Vehicle of the Week: Patton Tank

[Moonsword]

Vehicle of the Week: Patton Tank

Towards the end of the Succession Wars, Defiance Industries embarked on a program to create a new tank design to take up some of the slack from the BattleMech on defense and worked to develop a design that wasn't based on older Star League concepts. Opting for a smaller silhouette thanks to a low turret that also improves the ability to maneuver in cities, the “Desert Knights” development program was rumored to be the target of infiltration attempts by Combine and League agents and part of a double program with the related Rommel heavy tank.  The program was a triumph of both engineering prowess and raw industrial might as the Lyrans set up an entirely new fusion engine plant to power the vehicles. After a very arduous field test with Hansen's Roughriders (now best remembered for their nuclear-punctuated roaring rampage of revenge that made both a shambles and a mockery of the Taurian Concordat's defense establishment after the murder of their dependents), the Patton and Rommel entered production in 3027. While the Rommel has three fairly different variants (not counting the prototype Howitzer model), both variants of the Patton are solid, competent line tanks.

Built on the same 65 ton tracked chassis as the Rommel, the Patton also shares its 260-rated standard fusion engine, giving it a similar 65 kph flank speed.  The differences start with the armored shell.  Where the Rommel's 11 tons give it a solid level of protection on par with the Manticore or Po, the Patton is an archetypal brick at 14.5 tons of standard plate, enough to out-armor any heavy 'Mech and not an uncommon level among smaller assault 'Mech designs.  The layout of 51/46/38/51 emphasizes the forward arc heavily, and all I can really find to suggest is shaving a couple of points one way or another to beef up the rear to withstand a pair of AC/20 hits.  The armament is a little more well-rounded than the Rommel, with an AC/10 fed by two tons of ammunition and an LRM 5 with a single ton in the turret supplemented by a forward-fixed small laser and a flamer facing aft to keep infantry from having any tail gate parties.

The version from Record Sheets: Upgrades, now found in Record Sheets 3058 Unabridged's Inner Sphere volume, is a solid upgrade to the whole design that doesn't try to get fancy and doesn't need to.  The main gun is now an Ultra/10 with three tons of ammunition.  There's pros and cons to that - foremost among the latter, if it jams, you're out all your mid-range striking power and most of your firepower overall - but  the Ultra/10 is a solid enough weapon that used conservatively, you're going to get a lot of good mileage out of it.  Among other things, the extra three hexes of range is handy since the LRMs are gone.  Instead, your secondary weapons are a pair of medium lasers in the turret and a trio of machine guns, two forward and one aft, fed from a single half-ton ammunition bin.  They paid for the upgrades by swapping the armor for ferro-fibrous - your overall protection is the same but you save 1.5 tons doing it.

Honestly, the Patton is one of those units that is really very simple to operate, so I'm going to cover the basics after pointing out that lone LRM 5s are always an opportunity to annoy someone with creative ammo choices.  First of all, try to avoid exposing your flanks.  While the armor is quite thick, the critical and motive hit charts are even less forgiving in the side and rear arcs, so there's no reason to take chances.  Pick your terrain, get in it, and then maneuver with a purpose to give yourself advantages and deny the same to your enemy.  With the Ultra model, stick to standard fire rates unless you've got good numbers or good reason to expect the tank's going to die anyway - jamming your main gun is really going to suck.

Unless you manage to pop something important with a through-armor critical (like, say, the crew), you're not going to kill a Patton without a fair degree of effort spent drilling through the armor.  Crit-seekers are important - they make tanks slow down or even stop moving, which both makes them easier to hit and increases your tactical options - but you need some bigger guns to cut through the armor plating and actually punch it out.  PPCs or AC/10s are a great choice in 3025 but large lasers aren't far behind; later on, you've got Gauss rifles and various advanced flavors of the above to consider.  Other than that, there's simply not really any tricks.  They aren't myopic like older Rommels were and they don't have range minimums on anything other than the LRMs.  If you want to try for quick kills, a dusting of Inferno gel works decently, and artillery or mines can be used to either hem them in or convince them to get out of a fire trap.

References: The first stop is always the Master Unit List, and like last week, there's a variety of units over at CamoSpecs.

[Hellraiser]

I like the 3025 Patton more than the Upgrade.
Just not an Ultra-10 fan, and think an LBX would have made for a better option IMHO.

[nerd]

If you're afraid of jams, it's simple, just use the Ultra in single fire mode only.  You've got the armor to risk being a pill box effectively.

OTOH, much like the M46/M47/M48/M60 designs, the basic version is still good enough if you don't care about New Toy Syndrome.

[SCC]

LB-10-X's only have the cluster effects over UAC-10's (and the weight) and this is an MBT so the ability to double tab is probably more useful (or viewed as such by the designers, remember this is a Lyarn design)

[Hellraiser]

LB-10-X's only have the cluster effects over UAC-10's (and the weight) and this is an MBT so the ability to double tab is probably more useful (or viewed as such by the designers, remember this is a Lyarn design)

If it was really Lyran they would have given it a Gauss & given the Romell an Ultra-20   >:D

[Grognard]

 O0 I've always been a fan of the Rommel/Pattons.  O0
A pair of them with my Warhammer & Awesome combo, and I'll take on just about anyone of similar tonnage.

[SCC]

@Hellraiser, the Gauss Rifle effectively weighs 2.5 tons more (but interesting the same weight as an UAC/20) so to make that work they'd have to move the med lasers to the front and ditch all but one of of the machine guns (I'd guess the rear one would stay)

[LordChaos]

The Patton is slightly better then the Rommel in 3025.  It's too dangerous to ignore (say what you want about the AC20 bubble of doom, an AC10's longer range means you have to deal with it's carrier), and too tough to be an easy kill. 

[Sami Jumppanen]

The Patton is slightly better then the Rommel in 3025.  It's too dangerous to ignore (say what you want about the AC20 bubble of doom, an AC10's longer range means you have to deal with it's carrier), and too tough to be an easy kill.

I believe that 3025 Patton is better even during jihad. This is for the simple reason that it can use special ammo.

[Diablo48]

I believe that 3025 Patton is better even during jihad. This is for the simple reason that it can use special ammo.

I would tend to favor the Rommel later because of its Gauss variant.  The 3025 Patton is a solid machine, but it is hard to argue with the range and power of that rifle.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I believe that 3025 Patton is better even during jihad. This is for the simple reason that it can use special ammo.

It can, but the ammo bins aren't really deep enough to make that strategy effective.

[Kit deSummersville]

It can, but the ammo bins aren't really deep enough to make that strategy effective.

Eh, 10 turns of firing at 15 hexes is pretty good for a 3025 tank to survive. Or 10 shots of regular and 5 of precision is 15 turns, longer than I'd probably let it be effective against me.

[Moonsword]

Effective?  It's certainly effective enough at 10 shots to justify the exercise.  I've done some very rude things to someone with precision AC/20s before even with a very limited ammo supply.  AC/10s lack the sheer concentrated punch to be that rude but they're still not really something hovers or Bugs are going to enjoy finding pointed at them with a -2 bonus.

More effective than a Gauss Rommel?  That depends on what you're shooting at and how far away it is.  The Gauss rifle's longer range cancels some of the precision accuracy bonus at certain ranges (much more so than tends to be the case comparing a Clan LPL against a Clan ER PPC because of the greater differences) and the increased striking power has obvious benefits.

[Hellraiser]

@Hellraiser, the Gauss Rifle effectively weighs 2.5 tons more (but interesting the same weight as an UAC/20) so to make that work they'd have to move the med lasers to the front and ditch all but one of of the machine guns (I'd guess the rear one would stay)

It also gets by on 1 ton less ammo.
So really if you just scrap the MG's you are fine and even have 1/2 ton left over for CASE which it really should have had.

[Hellraiser]

I believe that 3025 Patton is better even during jihad. This is for the simple reason that it can use special ammo.

Agreed.
Something about a ton of precision (or 2) and some Thunder Aug LRMs just makes for fun.

[Fallen_Raven]

Agreed.
Something about a ton of precision (or 2) and some Thunder Aug LRMs just makes for fun.

ARAD makes a fun option for irritating all the ECM carriers too.

[Jellico]

One of the curious things about Precision ammo and tanks is that the ammo requires the target to be moving to get the bonus, and tanks have a tendency to stop moving.

[Kit deSummersville]

One of the curious things about Precision ammo and tanks is that the ammo requires the target to be moving to get the bonus, and tanks have a tendency to stop moving.

Luckily tanks can fight opponents who aren't tanks.

[Demos]

One of the curious things about Precision ammo and tanks is that the ammo requires the target to be moving to get the bonus, and tanks have a tendency to stop moving.

Or you stop the target with the one ton of precision ammo and hammer it then with the second ton of standard ammo...

[Hellraiser]

One of the curious things about Precision ammo and tanks is that the ammo requires the target to be moving to get the bonus, and tanks have a tendency to stop moving.

Hover tanks rarely stop moving...........well, till I've hit them w/ Precision ammo anyway   >:D

[Sami Jumppanen]

One of the curious things about Precision ammo and tanks is that the ammo requires the target to be moving to get the bonus, and tanks have a tendency to stop moving.

No problem. That target is going to get hit so much more by everything else so loss of the bonus and half of the ammo isn't a problem.

[cray]

Isn't one of the advantages of multiple crew members in combat vehicles (vs 'Mechs) the ability to unjam UACs?

[Weirdo]

News to me.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Isn't one of the advantages of multiple crew members in combat vehicles (vs 'Mechs) the ability to unjam UACs?

I've never seen that rule.  I thought the fluff of Ultra ACs was that the loading mechanism burned out.

[Weirdo]

According to 2750(possibly superceded by now), it was a circuit board that blew or was otherwise disabled by the heavy vibrations of firing the Ultra at full-auto. It also said the repair was easy, but took several minutes, something not normally possible during a normal game. If rules for insufficient tank crew exist, I'd allow a player to try it, as long as it still took however long StratOps says such a repair should take, and the tank would be ashort a guy for that long. And you'd *still* have to roll, so it wouldn't be a guaranteed success.

[Kit deSummersville]

I think there may be some confusion because of the term 'jam'. A critical hit can jam a weapon on a tank, which can be corrected by the crew spending a turn clearing it. This is a different jam from a UAC jam. More of a preserve, perhaps. Or marmalade.

[Weirdo]

Jamming an ultra releases a large amount of sticky goop?

Y'know, this actually makes sense.

[cray]

MaxTech addresses some jamming rules. Per pg17, weapon critical hits can result in jams that can be cleared. Per pg28, multi-crew vehicles can clear turret or weapon jams resulting from critical hits.

However, skimming around, it seems I misremembered that rule as applying to UACs. UACs apparently remain jammed for an entire scenario.

[Diablo48]

MaxTech addresses some jamming rules. Per pg17, weapon critical hits can result in jams that can be cleared. Per pg28, multi-crew vehicles can clear turret or weapon jams resulting from critical hits.

However, skimming around, it seems I misremembered that rule as applying to UACs. UACs apparently remain jammed for an entire scenario.

It does sound like the ability to unjam the weapon in combat should apply to RACs though.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What are you talking about, RACs have always had the ability to unjam.  You have to declare it during the End Phase (like dumping ammo), and the following round you can only expend walking/cruising movement and can't attack, but you can attempt to unjam as many RACs as you'd like.

[Jimmyray73]

I loved both the Rommel and Patton back in the days when TRO:3025 was the new hotness. I used the Patton's range advantage to great effect several times over the years, including a scenario not too long ago where I put a serious hurt on an opponent who underestimated the suck of facing a Patton with AP ammo that was pillboxed right in the middle of a pass he needed to get through.

