6 than one ML does.
It's not competing with 1 ML.  It's 2 MLs.  2 MLs beat 1 MPL at 3 and 5-9.  2 MLs will often beat 1 MPL even at 1, 2, and 4, or at least perform close enough to be a wash, depending on the target and whether the Wolverine jumps or not.  Only against very fast runners or faster jumpers can generate the THMs necessary to make 1 MPL consistently more effective than 2 MLs at those specific ranges, but those sprinters/ big jumpers are the ones that will be determining the ranges they attack at, not the Wolverine.

Utilizing the +3 defensive modifier from jumping requires you to incur a +3 penalty yourself. Two, standard medium lasers firing at a target in woods or with partial cover is not easy when doing this. The MPL is perfect for getting in, stabbing, and being able to safely get out, since you could probably also put terrain between yourself and a target, if needed.

4 (Gunnery) + 3 (Attacker Jumped) + 2 (Target in Heavy Woods) + 2 (Intervening Heavy Woods) = 11

My opponent only has an 8.3% chance of hitting me. I, however, have a 27% chance of hitting him (needing a 9+). I'll take those kinds of numbers all day long and twice on Sunday.

[Retry]

Utilizing the +3 defensive modifier from jumping requires you to incur a +3 penalty yourself. Two, standard medium lasers firing at a target in woods or with partial cover is not easy when doing this. The MPL is perfect for getting in, stabbing, and being able to safely get out, since you could probably also put terrain between yourself and a target, if needed.

4 (Gunnery) + 3 (Attacker Jumped) + 2 (Target in Heavy Woods) + 2 (Intervening Heavy Woods) = 11

My opponent only has an 8.3% chance of hitting me. I, however, have a 27% chance of hitting him (needing a 9+). I'll take those kinds of numbers all day long and twice on Sunday.

The to-hit number given is for the Wolverine II firing at some unlabeled opponent, yes?

Since the opponent is in heavy woods and apparently not moving, he presumably would only have a 9+ (4 gunnery + 3 target moved 5 hexes & jumped + 2 intervening Heavy woods), unless the Wolverine II also conveniently landed in a heavy woods.  Since the MPL has a short range of 2, and there's also an intervening woods, that'd require three Heavy Wood hexes in a row for this scenario to occur.  I can't say I see such scenarios frequently at all.

In which case yes, even the Inner Sphere MPL starts to shine when you have more forests than you have hexes.

[TigerShark]

The to-hit number given is for the Wolverine II firing at some unlabeled opponent, yes?

Since the opponent is in heavy woods and apparently not moving, he presumably would only have a 9+ (4 gunnery + 3 target moved 5 hexes & jumped + 2 intervening Heavy woods), unless the Wolverine II also conveniently landed in a heavy woods.  Since the MPL has a short range of 2, and there's also an intervening woods, that'd require three Heavy Wood hexes in a row for this scenario to occur.  I can't say I see such scenarios frequently at all.

In which case yes, even the Inner Sphere MPL starts to shine when you have more forests than you have hexes.

Well, yes. Jumping means you determine where you land. I'm definitely not jumping into wide open terrain. It's probably a difference of map types that we use, as MegaMek can create randomized terrain that differs heavily from the standard, box set maps people tend to use. So different, built-up terrain is more commonly found in scenarios like that (or with that plastic, modular hex terrain you can buy).

[Colt Ward]

The Wolverine II is not a upgrade IIRC but a whole new design, so its not building a ES skeleton for a old Wolverine 1R/3R/6R.

You cannot get a 2nd ML from that single swap- even if you did your proposed CASE consolidation, you still have only that single crit in the head free.  Removing CASE on the RT is supposedly more complicated, and its a greater alteration moving the ammo than plug & play on the weapons.

[Retry]

Well, yes. Jumping means you determine where you land. I'm definitely not jumping into wide open terrain. It's probably a difference of map types that we use, as MegaMek can create randomized terrain that differs heavily from the standard, box set maps people tend to use. So different, built-up terrain is more commonly found in scenarios like that (or with that plastic, modular hex terrain you can buy).

I do use the randomize terrain generator in MegaMek fairly frequently.  I just don't really see it generate three heavy woods back-to-back-to-back super frequently without the setting being in an actual forest (in which case the Wolverine and its UAC/5 is probably the "wrong" choice anyways).  Must be difference in settings.

The Wolverine II is not a upgrade IIRC but a whole new design, so its not building a ES skeleton for a old Wolverine 1R/3R/6R.

You cannot get a 2nd ML from that single swap- even if you did your proposed CASE consolidation, you still have only that single crit in the head free.  Removing CASE on the RT is supposedly more complicated, and its a greater alteration moving the ammo than plug & play on the weapons.

That's my point.  It's a whole new design, so there wasn't any need to exactly replicate the original Wolverine's SRM-ML-AC5 for the Wolverine II in the first place.  The designers, if they desired, could have easily made the original production model with a triad of SSRM-2 tubes, two MLs, and left the UAC/5.  I'm not talking about modifying the current canon Wolverine II to those specs in the field, I'm saying the canon Wolverine II could have been a different and more impressive upgrade from the original Wolverine from the design stage instead of a "Wolverine I with endo-steel" that it currently is.

(This isn't theoretical, the modifications work: I've specced out a "what-if" Wolverine II with the changes and checked it through Tech Manual: It's a legal design.)

[TigerShark]

I do use the randomize terrain generator in MegaMek fairly frequently.  I just don't really see it generate three heavy woods back-to-back-to-back super frequently without the setting being in an actual forest (in which case the Wolverine and its UAC/5 is probably the "wrong" choice anyways).  Must be difference in settings.That's my point.  It's a whole new design, so there wasn't any need to exactly replicate the original Wolverine's SRM-ML-AC5 for the Wolverine II in the first place.  The designers, if they desired, could have easily made the original production model with a triad of SSRM-2 tubes, two MLs, and left the UAC/5.  I'm not talking about modifying the current canon Wolverine II to those specs in the field, I'm saying the canon Wolverine II could have been a different and more impressive upgrade from the original Wolverine from the design stage instead of a "Wolverine I with endo-steel" that it currently is.

