"Razorback" Heavy Tank (fuel cell)

[Cavgunner]

No fluff, just messing around with the fuel cell engine to see what I can come up with in 3025 technology. I kinda feel like this falls somewhere between the Po and the Manticore, which is what I was going for.

Code: [Select]

Razorback

Mass: 60 tons
Movement Type: Tracked
Power Plant: 240 Fuel Cell
Cruising Speed: 43.2 kph
Maximum Speed: 64.8 kph
Armor: Standard
Armament:
     1 AC/5
     2 Machine Gun
     1 SRM 2
     1 Large Laser
Manufacturer: Unknown
     Primary Factory: Unknown
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3019
Tech Rating/Availability: E/X-D-D-D
Cost: 1,872,000 C-bills

Type: Razorback
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Standard)
Movement Type: Tracked
Tonnage: 60
Battle Value: 768

Equipment                                          Mass
Internal Structure                                    6
Engine                        240 Fuel Cell          14
Cruising MP: 4
Flank MP: 6
Heat Sinks:                   8                       7
Control Equipment:                                  3.0
Power Amplifier:                                    0.5
Turret:                                             1.5
Armor Factor                  152                   9.5

                          Internal   Armor   
                          Structure  Value   
     Front                   6         38   
     R/L Side               6/6      30/30   
     Rear                    6         20   
     Turret                  6         34   


Weapons
and Ammo                      Location    Tonnage   
Trailer Hitch                   Rear        0.0     
Machine Gun                    Front        0.5     
Machine Gun                    Turret       0.5     
SRM 2                          Turret       1.0     
AC/5                           Turret       8.0     
Large Laser                    Turret       5.0     
Half Machine Gun Ammo (100)     Body        0.5     
AC/5 Ammo (40)                  Body        2.0     
SRM 2 Ammo (50)                 Body        1.0     


[kaliban]

Try two AC/10s, two Large Lasers or one of each

[Cavgunner]

Thanks for the response; that would be interesting, but would be an entirely different vehicle.

[Sabelkatten]

It also wouldn't fit. Even removing the SRM leaves it several tons short.

Personally I'd have mounted an AC/2 (with flak ammo) and a larger SRM. I like flak. :D

I noted that it also does OK as a strict introtech vehicle. Drop to 3/5 ICE and dump a ton of AC ammo, everything else stays the same. :)

[Cannonshop]

No fluff, just messing around with the fuel cell engine to see what I can come up with in 3025 technology. I kinda feel like this falls somewhere between the Po and the Manticore, which is what I was going for.

Code: [Select]

Razorback

Mass: 60 tons
Movement Type: Tracked
Power Plant: 240 Fuel Cell
Cruising Speed: 43.2 kph
Maximum Speed: 64.8 kph
Armor: Standard
Armament:
     1 AC/5
     2 Machine Gun
     1 SRM 2
     1 Large Laser
Manufacturer: Unknown
     Primary Factory: Unknown
Communication System: Unknown
Targeting & Tracking System: Unknown
Introduction Year: 3019
Tech Rating/Availability: E/X-D-D-D
Cost: 1,872,000 C-bills

Type: Razorback
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Standard)
Movement Type: Tracked
Tonnage: 60
Battle Value: 768

Equipment                                          Mass
Internal Structure                                    6
Engine                        240 Fuel Cell          14
Cruising MP: 4
Flank MP: 6
Heat Sinks:                   8                       7
Control Equipment:                                  3.0
Power Amplifier:                                    0.5
Turret:                                             1.5
Armor Factor                  152                   9.5

                          Internal   Armor   
                          Structure  Value   
     Front                   6         38   
     R/L Side               6/6      30/30   
     Rear                    6         20   
     Turret                  6         34   


Weapons
and Ammo                      Location    Tonnage   
Trailer Hitch                   Rear        0.0     
Machine Gun                    Front        0.5     
Machine Gun                    Turret       0.5     
SRM 2                          Turret       1.0     
AC/5                           Turret       8.0     
Large Laser                    Turret       5.0     
Half Machine Gun Ammo (100)     Body        0.5     
AC/5 Ammo (40)                  Body        2.0     
SRM 2 Ammo (50)                 Body        1.0     


what are you trying for here?  seven tons of heat sinks and a large laser, (so 13 tons), plus the mass of an AC/5.  your design is all over the place.

