CincyBattletech
Campaigns (all) => Archived Campaigns => Suns Descendant => Topic started by: Riegien on July 21, 2013, 09:25:15 PM
-
So lets get this train wreck a rollin.
As shown in the TO&E thread, you have 20 mechs, 6 heavy vees, 2 light vees (50 or less tons), 4 ASF, and 32 tons of battlearmor available space in your dropship. This is broken up into 5 lances of mechs, 4 squads of vees in 2 lances, 2 flights of fighters, and somewhere between 4 and 16 squads of Battle armor (4 suits per squad)
In game play, these forces (lances, squads, or flights) must be fielded contiguously, baring specifically stated exceptions. (if a scenario calls for 18 units to be dispatched, you can take 3 full lances of mechs, 2 squads of vees, and 4 squads of battlearmor, but cannot pick and choose 18 specific units). This may mean you are understrength from what is maximum allowable in some scenarios.
So, the absolute first thing I need done is the selection of the 3 people for the positions I defined in the rules. Once CO, XO, and LO are picked, we can move on to selecting forces to fill out the TO&E.
Forces will be chosen using the MUL. The selections will be made from the Republic era lists (3085-3130), Federated Suns, Filtvelt Coalition, and Inner Sphere General sections. Also available are units from TRO: 3145 Federated Suns. Lastly, anything that you think should be included by fluff explaination but is for whatever reason not in either of those lists, Cavalier Battlearmor, for example.
The BV limit will be 1800 to start with, though later units purchased may exceed that.
Feel free to use this thread for discussion on how you want to build out these forces and who wants various positions. It is up to you all if you want to do a general discussion to pick units, break up the units and hand them out for each person to build one specific unit (average of 32 units between 6 people is 5.33 units per person) or some other method.
-
I've been thinking a lot about this since our conversation on Saturday, and I think my viewpoint has changed quite a bit tbh. As far as I can see, the lack of PC's makes these forces quite a bit more, ah, expendable. And perhaps transitional. In the sense that without PC's that need to be "rebuilt", having scenarios where large amounts of our forces are wiped out, and then replaced using warchest points becomes something that might happen on a more regular basis.
So, with that sort of force in mind, perhaps where we're regularly replacing destroyed units with new (different) units, my feelings in regards to 'picking' my own group of units has changed quite a bit. I'm not going to have a connection like I do to my Griffin in the current campaign, and therefore I care less about what specific units are included up-front. By the way, that makes this quite a different campaign and I'm personally fine with that; it's just simply a different experience.
I would also say that I'm not a big fan of the perfect "designer" force. To me, it just doesn't feel true to most militaries and situations. There are some exceptions of course, if we were playing a Death Commandos force, it makes sense for us to design the hell out of it. Pick the perfect units that work well together, perfectly optimized units, etc. But that's not how most forces are built in this time period. Heck, not even the Star League did that for the most part; we've seen that they sometimes went with easy formations where an entire company or even battalion was homogenous.
3145 seems to be a time period where an ad-hoc unit would simply have the commission to get it done, with whatever they had on-hand. In this sense, rolling for random units to fill out the roster would perhaps be the truest selection system we could use. It's also reasonable to assume that players are usually dissatisfied with having zero control over their potential rides. :D
I'd propose a combined system, we pick some of it, and we randomly roll for the rest. Would each player be satisfied picking 2 mechs, 1 vee, and either 1 ASF or some of the BA (Mike :))? I'd be fine with this; I'd pick some units that I have in-stock that need to be painted, or I'd pick units that I've already painted and never had a chance to play with. And then I'd try to make sure I also worked on some of the random units as well.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on it. Once I realized that we essentially weren't having PC's, it just seemed to me that we'd have the opportunity to cycle through a fairly varied TO&E on a regular basis.
By the way, I'm just brainstorming a little here. If everyone disagrees, and wants to pick all their forces, or come up with some other method, that's fine too. Please don't confuse my expressing an opinion with me thinking that it's "right" or "best". ;)
-
Anyone care if I try for a partial theoretical force?
-
Anyone care if I try for a partial theoretical force?
No reason to ask, bud. If you've got some units you want to suggest, go ahead.
Question to all, irt to the MUL, didn't it previously allow you to create a force? Find units and actually add them to your own personal force? Am I imagining that? I do not currently see that functionality on that site at all, and just in case it was some weird browser issue I tried both Chrome and IE9.
-
Anyone care if I try for a partial theoretical force?
Go ahead, I want to see how much you can make Travis regret giving us the ability to select units.
-
So anyone have any preference with regards to which units they choose?
-
How about a Wobbie Spectral LAM? ;D[just kidding] ;D
-
Yes, I have a few preferences, primarily in regards to picking some units that I'd like to paint and secondarily, units that would be fun or interesting to play.
However, I'd still like to hear from Travis about how fluid he expects our TO&E to be. We're essentially a house unit, therefore replacements are easier than say, a merc force. Since units that are "truly destroyed" cannot be repaired, they'll be replaced through SP purchases (which may or may not be random RAT rolls). OR, if we have a very specific force, it may be that losses will be replaced with 'like' units.
I don't care which method we intend to use, whether it's keeping essentially the same force throughout the campaign, or rolling in random replacements on a regular basis. I just want to know which it is, because it greatly affects how much I care about our initial forces. :)
-
I was imagining the forces to be fairly fluid. You're a house unit, but you are fairly well cut off from the supply chain most of the time. More like how the Foxes Teeth operated than the Heavy BoG. Goal being the broad selection to let people take various toys, and then try new things as the game progresses. Lots of new stuff to fiddle with and see if its fun. It also gives IWM some time to catch up with the TROs.
Your rate of turnover will be dependent on how much you want to invest in changing over units, your mission choice and success, and how often you get yourselves shot out of your rides. There will be opportunities to fall back to resupply and purchase the exact same unit that you lost, though that will take time you may not want to spare from the Front. The unit choices you have now should be available for most of the game barring story changes. There will also be mission dependent abilities to buy various units, i.e. you capture a Kuritan supply depot and nab a couple Hatamotos or you impress the Sea Foxen enough to earn buying priveliges. I set the BV limit somewhat low so that salvage from frontline formations and purchasing of new equipment would feel like a definite upgrade.
I am not a real big fan of the RATs. At the moment I'm more likely to provide a list of available units for purchase and allow selection.
-
Travis, our current options for battle armor are extremely limited. We currently have access to one Infiltraitor Mk. II variant, one Sloth variant, PAB-28 Sniper Suits, Sea Fox Battle Armor, Fusilier Battle Armor, and Cavalier Battle Armor (because you specifically made an exception for it). In order to give us some more options, can we have access to common Federated Suns battle armor from previous eras? More specifically, I feel that we would reasonably have access to Infiltraitor Mk. I Battle Armor, Infiltraitor Mk. II Battle Armor, Grenadier Battle Armor, and Hauberk Battle Armor.
-
Infiltrator Mk1 is out. I think it was outmoded before 3067 by the infil 2. Cavalier, Grenadier, Fusilier, Hauberk, Hauberk Commando (tro:Prototypes), Infil mk2(esp the magnetic version), SeaFox will be available, as will IS Standard and Spectre from Filtvelt.
-
Are there any restrictions on what special ammunition types we have access to?
Edit: I came up with two more questions.
Units from TRO: Prototypes do not yet have canon record sheets. Are we still allowed to use them?
Units from the XTROs, TRO: Prototypes, and TRO: 3145 have canon design quirks. If we choose one of these units, will we use the design quirks it has?
-
At the moment, I'm not going to restrict ammunition. There's been a fair bit of proliferation of anti missile systems and fancy armors to help against them, so we may as well see if they do what is advertised. (This is not a challenge) If it becomes an issue, this may change.
I have a copy of RS: Prototypes, so I'm not sure what the issue is there.