(This isn't theoretical, the modifications work: I've specced out a "what-if" Wolverine II with the changes and checked it through Tech Manual: It's a legal design.)

I would say that most BT designs could easily be outpaced by any half-witted player with a design program. They follow an interpretation of in-universe thinking, not what would actually be "good." AC/5 -> Ultra AC; standard laser -> pulse; Missiles -> missiles with that super cool, new system we invented that wastes what could have been another ammo bin

[Colt Ward]

I do use the randomize terrain generator in MegaMek fairly frequently.  I just don't really see it generate three heavy woods back-to-back-to-back super frequently without the setting being in an actual forest (in which case the Wolverine and its UAC/5 is probably the "wrong" choice anyways).  Must be difference in settings.That's my point.  It's a whole new design, so there wasn't any need to exactly replicate the original Wolverine's SRM-ML-AC5 for the Wolverine II in the first place.  The designers, if they desired, could have easily made the original production model with a triad of SSRM-2 tubes, two MLs, and left the UAC/5.  I'm not talking about modifying the current canon Wolverine II to those specs in the field, I'm saying the canon Wolverine II could have been a different and more impressive upgrade from the original Wolverine from the design stage instead of a "Wolverine I with endo-steel" that it currently is.

(This isn't theoretical, the modifications work: I've specced out a "what-if" Wolverine II with the changes and checked it through Tech Manual: It's a legal design.)

But it still has to be on part with the 3050s 7 series Wolverines, and the -7D has a lot of waste too (SHS), and so the designer slotted in to the gap between the -6R and the -7D pretty successfully IMO.  The Streaks are a waste, the adaptability of the regular rack is better . . . and we know the SRM6 is a bad size in every way but damage.  The -6R had a AC/5, ML and SRM6 . . . so we got something that improved every single one of those weapon systems, and that is it.

[Scotty]

Ultra AC/5s are excellent weapons and the reason you get the Wolverine II at the equally excellent price of 1301 BV while being a full 5/8/5 with a standard engine, and not 50-100 points higher on top of having absolutely zero heat worries whatsoever.

[Retry]

But it still has to be on part with the 3050s 7 series Wolverines, and the -7D has a lot of waste too (SHS), and so the designer slotted in to the gap between the -6R and the -7D pretty successfully IMO.  The Streaks are a waste, the adaptability of the regular rack is better . . . and we know the SRM6 is a bad size in every way but damage.  The -6R had a AC/5, ML and SRM6 . . . so we got something that improved every single one of those weapon systems, and that is it.

That's all okay and all, but a slight upgrade to the guns is something I'd expect on a Wolverine I field refit, so it's not going to win my heart.  I'd hope for something more substantial from a complete chassis redesign Wolverine II.

(Also "we" don't know that the SRM6 is the worst size SRM rack.  How so?)

Ultra AC/5s are excellent weapons and the reason you get the Wolverine II

I dunno, for such an excellent weapon my group is rather quick to field mod UAC/5s away during campaigns whenever they can.

[Colt Ward]

SRM6 shorts you 10 rounds on the SRM ammo bin, 6*15=90 vs 2*50 or 4*25, and I seem to remember one of those long rambling threads about efficiency per weight/crit/heat made it worse than the SRM4 . . . not LRM15 bad, but still not good.

The Wolverine II, during the Star League, DID get a upgrade to every single gun the standard WVR-6R mounted.  The problem is your looking at them in chronological order from when IRL they came out rather than in universe.  WVR-6R to WVR-7H to WVR-7D it fits into the evolution.  You also chopped a important part of Scotty's statement, its actual BV.  Opinions come down to how you feel about rolling a 2 on any Ultra . . . some folks do not want to push their luck and resent the greater mass, others have no problem going for that double-tap.

I understand your last statement, when my merc campaign gets to the point I can place a Plasma Rifle on the salvaged Wolverine 7D's UAC/5, but its also going to require heat sink conversion.

[Scotty]

I dunno, for such an excellent weapon my group is rather quick to field mod UAC/5s away during campaigns whenever they can.

Unfortunately, I can't force your group to respect the efficiency of the UAC/5.  It absolutely suffers from not 'looking' good on paper without considering the second or third order effects of its stats.  Replacing the UAC/5 with basically any kind of energy weapon on the Wolverine II cranks the BV of the machine up by at least a hundred points.

PPC, MPL, 2x DHS -> 1449
Plasma Rifle, 2x DHS, 2 tons ammo, 1 ton ??? -> 1516
Snub-nose PPC, MPL, 2x DHS, 1 ton ??? -> 1430
Heavy PPC, 1x DHS -> 1613
LRM-15 w/Artemis, 2 tons ammo, ML -> 1483

Every single one of them is 130+ extra BV, for marginal improvement in performance (and typically a massive hit in heat efficiency).

[Empyrus]

Every single one of them is 130+ extra BV, for marginal improvement in performance (and typically a massive hit in heat efficiency).

The Snubby has unmatched short range bracket. The Plasma Rifle heats the target (and murders conventional units). The Heavy PPC is a headcapper.
Other options aren't perhaps that attractive, to be sure. But these are worth their BV.

[Scotty]

Three extra points of damage on average at short range, one at medium for the Snubbie, with heat that actually requires management.  The Plasma Rifle is over 15% more expensive (and has the same heat as above).  The HPPC is almost 25% more expensive and has genuine heat issues at short range.

It's not surprising that those weapons individually perform better, that's what BV does.  They are, however, expensive.  The UAC/5 puts up marginally worse damage numbers at superbly lower BV, and it does so with the built in capability to never have to give a shit about heat.  They are excellent weapons.