I'd suggest dropping the Large laser entirely, upgrading the main gun to an AC/10, and fiddling with your weapons fit to maybe see if you can't upgrade the SRM pack to soemthing that can deliver 4 infernoes instead of 2..or give it enough armor to do what comes naturally now, and survive being parked in a good spot.  The Manticore has a fusion engine for a REASON-that reason being 4/6 with a PPC AND enough LRMs and SRMs to saturate a target.  This has an Ac/5 on a heavy chassis, but without the plating, and a real main gun that requires being VERY close to be useful (the only one worse is the LPL, which requires parking on their shooz to kill anything.)

basically, 12 tons are wasted here, because it won't last past the first engagement.  (baseline for a Heavy tank, you need your glacis or 'frontal arc' to be able to handle 2 hits by an AC/20, or an AC/20 double-tap to the front.)  lose the cannon and sink it into armor and SRM ammo, or lose the laser (and heat sinks) and sink it into armor and main gun ammo (with whatever's left over either upping the SRM pack, or replacing it with moar dakka...)

these are, of course, only my opinion, but this resembles more the Bulldog crossed with a Zhukov, than a Po mixed with a Manticore. it's not cheap, and it's not tough.  philosophically, it looks like a corporation's test-bed, rather than a production design.  kind of has a 'Vickers Valiant" feeling to it.

[kaliban]

if you are worried with infantry but have SRMs with infernos, you probably can eliminate the MGs (2 SRM2s?)

The AC/5 is not an efficient weapon but you can only upgrade it to an AC/10 if you drop the speed to 3/5.

If combine Large Lasers and SRMs it is more like a Bulldog in steroids. Maybe you can add some LRMs for long range and make it more like a Manticore. So, my take should be 1 Large Laser and a combination of SRMs and LRMs (no MG if you have inferno ammo)

[Cannonshop]

if you are worried with infantry but have SRMs with infernos, you probably can eliminate the MGs (2 SRM2s?)

The AC/5 is not an efficient weapon but you can only upgrade it to an AC/10 if you drop the speed to 3/5.

If combine Large Lasers and SRMs it is more like a Bulldog in steroids. Maybe you can add some LRMs for long range and make it more like a Manticore. So, my take should be 1 Large Laser and a combination of SRMs and LRMs (no MG if you have inferno ammo)

Dropping speed to 3/5 would fall into the Total Warfare(tm) Paradigm, since the current rules favor "park and stay there" as the go-to tactic, but it needs more plating to really sell that when compared with OTHER park-and-stay designs in the same weight class that are cheaper.

[Cavgunner]

what are you trying for here?  seven tons of heat sinks and a large laser, (so 13 tons), plus the mass of an AC/5.  your design is all over the place.]

I appreciate the feedback.

I'm not sure what you mean by "all over the place." This is literally just a large laser/AC 5 combo. If you stand blindfolded and throw a dart over your shoulder it will probably land on a 3025 mech or tank that uses similar armament.

To answer your question directly, the weapon loadout reflects limited resources and limited production capability in a declining age. It is not intended to be any sort of meta-optimized design.

I'd suggest dropping the Large laser entirely, upgrading the main gun to an AC/10,

This vehicle uses a total of 13 tons to employ its large laser (weapon, heat sinks, amp, turret). A turreted AC/10 would require 15.5 tons, assuming you give it 2 tons of ammo. Are those 2.5 extra tons really worth 2 points more of damage? To me, that seems questionable.

The AC/5 is there because it has range, it's ammo-efficient, it's cheap, and it can use different ammo types. Double tap rules are also in effect of course.

and fiddling with your weapons fit to maybe see if you can't upgrade the SRM pack to something that can deliver 4 infernos instead of 2

That's a suggestion to consider.