[Diablo48]

What are you talking about, RACs have always had the ability to unjam.  You have to declare it during the End Phase (like dumping ammo), and the following round you can only expend walking/cruising movement and can't attack, but you can attempt to unjam as many RACs as you'd like.

I meant without the limitations.  It sounds like vehicles get to use other people to unjam weapons without penalty, so they should be able to apply that to RACs as well.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

No, Cray was remembering the expanded weapon crits rule that could cause weapons and equipment to take penalties when critted rather than being destroyed outright.  One of the potential issues for a ballistic weapon was to give it a slight chance of jamming with every shot that could be cleared with a successful check.  It has nothing to do with whether the unit was a vehicle or not.

[rlbell]

I've never seen that rule.  I thought the fluff of Ultra ACs was that the loading mechanism burned out.

I have ignored the fluff in favor of the problem being that the rammer/extractor breaks.  It is not that unreasonable, as doubling the rate of fire requires four times the force on the mechanicals, and the Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft gun needed to be redisigned after it was found to have precisely that problem.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Same basic thing, in the end.  As an autocannon it's going to be a very rapid-fire thing; if it's electically powered (the only way to get it fast enough?) then putting enough wattage through it to double up the ROF is going to eventually fry the wiring and the motor that handles it.  Which, in the end, is a broken rammer/burned out circuits/can't-fix-it result.

[Diablo48]

Same basic thing, in the end.  As an autocannon it's going to be a very rapid-fire thing; if it's electically powered (the only way to get it fast enough?) then putting enough wattage through it to double up the ROF is going to eventually fry the wiring and the motor that handles it.  Which, in the end, is a broken rammer/burned out circuits/can't-fix-it result.

There is really no good reason for the components to not be durable enough to handle the load.  You can always make things tougher, and the electrical power required would be nothing next to the requirements of large energy weapons, Gauss Rifles, or the total output of the reactor.

[rlbell]

There is really no good reason for the components to not be durable enough to handle the load.  You can always make things tougher, and the electrical power required would be nothing next to the requirements of large energy weapons, Gauss Rifles, or the total output of the reactor.

The problem is the difference between component life on a lab bench and component life in the field.  Generally speaking, the lifetime of a bearing in ideal conditions is about a hundred years of continuous use at rated loads.  In the field, that same bearing might not last five years.  UAC's fire off several hundred tons of ammo between failures in the lab, but some bozo will be doing maintenance on the thing and return from his break and forget that some fasteners are improperly torqued (I heard of a Ottawa transit bus that left the garage with the wheels on one side held on by finger-tight lug nuts [it did not get far]).  There is also the wear and tear of being installed in a battlemech.

If/when I ever run a BT campaign, I will secretly roll for each UAC a number of doubletaps  before a crack forms in the rammer/extractor.  Until a crack actually forms, a '2' does not disable the weapon, but the piece will pass all inspections right up until the crack actually appears.  Once cracked, the next '2' will break it.  The players will be told the average and standard deviation of the time between failures.  Substandard parts will have a lower average and wider variation.  Paying for the parts is not an issue, but availability could be a problem.

[SCC]

With regards to what Cray brought up on the Jam thing, one of the mods(?) was asked basically, If I am carrying around all these extras guys, why can't I un-jam the gun? Which is a fair question as a Vee there will be someone who will be free to look at it and you probably can get at the gun in the field, unlike in a 'Mech

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Only if they can open up the port and crawl in to take a look.

While the tank is moving.

And shooting its other weapons.

And other people are shooting it.

[Cannonshop]

LB-10-X's only have the cluster effects over UAC-10's (and the weight) and this is an MBT so the ability to double tab is probably more useful (or viewed as such by the designers, remember this is a Lyarn design)

LBX fire's a bit more effective than ultras against other vees, and there's the TH bonus against flyers to consider (specifically VTOLs), then, there's the superior effectiveness against grunts and suits as well-not MUCH superior, but still, the difference between popping ONE or TWO infantrymen in a hostile platoon, and dashing out up to ten of them?  And there's the crit-seeking at, say, other tanks to consider as well-most vees still crit-out before you can hammer through the armor, an ultra gives you a single "2" cluster roll, whereas an LBX can spread the luuurve and disable enemy vees at superior ranges.

Then again, I'm a guy who, when he pulls the trigger, wants the gun to fire-even if it misses or does a reduced total quantity of damage.  Ultras lay down a lot of hurt-assuming that they actually DO fire-but having a gun you can't use even when you're close-to-full on the magazine?  Worth less to me than the other option.

for Canon designs, I tend to favour the base-model Patton (3025) simply on account of knowing that the gun will, when I need it, work... and the ability to go 5P/10S for ammo loadout isn't that bad, imho.

As for the LRM rack.... best loadouts are, unfortunately, optional rounds- Smoke, Incendiary, Thunder or T-Aug.  Dropping smoke covers your approach, or retreat (or just manuever), if you're using fires rules, incendiary works as terrain-denial for certain units, and generates smoke, and the "Mine" rounds can stall or chew up an enemy thrust at your flank if you do it right.

In general, the Patton is probably the most "Conventionally formulated" tank in the game-that is, it balances on the three axes of Armor, firepower, and speed.  Most heavies sacrifice on speed, which is a mistake unless you're fixated on pillboxing early with your tank units.  4/6 is the "floor" for a good tank-you can move and turn and climb hills without going flank, at a reasonable pace, your TMM ends up being equal to or better than your penalty for movement.

Tanks are "Team Player" units.  If you're trying to "Duel" with them, you're doing it wrong and deserve what happens to you, a lance of Pattons works to support each other, and it works as a "Point man" tank for a mixed lance of similar vehicles in the 4/6 bracket, (based on ammo choices, of course).

The 3025 variant, with the right ammo selections, is suitable for use against 3085 and better opposition (when used correctly).  The "Upgrade" is more specialized, it's not as good an MBT, but does include more MG goodness to keep close-in enemy grunts off your decks (or to sweep the decks of a swarmed comrade.)

The nice thing about a Patton chassis, is that if you want to run it in formations with Rommels, Rommel Gauss, and Manticores, it fills a good niche, if you're using it as the bruiser for a "Medium" lance (say, Myrmidons and Bulldogs) it fills a niche wihtout falling out of formation due to being too slow to get out of its' way (like the Axel, the "Utter FAIL" member of the family, unable to climb a hill without being damn-near immobile to an enemy gunner).

Aesthetically, the Patton (and cousin Rommel) has something else going for it...

It actually LOOKS like a Tank, not a bit of skateboard art puked out in Kalifornia.

[Kit deSummersville]

but still, the difference between popping ONE or TWO infantrymen in a hostile platoon, and dashing out up to ten of them?

Well, three instead of two with cluster ammo.

[Slicer3025]

Ya know this vee i think would be better served if they ripped out their SFE and plugged in a FCE.  Since it doesnt have many energy weps it wont require too much more waste tonnage on sinks (i think FCE have 1 or 2 free right?).  It would be ironic if this vee can be "better" while having a lower tech engine  :P

[SCC]

Ya know this vee i think would be better served if they ripped out their SFE and plugged in a FCE.  Since it doesnt have many energy weps it wont require too much more waste tonnage on sinks (i think FCE have 1 or 2 free right?).  It would be ironic if this vee can be "better" while having a lower tech engine  :P

Straight up that only saves you a ton, however if you switch to a V. Flamer with 1 ton ammo you get 3.5, ditching the SL gets you another ton

[A. Lurker]

One thing worth considering in any discussion of fuel cell vs. fusion is the existence of the "fuel tank" critical hit. On a fusion-powered vehicle, that "merely" translates into a destroyed engine -- bad and probably a reason to strike the colors if there's any chance the enemy will respect that, but not an instant death sentence and the tank may remain salvageable (and even a potential threat to anything crossing into its now-fixed firing arcs). Vees powered by fuel cells, on the other hand, brew up just as easily as ICE-powered ones do.

[Scotty]

Not to mention that there's this funny quirk about FCEs on vehicles compared to SFEs that means it always frees up more tonnage unless you're a hovertank (and even then sometimes).

In exchange for no heatsinks, an operation range, and the chance to explode violently when struck.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

Same basic thing, in the end.  As an autocannon it's going to be a very rapid-fire thing; if it's electically powered (the only way to get it fast enough?) then putting enough wattage through it to double up the ROF is going to eventually fry the wiring and the motor that handles it.  Which, in the end, is a broken rammer/burned out circuits/can't-fix-it result.

Sacrificial circuit, if the components heat up enough to jam an electric motor will fry itself trying to move against the extra force.  If you design it so something else pops first you can save the motor.  If this is done after the battle you could possibly have the everything cool down enough to cycle normally, or at least send in a tech with a crow bar to pop things loose then back into place.

[oldfart3025]

The Patton ranks alongside luminaries, such as the Manticore and Manteuffel, on the short-list of the finest MBTs in the game. A good balance of armor, firepower, and mobility, the Patton was done right from the get-go. Even in the modern era, this tank is still exceptionally dangerous in stock form.

The only really needed update is an improvement in crew survival. We swapped out the AC/10 for a LB 10X autocannon, mostly for the weight savings for CASE installation. But the extra range and anti-armor killing power never hurts, especially with the proliferation of deadly combat vehicles in the modern era. An aft firing ERSL was added as an afterthought, but one that has come in handy from time to time.

My group doesn't run the Ultra variant very often. The base model and our in-house LB-X swap are the most commonly played. But a more recent variant has caught on with my playgroup.

In XTRO: Periphery, a Taurian prototype has come to light: The Patton-SB. Designed to operate in extreme hostile environments, such as a vacuum, it still maintains many of the features that made the original great while throwing some in improvements to the mix.

Powered by a modern 260XL, it loses three tons of armor. But upgrading to HFF, it only loses four points in protection, with the aft actually gaining a two point beef-up. Other features include the environmental sealing, supercharger, and improved close-in secondary weapons (two turret mounted ERMLs). It retains the old LRM-5 rack.

The star of this show is the Silver Bullet gauss rifle with three tons of ammo in the magazine. I'm a big fan of this weapon. And in certain situations, prefer it over the LB-X autocannon.

The only real flaw with the Patton-SB is the lack of CASE. But this can be overlooked to a small extent, since we run it as a specialist design (i.e. naval infantry regiments and marine brigades operating in airless environments). It's been useful and effective in hostile environment combat operations.

Just my two cents worth.

[SCC]

With the Sacrificial circuit why does it take so long to change? It's basically a fuses, it should be in the crew compartment and designed to be changed easily

[A. Lurker]

With the Sacrificial circuit why does it take so long to change? It's basically a fuses, it should be in the crew compartment and designed to be changed easily

I believe it's come up on these forums (haven't seen the document in question myself, nor remember its title offhand) that the fluff is now notionally that if an UAC "jams", what actually happens is that the shell or at least its casing basically welds itself to the chamber. I get the feeling TPTB may be getting a bit tired of all these "UACs should unjam because obviously X!" arguments after all these years... :)

[Moonsword]

The fluff in question is in ER2750.  Why it was written that way I couldn't tell you.

[A. Lurker]

The fluff in question is in ER2750.  Why it was written that way I couldn't tell you.

Fair enough, and thanks.

Myself I don't have any issues with UACs (not even the poor maligned 5). Choosing between single-fire mode or double-tapping is just another one of those risk vs. reward decisions BattleTech has always kind of come with right out of the box.

[SCC]

So question about both the Rommel and the Patton, both have that small laser up front and the Patton has the Flamer, how often are they used? Or maybe how useful are they? I'm asking because I've got a fanfic idea that would likely affect their creation and I want to have things make some more sense.