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, what I was intending for the mercs was a SHS to DHS and UAC to Plasma with the rest of the left over weight going into RL10s for alpha strike abilities.

But yeah, a new Wolverine II 7H variant for the SLDF Royals to me screams to use the new Snub that the Star League had just developed before Aramis went on a murder spree.  I just try to resist the 'make them all better by giving them a Snub PPC' inclination.

[TigerShark]

Three extra points of damage on average at short range, one at medium for the Snubbie, with heat that actually requires management.  The Plasma Rifle is over 15% more expensive (and has the same heat as above).  The HPPC is almost 25% more expensive and has genuine heat issues at short range.

It's not surprising that those weapons individually perform better, that's what BV does.  They are, however, expensive.  The UAC/5 puts up marginally worse damage numbers at superbly lower BV, and it does so with the built in capability to never have to give a shit about heat.  They are excellent weapons.

BV is, unfortunately, still punishing jump-capable units. The Wolverine II has a hideous value for its actual usage, IMO. The UAC/5 performs alright, although BV hamstrings it again by not accounting for jamming decreasing its in-game value.

Case-in-point: The unit is good. BV is not.

[Colt Ward]

Jump penalties are ok . . . because jumping means, I can always get a movement mod no matter the heat unless shut down . . . I can always get around terrain for that move mod- IE cannot be pinned against impassable terrain . . . gains mobility for a small construction cost on most units.

[TigerShark]

Jump penalties are ok . . . because jumping means, I can always get a movement mod no matter the heat unless shut down . . . I can always get around terrain for that move mod- IE cannot be pinned against impassable terrain . . . gains mobility for a small construction cost on most units.

Jump penalties are ok. There should be a BV associated with it, of course. But with the current state of BV, it's too much. The WVR-7H has never performed well in games in which I've used it. It just ends up becoming a kick machine, which could really be any WVR-.

[Colt Ward]

Any piece of equipment in BTU faces a triangle like the designs themselves and it simply-  mass/crit, heat effects, and BV . . . like mech or vehicle designs, you can generally be good in two and you end up penalized in the 3rd- except the ML and later ERMLs.  The med lasers are squarely in the middle of that triangle.

[Retry]

SRM6 shorts you 10 rounds on the SRM ammo bin, 6*15=90 vs 2*50 or 4*25, and I seem to remember one of those long rambling threads about efficiency per weight/crit/heat made it worse than the SRM4 . . . not LRM15 bad, but still not good.

I'll grant that the SRM6 does short a bit on ammo, but 90 SRMs is still 180 potential damage per ton of ammo which is still obscene for ammo weapons (Regular ACs are 100/ton, LRMs and Gauss are 120/ton).  The 6-pack is actually the best per unit heat (1.5 missiles/heat, vs 1 missile/heat for the 2-pack and 1.333 missile/heat for the 4-pack), each has the same # tubes per unit weight, and the 6-pack is middling in # tubes/crit (3 tubes/crit, vs 4 for the 4-pack and 2 for the 2-pack).  In terms of average cluster hit accuracy, SRM-6 is middling at ~66.7% (SRM-4 66.0%, SRM-2 an impressive 70.8%).  That and big packs have an advantage over small packs when it comes to Art IV (not that I'd ever recommend SRM packs + Art IV).  Also, Smoke SRMs are more potent from a 6-pack than the smaller packs due to the peculiarities of how they work.  So even with the missing SRM rounds, the SRM-6 is very competitive with the smaller launchers.

You also chopped a important part of Scotty's statement, its actual BV.  Opinions come down to how you feel about rolling a 2 on any Ultra . . . some folks do not want to push their luck and resent the greater mass, others have no problem going for that double-tap.

I chopped off the BV part because if I take that into account it gets worse, not better.  Last time I checked, the Ultra ACs had their BV calculated as though they're rapid firing at all times, but the BV also doesn't take into account the jamming chance.  So you either use your UAC/5 as if it was a slightly longer ranged AC/5, and your gun's BV is over-valued since you're not taking advantage of the rapid-fire mode, or you're rapid firing consistently, and your gun's BV is over-valued since the gun's BV doesn't account for the nontrivial possibility that the gun simply jams into uselessness for the rest of the scenario.

1.3k BV is not a small amount to pay for a 'Mech whose only long-range weapon is the UAC/5 and only has a rather mediocre short-range backup suite.

Unfortunately, I can't force your group to respect the efficiency of the UAC/5.  It absolutely suffers from not 'looking' good on paper without considering the second or third order effects of its stats.

It's the other way around.  The UAC/5 looked good on paper until we started using it.

It's an AC/5, except it has slightly improved range brackets and the ability to fire twice in one turn.  What's not to like?  Well, once we actually began to use it, it was not all that seemed to be promised.  The ones who liked the flexibility of the AC's ammo types like Flak and Flechettes (and especially Precision, but that's post-clan invasion IIRC) really started to miss the flexibility.  More often than not, rapid-fire mode only seemed to accomplish eating up ammo real quick and spiking heat production. (Mostly relevant to the big -10 and -20 ACs though).  It seemed to jam at the most inopportune times, leaving hundreds of BVs of dead weight on the unfortunate unit, which was especially painful when running fights back-to-back.  Our group transitioned from the UAC craze to LB-X for their first choice in ACs for normal play

I'm not sure what you mean by "efficient".  It's not efficient per unit of tonnage.  It's not all that efficient per BV either: the lack of accounting for jam chance really hurts it.  The effectiveness per C-Bill is not there either: the ER LL costs just as much but deals more damage on average except at range 20 (its arbitrary cutoff at 19 is one of my bugbears), and doesn't have to worry about ongoing logistical costs from consuming ammunition (not to mention no explodey bits).

Sorry, that "efficiency" discussion is a tad off track.  I'm a mathematically-inclined engineer-in-training, gotta have all the requirements well-defined and all that.  Yes, I'm fun at parties.