..or give it enough armor to do what comes naturally now, and survive being parked in a good spot. 

Well, I think we might be playing a different game. I don't ever use my vehicles as bunkers unless the risk of taking significant amounts of damage in return is low to none. Maneuver, maneuver, maneuver, unless you've been tracked or you're dead. 4/6 is still fast enough to leverage to-hit penalties. Off-map movement is also a thing.

Furthermore, over the years I've found that unless you are going up against Demolishers every single game there is only a mild difference between 8 tons of vehicle armor and 11 tons. If a vehicle is consistently incapacitated before you run out of armor, you've probably spent too much tonnage on armor.

The Manticore has a fusion engine for a REASON-that reason being 4/6 with a PPC AND enough LRMs and SRMs to saturate a target. 

I mean, I get that, but the Manticore is the gold standard of tanks. If everybody could field them they would.

it's not cheap, and it's not tough.

I find 9.5 tons to be more than adequate in 3025. We're just going to have to agree to disagree that 1.8/1.9 million CB is expensive.

kind of has a 'Vickers Valiant" feeling to it.

The worst tank in history? Now that's just rude.  ;D

Again, thank you for the detailed reply.

[Cannonshop]

I appreciate the feedback.

I'm not sure what you mean by "all over the place." This is literally just a large laser/AC 5 combo. If you stand blindfolded and throw a dart over your shoulder it will probably land on a 3025 mech or tank that uses similar armament.

To answer your question directly, the weapon loadout reflects limited resources and limited production capability in a declining age. It is not intended to be any sort of meta-optimized design.

This vehicle uses a total of 13 tons to employ its large laser (weapon, heat sinks, amp, turret). A turreted AC/10 would require 15.5 tons, assuming you give it 2 tons of ammo. Are those 2.5 extra tons really worth 2 points more of damage? To me, that seems questionable.

The AC/5 is there because it has range, it's ammo-efficient, it's cheap, and it can use different ammo types. Double tap rules are also in effect of course.

That's a suggestion to consider.

Well, I think we might be playing a different game. I don't ever use my vehicles as bunkers unless the risk of taking significant amounts of damage in return is low to none. Maneuver, maneuver, maneuver, unless you've been tracked or you're dead. 4/6 is still fast enough to leverage to-hit penalties. Off-map movement is also a thing.

Furthermore, over the years I've found that unless you are going up against Demolishers every single game there is only a mild difference between 8 tons of vehicle armor and 11 tons. If a vehicle is consistently incapacitated before you run out of armor, you've probably spent too much tonnage on armor.

I mean, I get that, but the Manticore is the gold standard of tanks. If everybody could field them they would.
 

I find 9.5 tons to be more than adequate in 3025. We're just going to have to agree to disagree that 1.8/1.9 million CB is expensive.

The worst tank in history? Now that's just rude.  ;D

Again, thank you for the detailed reply.

it was a bad reply, I let my opinions run a little too loose.  Prior to Total Warfare, I was a backer of the "4 cruising is the slowest you can go and be reasonably effective."  and the "Never park your tank-it's bad tactics and suicidal once the shooting starts."

but...when you run the numbers, post TW, the best tactic is exactly the opposite.  Get to a good shooting postion, park, and shoot.  The bulk of your critical hits are absorbed by your motive systems and you can load more armor for the same weight, and with the changes to the hit locations, you can basically sponge massive amounts of damage and keep shooting with little to no ill effect as long as you bunker down, because the rules support doing exactly that, and nothing can force you to move.

I think it was intentionally changed to fit that setup, especially with the changes wrought to the inferno and fire rules.  (if you haven't, see if you can look at the vehicle rules in the old BMR and prior rulesets.  being a fixed emplacement was a great way to die messily, and you needed constant movement to avoid it-aka the method you say you're using now.)

so, y'know, my prior reply was kind of salty, and should be taken with a big-ole grain of salt. 