[SteelRaven]

I would look up Flamethrowers on tanks, more popular in WWII (where Fasa got allot of it's ideas, obviously) but also used lesser so into the cold war. The flamethrower would be used on entrenched positions as the flames and heat would go places bullets would not reach and more importantly/horrifically, suck up the oxygen in a enclosed spaces such as a inside bunker. There is also the psychological effect as well, no one wants to get shot but the idea of being lighted on fire is horrifying on a more primeval level.

It wouldn't be used just on bunkers in practice of course. While arguable more horrific than than a heavy machine gun, the Flamer is a anti-infantry weapon that would be more practical for the tank crew to use than the main gun on a few poor bloody infantry. BTU's Flamers being more powerful than real world flame throwers, it would also be effective on vehicles, cooking anyone inside.

[Alan Grant]

So question about both the Rommel and the Patton, both have that small laser up front and the Patton has the Flamer, how often are they used? Or maybe how useful are they? I'm asking because I've got a fanfic idea that would likely affect their creation and I want to have things make some more sense.

What Steel Raven said, but also more generally, we are talking about the two weapons on the tank that can actually deal with infantry at close range. The LRM can't. The Autocannon you have better uses for, engaging vehicles and 'mechs. The small laser and flamer are the two weapons designed to fight infantry at close range.

If the tank is doing that as part of a team of vehicles/mechs with more anti-infantry weapons, or direct infantry support. It could make a lot of sense. Under those conditions it could be done intentionally and with good results. If it's assaulting some enemy infantry positions with lots of support (direct and indirect fire support while closing the distance with multiple vees/mechs/and infantry then getting in close to overrun the enemy position and finish the job), that could be pretty textbook and common. If it is doing it alone, odds are something has gone horribly wrong. As in the tank is alone (1-4 Pattons), has little or no support. That one flamer, that one small laser, may not be enough to stop a platoon or company of infantry from hammering the tank to death with support weapons or otherwise overrunning it, disabling it or killing it.

In that situation, odds are the Patton is on the defensive. The enemy is trying to kill it and it is trying to drive away from them and keep them at arm's length. Or it is just trying to escape and get back to friendly forces. That is not a scenario a Patton crew would intentionally drive into. To be in that situation means something has gone horribly wrong. An ambush, an enemy assault, a last stand. The rest of the friendlies have been wiped out and this Patton or three are like the survivors (so far) of this tragedy. Etc.

That's more of a tank tactics 101 (real life and Battletech). Tanks like the Patton, designed to engage and fighter other machines (tanks, 'mechs) with more of a token anti-infantry weapon or two, need support to deal with lots of infantry effectively. Whether that's infantry of their own or vees/mechs that have a greater abundance of anti-infantry weapons. Or maybe even just a lot more vehicles in general in the same place, where their combined weight of anti-infantry weapons adds up to something more respectable and they can support each other and destroy the enemy. One Patton by itself or even a platoon (4) of them but no other support, risk being very vulnerable to an infantry assault (if the enemy is willing to throw many platoons at you, especially in thick terrain like forests/jungles or urban where they can get in close).

Final note, the fear of vehicle crews is always being immobilized. Disabled somehow, or lose a track, can't move. That is when enemies can swarm you and avoid your weapons by attacking from your most vulnerable angles. The Patton has to worry about that too. If it can turn the turret it can continue to use most of its weapons. But if it is immobilized, then it can't turn that hull mounted flamer to face the enemy and the enemy can come in at the other angles and avoid the flamer. The way for infantry to kill a Patton is to disable it, so it can't turn the hull. Then to come in at an angle where the flamer is useless. That is one less very terrifying weapon to worry about.

[Fallen_Raven]

So question about both the Rommel and the Patton, both have that small laser up front and the Patton has the Flamer, how often are they used? Or maybe how useful are they? I'm asking because I've got a fanfic idea that would likely affect their creation and I want to have things make some more sense.

The Small Laser is debatable in its utility, mostly for shooting at infantry that weren't nearly as dangerous or durable when these tanks were introduced. There's also something to be said for the ability to hit Light 'mechs that want to run up for a kick, but I can't imagine a scenario where you'd save main gun ammo over the chance for a 'mech kill.

The Flamer is a significantly more useful. Not only does it handle infantry in a way best described as "horrifying", but it also raises the heat of anything hit with it for extra self-defense goodness. The Patton also rear mounts the Flamer so it doesn't have to divert the real firepower to cover its back. Combine the ability to start fires behind you with the armor and (relative to the era) solid firepower makes the Patton a challenging opponent that conventional forces of the era would struggle to face.

[Weirdo]

Ironically, the laser probably helped a lot of Pattons get Elemental kills during the Invasion, providing that last bit of damage to finish off a trooper that was tagged by the main gun.

Not that this brought much comfort, given the four angry Elementals that would now be in pointblank range and wanting to avenge their pointmate...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

If the Patton wasn't in full reverse already, it done goofed.

[Colt Ward]

The 3025 Patton is one of those tanks I do not mind in 3060s forces for the simple reason that Prec AC/10 ammo makes them excellent to help screen your mechs or fire support armor- you know like Rommel (Gauss).  Send that pair of Wasp, Stingers, or other 6/9 lights from the lance after the armor . . . a 10 point hit would be enough to knock them around and deter them trying to get in for the kicks and their shorter ranged weapons.

Not saying I would turn down the UAC/10 one, but the old 3025 design still utility.

[Weirdo]

Pack a ton of flechette if you're attacking a city. Between the big-yet-conventional gun, heavy armor, and the speed to soak a motive hit or two, one of these would make a DISGUSTING breacher for clearing out the first floor of an infantry-held building. >:D

[Cannonshop]

I like the 3025 Patton more than the Upgrade.
Just not an Ultra-10 fan, and think an LBX would have made for a better option IMHO.

agreed.  It's not just the 'not jamming', it's the extra utility against jumpers/flyers and infantry or other vehicles.  The Ultra just felt like "we have to put it on something" plus the fascination with "Moar DAMAJ!!" at the expense of things like reliability and weight.

[Colt Ward]

It would have made more sense if at the time they set up the the Rommel/Patton 3050 updates they had given us a Po Heavy Tank with LBX instead of waiting nearly 15? 20? game years to get a AC/10 replacement on a tank with LBX.  Seriously, a Po with LB-10X and FF armor is a 'duh' early 3050s update.  It would have left you with the Rommel/Patton being anti-armor (damage) and the Po would have been utility with the LBX.

[Cannonshop]

It would have made more sense if at the time they set up the the Rommel/Patton 3050 updates they had given us a Po Heavy Tank with LBX instead of waiting nearly 15? 20? game years to get a AC/10 replacement on a tank with LBX.  Seriously, a Po with LB-10X and FF armor is a 'duh' early 3050s update.  It would have left you with the Rommel/Patton being anti-armor (damage) and the Po would have been utility with the LBX.

meh, I would say LBX ought to have been the choice on pretty much EVERY tank with a class-10 gun.

They're just too darned useful that way, which I guess is the point-they gave the Rommel a gauss rifle, and that's fine in the anti-'mech role, but the Ultra? is really better suited to 'mech duels than it is to any sort of general use, and tanks SHOULD be general purpose 'cleaners' for supporting their 'mech units, which the Ultra doesn't really work as.

especially on a design tht is otherwise built to 'endure it out' the way the Patton variants are...but maybe that was the point of giving the Patton a version that relies on the unreliable-otherwise maybe it's too good?

[Colt Ward]

*shrug* In universe a armor formation is more likely to end up fighting armor or mechanized infantry.  When 3050 rolls around, again In Universe- we know otherwise (sort of), the UAC/10 would be viewed like a sometimes AC/20 with a lot better range.  Yeah, LBX is going to degrade enemy armor but as you point out that turns it into pillbox wars . . . if I am going to run out a design that is supposed to be a superior tank and even stand a chance going against mechs, I will want the raw damage output.  The LBX is not going to degrade a tank the same way and against another peer tank the UAC/10 is more likely to punch through the armor and end the enemy tank than pillbox it.  Pillbox'ing a enemy tank with your own tank means it can still give your tank a mortal wound.

Considering I have used AC Rapid Fire rules with the original Patton, I am not really going to complain for more range and ammo.

[Hellraiser]

agreed.  It's not just the 'not jamming', it's the extra utility against jumpers/flyers and infantry or other vehicles.  The Ultra just felt like "we have to put it on something" plus the fascination with "Moar DAMAJ!!" at the expense of things like reliability and weight.

I think it came down to the era when the upgrades came out honestly, the Ultra-10 was new in 3060 & the designers were pushing "new" stuff.

Honestly, I think most units should have gotten 2 upgrades over 15 years or so, a 3048-ish "refit" and a 3061-ish new production model.

The 3048 Patton (and Po) would have been simple LB10X swaps.   (Or a Gauss Patton for the AC10+LRM5)
The 3061 models could have had Ultra-10's & ERMLs.

The Rommel on the other hand could have swapped the AC20+LRM5 for a Gauss in 3048 & then in 3061 had some new version that sported an XL (or LFE) that used an Ultra-20 w/ deep ammo bins w/ CASE on them.

[BrianDavion]

kinda suprising, given the Davions produce it, we've not seen a RAC Patton

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Actually, the Lyrans produce it.  It's a Defiance Industries machine.

[Cannonshop]

kinda suprising, given the Davions produce it, we've not seen a RAC Patton

  The phrase that comes to mind is "ammo eating toy".

*shrug* In universe a armor formation is more likely to end up fighting armor or mechanized infantry.  When 3050 rolls around, again In Universe- we know otherwise (sort of), the UAC/10 would be viewed like a sometimes AC/20 with a lot better range.  Yeah, LBX is going to degrade enemy armor but as you point out that turns it into pillbox wars . . . if I am going to run out a design that is supposed to be a superior tank and even stand a chance going against mechs, I will want the raw damage output.  The LBX is not going to degrade a tank the same way and against another peer tank the UAC/10 is more likely to punch through the armor and end the enemy tank than pillbox it.  Pillbox'ing a enemy tank with your own tank means it can still give your tank a mortal wound.

Considering I have used AC Rapid Fire rules with the original Patton, I am not really going to complain for more range and ammo.

check your weights again.  The LBX has (in a straight across swap) more ammo capacity, the Ultra runs out faster, and you LOSE a ton of payload capacity on the chassis.

why? IS Ultra weighs more than the standard.  So where did that capacity go?  did it lose armor protection, secondary weapons...what for a tank-scale machine-gun that will run out of shot in half the time if nothing goes wrong?

which is a 1 in 36 chance it WILL go wrong in that specific way that requires pulling the turret to clear the jam.

Which would actually be just fine installed on the cheapest platform you can shoehorn it into (such as a Po).

It's a bit LESS FINE when you're already spending for a fusion engine and the best-armored chassis for the speed you can get without otherwise breaking the bank.  Any time you have a guaranteed random failure, the price goes up for the guys it's assigned to (though maybe not for the contractor who sold it).

Here's the deal: If I can mission-kill a lot of enemy armor and have lots of good salvage left, that's what I'm going to do.  The salvage can be resold, or scavenged for useful parts and the remainder resold, or the equipment repaired and repurposed.

LBX has a significant 'impact' on enemy supporting forces, an LBX equipped tank can feasibly deal with enemy VTOL assets, it's an advantage more often than a disadvantage, and it doesn't come with a built in guarantee of failure in the field.

That means less money spent on repairs, and more of my budget can be spent on the rest of my forces' needs.

