VotW: Mars Assault Tank

[Jellico]

Curiously I find that it is the LRMs that make the Mars an effective city fighter. In the case of the HAG you get a Kobold or Constable spotting for you and rain down the indirect fire. Then if they really want to play you go all Demolisher on them. Sure you are wasting your Artemis and guns half the time but who cares if you get the kill unscathed.

[mbear]

But yeah, it's a very good looking tank when you ponder it from Clan standards. Remember, the Clans always seem to build weird vehicles, oftentimes leaning more towards a sort of 'construction' feel than a typical combat vehicle look. And the Mars is very utilitarian in form- no frills, just exactly formed to haul around weapons. It's as simple as it gets- and I enjoy that about it.

It reminds me of a real world T-34 or a Checker Marathon*: It's a simple, clean, functional design with no effort spent on frills. It just does its job quietly and efficiently.

Though I still want to free up enough space for an Armored Motive System to prevent pillboxing problems.

*The Checker Marathon is the official name of the New York City Yellow Cabs.

[Caedis Animus]

Armored Motive Systems are a waste of tonnage and space on such a heavy and slow machine. It is already incredibly slow, a veritable snail pillbox. Reducing it to 2 or 0 MP hardly makes a difference so long as it gets to the place it needs to be.

[JadeHellbringer]

Armored Motive Systems are a waste of tonnage and space on such a heavy and slow machine. It is already incredibly slow, a veritable snail pillbox. Reducing it to 2 or 0 MP hardly makes a difference so long as it gets to the place it needs to be.

Yeah, I tend to agree. A Mars really is a moveable pillbox- once it gets a decent firing position, it really shouldn't be doing more than making facing changes for the remainder of the engagement. If you're in a position where you're using your Mars to pursue the enemy- or retreat, even worse- your fight isn't going a direction your Mars wants it to go anyway. Better to use that spare mass for guns and butter than on an armored motive system, then, if we're not all that worried about being immobilized anyway- after all, if the tank isn't supposed to move around, why bother worrying about whether it CAN move?

[Scotty]

Because then you don't suffer that nasty -4 for an immobile target.

[Jellico]

Movement crits don't render you immobile, even at 0 MP.

For an armoured motive system, you have to ask yourself is 10 tons worth it? Would you give up two LRM 15s for that?

[JadeHellbringer]

Movement crits don't render you immobile, even at 0 MP.

For an armoured motive system, you have to ask yourself is 10 tons worth it? Would you give up two LRM 15s for that?

Exactly. Ten tons is a lot to give up for a unit that can barely move to begin with. I'd pass on that upgrade.

[A. Lurker]

Movement crits don't render you immobile, even at 0 MP.

Although it's true that simply being reduced to 0 MP won't render you strictly immobile, a motive system hit roll of 12 or higher in fact will. That'd be one benefit of an armored motive system (we really need an abbreviation for that -- for obvious reasons, AMS won't work so well...).

That said, I'd agree that a 2/3 tank like most Mars versions probably isn't worth one. I'd want my vehicle faster to begin with before I even start worrying about how to stop it from slowing down.

[AldanFerrox]

AMOS sound like a good abbreviation to me  ;)

[Colt Ward]

Alright, for 2/3 not the best idea . . . but what about the XL's 3/5?

[Paul]

Cool article, as always!

LOL!

Some remarks:

Side-mounted SRMs: one of the things that annoys me about TW is that the side-arc on vehicles really sucks. It's basically the arc of a 'Mech arm, without any of the front-arc hexes. Boo.

HAG vs LBX: given both weapons get a -3 bonus when shooting suing FLAK rules, I'd favor the HAG30 over an LBX10. 5-point groups give greater odds of thresholding, or chopping a rotor off a VTOL. HAG30s on average will get 4 locations, which is a little inferior to the LBX's 6 locations, but tripple damage potential seems to balance that out.
Plus, if the Mars itself is being attached, the counterfire counts as shortrange, so the HAG30 gets to roll with its +2 bonus on the Cluster table, bumping the average to 24 damage.
Its longer overall range also keeps it relevant more than the LBX10.
It's definitely not as interesting as the LBX against high movement modifier ground targets, though.

LRMs: You'r right that the 6 tons of ammo is anemic, but I'd still encourage people to bring some Smoke (surprised?) and Frag ammo. Frag is rather nice, since the LRMs lack minimum range, so infantry that sneaks up might find itself shredded. Secondary use would be to clear pesky woods hexes the enemy is using; double damage to woods.
True, this approach would drop the total # of normal rounds down to 32 for 3 launchers, but 10 turns of durability on a Mars seems reasonable. You'd definitely have to make those shots count, as you put it.

I think the Mars deserves some notation with regards to Hidden Unit rules: tripping over a Mars is absolutely going to ruin your day. And vehicles can hide in Clear hexes...!

Looking forward to the next article!

Paul

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Although it's true that simply being reduced to 0 MP won't render you strictly immobile, a motive system hit roll of 12 or higher in fact will. That'd be one benefit of an armored motive system (we really need an abbreviation for that -- for obvious reasons, AMS won't work so well...).

How about RMS?

HAG vs LBX: given both weapons get a -3 bonus when shooting suing FLAK rules, I'd favor the HAG30 over an LBX10. 5-point groups give greater odds of thresholding, or chopping a rotor off a VTOL.

