Register Register

Author Topic: Warrior C  (Read 1778 times)

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Warrior C
« on: 08 October 2019, 17:49:46 »
It's a fairly straight-forward Clan conversion/upgrade of captured Warrior VTOLs.  Upgraded UAC/2 in a chin turret, a bit faster, a bit more armor, and quite a bit more burst firepower if someone gets too close (albeit with absolutely no reloads available).  More expensive than a normal Warrior, but cheaper than most Clan helicopters.  There's not much more to say about this.

Code: [Select]
Warrior C
Mass: 21 tons
Movement Type: VTOL
Power Plant: 70 Fuel Cell
Cruising Speed: 108 kph
Maximum Speed: 162 kph
Armor: Standard
Armament:
     6 SRM 2 (I-OS)
     1 Ultra AC/2
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3050
Tech Rating/Availability: F/X-X-X-E
Cost: 792,370 C-bills
Type: Warrior
Technology Base: Clan (Experimental)
Tonnage: 21
Battle Value: 430
Equipment Mass
Internal Structure 2.5
Engine 70 Fuel Cell 2.5
     Cruising MP: 10
     Flanking MP: 15
Heat Sinks: 1 0
Control Equipment: 1.5
Lift Equipment: 2.5
Power Amplifier: 0
Turret: 0.5
Armor Factor: 48 3
Internal
Structure Armor
Value
Front 3 12
R/L Side 3/3 10/10
Rear 3 7
Rotor 3 2
Turret 3 7
Weapons
and Ammo Location Critical Tonnage
6 SRM 2 (I-OS)s Front 6 1.5
Ultra AC/2 Turret 2 5
Targeting Computer BD 1 1
Ultra AC/2 Ammo (45) Body 1 1
CASE Body 0 0
« Last Edit: 18 October 2019, 21:35:29 by Retry »

kaliban

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 221
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #1 on: 09 October 2019, 19:00:54 »
I know you are following the concept of the Warrior - and your design makes total sense this way - but it is strange to me to combine such different weapons like a SRM2 and a UAC/2 - you never take the best of each one.

I normally play VTOLs in pairs:  one with short range weapons and another with long range weapons. As these are fast units you can decide on the distance of engagement most of the times.

packhntr

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1064
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #2 on: 10 October 2019, 15:13:24 »
I get it...and like it.....the OS SRM's are there as a $hit-n-git.....thats all. The ultra-2 is a bothersome plinker that is seriously annoying.
If at first you don't succeed, make it worth the repairman's time!

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #3 on: 12 October 2019, 00:03:47 »
if you're using Clantech, I'd recommend the LBX-2 over the Ultra.  Simply put, "Jamming is bad when it's your main gun and you don't have fists."

reasons:

1. Range.
2. reliability.
3. utility against other flyers, vehicles, etc. etc.

It may be cheaper to look also at your weight savings again, and dump the One-shots.  The main trick with a VTOL like the H-7, is that it's a harasser that can also do conventional/support unit suppression.  a "Henchman" for your main or major units, there to make life hell for infantry and light/medium/combustible vehicles.  The ability to lay down infernos can only be improved by being able to also drop frag-shot missiles to scrub off that pesky infantry or really teach those Londerholm Farmers who's boss.

(after all, these ARE the Clans, who didn't batt an eye at genociding their own civilians as a famine-control protocol, and whose subsequent turn to the Mongol philosophy is simply a natural outgrowth of recognizing their hypocrisy for what it really is.  these are people who use 70 ton war machines to settle disputes over who cut in the lunch-line.)

One-shots don't make sense for garrison clusters either-if the pilot is flying it correctly, he's going to be driving his opponent to distraction for a good, long time while picking them apart, and in mass battles or major trials, being able to leverage an airframe's speed and maneuver to pick apart an opponent's support forces, flanks, scout their line, and the other jobs the base model (TRO 3026, not that P.O.S. they trotted out in TRO 3039) H-7 excels at are all viable, even honorable, roles for a second-line crewman (Clans generally relegate VTOL duty to second line forces). 

This means endurance is actually a thing.  You're rarely if ever going to kill anything with a single AC/2 shot, or even a double-tap, but you can get the same crit chance (tabletop) using an LBX-2 firing cluster, and it's got the advantage of going 'bang' every time you fire (unlike the Ultra, which jams), giving you on-balance the same crit chance for a slight loss of damage and a range increase (meaning you can be at "Medium" while the opponent is at "Long or out of range", couple with a cruise in the sweet spot that lets you turn or change elevation while maintaining the VTOL-calculated +5, that's 9 for return fire on a 0/0 elite gunner you probably aren't facing.

i've driven Clanner players absolutely batshit by having TNs in the 8-9 range while they're having to beat 12 or better on (their) elite pilots-and that's on one of the oldest succession-wars era vehicles ever published.

There's nothing quite like having a gamestore braggart throw the table over because he can't believe you're killing his Widowmaker with the elite pilot while using a 21 ton VTOL with a regular pilot, and it's all down to exploiting range and motion.  If the Clans were to convert the H-7, they wouldn't sacrifice what it does well, they'd amp it up to do that thing even better.  (my opinion only, others may have different views.)
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Nightsong

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 510
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #4 on: 12 October 2019, 02:14:15 »
When I look at a fast chopper with an Ultra or LB2-X, While it isn’t a strict parallel, I always get the image from early in the movie version of Clear and Present Danger, where the sniper is hitting the target over and over again and nobody could find him. Of course, in the end of the scene, it was hilarious to find he was about 20 feet away and so well camoed that they had to wonder how he got so close, to which his reply was, “by being a sneaky b#’ard, sir!”

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15374
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #5 on: 12 October 2019, 08:00:33 »
+1 for the LB-2X and real SRM launchers.  Using cluster rounds means dropping the Targeting Computer, but that just makes it even cheaper, and gives you another ton for SRM-2s.

Something like this (SAW doesn't quite do Fractional Accounting right):
Code: [Select]
Warrior C2X

Mass: 21 tons
Tech Base: Clan
Motive Type: VTOL
Rules Level: Experimental Tech
Era: All Eras (non-canon)
Tech Rating/Era Availability: X/X-X-X-A
Production Year: 0
Cost: 885,020 C-Bills
Battle Value: 517

Construction Options: Fractional Accounting

Power Plant:  70 Fuel Cell Engine
Cruise Speed: 108.0 km/h
Flanking Speed: 162.0 km/h
Armor:  Standard Armor
Armament:
    1  LB 2-X AC
    4  SRM-2s
    1 Unknown CASE
Manufacturer:
    Primary Factory:
Communications System:
Targeting and Tracking System:

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard                      15 points                2.100
Engine:             Fuel-Cell Engine              70                       2.400
    Cruise MP:  10
    Flank MP:   15
Heat Sinks:         Single Heat Sink             1                         0.000
Control Equipment:                                                         1.500
Lift Equipment:                                                            2.500
Armor:              Standard Armor               AV -  56                  3.500

                                                      Armor     
                                                      Factor     
                                               Front     18       
                                          Left/Right   13/13       
                                                Rear     10       
                                               Rotor     2         

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat     Spaces     Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LB 2-X AC                                    FR        1         1         5.000
4 SRM-2s                                     FR        8         4         2.000
CASE                                         BD        -         0         0.000
@LB 2-X (Cluster) (45)                       BD        -         0         1.000
@SRM-2 (50)                                  BD        -         0         1.000

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      2    Points: 5
10v        1       1       1       0      1     0   Structure:  2
Special Abilities: CASE, EE

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #6 on: 12 October 2019, 12:46:23 »
if you're using Clantech, I'd recommend the LBX-2 over the Ultra.  Simply put, "Jamming is bad when it's your main gun and you don't have fists."

reasons:

1. Range.
2. reliability.
3. utility against other flyers, vehicles, etc. etc.
I have a tendency to use only LB-Xs in anything when I do use Autocannons, and I've been trying to step away from that.  Actually, I almost did go with the LB-X on this one.  A LB-X version would be a good enough variant, but I went with a UAC instead primarily because the LB-X is more expensive (C-Bills, both ammo and the gun itself), and I felt the range of the UAC was sufficient (still higher than everything except artillery, Clan LB-Xs and ELRMs).
Quote
It may be cheaper to look also at your weight savings again, and dump the One-shots.  The main trick with a VTOL like the H-7, is that it's a harasser that can also do conventional/support unit suppression.  a "Henchman" for your main or major units, there to make life hell for infantry and light/medium/combustible vehicles.  The ability to lay down infernos can only be improved by being able to also drop frag-shot missiles to scrub off that pesky infantry or really teach those Londerholm Farmers who's boss.
The one-shots can also load infernos or frag missiles.  There's also what you would replace it with: 1 SRM-2 and 1 ton of ammo?  I wouldn't usually use OS's but I don't think it's a good idea for a Warrior to find itself at short range often enough to get more use of a real SRM launcher anyways.
+1 for the LB-2X and real SRM launchers.  Using cluster rounds means dropping the Targeting Computer, but that just makes it even cheaper, and gives you another ton for SRM-2s.

Something like this (SAW doesn't quite do Fractional Accounting right):
Code: [Select]
Warrior C2X

Mass: 21 tons
Tech Base: Clan
Motive Type: VTOL
Rules Level: Experimental Tech
Era: All Eras (non-canon)
Tech Rating/Era Availability: X/X-X-X-A
Production Year: 0
Cost: 885,020 C-Bills
Battle Value: 517

Construction Options: Fractional Accounting

Power Plant:  70 Fuel Cell Engine
Cruise Speed: 108.0 km/h
Flanking Speed: 162.0 km/h
Armor:  Standard Armor
Armament:
    1  LB 2-X AC
    4  SRM-2s
    1 Unknown CASE
Manufacturer:
    Primary Factory:
Communications System:
Targeting and Tracking System:

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard                      15 points                2.100
Engine:             Fuel-Cell Engine              70                       2.400
    Cruise MP:  10
    Flank MP:   15
Heat Sinks:         Single Heat Sink             1                         0.000
Control Equipment:                                                         1.500
Lift Equipment:                                                            2.500
Armor:              Standard Armor               AV -  56                  3.500

                                                      Armor     
                                                      Factor     
                                               Front     18       
                                          Left/Right   13/13       
                                                Rear     10       
                                               Rotor     2         

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat     Spaces     Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LB 2-X AC                                    FR        1         1         5.000
4 SRM-2s                                     FR        8         4         2.000
CASE                                         BD        -         0         0.000
@LB 2-X (Cluster) (45)                       BD        -         0         1.000
@SRM-2 (50)                                  BD        -         0         1.000

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      2    Points: 5
10v        1       1       1       0      1     0   Structure:  2
Special Abilities: CASE, EE
Looks like you gained much of your weight just from going Fractional Accounting (a tenth from the engine, four-tenths from the structure, and had it counted Controls & Lift you'd get another .85 tons).  You also dropped the extremely-useful chin turret for another half-ton gain.

Also, it's not cheaper: The pricetag increased by ~100k C-Bills, and BV by about 20%.  The TC is actually a very small component of the original vehicle's cost.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15374
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #7 on: 12 October 2019, 22:02:14 »
Hmmm... I thought Targeting Computers were more expensive than that...

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #8 on: 12 October 2019, 22:34:44 »
Hmmm... I thought Targeting Computers were more expensive than that...
TarComp is 10k C-Bills per ton, so one for a UAC/2 is about the same cost as 2 machine guns.  The LB-2X by itself is 150k for comparative purposes, as expensive as a Light PPC.  Autocannons are surprisingly expensive buggers.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #9 on: 13 October 2019, 20:10:42 »
I have a tendency to use only LB-Xs in anything when I do use Autocannons, and I've been trying to step away from that.  Actually, I almost did go with the LB-X on this one.  A LB-X version would be a good enough variant, but I went with a UAC instead primarily because the LB-X is more expensive (C-Bills, both ammo and the gun itself), and I felt the range of the UAC was sufficient (still higher than everything except artillery, Clan LB-Xs and ELRMs).The one-shots can also load infernos or frag missiles.  There's also what you would replace it with: 1 SRM-2 and 1 ton of ammo?  I wouldn't usually use OS's but I don't think it's a good idea for a Warrior to find itself at short range often enough to get more use of a real SRM launcher anyways.Looks like you gained much of your weight just from going Fractional Accounting (a tenth from the engine, four-tenths from the structure, and had it counted Controls & Lift you'd get another .85 tons).  You also dropped the extremely-useful chin turret for another half-ton gain.

Also, it's not cheaper: The pricetag increased by ~100k C-Bills, and BV by about 20%.  The TC is actually a very small component of the original vehicle's cost.

I kind of maintain the view that ultras are only worth it on Battlemechs, because of Physical attacks-otherwise you're lugging a main gun that WILL fail you, and vehicles already have enough weaknesses without adding that one.

as for 'one shots' those are functionally worthless for a VTOL.  You can't carry enough to be immediately lethal to a 'mech in the same proportional weight class, and unless you're flying stupid, you'll outlive the ammo capacity without running out of targets (Which is fundamentally a bad thing(TM)).

This isn't like a Hunchback IIC, this isn't a vehicle for the role of 'suicide machine'-you can't carry enough ordnance on the airframe to do that with any sort of reliability.  an attack chopper like the H-7 is there to augment the rest of the forces as a recon element, harasser, and fast skirmish player.  You can't carry enough SRM one-shots to drop much of anything, so you carry proper SRM racks, you don't need a tarcom because you've already got a movement/range advantage that makes it possible to actually get through a 45 round magazine in a single engagement on a single AC/2, so on the Clanner version, an LBX makes more sense-it embraces the graces of the base design.  Likewise, going with standard SRM racks instead of one-shots or streaks means you can do a LOT of work scrubbing off lesser units, backstabbing things like Hellbringers, or other secondary terrain control missions to shape the battlefield for your main (Battlemech or Omnimech) units.