It also means I don't have to ship as much ammo to keep it stocked, which lets me ship more actuators for my 'mech complement or other hardware, making my supply officer's life a little less miserable (in trade, admittedly, for tracking two ammo types instead of one).

that still frees up cubic volume and tonnage for my spacelift.

what am I sacrificing?  MAYBE getting a longer-range AC/20 hit once in a while and a guarantee of needing heavy tooling near the sharp end to keep the guns running..because theyr'e unreliable?

You put the unreliable guns on the cheap platforms you don't mind losing.  Ultra-5 on a Vedette? sure! it's cheap, it's not MEANT to sustain a fight, it's not a generalist, the better option would be a Scorpion, but the Scorp doesn't have the mass to haul it.

but this is a 65 ton main-line tank meant to be there to get your 'mech forces through the breech, it's fast enough (barely) to play offense, and armored enough to be a pain in the ass to kill.  on THAT one, you do NOT want a gun that randomly refuses to go 'bang' and then requires a trip to Depot level to unjam it.  especially what amounts to a Boutique gun that is really only optimized for a single sort of opponent, versus a reliable weapon that can, among other things, dust helicopters, low-flying aircraft, or enemy infantry concentrations without needing special targeting equipment or spectacularly good luck.

I think we're just approaching this from very different perspectives.  You're extolling the potential damage, I'm focusing on "If it doesn't hit, it doesn't do damage" combined with "If it can't fire, it can't hit."

AND an appreciation for Murphy's treatise on land warfare and machinery in general.  The fewer points of failure tend to be more reliable winners, than the greater potential.

To ME, the choice of Ultra-10 on a Patton chassis is someone's second cousin getting a phat bonus and a few general officers in procurement who should be investigated for corruption. (otoh, putting an Ultra-5 on a light tank is a GREAT idea-they're not SUPPOSED to stick it out!) and maybe some engineers who need to be exposed to field conditions personally to get across that "if the gun doesn't go bang, you're not going to have a good day".

RAC on a Vedette's a good choice too-because it's a useful transplant.  I have far less confidence on putting your main gun on a main line main tank in a position where simple malfunction can deadline most of your firepower until you get to the rear, and it's a predictable malfunction that still happens randomly-the 'predictable' part being it's likely to happen in combat-you know, that place where Malfunctions get you (or your buddies) killed even if you did everything else right.

[SteelRaven]

Not going to write a whole essay on it but we can find the Ultra-10 on more than a few units from this time frame so someone at Fasa thought higher of that weapon system than most players, the later would agree the LB-10X is the better weapon of the two. After that, it become a write up for Fan Designs.

[Sabelkatten]

The UAC/10 is a terrible weapon on a mech or ASF, but it's not that bad on a vehicle:

1) Heat doesn't matter (this is the real dealbreaker on a mech - including DHS an UAC/10 is heavier than a GR!).

2) Your life expectancy is lower, so the likelihood of jamming before you die is lower.

Basically you're looking at 14 damage / 18 range for 15 tons compared to 15 damage / 22 range for 17 tons. It's worse but not UAC/5 worse. But of course the LB10 is still a far better option!

[Robroy]

Or TPTB were thinking along the lines of lance composition. 2 tanks with ultras for punching holes and 2 with LBX for finding those holes.

[GreekFire]

Well, we do now have an LB-X Patton, along with another Ultra one.

Thoughts about the new tanks?

[Cannonshop]

The UAC/10 is a terrible weapon on a mech or ASF, but it's not that bad on a vehicle:

1) Heat doesn't matter (this is the real dealbreaker on a mech - including DHS an UAC/10 is heavier than a GR!).

2) Your life expectancy is lower, so the likelihood of jamming before you die is lower.

Basically you're looking at 14 damage / 18 range for 15 tons compared to 15 damage / 22 range for 17 tons. It's worse but not UAC/5 worse. But of course the LB10 is still a far better option!

Not all vees play the same, or fill the same role, or even HAVE a role to fill, or fill the roles they're fluffed as having.

Ultras are fine on two kinds of vehicle:

1. Blazingly fast, thin-skinned vehicles that may get one or two passes before tehy have ot retire anyway.    Clanner style combatants. Hovercrat, maybe Condor variants or something.

2. the cheapest chassis you can tack it onto, because you're intentionally sending them out to attrition units you don't necessarily want coming home.  The Po would be perfect for an ultra autocannon, because the Chassis is CHEAP....

The Patton really isn't.  In the case of the Patton, you're paying to duplicate the capability of a contemporary design from the same company that doesn't have a random malfunction problem (the Rommel-Gauss) in the 'mech destroyer role.

Thus, adding unnecessary complexity to your supply line for a vehicle that self-deadlines randomly...and is known to do so.

There's probably an exotic dancer or two near the teh Defiance Corporate Offices whose college has been paid for by this contract, and certainly some investment banks are happy to have the extra bribe money being deposited on New Avalon...but that doesn't make it a good design, or even a reasonable one, and it works 'well enough' that indictment and charges aren't likely to follow the realization that AFFC bought a redundant lemon.

why? because it sometimes works, and there's a habit in Great House procurement for "Well, it worked on the second tuesday of testing under strict lab conditions, so it's approved!"

even when combat experience shows that unreliable equipment kills its operators more often than direct enemy action, because malfunctions that require depot level intervention to fix tend to happen at the worst time in live combat.

Thus, why the AFFC invested heavily in trying to solve the jamming problem and wound up with the RAC, which still jams, but can be UN-Jammed in the field by panicked 19 year olds under fire because the vehicle they're on can't go fast enough to retreat to the rear for repair.

An ASF with an ultra can still drop bombs, so it's not so terrible there.  It also usually has secondary weapons that are still useful in ground attack (unless some idiot loaded the rest of the airframe with SRM racks and called it good).  so the loss is painful, but not debilitating, and generally speaking an ASF can pull back to the landing field or carrier because those engagements tend to be short duration anyway.

you're not paying turret tonnage on a fighter for a gun that will fail you randomly.

I'll say this, at least the Ultra doesn't explode when it malfunctions.

But the Ultra's the wrong install for the Patton. 

Here's the why of it: the Rommel/Patton pairing was "Hard/short plus Utility".  The Rommel Gauss is derived from the same base chassis, but is even MORE a 'mech destroyer/hard blow.  the Patton's armor and profile is an offensive tank in close support-a generalist meant to sustain an offensive.  (Hence the remarkably heavy armor for the type) that still has a reasonable amount of main gun for a line tank, with reasonable range.

it's meant to provide sustained multirole support for heavier units, or be a real bitch to overcome in a defense due to longevity.

but then, someone at Defiance put a gun that only works for short, quick engagements in it because "It has more potential damage".

in the process, they lost the flexibility and gained unreliable operation.

This isn't good for the soldiers who have to crew them.  as someone pointed out, "If you don't double-tap...."

but if you don't, then you're paying for the ability without being able to actually make use of it, and if, like Colt Ward, you already use rapid fire rules?

then you're not only paying in BV, you're also paying in weight payload and armor, and losing the other options from the same era that you could have had, with the old main gun that, frankly, was just fine for the role (or put bluntly, better for the role).

IOW not really an upgrade-except for the expense accounts at Defiance or whomever else you're contracting to install Ultras into Pattons when they would be better used on Condors or Po.

Hilariously, the Po got the gun that would've been a functional UPGRADE FOR REAL on the Patton, both becasue of where the AFFC was doing their fighting at the time, and the over-all doctrine with tanks.

Thus, Patton-Ultra is a mediocre weak sister to stablemate Rommel-Gauss in the same role, leaving a gaping hole in doctrine for something more flexible that isn't being produced in their home nation, where the parent designs filled distinctly different niches originally and complemented one another quite well.

Personally I'm inclined to just toss my hands up and blame it on Nondi Steiner and Simon Gallagher being idiots.

[BrianDavion]

except Canonshop you're missing something, something important.

You don't HAVE to fire an UAC in ultra mode. And you can fire all day long in single shot mode. the Ultra mode just gives you the ability to, in a pinch, double the firepower of your main gun. you seem to be thinking that every mech, vehicle etc with a UAC or RAC should be firing the gun at double rate every round, and frankly if you think that I'm guessing you don't win many table top games. With a UAC you use the mode selectively situation dependant, because sometimes yes even in a Main Battle tank, you just wanna throw as much lead down range as fast as possiable. because at the end of the day a MBT is still a TANK, and they tend to have short live spans when the heavy mechs tank the field. Even if the tank survives it could swiftly lose mobility via tred damage and if it loses a tred being able to put out increased damage when a mech blunders into it's view?  THAT is worth while. because if your treds have been shredded your going to need to put as much power into a target in as short a period of time.

[Cannonshop]

except Canonshop you're missing something, something important.

You don't HAVE to fire an UAC in ultra mode. And you can fire all day long in single shot mode. the Ultra mode just gives you the ability to, in a pinch, double the firepower of your main gun. you seem to be thinking that every mech, vehicle etc with a UAC or RAC should be firing the gun at double rate every round, and frankly if you think that I'm guessing you don't win many table top games. With a UAC you use the mode selectively situation dependant, because sometimes yes even in a Main Battle tank, you just wanna throw as much lead down range as fast as possiable. because at the end of the day a MBT is still a TANK, and they tend to have short live spans when the heavy mechs tank the field. Even if the tank survives it could swiftly lose mobility via tred damage and if it loses a tred being able to put out increased damage when a mech blunders into it's view?  THAT is worth while. because if your treds have been shredded your going to need to put as much power into a target in as short a period of time.

l
flip side, Brian-you lose mobility AND you lose the ability to bunker all at the same time,or in the same turn.  yes, you 'don't have to' fire in double mode.  but you're paying the extra mass, and reducing SOMETHING for that ability you're hoping, in a pinch, will save you instead of screwing you over.

This is the MASC argument all over again, in a way.  BUT, what you're ignoring, is that I'm not LOOKING at individual duel performance.  If I want a duellist, I'll take a heavy or assault 'mech armed with CERPPC's or Gauss rifles.

This has to do with teaming.  The guy on your left has an unreliable weapon that MIGHT do extra damage while running him out of ammo faster, or it might jam so badly it can't be fixed in the field, and you don't know which it is, except that his ability to lay down fire is what's keeping you alive.

NOW make your choice.

shots you can't take, don't do damage.

Shots you fire on burst where the dice go low instead of high, don't do any MORE damage than firing single.

I look at tanks maybe a little differntly than you do, Brian.  I look at them first in terms of "How does this work with the rest of my force and my tactical and strategic objectives?"

Typically, when runnign combined arms, you EITHER run disposables that, as long as they do SOME damage, can be tossed away, OR you're using something that is intended to sustain.

the disposable only needs to weather a couple hits, it's INTENDED not to endure for long.  Think "Hetzer".

Ultras work GREAT on disposables, because the potential damage outweighs the need for endurance-they're not tough enough to bunker in the first place so losing that capacity is not an issue.  Other disposables fit the same way-Scorpion, Vedette.

Then you have your nasty support units.  Thse are meant to be damaging AND a threat.  To do that, they have to still be useful when their tracks are shot off, because they're a fire-sink with a turret.

THAT role requires endurance, and if it's a lump of armor that can't shoot, then it's not worth bringing.

If it can't sustain until the ammo's gone, or if it runs out too soon, it's also not worth bringing.

fitting into that second grouping, is units that are there to suppress, degrade or destroy the enemy's supporting arms. 

ADA capacity is GOOD, anti-infantry dusting or the ability to crit out enemy vehicles at range? also good.  That's stuff the 'mechwarriors don't have to worry about, it's stuff that the owner on the other side DOES have to worry about.

The fact the gun that has the broader application (means "can fill more jobs for my limited spacelift for longer") is combined with "Doesn't jam itself so badly at random that you have to pull the turret to fix the jam"?