Replacing the UAC/5 with basically any kind of energy weapon on the Wolverine II cranks the BV of the machine up by at least a hundred points.

PPC, MPL, 2x DHS -> 1449
Plasma Rifle, 2x DHS, 2 tons ammo, 1 ton ??? -> 1516
Snub-nose PPC, MPL, 2x DHS, 1 ton ??? -> 1430
Heavy PPC, 1x DHS -> 1613
LRM-15 w/Artemis, 2 tons ammo, ML -> 1483

Every single one of them is 130+ extra BV, for marginal improvement in performance (and typically a massive hit in heat efficiency).

The one I did was a UAC+Ammo+Right Side CASE replacement for 1 ERLL, 3x DHS (1 in engine) -> 1342 BV.

About a 40 point BV hike, or roughly 3% BV increase.  In exchange for 40 BV and a single hex at long range, you get an average of 3 points of damage vs a non-rapid firing UAC5, 1 point of damage vs a rapid-firing UAC/5, better short and medium range brackets, no explodey ammo bits on the right side, a slightly cheaper combat platform (C-Bills), and no jamming concerns.  Oh, and the extra DHS keeps the the 'Mech "Alpha-strike while Jump-Jet Disco Dancing" levels of cool (by either definition).  That would be a worthy Wolverine successor, IMO.  Albeit more along the style of the LL Wolverines like the 6M, but still.

Oh, and that change is actually underweight.  While there's nothing wrong with that legality-wise, you could further change the design for either tactical effectiveness (armor or something) or for strategic considerations (regular structure/armor, so you don't have to depend on orbital endo-steel factories).

[Scotty]

I've always found the Ultra's jam chance to be a ridiculously overblown risk.  If you're firing double at every opportunity, over the course of 10 turns you have a less than 25% chance of having jammed.  There's an argument for that being non-trivial, but it's one I don't agree with.  Over twenty turns of double firing (which seems mildly excessive in most games), it's 44% which is understandably more intimidating but also arguably less likely to happen unless you've been playing an entire game and not getting shot.

It seemed to jam at the most inopportune times, leaving hundreds of BVs of dead weight on the unfortunate unit, which was especially painful when running fights back-to-back.  Our group transitioned from the UAC craze to LB-X for their first choice in ACs for normal play

This part in particular shows exactly how much players tend to over-emphasize the jamming results.  A single UAC/5 on a unit with a single ton of UAC/5 ammo is sporting 126 BV in 'dead weight' assuming it jams on the first shot and you don't get a penny out of the ammo.  The Wolverine II is at 140.  "Hundreds" only in the strictest possible definition of "more than exactly one hundred".

Oh, and that change is actually underweight.  While there's nothing wrong with that legality-wise, you could further change the design for either tactical effectiveness (armor or something) or for strategic considerations (regular structure/armor, so you don't have to depend on orbital endo-steel factories).

It's not merely underweight, it's underweight by three and a half tons. :o  And completely crit-packed, so there's no room to add... anything.  I don't normally enjoy ER LLs in the first place, but if you're concerned about 'efficiency' in any sense of the word, that's a lot of wasted payload.

[Nastyogre]

Err.... what are you suggesting then?  That's exactly how it works right now.Now I'm really confused.  Your suggestion for "fixing" the UAC is to change the failure mode from jamming itself to uselessness to a failure mode of catastrophic weapon destruction + internal damage + pilot injury?  Is the UAC too good?

The point is if you are going to let it unjam and make it jam at such a low rate (2 and 3 only) balance that with another negative. Treating it like a Gauss hit is pretty reasonable. So a weapon that IF you do the dangerous thing can blow itself up 2ish% of the time? Not a big negative. The point being to still improve the situation of "I jammed and only shot this thing once" and keep Rotary ACs, which are specifically stipulated to have been derived of research into Ultra's, to keep them "better" than the Ultra. Ultras can unjam then, but they can still permanently jam and do bad things.

Think of disengaging the field inhibitors on PPC's that have a minimum range to get rid of the negative. Then they can go "TZAP" on you.

[Retry]

I've always found the Ultra's jam chance to be a ridiculously overblown risk.  If you're firing double at every opportunity, over the course of 10 turns you have a less than 25% chance of having jammed.  There's an argument for that being non-trivial, but it's one I don't agree with.  Over twenty turns of double firing (which seems mildly excessive in most games), it's 44% which is understandably more intimidating but also arguably less likely to happen unless you've been playing an entire game and not getting shot.

That's the chance for one Ultra.

How about a lance of Wolverine IIs?  11% chance of having at least one gun jam.  One Bane?    24.6% chance of jamming at least one gun per turn.  A whole Lance of Banes?  At least something's going to jam 2 out of 3 times, and likely multiple somethings.

We frequently run company-size formations and larger, and usually persistent battles on top of that: There may or may not be time to refuel, re-arm, and unjam weapons between fights.  At scales larger than Solaris brawls and Lance-on-Lance duels, the question isn't "Will my Ultras jam?", it's "How many?".

A 3% failure rate (per gun, per turn) for a Solaris gladiator is a perfectly acceptable risk.  A 3% failure rate for a Lance commander is a gamble.  A 3% failure rate for a Company commander is a disaster-in-waiting.  A 3% failure rate for a Battalion commander is wholly unacceptable.

Put another way: for a Wolverine II pilot, ten rounds of continuous firing means there's "only" a quarter chance that he's lost his UAC.  For the 36-mech strong Wolverine II battalion commander, it means about 9 of his 'Mechs just lost their long-range firepower.

That is not an overblown risk, that's the House winning in the long run.  These little probabilities add up, and when the field gets bigger than a Lance or so they add up fast.  And it's the reason they just won't (voluntarily) lay their hands on a UAC that isn't the /20 unless I break out house rules.

