Author Topic: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle  (Read 8883 times)

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16611
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Mechanized ICV

The R10 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle is one of the latest offerings from the Exeter Organization, best known for the Pegasus hover tank and their line of communications equipment.  Although it's masked a little bit by the wide range of infantry combat vehicles in BattleTech, a lot of infantry doesn't get to ride in tough, decently well armed ICVs, and I suspect that at least some of the missile-armed variants of the heavy APCs might be attempts by militia forces to address that.  Popular with the troops (funny how they like riding in things that are reasonably tough and armed well enough to keep them from being casually murdered by [i}UrbanMechs[/i]...), the design was originally manufactured for the Marik-Stewart Commonwealth back around the turn of the century but had proliferated to other former League powers including the Rim Commonality.  Exactly how far is going to have to wait for the MUL but we know the Wolf Empire founded by Alaric Ward permits export now that they control Keystone and may well be using the design themselves.

The R10's overall design reminds me a little of the Goblin, starting with the fact that they're both 45 ton vehicles that happen to have infantry, similar armor levels, and more than strictly notional firepower, especially the fusion-powered upgraded variants.  The wheeled motive system restricts mobility and increases your vulnerability to motive hits somewhat but with the use of a GM 205 XLFE, it permits a 7 ton engine to drive the R10 at flank speeds of 86 kph, comparable to the much smaller heavy tracked APC and a decent enough amount of mobility for a medium vehicle.  The armor isn't notably heavy but at 7 tons of Kallow FWL Special Ferro-Fibrous arranged 34/25/21/20, it's enough to make the R10 something more than a casually-swatted target, especially if you remember that the vehicle's primary job is moving and supporting infantry, not trying to play tank.  The CASE that was included plays into that by protecting your troopers and vehicle crews from any catastrophic ammo hits  It's also significantly better than most if not all Vedette variants and slightly tougher than the Hetzer, both vehicles I'd  expect lower-end R10 customers to be fielding.  Ordinarily, this is the part where I start talking about the guns, but the R10 is an OmniVehicle with a 15 ton turret and 18 tons of total podspace as well as a fixed 4 ton infantry compartment.  While I'd prefer to have that tonnage for myself and simply assign it to infantry bays in individual configurations, that does move the R10 closer to tank than the ICV Exeter intended to market, and there's precedent with the older Badger Tracked Transport from Blackwell, an adaptation of a Clan combat vehicle.  Either way, an Omni's base chassis only gets you half the story.

I mentioned the Badger a minute ago but while they share a general role, the Badger is more of a heavily armed APC than a true IFV, something that definitely isn't true of the R10, and the Prime makes that difference very clear.  Despite piling on another eight tons of infantry capacity, the R10 Prime has a pair of ERMLs mounted forward and a pair of SRM 6 launchers in the turret sharing two tons of ammo.  Although there's certainly room for the lasers in the turret, an argument can be made for not fixing all your weapons into a locked turret, too.  The A configuration is more of a general battlefield unit but it works well alongside the Prime, packing two LAC/5s and two standard medium lasers into the turret, plus another pair of medium lasers on the forward mounts.  (I'm beginning to sense a pattern here...)  Two tons of ammo leave you with an acceptable but not spectacular 10 rounds per gun if you carry precision or let you split a ton of standard rounds plus flechettes, flak, or some other special load, or just 20 rounds per gun if you expect a long battle.  The R10 B rounds out the mixture with an LB 10-X fed by four tons of ammo in the turret (I get the feeling someone doesn't want to run out of ammo), plus two small pulse lasers fixed forward.  Without carrying special ammo, this is the only R10 that can really smack around a conventional platoon, but wheeled vehicles don't want to get that close to infantry most of the time, so these are in my opinion more for deterrence and ambushes, not routine sweeping of infantry.  That's what the BA in the back are for.  (The best commonly available load for that sort of work is probably the flamer if you don't mind dooming infantry to a horrible, painful death as they're consumed by fire.  And hey, if they didn't want to die horribly, what are they doing on your battlefield?)  A Beagle Active Probe and Guardian ECM suite provide electronics support to the infantry.