As for quirks. Do you all want to run with them? Its another layer of complexity on top of normal, and you guys will be stuck with it more than the opfor. Older designs that do not have established quirks will not have them added.
-
At the moment, I'm not going to restrict ammunition. There's been a fair bit of proliferation of anti missile systems and fancy armors to help against them, so we may as well see if they do what is advertised. (This is not a challenge) If it becomes an issue, this may change.
I see you like to live dangerously. You know, I've never actually gotten a chance to use Swarm LRMs before.
I have a copy of RS: Prototypes, so I'm not sure what the issue is there.
I somehow completely forgot about that product even though I own it, never mind.
As for quirks. Do you all want to run with them? Its another layer of complexity on top of normal, and you guys will be stuck with it more than the opfor. Older designs that do not have established quirks will not have them added.
I'm on the fence about it. It would be interesting to see how much of a difference they make in actual game play, however they're not accounted for in BV, so it could lead to issues.
-
Okay, I figure its about time we actually started trying to come up with units, so here's my thoughts on our conventional vehicles and battle armor.
Conventional Vehicles:
Vehicle Lance 1 Squad 1: Spotting and battle armor transport
Maxim (I) Hover Transport (Standard) (larger infantry bay and TAG)
Maxim (I) Hover Transport (Standard)
or
Karnov UR Transport (BA) (greater maneuverability and LOS)
Karnov UR Transport (BA)
Vehicle Lance 1 Squad 2: Artillery
Schiltron Prime
Schiltron Prime
Vehicle Lance 2 Squad 1: Missile Fire Support
Heavy NLRM Carrier (better survivability and short range firepower)
Heavy NLRM Carrier
or
Heavy LRM Carrier (more missiles)
Heavy LRM Carrier
Vehicle Lance 2 Squad 2: Heavy Tanks, Fast Tanks, or More Missiles
DI Morgan Assault Tank (Gauss)
DI Morgan Assault Tank (Gauss)
or
Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime
Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime
or
Heavy NLRM Carrier
Heavy NLRM Carrier
Battle Armor:
Heavy Battle Armor:
Hauberk II
Grenadier (SRM/TAG)
Anti-Infantry and Anti-Mech Attacks:
Cavalier (Flamer)
Cavalier (Flamer)
Specialized Support:
Infiltrator Mk II (Sensors)
Infiltrator Mk II (Magnetic)
For the remaining forces, one player gets to select our four Aerospace Fighters and the other five players each get to select one lance of Battlemechs. I think Rob and Dan have the most experience with Aerotech, so one of them should probably choose our Aerospace Fighters.
Bryan's Lance:
??
??
??
??
John's Lance:
Avatar G
Warhammer WHM-8D
Blackjack Omni D
Centurion Omni A
Mike's Lance:
??
??
??
??
Steve's Lance:
??
??
??
??
Rob's Lance/Dan's UrbanMech Swarm:
??
??
??
??
Rob's Aerospace Lance/Dan's Flying Circus:
??
??
??
??
Is everyone okay with my vehicle and battle armor selections? Also, is everyone okay with the general plan for selecting the remainder of our force? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
-
Travis, there are a few Omnimechs out there that have some configurations under the 1800 BV limit, but other configurations over the 1800 BV limit. How do you want to handle that?
The Blackjack Omnimech has one configuration over the 1800 BV limit, the Black Hawk-KU has three configurations over the 1800 BV limit, the Avatar has one configurations over the 1800 BV limit, the Templar has nine configurations over the 1800 BV limit, the Templar III has four configurations over the 1800 BV limit, and the Sunder has four configurations over the 1800 BV limit. The only Omnimech we have access to that has no variants over the 1800 BV limit is the Centurion Omnimech.
-
Hauberk U15 is not available. It was specifically a jihad mashup from the battle of New Avalon. The Hauberk Commando is the production version of that armor.
As far as the omnis. I'll let the blackjack and avatar slide in, but the remainder are out for the moment. The R loadouts are not available
-
Hauberk U15 is not available. It was specifically a jihad mashup from the battle of New Avalon. The Hauberk Commando is the production version of that armor.
As far as the omnis. I'll let the blackjack and avatar slide in, but the remainder are out for the moment. The R loadouts are not available
Okay, that sounds fair to me. I replaced the Hauberk U15s with a squad of Hauberk IIs and a squad of Grenadier (SRM/TAG)s.
-
Travis, the Maxim (I) Hover Transport (Standard)s I'm considering taking as part of our vehicle force have an availability listing for the Republic Era of "to be announced," however they're on the Inner Sphere General list for the Jihad Era. As Maxims have been pretty common for centuries, I feel like our unit would reasonably have access to them. Are you okay with us taking a couple Maxims? Also, I modified my post on the previous page to include my battlemech lance.
-
Maxims should be ok. There are also the Hasek MCVs and JI2A1 APCs that you might want to take a look at.
-
Maxims should be ok. There are also the Hasek MCVs and JI2A1 APCs that you might want to take a look at.
Thanks for the Maxims. The Hasek and JI2A1 only have a four ton infantry bay, which isn't large enough to transport a squad of Fusiliers, Grenadiers, or Hauberks.
-
Right. Aerospace.
Given Travis's filters on the MUL (3130 and back, <1800BV, FS Filtevlt, and IS General), here is the sum total of all areospace units available to us with a mass of 30 tons or more (each pic is clickable to a larger version):
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/CBT%20Campaign/ASF1_zps0104854e.jpg) (http://s115.photobucket.com/user/wolffe42/media/CBT%20Campaign/ASF1_zps0104854e.jpg.html)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/CBT%20Campaign/ASF2_zpsb9534f69.jpg) (http://s115.photobucket.com/user/wolffe42/media/CBT%20Campaign/ASF2_zpsb9534f69.jpg.html)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/CBT%20Campaign/ASF3_zpse8e3cb51.jpg) (http://s115.photobucket.com/user/wolffe42/media/CBT%20Campaign/ASF3_zpse8e3cb51.jpg.html)
-
As you can probably see (once you click to the readable versions), we're going to be in some hurt on the ASF side. ASF Battle values tend to trend high, because they have a very high offensive multiplier due to their ability to mount a larger proportion of their mass as weaponry. 1800 BV2 puts us in the "Intro-tech" category for pretty much everything.
There's a few notable exceptions though. The BIG one is the fact that we can take all of the Dagger configurations (well, we have the BV to take the DAR4-XP variant...with an XXL engine, Binary Laser, and VSMPLs with an extra MP of speed and 1550-ish BV2...but I'm not sure Travis will let us have that).
The Dagger is a 3067 Omnifighter (Fighter of the Week article (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,3158.0.html)) which is notable for relatively high speed compared to what it fights against (fighters in the 40-70 ton range) and basically being carved directly from a solid brick of Ferro-Aluminium. It's rather well protected, for something of its size.
Taking a pair of Daggers is, frankly, almost a no-brainer. Not only are they signature Davion fighters, but they're probably the least likely of what we can actually afford to go away. Hell, they're entirely capable of surviving Lawn Darts (which means we'll have to roll it out...but we've got good odds of still having a plane left at the end of the process).
The other two fighters should be reserved for a "role". Assuming we take a pair of Daggers to fill the "fast dogfighter" role, the roles left to fill are "attack bird", "recon/interceptor", and "dogfighter". My recommendations for each of those are as follows:
Interceptor/Recon:
-7D Sparrowhawk. 10/15 with x2 MPLs, x2 ERMLs, good armor, and DHS
-S4 Sai. 8/12 with an ERPPC and a pair of ArtiIV-equipped SRM4s. Kind of slow for the role, though.
Dogfighter
CSR-12D Corsair. 6/9 with a crapton of X-pulse lasers (but we're in 3130 so that's cool). Heavy armor, but unsure about heat.
F-92 Stingray. 6/9 with DHS and an ERPPC over a pair of ERLLs. Looks sexy as hell.