[Cavgunner]

No worries at all! I totally get what you're saying about how TW altered the paradigm of vehicle combat. God, when infernos were FINALLY nerfed after suffering through two decades of auto-kill bullshit I was so, so happy.

Hey, do you have an infantry creator that accommodates the creation of beast-mounted infantry units? I could have sworn I saw you post one a long time ago but heck if I can't find it with this forum's garbage excuse for a search function.

[Cannonshop]

No worries at all! I totally get what you're saying about how TW altered the paradigm of vehicle combat. God, when infernos were FINALLY nerfed after suffering through two decades of auto-kill bullshit I was so, so happy.

Hey, do you have an infantry creator that accommodates the creation of beast-mounted infantry units? I could have sworn I saw you post one a long time ago but heck if I can't find it with this forum's garbage excuse for a search function.

I had one, on a computer years ago, but that computer died and took my copies of HMPro with it (the disks didn't make it with me on the move from Everett to Marysville. I think the ex-wife tossed them in the trash when I wasn't looking.)

tBH, I didn't find the 'insta-kill' issue to be that bad-mostly because I didn't try to park (thus being an easy target for anything with the range at the moment) and the survival roll for a burning hex wasn't a big deal for me because (again) I didn't try to use tanks as static bunkers.  (but then, I also held a significant view of "Heavier is NOT better" wrt Tanks.  It was kind of seeing the differences in paradigm-the bigger, slower designs weren't worth as much with Tanks, because they emphasized the inherent weaknesses of tanks compared to 'mechs.  I favored mostly 4/6 to 5/8 medium/heavy tanks over any of the 70-100 ton bunker targets as a reflex, since I wanted my TMM to match or exeed the penalty I was drawing for moving, espl. if I can cruise for 1 and take at leas 2-3 for a defensive mod.  kind of the inverse of the guys who think the Alacorn or Behemoth are the ideal...)

But, lots of people DID hate that rule-mostly because it made a good 3rd or so of tank designs (2/3 to 3/5) nearly useless in spite of their massive armor fractions and heavy loads of weapons-esp. when some joker shows up with an H-7, Jenner or Com-2D loading infernoes. Clearly the devs had to do something to make the slugs valuable again, and their answer was to reward bunkering.  IMNSHO they could've left the Infernoes and fire rules as-is, because they rewarded movement and tactical play, particularly tactical movement, while dis-incentivising static, bunker-play.

but then, I was a Vehicle/Infantry primary player back when it wasn't 'Kewl' to do that, using dirtbag units of tanks and choppers to chew up 'mech players who relied too much on icebox energy boats and liked to stand still at optimum range for their dice-rolling.

I also kind of feel like some of the changes to vehicle rules were focused on making certain vehicles useful, where they weren't before, mainly because those units were favored by important people, or showcased 'advanced' tech, but would not be valuable or useful without those changes.  (The Yellowjacket is a prime example of this-without the rotor-hit damage reduction, it becomes the fastest kill you can get as soon as you're in range, since it lacks the speed to avoid being hit, and the old rotor box, combined with rotors taking full damage means it falls out of the sky shortly after discharging its first shot. another example is just about every 3/5 tank once it gets out of a  hidden position or fires for the first time.  4/6's at least have a chance outside of a fixed ambush, and if you keep moving you can apply pressure and shape the engagement. fixed installations can't really do that if they're also vulnerable, meaning the Alacorns you spent so much on were mostly high-value targets under BMR, rather than being nearly indestructible bunkers that will be a problem until they run out of ammo or run out of armor plate.)

ofc, the real problem was that I found 2 mapsheets about adequate for running bug-mech teaching and that's about it.  I like me a map with ROOM.

[kaliban]

I got several interest comments on the previous posts! True that Battletech favor swarm tactics simply because there is no limit of actions per turn. If you think this way, you would never play a heavy tank.

BUT this is no fun. For this reason, I try not to unbalance too much in terms of units in each side and avoid more than 2:1 ratios (infantry counts in separate).