I'll start the tactical advice section off with an observation for our FWL players.  Three R10s, one of each configuration, can carry the FWLM's canonically oddly sized BA platoon assuming medium or smaller suits or standard rules, and the Prime can move two squads of Phalanxes or the new Ogres under TacOps rules.  If you are packing three R10s, attaching another 5/8 or faster vehicle gives you a compact BA transport platoon that can probably fight its way out of a moderate ambush or set one of their own, especially if the troopers bail out of the backs of their rides to help.  In general, R10s are capable of being used in the light to medium tank role, especially the A and B configurations, and they make solid IFV contenders, much more so than the Republic's slightly faster Giggins APCs.  Even the fire support variant is going to find itself outgunned by the Prime or A, while the B's ability to pepper it with LB-X clusters will be a significant pain to deal with.  Non-BA loads can also be accommodated, including a significant motorized contingent in the Prime, so the R10 has a lot of utility even for forces that aren't heavily equipped with BA.

If you're fighting R10s, remember what you're dealing with.  It's not just an armored fighting vehicle, it's a transport, and the last thing you need while you're getting smacked around by laser and missile fire is to have a squad of Kopis suits step out of the back to say hello in that special way only eight medium lasers trained on the same target can.  One of the best things you can do with these guys in an open terrain engagement is disable them early to strand their passengers, then sweep them up once the rest of the enemy force is dealt with.  Killing an R10 with BA in it is also a good idea.  If you can't kill them at range, the only real advice I have is to be careful and bring AE to bear if you can - it's likely to make any infantry either get out of the area or duck back into the R10 for cover, not to mention damaging both targets at once.  Once you do move into the killing engagement, the usual advice applies: Bring enough firepower to do the job quickly.  R10s may not be the most heavily armed things around but they do pack a certain amount of firepower in.

References: While the MUL isn't updated yet, I have uploaded the unit artwork elsewhere:


Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25214
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #1 on: 05 August 2013, 21:42:12 »
Nice and insightful article, Moonsword.   I love you side crack about the infantry.  ;D
Quote from: Moonsword
(The best commonly available load for that sort of work is probably the flamer if you don't mind dooming infantry to a horrible, painful death as they're consumed by fire.  And hey, if they didn't want to die horribly, what are they doing on your battlefield?)
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Aldous

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1512
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #2 on: 05 August 2013, 22:10:10 »
Seems needlessly expensive.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #3 on: 05 August 2013, 22:12:59 »
It's a pity that you can't mix caseless ammo with other types, would make the A config better. Personally I would prefer a single AC/10 in place of LAC-5's but it likely isn't going to matter much

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40982
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #4 on: 06 August 2013, 00:14:32 »
Ahh...but how would you use the existing config? That's what these threads are about after all, tactics and tips for the existing design.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #5 on: 06 August 2013, 00:52:31 »
Sorry about that Weirdo, I was mis-remembering something and thought that 2 LAC-5's weighed as much as an AC/10 and had the same range

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13288
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #6 on: 06 August 2013, 01:29:53 »
Nice to see from the art that Damnation Alley still has fans.
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 29067
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #7 on: 06 August 2013, 02:18:03 »
In 3145 cost does not matter Aldous, see Clan XXLs . . . but it is nice to see the Capellan in you pinching the c-bills.

With that said, I think the R10 B could very well be the FWL infantry & BA's new AA defense vehicle.  Three tons of cluster and one of solid let it hit back against ground targets, but really sweep the skies of VTOLs, conventional fighters and maybe even ASF if you can swing it.  As with the IFV/ISV topic, I would have liked to see a config or two sporting MMLs or LRMs.  Especially since this design is wheeled while many of the ones we were discussing are not- get that IDF fire going, spread minefields or clear them, toss off smoke, or with the MMLs throw some fire.

This is one unit I am looking forward to playing with in MM . . .

Oh yeah, conspiracy take . . . the MSC handed off this Blakist design specs they captured.  Since the only other wheeled Omni is another design that goes just this fast . . . and also has an infantry bay . . .
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #8 on: 06 August 2013, 03:47:01 »
In 3145 cost does not matter Aldous, see Clan XXLs . . . but it is nice to see the Capellan in you pinching the c-bills.
I crunched the cost of the Manticore II, the numbers are a bit hazy now but you could buy at least 3 Timber Wolves for the same cost

GespenstM

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 815
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #9 on: 06 August 2013, 04:05:55 »
Just one more reason I think they really ought to rework Engine costs. They made sense in 3049 when XL Engines were a newly recovered technology. By now surely the cost has come down?