I'd actually recommend a more minimalist approach to your C update-improving the Recon aspect, for example, by straight trade-overs of the base model's SRM and conventional cannon for an LBX and a Clanner variant of the SRM-then installing things like active probes or (When working with a Star of Naga or other Clantillery designs) TAG equipment. (more likely if you're Hell's Horses and actually can understand what a vehicle type specialist is useful for.)

The OS launchers don't give you enough of what you need, and the Ultra fit degrades your uptime outside of maintenance.  Your best bet is to take the existing things the base design does well, and make it better at doing THAT, rahter than trying to get a one-shot duellist that can't drop a target.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Liam's Ghost

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5851
  • Miss Chitty scoffs at your clan overlords
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #10 on: 13 October 2019, 21:40:16 »
I feel like an argument could be made for loading a bunch of I-OS launchers with smoke munitions. If you screw up (or get surprised) and have ended movement with someone close enough to shoot at you, you can put a big cloud of smoke between you and them to protect yourself, and multiple launchers can increase the amount of smoke you can lay down at once.

But its situational, and really only works a couple of times before you're out of smoke, so it might not be a great argument, but it is one that can be made.
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!

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #11 on: 13 October 2019, 23:48:48 »
I feel like an argument could be made for loading a bunch of I-OS launchers with smoke munitions. If you screw up (or get surprised) and have ended movement with someone close enough to shoot at you, you can put a big cloud of smoke between you and them to protect yourself, and multiple launchers can increase the amount of smoke you can lay down at once.

But its situational, and really only works a couple of times before you're out of smoke, so it might not be a great argument, but it is one that can be made.

you've got to remember not only the nature of Clan trials, but of Clan tactics.  In the homeworlds, winner takes all and second place is the first loser.  a design that can drag out a combat and win, is preferred to a design that can't win at all once confronted by....well, anything.

IOW the clans don't tend to field unarmed scouts, there's no Clanner equivalent of that recon-drone-carrier, because if it's piloted by a warrior, it will have weapons, and it will have weapons that have the capacity to win.

The base model of the H-7 is by Inner Sphere standards, lightly armed, almost unarmored, but it's fast, and the main gun has reach, while the secondary weapons have versatility against other conventional units.

that's kind of the basic thrust that has to be noted here; the main gun does as much damage as a machine-gun, but at extensive range, while the standard SRM rack is ideal for dropping the inferno-and a 4 pack can drop ENOUGH inferno to kill a tank or APC.  Going to a 2 rack (or even multiples) doesn't give you the chance to brew up a tank under TW rules, because of the minimum that must hit to do this, and the elimination of the "Sets the hex on fire and tanks must make a survival roll or die" from BMR (which made a 2 rack adequate for the role.)

Clantech is all about min/maxing.  You need your H-7C to do enough with its secondary weapons to threaten members of a battlearmor point-that's not going to happen with an array of OS SRM 2s.  it has a CHANCE of happening with an SRM 4 loaded with infernoes. (unless it's a Salamander point).

a NON ONE SHOT SRM-4, mind, a one-shot launcher can't really do the job.

When looking at Clan Garritrooper unit types, you have to account for what they're likely to fight, because teh Clans will.  Other Clanners is on that list somewhere near the top, and they don't generally bring light infantry unless they're the Blood Spirits.

so your vehicle needs to be able to pose a threat to Elemental armors, or have some tactical way to tie up heavier units and even bring them down-even if it's with one or two point papercuts.

easiest way to bring them down, is with a random crit, when your weapons choices are that small.  That means maximizing your chances to do so, and that maximization requires consecutive turns to pile up, so you need reliability and duration, since you aren't going to squeeze massive one-shot "Booms" into such a small airframe.

but...you might be able to crit them out, or keep them taking damage while your forces circle and manuever.  to do that, you need a deep ammo bin and lots of range,w ith a good secondary follow up that also has a deep ammo bin, with enough turn of speed to keep from becoming one with the surface in an act of deconstructive lithobraking.

with VTOL units, it is ever 'hit without being hit' is your replacement for massive, damage absorbing sheets of raw armor plate.

This means needing speed plus range for your main or primary weapon, and speed plus speed to deliver secondary hits that erode an enemy's supplemental forces.  with VTOL units, it's also always a bad idea to flank if you don't have to.  Sideslip is bad, it keeps you from hitting, it exposes you to being hit, it also exposes you to deconstructive lithobraking.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #12 on: 14 October 2019, 01:18:07 »
I kind of maintain the view that ultras are only worth it on Battlemechs, because of Physical attacks-otherwise you're lugging a main gun that WILL fail you, and vehicles already have enough weaknesses without adding that one.
The UAC/2 with a full ton of ammo firing at the 2x fire-rate will fail only 46% of the time before running out of ammo.  Okay, not good odds, but not guaranteed either.  The VTOL, at least, has the speed and range to bug out on a jam.  I'm keeping the UAC/2.
as for 'one shots' those are functionally worthless for a VTOL.  You can't carry enough to be immediately lethal to a 'mech in the same proportional weight class
VTOLs are one of the few platforms where certain One-Shots and Rocket Launchers make sense (the other being conventional fighters).  They generally have the speed to close in, make a shot on a target of opportunity, and get out.  But they don't necessarily have speed, the armor, or the luck to do it again and again and again, which is the implicit assumption when you pay for a full launcher + ammo.

I'd recommend re-checking the armor profiles of Clan 'Mechs in the same weight class.  The Warrior C can throw more SRMs than an Elemental Point (once...) for less C-Bills, and the SRMs are virtually an after-thought.  No more than 3 SRMs are necessary to go internal on a 20-ton Dasher.

But a Dasher would be a rather poor "target of opportunity".  Instead, load the Launchers with Inferno and cheaply obliterate several Assault-class Suits, or an Infantry Platoon, or just light key cover positions on fire.  Alternatively load Tandem-Charge and pepper a larger and slower Battlemech with the crit-inducing load.  You still (probably) won't obliterate it but a few well-placed crits can change the pace of the game much more so than a lone reloadable launcher on a Vehicle that really, really shouldn't be getting close in the first place.
Quote
and unless you're flying stupid, you'll outlive the ammo capacity without running out of targets (Which is fundamentally a bad thing(TM)).
Recall that one-to-one replacement of the current design can only result in a SRM-2 launcher with 1 ton of ammo.  On turn 1, the I-OS array puts out 6x more SRMs.  So to break even, that SRM-2 launcher needs to get into range to fire at least 6 turns.

Problem is, unless your enemy can't shoot back at all (Civillians, but in that case just send a Kestrel and call it a day), getting consistently into ranges short enough to use that SRM pack is flying stupid.  The Autocannon (regardless if it's a UAC or a LB-X variant) is there specifically because you don't want to get into brawling ranges on the regular.  LB-Xs, HAGs, and Pulse Lasers all outrange SRM packs handily(except the Small Pulse).  Infantry can match or exceed the range of the SRM, the longer ranged ones can be very dangerous to VTOLs.  BA too, and you're in heaps of trouble if they pack BA LB-X ACs.  All of these can make a Warrior C that gets close miserable, so when it does close in it better have an extremely good reason to do so.

Quote
This isn't like a Hunchback IIC, this isn't a vehicle for the role of 'suicide machine'-you can't carry enough ordnance on the airframe to do that with any sort of reliability.  an attack chopper like the H-7 is there to augment the rest of the forces as a recon element, harasser, and fast skirmish player.  You can't carry enough SRM one-shots to drop much of anything, so you carry proper SRM racks
Not being a suicide machine is precisely why it uses I-OSs instead of regular launchers.  The main gun is the Autocannon.  The spare 1.5 tons would be completely wasted on regular SRM Launchers, so it uses lighter-weight SRMs to give just a bit of short-range teeth if something gets too close.  It's not really going to get to use them unless a Clanner or Spheroid royally screws up, but you shouldn't count on that happening every single turn.  If I did, I'd have made something entirely different.
Quote
you don't need a tarcom because you've already got a movement/range advantage that makes it possible to actually get through a 45 round magazine in a single engagement on a single AC/2
You overestimate the average Clan vehicle pilot.  That TarComp is critical, especially at long ranges.
Quote
The OS launchers don't give you enough of what you need, and the Ultra fit degrades your uptime outside of maintenance.  Your best bet is to take the existing things the base design does well, and make it better at doing THAT, rahter than trying to get a one-shot duellist that can't drop a target.
The first iteration of the Warrior C used regular launchers.  I posted the updated one because that version failed.

The Clan battlefield is simply too brutal for a lightly-armored bucket like the Warrior C to exist at short range more than 1 turn (and 1 turn is really stretching it).  It gets worse under certain optional rules, since what used to be "safe" ranges for the weapon still has a possibility of return fire from AA weapons with good gunners. (Extreme & LoS ranges).  Really not much point having 25-50 shots if you only ever get to use 2 of them before your rotor blows off.  Hence the I-OSs, which at least lowers the C-Bill and BV cost a bit for a weapon that's not going to get used over several turns anyways.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #13 on: 14 October 2019, 12:21:54 »
The UAC/2 with a full ton of ammo firing at the 2x fire-rate will fail only 46% of the time before running out of ammo.  Okay, not good odds, but not guaranteed either.  The VTOL, at least, has the speed and range to bug out on a jam.  I'm keeping the UAC/2.VTOLs are one of the few platforms where certain One-Shots and Rocket Launchers make sense (the other being conventional fighters).  They generally have the speed to close in, make a shot on a target of opportunity, and get out.  But they don't necessarily have speed, the armor, or the luck to do it again and again and again, which is the implicit assumption when you pay for a full launcher + ammo.

I'd recommend re-checking the armor profiles of Clan 'Mechs in the same weight class.  The Warrior C can throw more SRMs than an Elemental Point (once...) for less C-Bills, and the SRMs are virtually an after-thought.  No more than 3 SRMs are necessary to go internal on a 20-ton Dasher.

But a Dasher would be a rather poor "target of opportunity".  Instead, load the Launchers with Inferno and cheaply obliterate several Assault-class Suits, or an Infantry Platoon, or just light key cover positions on fire.  Alternatively load Tandem-Charge and pepper a larger and slower Battlemech with the crit-inducing load.  You still (probably) won't obliterate it but a few well-placed crits can change the pace of the game much more so than a lone reloadable launcher on a Vehicle that really, really shouldn't be getting close in the first place.Recall that one-to-one replacement of the current design can only result in a SRM-2 launcher with 1 ton of ammo.  On turn 1, the I-OS array puts out 6x more SRMs.  So to break even, that SRM-2 launcher needs to get into range to fire at least 6 turns.

Problem is, unless your enemy can't shoot back at all (Civillians, but in that case just send a Kestrel and call it a day), getting consistently into ranges short enough to use that SRM pack is flying stupid.  The Autocannon (regardless if it's a UAC or a LB-X variant) is there specifically because you don't want to get into brawling ranges on the regular.  LB-Xs, HAGs, and Pulse Lasers all outrange SRM packs handily(except the Small Pulse).  Infantry can match or exceed the range of the SRM, the longer ranged ones can be very dangerous to VTOLs.  BA too, and you're in heaps of trouble if they pack BA LB-X ACs.  All of these can make a Warrior C that gets close miserable, so when it does close in it better have an extremely good reason to do so.
Not being a suicide machine is precisely why it uses I-OSs instead of regular launchers.  The main gun is the Autocannon.  The spare 1.5 tons would be completely wasted on regular SRM Launchers, so it uses lighter-weight SRMs to give just a bit of short-range teeth if something gets too close.  It's not really going to get to use them unless a Clanner or Spheroid royally screws up, but you shouldn't count on that happening every single turn.  If I did, I'd have made something entirely different.You overestimate the average Clan vehicle pilot.  That TarComp is critical, especially at long ranges.The first iteration of the Warrior C used regular launchers.  I posted the updated one because that version failed.

The Clan battlefield is simply too brutal for a lightly-armored bucket like the Warrior C to exist at short range more than 1 turn (and 1 turn is really stretching it).  It gets worse under certain optional rules, since what used to be "safe" ranges for the weapon still has a possibility of return fire from AA weapons with good gunners. (Extreme & LoS ranges).  Really not much point having 25-50 shots if you only ever get to use 2 of them before your rotor blows off.  Hence the I-OSs, which at least lowers the C-Bill and BV cost a bit for a weapon that's not going to get used over several turns anyways.

If you're lingering in a VTOL, you're using it wrong on a fundamental level and deserve to be shot down.  VTOL tactics rely on fast passes, and exploiting tactical dilemmas, such as hitting the flank or rear, or flank/rear echelon unit, move out, do it again against another target next turn (or move out to long range for a turn or until you've won initiative), never, ever, ever stick around.  even with the rotor-damage nerf ripped from Munchtek, your rotors are your greatest weak point, and they make up 30 to 40 percent of your hit locations (depending on rules era).  means you don't stick around, but that in turn means you need to be able to repeat your close hits to keep him trying.  this is the core of "Harassment tactics"-to present JUST enough threat that you create tactical problems for the other side, meaning you force the other guy to try those TN 12 shots to drive up his heat or use up his ammo, instead of ignoring your dinky 2 point hits.

You also misunderstand my use of "proportional" here.  VTOLs themselves DO divide into light, medium, and heavy within their 30 ton range-the division is shown by your suspension factor and the amount of armor you can mount on the rotors.  an H-7 is the VTOL equivalent of a medium 'mech, proportionally, because it's sitting on the sweet spot between speed and payload in the 21 to 25 ton range (the range where you get the best combinations for your engine size vs. actual capacity.)

