VotW: Pollux ADA Heavy Tank

[Weirdo]

I'd expect at least one or two more fighter casualties, due to lawn-darts. Were I commanding the tanks, I'd split my fire and spread the clusterguns evenly, so as to force as many of those rolls as possible. Split the difference between our estimates, and four fighters dead leaves only two to go after whatever their actual target was, possibly not enough.

And while it sucks for the tankers, from a high command perspective, trading six tanks for gutting a squadron of ASFs is an amazing deal.

[Paul]

Hmmm, maybe. Still, I wonder with 7s and 8s to-hit (if I did the math right), half the guns would miss each turn, so I wonder if I wasn't too conservative in my estimates.
I will grant you lawn darts, but their effects can be reduced by keeping your Altitude as high as possible. Since failed PSRs aren't guaranteed, (and also depend on the rule system used), I think 4 kills are a stretch. But that's just an assumption on my part.

Shall we agree that the unit needs more armor to be truly effective?
Or put another way: what's more important for it to have: the LBX or an LBX worth of armor? Would you agree with me to drop the LBX?

Paul

[Colt Ward]

And keeps the bombs and rockets from hitting a more valuable target that only those ASF could reach/get to strike.

The other thing is as I understand it, proper ADA doctrine does not have a single battery out on its own.

No, the LBX is what is getting some of those kills . . .

[TigerShark]

I can't imagine playing with arty on the table and forcing an Aero player to use TW rules. The "lawn dart" quality just makes Aero unsustainable, as a 5 PSR is VERY easily failed, especially if it's being checked every turn.

[Weirdo]

Or put another way: what's more important for it to have: the LBX or an LBX worth of armor? Would you agree with me to drop the LBX?

It's situational. If I expect the Pollux to be the target of the strike, I'd say yes, more armor is warranted. If the target isn't the Pollux but a nearby high-value target that the Pollux is protecting, I'd rather keep the gun, to better threaten as many fighters simultaneously as possible.

I would park armored Polluxes in forward positions, along likely approaches for inbound airstrikes(from there, they can also support ground forces), and put normal Polluxes right next to my high-value objectives.

[Paul]

It's situational. If I expect the Pollux to be the target of the strike, I'd say yes, more armor is warranted. If the target isn't the Pollux but a nearby high-value target that the Pollux is protecting, I'd rather keep the gun, to better threaten as many fighters simultaneously as possible.

I would park armored Polluxes in forward positions, along likely approaches for inbound airstrikes(from there, they can also support ground forces), and put normal Polluxes right next to my high-value objectives.

Solid point. Consider me convinced.

Paul

[Colt Ward]

I still have not seen anything about the size of this armored vehicle.

Considering the aerial response to AA units like this is the Wild Weasel craft & doctrine . . . do we actually have anything like that for BT?  Or would that fall under airframe quirks & pilot specialties?

[SCC]

I trade the LB-10X out for a lighter gun and more armor

[Knightmare]

Thank you Jade!  O0

[mbear]

Hmmm, maybe. Still, I wonder with 7s and 8s to-hit (if I did the math right), half the guns would miss each turn, so I wonder if I wasn't too conservative in my estimates.
I will grant you lawn darts, but their effects can be reduced by keeping your Altitude as high as possible. Since failed PSRs aren't guaranteed, (and also depend on the rule system used), I think 4 kills are a stretch. But that's just an assumption on my part.

Shall we agree that the unit needs more armor to be truly effective?
Or put another way: what's more important for it to have: the LBX or an LBX worth of armor? Would you agree with me to drop the LBX?

Paul

Well, you could compromise and replace the LB10 with an LB5. You'd still get the effects of the cluster ammo but free weight for more armor. Not a great solution, but at least you could still do things halfway well.

[DoctorMonkey]

The name screams out to me for a "twin" design (called the Castor) to complement it - either the more heavily armoured version to absorb damage or one with missiles


Perhaps rename the Arrow IV Demolisher as the Castor and pair them up?