EGL-R11 Eagle. 6/9 with DHS, and an ERPPC over a pair of LPLs. Looks kinda dumb, but fires accurately.
MOAR DAGGARS!!!1eleventy1!
Attack Craft (holy hell are we limited here)
Huscarl D. Slow and light for an attack craft (75 tons), it's got a shedload of pulse lasers slaved to a TComp for Wild Weasel duty.
W-7 Chippewa. x4 LPLs, x2 MPLs, x2 LRM15s, some other stuff. Fair number of heat sinks (DHS). What is this "armor" of which you speak?
K-5, 10, or 15 Stuka. Introtech, 100ton attack bird. Subvariants basically mess with secondary weapons and play with the number of heat sinks. All of them mount at least 4 LLs, an LRM20, and some SRMs. Single Heat Sinks...
...................................
So the question becomes...what do you want our ASFs to do? That will probably help narrow the choices down.
Oh, and I'm unsure about the availability of the CUT-01D Cutlass, from TRO:3145: AFFS. I don't have the BV2 handy, nor an intro date (it won't be up on the MUL for another several months).
-
Rob, it appears you're filtering by intro date instead of by era availability. This means that several aerospace units that are on the Federated Suns/IS General list for the Jihad Era, but not the Republic Era are showing up on your list. You also appear to have not filtered out Small Craft and Conventional Fighters. Here's a link to the MUL as best as I can filter it.
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit?Name=&HasBFAbility=&HasBV=true&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=0&MaxBV=1800&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&Types=17&SubTypes=25&SubTypes=44&BookAuto=&Factions=29&Factions=77&Factions=55&AvailableEras=15 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit?Name=&HasBFAbility=&HasBV=true&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=0&MaxBV=1800&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&Types=17&SubTypes=25&SubTypes=44&BookAuto=&Factions=29&Factions=77&Factions=55&AvailableEras=15)
Its worth pointing out that because over half of the Huscarl configurations are over the 1800 BV limit, we probably can't take a Huscarl. This leaves us with 33 different Aerospace Fighters to choose from.
-
What is the DAR4-XP out of?
Cutlass would be available currently, but its sitting at 2663 BV.
-
As you can probably see (once you click to the readable versions), we're going to be in some hurt on the ASF side. ASF Battle values tend to trend high, because they have a very high offensive multiplier due to their ability to mount a larger proportion of their mass as weaponry. 1800 BV2 puts us in the "Intro-tech" category for pretty much everything.
There's a few notable exceptions though. The BIG one is the fact that we can take all of the Dagger configurations (well, we have the BV to take the DAR4-XP variant...with an XXL engine, Binary Laser, and VSMPLs with an extra MP of speed and 1550-ish BV2...but I'm not sure Travis will let us have that).
The Dagger is a 3067 Omnifighter (Fighter of the Week article (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,3158.0.html)) which is notable for relatively high speed compared to what it fights against (fighters in the 40-70 ton range) and basically being carved directly from a solid brick of Ferro-Aluminium. It's rather well protected, for something of its size.
Taking a pair of Daggers is, frankly, almost a no-brainer. Not only are they signature Davion fighters, but they're probably the least likely of what we can actually afford to go away. Hell, they're entirely capable of surviving Lawn Darts (which means we'll have to roll it out...but we've got good odds of still having a plane left at the end of the process).
I completely agree with taking a pair of Daggers.
The other two fighters should be reserved for a "role". Assuming we take a pair of Daggers to fill the "fast dogfighter" role, the roles left to fill are "attack bird", "recon/interceptor", and "dogfighter". My recommendations for each of those are as follows:
Interceptor/Recon:
-7D Sparrowhawk. 10/15 with x2 MPLs, x2 ERMLs, good armor, and DHS
-S4 Sai. 8/12 with an ERPPC and a pair of ArtiIV-equipped SRM4s. Kind of slow for the role, though.
Dogfighter
CSR-12D Corsair. 6/9 with a crapton of X-pulse lasers (but we're in 3130 so that's cool). Heavy armor, but unsure about heat.
F-92 Stingray. 6/9 with DHS and an ERPPC over a pair of ERLLs. Looks sexy as hell.
EGL-R11 Eagle. 6/9 with DHS, and an ERPPC over a pair of LPLs. Looks kinda dumb, but fires accurately.
MOAR DAGGARS!!!1eleventy1!
Attack Craft (holy hell are we limited here)
Huscarl D. Slow and light for an attack craft (75 tons), it's got a shedload of pulse lasers slaved to a TComp for Wild Weasel duty.
W-7 Chippewa. x4 LPLs, x2 MPLs, x2 LRM15s, some other stuff. Fair number of heat sinks (DHS). What is this "armor" of which you speak?
K-5, 10, or 15 Stuka. Introtech, 100ton attack bird. Subvariants basically mess with secondary weapons and play with the number of heat sinks. All of them mount at least 4 LLs, an LRM20, and some SRMs. Single Heat Sinks...
...................................
So the question becomes...what do you want our ASFs to do? That will probably help narrow the choices down.
Oh, and I'm unsure about the availability of the CUT-01D Cutlass, from TRO:3145: AFFS. I don't have the BV2 handy, nor an intro date (it won't be up on the MUL for another several months).
Of the fighters you named, we don't have access to the Sai -S4, Eagle -R11, Huscarl D, Stuka -K10, and Stuka -K15. All of the Aerospace Fighters from TRO: 3145 Federated Suns are unfortunately over the BV limit. For the role of the remaining two fighters, I think having a couple attack craft would be useful, but we're pretty much limited to just the Stuka there as I really don't like the Chippewa's lack of armor. It may just be best to double down on dogfighters, but again, you know more about Aerotech than I do, so I'll pretty much go along with whatever you think is the best option.
What is the DAR4-XP out of?
XTRO: Davion
-
For anyone that needs it, here's a link to the MUL listing of battlemechs we're allowed to select for this campaign:
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit?Name=&HasBFAbility=&HasBV=true&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=0&MaxBV=1800&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&Types=18&BookAuto=&Factions=29&Factions=77&Factions=55&AvailableEras=15 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit?Name=&HasBFAbility=&HasBV=true&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=0&MaxBV=1800&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&Types=18&BookAuto=&Factions=29&Factions=77&Factions=55&AvailableEras=15)
By GM ruling, we're not allowed to select any Black Hawk-KU, Templar, or Sunder configurations, so disregard those mechs being on the above linked list.
In addition, we have access to the following battlemechs from TRO: 3145 Federated Suns:
Prey Seeker PY-SR10
Gunsmith CH11-NG
Hollander III BZK-D1
Hollander III BZK-D2
Hollander III BZK-D3
Scarecrow UCU-F4
Scarecrow UCU-F4r "Hobbled Scarecrow"
Antlion LK-D3
Centurion CN11-O
Centurion CN11-OA
Centurion CN11-OB
Centurion CN11-OC
Centurion CN11-OD
Centurion CN11-OE
Black Knight BLK-NT-3A
Lastly, we also have access to the Hound HD-2F from TRO: 3145 Mercenaries as it is specifically constructed in the Filtvelt Coalition.
-
Also, if you can find references that would place a unit of the period in this group or it is an appropriate RAT, feel free to bring it up. For example, the Specter BA fluff talks about how it is produced by the Calderon Protectorate, but a large number were shipped to the Filtvelt Coalition, and the Exhumer is in the 3145 AFFS RAT.
-
DoG: for transportation purposes, all BA counts as 1 ton, so us the hacks ability to carry more to battle. For BA, I would like to take either all Cavaliers or All Infiltrator MK II for the anti mech ability. I have a preference to Infiltrator, but thats just my Blake, Cappie side showing through.
For ASF: I am all for 4 Daggers, as they work for both inteceptor and strike abilities. If not that then I would like Corsair as they are an ok all around fighter.