Proportionally, five one-shots give you 10 points of damage-assuming you can land all of them on one location-but then, you have no follow up for the next target-you-didn't-kill.
and damage spread shows, you're more likely NOT to kill that target, with that mass salvo, than you are if you actually pick away at them using harassment tactics.

further a 45% or 40% failure rate is into the realm of 'unacceptable risks'. because your ultra autocannon becomes an ultra-boat-anchor when you actually NEED IT.

reiterating here, "YOU DON'T LINGER With VTOLS."  if you're lingering, you're killing pilots instead of improving them with skill points.  The 'Right' way to use a VTOL, is to keep your TN as high as you can in cruise, every turn, and take or make opportunities as often as possible, in part to break up enemy formations or create distractions, but whenever possible you need to be able to repeat any significant effects you can manage-which you won't do with one-shot launchers.

"significant effects" means brewing up tanks with crits using infernoes, or clearing an infantry force as they deploy using frags. attempt  it once, and you've shot your wad with your one-shots and the other side can breathe easy, because you can't even attempt it again in the same battle-you effectively lose the threat value that makes your movement TN and AC-2 range split worth having.  (essentially becoming an underspeed and undergunned cyrano, only without the punch of the main gun.)

I've made Clanner players and assault players flip the table and storm off using base-mod H-7s.  a C variant should be able to do that, only do it BETTER.  it's also possible to scrub out guys who claim to be combined arms players, by hunting and killing their Yellowjackets with teh base H-7, that goes to turn rates and the ability to 'keep up the skeer', forcing those fire-support birds to flank every turn trying to get away until they hit a building, hill, or stand of rotor-destroying trees on their sideslip check.

and you're not gonna do that once you've blown your load with the one-shots trying for a 'glory strike', because target-numbers MATTER.  anything light enough to kill with 10 points distributed over teh entire chassis and no criticals, is faster enough to be a difficult shot with those weapons, or an exposure shot. (Elemental armor and Infantry excluded.)

The trick with VTOL units (particularly in the "medium" range tonnage for VTOLs), is to use them as light cavalry forces-harassing and creating a threat that must be dealt with so that your regular forces (tanks, 'mechs, whatever) are able to exploit opportunities against your opponent.  once you've used up your one-shot rockets, you're not a threat that must be dealt with, you're effectively useless on the field except as an inadequate sniper with a low tonnage point value for victory conditions.

for games, you also need something else;  a big map.  VTOL units confined to 1 or 2 mapsheets are just popcorn for opposing forces.  to really USE them, you need something on the order of six mapsheets laid out 2/3 or more, just to have enough room not to sideslip off the map-edge and out of the game when properly employing them.

which also demands high cruising speeds combined with long range primary weapons that are reliable, in order to create those opportunities your main force needs against a technologically equal or superior opponent.  because of Sideslip, you can't canyon carve below about a 10 MP and survive the experience.  (this is something people defending slow birds like the Jellowbucket fail to realize-every elevation change and every facing turn costs MP.  You need to be able to do one or the other consistently while maintaining a high TN or you're toast, and 'hexes covered' is the only part that counts for TN adjustments.)

so there's speed control, and there is engagement control.  Lingering is a bad idea, you don't do it if you want to use a VTOL successfully.  Your choppers need to move all over that big map, constantly, never stopping for breath, delivering slashing attacks at cruise and being unpredictable to your opponent so that he is kind of 'forced' to deal with them, which pulls pressure off your other units, and if you've got your tn high enough, consistently, he misses a LOT.

which your one-shots don't do.  the SRM rack is the big 'shotgun' or major damage dealer he has to keep in mind, because the main gun is PUNY, barely better than a machine-gun even in Ultra form, but without the platoon-dusting benefits a MG has.  YOU MIGHT get a TAC on his torso and hit a gyro slot, or ammo slot-but don't bet on it with the ultra.  bet on doing very little actual damage most of the time, but forcing the other side's choices lest you get that SRM pack in range of his APC, or heavy tank with an inferno strike (when facing combined arms) or lest you get four SRM rounds into his thin back or side armor, creating an opportunity for your 'mech or tank units.

what you posted, doesn't do this.  It's a one-shot death machine that can't even take down an urbanmech, much less an Urbie IIC, and afterward, poses LESS threat than a Ferret,with an unacceptably high chance of needing to return to the barn with a busted (only) weapon 40% of the time.













The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #14 on: 14 October 2019, 15:37:13 »
If you're lingering in a VTOL, you're using it wrong on a fundamental level and deserve to be shot down.  VTOL tactics rely on fast passes, and exploiting tactical dilemmas, such as hitting the flank or rear, or flank/rear echelon unit, move out, do it again against another target next turn (or move out to long range for a turn or until you've won initiative), never, ever, ever stick around. 
"Lingering" refers to duration, not speed.  You're lingering if you're staying on a large battlefield long enough to make several passes that involve an actual SRM barrage.  You're also lingering if you're staying just outside of weapon ranges with your AC/2 variant and pelting your opponent over 20+ turns, but that lingering at least takes place at long distances.  If your VTOL isn't bugging out, you're lingering, doesn't matter if you're only moving 2 hexes per turn, or 20.
Quote
even with the rotor-damage nerf ripped from Munchtek, your rotors are your greatest weak point,
Yes.
Quote
and they make up 30 to 40 percent of your hit locations (depending on rules era)
No.
Or, at least, highly misleading.

The probability of a rotor hit is 11/36 on each of the front, side, and rear VTOL hit tables, which corresponds to ~30.6% chance.  That's firmly at the low end of your estimate; the high end is nothing but hyperbole.

If the VTOL mounts a Chin Turret (like the Warrior C), the "4" location changes from a rotor hit to a chin turret hit, reducing the rotor hit probability to 8/36, or ~22.2%.
Quote
You also misunderstand my use of "proportional" here.  VTOLs themselves DO divide into light, medium, and heavy within their 30 ton range-the division is shown by your suspension factor and the amount of armor you can mount on the rotors.  an H-7 is the VTOL equivalent of a medium 'mech, proportionally, because it's sitting on the sweet spot between speed and payload in the 21 to 25 ton range (the range where you get the best combinations for your engine size vs. actual capacity.)
That's a pedantic argument for the VTOL being a "medium" (or "heavy" for that matter), and a distinction I've never seen anyone but you make.  VTOLs are treated as light vehicles in the areas where the nominal vehicle class/weight actually matters, such as for turning modes (Tac Ops) and cargo/vehicle bay space.
Quote
Proportionally, five one-shots
six one-shots...
Quote
give you 10 points of damage
12-24 points, average of  17...
Quote
assuming you can land all of them on one location
Assumption isn't necessary to cause issues with T-C Warheads or Infernos (on certain targets), both viable loads available that you seem to ignore.
Quote
but then, you have no follow up for the next target-you-didn't-kill.
The Warrior C cannot make several passes against any reasonably-equipped Clan-Spec unit at short ranges.  There is no follow-up if you're shot down on the 2nd pass.

If your operational environment is permissive enough that you can make several (3+) passes at ranges short enough to use your SRMs and survive, then it's permissive enough to make several passes with medium-ranged weapons.

Then forget the Autocannon and the Warrior entirely.  Just grab a Donar or a Balac.  Or make a Clan-conversion Cavalry.
Quote
and damage spread shows, you're more likely NOT to kill that target
It's one and a half tons.  It's not intended to.
Quote
than you are if you actually pick away at them using harassment tactics.
The alternative loadout for an equivalent weight is one SRM-2.
If you can consistently 7+ close passes to fire off more missiles than the equivalent weight of I-OS launchers, that's not a fight, that's a milk run.

The OPFOR gets a vote.  If the OPFOR is so weak it doesn't, you don't need a Warrior C and would do just as fine with a Balac or Donar.
Quote
I've made Clanner players and assault players flip the table and storm off using base-mod H-7s.
-big snip-
Yes, you've made that abundantly clear way back in the Wyvern thread.  That and your hate of the Yellow Jacket and every VTOL that marks the -30 ton box.
Quote
what you posted, doesn't do this.  It's a one-shot death machine that can't even take down an urbanmech
Nope.
Quote
much less an Urbie IIC
Also nope.
Quote
and afterward, poses LESS threat than a Ferret
Look, I know you're not happy with my rendition of the Warrior, but jumping to hysterics doesn't really help your case.


It's not that I don't appreciate being lectured exactly how I should be designing and flying VTOLs (much of which I already do).  But it got exhausting by the Wyvern thread.

I simply do not care how many clanners you've made quit in rage with your H-7s.  I've played a lot with VTOLs on large maps and long-term campaigns, often Double-Blind and with Tac-Ops optional rules, and I've used them successfully in ways outside of the narrow box of using VTOLs that you have.

The Warrior C is not optimal.  If it were designed to be optimal, I wouldn't have used the Warrior as a base in the first place, or an AC/2 variant at all.

From what I've done with it, it's not bad.  It's good enough, as far as Clan mooks go.  Whatever the case, it is not the junk pile that you're trying to paint it as.  (Just like the Wyvern...)

I've taken your recommendations into account and, given my actual experience with the things, I've elected to ignore them.  A LB-X could be a possible variant, as well as one with a SRM launcher.  But as far as the regular Warrior C...

The chin turret stays.
The targeting computer stays.
The UAC/2 stays.
The I-OS array stays.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #15 on: 15 October 2019, 15:04:07 »
"Lingering" refers to duration, not speed.  You're lingering if you're staying on a large battlefield long enough to make several passes that involve an actual SRM barrage.  You're also lingering if you're staying just outside of weapon ranges with your AC/2 variant and pelting your opponent over 20+ turns, but that lingering at least takes place at long distances.  If your VTOL isn't bugging out, you're lingering, doesn't matter if you're only moving 2 hexes per turn, or 20.Yes.No.
Or, at least, highly misleading.

The probability of a rotor hit is 11/36 on each of the front, side, and rear VTOL hit tables, which corresponds to ~30.6% chance.  That's firmly at the low end of your estimate; the high end is nothing but hyperbole.

If the VTOL mounts a Chin Turret (like the Warrior C), the "4" location changes from a rotor hit to a chin turret hit, reducing the rotor hit probability to 8/36, or ~22.2%.That's a pedantic argument for the VTOL being a "medium" (or "heavy" for that matter), and a distinction I've never seen anyone but you make.  VTOLs are treated as light vehicles in the areas where the nominal vehicle class/weight actually matters, such as for turning modes (Tac Ops) and cargo/vehicle bay space.six one-shots...12-24 points, average of  17...Assumption isn't necessary to cause issues with T-C Warheads or Infernos (on certain targets), both viable loads available that you seem to ignore.The Warrior C cannot make several passes against any reasonably-equipped Clan-Spec unit at short ranges.  There is no follow-up if you're shot down on the 2nd pass.

If your operational environment is permissive enough that you can make several (3+) passes at ranges short enough to use your SRMs and survive, then it's permissive enough to make several passes with medium-ranged weapons.

Then forget the Autocannon and the Warrior entirely.  Just grab a Donar or a Balac.  Or make a Clan-conversion Cavalry.It's one and a half tons.  It's not intended to.The alternative loadout for an equivalent weight is one SRM-2.
If you can consistently 7+ close passes to fire off more missiles than the equivalent weight of I-OS launchers, that's not a fight, that's a milk run.

The OPFOR gets a vote.  If the OPFOR is so weak it doesn't, you don't need a Warrior C and would do just as fine with a Balac or Donar.Yes, you've made that abundantly clear way back in the Wyvern thread.  That and your hate of the Yellow Jacket and every VTOL that marks the -30 ton box.Nope.Also nope.Look, I know you're not happy with my rendition of the Warrior, but jumping to hysterics doesn't really help your case.


It's not that I don't appreciate being lectured exactly how I should be designing and flying VTOLs (much of which I already do).  But it got exhausting by the Wyvern thread.

I simply do not care how many clanners you've made quit in rage with your H-7s.  I've played a lot with VTOLs on large maps and long-term campaigns, often Double-Blind and with Tac-Ops optional rules, and I've used them successfully in ways outside of the narrow box of using VTOLs that you have.

The Warrior C is not optimal.  If it were designed to be optimal, I wouldn't have used the Warrior as a base in the first place, or an AC/2 variant at all.

From what I've done with it, it's not bad.  It's good enough, as far as Clan mooks go.  Whatever the case, it is not the junk pile that you're trying to paint it as.  (Just like the Wyvern...)

I've taken your recommendations into account and, given my actual experience with the things, I've elected to ignore them.  A LB-X could be a possible variant, as well as one with a SRM launcher.  But as far as the regular Warrior C...

The chin turret stays.
The targeting computer stays.
The UAC/2 stays.
The I-OS array stays.

okay, I REALLY want to see your math on that.  17 average with weapons that do 2 points per hit???

wanna see that one mathed out, because you can't GET single damage points on an SRM-2 round.  you get multiples of 2.  On 'average' with 12 missiles six of them will get you 12 (that's at 50% hit probability) out of 24 possible damage, if you're having odd number hits (7 or 9) you're going to end up 14 or 18 points, but they're not all hitting the same location.

your average spread puts more hits to limbs, and rarely on the same one twice unless you're firing a fairly significant volume-assuming all your to-hit rolls that result in a hit also land both missiles. (SRM-2 table has a bias toward single missile hits, or 50% of potential damage, said potential being 4, not 2, so half of that is 2, not 4.)

bunked dice aside, you're still shooting your wad in one go, making your platform effectively useless if things don't roll your way.  (the extra to-hit rolls may slightly improve this, but only in the same manner as loading up an LRM platform with 5's instead of taking a 15 or 20.  you get more chances to roll a hit, but your average is not going to be in the top quarter-you're going to miss more often, and land smaller groups of shot. on a tabletop, you're also going to annoy the rest of the players by taking forever to resolve your firing phase.  on Megamek it doesn't matter very much, because the computer's doing it for you.)