One of these two is a significantly better tool of war than the other, because it provides more strategic and tactical options, and thus, advantages, and does so more reliably.

hence why I tend, despite the larger POTENTIAL damage, to put the Ultra at the BOTTOM of the list, just above the HVAC or Heavy Machine Gun-because it only offers an unreliable higher damage potential, but carries the drawback of being grossly unreliable and burning through munitions faster for that (Unreliable) higher average damage.

The Standard can use ammunition types that give it an advantage, and does so reliably.  The LBX uses two types, but does so reliably and weighs less in the class 10 configuration we're talking about, while having a better curve against MORE TYPES OF UNITS than the Ultra, which is important if you're up against someone who knows how to use VTOLs, other tanks, infantry, or suits to multiply the power of their 'mechs.

Stick an Ultra-5 on a 25 ton track you don't really care if you lose? yeah, do that, stick an Ultra on a hovertank or light/medium design intended as chaff and popcorn?? sure.

but don't waste the armor plate if you're going to stick it on an MBT unless that MBT is just as cheap as you can make it with an ICE engine and barely enough armor to count as armor.

it's the CHEAP STUFF that needs that 'run away gun'.  if you're going to use as much plating on a track as the Patton uses, and a fusion engine? you want the gun that goes 'bang' every time until it runs out, and has some endurance, because there's a TACTICAL DOCTRINE behind and underlying the rest of the design, and it's not winning duels on Solaris.

I look at  this and ask 'what's the role?'  The Rommel and Rommel/Gauss is a headcapping 'mech and tank destroyer meant to be reactive.  The original Patton was a multirole support machine for 'mechs and as a secondary in the defensive line as a mobile bunker-enough punch to present a threat that can't be ignored, enough plating that it can preserve that threat posture for quite a while before it ceases being useful (Whether moving or not).

what's the role of the Ultra version?  Filling Mai Tais at the sales officer's retirement party and putting hookers through massage school, because it's already outmatched by a stablemate in the role the main gun forces on it, of being an UNRELIABLE 'mech and tank destroyer without that headcapper capacity, that by definition doesn't have endurance you can actually rely ON to cover your other units.

the Patton Ultra doesn't provide a significant, reliable advantage over the base 3025 model, but it costs more to use, maintain, feed, and care for. 

A Patton with an LBX, on the other hand, CAN do more jobs than the base 3025 model, while still doing the same job, and does both in a superior fashion reliably, meaning the 'mechwarrior planners can actually say "okay tankers, I'm goig to watch the enemy instead of monitoring your status because you got this..and I can actually make a reliable plan around it, with reasonable contingencies if you do your own jobs right."

This is the same reason we didn't see the allies stuffing 90mm guns into Shermans, and why the 76 wasn't used on D-Day...and why germanophiles get really upset when you trot out the maintenance and downtime stats on Tiger 1, Tiger 2, and Panther.

Straight up comparison outside the duelling fields of Solaris, the LBX is a real upgrade for a tank's main gun on too many levels compared to the Ultra.

[Cannonshop]

IS LBX 10:

11 tons
Short range: 1-6
Medium : 7-12
Long: 13-18

IS Ultra AC 10:

13 tons

Short: 1-6
Medium: 7-12
Long: 13-18

3025 Standard AC/10:

12 tons
Short: 1-5
Medium: 6-10
Long: 11-15

The ultra has a range advantage over the standard, but you lose a ton of something else, and ammo/ton for all of these is 10 shots

For the same mass, then, an LBX equipped Patton can carry two tons more ammunition than an Ultra equipped, or one ton more than a standard equipped.

Thus, it's important to note what the Patton-Ultra carries for secondary weapons.

Two medium lasers and three machineguns.

Thus, losing the ability to deploy smoke (no LRM launcher or similar equipment), so it can't screen friendly units, but it can shoot the hell out of unarmored infantry and it has two medium lasers.

this puts it firmly in the duellist role-it can't support neighboring friendly units or engage in battlefield manipulation as part of an attack...and mind you, that ALSO puts it firmly in the "competing with the Rommel for a role" situation-a product competing for the same role and position as another product from the same manufacturer.

that other product also uses the same base chassis.

even down to having an incredibly similar weapons fit with the Rommel Gauss on the secondary armaments.

like I said, Nondi and Simon were having a pissing contest under Katherine, right down to procuring redundancy-only the Patton Ultra is inferior in the same role it's trying to rook from Rommel Gauss, due to unreliability.

Someone's grandkids got a gold plated Gieneh Roadster for their graduation present off this.

[JadeHellbringer]

kinda suprising, given the Davions produce it, we've not seen a RAC Patton

I demand this hypothetical be named the Pattattattattattattatton.

[BrianDavion]

I demand this hypothetical be named the Pattattattattattattatton.

Or maybe the Monty

[Cannonshop]

I demand this hypothetical be named the Pattattattattattattatton.

Disagree.  Give it the truest name: "Patton DAKKA!!!"

with the exclamation points.  as for whether it would be any good? that's up to yr humble tabletop, and how in-depth you want to be in terms of campaign playing and fluff.

but it's also a task for the fan designs forum, I suspect.  your weight savings would give it LOTS of potential for ammo while still hauling a heavier assortment of other goodies...but that's a fan designs thing, as is just about all my ranting about LBX's, so my apologies to everyone for that.

not that it matters.  We have our Canon deisgns, the 'upgrades' are basically redundant, with less flexibility as a battlefield tool, but that IS the canon design.

[Sabelkatten]

I've run a sort-of-Patton armed with a RAC/5 and 2xERML tied to a TC for decent effect. Penetration sucks, but damage output and accuracy is pretty good.

[GreekFire]

How about the Brrratton?

So yeah, two new Pattons with the RecGuides.

The first, the Patton (XL), doubles down on the tank being a cutting-edge platform using technologies often reserved for 'Mechs. Eschewing the Fuel Cell common for many RecGuide designs, it instead uses its weight savings to mate a targeting computer to its UAC. The use of an MML allows it to plink just as well as the OG model, while use of frag/inferno SRMs could make up for the loss of the (Ultra)'s two forward-mounted machine guns.

The (Taurian), for its part, moves away from the hyper-specialized concept of the -SB to finally give the nation domestic manufacturing of the tank. Cheaper and simpler than the XTRO version, its LB-10-X is a nod towards the difficulty the Taurians were said to have in sourcing Silver Gauss Rifles. It's not flashy, but it's a simple, straight-forward line MBT for the Periphery nation.

[Colt Ward]

  The phrase that comes to mind is "ammo eating toy".

check your weights again.  The LBX has (in a straight across swap) more ammo capacity, the Ultra runs out faster, and you LOSE a ton of payload capacity on the chassis.

why? IS Ultra weighs more than the standard.  So where did that capacity go?  did it lose armor protection, secondary weapons...what for a tank-scale machine-gun that will run out of shot in half the time if nothing goes wrong?

which is a 1 in 36 chance it WILL go wrong in that specific way that requires pulling the turret to clear the jam.

Which would actually be just fine installed on the cheapest platform you can shoehorn it into (such as a Po).
*snip*

I think you are misconstruing some of what I wrote, which is that in universe some of the design philosophy makes sense.  The Rommel/Patton are high end tanks expected to be armor 'superiority' designs and at least have a decent chance of going up against equal or lighter mechs under basic conditions.  For that sort of design, the higher damage capacity of Gauss Rifles and Ultras make sense because you want to punch holes in mech armor (and with the UAC, potentially two big holes) or against tanks you want to get a kill rather than degrading capabilities because a LBX's death by plinking still gives an enemy time to degrade YOUR armor formation.  It is effectively the one big gun or lots of small guns warship design debated early in the last century.

A interesting test would be for a lance of UAC Pattons vs a lance of LBX Po (restricted to using just cluster) where each lance focuses fire on one target on a map with decent tank ground.

Further why I was placing the discussion in universe/character is that while we talk about the chance of failure, it is a 2.7% chance to jam . . . we are not talking about HVACs, where it blows up.  The main gun goes inop, and it is time for that tank to retreat off the field of battle.  But the theoretical designers seeking to meet the demand for a higher damage output against Clan mechs are going to go with a weapon that blows holes in the armor vs just sanding away the Clan mech's armor for very little result.  Yeah, we still make cracks about tanks dying easily but the Patton is not a Clan eggshell tank and while I would not want to take a lance of UAC Pattons against a Clan star, if I was a IS lance leader going against a Clan star I would like those Pattons from a RCT's armor regiment backing me up.


But the other point is we SHOULD have gotten a LB-10X Po back in the early 50s instead of having to wait nearly 20 years . . . which is why my head-canon has no problem with mercs after the mid 3050s having the simplest LB-10X Po as a 'unofficial' refit, just using a canon sheet.



Now OUT of universe . . . is a different story, rules at the time of creation have to be taken into account- like sneeze at a tank and it does . . . so getting as much damage as far down range as possible would matter.  Someone else mentioned the heat impact of Ultra mode is negated by vehicle rules, so it is a good place to put Ultras- which I agree with . . . though like you mention, having it on a Saladin or Bellona works too.  The chance to get two 10pt or 20pt hits behind a heavy or assault mech is nothing to sneeze at BUT having that higher damage potential in a tank you already spent more resources on also makes sense.

The weight difference you mention was already accounted for in the IC designers so it did not really matter for the conversion from 3025 to UAC Patton . . . but yeah, for campaign game conversions?  It is a great point, and I use it often.


As for the Patton (XL) . . . yeah, I think it is extending what the idea was in 3050- a tank designed to give near mech combat capabilities.  The TC lets a crew get that 10pt hit more often and MMLs let them adapt to environmental conditions to some degree w/o going the full Omni route, same reason I like MML and ATMs on mechs that are not LRM boats.

[Cannonshop]

I think you are misconstruing some of what I wrote, which is that in universe some of the design philosophy makes sense.  The Rommel/Patton are high end tanks expected to be armor 'superiority' designs and at least have a decent chance of going up against equal or lighter mechs under basic conditions.  For that sort of design, the higher damage capacity of Gauss Rifles and Ultras make sense because you want to punch holes in mech armor (and with the UAC, potentially two big holes) or against tanks you want to get a kill rather than degrading capabilities because a LBX's death by plinking still gives an enemy time to degrade YOUR armor formation.  It is effectively the one big gun or lots of small guns warship design debated early in the last century.

A interesting test would be for a lance of UAC Pattons vs a lance of LBX Po (restricted to using just cluster) where each lance focuses fire on one target on a map with decent tank ground.

Further why I was placing the discussion in universe/character is that while we talk about the chance of failure, it is a 2.7% chance to jam . . . we are not talking about HVACs, where it blows up.  The main gun goes inop, and it is time for that tank to retreat off the field of battle.  But the theoretical designers seeking to meet the demand for a higher damage output against Clan mechs are going to go with a weapon that blows holes in the armor vs just sanding away the Clan mech's armor for very little result.  Yeah, we still make cracks about tanks dying easily but the Patton is not a Clan eggshell tank and while I would not want to take a lance of UAC Pattons against a Clan star, if I was a IS lance leader going against a Clan star I would like those Pattons from a RCT's armor regiment backing me up.


But the other point is we SHOULD have gotten a LB-10X Po back in the early 50s instead of having to wait nearly 20 years . . . which is why my head-canon has no problem with mercs after the mid 3050s having the simplest LB-10X Po as a 'unofficial' refit, just using a canon sheet.