-
DoG: for transportation purposes, all BA counts as 1 ton, so us the hacks ability to carry more to battle. For BA, I would like to take either all Cavaliers or All Infiltrator MK II for the anti mech ability. I have a preference to Infiltrator, but thats just my Blake, Cappie side showing through.
Well there's another rule I've been playing wrong for years. I admittedly have only run battle armor a handful of times before, but I'm not really sold on anti-mech attacks being all that worthwhile most of the time. As for the Infiltrator vs. Cavalier debate, the only thing Cavaliers do better is clear out conventional infantry, which is honestly what I find myself using battle armor for the most. Overall, I'm fine with ditching the heavy suits from some additional Infiltrators if that's what you want to do. Do you have a particular Infiltrator variant in mind?
For ASF: I am all for 4 Daggers, as they work for both inteceptor and strike abilities. If not that then I would like Corsair as they are an ok all around fighter.
4 Daggers is probably the best option, but I feel like a couple Corsairs or Stingrays would give us some potentially tactically crucial style points.
-
Rob, it appears you're filtering by intro date instead of by era availability.
Goddammit.
Of the fighters you named, we don't have access to the Sai -S4, Eagle -R11, Huscarl D, Stuka -K10, and Stuka -K15.
GODDAMMIT.
OK, so here's the thing about areospace. Unlike with BattleMechs, where even a 3025 Shadow Hawk if piloted well can stand a chance on a modern battlefield, the divide between areospace units with XL engines and areospace units without XL engines is sharp. As in, once you've got XL-engine'd fighters on the field, your standard-engine fighters are basically suitable only as bomb trucks, because unlike Mechs, there's no downside to using an XL in an ASF. It's purely free tonnage.
Which in turn means that, since we're playing in an era where XL engine'd ASFs are common, taking Intro-tech fighters is purely a waste of time. An Introtech Stuka puts out an LRM20 volley and 2 large lasers per turn (12+16=28 damage), limited by heat sinks. An advanced-tech Stuka, with DHS and an XL to strap even more guns on (and compensated for by the DHS) can put out 2 RAC/5s, an LRM20, 2 SRM6s, and 2 of its 9 ERMLs per turn (20+20+16+9+9+5+5=80 damage), limited by heat sinks. With the same armor and speed.
I would have pushed for the Huscarl D, myself, for our second pair of fighters. With that out of the picture, we basically have 3 choices:
-7D Sparrowhawk. 10/15 with x2 MPLs, x2 ERMLs, good armor, and DHS. Interceptor
F-92 Stingray. 6/9 with DHS and an ERPPC over a pair of ERLLs. Looks sexy as hell. Dogfighter
More Daggers.
(Corsairs, while wonderfully "Davion", are not sufficiently different enough from a Dagger to warrant the effort.)
Actually...wait. Can somebody figure out the BV2 on the LTN-G16D Lightning? It's a 50-ton attack bird that's explicitly made by the FedSuns (TRO3075) and shows up as being available to the FedSuns and Filtvelt in the Republic Era on the MUL. Mounts twin RAC/5s and some MPLs. Sarna.net says it's 1328 BV2, but I'm unsure of their maths, and the MUL doesn't list the BV. (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Lightning_%28Aerospace_Fighter%29)
-
Going by the Recordsheet, LTN-G16D its 1328 BV2. It carries 2 RAC/2, not RAC/5. The 16O is the LBX-20 variant and is 1220BV2. Both are available.
Also, if it helps, the CSR-12D is 8/12 not 6/9, and has 95 points of armor up front. Its apparently carved from an even bigger brick of Ferro than the Dagger is, but the weapons load is a bit light. That may put it fast enough to be in both interceptor and bomb truck roles.
-
Good news everyone! We have access to a few more aerospace fighters than I initially thought. Because some of the Age of War aerospace units from TRO 3075 don't have their BV inputted into the MUL, I missed them in my initial sorting of aerospace fighters we have access to. After further review, we have access to the following units that weren't on my list of available aerospace fighters yesterday:
Hellcat HCT-313
Sabre SB-28
Lightning LTN-G16D
Lightning LTN-G16O
Eagle EGL-R11 (Rob, I know you were asking about this one yesterday)
Vulcan VLC-8N
-
Aerospace:
I've got a lot of aero experience, but it's all Intro-tech, and almost all using vector movement (which I strongly prefer). Thanks for clarifying just why we shouldn't be using non-XL engine aeros Rob. (^_^)b
I fully agree with the first 2 Daggers, and I'd like to see something complementary for the other 2 aeros. I'm partial to Sparrowhawks, I can't tell you how many times I've won aero dogfights with Sparrows that had nothing left but SI, seriously no armor. As lights go, they're well-armored (again, in my intro-tech experience) and yes, thrust is an armor all it's own (when using vectored movement). More thrust = more opportunity to dictate the opponents angle of attack as well as your own.
The Stingray doesn't have an XL engine, and you've convinced me on that point, so the Stingray's out, imo.
I also like that Corsair 12-D. I'd be fine with either the Sparrows or the Corsairs. I know it's tough to argue against the Daggers, but I'd prefer the flavor of keeping a little variety.
Battle Armor:
I defer to those who know better. :)
edit: Ok, I also like that Vulcan! Considering the Daggers are lights masquerading as mediums, I'd vote for either the Sparrows or the Vulcans. More options.
-
The Vulcan is available? Really? That's supposed to be a Rim Worlds fighter.
Also, Jon, I blame sarna for the Rotary/2 vs Rotary/5 thing.
LTN-G16D - A more radical update developed in the Federated Suns, the G16D features the Ferro-Alumunim armor and double heat sinks of the other recent upgrades, but also includes an XL Engine to free up space for a pair of Rotary AC/5s in the nose and a Medium Pulse Laser to each wing alongside the now upgraded ER mediums. BV (2.0) = 1,328[11]
...I have no idea why I keep looking at that site sometimes.
Also, Bryan, given that the fighters are likely to be used in atmosphere most of the time, vector movement isn't really likely...
-
Additionally, the question becomes "what do we want out fighters to do?"
The Daggers are acceptable "general-use" fighters. They're fast, have plenty of armor, a good number of guns, and an acceptable fuel fraction. They can be useful in essentially any role we want to throw at them, and the ability to reconfigure them only exacerbates that.
Since we've got two general-use fighters, I'm OK with the other two being "specialists". So do we want recon birds? A pair of ground attack craft? Bomb trucks (which are *different* than ground attack craft)? Air Superiority? Answering what we actually want will basically dictate our choice of the fighter, as long as we're aware that unlike the Daggers, a specialist fighter will generally not fare well being thrown into a mission where its attributes don't come into play, and thus we limit our options a bit more.
-
The Vulcan is available? Really? That's supposed to be a Rim Worlds fighter.
It was a RWR fighter, but apparently the Federated Suns started producing a variant making use of light gauss rifles of all things during the Jihad, which is the variant we have access to.
Additionally, the question becomes "what do we want out fighters to do?"
The Daggers are acceptable "general-use" fighters. They're fast, have plenty of armor, a good number of guns, and an acceptable fuel fraction. They can be useful in essentially any role we want to throw at them, and the ability to reconfigure them only exacerbates that.
Since we've got two general-use fighters, I'm OK with the other two being "specialists". So do we want recon birds? A pair of ground attack craft? Bomb trucks (which are *different* than ground attack craft)? Air Superiority? Answering what we actually want will basically dictate our choice of the fighter, as long as we're aware that unlike the Daggers, a specialist fighter will generally not fare well being thrown into a mission where its attributes don't come into play, and thus we limit our options a bit more.
I'm tempted to say bomb truck, but what do you feel like would be the most useful?
-
It was a RWR fighter, but apparently the Federated Suns started producing a variant making use of light gauss rifles of all things during the Jihad, which is the variant we have access to.
o.O
I'm tempted to say bomb truck, but what do you feel like would be the most useful?