It would be interesting to see if you would test your theories in person.  Mine have a couple of decades worth of live testing behind them, though admittedly, less recent than I'd like.

Please note, if time were available and geography could be bent, I'd like to see this in person-using stock designs against your customs on a map laid out by a neutral third party of sufficient size, because you're clearly passionate about your own concepts and I want to see if they actually work under the newer rules (they don't work under BMR/pre-total warfare.)

but your rounding error (you forgot to account for the fact that 'average damage' has to be rounded with SRMs because they do 2 points of damage per, even "improved"....)  suggests you're being more of a keyboard cowboy because your blood's up, even sloppier than my math, which at least had the benefit of taking into account what the damage spread is most likely to be with bundles of one-shot SRMs in a live playing environment. (Less than half of launched missiles tend to hit due to the spread diagram's math alone. 10 points on 6 launchers is being generous. with six dice rolls, an average of 5 hits is generous, most of the time, it's going to be 2 or 3, roughly half MAY deliver both missiles to the target, so let's say you get 5 missiles hit, or 6.  double that, that's your damage-that's your AVERAGE damage...and you still don't get to repeat that attempt in a subsequent turn.)

now, what is 30%? right, it's one third.

11 is less than one third of 36.  The added hit location IS nice, esp since the devs gave that to the chin turret from the rotors, instead of the vastly more probable frontal or side armor facings.  almost like they needed to make something-a specific design, more viable than it would otherwise be.

or maybe they needed to add another vulnerability, since any location destroyed on a vehicle (and VTOL is a vehicle) counts as destroying the vehicle. (Unlike 'mechs, vehicles die if you destroy a location, which is why HVAC is a suicide pact for a vehicle, but kind-of-maybe-okay on a 'mech, also why CASE isn't that great on your tank-surprise! you still die.)

but it does grant you a wider-than-the narrow-nose arc to fire your main gun.

it's actually a design choice of yours i agreed with-it makes sense and doesn't compromise the unit.

I just think you went the wrong direction with the REST of the design-choosing a main gun that fails frequently and can't be un-failed, and loading down with one-shots is more something you put on a solahma's suicide-sled, than on something that you actually intend to use to influence the battle.

for my money, a better choice would've been to use an LBX in that chin turret, a CLAN SRM-4 for the secondary, and install battlefield electronics (the Clans do have such things) in a mast-mount or in the nose. (active probe, TAG, that kind of thing) and maybe a hotter engine to make it an effective recon platform.  the basic weaknesses of the VTOL platform are sufficient balancing most of the time, and optimal usage is pretty much universal with universal counters (Hypervelocity Assault Gauss says 'hi' by the way, and long since most of the players in my old group took up the practice of having LBX's to counter my stinging insects of death and frustration.)

maybe it's just that I got used to facing players who DO take vees into account and DO bring weapons that eradicate flying things. (or bring their own flying things to deal with mine.)

Rather than, y'know, testing on the bot in Megamek, a device with neither much tactical ability , nor memory....
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #16 on: 15 October 2019, 17:47:53 »
okay, I REALLY want to see your math on that.  17 average with weapons that do 2 points per hit???
One SRM-2 hits with 1 missile on a cluster roll of 7 or less, and with 2 missiles on an 8+, according to the cluster hit table.  In other words, 21/36 times one missile hits, the other 15/36 times both hit.  The average number of missiles hitting can easily be calculated as 1 missile * (21/35 cluster probability) + 2 missiles * (15/36 cluster probability) =~1.4167 missiles hit.  The average damage is 2 (damage/missile) * 1.4167 missiles =~ 2.8334 damage per SRM-2 rack.  Since there is 6 SRM racks, the average total damage is 2.8334 (Damage/Rack) * 6 (Racks) =~ 17 damage.

The average damage can be further weighed by to-hit numbers if desired simply by multiplying the average damage calculated here by the to-hit probability.  I think you can at least manage that part.
Quote
wanna see that one mathed out, because you can't GET single damage points on an SRM-2 round.  you get multiples of 2.
The average of a set does not have to be an integer, even if the set consists only of integers.
Quote
On 'average' with 12 missiles six of them will get you 12 (that's at 50% hit probability) out of 24 possible damage
If you're referring to the cluster hit tables when you're talking about "hit probability", none of the missiles have 50% or lower hit probability.  The 2-column's cluster hit probability can be calculated to be ~70.6% average hit probability on the cluster table, and the other columns I looked at tended to be around the ~63% region.  So a "50% hit probability" is a wrong assumption.
Quote
It would be interesting to see if you would test your theories in person.
I have done so with other people through MM.  It's not practical for me to meet up physically frequently due to geographical, time, and practical restraints (I'm often busy, in the middle of nowhere, and Double Blind is an utter pain to manage in-person too).

The Warrior C, it's mostly a flavor unit, but it's been used once or twice as a flavor mook in a campaign setting.  The person controlling the OpFor flies the Warrior C around a bit, taking shots with the Autocannon, darts and unloads with the I-OS SRMs if someone is clumsy enough to make themselves an easy target, and bugs out once the AC ammo runs out or the gun jams (unless we're using house-rules not strictly relevant here).
Quote
but your rounding error (you forgot to account for the fact that 'average damage' has to be rounded with SRMs because they do 2 points of damage per, even "improved"....)
No.

The arithmetic mean (Average) involves no rounding.

There's no rounding to "forget".  Rounding to the nearest 2 points would introduce an entirely pointless error to the average calculation for absolutely no reason.

A tiny example: A weapon that automatically hits its target, but deals 1 point of damage 50% of the time, and 2 points the other 50%, would have an average damage of 1.5.  Under no circumstance is this number rounded.
Quote
even sloppier than my math, which at least had the benefit of taking into account what the damage spread is most likely to be with bundles of one-shot SRMs in a live playing environment.
Damage spreading on several hit locations doesn't reduce the average damage, so there's nothing to account for.
Quote
(Less than half of launched missiles tend to hit due to the spread diagram's math alone.
"Spread diagram?"  You mean cluster hits table?  You're not being very clear at all.

In that case, that is also wrong.  Every column on the cluster hits table consistently has an average number of missile hits for a successful attack higher than 50%.  They're usually around the low 60s but it depends on the column, with the -2 column reaching around 70% average.
Quote
with six dice rolls, an average of 5 hits is generous, most of the time, it's going to be 2 or 3
So you're trying to include the to-hit probabilities with your average damage.  Fine, but that's obviously going to make the average damage highly dependent on the to-hit numbers, and it drops the average damage by the same percentage regardless of the weapon with the exception of special cases like Pulse Lasers (which is why I didn't include it originally, so you multiply that factor later at whatever to-hit number to get the average at that THN).

At 2-3 hitting launchers on average vs 6 firing launchers, you're firing at to-hit numbers of around 8-9.  Those numbers aren't good enough to justify flying close enough to use the SRMs (and risk getting shot down) in the first place, regardless if they're one-shots or reloadable.

It's easy enough to adjust my calculated "all-hit" average for the THN: Just multiply that by the probability of succeeding the to-hit roll.  For a target number of 7, that's 21/36, so the average damage of the I-OS array at THN 7 is just 17*(21/36)=~9.92 damage

Quote
so let's say you get 5 missiles hit, or 6.  double that, that's your damage-that's your AVERAGE damage...
To your credit, you have the general procedure correct.  You just didn't derive any actual numbers so it's hearsay and not math.
Quote
now, what is 30%? right, it's one third.
Three-tenths.

1/3rd as a percentage is ~33.33%.  That's a percent error of (33.33-30)/30=~11%.
Quote
11 is less than one third of 36.
Yes.  I understand how fractions work.
Quote
it's actually a design choice of yours i agreed with-it makes sense and doesn't compromise the unit.

I just think you went the wrong direction with the REST of the design-choosing a main gun that fails frequently and can't be un-failed, and loading down with one-shots is more something you put on a solahma's suicide-sled, than on something that you actually intend to use to influence the battle.
I've already explained why I went with One-Shots and UACs at least twice now.

If I felt this design could survive in close quarters on the regular to use its SRMs, not only would I have used normal SRMs and not One-Shots, I'd have removed the Autocannon for more SRMs.  But then it'd be a Light Cavalry.

However, gut instinct and prior experiences told me that such a design could not make the multiple passes while surviving needed to justify a "real" launcher.  Using it in a campaign setting (against actual people, not bots) confirmed it.
Quote
for my money, a better choice would've been to use an LBX in that chin turret, a CLAN SRM-4 for the secondary, and install battlefield electronics (the Clans do have such things) in a mast-mount or in the nose. (active probe, TAG, that kind of thing) and maybe a hotter engine to make it an effective recon platform.
It also drives up the price by over 100k C-Bills.  Add the electronic equipment (either Light Probe or Light TAG, there's not enough weight left over for a full one) and you're near 1 million C-Bills, right next to the Donar in terms of price.

Not that it's a bad thing, but making a lower-cost VTOL was one of the primary goals of this.  At the new chopper's price, it's not much cheaper than a Donar at all, and the Donar has a fusion engine.  At that point, why not just take a Donar, or redesign that instead?

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #17 on: 16 October 2019, 10:00:25 »
One SRM-2 hits with 1 missile on a cluster roll of 7 or less, and with 2 missiles on an 8+, according to the cluster hit table.  In other words, 21/36 times one missile hits, the other 15/36 times both hit.  The average number of missiles hitting can easily be calculated as 1 missile * (21/35 cluster probability) + 2 missiles * (15/36 cluster probability) =~1.4167 missiles hit.  The average damage is 2 (damage/missile) * 1.4167 missiles =~ 2.8334 damage per SRM-2 rack.  Since there is 6 SRM racks, the average total damage is 2.8334 (Damage/Rack) * 6 (Racks) =~ 17 damage.

The average damage can be further weighed by to-hit numbers if desired simply by multiplying the average damage calculated here by the to-hit probability.  I think you can at least manage that part.The average of a set does not have to be an integer, even if the set consists only of integers.If you're referring to the cluster hit tables when you're talking about "hit probability", none of the missiles have 50% or lower hit probability.  The 2-column's cluster hit probability can be calculated to be ~70.6% average hit probability on the cluster table, and the other columns I looked at tended to be around the ~63% region.  So a "50% hit probability" is a wrong assumption.I have done so with other people through MM.  It's not practical for me to meet up physically frequently due to geographical, time, and practical restraints (I'm often busy, in the middle of nowhere, and Double Blind is an utter pain to manage in-person too).

The Warrior C, it's mostly a flavor unit, but it's been used once or twice as a flavor mook in a campaign setting.  The person controlling the OpFor flies the Warrior C around a bit, taking shots with the Autocannon, darts and unloads with the I-OS SRMs if someone is clumsy enough to make themselves an easy target, and bugs out once the AC ammo runs out or the gun jams (unless we're using house-rules not strictly relevant here).No.

The arithmetic mean (Average) involves no rounding.

There's no rounding to "forget".  Rounding to the nearest 2 points would introduce an entirely pointless error to the average calculation for absolutely no reason.

A tiny example: A weapon that automatically hits its target, but deals 1 point of damage 50% of the time, and 2 points the other 50%, would have an average damage of 1.5.  Under no circumstance is this number rounded.Damage spreading on several hit locations doesn't reduce the average damage, so there's nothing to account for."Spread diagram?"  You mean cluster hits table?  You're not being very clear at all.

In that case, that is also wrong.  Every column on the cluster hits table consistently has an average number of missile hits for a successful attack higher than 50%.  They're usually around the low 60s but it depends on the column, with the -2 column reaching around 70% average.So you're trying to include the to-hit probabilities with your average damage.  Fine, but that's obviously going to make the average damage highly dependent on the to-hit numbers, and it drops the average damage by the same percentage regardless of the weapon with the exception of special cases like Pulse Lasers (which is why I didn't include it originally, so you multiply that factor later at whatever to-hit number to get the average at that THN).

At 2-3 hitting launchers on average vs 6 firing launchers, you're firing at to-hit numbers of around 8-9.  Those numbers aren't good enough to justify flying close enough to use the SRMs (and risk getting shot down) in the first place, regardless if they're one-shots or reloadable.

It's easy enough to adjust my calculated "all-hit" average for the THN: Just multiply that by the probability of succeeding the to-hit roll.  For a target number of 7, that's 21/36, so the average damage of the I-OS array at THN 7 is just 17*(21/36)=~9.92 damage
To your credit, you have the general procedure correct.  You just didn't derive any actual numbers so it's hearsay and not math.Three-tenths.

1/3rd as a percentage is ~33.33%.  That's a percent error of (33.33-30)/30=~11%.Yes.  I understand how fractions work.I've already explained why I went with One-Shots and UACs at least twice now.

If I felt this design could survive in close quarters on the regular to use its SRMs, not only would I have used normal SRMs and not One-Shots, I'd have removed the Autocannon for more SRMs.  But then it'd be a Light Cavalry.

However, gut instinct and prior experiences told me that such a design could not make the multiple passes while surviving needed to justify a "real" launcher.  Using it in a campaign setting (against actual people, not bots) confirmed it.It also drives up the price by over 100k C-Bills.  Add the electronic equipment (either Light Probe or Light TAG, there's not enough weight left over for a full one) and you're near 1 million C-Bills, right next to the Donar in terms of price.