(The one exception is the UAC/20 which is often more of a cannon-in-being, a keep-away stick.)

This part in particular shows exactly how much players tend to over-emphasize the jamming results.  A single UAC/5 on a unit with a single ton of UAC/5 ammo is sporting 126 BV in 'dead weight' assuming it jams on the first shot and you don't get a penny out of the ammo.  The Wolverine II is at 140.  "Hundreds" only in the strictest possible definition of "more than exactly one hundred".

There's more UACs than just the /5.  A UAC/20 jamming scuttles >300 BV from that scenario and possibly the next scenarios.  A UAC/10 jamming is in the mid-high 200s.

That's also much too simple of an analysis to look at the raw BV of the gun and say that's what's being lost, as the Battlemech's offensive BV is multiplied by its speed factor.  Remove the UAC/5 + ammo from the Wolverine II and the BV drops to 1055; the delta (IOW "Change in") BV due to the the UAC/5 is effectively 246, which easily qualifies as in the hundreds.

It's not merely underweight, it's underweight by three and a half tons. :o  And completely crit-packed, so there's no room to add... anything.  I don't normally enjoy ER LLs in the first place, but if you're concerned about 'efficiency' in any sense of the word, that's a lot of wasted payload.

It was an example to show how changing the UAC/5 system (and nothing else) can get you something as good or better, for not much BV.  It's not intended to be efficient, but the fact that it can do so while leaving a whole bunch of weight left over is a fault of the UAC, not the laser.

There's things you can do like removing some of the fancy high-tech weight-saving techs and adding armor, but that borders on fan designs so I won't elaborate further.

The point is if you are going to let it unjam and make it jam at such a low rate (2 and 3 only) balance that with another negative. Treating it like a Gauss hit is pretty reasonable. So a weapon that IF you do the dangerous thing can blow itself up 2ish% of the time? Not a big negative. The point being to still improve the situation of "I jammed and only shot this thing once" and keep Rotary ACs, which are specifically stipulated to have been derived of research into Ultra's, to keep them "better" than the Ultra. Ultras can unjam then, but they can still permanently jam and do bad things.

Think of disengaging the field inhibitors on PPC's that have a minimum range to get rid of the negative. Then they can go "TZAP" on you.

Oh, I think I get it now.  It's adding an ability to unjam like RACs, but with a chance of the unjam to go terribly wrong.

My question is: Why have that extra catastrophe chance?  RAC's advantage is having 3x the fire rate of the UAC, pretty substantial by itself.

I ask because I've experimented with unjammable UACs in the past, and that type of add-on sounds like one of those overbalanced extra things that my group tends to either forget or "forget".

[Crimson Dawn]

SRM6 shorts you 10 rounds on the SRM ammo bin, 6*15=90 vs 2*50 or 4*25, and I seem to remember one of those long rambling threads about efficiency per weight/crit/heat made it worse than the SRM4 . . . not LRM15 bad, but still not good.

The Wolverine II, during the Star League, DID get a upgrade to every single gun the standard WVR-6R mounted.  The problem is your looking at them in chronological order from when IRL they came out rather than in universe.  WVR-6R to WVR-7H to WVR-7D it fits into the evolution.  You also chopped a important part of Scotty's statement, its actual BV.  Opinions come down to how you feel about rolling a 2 on any Ultra . . . some folks do not want to push their luck and resent the greater mass, others have no problem going for that double-tap.

I understand your last statement, when my merc campaign gets to the point I can place a Plasma Rifle on the salvaged Wolverine 7D's UAC/5, but its also going to require heat sink conversion.

How is the 15 rack the "bad" LRM rack?  They all have the same number of missiles.  The LRM 5 wins in terms of weight.  The LRM 20 has the best heat per missile ratio but it weighs 2 tons more than 4 LRM 5s.  The LRM 15 is better on weight than the LRM 20 but not as good as the 5.  It also has a better heat ratio than the 5 or 10 but is less heat efficient than the 20.

As far as I can the "bad" LRM rack is the 10.  It weighs more than 2 LRM 5s and is less heat efficient than the LRM 15 or 20 while having the same exact heat as two LRM 5s (the LRM 15 is more heat efficient than 3 LRM 5s).

The LRM 15 is the happy medium launcher with a decent overall damage profile as far as I can tell with decent weight and heat.  The LRM 5 is best in weight and the LRM 20 is best in heat.  The 10 does not seem to be best or even decent at anything as it can be replaced by 2 LRM 5s in every way.

[TigerShark]

I ask because I've experimented with unjammable UACs in the past, and that type of add-on sounds like one of those overbalanced extra things that my group tends to either forget or "forget".

Yeah. I refuse to allow them to jam in a game. It's just silly anyhow and hamstrings an already so-so weapon. Clan ER PPC for 15 damage with unlimited shots? Totally fine. An extra 5 damage from an AC/5 that only has a 40% chance of landing, even if you hit? GOTTA nerf that. ;-)

[Colt Ward]

I do prefer the double TH rolls when playing MM . . . but the ERPPC is already compensated for because of its higher heat- its the triangle.

[Euphonium]

Is double-tapping with a uAC two seperate to-hit rolls or is it one to-hit then roll on the 2 column of the cluster table?

My dislike of uACs comes from thinking it's the latter, as on the cluster table you have a ~60% chance that your second shot misses, so not only do you have a bigger, heavier weapon that runs out of ammo faster that feels like it jams more often than the statistics say it should, but also you second shot usually misses!

[Colt Ward]

Its the later- must roll 8 or better to get the 2nd hit.  BUT 2 TH rolls is a common house rule and a option in MM b/c of that . . . which is why I said I used it in MM play.

[Euphonium]

Thanks! My books are all deeply packed away right now so it's nice to know that my dislike of uAC-carrying units isn't based on me getting the rules wrong!

[Colt Ward]

Np, I finally bought TW pdf- DriveThru had it for $15 b/c of CGL's corona sale.