As for the R10 itself, it is useless to me but only because my play-style does not make enough use of infantry or large Battle Armor teams to need this. That doesn't make it a bad vehicle, mind; it's almost worth considering fielding even without the infantry transport aspect. With it... well, dropping Kopis squads in hilarious places is probably every bit as fun as you suggest it is. This was a nice overview of a pretty swell vehicle; thank you, Moonsword.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #10 on: 06 August 2013, 05:35:09 »
The costs are based upon some sort of perceived effectiveness and nothing at all to do with economics, otherwise the cost of Light engines would have been higher than XL's

Kojak

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4612
  • Melancon Lives!
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #11 on: 06 August 2013, 06:16:28 »
Excellent article, per Moonsword's usual, and I'm happy to see he picked one of my favorite units out of the 3145 TROs. I'm curious to know, Moonsword, how you think the R10 stacks up against the APCs of the nuFWL's current enemies: the Lyrans, the Wolves, and the Capellanopians. In battles against their mechanized infantry forces, do you think the R10 will prove a decisive edge against each of them?

Just one more reason I think they really ought to rework Engine costs. They made sense in 3049 when XL Engines were a newly recovered technology. By now surely the cost has come down?

As for the R10 itself, it is useless to me but only because my play-style does not make enough use of infantry or large Battle Armor teams to need this. That doesn't make it a bad vehicle, mind; it's almost worth considering fielding even without the infantry transport aspect. With it... well, dropping Kopis squads in hilarious places is probably every bit as fun as you suggest it is. This was a nice overview of a pretty swell vehicle; thank you, Moonsword.

I'm surprised you're not a fan of infantry or battlesuit swarms, because if you hate dealing with gauss assault walls, as I believe you've mentioned in the past, infantry and battlesuits are pretty much your best friend on that front. A properly deployed Phalanx/Kopis squad or five will eat assault 'Mechs for breakfast and use the bones to pick their teeth.


"Deep down, I suspect the eject handle on the Hunchback IIC was never actually connected to anything. The regs just say it has to be there."
- Klarg1

GespenstM

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 815
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #12 on: 06 August 2013, 07:24:13 »
I hate dealing with them, but it's more in a "Not this again, don't you guys have any other 'Mechs? Thomas Hogarth jokes were funny, then they started being what I actually wind up fighting like 90% of the time when I run into lyran forces, where do you keep getting this many thunder hawks!?" perspective rather than a "I keep losing to this" thing. I have a fairly good record against them.

Still, I may play around with the R10 more; it's clearly a good machine and there is the very real possibility that the only reason I wasn't using FWL Battle Armor much in the past was we didn't have many (not "none", just "not many" and none I was immediately familiar with) good ways to deliver them to the field. Now that we have an obvious winner in the R10 for that job, plus BA that genuinely need the transport and are worth the effort... maybe it's time I re-evaluate them.

If nothing else, I agree that the notion of delivering Kopis teams to locations is damn funny. Back when TRO 3085 had just come out, I sprang a few of those on unsuspecting lyran players as bodyguards for my AWS-9M and similar units. Suddenly turns out they thought Battle Armor was "cheap", notwithstanding the grenadier teams they had been fielding up to that point.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 29067
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #13 on: 06 August 2013, 07:52:11 »
The Longinus getting a King David made them worth it as soon as that happened.  The Longinus Magnetic is also pretty sweet but I am not sure if you are stuck with the HMG, though it makes it urban murder.  Achileus TAGs also work out pretty well if you are bringing the Semi-G LRMs.  Post-Jihad your BA options really open up with everything from IS Standard LRR to Purifier to Kopis and more depending on the proto-state you pick up.

Would not mind seeing a Sniper Artillery version, but you would have to eat into the Troop Bay to do that- which makes it non-Omni.  Perhaps a one off design like the Eisensturm.  But you can definately put the Thumper in place with 3 tons of ammo, which is pretty good endurance.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40982
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #14 on: 06 August 2013, 08:40:31 »
I wonder how well the R10 meshes with the FWL's perfect IFV, the Main Gauche. Use R10s for most of the hauling, put the command squad of the platoon in the Main Gauche. Gives you plasma support as well as a solid antiarmor punch to open holes for the R10s that usually carry smaller guns.

And then attach a lance of Phalanx ISVs at the company level... [drool]
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

Molossian Dog IIC

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1109
  • Live by the sword ... die by dysentery.
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #15 on: 06 August 2013, 09:01:57 »
While BattleArmour surely is a thing to consider, personally I am hyped about the idea to have transport for a full company of conventional infantry. Considering the potential of advanced infantry there is much mischief waiting to be done if you can deliver four platoons without a tail of essentially useless transport vehicles.