Not that it's a bad thing, but making a lower-cost VTOL was one of the primary goals of this.  At the new chopper's price, it's not much cheaper than a Donar at all, and the Donar has a fusion engine.  At that point, why not just take a Donar, or redesign that instead?

why indeed? the Donar definitely could benefit from a better engine, rather than relying on a rules change to bring it up to parity with the far less impressively armed 3026 Warrior H-7 (as opposed to what was chosen-nerfing the H-7 to make the Donar look better, and adopting the whole text of the Munchkin rules from Maxtech to save the very advanced looking Donar from being tactically inferior to a design dating back to the eighties and first generation of technical readouts...)

No, seriously, the Donar could do with a better engine and dumping the Streaks for something more flexible, lighter, and cheaper to operate.

point being, cost isn't a factor with Clanners.  Aside from the Blood Spirits, the Clans lavish costly materials and waste vast quantities of otherwise usable stores to have only the very best available-even for their second line units.  This doesn't always translate into good units, but those bad units they have, are still made of materials  and carry equipment significantly better than inner sphere equivalents.

even comparing Clan 2nd line to Inner Sphere front line, and a pre-nerfed H-7 was a superior performer to the Donar in any head-to-head (because that one point of MP actually DOES matter, oddly enough) in at least two roles: supporting ground bound units, and as a counter-unit to the VTOLs fielded on the other side.

for the 'not much cheaper', you get the ability to out fight a Donar in spite of not being able to match it in raw damage.  (presuming you didn't do the stupid thing, and rely on 3039's nerfed design stats, but instead upgraded the 3026 version.)

iow, for 'not much cheaper' you get significant performance increases along the axes where VTOL performance actually matters-which makes it 'cheaper' in the sense that it's more survivable (harder to hit), does more jobs, and does them better for the same pricetag that you would be paying for the Donar, which really only does a slightly better job than a Cyrano while being an easier target.  (mind, you're more likely to recover live crew from a Donar in the event of a crash, but that's only because the Cyrano was designed rather badly and can have its primary characteristics modeled for less cost with more armor at fifteen tons, instead of the 30 tons it's built to.)

basically, 'cheaper' doesn't require 'less capable'. Sometimes 'cheaper' can be be more expensive on the buy, but if it does more for the same (or close to the same) cost, it becomes cheaper.



The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #18 on: 16 October 2019, 17:20:38 »
-pre post snip-
I can't help but notice you've taken yet another route to attack the Warrior C instead of following up on average damage and the "rounding error".
Quote
why indeed? the Donar definitely could benefit from a better engine, rather than relying on a rules change to bring it up to parity with the far less impressively armed 3026 Warrior H-7 (as opposed to what was chosen-nerfing the H-7 to make the Donar look better, and adopting the whole text of the Munchkin rules from Maxtech to save the very advanced looking Donar from being tactically inferior to a design dating back to the eighties and first generation of technical readouts...)

No, seriously, the Donar could do with a better engine and dumping the Streaks for something more flexible, lighter, and cheaper to operate.
I'd just upgrade the engine slightly, scrap the missiles and CASE, add a chin turret and strap a targeting computer on the laser.  The ERLL is enough and you scrap about a hundred k C-Bills off the original Donar.  Call it a "Donar+".

Quote
point being, cost isn't a factor with Clanners.
If true, we wouldn't have non-omni, ICE and Fuel Cell-equipped Clan combat vehicles like the Zorya and the 'Huey'.
Even if it were true, then why would you mention the Warrior C's value for your money in the first place?

Quote
even comparing Clan 2nd line to Inner Sphere front line, and a pre-nerfed H-7
The "Pre-Nerf" H-7 from TRO:3026 essentially had more than a ton of weight for "free" from fractional accounting.  Since BT decided that basically all of the vehicles afterwards were going to use regular accounting, that one ton had to come from somewhere.  It really couldn't have come from the armor, and it really couldn't have come from the weapons, so it came from the engine.

It wasn't done to hurt the H-7 and make Yellow Jackets and Donars look good.  Other vehicles from the same TRO got hit by the same rounding problems: The Harrasser lost a half ton of its already extremely light 2 tons due to rounding.  The Warrior just got hurt the most because it was leaning heavily on the rounding-method weight gains: 400kg from structure, 400 kg from the rotor, and 450 kg from the control system, while taking advantage of the 21-30 ton VTOL suspension bracket.

In fact, the Donar also suffers from the rounding issue, but it's not as obvious since there was no Donar published with the old fractional accounting rules.

If you actually want to compare like with like, you'd compare a Fractional Accounting Donar with a Fractional Accounting Warrior.

If you "rebuild" the vanilla Donar using Fractional Accounting, it gains 1.25 ton bonus, just like the "pre-nerf" Warrior has.  That can effortlessly go into a stronger engine (70 SFE, 10/15 movement) to match the old Warrior's speed (which is your primary complaint about the Donar, or really most VTOLs).  The other 750 kilos could go into MGs or armor or a Chin turret for the laser.  Possibly even a VTOL Jet Booster, if you don't care about price.  Alternatively, lose 2 points of armor somewhere to get enough weight for a Targeting Computer, if you feel it's already over-armored for a VTOL.
Quote
was a superior performer to the Donar in any head-to-head (because that one point of MP actually DOES matter, oddly enough) in at least two roles: supporting ground bound units, and as a counter-unit to the VTOLs fielded on the other side.
Again, when you compare like with like (either both VTOLs with rounded-up components or both VTOLs with fractional accounting [which you call "Pre-Nerf"]), that 1 MP difference disappears and the Donar becomes a longer-ranged, more powerful, heavier-armored Warrior.  The H-7 would only have a marginal advantage at VTOL sweeping with Flak ammo (uncommon, and the Donar can still exploit range brackets).  The H-7 has either only marginal advantages in specific situations that suit it better for supporting ground units, depending on the ammo loadouts (Precision ammo & Infernos).  In the vast majority of situations, the enhanced range & damage output of the Donar wins out for ground support.

And while a 1 MP difference is useful, it's isn't in itself decisive.
Quote
for the 'not much cheaper', you get the ability to out fight a Donar in spite of not being able to match it in raw damage.  (presuming you didn't do the stupid thing, and rely on 3039's nerfed design stats, but instead upgraded the 3026 version.)
A VTOL with a LB-2X will obviously eat most other slower VTOLs without it in a 1v1... eventually.  That's what an LB-X does.

But unless you're only fighting flying things, there's a lot more to it than that.  A case can be made for the LB 2X over the against vehicles for rotor and motive crits, but often the raw power of the Donar's ERLL is as effective or more so than a simple crit.  Against a 'Mech (and most Vehicles) I'll gladly take the ERLL over the peashooting LB-X.

If I just wanted a VTOL eater I'd have taken the LB-2 X, but that's not what I wanted.
Quote
iow, for 'not much cheaper' you get significant performance increases along the axes where VTOL performance actually matters-which makes it 'cheaper' in the sense that it's more survivable (harder to hit), does more jobs, and does them better for the same pricetag that you would be paying for the Donar, which really only does a slightly better job than a Cyrano while being an easier target.
I appreciate your theory-crafting, but in the matches I've/we've played/tested, The LB-2X version of the Warrior C was not significantly more survivable than the current UAC version (or the Donar for that matter).  C3, Double Blind, ECM (ghost targets), hidden units, other various Tac Ops rules (Extreme/LOS ranges), quirks, and simply having objectives other than a simple death-match will, in practice, complicate the match from the simple method you advocate.

Again, I really have no interest in your advice. 

The Warrior C works perfectly well as-is.  It will stay as-is.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #19 on: 17 October 2019, 23:30:12 »
You do you.  Keep in mind, the ORIGIN of the Donar, was a Clannerfied H-7, so it really IS the first "Warrior C".
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #20 on: 18 October 2019, 10:16:18 »
You do you.  Keep in mind, the ORIGIN of the Donar, was a Clannerfied H-7, so it really IS the first "Warrior C".
The Warrior's intro date is 2957, after the Star League Exodus.

The Donar's intro date is 3017, before the Clan Invasion.

Precisely how did they "Clannify" a VTOL that they didn't know to exist yet?
« Last Edit: 18 October 2019, 14:33:18 by Retry »

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #21 on: 18 October 2019, 14:28:45 »
The Warrior's intro date is 2957, before the Star League Exodus.

The Donar's intro date is 3017, before the Clan Invasion.

Precisely how did they "Clannify" a VTOL that they didn't know to exist yet?

you mean "After" the Star League exodus.  I was speaking more in terms of how it was done outside the fiction, Retry.  TRO 3026 predates the Clan invasion books and material very significantly, while TRO 3058 was published in the middle of the Clan invasion material and AFTER Serpent.  it was quicker to translate the most commonly used Inner Sphere VTOL for that TRO, than to completely come up with something new. (Plus, they copied the most successful Inner Sphere vtol design)
In CANON, it's probably an outgrowth of re-designing the Cyrano to be...useful, since the SLDF only had a handful of VTOL designs of their own in TRO 2750.

But compare;

Donar: 21 tons
H-7: 21 tons
Donar: counterrotating rotor assembly
H-7: counterrotating rotor assembly
Donar: Long range main gun, SRM backup weapons.
H-7: Long range main gun, SRM backup weapons.

The differences come down to the Clan design using fusion power (which was fairly common for SLDF, and thus, Clan vehicles.  certainly more common than ICE engines or Fuel cells), and in using fusion power, relying on an energy weapon for the main gun instead of a light autocannon.  For the Missile packs, the Clanners chose a pair of streak-2's, for a four-missile volley, while the Warrior uses a single SRM-4 of the same mass for the same size volley (but significantly less accuracy).

The movement split can be explained by different priorities and different ways of dealing with both technical and tactical issues-the Donar can spend more time hiding thanks to the significantly higher damage curve, and pre-invasion Clan trials aren't played as no-holds-barred fights, so your Donars will spend more time in the barn, than in the air, being as they're more likely to be bid away in a Batchall, even when it's second line forces facing front liners, so your performance requirements, and combat endurance requirements, are reduced.

I know, that falls into your argument as support, but then, you're positing a design POST invasion, likely by Clans who've learned that everyone else is NOT going to play by their rules and your design falls more into the 'formal trials' style of combat, where counting coup might actually be a viable choice, while the base model 3026 H-7 was built for NO rules warfare (or exceedingly lax rules of engagement) where dragging it out and bleeding the foe is considered just as 'lawful' a tactic as smashing them flat in one glorious rush forward in the open.

The Donar philosophically straddles that line-it has enough punch for the glory boys, but it's got range enough to drag it out-it simply lacks sufficient speed to do so as well as an older-stat model H-7.

Yours, by contrast, is definitely a glory-boy model-it has one glorious rush in it, and then it's either supernumerary or dead.  That fits with homeworld trials machines, but it's not battlemech enough to do that outside of a very narrow group of HOMEWORLD clanners.

I don't see the Homeworlders shucking their Cyranos for your version, but then, I don't have your gaming group.  I do NOT see the Invading clans designing it-if they've faced enough H-7s to respect the design enough to update it, they're not going to update it into something less useful than the original design, or worse, less useful than a design that's been in Clan inventories for decades to centuries.

But I'm not in your campaign, I can't speak for what goes down in your version of the BT 'verse.  I know that I wouldn't have a problem annihilating your version of the Warrior(clan version) using stock designs from the books in that same family, which suggests it's not much of an improvement, and I can think of at least four existing inner sphere machines that outperform it for less cost across a broader area of uses, none of them customs.

In a sense, I have to say it, if you're going to do a 'C' variation of an Inner Sphere design, it needs to be BETTER than the stock, yours resembles a Cavalry stuck with a popgun on the nose and the ammo bins removed, only with less capability.  That's not a favorable position to be in, and I am fair certain you can do better than this.

once you get over your offense at the criticism.

First thing to argue, is why did the Clanners see the H-7 as WORTH updating?  what does it do well?  How can Clan tech make it BETTER at that job?  You don't provide a solid argument here, and getting all offended doesn't help make your case.

What the H-7 does well: scouting and harassment, secondary strikes on conventional assets, and plinking fire delivered from a very difficult to hit platform over a sustained period of time.  it excels at this, it also excels at hunting other VTOL units and fast conventionals, it's tailor made to suppress uprisings, harass enemy scout formations, and delay/distract/reveal enemy movements.

How does yours do these things?  well, assuming the main gun doesn't jam, it's mediocre to poor as a sniping platform, and the bundled one-shots will certainly one-shot a single vehicle target with the right ammo...but then, it becomes effectively worthless.  one-for-one trade, under your BEST circumstances, after which it becomes supernumerary in short order.   no legs, no repeat engagement, no way to sustain a threatening posture or draw off enemy escort units. 

which, if you've used ultras in play for any length of time, isn't a guarantee, even WITH a TC (which doesn't count toward that, check the rules.)

means your "main weapon" is that array of one-shots, and you have to get standing in their boots range, have ONE shot at it, and after that, you're basically done.  which is fine for the one or two mapsheet battles you're probably used to, since you keep referring to fragility as if it's not a thing with EVERY VTOL in the game, as if every close approach wasn't taking a calculated risk.

the SINGLE thing in your design I feel is worthy, is the use of the chin turret with that main gun.  THAT makes sense as an upgrade.  your weapons fit, however, is a drastic DOWN grade from a premier harassment/battlefield influencer, to, well, an expensive, yet less useful, take on the base concept of the Cavalry AH, which is another design that relies on SRM spreads to do its job, but does so far, far, better using a lower technology base, at less objective cost.

what your design reminds me of, is that dreadful thing that Wolf's Dragoons built and then abandoned-I can't remember the name, but it was another VTOL with missile primary/and secondary, that was fragile enough to make the H-7 look tanky, and so successful even the gear-hungry inner sphere powers didn't place a second order (and nobody in the Periphery is even interested in buying one.) basically a hell of a punch-once, after which it's dead.

dammit, now I can't remember the name of it...

anyway, you don't like criticism. that's fine. you be you.  that doesn't change that your design is a set of bad decisions made easy.