[TigerShark]

I do prefer the double TH rolls when playing MM . . . but the ERPPC is already compensated for because of its higher heat- its the triangle.

Heat has no BV. The "balance" is not numerical. You may consider it so, but that's subjective observation. Mine is likewise subjective, but differs. Since the BV doesn't account for jamming in an Ultra AC, it shouldn't jam, IMO.

[Colt Ward]

You missed the point, every piece of equipment that goes into a mech balances heat, mass/crits, and BV just like a mech design balances speed, armor and firepower.  Comparing to the IS ERPPC is better b/c they are from the same tech base, the jamming is accounted for in the BV of the weapon itself otherwise it would be closer to the BV of a AC/10 or LB-10X.  Both have the same 10 points max damage potential though the range bands to not match up.

[Retry]

You missed the point, every piece of equipment that goes into a mech balances heat, mass/crits, and BV just like a mech design balances speed, armor and firepower.

I don't believe that is the case.  The influence of heat is largely a secondary variable (and totally irrelevant on vehicles for most weapons), and BV is a dependent variable based on range brackets, damage, and to some extent accuracy.  You don't really say "this gun is light and cool but its BV is too small, let's crank it up".  IOW a 500 BV gun would still be a 500 BV gun even if you chopped the weight to a half-ton and the heat to 0.  (Not that I'm advocating for such a thing)

Comparing to the IS ERPPC is better b/c they are from the same tech base, the jamming is accounted for in the BV of the weapon itself otherwise it would be closer to the BV of a AC/10 or LB-10X.  Both have the same 10 points max damage potential though the range bands to not match up.

No, that is not true.  Heavy Metal Pro has a weapon BV calculator on its website.  It's an empirical formula (since no official rules actually exists) but it matches the canon weapon BVs to the letter.  If you plug in the stats for the UAC/5, the formula gives you exactly the canonical stats.  The formula holds for all other conventional (non-weird, like the TSEMPs or Plasma) canon weapons, and there is no correction factor for jamming anywhere in the formula, so clearly the UAC/5 jam chance is not accounted for.

[TigerShark]

You missed the point, every piece of equipment that goes into a mech balances heat, mass/crits, and BV just like a mech design balances speed, armor and firepower.  Comparing to the IS ERPPC is better b/c they are from the same tech base, the jamming is accounted for in the BV of the weapon itself otherwise it would be closer to the BV of a AC/10 or LB-10X.  Both have the same 10 points max damage potential though the range bands to not match up.

You may wish to check the formula. Heat, tonnage, and critical slots are not accounted for in BV, whatsoever. For example, the Primitive PPC is 15 heat and 10 damage, while the standard PPC is 10 heat and 10 damage. These two weapons have the exact, same BV. (re.: Banshee BNC-1E)

One could make the argument that weight and critical slots have no affect in actual combat; only during the construction process. So no "battle value" (i.e.: affect during battle) could be assigned. But heat definitely has an effect. And, to bring this back on topic, the WVR-7H has a less-than-sterling reputation due to this factor. Its main armament can and will be taken out of the fight at some point during its use if you use it as-intended. So you have to turn down the rate of fire just to avoid that pitfall (firing at single rate until a good TN is presented). And, unfortunately, its damage is calculated as an average of the two shots. i.e.: its BV assumes you're using Ultra mode 100% of the time. So it's a problem of the rules and the BV system that hamstrings the Wolverine II, IMO. If it never jammed, it would be worth it. If it jammed but the BV had a "penalty" to balance this out, it would be worth it. But neither is the case.

[SCC]

We frequently run company-size formations and larger, and usually persistent battles on top of that: There may or may not be time to refuel, re-arm, and unjam weapons between fights.  At scales larger than Solaris brawls and Lance-on-Lance duels, the question isn't "Will my Ultras jam?", it's "How many?".

StratOps says you get one Maintenance/Repair Cycle, that is eight hours, to effect repairs between battles, if your not following this that's your fault, not the games.

Yeah. I refuse to allow them to jam in a game. It's just silly anyhow and hamstrings an already so-so weapon. Clan ER PPC for 15 damage with unlimited shots? Totally fine. An extra 5 damage from an AC/5 that only has a 40% chance of landing, even if you hit? GOTTA nerf that. ;-)

Because then people might stop using the AC/5, that's why

And heat does factor into BV, it's just a second order effect.

[Retry]

StratOps says you get one Maintenance/Repair Cycle, that is eight hours, to effect repairs between battles, if your not following this that's your fault, not the games.

Actually, Strat Ops, pg.166 says:

Unless agreed otherwise (or dictated by the conditions of a specific scenario), players have eight hours between each scenario during which they can carry out maintenance and repairs.

Our scenarios include persistent battles, in which you go from one fight immediately to the next fight without the time for a maintenance cycle (the alternative would be to try to chain all the objectives in one truly massive map).  That's one of those "dictated by the conditions of a specific scenario" things.  Until one of us nabs a TARDIS as salvage, we're doing it right.

And heat does factor into BV, it's just a second order effect.

It's not an any-order effect for weapon BV because heat does not appear whatsoever in HMP's empirical BV formula.

[Euphonium]

It's not an any-order effect for weapon BV because heat does not appear whatsoever in HMP's empirical BV formula.

I was surprised to see this so I popped HMP open to have a play, and this is what I found:

Heat:

stock IS ERPPRC - BV = 229
ERPPC that only generates 1 heat - BV = 228

Jamming:

stock uAC/5 - BV = 112
non-jamming uAC/5 - BV = 112

I understand that TPTB may use something different, but HMP's BV calculations work for all cannon weapons and they appear not to account for heat or jamming risk in the weapon BV

Similarly, changing the mass or crits of a weapon does not appear to affect it's BV either. Only damage and range seem to matter.