Back to the drawing board.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40982
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #16 on: 06 August 2013, 09:08:24 »
I'm not usually a fan of high-capacity transports due to the time involved in offloading that many troops, but...yeah. If you can arrange to not actually be under fire for the time it takes to get everyone out the door, and ideally also have time to get them dug in, that's some serious up-to-no-good potential there. O0
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

False Son

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6461
  • Kot Blini
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #17 on: 06 August 2013, 09:15:56 »
While BattleArmour surely is a thing to consider, personally I am hyped about the idea to have transport for a full company of conventional infantry. Considering the potential of advanced infantry there is much mischief waiting to be done if you can deliver four platoons without a tail of essentially useless transport vehicles.

Back to the drawing board.

I'm with you.  The Prime having enough room for Motorized Platoons is huge in my book.  And, I can always mechanize a BA.  That's fairly nice.  But, the R10 is not fast or tough enough, and more prone to movement crits than tracked transports, so I wouldn't risk all the BV of a BA swarm being stranded midfield. Maybe if they were cheap BA, but not Kopis or Xiphos.  But, you are right.  I could fit how many Xenoplanetary Infantry platoons in here?

I'm not usually a fan of high-capacity transports due to the time involved in offloading that many troops, but...yeah. If you can arrange to not actually be under fire for the time it takes to get everyone out the door, and ideally also have time to get them dug in, that's some serious up-to-no-good potential there. O0

Depends on the transport and the cargo.  Like I said before, the ability to haul Motorized Platoons is huge for me.  They pack all the firepower of a full sized foot platoon with increased movement once they deploy.  Unless I break out a Maxim Infantry, Maxim II, Trirene or other large capacity hauler, I'm not taking them.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

Molossian Dog IIC

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1109
  • Live by the sword ... die by dysentery.
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #18 on: 06 August 2013, 09:29:38 »
As a Regulan, if I wanted my BA mechanized I would slap them on my Saraths. Alternatively the R10 A or B will do.

I'm not usually a fan of high-capacity transports due to the time involved in offloading that many troops, but...yeah. If you can arrange to not actually be under fire for the time it takes to get everyone out the door, and ideally also have time to get them dug in, that's some serious up-to-no-good potential there. O0
Well I tend not to use my APCs/IFVs to haul infantry directly in the face of the opposition. Most likely said opposition is more mobile than my infantry and mounting the transports next turn to "chase" the target sounds like a very bad idea.
Instead I will check the battlefield for defensible positions outside my deployment zone and use the transports to seed the area with infantry before the enemy can take hold there. In an ideal world I can execute that operation unseen and use the improvised bastion as a rally point for my Mech and fast vehicle forces. Any enemies trying to finish off hard hit units would run into the guns of 4 platoons of infantry.

Mind you, that is how I used infantry in the past. My actual playing experience in 3145 is almost non existing.

...  I could fit how many Xenoplanetary Infantry platoons in here?
...
Four!  O0


Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40982
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #19 on: 06 August 2013, 09:34:55 »
I actually prefer to run motor troops without transports, since they can usually keep up with big 'mechs and armor and thus make great escorts for them. I can definitely see the attraction in being able to carry them for more mobile operations, though. Two R10 Primes can haul a full motorized company,, and then you can fill out that armor lance with support vehicles. A Bardiche can keep up with the R10s and is flexible enough to respond to almost anything your force comes across, and perhaps a Bulwark following behind, ready to deal with any hard points they encounter.

It should be noted that the R10 B doesn't actually have forty rounds of ammo for the clustercannon. That appears to be a typo. The tonnage is listed as 2 tons, and the record sheet backs this up. Still a decent ammo load though, especially for an IFV.

Well I tend not to use my APCs/IFVs to haul infantry directly in the face of the opposition. Most likely said opposition is more mobile than my infantry and mounting the transports next turn to "chase" the target sounds like a very bad idea.
Instead I will check the battlefield for defensible positions outside my deployment zone and use the transports to seed the area with infantry before the enemy can take hold there. In an ideal world I can execute that operation unseen and use the improvised bastion as a rally point for my Mech and fast vehicle forces. Any enemies trying to finish off hard hit units would run into the guns of 4 platoons of infantry.

Mind you, that is how I used infantry in the past. My actual playing experience in 3145 is almost non existing.

That's my preferred method of infantry operation as well. My games rarely allow for me to deploy ahead of time though, so the odds of fast enemy units getting to a particular area at roughly the same time as my transports is pretty good. I try to avoid deploying under fire, but I always assume I might be forced to do so.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

False Son

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6461
  • Kot Blini
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #20 on: 06 August 2013, 09:45:27 »
As a Regulan, if I wanted my BA mechanized I would slap them on my Saraths. Alternatively the R10 A or B will do.