« Last Edit: 18 October 2019, 14:56:42 by Cannonshop »
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #22 on: 18 October 2019, 17:16:27 »
...
Yours, by contrast, is definitely a glory-boy model-it has one glorious rush in it, and then it's either supernumerary or dead.  That fits with homeworld trials machines, but it's not battlemech enough to do that outside of a very narrow group of HOMEWORLD clanners.
It's not built for trials.  It's built for long campaigns.  Harass at long range, and if there is an opening, take an opportunistic strike with the SRMs with a proper ammo load, then 'git and return to base (or continue support with the AC if needed).  It's not necessary for each Warrior C to kill something every sortie; a Squadron knocking out a tank and returning home in one piece is perfectly acceptable.
Quote
I don't see the Homeworlders shucking their Cyranos for your version, but then, I don't have your gaming group.  I do NOT see the Invading clans designing it-if they've faced enough H-7s to respect the design enough to update it, they're not going to update it into something less useful than the original design, or worse, less useful than a design that's been in Clan inventories for decades to centuries.
This Warrior C is developed from captured Warrior frames to augment the Clan VTOL force quickly.  The Warrior C in the campaign has, both theoretically and in practice, more survivable and useful than the vanilla H-7.
Quote
But I'm not in your campaign, I can't speak for what goes down in your version of the BT 'verse.  I know that I wouldn't have a problem annihilating your version of the Warrior(clan version) using stock designs from the books in that same family, which suggests it's not much of an improvement,
None of the H7s, nor the H8, H9, or H10 will annihilate a Warrior C on even grounds unless the fighting takes place inside a phone booth.  Against the H7 specifically, that UAC you love to disparage is still at minimum a longer-ranged, more accurate, wider-arc UAC/2, and the H7 doesn't have the speed advantage to force itself into SRM range.  Not to mention the armor, though that's more useful against "heavy" AA guns (HAG, LPL) then other VTOLs.

This is the type of obvious exaggeration which makes it hard to take you seriously.  Annihilated?  Really?
Quote
First thing to argue, is why did the Clanners see the H-7 as WORTH updating?  what does it do well?  How can Clan tech make it BETTER at that job?  You don't provide a solid argument here, and getting all offended doesn't help make your case.
Long-range harassment.  The missiles are tertiary since you can't get close to any half-assed AA net without dying.

The improvement is explicitly to the long-ranged harassment part, with a chin turret and targeting computer for ease of use and accuracy.  Since the Warrior C (or any Warrior) cannot coexist at short range with any LB-X autocannon which are not uncommon in the slightest, it takes that into account with a heavier SRM load but with less endurance.

If they could actually exist that long, it would simply have a SRM-4 with a ton of ammo and a half-ton less armor.  Which would fix half of your complaints.

But I'm didn't design it for Cannonshop's seal of approval, I designed it for reality on the field.  Specifically I (re)designed it after the VTOL was consistently getting swatted at close quarters in the campaign with the SRM after the 2nd or 3rd close range pass with SRMs, almost always by LB-Xs or Pulse Lasers.  Since the platform couldn't live long enough at short-range to actually use the SRM 3+ turns on any semi-regular basis, it didn't make any sense to keep them.
Quote
What the H-7 does well: scouting and harassment
Only harassment.  The H-7 is a mediocre scout at best.  Ferrets, Aerons, Martens, Crows and Sprints are vastly better for a scouting role.
Quote
How does yours do these things?  well, assuming the main gun doesn't jam, it's mediocre to poor as a sniping platform
The UAC/2 is so "mediocre-to-poor" it's strictly superior to Warrior as a sniper.  Better armor (not that it matters much), same speed.  If you don't need or want to double tap, you're left with a more accurate, wider traverse, longer ranged AC/2.  If you want to put out a bit more shells on the field, you have the option without the explosive consequence of a Rapid-Fire AC/2.
Quote
and the bundled one-shots will certainly one-shot a single vehicle target with the right ammo...but then, it becomes effectively worthless.
Then it returns to the FOB to rearm and repair.  And quite frankly, it's going to need a repair in the size of fights we do.

The alternative option is that the VTOL doesn't need to return to the FOB because the VTOL is dead attempting SRM Pass #2 or #3.  We've found that out by experimentation, by experience, though you don't seem to be so keen on experience when it's not your experience.
Quote
means your "main weapon" is that array of one-shots
Nope.
Quote
which is fine for the one or two mapsheet battles you're probably used to
3x3 Mapsheets equivalent on average (2x2 at minimum for pickup, non-campaign matches), and usually Double-Blind.  Thanks for the assumption though.
Quote
since you keep referring to fragility as if it's not a thing with EVERY VTOL in the game, as if every close approach wasn't taking a calculated risk.
A close approach is more risky with some VTOLs than others.  The Warrior is one of those "some", and really shouldn't be getting close to Clan weapons at all unless the AA coverage is exceptionally weak.  A LPL to a Warrior will core it in a single shot everywhere but the rotor, so the pilot is at far more risk of dying making his SRM run.  A Warrior C can survive a scrape with a clan LPL or HAG (once) and survive to repair for its SRM strike, if it makes one at all.
Quote
anyway, you don't like criticism. that's fine. you be you.  that doesn't change that your design is a set of bad decisions made easy.
I take criticism fine.  That's how the Warrior C got to where it is now (from a SRM-2 to a SRM-4 minus a half-ton armor to I-OS SRMs; Ironically, that'd be the "wrong direction" for you.).

What I don't take too kindly is a Gatekeeper of the Helicopters posting nearly identical essay after essay filled with 95% fluffy language and 5% substance (of which the mathematical portion ends up blatantly wrong) of how the VTOL doesn't have exactly the type of armor, speed, and weapon you'd prefer(LB-X in lieu of UAC) and is therefore ruined, ignoring my experience and experiments (months ago) and explanations as to why the VTOL is currently the way it is.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #23 on: 18 October 2019, 19:37:47 »
It's not built for trials.  It's built for long campaigns.  Harass at long range, and if there is an opening, take an opportunistic strike with the SRMs with a proper ammo load, then 'git and return to base (or continue support with the AC if needed).  It's not necessary for each Warrior C to kill something every sortie; a Squadron knocking out a tank and returning home in one piece is perfectly acceptable.This Warrior C is developed from captured Warrior frames to augment the Clan VTOL force quickly.  The Warrior C in the campaign has, both theoretically and in practice, more survivable and useful than the vanilla H-7.None of the H7s, nor the H8, H9, or H10 will annihilate a Warrior C on even grounds unless the fighting takes place inside a phone booth.  Against the H7 specifically, that UAC you love to disparage is still at minimum a longer-ranged, more accurate, wider-arc UAC/2, and the H7 doesn't have the speed advantage to force itself into SRM range.  Not to mention the armor, though that's more useful against "heavy" AA guns (HAG, LPL) then other VTOLs.

This is the type of obvious exaggeration which makes it hard to take you seriously.  Annihilated?  Really?Long-range harassment.  The missiles are tertiary since you can't get close to any half-assed AA net without dying.

The improvement is explicitly to the long-ranged harassment part, with a chin turret and targeting computer for ease of use and accuracy.  Since the Warrior C (or any Warrior) cannot coexist at short range with any LB-X autocannon which are not uncommon in the slightest, it takes that into account with a heavier SRM load but with less endurance.

If they could actually exist that long, it would simply have a SRM-4 with a ton of ammo and a half-ton less armor.  Which would fix half of your complaints.

But I'm didn't design it for Cannonshop's seal of approval, I designed it for reality on the field.  Specifically I (re)designed it after the VTOL was consistently getting swatted at close quarters in the campaign with the SRM after the 2nd or 3rd close range pass with SRMs, almost always by LB-Xs or Pulse Lasers.  Since the platform couldn't live long enough at short-range to actually use the SRM 3+ turns on any semi-regular basis, it didn't make any sense to keep them.Only harassment.  The H-7 is a mediocre scout at best.  Ferrets, Aerons, Martens, Crows and Sprints are vastly better for a scouting role.The UAC/2 is so "mediocre-to-poor" it's strictly superior to Warrior as a sniper.  Better armor (not that it matters much), same speed.  If you don't need or want to double tap, you're left with a more accurate, wider traverse, longer ranged AC/2.  If you want to put out a bit more shells on the field, you have the option without the explosive consequence of a Rapid-Fire AC/2.Then it returns to the FOB to rearm and repair.  And quite frankly, it's going to need a repair in the size of fights we do.

The alternative option is that the VTOL doesn't need to return to the FOB because the VTOL is dead attempting SRM Pass #2 or #3.  We've found that out by experimentation, by experience, though you don't seem to be so keen on experience when it's not your experience.Nope.3x3 Mapsheets equivalent on average (2x2 at minimum for pickup, non-campaign matches), and usually Double-Blind.  Thanks for the assumption though.A close approach is more risky with some VTOLs than others.  The Warrior is one of those "some", and really shouldn't be getting close to Clan weapons at all unless the AA coverage is exceptionally weak.  A LPL to a Warrior will core it in a single shot everywhere but the rotor, so the pilot is at far more risk of dying making his SRM run.  A Warrior C can survive a scrape with a clan LPL or HAG (once) and survive to repair for its SRM strike, if it makes one at all.I take criticism fine.  That's how the Warrior C got to where it is now (from a SRM-2 to a SRM-4 minus a half-ton armor to I-OS SRMs; Ironically, that'd be the "wrong direction" for you.).

What I don't take too kindly is a Gatekeeper of the Helicopters posting nearly identical essay after essay filled with 95% fluffy language and 5% substance (of which the mathematical portion ends up blatantly wrong) of how the VTOL doesn't have exactly the type of armor, speed, and weapon you'd prefer(LB-X in lieu of UAC) and is therefore ruined, ignoring my experience and experiments (months ago) and explanations as to why the VTOL is currently the way it is.

You're showing your lack of interest here-given the relevant time period (presumably both units in the field at the same time), the base model isn't as crippled as you think. "PRecision Ammo".  Only hits that land are hits, remember? one of the few graces for baseline autocannons, is the ability to use specialist ammunition,such as precision or Flack ammo, which when combined with having the same modifiers, means that the Inner Sphere unit can (in some cases) neutralize that Ultra's range advantage by dint of either reducing to-hit numbers against another VTOL, or hitting targets that are on the 'edge'.  (The LBX does this better, but hey, we don't have an LBX version!)
Period availability with the H8 allows use of specialist loads as well-which the clanner doesn't, and again, this can neutralize some, most, or all of the advantages on the basis of being able to get accurate shots off while the opponent is struggling to get a target lock.
Finally, your ultra loses its TC support the second you try to leverage the higher damage mode.  Just like with Pulse lasers or other burst weapons.

On the subject of Your "Field" experience...lacking.  you ran on a postage stamp (3 sheets long, one wide, right? so you really ran with no maneuver room.)  a narrow ribbon is still a narrow ribbon, it prevents using your full mobility.  Try two-by-three, or three-by-three, the standard mapsheet is optimized for units that move 4/6 or less, armed with 3025 era weapons, in groups of four per.  basically it's fine for small groups of heavier units using tourney style play, which is also how people can think the Jellowbucket's a viable design until they try to use it against someone who knows how to deal with conventionals.

You ARE going to face conventionals.  you ARE going to face LBX fire, and while you got a brief break by reducing your rotor exposure to the same range as a hovertank's skirts, you're still sniping for 2 points with no follow up and relying on phone-booth one-shot 'tactics' to be worth engaging.  Take it out of the one-on-one vacuum and actually TEST IT against someone who can give you a stiff fight, or better, give it to someone else and see how long it takes you to counter it, and don't be afraid to have lots and lots of terrain on the map-the main grace of VTOLs is using terrain on the approach and on the retreat, the major flaw people fall into is thinking armor is anything but crash protection for the crew-on that airframe, your movement is your armor, the ability to maneuver is your only REAL defense, armor plating is there to be a shock absorber in campaign play so you don't have to start a new pilot when, not if, you're knocked down.

I doubt you have anyone you'd give it to in a match, though, esp. if you are taking non-clanner forces, at least, I doubt you have anyone good you'd actually trust with it, but that's part of testing a design-can someone who isn't you use it effectively, and can you actually think of counters on your own to your own creation?  I might also only make an SRM pass two or three times in a game, but I bet based on your statemetn, that there's more time between mien than yours, and I probably used it more effectively by working the other guy's nerves until he made a mistake. 

Hits to hull are comparatively RARE events.  Most shots go in the direction of the rotor, IF they are even made at all, and chin turret's nice, but it's a lightly protected location and any location ona vehicle gets destroyed, teh vehicle is destroyed, so you know, it doesn't get that nice damage-mitigation that the rotors do under the current rules.  The main benefit is being able to make side shots so you don't have to use MP to make facing changes.

anyone can use their own pet custom effectively.  can you give it to someone NOT you, and can THEY use it effectively..against you when you're not running your own custom?

see, your design works for YOUR experience, with YOUR player group, in YOUR hands.  aside from me, the majority of commenters have suggested pretty much similar to the same changes I did, this might suggest that your design's locked in confirmation bias, and you need to change your methodology before making definitive statements. I've BUILT customs that worked similar to your design before.  They proved ineffective in other players' hands, too easy to counter with cheap (lower tech) counters, and that was BEFORE we had Flak ammo for standard autocannons, or precision ammo (debuted in the FedSuns field manual dated 3062-ish).

the test of whether it's a good design or just a design that fits your personal dice luck and playing style, is giving it to an opponent (Specifically one who is as skilled as yourself, better if they're better) and seeing how hard or easy it is to beat, what lengths you have to go to to beat it, and where the weaknesses really are.  I've done that more than a few times, it's how and why I developed the doctrine I did.  Looking at th is design, it's not a winner outside of very narrow confines, it's certainly not an asset worth the price of using Clantech.