Unsure. Travis? Important question: adding external ordnance adds to the BV of a unit for as long as the ordnance remains attached. How does that interact with our BV cap? Why I'm asking is that there are a couple of really nice bomb trucks in the 1650-1750 BV range, but adding the ordnance would put them over the cap. How you rule on this may thusly disqualify them from consideration...
-
I'm ignoring ammo for sake of BV at the moment.
-
If anyone has any opinions concerning vehicle or battle armor selection, now would be a good time to voice them as I would like to finish hammering out our non-battlemech forces in the near future.
-
If anyone has any opinions concerning vehicle or battle armor selection, now would be a good time to voice them as I would like to finish hammering out our non-battlemech forces in the near future.
Vehicle Lance 1 Squad 1: Spotting and battle armor transport
Maxim (I) Hover Transport (Standard) (larger infantry bay and TAG)
Maxim (I) Hover Transport (Standard)
or
Karnov UR Transport (BA) (greater maneuverability and LOS)
Karnov UR Transport (BA)
Vehicle Lance 1 Squad 2: Artillery
Schiltron Prime
Schiltron Prime
Vehicle Lance 2 Squad 1: Missile Fire Support
Heavy NLRM Carrier (better survivability and short range firepower)
Heavy NLRM Carrier
or
Heavy LRM Carrier (more missiles)
Heavy LRM Carrier
Vehicle Lance 2 Squad 2: Heavy Tanks, Fast Tanks, or More Missiles
DI Morgan Assault Tank (Gauss)
DI Morgan Assault Tank (Gauss)
or
Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime
Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime
or
Heavy NLRM Carrier
Heavy NLRM Carrier
Alrighty, a question first: Do we need BA carriers, or will we be able to carry our BA on Omnis? Because if we don't actually need them, I don't want 'em. If we do, then so be it. :)
The Schiltron's I like, those are cool.
I'd vote for the Heavy NLRM carriers in L2 Squad 1. Regular LRM carriers in a campaign setting seem like a joke.
My only comment regarding the rest, is that it mostly seems like very expensive, heavy, optimized units. We're an ad-hoc force on the Periphery border, so having all the latest Omni-everything seems a little unrealistic. But hey, that's Travis' call. The vees themselves I've got no issue with.
-
While the bulk of the forces in the area are Periphery March Militia and Filtvelt Citizen's Militia, you also have things like NAIS 2nd cadre, 2nd Ceti Hussars, 22nd Avalon Hussars, and the Thumpers (which were Defiance's "showroom" merc unit before becoming part of Filtvelt) assigned to that region. Also the first gen omnis like the blackjack are 90 years old at this point and TRO: 3085 is 60 years old, so they've definitely filtered down to the lower ranks while the front lines have a higher composition of clan and heavy weight high tech things. I would call foul on a full lance of Scarecrows(XXL engine, clantech weapons, walking warcrime), but one or two in a short battalion is plenty reasonable to start with.
I would appreciate giving some thought to the idea of having forces that when you salvage that madcat mk4, it really feels like an upgrade though.
The only thing I want to point out is assignment to the campaign will be done by lance/squad. Meaning if you are permitted to take 14 units, you're taking 3 fixed lances and 1 fixed pair of something else or 2 BA of your choice. In my head, your vees represent something of a specializing unit that you can use to edit your load out to meet needs. Something like hovers or WIGEs to provide fast support in open terrain for your attack lances because you dont want to give up the weight for your recon lance, or fire-support (like the Schiltrons and NLRMS) for when you need some weight for your lighter stuff. If that's not how you want to go with it, that's ok too.
-
A logistically better layout for Vehicles is going to be something along these lines:
A Platoon: Hammer
Section 1, Vehicle 1: battle armor transport
Section 1, Vehicle 2: battle armor transport
Section 2, Vehicle 1
Section 2, Vehicle 2
B Platoon: Anvil
Section 1, Vehicle 1
Section 1, Vehicle 2
Section 2, Vehicle 1
Section 2, Vehicle 2
-Hammer Platoon being made up of units which can move relatively quickly and deliver firepower (hovers, etc).
-Anvil Platoon being made up of essentially "Turret-tech-style" support units. LRM carriers and artillery go here.
-Battle Armor Transport is whatever we want to use in this role (even if we have OmniMechs, I'd still prefer a mechanized method of BA transport as a backup option). I rather prefer airborne-capable units in this role, but that means we really need jump-capable BA. Having to land and disembark looks great in Vietnam footage, but doesn't work all that well on the tabletop.
Unit Suggestions:
1) At least 1 section of JES II Strategic Missile Carriers. x4 LRM15s, x2 MML 9s. Low BV. They're amazing. I don't think we can actually take Heavy LRM carriers anyway; those are Periphery General and Capellan/Canopian units (the NLRM carriers are fine, though).
2) If we want artillery, Schiltron Primes are the way to go. I'm unsure if we really need artillery though. a) it slows the game down, and b) in general, do we want to open that up to be used routinely against us?
3) DI Morgan (Gauss) are ridiculously good (as are Alacorns). The issue here is that it's got C3. So do the JES's. Do we want to set up a C3 net? We'll need to find a Master Vehicle, and that's where things get hairy for the FedSuns.
4) C3 Nets. They're complicated, but crazygood when they work. It'll mean doing weird things with vehicle allocations, though. This platoon is easy to run:
B Platoon: Anvil
Section 1, Vehicle 1: JES II
Section 1, Vehicle 2: JES II
Section 2, Vehicle 1: Ajax Prime
Section 2, Vehicle 2: Ajax Prime
...but everything has a C3 slave and there's no master AND no spotter. Then we have this:
B Platoon: Anvil
Section 1, Vehicle 1: JES II
Section 1, Vehicle 2: JES II
Section 2, Vehicle 1: Ajax B (Master)
Section 2, Vehicle 2: Fulcrum III (hover vehicle with Heavy Ferro armor and a C3 slave)
...which is a legitimate C3 net, with a spotter. But it's more complex to run and doesn't break down into 2-unit sections as easily.
-
Alrighty, a question first: Do we need BA carriers, or will we be able to carry our BA on Omnis? Because if we don't actually need them, I don't want 'em. If we do, then so be it. :)
That depends on what battle armor suits we end up choosing and how many omnimechs we end up taking. The one ton Cavalier and Infiltrator Mk II suits can mount up on omnimechs, but the two ton Fusiliers, Grenadiers, and Hauberks can't. Basically, if we end up taking any heavy battle armor, then we're going to need to take some form of transport vehicle as well. If we only take Cavaliers and Infiltrators, then we'd need eight omnimechs to transport all of our battlearmor, which I'm not sure we'll have. Also, none of the omnimechs we have access to are particularly well suited to battle armor delivery (the Blackjack and Avatar are slow while the Centurion tends to use a lot of torso mounted weapons). Overall, I'd say that if we want to employ battle armor with any degree of regularity, then we need to set aside two vehicle slots for transport duty. I like the Maxim (I)s because they can carry a lot and can also pull double duty as TAG equipped spotters.
My only comment regarding the rest, is that it mostly seems like very expensive, heavy, optimized units. We're an ad-hoc force on the Periphery border, so having all the latest Omni-everything seems a little unrealistic. But hey, that's Travis' call. The vees themselves I've got no issue with.
We have six heavy vehicle bays and two light vehicle bays, so our vehicle force is going to be on the heavy side, but I do see what you're saying about having a bunch of assault class vehicles. Our vehicle force does seem to be pretty optimized and shiny, but it is 3145. Also, because we have limited slots for each mission, every vehicle we take represents a unit slot that could've been used on a battlemech. As such, I feel like our vehicle force should be overall more optimized than our mech force, so that we're more likely to actually make use of conventional vehicles once the campaign actually starts.