You don't want to do that.  As discussed in the FWL TRO thread, it prevents the turret from firing.

Quote
Well I tend not to use my APCs/IFVs to haul infantry directly in the face of the opposition. Most likely said opposition is more mobile than my infantry and mounting the transports next turn to "chase" the target sounds like a very bad idea.
Instead I will check the battlefield for defensible positions outside my deployment zone and use the transports to seed the area with infantry before the enemy can take hold there. In an ideal world I can execute that operation unseen and use the improvised bastion as a rally point for my Mech and fast vehicle forces. Any enemies trying to finish off hard hit units would run into the guns of 4 platoons of infantry.

Mind you, that is how I used infantry in the past. My actual playing experience in 3145 is almost non existing.

The group I play with shys from combined arms and is really a mech/BA group, so my infantry use is heavily based on that.  When I play combined arms I always outnumber, and will use the weight of numbers to throw the infantry out alongside my attack.  The infantry are there to play clean up crew while my units move on to fresh targets.  This is why I like Motorized and Jump platoons.  They are able to keep pace with that backpeddling assault or go from one target to another.  In other words, I do use them offensively.  Once they set their boots on the ground alongside a tank or mech the enemy gets the idea that it is time to move out of that position, which makes them easier to isolate.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

Nikas_Zekeval

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #21 on: 06 August 2013, 13:19:37 »
I'm not usually a fan of high-capacity transports due to the time involved in offloading that many troops, but...yeah. If you can arrange to not actually be under fire for the time it takes to get everyone out the door, and ideally also have time to get them dug in, that's some serious up-to-no-good potential there. O0

True, but under the TacOps rules, that expanded space can go towards heavy and assault suits.

Am I the only one that looked at the pod space and immediately thought Gauss?  Standard or LGR.  Also, did anyone look at the artwork and think "Damnation Alley"?

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40982
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #22 on: 06 August 2013, 13:25:22 »
Isn't that some horrible movie where humans were color-coded in lieu of dating?
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

Nikas_Zekeval

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #23 on: 06 August 2013, 13:43:30 »
Isn't that some horrible movie where humans were color-coded in lieu of dating?

No, post apocalyptic WWIII movie, trying to make it to a possible location of other survivors while trying not to be eaten by armor plated cockroaches.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40982
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #24 on: 06 August 2013, 13:46:30 »
...armor plated cockroaches...

Welp, time for another apocalypse. Because the first one clearly didn't take.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13288
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #25 on: 06 August 2013, 13:53:38 »
Also, did anyone look at the artwork and think "Damnation Alley"?
Nice to see from the art that Damnation Alley still has fans.
:D
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9239
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #26 on: 06 August 2013, 14:01:50 »
True, but under the TacOps rules, that expanded space can go towards heavy and assault suits.

Am I the only one that looked at the pod space and immediately thought Gauss?  Standard or LGR.  Also, did anyone look at the artwork and think "Damnation Alley"?


Is that the personal transport of Captain America?  It seems to have his shield on the side. ;D
« Last Edit: 06 August 2013, 14:23:20 by Arkansas Warrior »
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, the Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team, who cowed Dainmar Liao, created the Model Army, and rescued Robinson!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

False Son

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6461
  • Kot Blini
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #27 on: 06 August 2013, 14:17:07 »
You know, the movie is a throwaway.  But, the more I read about the Landmaster the more i'm intrigued.
TOYNBEE IDEA
IN MOViE `2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER


Destroy what destroys you

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Vehicle of the Week 3145 Preview: R10 Infantry Combat Vehicle
« Reply #28 on: 06 August 2013, 15:35:19 »
I must say I am really liking the look of this vehicle.  All its configurations look like great IFVs with the ability to take the fight to the enemy in support of your infantry, and the art is very nice as well.  Really my only concern is the wheels, but it should still be able to get in close enough to deploy the BA before it is immobilized by shots from the sides so that is not the end of the world.

The other thing I am wondering is if we will see a Clan configuration from the Wolves soon because you could do horrible things to someone with Clan tech pods even after adding another ton to the infantry bay to accommodate Clan BA organization.

Am I the only one that looked at the pod space and immediately thought Gauss?  Standard or LGR.

Honestly, I thought 20-X or UAC 20 (although this is a bit problematic without Clan tech).  That would be one heck of a support weapon to back up your BA and give the enemy huge problems as soon as you get close.  Bonus points if you are in a city or other similarly restricted terrain so the enemy cannot try to exploit the limited range of the big gun.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.