Now OUT of universe . . . is a different story, rules at the time of creation have to be taken into account- like sneeze at a tank and it does . . . so getting as much damage as far down range as possible would matter.  Someone else mentioned the heat impact of Ultra mode is negated by vehicle rules, so it is a good place to put Ultras- which I agree with . . . though like you mention, having it on a Saladin or Bellona works too.  The chance to get two 10pt or 20pt hits behind a heavy or assault mech is nothing to sneeze at BUT having that higher damage potential in a tank you already spent more resources on also makes sense.

The weight difference you mention was already accounted for in the IC designers so it did not really matter for the conversion from 3025 to UAC Patton . . . but yeah, for campaign game conversions?  It is a great point, and I use it often.


As for the Patton (XL) . . . yeah, I think it is extending what the idea was in 3050- a tank designed to give near mech combat capabilities.  The TC lets a crew get that 10pt hit more often and MMLs let them adapt to environmental conditions to some degree w/o going the full Omni route, same reason I like MML and ATMs on mechs that are not LRM boats.

YOur proposed test has a couple of flaws:

 1. it's a duel.  Duels are pretty easy to slant, in this case slanting so that you're restricting one side to cluster ammo without also restricting the other side to full auto.
  Why this is a problem: because it's solely a test of straight across armor protection vs. specific weapons without battlefield context.  That is, none of the other things (VTOLs, infantry) are included when you're weighing the capabilities here.  It's not even a TACTICAL test, it's just a shooting contest slanted toward giving the ultra a win.  In my experience as a player, Ultras work best, in duels with less well protected or mobile opponents.

2. The Po lance would likely win if there were an objective beyond "Kill everybody" because they're more likely to get early mission kills.  (turret locked, tracks immobilized, potential for crew stunned). Even with TW locations, the mission-kill potential is high-if there's a mission beyond 'Kill everybody-last man standing'.

aka an actual MISSION.  This is one of those distortions that happens because of the game format-in real military operations if I can neutralize your tank force and render it immobilized or unable to achieve an objective, I win, even if I don't annhilate them.  I don't have to kill ALL of your soldiers, I just have to keep them from being able to shoot (things I don't want shot), or,  Move (Places I don't want them to go).

which usually denies them the ability to shoot the things I don't want getting shot.

on the flip side, I aLSO can improve the chances of my side winning, if I can deny easy access to airborne gunships (VTOL support) or suppress infantry at range/prevent them from positioning.

One of these guns works better for this, than the other.

IOW the Taurians got the better Patton.  Whether they realize it or not, they got an actual upgrade and a an actual BATTLE TANK, while others bought what amounts to an expensive dueling platform for Solaris.

Keep in mind, I was winning with conventional forces and the much nastier hit locations long before Total Warfare incorporated the munchtek hit locations-because I treated them like one part of a larger force instead of as Hero units for duelling.

Generally speaking, regardless of rules level, some guns work better in that context, than others.  With the Ultra model, you run out of ammunition in half the time, meaning your supply wagons have to move more of the stuff if everything works, but everything doesn't work reliably with Ultras, and the 'fix' for an Ultra that jams, is pulling the turret at Depot, so to support a force of them, you need your depot closer to the front.

LOTS closer.  The equivalent would be comparing Sherman or T-34 to Panther.  One of these is superior-until it breaks down, and it breaks down a LOT, without needing enemy action to malfunction, and the malfunctions take hours to days to repair. (During which, it is helpless and not contributing to the battle.)

The other has to be actively taken out by the enemy to make it stop working assuming the crew are doing their jobs.

Ultras work FINE on truly disposeable units, because those units are either for mass combats where you don't care about your casualties, your goal is to swamp the enemy in fire, or for suppressing lesser forces with the danger of occasionally bumping into something tougher that you need to get away from as soon as possible.

Vedettes, for example, or Scorpions, or any of your hover tanks-they need that firepower on tap right now and if it fails they're dead anyway unless they can flee.

LBX is for supporting a more formal battle line of troopers that may need to deal with enemy air or enemy conventionals, or enemies who have a lot of disposable forces that can still do damage to your 'mechs.

aka it's generally a better General Purposes gun.  It goes 'bang' when you fire it (assuming you have ammunition that fits) and does so reliably, meaning it can be a threat that degrades an enemy force even immobilized out to 18 hexes, and as the man says, "Some damage, that you can apply, is better than higher damage you can't even fire."

after all, only shots you can fire, that hit, can do damage.

[Colt Ward]

The test was not for proving which gun/platform was better, just the armor removing vs LBX papercut death, reason I did not specify always going Ultra.  As far as last man standing, the whole point was my contention the Patton UAC was actually designed IC for armor superiority- IE, tank/mech killer rather than multipurpose . . . it is like the folks who think the Thunderhawk is the bestest mech evar!  And then snivel when they run up against light vehicles, speedster mechs, and masses of BA (maybe some artillery support) that then slaughter their Gauss/ERPPC only lance.

I agree the LBX is a better gun than the UAC, I have long claimed it was the best 'gun' in the game . . . the Plasma Rifle comes close, it just loses out in range for the modern battlefield.  Heck, I agree the LBX Patton is superior b/c I do want the utility and prefer objective based games where 'mission-kills' is good enough.

[Cannonshop]

The test was not for proving which gun/platform was better, just the armor removing vs LBX papercut death, reason I did not specify always going Ultra.  As far as last man standing, the whole point was my contention the Patton UAC was actually designed IC for armor superiority- IE, tank/mech killer rather than multipurpose . . . it is like the folks who think the Thunderhawk is the bestest mech evar!  And then snivel when they run up against light vehicles, speedster mechs, and masses of BA (maybe some artillery support) that then slaughter their Gauss/ERPPC only lance.

I agree the LBX is a better gun than the UAC, I have long claimed it was the best 'gun' in the game . . . the Plasma Rifle comes close, it just loses out in range for the modern battlefield.  Heck, I agree the LBX Patton is superior b/c I do want the utility and prefer objective based games where 'mission-kills' is good enough.

The problem I see, is that the same manufacturer had a BETTER armor superiority tank on the same chassis, coming off the same production lines.  The Rommel-Gauss fills the exact same role, but more reliably.  The failure of the whole "you retire when it jams' is that your tank is not contributing, and not contributing randomly.  It would be like having one of your soldiers having to go back to base because his rifle jammed, because he literally has no way to clear the jam without the help of the armorer, and you KNOW his rifle is going to jam that badly in combat-but not when...only that it's probably GOING to happen right about the time you need him providing overwatch fire because you're already in heavy contact.

This IS a major defect, and why I made the joke about corrupt procurement-the AFFC already had a better platform for the same job, and did so without sacrificing previously held secondary roles that work as force multipliers for your tank platoon, and without the random major malfunction that requires your men to cover the retreat of an otherwise functional vehicle (to be fair, at 4/6 in heavy contact, it's probably not going to STAY functional while trying to withdraw.)

as a TANK driver, in the Battletech universe, you're there to keep the Mechwarriors alive.  That is your job, it's why you're there and not in the infantry or supply department driving a truck.  If your gun malfunctions, and you have to fall back to base to get it un-stuck, you've gone from being a combat asset, to a combat deficit.

EVEN during the height of the Clan invasion. (Perhaps especially during that period.)

Because the malfunction is KNOWN, the time it's going to happen is going to be when you desperately need that gun to keep running, because the lives of your buddies or your assignment are on the line, and the enemy is in range to make you dead, and probably faster than you.

Figure the nasty rep the M-16 got in vietnam with a much lower failure rate, that nasty rep lasted decades.

Why? because the malfunction didn't happen when the troops were safely in garrison, or within a couple steps of the armorer's shop.  It happened where such malfunctions TEND to happen-in combat, with people on the other side trying to kill them.

The major difference, is that the m-16's malfunctions were because someone really didn't do their job, and it was correctible.

The malfunction problem on the Ultra Autocannon isn't because someone in the supply department screwed the poocka.  It's a known defect in the execution of the design and the engineers never fixed it.

So...with a better option already in production, why would you redesign a second unit to fill the same role, using the same chassis, armor plate, seating, most of the same secondary weapons, and a main gun that is guaranteed to malfunction under stress?

and malfunction so badly you have to retreat the unit out of the line, under fire, abandoning the mission, to un-jam the main gun.  What kind of army would consciously choose this?

Particularly when they're already under pressure from a superior foe?

it doesn't make sense...but what DOES make sense, is an executive giving a kickback to a guy in procurement to sell crap goods to an army under pressure, because it's a national emergency and they can make a really good excuse (*and the general in procurement is safely away from the front lines and likely to remain so!)

If Rommel-Gauss didn't exist off the same production line in the same timeframe with a collection of less useful units ALSO getting gauss rifles, arguments for shortage might hold water...but that's not what happened.  what happened, was that somebody got sold a bill of crap goods, and enough of them to spur their successors to double down on accepting crap goods in a role that was already filled by a demonstrably superior unit from the same manufacturer.

[SteelRaven]

Cannonshop, it's a game and Fasa didn't always make the most optimize units. Half the time, sometimes it's like they just started putting weapons on a record sheet to see what would fit. In universe, the Ultra doesn't have the bad rep as it does with player on the TT.

[Cannonshop]

Cannonshop, it's a game and Fasa didn't always make the most optimize units. Half the time, sometimes it's like they just started putting weapons on a record sheet to see what would fit. In universe, the Ultra doesn't have the bad rep as it does with player on the TT.

"Optimized?" you literally can't optimize.  You can get 'pretty good' or 'better than most' but there's literally no way to make a tank that is immune to damage and one-shot-kills all targets.  That's the generation system.

This is the same universe that thinks a one ton machine gun with a sixty meter effective range is a good idea, right?

I get the slack argument there.  I really do.  I think I even addressed it in an earlier post.  What's funny to me, is that the right swap wsa finally done-for the Taurians, and it was excused as something even LESS useful being unavailable.

sort of "by accident we got a better design than we would have if we got what we intended".  And that's some character-development humour right there.  makes me smile.

why? because it's the best of the lot, and it's from the otherwise-poor-as-church-mouse, often-incompetent Periphery.

I just wish they'd fluffed that as 'someone in the Taurian Concordat actually thought this through for more than thirty seconds and wasn't taking backhanders from Defiance long enough to design something intelligent...which their perpetual headache the Davions didn't."

because that would've been awesome, but not as funny.

[Colt Ward]

*silently moves the Cannonshop's UAC token to the same basket as Yellow Jacket*

[Cannonshop]

*silently moves the Cannonshop's UAC token to the same basket as Yellow Jacket*

aw come on, Colt.  I actually DO see a use for Ultra Autocannons, (Unlike the Yellowjacket) that isn't a waste, it's just not THIS application.  (There IS no application for the YJ.  None.  It serves NO purpose except to redistribute Gauss Rifles to the enemy as salvage).

Stuffing an Ultra onto the cheapest platform you can? Yes, this is a good use of it that accounts for the reliability issue, and it has teh benefit of actually being a move that might work if you have enough of them in the same place, or stuffing it into a solaris duellist? sure, the drama fills spectator seats and sells sponsorships.

I just don't agree with the application being on one of the most expensive chassis out there for the era, especially when the same manufacturer makes a better option in the same role-one that outright works better...but the Patton-ultra at least Has a Role, even if it's somewhat inefficient and more a result of in-character corporate greed and official corruption.

The Yellowjacket has no such excuse.  My opinion of THAT airframe is MUCH LOWER.  (any time you have to build the entire scenario around a single unit from one side of it to make that unit useful-and by 'entire scenario' I mean 'both sides must be set up to make the yellowjacket on one side look good'...or where the 'team' to make it functional is actually more functional WITHOUT IT?  That's the stock Yellowjacket right there.)