A logistically better layout for Vehicles is going to be something along these lines:
A Platoon: Hammer
Section 1, Vehicle 1: battle armor transport
Section 1, Vehicle 2: battle armor transport
Section 2, Vehicle 1
Section 2, Vehicle 2
B Platoon: Anvil
Section 1, Vehicle 1
Section 1, Vehicle 2
Section 2, Vehicle 1
Section 2, Vehicle 2
-Hammer Platoon being made up of units which can move relatively quickly and deliver firepower (hovers, etc).
-Anvil Platoon being made up of essentially "Turret-tech-style" support units. LRM carriers and artillery go here.
-Battle Armor Transport is whatever we want to use in this role (even if we have OmniMechs, I'd still prefer a mechanized method of BA transport as a backup option). I rather prefer airborne-capable units in this role, but that means we really need jump-capable BA. Having to land and disembark looks great in Vietnam footage, but doesn't work all that well on the tabletop.
Unit Suggestions:
1) At least 1 section of JES II Strategic Missile Carriers. x4 LRM15s, x2 MML 9s. Low BV. They're amazing. I don't think we can actually take Heavy LRM carriers anyway; those are Periphery General and Capellan/Canopian units (the NLRM carriers are fine, though).
2) If we want artillery, Schiltron Primes are the way to go. I'm unsure if we really need artillery though. a) it slows the game down, and b) in general, do we want to open that up to be used routinely against us?
3) DI Morgan (Gauss) are ridiculously good (as are Alacorns). The issue here is that it's got C3. So do the JES's. Do we want to set up a C3 net? We'll need to find a Master Vehicle, and that's where things get hairy for the FedSuns.
4) C3 Nets. They're complicated, but crazygood when they work. It'll mean doing weird things with vehicle allocations, though. This platoon is easy to run:
B Platoon: Anvil
Section 1, Vehicle 1: JES II
Section 1, Vehicle 2: JES II
Section 2, Vehicle 1: Ajax Prime
Section 2, Vehicle 2: Ajax Prime
...but everything has a C3 slave and there's no master AND no spotter. Then we have this:
B Platoon: Anvil
Section 1, Vehicle 1: JES II
Section 1, Vehicle 2: JES II
Section 2, Vehicle 1: Ajax B (Master)
Section 2, Vehicle 2: Fulcrum III (hover vehicle with Heavy Ferro armor and a C3 slave)
...which is a legitimate C3 net, with a spotter. But it's more complex to run and doesn't break down into 2-unit sections as easily.
Rob, I like the idea of trying a C3 net for our vehicles, however I'm not sure if we can take the Ajax due to two of the five canon Ajax configurations being over 1800 BV. The Manteuffel might work as a replacement as it has configurations with a C3 master. Also, at 5/8 its fast enough to serve as an emergency spotter. As far as artillery goes, I think its always a good thing to have in our tool box even if we don't bust it out every scenario.
-
Rob, I like the idea of trying a C3 net for our vehicles, however I'm not sure if we can take the Ajax due to two of the five canon Ajax configurations being over 1800 BV. The Manteuffel might work as a replacement as it has configurations with a C3 master. Also, at 5/8 its fast enough to serve as an emergency spotter. As far as artillery goes, I think its always a good thing to have in our tool box even if we don't bust it out every scenario.
Then let's look for a BA transport VTOL with a C3 slave. I'm not actually sure there is such a thing, but that's pretty clearly what we need.
Make one platoon-level network very similar to what I posted above (JES, Manteuffel, Fulcrum) and one platoon-level network based around faster units and BA transport (VTOL, VTOL, fast Master Unit, fast long-range support unit). That way the VTOLs can double as spotters for that particular lance after they've dropped off their cargo.
We won't have company-level networks, but individual lance-level networks are still legit.
What that ALSO means is that we have no room for artillery platforms.
-
Oh, Travis? About the ASF thing? I'm OK with you choosing the second pair of fighters, since we're choosing the Daggers. That's reasonably in-line with the restrictions on the Mech selections (ASFs being closer to Mechs than vehicles when it comes to availability and production ease).
-
Then let's look for a BA transport VTOL with a C3 slave. I'm not actually sure there is such a thing, but that's pretty clearly what we need.
Make one platoon-level network very similar to what I posted above (JES, Manteuffel, Fulcrum) and one platoon-level network based around faster units and BA transport (VTOL, VTOL, fast Master Unit, fast long-range support unit). That way the VTOLs can double as spotters for that particular lance after they've dropped off their cargo.
We won't have company-level networks, but individual lance-level networks are still legit.
What that ALSO means is that we have no room for artillery platforms.
Rob, before I start digging through record sheets, how strongly do you prefer using VTOLs instead of Hovercraft for BA transport?
-
Then let's look for a BA transport VTOL with a C3 slave. I'm not actually sure there is such a thing, but that's pretty clearly what we need.
Make one platoon-level network very similar to what I posted above (JES, Manteuffel, Fulcrum) and one platoon-level network based around faster units and BA transport (VTOL, VTOL, fast Master Unit, fast long-range support unit). That way the VTOLs can double as spotters for that particular lance after they've dropped off their cargo.
We won't have company-level networks, but individual lance-level networks are still legit.
What that ALSO means is that we have no room for artillery platforms.
Rob, before I start digging through record sheets, how strongly do you prefer using VTOLs instead of Hovercraft for BA transport?
I searched through HMV. The only hover with a C3 slave is the new Pegasus but is has no cargo capacity. There is a maxim variant for infantry w/6 ton cap. The other maxims have 3 ton cap. The most cargo vtol's are clan Anhur and IS Karnov w/7. The IS Cavalry has 3t. There is a Ferret that carries 2.5t ;) I've seen a lot of those back in the day.
-
Oh, Travis? About the ASF thing? I'm OK with you choosing the second pair of fighters, since we're choosing the Daggers. That's reasonably in-line with the restrictions on the Mech selections (ASFs being closer to Mechs than vehicles when it comes to availability and production ease).
I don't understand your reasoning here, but OK.
2 Stuka K10s
Since not everyone has it yet, there are also a couple of C3 slave hovers in 3145 FS, one of which is an omni so it can cart around mechanized BA.
-
I'm not ok ( ;D), but for the ASF i think 2 ground attack birds. The daggers should be fine in air superiority, so something with a little more punch. I am against bomb trucks because we could be sent on long raids where our ability to resupply bombs could be limited.
I tend to think of our vees are more specialist where our mechs are more general. So I like a c3 net, and am undecided on the other units. MBT seem like too general, I would like to use mechs to hunt mechs because they are more survivable.
-
I'm not ok ( ;D), but for the ASF i think 2 ground attack birds. The daggers should be fine in air superiority, so something with a little more punch. I am against bomb trucks because we could be sent on long raids where our ability to resupply bombs could be limited.
Those don't exist in this BV bracket. Seriously. Your viable ground attack fighters (able to throw around 8-point weapon hits or heavier AND at least 25 heat-neutral damage on a Strike are the normal minimums for a ground attack craft) while having a decent armor-by-mass-fraction (15-20%) are pretty much limited to the Royal Lightning, the Stuka, the F-92 Stingray, and some models of Huscarl and Corsair.
Stukas have the advantage of at least having a crapton of armor and being able to haul around a 10-ton bomb load. Plus it's got quad Large Lasers and, because it's the W10 model, enough heat sinks to use all 4 of them without going all "random movement".
That said, they require neutral skies or better to use, given that Transits will eat them for lunch (6/9 with AC/20s), or Transgressors for that matter (6/9 with triple ERLLs and heat neutral). Which is what escorting Daggers are for. We can do a LOT worse than those - everything else available has their own issues (usually low armor) or isn't an actual improvement (the Royal Lighting can only haul around the same 10 tons of bombs as the Stuka).
Side note: The W7 Chippewa has LUDICROUS amounts of firepower and the heatsinks to use most of it (plus it's supposed to get extra cooling from quirks - the lasers in the wings of Chippewas are one of the founding examples of the Insulated Weapon quirk). The issue is that it has something like 8 tons of armor in total, on a 90-ton frame. It is a deathtrap, full stop. But it also hits INCREDIBLY hard in the attack role. Quad LPLs and Quad MLs are going to leave a mark during a Strike or Strafe. Are we willing to take the risk of losses here?
