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?