[TigerShark]

I understand that TPTB may use something different, but HMP's BV calculations work for all cannon weapons and they appear not to account for heat or jamming risk in the weapon BV

They don't. HMP is still (as far as I know) the "official" design software. The theory is that heat is managed during the unit's BV calculations, specifically in the OBV calculation. But this is bunk and doesn't take into account generating heat, but just shy of the movement penalty. For example, a THG-11E is virtually the same BV whether it has 18 double heat sinks or 18 single heat sinks. 1640 with DHS and 1607 with SHS. I don't have to tell you just how invaluable an additional -18 heat is every turn, but apparently being able to take 2 engine hits and still alpha, vs generating +4 heat every turn, is only worth 33 BV? lol That's obviously "wrong."

Relating this back to the WVR-7H, the UAC/5 is just as valuable whether it jams or not. And I would say that a main gun costing 11 tons (9 + 2 tons ammo) is quite an investment for something that can be completely useless for the rest of a scenario after 1 turn of use. "Jamming" absolutely has an effect in combat and should be accounted for on some level. But it isn't. And that hamstrings the WVR-7H. Just ignore the rule, IMO. Nothing changes in-game because the BV already "pays" for a weapon that doesn't jam. ::shrug::

[Colt Ward]

UAC/5 costs less BV than the AC/10 and LB-10X which has the same damage potential even with shorter ranges, and I never said it factored into the mech's use design but rather the weapons qualities.

Besides, the UAC/5 should not be used double the whole time . . . with the SRMs and UAC ammo, you have something like 15 or so turns of combat.  The design is built to last rather than surge firepower.

[Retry]

UAC/5 costs less BV than the AC/10 and LB-10X which has the same damage potential even with shorter ranges

Damage "potential" isn't nearly as relevant as average damage.  UAC/5 costs less BV because its damage in rapid-fire mode averages out to a smidge over 7, so of course what's basically an AC/7 with marginally higher range brackets than an LB-10X is going to have a lower BV.

A more obvious example: The Streak SRM-6 and the regular SRM-6 have the same damage per missile, same range brackets, same damage "potential", but the Streak clearly has a higher BV.

Besides, the UAC/5 should not be used double the whole time . . . with the SRMs and UAC ammo, you have something like 15 or so turns of combat.  The design is built to last rather than surge firepower.

Sure, but you still pay the BV for it as if you were.  Also, if it was built for endurance then UAC/5 is definitively the wrong way to go: Neither explosive ammo nor a jam-prone main gun is good for that.  If endurance is the goal, the Wolverine II would be far better served with an ER LL.

[SteelRaven]

If you hate the UAC/5 that much, pick a different mech.

[Hellraiser]

Not sure why LB5X & ERML & Snubbie & HPPC & Streak6 etc etc keep getting mentioned when None of them were available when the Wolverine-II was created.

This also wasn't any field refit of the 6R, it was a full new factory production model.

That said, as mentioned, there is literally no room to change the load out much given the lack of crit space on this thing.


They could have used 3 Streaks if they consolidated the ammo into a single CASE location.

They could have kept a standard ML while adding another DHS.

Switching to an Energy weapon for the UA5 is fine, except that you then have tons to spend w/o a lot of crit space.

The mech can handle about 1 ton more armor.

Batteries of ML isn't going to work w/o adding a lot of DHS that it doesn't have room for.



The one thing I think they could have done is give us a mech that could have been what triggered the idea for the LL on the 6K/6M models.

Using an ERLL for the UAC5 while adding another DHS to the engine & arm is about the best option for the tonnage & space available while keeping the feel of the 6 Series in some way.   Maybe fit in another MPL to use up the extra tonnage.

[Colt Ward]

Well, Snubs were a late Star League creation so . . .

But yeah, its why it went from Streak 6 to 3 Streak2s and got into moving the UAC ammo out of the arm.

I guess opinions on the mech come down to opinions on the UAC/5 . . . to me its fine, its a very rugged mobile skirmisher that is good (and can last) for about 15 rounds of combat before Winchester.

[Hellraiser]

Well, Snubs were a late Star League creation so . . . 

Not when the Wolverine came out.
They got prototype'd 14 years AFTER it was in production so at best a variant & not something it could have started with as someone suggested.

I like the fluff of the Clan Wolverine pilot that used one in a volcanic area/hot springs area where the over-sinked nature of it allowed him to be able to fight where other mechs were shutting down when they fired.

[JPArbiter]

The only big change i woukd try to make to the Wolvie II, and this would be to suppliment the mech as it exists rather the. Fix or replace it, is figure out where to find the two tons to get an LB-10X in place of the Ultra 5.

My problem is I like the Medium pulse laser. I considered swapping the SRM 6 for paired streak 2’s but that was a wash in terms of mass. Scrapping the double CASE seems dangerous and I don’t wanna give up jump capability.

Cant win for losing I guess

[Retry]

The only big change i woukd try to make to the Wolvie II, and this would be to suppliment the mech as it exists rather the. Fix or replace it, is figure out where to find the two tons to get an LB-10X in place of the Ultra 5.

My problem is I like the Medium pulse laser. I considered swapping the SRM 6 for paired streak 2’s but that was a wash in terms of mass. Scrapping the double CASE seems dangerous and I don’t wanna give up jump capability.

Cant win for losing I guess

It would work perfectly fine if you're willing to give up the MPL.  "Downgrading" it to a regular medium gives a ton back, and replacing the SRM6 w/ Art IV with 2 SSRM2s gets you a ton and a crit, combining the two has more than enough for that LB-10X.

If you must have the MPL, then it's tougher.  You'll need a big missile downgrade to a SRM-4 to get the crit and tonnage.

[SteelRaven]

... or you can just pilot a Royal Shadow Hawk.

[Luciora]

I always felt the Shadow Hawk needed the ac/10 upgrade, not the Wolverine.  The Griffin already does it's 10 point punch,  Wolverine gets the Ultra/5 so that leaves the Hawk and the LBX.  Maybe it's just me.