-
Well, as CO sometimes I have to talk about things like acceptable losses. So I'm ok with the risk of loss, because at some point we will need to withdraw for a few months to rearm and resupply.
-
Whelp, then. The arguments have been made for and against pretty much everything in the bracket that matters.
Your call, sir.
-
Rob, what're your thoughts regarding our battle armor options?
-
Rob, what're your thoughts regarding our battle armor options?
Pretty rough, actually.
The FedSuns doesn't have a lot of access to the really good "close-in" battle armor (the Grenadier hits very, very hard...and is slow and not especially well-protected), and we're not playing C3i/TAG/SGLRM games. With that in mind, I think that we ought to be relatively heavy on the Hauberks (a stealthed, mobile, LRM-20 turret) for support and Cavaliers for general use.
With 32 tons of transport capacity available (each suit counting as 1 ton), I'd look at two platoons, each integrated to work among themselves:
1 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
2 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
3 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
4 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)
1 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (MG)
2 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (Flamer)
3 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (SRM - Infernos)
4 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Infiltrator Mk II (magnetic or Puma)
1st Squad works as a support unit, essentially creating 2 mobile LRM20s, and the Grenadiers act as a close-range "bodyguard" force to screen them and make anybody who comes after them really, really regret it (that's an SRM20 right there).
2nd Squad ends up being a more "traditional" BA force, more centered around anti-infantry and anti-BA duty and functions as a general-purpose unit. The Infiltrators either ease our logistics burden by mounting MagClamps, which allow them to hitch a ride on any Mech (or tank, maybe...I'm not sure), or allow us to do more "spec-ops" style stuff if we use the parafoil-equipped Puma model.
Finally, I would murder a First Prince to get our hands on a platoon of Kopis Battle Armor.
EDIT: Oh, the BA in the 3145 book are complete crap. The Fusilier has promise with the Plasma Rifle version...but then goes and mounts Reflective Armor, which is worse than useless against bombs and artillery (ie, the ways to get rid of BA).
EDIT2: Wow, I stuffed that up. Fixed.
-
Pretty rough, actually.
The FedSuns doesn't have a lot of access to the really good "close-in" battle armor (the Grenadier hits very, very hard...and is slow and not especially well-protected), and we're not playing C3i/TAG/SGLRM games. With that in mind, I think that we ought to be relatively heavy on the Hauberks (a stealthed, mobile, LRM-20 turret) for support and Cavaliers for general use.
With 32 tons of transport capacity available (each suit counting as 1 ton), I'd look at two platoons, each integrated to work among themselves:
1 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
2 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
3 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
4 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)
1 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (MG)
2 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (Flamer)
3 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (SRM - Infernos)
4 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Infiltrator Mk II (magnetic or Puma)
1st Squad works as a support unit, essentially creating 2 mobile LRM20s, and the Grenadiers act as a close-range "bodyguard" force to screen them and make anybody who comes after them really, really regret it (that's an SRM20 right there).
2nd Squad ends up being a more "traditional" BA force, more centered around anti-infantry and anti-BA duty and functions as a general-purpose unit. The Infiltrators either ease our logistics burden by mounting MagClamps, which allow them to hitch a ride on any Mech (or tank, maybe...I'm not sure), or allow us to do more "spec-ops" style stuff if we use the parafoil-equipped Puma model.
Finally, I would murder a First Prince to get our hands on a platoon of Kopis Battle Armor.
EDIT: Oh, the BA in the 3145 book are complete crap. The Fusilier has promise with the Plasma Rifle version...but then goes and mounts Reflective Armor, which is worse than useless against bombs and artillery (ie, the ways to get rid of BA).
EDIT2: Wow, I stuffed that up. Fixed.
Travis's post at the start of this thread mentioned that we would have between 4 and 16 squads of battle armor, which leads me to believe that for unit selection purposes we're using a suit's actual weight instead of its one ton approximated transport weight. We should probably get this clarified before we get too involved in a battle armor discussion. In the meantime, I'm going to review our potential transport options.
-
Travis's post at the start of this thread mentioned that we would have between 4 and 16 squads of battle armor, which leads me to believe that for unit selection purposes we're using a suit's actual weight instead of its one ton approximated transport weight. We should probably get this clarified before we get too involved in a battle armor discussion. In the meantime, I'm going to review our potential transport options.
I was going by the fact that as per TW, all battle armor takes up 1 ton of cargo space, and our DropShip explicitly has 32 tons available for Battle Armor stowage.
But yes, a clarification that part would be helpful.
-
Ah, ok. I probably should have read techmanual a bit better while rebuilding your Triumph. You have 32 BA Bays. Each one holds 1 trooper. Everything else is listed in tons, so I assumed that 1 = 1 ton of suit not 1 trooper when I wrote up your TO&E. I also thought that light BA were 500kg not 750kg, leading to the 16 squad possible, which is a mistake.
Finally, I would murder a First Prince to get our hands on a platoon of Kopis Battle Armor.
Noted.
-
Ah, ok. I probably should have read techmanual a bit better while rebuilding your Triumph. You have 32 BA Bays. Each one holds 1 trooper. Everything else is listed in tons, so I assumed that 1 = 1 ton of suit not 1 trooper when I wrote up your TO&E. I also thought that light BA were 500kg not 750kg, leading to the 16 squad possible, which is a mistake.
OK, so we can essentially take 8, 4-man squads of *whatever* Battle Armor?
-
Yep, go nuts.
I was going by the fact that as per TW, all battle armor takes up 1 ton of cargo space
Do you have the page reference for this? I'm still searching for it.
Nevermind, found it.
-
Potential Transport Assets:
Zibler Strike Tank (Pros: fast omni hovercraft, has two C3 slave variants. Cons: no actual infantry bay, so it can only transport mechanized battle armor).
Cardinal Transport (RAF) (Pros: VTOL with a 12 ton infantry bay. Cons: no useful electronics, we probably don't have access to it as it seems to be used mainly by the DCMS, LCAF, and RAF).
Trireme Infantry Transport (Pros: VTOL with a 36 ton infantry bay. Cons: support vehicle, we may not have access to it).
Musketeer Hover Tank (3080 Upgrade) (Pros: TAG. Cons: infantry bay is only four tons, no C3).
Morningstar CCV (Pros: C3 Master. Cons: 5/8 wheeled vehicle, infantry bay is only four tons, over 50 tons)
Manteuffel Attack Tank (Pros: multiple C3 variants, can fulfill multiple roles within our force, omnivehicle. Cons: 5/8 movement speed, only configuration with an infantry bay forgoes the C3, over 50 tons).
Karnov UR Transport (BA) (Pros: VTOL, 8 ton infantry bay, ECM. Cons: no C3, no TAG).
Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S) (Pros: C3 Slave, TAG. Cons: infantry bay is only four tons).
Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard) (Pros: 12 ton infantry bay, TAG. Cons: no C3).
Conclusion: There really isn't any unit that fits exactly what we're looking for. There doesn't appear to be a VTOL out there that features both an infantry bay of at least four tons and has at least a C3 slave. If you want a VTOL with a large carrying capacity, then the venerable Karnov UR Transport (BA) is probably our best bet. If you're okay with using fast hovercraft instead of VTOLs, then the Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S) or Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport look to be our best option depending upon whether you value a large infantry bay or C3 capabilities more. If we take primarily mechanized battle armor, then Ziblers become a possibility. Also, I'm liking the multi-role capability of the Manteuffel.