Patton Ultra is a disappointing design, it's not a design they had to revamp the entire class of vehicles hit-tables and add a magic 50 point shield to the motive system to make semi-viable.  It's not an outright BAD design, it's just Lesser while being expensive.

which a successful expression of government corruption and corporate greed would be-it's not truly ineffective, it's just not as good as a similar product from the same manufacturer, for the same client, at the same time in the same role.

Fixing that one organizationally requires an auditor and a prosecutor.  at most, a few fines and maybe a general officer being cashiered and stripped of rank.  Followed by classes on "Why we keep this function pinned and locked out."  IOW there are ways to USE the design, even if it's outperformed by something better in the same role.

Fixing the organizational defects that resulted in the Yellowjacket being approved for production suggests a need for rope, a gallows, and a regimental assembly to watch the perpetrators of the fraud hang on live holovid.  Because there's no way to actually USE IT and still bring home your pilot without a VERY cooperative opposition.

They don't fit in the same 'box'.

[BrianDavion]

the yellow jacket hardly requires "orginizational defects" it was a time of experimentation. and the over all idea of "mount big gun on helicopter" has some appeal. we need to remember that in battletech mech and vehicle design is going to be a LOOOT harder then just opening up Megamek Lab and punching in optimized numbers

[JadeHellbringer]

Well, with the Ultra-10 discussion wrapped up and the Yellow Jacket having its own thread elsewhere, I guess that means getting back to discussing the Patton.  :)

[Cannonshop]

Well, with the Ultra-10 discussion wrapped up and the Yellow Jacket having its own thread elsewhere, I guess that means getting back to discussing the Patton.  :)

and noting for reiteration that I'm a fan of at least ONE new variant of that chassis-the Taurian one, with the right gun for the job. :)

[Minemech]

The UAC Patton is simply a solid tank upgrade, and one that could outperform a Gauss Rifle in many common battlefield circumstances. The election toward the UAC points to battlefield considerations, namely built-up areas, where your ability to deal more damage in less time is oft the path to success.

[Taron Storm]

Have always loved the Patton.  I use the Standard, with or without special ammo depending on the era.  LB is fun for sandblasting, vehicle hunting, and anything that flies.  For the non-cannon, love both of Cannonshops designs for the Ngo-verse.  The Ultra, to me, is an one trick pony.  The only thing it can do, is fire Ultra mode the entire time to have a chance of influencing the outcome.  I prefer campaign style games, so the benefits of having more capability is a must.  The few times I have used the Ultra was in one off games and duels, mostly just to try something different. 
  This is just my two cents after enjoying this game for nearly 40 years.

[Cannonshop]

The UAC Patton is simply a solid tank upgrade, and one that could outperform a Gauss Rifle in many common battlefield circumstances. The election toward the UAC points to battlefield considerations, namely built-up areas, where your ability to deal more damage in less time is oft the path to success.

YOu mean, those built up areas where infantry can vape through all those buildings and out maneuver your track, hit you from off angle, and your extra hole-punching doesn't influence the terrain?  Those urban areas?

YOu know, those places where VTOLs can hunt you down, but you can't get a solid lock with your big, jammy machine gun??

THOSE urban areas?

Here's your problem: Ultras are Duelling machines, meant for and optimized for 'in the open in the ring' fights against single opponents.  The odds of a jam on ultra are 1 in 36, and you have to go back to the repair shop to get it unjammed.  On a non-jamming roll, you only hit with both rounds around 50% of the time, out of those, you've got a miniscule chance that both rounds will hit the same location.

Most of the time, they won't.

OR, you can use a gauss rifle, and do headcapper damage every time you hit, without the extra roll, and without the jamming that puts your main gun out of action.

OR, you can use an LBX and you'll get more criticals against other vehicles, an improved effectiveness against both jumpy 'mechs (which are the usual 'choice' for close urban) or VTOLs (including spotters) plus a better spread of damage against infantry (the nightmare forces of urban warfare) and it fires every time there's ammo and you can pull the trigger, without the jamming side-effect that requires going back to the depot to get your turret pulled and your main gun cleared.

The shot you can't fire can't do damage, the shots you miss, use ammo, and don't do damage.  Running out of ammo in close urban is BAD, so the deeper your ammo bay is, the better off you are if you have the armor to use it, and if you're retiring from the field one out of 36 times you enter an engagement, you're losing battles you might have won  Without benefit of the enemy helping you lose those battles.

so I'm not a fan of self-sabotage when looking at the expensive end of unit design.  I tend not to think in terms of "Wow this is a great duelling machine" but instead on "how versatile is this in the context of a group of units working together?" and "how reliable is this system compared to similar systems in the same role?"

Which tends to lead to "What is the role? and can I do it cheaper/faster/better with something else?"

I also tend to look at things within the context of what works-not so much individually, but in the context of what works well with other units by either filling a role, or being flexible enough to be credible in SEVERAL roles-even if the second is 'not as powerful as a specialist in that position'.

The base model Patton is a flexible machine that fills multiple roles.  the Taurian refit with LBX is a flexible machine that is credible in several positions.

Patton Ultra? not so much-it's a Tank Destroyer with an unreliable main gun, sitting in the SAME role position as the extremely reliable Rommel Guass from the same manufacturer in the same faction.

This makes it not only redundant, but inferior in its redundancy, and worse...

It's expensive.  Expensive to buy, own, operate, and maintain, with a more demanding maintenance curve because you have to almost rebuild the main gun on a frequent basis in exchange for burning through more ammo for the same general outcome and effect.

It's expensive in terms of what it takes from the table every time that main gun fails, it's expensive in terms of the lost personnel, skill base, training time, and so on that comes when I need the tank, and it isn't there because it's unreliable.

It's expensive in terms of unit cohesion in a campaign setting, unit (not vehicle) effectiveness thanks to unreliability and failures in the field, in games with morale factors it's a morale deficit, because the crew can't count on their vehicle, and the other vehicles can't count on that crew.

but for a duel? well, anything that has potential damage is fine in a duel, because of the nature of duelling.

[GreekFire]

Nvm.

[Hellraiser]

The Ultra-10 isn't a great weapon.
Its not "bad"  (Heavy MG), its just not as good as the LB10X in terms of "Efficiency"

Getting to the Patton, the Ultra upgrade isn't "Bad" either.
Its an upgrade for a MBT designed to go toe-to-toe with Mechs out on an open battlefield. 
With that in mind, a 2-tap of 10 pointers to trigger a PSR is on a heavy mech is not a bad thing to have in your pocket.
I'd never call a Patton my "Urban Defense" Militia go-to.   (Not even a Rommel, but at least that one is closer w/ the AC20)

The real issue just comes down to lack of a decent LB10X (simple & obvious) refit available in an era of refits, IE, Late-40's to Early-50's.
The Patton is hardly the only example of a "Missing" unit in would fill in the evolution of the design.
The game is full of stuff like that.   (IE. too many examples to list)

With the use of advanced AC ammo options the basic Patton is honestly still my favorite.

[Cannonshop]

The Ultra-10 isn't a great weapon.
Its not "bad"  (Heavy MG), its just not as good as the LB10X in terms of "Efficiency"

Getting to the Patton, the Ultra upgrade isn't "Bad" either.
Its an upgrade for a MBT designed to go toe-to-toe with Mechs out on an open battlefield. 
With that in mind, a 2-tap of 10 pointers to trigger a PSR is on a heavy mech is not a bad thing to have in your pocket.
I'd never call a Patton my "Urban Defense" Militia go-to.   (Not even a Rommel, but at least that one is closer w/ the AC20)

The real issue just comes down to lack of a decent LB10X (simple & obvious) refit available in an era of refits, IE, Late-40's to Early-50's.
The Patton is hardly the only example of a "Missing" unit in would fill in the evolution of the design.
The game is full of stuff like that.   (IE. too many examples to list)

With the use of advanced AC ammo options the basic Patton is honestly still my favorite.

it's a relative thing.  The increased damage in a duel doesn't, to me, make up for the operational shortcomings in what would be actual combat-at least, not for the sticker price.  A better fit for an Ultra would be an ICE powered unit intended to be rapidly disposable, like a Hetzer, not something you count on to be your wingman or have your back when facing a superior opponent such as the Clan front, because the drawback might only be a hair over 3% of the time, but it's THERE and the double-punch of a double-tap isn't reliable. (only rounds that hit, do damage).

Relatively speaking, it's 'an' upgrade-that reduces the usefulness of the chassis in kind of combat roles that it's supposed to fill in a 'verse with Battlemechs, and worse to me still, it's a redundant one-that being, it's competing for the same role with another design from the same corporation for service in the same military.

The base 3025 models actually had separate, though overlapping, roles.  The 3025 Patton was the offensive Tank,  that is, a tank that is useful both on offense and defense as a general-purpose trooper design with an adequate main gun, able to perform additionally as fire-support, while the 3025 Rommel was an infighter and "hammer" for close range work in urban areas, but not a generalist, more like a purpose-built anti-'mech platform with a headcapper that can cause PSR's, but with enough mobility that it doesn't immediately get left behind by lancemates of the same general weight.  (4/6 for both chassis).

The Patton Ultra and the Rommel Gauss are fighting for the same role, with largely teh same secondary weapons pack, and in that role, Rommel Gauss is more likely to deliver the goods on a consistent basis-making it a better killer, even if it doesn't have that instant-on PSR, because it can deliver consistently as long as it has ammunition.

Patton Ultra is unreliable in delivering the damage-it can, through no fault of the crew or action of the enemy, simply stop working and do so often enough to be more than a fraction of a percent of rarity in failing...and it needs to go back to the maintenance shop to unstick a jam.

Meaning it can't reliably deliver that pain, even with a full ammuntion magazine.

This makes tactical employment...difficult.  Complex, and complicated.  You can't put it on the line and get reliable results when everyone is doing their jobs correctly.

this isn't a problem for the kind of suicide units you give Hetzers to.  It IS a problem when the chassis costs as much as a Patton's costs, with the kind of investment present in the REST of the chassis (thick armor, fusion power plant, adequate speed and terrain handling for offense operations..)

you feel me?  You put an Ultra on a Hetzer because a Hetzer's whole purpose in life, is to last long enough to cause a PSR, and you can fit several times as many shots into the same weight as the main gun on a Hetzer. with more shots possible and more shots that will hit. (UAC 10=13 tons, AC/20=15 tons, 1 ton AC/10 ammo is 10 shots, 1 ton AC/20 ammo is 5.  AC/20 maxes at 9 hexes, UAC/10 at 18.)

THAT is a good swap.  It extends the lifespan of the unit carrying it, does the damage, and the unit's cheap enough that the jamming issue is a lot LESS of an issue, since the previous model wasn't going to last long anyway and costs significantly less for the base chassis...and you can play with tonnage to give it 'survival' systems or more armor or a better engine.

On the Patton, the Ultra requires losing secondary weapons, and reducing armor, for an unreliable main gun that can take it out of useful combat roles randomly, while also narrowing operational roles versus the originating design.

Patton (base) can lay down smoke to obscure friendly movement, it can set fires (I know, they moved the intentional fires rules to optional..so?),  it 'goes bang when you pull the trigger' reliably, meaning in the event of a motive crit, it can bunker and still provide an influence on the battlefield that isn't "is that the start of a rout?"

it's a stronger over all player than the "Upgrade".

and the base model, a stronger generalist player in a design that began as a generalist design, costs less to field, and to maintain, and puts your maintainers at lower risk, than the 'upgrade', while not competing with the Rommel for the same role on the field, or in procurement, or in training.

it's like somebody forgot that vehicles are supposed to work together in groups, and rushed instead to go for a Solaris championship design (whie failing to achieve that.)

