Register Register

Author Topic: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle  (Read 862 times)

Black_Knyght

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1688
  • Nisi mors certum est in bello
Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« on: 31 January 2018, 02:32:24 »
A 3075 era medium infantry support vehicle for thoughts, opinions, and constructive input.


==========


Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle (LAC)


Code: [Select]
Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle (LAC)
IS Medium Combat Vehicle (3075/experimental)
45 tons 
BV: 650
Cost: 1,289,925 C-bills

Movement: 5/8 (Wheeled)
Engine: 205 Fuel Cell

Internal: 20
Armor: 148 (Heavy Ferro-Fibrous)
                     Internal    Armor
--------------------------------------
Front                       4       38
Right                       4       30
Left                        4       30
Rear                        4       20
Turret                      4       30

Weapon                         Loc  Heat
----------------------------------------
Light AC/5                      TU     1
Light AC/5                      TU     1

Ammo                           Loc Shots
----------------------------------------
Armor-Piercing LAC/5 Ammo       BD    10
Armor-Piercing LAC/5 Ammo       BD    10
Armor-Piercing LAC/5 Ammo       BD    10


Carrying Capacity: Troops - 6.0 tons


Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle (LBX)


Code: [Select]
Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle (LBX)
IS Medium Combat Vehicle (3075/experimental)
45 tons 
BV: 676
Cost: 1,356,075 C-bills

Movement: 5/8 (Wheeled)
Engine: 205 Fuel Cell

Internal: 20
Armor: 138 (Heavy Ferro-Fibrous)
                     Internal    Armor
--------------------------------------
Front                       4       36
Right                       4       27
Left                        4       27
Rear                        4       20
Turret                      4       28

Weapon                         Loc  Heat
----------------------------------------
LB 10-X AC                      TU     2

Ammo                           Loc Shots
----------------------------------------
LB 10-X AC Ammo                 BD    10
LB 10-X AC Ammo                 BD    10


Carrying Capacity: Troops - 6.0 tons


Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle (LGR)


Code: [Select]
Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle (LGR)
IS Medium Combat Vehicle (3075/experimental)
45 tons 
BV: 674
Cost: 1,198,050 C-bills

Movement: 5/8 (Wheeled)
Engine: 205 Fuel Cell

Internal: 25
Armor: 138 (Heavy Ferro-Fibrous)
                     Internal    Armor
--------------------------------------
Front                       5       36
Right                       5       27
Left                        5       27
Rear                        5       20
Turret                      5       28

Weapon                         Loc  Heat
----------------------------------------
Light Gauss Rifle               TU     1

Ammo                           Loc Shots
----------------------------------------
Light Gauss Rifle Ammo          BD    16


Carrying Capacity: Troops - 6.0 tons
« Last Edit: 31 January 2018, 02:50:37 by Black_Knyght »

DOC_Agren

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1033
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #1 on: 31 January 2018, 21:50:49 »
My 1st thought is what about a model with 2 MML7 and 4 tons of LRM and SRM ammo mixed and matched to taste for portable fire support
What about a RAC2 and 2 ton of ammo backed by Mech Mortar 1 and ton of ammo



"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"

Black_Knyght

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1688
  • Nisi mors certum est in bello
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #2 on: 01 February 2018, 04:24:30 »
These three designs were based on miniatures I bought recently from Onslaught.com.

While I like the MML idea for a future mod, I personally loathe RACs as a boondoggle. I know they're a favorite of some folks, but to me they're not that impressive given their drawbacks.

DOC_Agren

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1033
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #3 on: 03 February 2018, 00:17:35 »
I understand the RAC issues, as someone who prefers 3025 tech, but I thought backing it with Mech Mortar was a nice surprise.

another option is to turn it into MHQ
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"

truetanker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5757
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #4 on: 06 February 2018, 22:37:53 »


Perfect mini for Rock Rover / Randolph Support Vehicles.

TT
Khan,Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse

That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

Black_Knyght

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1688
  • Nisi mors certum est in bello
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #5 on: 07 February 2018, 00:59:03 »
Nice!  8)

I'm not familiar with THAT vehicle, and hadn't seen any other "halftrack" vehicles in CBT before. Is it rated as wheeled, or tracked?

Liam's Ghost

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5098
  • naps, noms, and more naps.
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #6 on: 07 February 2018, 02:50:06 »
The rock rover is a four ton tracked support vehicle in TRO: Vehicle Annex.
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Black_Knyght

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1688
  • Nisi mors certum est in bello
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #7 on: 07 February 2018, 04:01:35 »
Damn, I did mine as a wheeled vehicle, assuming the front wheels would be the relevant limitation for crossing terrain.

truetanker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5757
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #8 on: 07 February 2018, 11:21:23 »
More info...

Ya gotta try to get the TRO: Vehicle Annex and TRO:VA revised.

But here...

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rock_Rover
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Randolph_Support_Vehicle

Both use the same picture... but you'll love them.

Also, the Limpet and Rumbler-HT ( 3 ton copy ) of the RR Rock-Rover are included.

Halftracks are tracked vehicles, so they would move as a track would move, Light Woods and no Water or Heavy Woods.

Since it is a Vehicle, they get the +1 extra MP on roads!

TT

( Also Randolph is a better unit, armored in Commercial Armor would give you 22 points of BAR 10. )
« Last Edit: 07 February 2018, 11:23:35 by truetanker »
Khan,Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse

That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

Cavgunner

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #9 on: 12 February 2018, 21:34:29 »
Not sure how you can call this an Infantry Support Vehicle when it is completely ill-equipped to fight infantry itself.

