Could someone direct me to the Alacorn thread if we have one?

[Hellraiser]

Like the title says, I'm looking for info on the Alacorn.

Specifically info on the 1-5 models, I recall them mentioning them but I've never seen what they look like.

[Moonsword]

Image.

The Alacorn article has fallen off the face of the Internet and has yet to be reposted.  Give me a bit.

[Hellraiser]

Thanks Moon,  I look forward to reading it.

I'm curious what is different about the older models and where all that open tonnage went to.

[Moonsword]

It's buried down in the reposted discussion.  The Mk. IV, with the AC/20s, adds some ammo but manages the same ammo endurance as the original.  The Mk. III, on the other hand, has 90 rounds of ammo and an amount of armor on the body locations best described as "obscene".

[Kit deSummersville]

Obscene? What does the Gurty rate then?  ;)

[Moonsword]

About the same, although I think the turret armor could be a bit better heftier on both designs relative to their main locations.  While not necessarily the most likely location to get hit, the turret is exposed from all aspects, and if it goes, game over.  On the other hand, they're almost bound to live long enough to burn through their ammo against any realistic opponent... but the Mk. VI is, too, given the lower ammo endurance.

One striking point is that the Gurteltier complements the Mk. VI in some ways by providing a flexible escort option to protect the (slightly) lighter tank from infantry and the missiles to do creative things on the fly.

[Hellraiser]

It's buried down in the reposted discussion.  The Mk. IV, with the AC/20s, adds some ammo but manages the same ammo endurance as the original.  The Mk. III, on the other hand, has 90 rounds of ammo and an amount of armor on the body locations best described as "obscene".

Wow, if that isn't an endorsement to carry nothing but specialty ammo I don't know what is.
That said, I was really hoping at least ONE version out there didn't use the XL engine.

[Moonsword]

There's some variants we know exist that we don't have stats for, so there's till some hope.

[Hellraiser]

Aye, the 1-2-3 that really never made it into production, prototypes IIRC.
I'm thinking maybe an AC5/ICE version ?
Though, at that point, your really not talking "Big Guns" anymore which the Alacorn was always known for.

[Moonsword]

The Mk. III is the AC/10 version.   The ones that we don't have stats for are the Mk. I, the Mk. II, and the Mk. V.

[Hellraiser]

The Mk. III is the AC/10 version.   The ones that we don't have stats for are the Mk. I, the Mk. II, and the Mk. V.

Right, my bad, I was thinking we had 4-5, but yes, its the 3-4 that use the AC's.
Makes you wonder what the Mk5 is...LB10X ?

[Moonsword]

Look at the introduction date of the LB 10-X - I don't know whether it's before or after the Gauss rifle at the moment.

[Hellraiser]

Look at the introduction date of the LB 10-X - I don't know whether it's before or after the Gauss rifle at the moment.

Hmm, I'll have to look that up.
But does it matter ?  Was the Gauss brand new when used on the Alacorn ?

[Moonsword]

The Mk. III and Mk. IV were both short production runs, both of them at the cutting edge anyway due to the XLFE (which was only invented in 2579).  Given that and the way these tanks would be able to replace the Burke in front line roles (which the Mk. III was likely doing anyway - the speed and massive armor is enough to offset the Burke's slight range and damage edges), I imagine the Gauss model got produced pretty quickly after 2590.  The LB 10-X, invented in 2595, really isn't timed right to fall into the production sequence.

EDIT: It's also not an Ultra/5 model - the Ultra/5 wasn't invented until 2640.  I don't know why anyone would want to make an Ultra/5 Alacorn, but it's doable - 5 Ultra/5s nicely slot into the same tonnage as three Gauss rifles.

[Hellraiser]

So rough timeline....

XL = 2579
Alacorn = 2587
Gauss = 2590
LB10X = 2595


Well, I could see, MAYBE the 1 & 2 models as using ICE/SFE engines since they never got past prototype stage.

And given the 3 years of production BEFORE the Gauss was even invented, maybe the 5 model was a short term variant of LB10X, but that would mean it got into production quite fast while the Gauss was well established before getting used.

I think maybe a more likely alternative is the 5 being a PPC based model like the Schrek/Burke.
There is certainly enough tonnage to mount the Heatsinks for it.


As odd as it sounds I'd love to see a version that actually mixes the guns, say a Gauss for penetration, ERPPC for energy, and LB10 for crit/AA work and powered by a SFE for cost.

[Moonsword]

The timeline is correct but the model numbers are wrong for the LB 10-X to seriously be in the running in my opinion.  It seems more likely the Mk. V was either simply not used for whatever reason (marketing having a hand here...) or a pure testbed leading into the Mk. VI.

But seriously, whatever works for you.

[Hellraiser]

The timeline is correct but the model numbers are wrong for the LB 10-X to seriously be in the running in my opinion.  It seems more likely the Mk. V was either simply not used for whatever reason (marketing having a hand here...) or a pure testbed leading into the Mk. VI.

Agreed on the LBX timeline, its a shame too, I thought 3x LB10 made for a nasty option in all honesty.  The PPC is probably a more likely option.


Did a little tinkering and an there is room for the following options...

1.  ICE + AC5 x3
2.  SFE + AC10 x3  (Loss of Armor)
3.  SFE + PPC x3  (Loss of Armor)
4.  SFE + LL x3
5.  SFE (2/3) and Gauss  x2
6.  ICE + Gauss x3  (Loss of Armor)

So I see a few ways they could go but I think only the Mk1-2 could use ICE/SFE because w/ the 3, 4, & 6 all being XL I would assume that the 5 is also, so in that case only the PPC makes any sense really.