Patton Ultra can't lay smoke, it can't screen friendlies, it's visibly unreliable in the field with a defect that is guaranteed to manifest right when you REALLY want your main gun to go 'bang' (aka a malfunction that shows up most often IN COMBAT and can't be cured by good maintenance or proper handling by the crew).

and it costs more.

Thus the comment about backhanders and bribery and unethical executives taking advantage of a national crisis to sell bad goods at a markup.

such things are NOT unprecedented, there were a great many gunmakers in the American Civil War who had initially promising looking designs, that due to various factors wound up being expensive, unreliable junk.  a lot of modern procurement policies came from that experience, and similar experiences by the British in the 1940s ( Valiant).

while not a BAD tank, it's a poor choice for the era, and for the role, as well as for the conflict it was adopted to fight.  Conventional forces in the Clan invasion era often WERE the 'rear guard' that let the 'mechwarriors flee the Wolf or Jade Falcon onslaught.

This is a role where when your main gun fails to go 'bang' and you still have ammunition? you've failed your mission, and done so potentially catastrophically-when covering the retreat of valuable 'mechwarriors, you want the gun to go 'bang' until it's empty, because every 'bang' it gives, gives a few seconds to the guys you're covering, or buys a chance for you, and your crew, to actually get out of this alive.

When on the offense, against an enemy that is tougher, more mobile, has more range and is a better shot, having your gun go 'jam' doesn't let your secondary weapons buy you escape time to the rear to get it unjammed, it means you're not covering fire for your buddies, it means you can't cover your own retreat.

it means you fail your mission, and you can't blame poor maintenance or lax standards for the failure, because it's literally your hardware decideing to fail at the worst possible time.

why do I harp on 'worst possible time'? because that's when you're going to be FIRING at double-rate.  you don't flick the giggle-switch when you need to conserve ammo, you're firing in ultra mode because you're trying to stay alive.

Maybe part of the reason it doesn't have a bad rep, as someone pointed out it doesn't, is because those failures happen to occur right before the crew gets their case expedited before their Deity of Choice for final judgment, and the battle was lost, so nobody's alive to file a failure report to ordnance?

[Hellraiser]

The Patton Ultra and the Rommel Gauss are fighting for the same role, with largely teh same secondary weapons pack, and in that role, Rommel Gauss is more likely to deliver the goods on a consistent basis-making it a better killer, even if it doesn't have that instant-on PSR, because it can deliver consistently as long as it has ammunition.

....

you feel me?  You put an Ultra on a Hetzer because a Hetzer's whole purpose in life, is to last long enough to cause a PSR, and you can fit several times as many shots into the same weight as the main gun on a Hetzer. with more shots possible and more shots that will hit. (UAC 10=13 tons, AC/20=15 tons, 1 ton AC/10 ammo is 10 shots, 1 ton AC/20 ammo is 5.  AC/20 maxes at 9 hexes, UAC/10 at 18.)

...

why do I harp on 'worst possible time'? because that's when you're going to be FIRING at double-rate.  you don't flick the giggle-switch when you need to conserve ammo, you're firing in ultra mode because you're trying to stay alive.

1.  Agreed on the same role issue, I noticed that when they came out decades ago, they felt a lot less "different" than they had before.

2.  I like this, there was some thread about weapon upgrades w/o being able to use DHS & one if the best I came up with, that didn't involve an LB10X or Streak SRMs, was the Intro Hunchback & swapping the AC20 for an Ultra-10.  That particular swap just works.  Which is why the Ultra would have felt good on the Rommel to me but I hate it on the Patton.  (Not to mention in 3060 the U10 was a Marik design IIRC, might have spread to the Lyrans, but, it would have been NEW)

3.  I will say the Jamming Ultra isn't quite as big a deal after I read a post a while back about why the UA5 wasn't all that bad.
It had some good points about having double the firepower for the cost of 1 ton.
Yeah, it might jam on you but the ability to double tap for 1 ton isn't a bad choice over all.
When most live games at my FLGS last 5-15 turns the odds of loosing the UA aren't very high, at least not before you've gotten your money's worth out of it in clearing ammo out.

[Cannonshop]

1.  Agreed on the same role issue, I noticed that when they came out decades ago, they felt a lot less "different" than they had before.

2.  I like this, there was some thread about weapon upgrades w/o being able to use DHS & one if the best I came up with, that didn't involve an LB10X or Streak SRMs, was the Intro Hunchback & swapping the AC20 for an Ultra-10.  That particular swap just works.  Which is why the Ultra would have felt good on the Rommel to me but I hate it on the Patton.  (Not to mention in 3060 the U10 was a Marik design IIRC, might have spread to the Lyrans, but, it would have been NEW)

3.  I will say the Jamming Ultra isn't quite as big a deal after I read a post a while back about why the UA5 wasn't all that bad.
It had some good points about having double the firepower for the cost of 1 ton.
Yeah, it might jam on you but the ability to double tap for 1 ton isn't a bad choice over all.
When most live games at my FLGS last 5-15 turns the odds of loosing the UA aren't very high, at least not before you've gotten your money's worth out of it in clearing ammo out.

UAC-5 is a brilliant weapon for something like a Vedette or scorpion, because those are already anemic and likely to die quickly regardless of wha they do and everybody knows it.

A vedette laying down ten points before falling back, without needing 12 tons of gun to do it? sure.

IT's even MORE brilliant on a hovertank that isn't going to be laying down sustained fire anyway, because that's not the role.

but on a 4/6 and 65 ton fusion powered chassis, the Ultra 10 is basically a duellist for duels.  then again, my own perspective often has the first 5 to 10 turns being movement to contact or positioning with some light, long range fire, or the occasional opportunity shot, before things close to hammer-time with anything genuinely heavy and often it's linked to things like 'campaign objectives' rather than 'win this duel'.

that in turn leads to VERY different priorities from what I have grown to consider a "Solaris fight" (one mapsheet, equal numbers and a time limit).

Try this : Inner sphere vs Clan, Inner sphere's lost the main battle and is in retreat, your force has to cover the withdrawal of the 'mechwarriors.  (this happened several times in the Invasion, and in the Falcon incursion).

then, total up how often you're losing units to malfunctions vs. enemy action, or where malfunctions became a turning point.

try also: some rolling battles where you're either in pursuit, or pursuing, or where you need to break through a defensive line vrs. holding a defensive line against a breakthrough.

Using tanks with Ultras, versus other types of tank.

there really aren't a lot of scenarios where that Ultra is a better weapon than an LBX or even Standard autocannon until you get down to the class-5s, and even FEWER where it's a better weapon than a gauss rifle with an equivalent number of shots in the ammo bin.

There's the theoretical: an Ultra has twice the damage potential over a standard autocannon and a hair more range, it has significantly more damage potential than an LBX firing cluster.

These are not debatable, that's hard numbers.

What doesn't roll into that theorycrafting, is how often that potential is realized versus what you're giving up to get it.  An LBX-10 might average 7 damage in one point groups, but those seven hits will pop tyres, jam turrets, stun crews, shear treads, immobilize, and mission kill vehicles.  They'll annihilate platoons of infantry for all practical purposes, knock VTOLs out of the sky with a bonus to hit adding to the fun thanks to 30% or so of a VTOL's hit locations being 'rotor' and they can golden-BB an Aerofighter (resulting in deconstructive lithobraking).

On the field, that means you have more potential to mission kill enemies. (one point bonk on the head and a missed PSR and the pilot's knocked out, one point bop to the CT on a 2 and you may have given him a heat bath and engine hit, or knocked his gyroscope over...)

The Potentials balance out if the mission isn't "Render everything into unsalvageable smoking wreckage".

The problem is the practical, which doesn't always match neat mathematical formulas and often doesn't come up if you're used to matches that last around fifteen minutes or less on a single mapsheet.

Cripple the tank (which is really what most of your fire is going to do under tW) and now it can't withdraw for repair, and the gun's jammed so it's not much use as a bunker.

flip side: standard AC? or LBX? can keep going as long as the ammo feeds if it's not destroyed by enemy action.  That's a lot of time to buy your buddies that are bugging out.  It's a simple matter of you can't do damage if you're not firing, which in turn means you can't hold that fording point on the river, if you can't fire, you can't screen the retreating planetary duke, if you can't fire.

You can't turn a retreat into a rally, if you can't fire.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Can we just stop arguing about the Ultra 10, maybe?  Or take it to a different thread?

[Weirdo]

++MODERATOR NOTICE++

Agreed. Everyone involved has said their peace many times over. Move on or start a new thread, because as of this moment, that discussion is done in here.

[Colt Ward]

Did we get a picture of the new Patton mini?

[God and Davion]

Did we get a picture of the new Patton mini?

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2450/patton-tank

Here it is. It is gorgeous.  :thumbsup:

[Colt Ward]

Not the art, I was asking if they had a mini print- like the orange prototypes- with them announcing they will roll out in the KS.

[Death_from_above]

Not the art, I was asking if they had a mini print- like the orange prototypes- with them announcing they will roll out in the KS.

Um.. did I miss something ? The last announced ForcePack has the Hetzer, Bulldog, Von Luckner and SturmFeur.

AFAIK, no official confirmation that the Patton will show up.. so far.

[Colt Ward]

Ah, I was skimming this weekend . . . I thought the Patton was on the list?

[Death_from_above]

Unfortunately not yet.

I was hoping it would be in the 4M ForcePack, but they went with the Bulldog as mook tank..

[Cannonshop]

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2450/patton-tank

Here it is. It is gorgeous.  :thumbsup:

Beauty...is definitely in the eye of the beholder.  Though it IS better than some of the stuff that has passed as art over the years (looking at you, Ares tank!!)

[BrianDavion]

Unfortunately not yet.

I was hoping it would be in the 4M ForcePack, but they went with the Bulldog as mook tank..

which is kind of annoying "here's a rifle lance, which is a davion specific thing, with a tank mostly associated with House Kurita" :)

[Cannonshop]

which is kind of annoying "here's a rifle lance, which is a davion specific thing, with a tank mostly associated with House Kurita" :)

actually, the bulldog's entry in TRO 3026 (the original, at least) emphasizes Davion usage, while the TRO 3025 entry on the Rommel/Patton goes at length about that design's Lyran origin and pedigree.

Regardless of what MUL, or later pubs did, then, they may have based it on successful usage from the original fluff texts instead. Hence, Bulldog being a Davion tank for purposes of the product, instead of a Lyran import.

[BrianDavion]

actually, the bulldog's entry in TRO 3026 (the original, at least) emphasizes Davion usage, while the TRO 3025 entry on the Rommel/Patton goes at length about that design's Lyran origin and pedigree.

Regardless of what MUL, or later pubs did, then, they may have based it on successful usage from the original fluff texts instead. Hence, Bulldog being a Davion tank for purposes of the product, instead of a Lyran import.

I was talking the Von Lucker

[Cannonshop]

I was talking the Von Lucker

Oh.  I suppose the Davions picked up quite a few in the 4th succession war and war of 3039 then.

And the Vonnie is an OG assault tank, while davion forces aren't renowned for their Assault Tank branch until a bit later, iirc.

meanwhile the Rommel/Patton is merely a heavy tank, not an assault model at all.  The Dev staff went through a LOT of trouble to make 3/5 viable, and thus, assault tanks no longer a waste of time, bv and c-bills.  it makes sense they'd want to highlight one in the favorite faction.

[BrianDavion]

also it should be noted the rifle lance is basicly an autocanon focused lance so I assume the rifle lance is the 2 von luckers and 2 Hezters.

Which admittingly is going to be a hell of a nasty ambush urban force.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Short of a quad Demolisher lance, there's not much that would be less pleasant.

[Colt Ward]

Upper left image is the new Patton art.

Nice enough, but I am digging that Pike!

[Cannonshop]

NOICE!!!!