Rotor hit locations only take 1/10th damage, so the LB-X actually has a better chance of taking out a rotor thanks to its increased number of hits.

[Colt Ward]

It is one of the TW changes that made them more survivable.

Still wondering, if 2/3 is too slow for too little advantage what about putting the Armored Motive System (ARMOTS?) on a 3/5 XL equipped Mars?

[AldanFerrox]

It is one of the TW changes that made them more survivable.

Still wondering, if 2/3 is too slow for too little advantage what about putting the Armored Motive System (ARMOTS?) on a 3/5 XL equipped Mars?

A ARMOTS is always a good thing to have, but you have to take the 10 tons you need for it somewhere. If you throw out the SSRM 6-launchers and remove the Artemis IV from the LRM launchers you have enough free tonnage, but I don't know if the ARMOTS is worth loosing that much firepower.

[Paul]

Rotor hit locations only take 1/10th damage, so the LB-X actually has a better chance of taking out a rotor thanks to its increased number of hits.

lol I totally blanked on that rule while writing that.
Now, it's true that in my own wee stack of house rules, that 1/10th rule goes away. Because I want vehicles to suck. A lot.
But usually with house rules, I tend to recall the real ones as well. Not this time! Sorry. =)

Even so, I'd still consider the HAG30 superior. Yes, it wont de-rotor a VTOL as quickly, but it's much more likely to kill it on sheer damage alone. Its range band is also such that the VTOL isn't likely to avoid getting shot at. Sure, some weapons still outrange the HAG, but far fewer than the weapons that can outrange the LBX10.

Paul

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I'll completely agree with you there.  The LB-10X's only advantage is hitting the rotor.  The HAG has it fully outperformed in all other ways (which it should, since it's 3 tons heavier).

[cold1]

Stop telling people Clan LRM's are good city fighting weapons.
You're blowing my cover.
<Cold1 stomps off down Main St in his Scylla>


Seriously, turning a corner to find a Mars waiting is not going to end well.  The clan adage of tanks are weapons carriers doesn't work out for some of their units, works here.

I am wondering though; is the Mars the result of the clans distaste for static defenses like turrets?

[A. Lurker]

I am wondering though; is the Mars the result of the clans distaste for static defenses like turrets?

I don't know; it pretty much is a static defense as it is. Even the XL version isn't particularly fast, remember, and the 2/3 models aren't going anywhere fast even fully intact in the most accommodating terrain they can find. Kerensky help them if they ever have to negotiate a stretch of wooded hills or the like.

[cold1]

Using a turret to defend your shiny is dishonorable while using an assault tank is just kind of looked down on.  So just put as many guns as you can on a 100 ton frame and make the most minimal attempt at it not being a turret.

[UnLimiTeD]

... Then it could have moved 1/2.
I suppose it's about getting them into position first.  ;D
Hey, isn't this the same train of thought as the Annihilator?

[Caedis Animus]

No, the Annihilator's more "I have a lot of the same guns that all have the same range, and I don't happen to particularly like you very much". It's good at one job and one job only. Bonus points for being a 'mech and having a "Gausszilla" custom config.

The Mars, on the other hand, can act in a wide variety of different combat roles, from fire support to indirect LRM fire to city brawls. I myself prefer camping on a hilltop with a line of these things, and spamming LRM fire at a Narced target, with the occassional Gauss Slug to the unit. Good fun. Oh, it's also hated by anyone who doesn't like vehicles, I.E., most Clanners.

[SCC]

Some remarks:

Side-mounted SRMs: one of the things that annoys me about TW is that the side-arc on vehicles really sucks. It's basically the arc of a 'Mech arm, without any of the front-arc hexes. Boo.

Do the TacOps altered arcs rules makes things better?

LRMs: You'r right that the 6 tons of ammo is anemic, but I'd still encourage people to bring some Smoke (surprised?) and Frag ammo. Frag is rather nice, since the LRMs lack minimum range, so infantry that sneaks up might find itself shredded. Secondary use would be to clear pesky woods hexes the enemy is using; double damage to woods.

Remember that the Mars is a Clan tank and thus operates in pairs, smoke on top of you unit is the best option, all the goodies but none of the downsides

[A. Lurker]

Do the TacOps altered arcs rules makes things better?

Not much. Even sponson turrets with their full 180° arcs don't change the dual facts that side-mounted weapons are hard to bring to bear if you actually want to concentrate your fire on a single target and that the side is generally not a direction you particularly want to be hit from.

As a matter of personal design philosophy, I don't usually bother with side guns, period, and when the thought does occur to me we're usually talking lightweight defensive stuff that I can also find half a ton for to accommodate with a proper sponson arrangement already. Anti-infantry guns, small SRM racks for inferno/smoke purposes...most likely simply AMS, though. A full Streak-6 on each side is overkill and would be much more useful firing from the (main) turret.

(Heck, you could get the extra weight needed for that by just cutting the Streak ammo down from two tons to one. If the Mars manages to survive long enough at effective Streak ranges to actually expend fifteen salvos even with twin launchers it's already done remarkably well for itself.)

[Phobos]

An upgrade with sponson turrets seems a logical choice, though SSRM6s is overkill, I agree. AP Gauss Rifles on the other hand...