The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #24 on: 19 October 2019, 00:28:32 »
You're showing your lack of interest here-given the relevant time period (presumably both units in the field at the same time), the base model isn't as crippled as you think. "PRecision Ammo".
Yes, you can put Precision ammo in and reduce the UAC's slight accuracy advantage into a slight accuracy disadvantage in most situations.  You'll barely have enough ammo to destroy a Warrior C's on average (22.2% chance to hit rotor * 22 shots=4.884 rotor hits on average, but 5 needed to kill), definitely not enough to hit a mobile one's rotor more than once or twice.  The clan UAC can still exploit range bands on initiative victories, but yes, that makes the regular Warrior's situation a bit more tenable.

All you need is a time machine.

Precision Ammo is Prototyped in 3058.  The Clan Invasion, when the Warriors are captured and converted into "C"s, takes place in 3049-3052 until Tukkayid.  Precision ammo doesn't reach production until 3062, too late for Operation Bulldog (3059) and Operation Serpent (3059-3060).  The ammo itself isn't common until 3066, although I mean "common" in the loosest sense here (Tech level E & availability rating E).

Flak works fine as long as you're okay with sacrificing Light 'Mech or Vehicle popping if you can find it: Availability rating is very poor in most eras at E-F-F-E, and almost all of which are certainly going to actual AA units like Riflemen and Partisans in-universe.

It's a shame, the lack of a LB-X H-7.  It'd be a straightfoward upgrade path to the IS Warrior.

Quote
Period availability with the H8 allows use of specialist loads as well-which the clanner doesn't, and again, this can neutralize some, most, or all of the advantages on the basis of being able to get accurate shots off while the opponent is struggling to get a target lock.
The H8 has a LRM and 2 Stream SRMs.  The LRM has quite a few neat specialist load options, but none of them are really "Flak" options, or otherwise directly useful at neutralizing the Warrior C's advantages (certainly not Minefields).  Smoke, possibly, if you're really clever about it.
Quote
Finally, your ultra loses its TC support the second you try to leverage the higher damage mode.  Just like with Pulse lasers or other burst weapons.
No.
The Ultra does not lose its -1 TC to-hit bonus when firing in Ultra mode.  The only thing incompatable with rapid-fire Ultras is w.r.t. Aimed shots, which I've never seen anybody even try to attempt unless the target is completely immobile.
Rapid Fire Weapons, pg.113 Total Warfare.
This applies to Pulse Lasers and other Rapid-fire weapons (RACs) as well, so you're wrong about that too: They keep the -1 TC bonus, they just can't make an aimed shot, which is inconsequential.

If they had intended to lose that TC bonus when rapid-firing, there would have been explicit language that they would have, such as in the "Cluster Munitions" section, Pg.141 Total Warfare.
Quote
On the subject of Your "Field" experience...lacking.  you ran on a postage stamp (3 sheets long, one wide, right?)
Wrong.
I explicitly said our average map size was 3x3.  Three sheets long.  Three sheets wide.  The larger battles are larger (4x4 or 5x5).  Only small, short lance v lance pickup games ever get as small as 2x2, and I don't judge the general usefulness of units on such small maps.
There's no excuse for misrepresentation here.  I could not have made it more clear.
Quote
Take it out of the one-on-one vacuum and actually TEST IT against someone who can give you a stiff fight..
-snip-
I doubt you have anyone you'd give it to in a match, though, esp. if you are taking non-clanner forces, at least, I doubt you have anyone good you'd actually trust with it, but that's part of testing a design-can someone who isn't you use it effectively, and can you actually think of counters on your own to your own creation?
Yes, some of the players in the campaign were in the OPFOR and also using Warrior C's.  They generally preferred "Donar+s" but they appreciated the Warrior C option enhancing their helicopters fleets.  In theory the C would also have a lower BV as well but we don't balance that way for campaigns.

The counters are obvious: A decent AA net and faster VTOLs that can force an engagement at short range, especially if they have accurate weapons like Pulse Lasers or LB-Xs.  Theoretically, a Gossamer of either sort would be a nightmare if the Warrior C can't take cover near friendlies in time.
Quote
Hits to hull are comparatively RARE events.  Most shots go in the direction of the rotor
Cannonshop.  We've been over this.

The rotor isn't the majority of hits on the VTOL hit location table.  It's not even the plurality of hits.  That belongs to the side corresponding to the hit location table (front hit table = front side, rear hit table = rear side, etc.), with a hit probability of [5+6+5+1]/36=17/36=~47.2%.

The probability of non-rotor (AKA hull hits) is readily determined by anybody with a passive understanding of statistics and the 2D6 curve to be 25/36=69.44%.  Against VTOLs sans Chin Turret, Hull hits are more than twice as likely as rotor hits.  (127% more hull hits)

Additionally, if said hits are coming predominantly from one direction, such as the front arc (reasonable for the Warrior H-7 since that's where its weapons face), a substantially higher proportion of shots will, on average, hit the the corresponding side instead of the rotor (~17/11, ~50% more hits to the corresponding side alone).

Introducing a chin turret replaces a rotor location, reducing the rotor location hit probability to 8/36=22.2%.  Against VTOLs w/ Chin Turret, Hull hits are more than thrice as likely as rotor hits. (212.5% more hull hits)

Additionally, if said hits are coming predominantly from one direction, such as the front arc (maybe not so frequent if you're using the chin turret properly), more than twice as many will, on average, hit the corresponding side instead of the rotor. (~17/8, 112.5% more hits to the corresponding side alone).

I previously calculated and posted the probability for a rotor hit.  You have no excuse for this one.

This is precisely what I am referring to by "95% fluff and 5% substance that is blatantly wrong".  Originally you first claim it was "30-40%" of shots hit the rotor.  I show that in reality it was 22.2-30.6%, whether there's a chin turret or not.  Some time passes, and all the sudden that "30-40%" claim inexplicably becomes ">50%".

There will be no productive conversation to be had if there is no agreement on basic, statistical, provable facts.
Quote
aside from me, the majority of commenters have suggested pretty much similar to the same changes I did
Aside from you:
  • One user said the design makes sense as a Warrior upgrade but he simply preferred to not mix long-ranged and short-ranged weapons on one VTOL platform, which is nothing similar to your suggested changes.
  • One user liked it and accepted the OS launchers as a "shit&git".
  • One user remarked that fast VTOLs with AC2s reminded him of a movie scene.
  • One user gave your concept a thumbs up and attempted to make his own, but accidentally lost the chin turret and targeting computer in the process and used fractional accounting to get an entire spare ton for the missile launchers.
  • One user said an argument could be made for I-OS launchers, but it's situational.  He said nothing about the autocannon or the Warrior C itself.
That's 1 full-throated supporter and 1 person who seemed a bit apprehensive on I-OS launchers in general, but didn't say much about this particular platform.  That's 1.5/5, or 2/5 if we're being really generous and counting Liam's Ghost fully.

Neither 1.5/5 nor 2/5 is a majority.  You're not going to convince me to join a bandwagon that doesn't actually exist.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #25 on: 19 October 2019, 03:27:43 »
Yes, you can put Precision ammo in and reduce the UAC's slight accuracy advantage into a slight accuracy disadvantage in most situations.  You'll barely have enough ammo to destroy a Warrior C's on average (22.2% chance to hit rotor * 22 shots=4.884 rotor hits on average, but 5 needed to kill), definitely not enough to hit a mobile one's rotor more than once or twice.  The clan UAC can still exploit range bands on initiative victories, but yes, that makes the regular Warrior's situation a bit more tenable.

All you need is a time machine.

Precision Ammo is Prototyped in 3058.  The Clan Invasion, when the Warriors are captured and converted into "C"s, takes place in 3049-3052 until Tukkayid.  Precision ammo doesn't reach production until 3062, too late for Operation Bulldog (3059) and Operation Serpent (3059-3060).  The ammo itself isn't common until 3066, although I mean "common" in the loosest sense here (Tech level E & availability rating E).

Flak works fine as long as you're okay with sacrificing Light 'Mech or Vehicle popping if you can find it: Availability rating is very poor in most eras at E-F-F-E, and almost all of which are certainly going to actual AA units like Riflemen and Partisans in-universe.

It's a shame, the lack of a LB-X H-7.  It'd be a straightfoward upgrade path to the IS Warrior.
The H8 has a LRM and 2 Stream SRMs.  The LRM has quite a few neat specialist load options, but none of them are really "Flak" options, or otherwise directly useful at neutralizing the Warrior C's advantages (certainly not Minefields).  Smoke, possibly, if you're really clever about it.No.
The Ultra does not lose its -1 TC to-hit bonus when firing in Ultra mode.  The only thing incompatable with rapid-fire Ultras is w.r.t. Aimed shots, which I've never seen anybody even try to attempt unless the target is completely immobile.
Rapid Fire Weapons, pg.113 Total Warfare.
This applies to Pulse Lasers and other Rapid-fire weapons (RACs) as well, so you're wrong about that too: They keep the -1 TC bonus, they just can't make an aimed shot, which is inconsequential.

If they had intended to lose that TC bonus when rapid-firing, there would have been explicit language that they would have, such as in the "Cluster Munitions" section, Pg.141 Total Warfare.Wrong.
I explicitly said our average map size was 3x3.  Three sheets long.  Three sheets wide.  The larger battles are larger (4x4 or 5x5).  Only small, short lance v lance pickup games ever get as small as 2x2, and I don't judge the general usefulness of units on such small maps.
There's no excuse for misrepresentation here.  I could not have made it more clear.Yes, some of the players in the campaign were in the OPFOR and also using Warrior C's.  They generally preferred "Donar+s" but they appreciated the Warrior C option enhancing their helicopters fleets.  In theory the C would also have a lower BV as well but we don't balance that way for campaigns.

The counters are obvious: A decent AA net and faster VTOLs that can force an engagement at short range, especially if they have accurate weapons like Pulse Lasers or LB-Xs.  Theoretically, a Gossamer of either sort would be a nightmare if the Warrior C can't take cover near friendlies in time.Cannonshop.  We've been over this.

The rotor isn't the majority of hits on the VTOL hit location table.  It's not even the plurality of hits.  That belongs to the side corresponding to the hit location table (front hit table = front side, rear hit table = rear side, etc.), with a hit probability of [5+6+5+1]/36=17/36=~47.2%.

The probability of non-rotor (AKA hull hits) is readily determined by anybody with a passive understanding of statistics and the 2D6 curve to be 25/36=69.44%.  Against VTOLs sans Chin Turret, Hull hits are more than twice as likely as rotor hits.  (127% more hull hits)

Additionally, if said hits are coming predominantly from one direction, such as the front arc (reasonable for the Warrior H-7 since that's where its weapons face), a substantially higher proportion of shots will, on average, hit the the corresponding side instead of the rotor (~17/11, ~50% more hits to the corresponding side alone).

Introducing a chin turret replaces a rotor location, reducing the rotor location hit probability to 8/36=22.2%.  Against VTOLs w/ Chin Turret, Hull hits are more than thrice as likely as rotor hits. (212.5% more hull hits)

Additionally, if said hits are coming predominantly from one direction, such as the front arc (maybe not so frequent if you're using the chin turret properly), more than twice as many will, on average, hit the corresponding side instead of the rotor. (~17/8, 112.5% more hits to the corresponding side alone).

I previously calculated and posted the probability for a rotor hit.  You have no excuse for this one.

This is precisely what I am referring to by "95% fluff and 5% substance that is blatantly wrong".  Originally you first claim it was "30-40%" of shots hit the rotor.  I show that in reality it was 22.2-30.6%, whether there's a chin turret or not.  Some time passes, and all the sudden that "30-40%" claim inexplicably becomes ">50%".

There will be no productive conversation to be had if there is no agreement on basic, statistical, provable facts.Aside from you:
  • One user said the design makes sense as a Warrior upgrade but he simply preferred to not mix long-ranged and short-ranged weapons on one VTOL platform, which is nothing similar to your suggested changes.
  • One user liked it and accepted the OS launchers as a "shit&git".
  • One user remarked that fast VTOLs with AC2s reminded him of a movie scene.
  • One user gave your concept a thumbs up and attempted to make his own, but accidentally lost the chin turret and targeting computer in the process and used fractional accounting to get an entire spare ton for the missile launchers.
  • One user said an argument could be made for I-OS launchers, but it's situational.  He said nothing about the autocannon or the Warrior C itself.
That's 1 full-throated supporter and 1 person who seemed a bit apprehensive on I-OS launchers in general, but didn't say much about this particular platform.  That's 1.5/5, or 2/5 if we're being really generous and counting Liam's Ghost fully.

Neither 1.5/5 nor 2/5 is a majority.  You're not going to convince me to join a bandwagon that doesn't actually exist.

Your 'time machine' comment is funny, because Chin turrets didn't exist either.  (this may have been retroactively added in later publications, but they weren't a 'thing' when the Clan invasion was being published and Mike Stackpole was writing Battletech novels for FASA. If it's been retroactively added to the continuity, nevermind this point.)

of course, neither did Flak ammo, but that WAS retconned backwards in the timeline.  (would've been interesting to see how it impacted things under the rules of the time...)