[Sartris]

... or you can just pilot a Royal Shadow Hawk.

It can be the SLDF’s version of Marik’s obsession with the LGR. Put LB-10s on EVERYTHING

[Retry]

... or you can just pilot a Royal Shadow Hawk.

Nah, not with a mere 3-hex jump.

[SteelRaven]

Nah, not with a mere 3-hex jump.

... You know, every time I talk about a existing optimize design, someone in this community calls me ether a munchkin or a snow flake but here is a discussion that has been how to fix the under optimize the Wolverine II to be good at everything.

[Retry]

... You know, every time I talk about a existing optimize design, someone in this community calls me ether a munchkin or a snow flake but here is a discussion that has been how to fix the under optimize the Wolverine II to be good at everything.

Err, sorry man.  Idk what to tell you.

(For what little it's worth, losing the UAC5 isn't my first choice.  Fixing the UAC's crutches would be my first choice, but that's a house-rule so it's not relevant in this thread.)

[SteelRaven]

Err, sorry man.  Idk what to tell you.

Just had to clear the air. Everyone has their own preference when it comes to mechs, my choiy just always seems to wrong  for whatever reason ;)

[Hellraiser]

I agree,  ML/MPL and Stk/Art4 for Ultra/LBx would be the way to go to get a Wolvie-LB10

But also as mentioned, you end up with a Shadow Hawk-R.

I still think the ERLL is the way to go with the Wolvie-II,  it gives a reason for the 6K/6M to exist.

Call it the Wolverine-II-7R variant, but lets the Hawk keep the LB10X while using less ammo over all.

Then again I don't care for the SH-R for giving up the LRM-5 & that is the one I'd have really loved to see use an ERLL since it has more ammo than either the Wolvie or Griffin.

[TigerShark]

I still think the ERLL is the way to go with the Wolvie-II,  it gives a reason for the 6K/6M to exist.

It actually leads directly to it, IMO. Kallon Industries of Nanking is the likely manufacturing plant for the WVR-7H, but the plans for the design were in Kallon's corporate control. So it's not a huge leap for the Thermopolis plant to retool to manufacture these in the early stages of the Star League's dissolution. WVR-7H -> WVR-6M sounds like a logical progression, once endo steel became scarce.

[Hellraiser]

Kallon Industries of Nanking is the likely manufacturing plant for the WVR-7H,

Nope.
The Wolverine-II was manufactured from a SLDF facility on New Earth.
But that still works for your theory, because the FWL liberated plans for the Guillotine & Spider from New Earth at the start of the 1st SW.
No reason they might not have gotten those too.

[TigerShark]

Nope.
The Wolverine-II was manufactured from a SLDF facility on New Earth.
But that still works for your theory, because the FWL liberated plans for the Guillotine & Spider from New Earth at the start of the 1st SW.
No reason they might not have gotten those too.

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have the source on that? I have canon factories on my server and want to keep up-to-date. :)

[Sartris]

Operation Klondike pg 167 confirms New Earth. Kallon went on to produce it for the SLDF in the FWL, FC, and FS.

[TigerShark]

Operation Klondike pg 167 confirms New Earth. Kallon went on to produce it for the SLDF in the FWL, FC, and FS.

It says that the prototypes only were produced at the research plant on New Earth. The actual line production occurred on various worlds (probably Thermopolis for the FWL, Wernke-Talon for the FS, and ??? for LC) for the SLDF, since New Earth was obviously part of the Amaris Empire during the coup.

Fewer than twenty Wolverine II prototypes were deployed before the Amaris Coup.
Early results from their field tests (including actual combat on New Vandenburg)
convinced Kallon Industries that they were on the right track, and the design was
put into production at Kallon’s plants in the Free Worlds League, Lyran Commonwealth
and Federated Suns for the SLDF. Following the liberation of Terra, the surviving
examples of the design accompanied the SLDF into the Periphery.

[SteelRaven]

The real world reason we got the Wolverine II was players wanted a new proxy Wolverine pre-classic so let's not read too much into it. The fluff is there to explain why you never heard of it until this point but gives you enough room to argue why a standard Wolverine would look like a Wolverine II.

[Sartris]

It says that the prototypes only were produced at the research plant on New Earth. The actual line production occurred on various worlds (probably Thermopolis for the FWL, Wernke-Talon for the FS, and ??? for LC) for the SLDF, since New Earth was obviously part of the Amaris Empire during the coup.

yeah, i agree. i should have added the caveat of prototypes for new earth - and also why i listed the plants outside of the hegemony. i'd have to go back to LoTII but i'm guessing the facilities on new earth didn't fare well.

[Colt Ward]

The real world reason we got the Wolverine II was players wanted a new proxy Wolverine pre-classic so let's not read too much into it. The fluff is there to explain why you never heard of it until this point but gives you enough room to argue why a standard Wolverine would look like a Wolverine II.

I agree, which is why I said the designer did a great job dropping the Wolverine II between a WVR-6R and WVR-7D.

[Hellraiser]

It says that the prototypes only were produced at the research plant on New Earth. The actual line production occurred on various worlds (probably Thermopolis for the FWL, Wernke-Talon for the FS, and ??? for LC) for the SLDF, since New Earth was obviously part of the Amaris Empire during the coup.

You know, I'm not sure that 20 prototypes &/or the 2770 intro date can be correct.

The intro date for the Wolvie is listed as 2770, but it was used in the Periphery along with the Atlas II in 2765.

1 of only 20 prototypes making it out to the periphery 5 years before the factory went full production?

That seems like a very long prototype testing phase as well as a really long way to go to test it.

Either way, as stated, its Operation Klondike that lists New Earth as the Original Factory.

[SteelRaven]

It's a wonky time in mech production, the BlackjackBJ-1X was deployed and got it's shoddy reputation the following year.