Black_Knyght

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1688
  • Nisi mors certum est in bello
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #10 on: 12 February 2018, 22:19:12 »
In game play so far it's been used as a FIST vehicle to support PBIs against larger threats than other infantry. Pretty effectively too.

Cavgunner

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #11 on: 12 February 2018, 23:54:42 »
Yeah but, if that's all you want, a vehicle to engage other battlefield units... that's called a tank. 

What you have is a hybrid vehicle that carries infantry but can't effectively assist them when faced with their most common opponent, other infantry.  This is suboptimal.

If you want a vehicle that carries your troops AND helps them fight once they get there, use an infantry fighting vehicle with a mix of heavy weapons and anti-infantry weapons.


Liam's Ghost

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5098
  • naps, noms, and more naps.
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #12 on: 13 February 2018, 00:08:06 »
Yeah but, if that's all you want, a vehicle to engage other battlefield units... that's called a tank. 

What you have is a hybrid vehicle that carries infantry but can't effectively assist them when faced with their most common opponent, other infantry.  This is suboptimal.

If you want a vehicle that carries your troops AND helps them fight once they get there, use an infantry fighting vehicle with a mix of heavy weapons and anti-infantry weapons.

You know, there is a school of thought that the infantry are there to fight the infantry and the vehicle provides heavy fire support against targets the infantry aren't necessarily equipped to handle...

Personally, not a fan of the notion "you need to do things this way, or you're wrong".
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Cavgunner

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #13 on: 13 February 2018, 00:20:05 »
You know, there is a school of thought that the infantry are there to fight the infantry and the vehicle provides heavy fire support against targets the infantry aren't necessarily equipped to handle...

Personally, not a fan of the notion "you need to do things this way, or you're wrong".

Yes, a good infantry support vehicle *should* be able to engage heavy combat units.  If it can't, it's useless.

That doesn't mean it should also be toothless against infantry.

Furthermore, I didn't say that the OP's concept was wrong.  I said it was suboptimal, which in my opinion it is.

Black_Knyght

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1688
  • Nisi mors certum est in bello
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #14 on: 13 February 2018, 04:01:12 »
You know, there is a school of thought that the infantry are there to fight the infantry and the vehicle provides heavy fire support against targets the infantry aren't necessarily equipped to handle...

Personally, not a fan of the notion "you need to do things this way, or you're wrong".

When I was in the Corps we had vehicles that did just this - Dropped us off and engaged other vehicles, and didn't bother with enemy infantry unless they had RPGs that were a threat to them.

And for the record I never said these vehicles were the most optimal.

I did clearly state that these three designs were based on miniatures I'd bought recently from Onslaught.com, period.

I know they're not the most optimal, but that was never the idea here. I have a helluva lot more fun gaming with flawed designs instead of an optimizer's min/maxed design. These were intended as little more than clunky personnel carrying halftacks mounting a direct-fire support gun. Simple, flawed, and fun. NOT maxed out within the rules to suite an optimizer.

Cavgunner

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #15 on: 13 February 2018, 17:07:14 »
Look, we've obviously gotten off on the wrong foot here.  At the very beginning of this thread you indicated that you wanted feedback.  I feel that I have provided that.  As combat vehicles, they're fine.  As vehicles working within an infantry environment, they are not desirable.  That is not an attack on you.  That is my opinion.

I understand that you based them on some minis from another game.  That's all well and good, but it is not entering into my equation.  My critique is in regard to the design, not the minis.  As for being them being "clunky halftracks," well they aren't, not really.  At 45 tons they're as big as a tank.  That's because they are tanks.

Furthermore, while I hesitate to continue using real world examples, since you mentioned that you are a vet as I am, I'm sure you are also aware that all of the most popular infantry carriers currently in service have the capability to engage, and defeat, opposing infantry.  I'm not aware of any that don't have this capability; if you are, please enlighten me. 

Some of the designs you posted perhaps *could* engage infantry to an extent, depending on the ammo load.  But as you have stated, these are primarily anti-vehicular units.  And again, from that standpoint I don't have an issue with them.  I just wouldn't call them infantry support vehicles, because that's not what they are doing.

Your closing comments are perplexing.  Yes, I believe that any "infantry support vehicle" would benefit from a flamer and/or a couple of automatic weapons so that it isn't an expensive paperweight when working in an infantry environment.  Given the overly large infantry bay, this weakness would be a very easy fix.  And if that makes me an optimizer, whatever that means, then yes, I'm an optimizer. 

You indicate that you've tested these designs.  Great!  If your opponents never field infantry, then yes, the design is fine.  If however they do, then I don't understand why you wouldn't equip the vehicle in such a way that once its troops are deployed, it can help them win a close quarters firefight against other troops. 

Just my .02.

Sabelkatten

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4735
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #16 on: 13 February 2018, 18:08:27 »
Personally I see AI weapons on an infantry carrier as a waste. Especially in CBT your grunts #1 priority should be to keep enemy infantry away from your vehicles!

IMHO infantry support vehicles should do what their name says - support. And what infantry needs support for isn't killing other infantry, it's long-range fire, holepunching, and blowing up buildings.

AldanFerrox

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 218
Re: Razorback Infantry Support Vehicle
« Reply #17 on: 13 February 2018, 19:10:11 »
Well, at least the LAC variant should be able to do decent damage against infantry if you replace a single ton of AP ammo with Flechette ammo.
Only in death duty ends