If you play against mechs, some heavy tanks are needed to not make the battle too unbalanced in favor of the vehicles.

Also if you play only ICE tanks, it is impossible to get a good 4/6 heavy tank and you fall in the 3/5 speed range. You loose some mobility but gets a lot of extra firepower and/or armor. Anyway, if you rely too much in mobility the risk to loose speed or get immobile after few turns is high. Finding a good spot to fire is a better option unless you have a very experienced crew.

You can opt for Fuel Cells or Fusion Engines that allows for a 4/6 speed in a Heavy Tank but you cost in c-bills increases a lot. The Manticore and Schrek are very good tanks, if you ignore their absurd cost.

[Cavgunner]

Also if you play only ICE tanks, it is impossible to get a good 4/6 heavy tank and you fall in the 3/5 speed range.

Yeah, pretty much. The Po and Bulldog are about as good as it gets for a 4/6 tracked ICE. They're adequate, for what they are... but not great. Making the tank bigger at the same speed doesn't help either. 

[Cavgunner]

I had one, on a computer years ago, but that computer died and took my copies of HMPro with it (the disks didn't make it with me on the move from Everett to Marysville. I think the ex-wife tossed them in the trash when I wasn't looking.)

If you contact Rick and ask him really nicely, he may be able to hook you up in terms of the HMPro products you already purchased.

[Cannonshop]

I got several interest comments on the previous posts! True that Battletech favor swarm tactics simply because there is no limit of actions per turn. If you think this way, you would never play a heavy tank.

BUT this is no fun. For this reason, I try not to unbalance too much in terms of units in each side and avoid more than 2:1 ratios (infantry counts in separate).

If you play against mechs, some heavy tanks are needed to not make the battle too unbalanced in favor of the vehicles.

Also if you play only ICE tanks, it is impossible to get a good 4/6 heavy tank and you fall in the 3/5 speed range. You loose some mobility but gets a lot of extra firepower and/or armor. Anyway, if you rely too much in mobility the risk to loose speed or get immobile after few turns is high. Finding a good spot to fire is a better option unless you have a very experienced crew.

You can opt for Fuel Cells or Fusion Engines that allows for a 4/6 speed in a Heavy Tank but you cost in c-bills increases a lot. The Manticore and Schrek are very good tanks, if you ignore their absurd cost.

except my ground game's go-to options most of the time were Myrmidon, Patton, Po and Manticore.  Those are all heavy tanks except the Myrmidon. (this is PRE Total Warfare publication), and often the tanks were the heaviest units on my side of the field.  It's more a matter of HOW they were used.  (Shoot, move, shoot, move, in conjunction with VTOL assets) this was under the OLD (BMR) hit location rules, which people insisted were too lethal for conventional assets.

I tended to avoid cheesebox tactics like the Savannahswarm because it becomes lot less useful on maps with terrain, esp. terrain that impedes hovers.

but then I tend to play "Offense" as my defense, not waiting for the enemy to stumble into range except in double-blind play.  units that have to flank to get anywhere are, for my purposes, worthless except as bait.  this put the 'floor' of useful at 4/6 for me.  (enough MP to climb a level 1  hill without needing to flank, and still get a shot off.)

I also tended to end up watching the clock since in the heyday, we did a lot of game-store matches and those places close.  anything bigger than a lance on lance and you're crossing into the 'called after eight turns' problem as the owner wants to go home.

so bringing the battle to 'decisive' gets a little more important to do quickly-which is, 'within four hours or less.'  we used an egg-timer on movement and declaration phases to speed things up-if you didn't get all your movement done in your 3 minutes, the remainder didn't move, likewise for fire declaration.  (resoluton takes as long as it takes.)  this tended to result in more aggressive games, esp. when running battalion-sized engagements.  (doing Monte Diablo like this, we actually got to the end of the scenario in 5 hours, about what it takes an average all-Battlemech company-level fight to FAIL to resolve without the time-pressure.)