Minding that I brought up the H-8, keep in mind I view that design as a bad  use of resources itself-the Streak 2 is too heavy for what it does in inner sphere fit, and a poor choice of armament on a VTOL to begin with, since you're locked into hoping the other guy is relying on unsupported stingers and wasps for his recon units (Slow enough to get behind reliably and tissue for armor.)  Really it's one of those designs that leads to "Why in hell did they do that?"  a fusion engine and they didn't use the weight savings from not having to carry additional sinks to give it something more useful...like maybe a pair of medium lasers or something, instead they give it a weapons load that you're schlepping lots of ammo you likely won't be able to use, that isn't that powerful in the rare event you can use it.  at least the LRM rack has some uses as a smoke delivery system, and I guess I can see why they did it.  (needed filler for the book). a better option would have been to leave the SRM-4, the BASIC srm 4, thus retaining the ability to deploy infernoes for the kind of targets an airframe that light is suited to engage. (particularly under BMR rules, when we could still intentionally set fires on the map for terrain denial.)  Though, being generous, it does have some utility as a counter-VTOL in the right environments.  (that is, for hunting other VTOLs)

and rolling back on another prior point; your ultra jams.  using your own numbers, it jams too frequently to be reliable, meaning that you've sunk extra tonnage you don't need, into a targeting computer that randomly becomes a boat anchor along with the main gun.

I'll play those odds.  a sniper unit that does low damage and needs to keep range needs to fire reliably, because it needs to move/shoot every turn without fail. (or at least be reliably capable of doing that).  on the upside, at least it doesn't explode when it jams like a certain XTRO design.

Your stated counters are the SAME counters that work (drum roll) for EVERY chopper in the game.  They work more reliably for some than others, of course, but your refit's setup sinks a lot into technology it doesn't need or can't really use effectively more than once. (and then, not that effectively.  once you've expended your one-shot of SRMs you're more in a position of fall back and leave, than continuing the engagement. one-and-done, as they say.)
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #26 on: 19 October 2019, 09:07:50 »
just...curiousity, Retry, but you're setting this as during the actual Clan invasion.

your whole scenario doesn't add up.  the 'basics'. 

You've got an experimental tech system (Chin Turret.  No canon vehicle of the time had one before, during or in publication AFTER. means it's a theoretical bit at best in-setting), being installed with a front-line weapon system (both the UAC 2 and Targeting Computer are front line systems), on the rebuilt wreck of a defeated second or even third line vehicle that is technologically inferior to second line vehicles already in service that can better utilize that advanced technology.

by the CLANS.  whom are, during the Invasion, mostly Crusader, and the one clan unprepared enough, careless enough and desperate enough to DO it (Smoke Jaguar, which actually had some magazine soft-canon for rebuilding MECHS captured in combat, they're the only ones who did) to fill out Garrison posts, probably doesn't have the manpower or resources to do the rebuild, and is centered in the one area of the Inner Sphere unlikely to have H-7s in quantity to do the rebuild to. (Draconis Combine.)

this honestly doesn't make sense.  The Jags were not exactly a powerhouse of innovation-they waited for someone else to invent something, then took it in trial.  Not much use for defeated wreckage from the other three clans in the initial invasion, and the secondary clans weren't strapped for cash or materials to that extent.

The functional equivalent would be installing the fire-controls of an Abrams on a T-34/85 or Panhard, and replacing the 75mm with one that has breeching issues.  it'll still do everything a T34/85 can do, and maybe more accurate, but you're using modern, high tech front line gear to upgrade an obsolete piece of crap to be less obsolete, at the rough time and resource cost of keeping an existing front-line unit operational, and you're having to stock parts for this in addition to stocking parts for existing second-line units that already match your battle doctrine.

your backstory for this doesn't line up or make sense, and unless you can show an era-appropriate vehicle with a chin turret in published material, you're on thin ice with your claims of what is, and isn't, available.  thus far, even canon designs that SHOULD have them per the artwork, don't.  your model also doesn't fit with Clan economics or Clan cultural mores among the INVADING CLANS OF THE TIME PERIOD. (aside from the Smoked Jaggies, who were undermanned, undersupplied and basically on the way to destruction starting around 3050 or so.)

The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #27 on: 19 October 2019, 13:13:58 »
just...curiousity, Retry, but you're setting this as during the actual Clan invasion.

your whole scenario doesn't add up.  the 'basics'. 

You've got an experimental tech system (Chin Turret.  No canon vehicle of the time had one before, during or in publication AFTER. means it's a theoretical bit at best in-setting), being installed with a front-line weapon system (both the UAC 2 and Targeting Computer are front line systems), on the rebuilt wreck of a defeated second or even third line vehicle that is technologically inferior to second line vehicles already in service that can better utilize that advanced technology.
It's "experimental" in the same way that the "Rifle Cannons" or "Artillery cannons" are experimental.  There's nothing complicated about them (Tech level B; you could make one in your garage), they just have a quirk or two that makes them act "different" than other equipment (Arty Cannon's splash damage and low spread, Rifle Cannon's damage malus against 'Mech armor, and VTOL chin turrets modifying the hit table slightly), and thus "uncommon."  A lot of the experimental tech like the Rifle Cannons are actually not all that rare, depending on the time era.

Chin turrets are, inexplicably, rare in-setting (Availability F-F-F).  That's mostly because most canonical VTOLs don't have chin turrets.  That's because many of the VTOL designs predate the Chin Turret, so the ones you do see end up being later VTOL designs from later TRO's, and the early vehicles that have a structure that is obviously a chin turret, like the Warrior, still doesn't have one on their record sheets, since BT is absolutely allergic to retcons.  That's an issue I try to reconcile with "canon-plausible" designs to fill the gaps that are caused by real-life issues, but that's another story.
Quote
by the CLANS.  whom are, during the Invasion, mostly Crusader, and the one clan unprepared enough, careless enough and desperate enough to DO it (Smoke Jaguar, which actually had some magazine soft-canon for rebuilding MECHS captured in combat, they're the only ones who did) to fill out Garrison posts, probably doesn't have the manpower or resources to do the rebuild, and is centered in the one area of the Inner Sphere unlikely to have H-7s in quantity to do the rebuild to. (Draconis Combine.)
I'm really not gullible enough to believe that 1.The only clan that'll possibly capture and even refit foreign equipment if it suits them are the Smoke Jaguars and 2.The Combine doesn't have H-7s in significant quantities.

They're more common in Lyran territory but the Warrior is one of those common "general" IS units.  The H-7, -7A, and -7C are all available to the DC during the Clan Invasion according to the MUL.
Quote
The functional equivalent would be installing the fire-controls of an Abrams on a T-34/85 or Panhard, and replacing the 75mm with one that has breeching issues.  it'll still do everything a T34/85 can do, and maybe more accurate, but you're using modern, high tech front line gear to upgrade an obsolete piece of crap to be less obsolete
Congratulations.  You've discovered the purpose of converting/upgrading old hardware.
Quote
at the rough time and resource cost of keeping an existing front-line unit operational, and you're having to stock parts for this in addition to stocking parts for existing second-line units that already match your battle doctrine
Significantly less time and resources than constructing an entirely new unit and shipping it from the Clan Homeworlds to replace material losses.

Conversion and upgrading old hardware, including captured enemy hardware, is very much a real-life historical reality.  It's not up for debate.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3301
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #28 on: 19 October 2019, 18:23:12 »
It's "experimental" in the same way that the "Rifle Cannons" or "Artillery cannons" are experimental.  There's nothing complicated about them (Tech level B; you could make one in your garage), they just have a quirk or two that makes them act "different" than other equipment (Arty Cannon's splash damage and low spread, Rifle Cannon's damage malus against 'Mech armor, and VTOL chin turrets modifying the hit table slightly), and thus "uncommon."  A lot of the experimental tech like the Rifle Cannons are actually not all that rare, depending on the time era.

Chin turrets are, inexplicably, rare in-setting (Availability F-F-F).  That's mostly because most canonical VTOLs don't have chin turrets.  That's because many of the VTOL designs predate the Chin Turret, so the ones you do see end up being later VTOL designs from later TRO's, and the early vehicles that have a structure that is obviously a chin turret, like the Warrior, still doesn't have one on their record sheets, since BT is absolutely allergic to retcons.  That's an issue I try to reconcile with "canon-plausible" designs to fill the gaps that are caused by real-life issues, but that's another story.I'm really not gullible enough to believe that 1.The only clan that'll possibly capture and even refit foreign equipment if it suits them are the Smoke Jaguars and 2.The Combine doesn't have H-7s in significant quantities.

They're more common in Lyran territory but the Warrior is one of those common "general" IS units.  The H-7, -7A, and -7C are all available to the DC during the Clan Invasion according to the MUL.Congratulations.  You've discovered the purpose of converting/upgrading old hardware.Significantly less time and resources than constructing an entirely new unit and shipping it from the Clan Homeworlds to replace material losses.

Conversion and upgrading old hardware, including captured enemy hardware, is very much a real-life historical reality.  It's not up for debate.

except t's also canon that the Clans hoard hardware like squirrels hoard edibles, ever hear of a 'Brian Cache'?  (or just look at what Marthe Pryde dug up in the back cupboard for Coventry-tons upon megatons of hardware that didn't even need to be pieced back together, just clean off the storage goo and issue it out.)

and you seem to forget the Inner Sphere was at war for 300 years trying everything and digging up old gear.  There's a REASON tech goes out of use, or doesn't catch on.  Soemthing as good as Chin Turrets would be common if they had the technology. 

The availability indicates they did not-not even in the time period you're writing for.  Notably, when they DID add them to the ruleset, we did NOT get an example vehicle.

iirc, not even in the XTRO.

which pretty much puts paid to your 'canon plausible' argument, and supports mine-that it's experimental technology.

the other thing is, that your update still doesn't make sense-especially with how extensive it is, in the time period and terrain you want to set it in.  Only one of the clans was that short of hardware, and they were only that short late in the invasion (post Tukayyid and pre Bulldog/Serpent), and even THEY had enough supply line to start debuting front line vehicles after the Tukayyid trial-their period of refits were focused on 'mechs, because 'mechs are "effective" under that clan's doctrine, while vehicles are something you throw away.  (there aren't any Smoke Jag originated vehicles, and they sure as heck didn't have extensive conventional forces crewed by natives when Bulldog hit, aka the kind of troops you'd see using refit trash-line vehicles.)

There are really only two Clans who would spend the resources to retrofit sphere vehicles, AND have access to inner sphere salvage in the invasion period-both showed up after Ulric became IlKhan.  the budgies don't need it, and had ample supplies relative to the other Crusaders, as well as technical personnel refitting ammo factories so they didn't run out (but that was also after Tuk...in fact, it was after COVENTRY) and...what, hell's horses?  sharing a corridor with Da Bears until they were kicked out, so maybe maybe they'd get a few samples.

Wolves? maybe teh Exiles, but then it wouldn't be battlefield salvage, it would be bought for 'em by Morgan Kell.  Novacats? hardly. again, supply from the Homeworlds was amped up after they joined the party at Ulric's invite.  Same for Star Adders.  we're running out of candidates fast.

To be WORTH the refit, the original design's got to have something going for it that MAKES it worth more as a unit, than as raw materials.

and then, you need asses to fill seats.  the Invading clans desperate enough to do it, are also the ones with manpower shortages or a lack of technical imagination due to their top-down structure (read the book entries on these guys.)

a refit at all, might work in the 3059-3065 period, after Da Bears moved house and home to the Inner Sphere, or maybe the Novakitties after they got booted, they would have the material shortages that make a refit like...either of ours, attractive, but then, you're looking at the Steiner-davion civil war and Falcon Incursion period or the Jihad.  Late sixties into the Seventies, when everyone was grabbing every thing that goes 'bang' in desperation because the Word of Blake is WMD'ing (extinctionating?) industrial worlds right left and center, but the Falcons already have industrial capacity and a solid reason to both use and protect it, no time to be retrofitting decades old wrecks when you can squirt out newer, better designed and more advanced gear not only faster, but without needing to take extra time to develop training documents or feed decades old parts that aren't being made into your supply chain.

you have a gap in your story logic.  it's not plausible within canon.  Fix it.



The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 899
Re: Warrior C
« Reply #29 on: 19 October 2019, 20:01:49 »
Excellent.  Yet another Cannonshop essay.

It's the same junk post after post after post.  You come in with a gish gallop of points why the vehicle sucks or doesn't make sense.  Most of them are factually wrong.  I prove that those points are factually wrong.  You ignore it, not even acknowledging the points where you were blatantly wrong (or worse: Repeating it), and make yet another essay, just as confident and authoritative as if you hadn't made page after page of unforced (and unapologetic) errors.

This thread is a waste of time.  I'll touch on two more things.  That's it.  Then I'm done with this thread.
and you seem to forget the Inner Sphere was at war for 300 years trying everything and digging up old gear.  There's a REASON tech goes out of use, or doesn't catch on.  Soemthing as good as Chin Turrets would be common if they had the technology. 

The availability indicates they did not-not even in the time period you're writing for.
Chin turrets are technology level B according to Tactical Operations.  The Clans and the Inner Sphere are perfectly capable of producing.

Not only can you make a chin turret, you can make a chin turret without factory tooling because the tech level of the component is so low (Strat Ops Pg.179).

That neither the IS nor the Clans, canonically, made many chin turrets up until that point is irrelevant and not of my concern.  Prancing about harping on their availability is just another red herring.

They have the technology.  Period.
Quote
you have a gap in your story logic.  it's not plausible within canon.  Fix it.
It makes sense to me.  It made sense to them.  It just doesn't make sense to you, but you've proven to be neither an unbiased nor a reliable actor.  There are far more productive things for me to do with my time than to tailor a unit and a campaign to your flawed sense of the BT universe.
« Last Edit: 19 October 2019, 20:03:25 by Retry »

 

Register