[Redshirt]

Given the purpose of the vehicle and how it was supposed to be deployed (as part of a Planetary Militia), would it make sense that the Pollux would have been deployed in bunkers similar to how the Blakists deployed their Rattlers during the Jihad? Have them roll out of the bunker fire several rounds, then retreat back in if threatened by enemy Aerospace?

[JadeHellbringer]

It's situational. If I expect the Pollux to be the target of the strike, I'd say yes, more armor is warranted. If the target isn't the Pollux but a nearby high-value target that the Pollux is protecting, I'd rather keep the gun, to better threaten as many fighters simultaneously as possible.

I would park armored Polluxes in forward positions, along likely approaches for inbound airstrikes(from there, they can also support ground forces), and put normal Polluxes right next to my high-value objectives.

The other thing to remember is that this isn't a FWL, or DCMS, or Clan Hells Horses kind of unit. This is SLDF. Good news, your fighter knocked out one of my Polluxes with a strafing run. Congratulations! Just eleven more of them to go! Oh- did you want that fighter back?  ;D

[Weirdo]

Given the purpose of the vehicle and how it was supposed to be deployed (as part of a Planetary Militia), would it make sense that the Pollux would have been deployed in bunkers similar to how the Blakists deployed their Rattlers during the Jihad? Have them roll out of the bunker fire several rounds, then retreat back in if threatened by enemy Aerospace?

Maybe. As I recall, these things were meant to be deployed in places where such bunkers were unavailable. Lighter fortifications, sure.

I'm not sure how, but I kinda want to try a Pollux/Burke teamup.

[Nebfer]

Your math is correct. The only niggle is that ground units do not have LOS to aeros flying at Altitude 10, so that particular direct-fire shot may not be possible.

I believe the ceiling is 8, no?

Well considering that aircraft have the ability to fire artillery at these altitudes... and that the rules do state that altitude 10 is a +3 (if they do not have LOS for it why even bother?).

[Paul]

I'm not sure how, but I kinda want to try a Pollux/Burke teamup.

Hmm, is it a strike against a unit if it needs a different one to become truly effective? Kinda like the Apollo+Clantech rule?
Or should that be seen more as bracket firing, IE the Stalker?

Paul

[DoctorMonkey]

I'm not sure how, but I kinda want to try a Pollux/Burke teamup.

Hmm, is it a strike against a unit if it needs a different one to become truly effective? Kinda like the Apollo+Clantech rule?
Or should that be seen more as bracket firing, IE the Stalker?

This is still the SLDF we are talking about - it isn't so much pairing a Pollux and a Burke as pairing a Pollux battalion with a Burke battalion....

[Weirdo]

Well considering that aircraft have the ability to fire artillery at these altitudes... and that the rules do state that altitude 10 is a +3 (if they do not have LOS for it why even bother?).

All I know is this:

... Ground units do not have LOS to aerospace units flying at Altitude 9 or 10...

Feel free to reference that if you want to ask in the rules forum.

[Paul]

This is still the SLDF we are talking about - it isn't so much pairing a Pollux and a Burke as pairing a Pollux battalion with a Burke battalion....

That doesn't really change the point; it's not like you compare 72 tanks vs 2 fighters.
I mean, you could, but it'd be irrelevant. It's like saying the Wasp is the best Mech ever when you have 2 million of them going against the Wolf Clan's touman.


So, if you care about 36 Polluxes (sp?), you have to review it vs. an equivalent threat it could probably face.

Paul

[UnLimiTeD]

So probably SpecOps teams or heavy artillery.
I think at those numbers comparisons break down a bit. 1 vs 1 is more servicable.

[DoctorMonkey]

That doesn't really change the point; it's not like you compare 72 tanks vs 2 fighters.
I mean, you could, but it'd be irrelevant. It's like saying the Wasp is the best Mech ever when you have 2 million of them going against the Wolf Clan's touman.


So, if you care about 36 Polluxes (sp?), you have to review it vs. an equivalent threat it could probably face.

Paul

Sorry, I hadn't meant to be sarky, I was just thinking that the scale of the SLDF might add something to the mix. As I've said above, the name suggests to me that the vehicle is designed to be used with a "twin" which I would assume would complement the weapons, armour etc compromises of the Pollux