I think the following could work as our vehicle force:
Squad 1 (artillery):
Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
Squad 2 (transport/spotting, actual selection depends on how many squads of heavy suits we take):
Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S)
Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S)
or
Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
or
Karnov UR Transport (BA)
Karnov UR Transport (BA)
Squad 3 (LRM fire support):
JES II Strategic Missile Carrier
JES II Strategic Missile Carrier
Squad 4 (multi-role tanks):
Manteuffel Attack Tank C
Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime
Let me know what you think.
-
With 32 tons of transport capacity available (each suit counting as 1 ton), I'd look at two platoons, each integrated to work among themselves:
1 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
2 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
3 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
4 Squad, 1 Platoon: x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)
1 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (MG)
2 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (Flamer)
3 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Cavalier (SRM - Infernos)
4 Squad, 2 Platoon: x4 Infiltrator Mk II (magnetic or Puma)
1st Squad works as a support unit, essentially creating 2 mobile LRM20s, and the Grenadiers act as a close-range "bodyguard" force to screen them and make anybody who comes after them really, really regret it (that's an SRM20 right there).
2nd Squad ends up being a more "traditional" BA force, more centered around anti-infantry and anti-BA duty and functions as a general-purpose unit. The Infiltrators either ease our logistics burden by mounting MagClamps, which allow them to hitch a ride on any Mech (or tank, maybe...I'm not sure), or allow us to do more "spec-ops" style stuff if we use the parafoil-equipped Puma model.
Finally, I would murder a First Prince to get our hands on a platoon of Kopis Battle Armor.
1st Platoon looks good to me. Do you want to to go with the the Grenadier Hunter-Killer variant with the Magshot or the one with the Compact Narc? I think two squads of Hauberks and two squads of Grenadiers might work better than a 3 and 1 mix. For 2nd Platoon, unless I'm missing something, I really don't see a compelling reason to take machine gun or inferno Cavaliers over flamer Cavaliers. Two squads of magnetic Infiltrators will help lessen our transport burden, although I kind of like the spec-ops potential of the Infiltrator variant with advanced sensors and a parafoil, however I'm not sure how often that would actually come up in game play.
-
Rob, unless you really want to use VTOLs, then I think our best options for a transport squad is one Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard) and one Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S). This gives our transport squad the capacity to transport four squads of battle armor. In addition, both units in the transport squad have TAG and one of the units in the transport squad has a C3 slave. However, this does mean the Cavaliers and Infiltrators will have to hitch a ride on omnis.
Dan and Steve, do you guys have any input on vehicle or battle armor selections? I don't think I've heard anything from either of you yet.
-
The Infiltrators either ease our logistics burden by mounting MagClamps, which allow them to hitch a ride on any Mech (or tank, maybe...I'm not sure)
pg 228: battle armor can mount standard battlemechs and vehicles as though they were omni units.
Two squads of magnetic Infiltrators will help lessen our transport burden, although I kind of like the spec-ops potential of the Infiltrator variant with advanced sensors and a parafoil, however I'm not sure how often that would actually come up in game play.
In the Terra campaign you guys coated a tarmac with fire retardant foam and set up ammunition mines to defend an area. I am kinda afraid of what you could come up with for stealth flying commando powerarmor guys. I'll be open to innovative ideas on the board and before scenarios hit. No guarantees that things will constantly come up though.
-
Rob, unless you really want to use VTOLs, then I think our best options for a transport squad is one Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard) and one Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S). This gives our transport squad the capacity to transport four squads of battle armor. In addition, both units in the transport squad have TAG and one of the units in the transport squad has a C3 slave. However, this does mean the Cavaliers and Infiltrators will have to hitch a ride on omnis.
I don't think that making the Maxim a C3 variant is going to help us, given that we already have a 4-tank C3 net assembled in the other platoon.
Also, the reason to make the Cavalier Squad carry infernos is because of what infernos do to Battle Armor. It's heinous; look it up.
So, I'd put our prospective TO&E about like this:
ARMOR ASSETS
1 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-Manteuffel Attack Tank C (Master)
-Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime (slave)
1 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-JES II Strategic Missile Carrier (slave)
-JES II Strategic Missile Carrier (slave)
2 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
-Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
OR
-Paladin Defense System (TRO 3145 Davion, BV 1624)
-Paladin Defense System
2 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
-Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
BATTLE ARMOR ASSETS
1 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
1 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
1 Platoon, 3 Squad:
-x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)
1 Platoon, 4 Squad:
-x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)
2 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-x4 Cavalier (Flamer)
2 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-x4 Cavalier (Flamer)
2 Platoon, 3 Squad:
-x4 Infiltrator Mk II (Puma)
2 Platoon, 4 Squad:
-x4 Infiltrator Mk II (Magnetic)
AREOSPACE ASSETS
A Squadron, 1 Flight:
-Dagger Prime (keep the option to swap these into Dagger Cs open)
-Dagger Prime
A Squadron, 2 Flight:
-STU-K10 Stuka
-STU-K10 Stuka
OR
-CHP-W7 Chippewa
-CHP-W7 Chippewa
Conclusions:
1) We need to make a decision ASAP on whether we're using Stukas or Chippewas.
2) We need a ruling on legality of the Paladin (it's strictly better than the Schiltron with 2 Long Tom tubes)
3) Can we all agree to put everything else EXCEPT points #1 and #2 to bed?
-
Conclusions:
1) We need to make a decision ASAP on whether we're using Stukas or Chippewas.
2) We need a ruling on legality of the Paladin (it's strictly better than the Schiltron with 2 Long Tom tubes)
3) Can we all agree to put everything else EXCEPT points #1 and #2 to bed?
Sure, until we start talking about Battlemechs. :)
Btw, since Vees/Aero were somewhat picked via consensus, I'd say we need to divide up the mech selection a little more evenly. We've got 20 mechs, 6 players, so that's 3 mechs each with a couple extras to fill out. I'd suggest everyone picking their mechs, and then working to allocate them into the most useful lances afterwards.
I'll post my 3 mechs by the end of the day.
-
I don't think that making the Maxim a C3 variant is going to help us, given that we already have a 4-tank C3 net assembled in the other platoon.
Each Schiltron has a C3 master, which means that we have the potential to put all of our vehicles into one C3 net. Hell, my proposed battlemech lance from a few pages back is entirely C3 capable, so we could potentially get a company sized C3 net set up.
Also, the reason to make the Cavalier Squad carry infernos is because of what infernos do to Battle Armor. It's heinous; look it up.
That is pretty heinous, however I don't think it'll be super effective when they're only carrying a one tube SRM launcher.
So, I'd put our prospective TO&E about like this:
ARMOR ASSETS
1 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-Manteuffel Attack Tank C (Master)
-Manteuffel Attack Tank Prime (slave)
1 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-JES II Strategic Missile Carrier (slave)
-JES II Strategic Missile Carrier (slave)
Vehicle platoon 1 looks fine to me.
2 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
-Schiltron Mobile Fire-Support Platform Prime
OR
-Paladin Defense System (TRO 3145 Davion, BV 1624)
-Paladin Defense System
At 130 tons, I don't think Paladins fit onto our dropship.
2 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
-Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)
I personally would prefer one Maxim Heavy Hover Transport (C3S) and one Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard) as that allows us to put all of our heavy suits in transports while still giving us a fast C3 capable hovercraft, but if you don't think that's worth sacrificing the 8 tons of transport capability for, then I'm fine with taking two Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)s. Basically, its your call, but I think the potential to expand our C3 net beyond platoon size is worth considering.
BATTLE ARMOR ASSETS
1 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
1 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-x4 Hauberk (LRM5)
1 Platoon, 3 Squad:
-x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)
1 Platoon, 4 Squad:
-x4 Grenadier (HunterKiller)
Battle Armor Platoon 1 looks good to me, however I'm still not sure which of the two Grenadier (Hunter-Killer) variants you want to take. Record Sheets 3075 contains both a Grenadier (Hunter-Killer) (SRM/Magshot) and a Grenadier (Hunter-Killer) (SRM/Narc).
2 Platoon, 1 Squad:
-x4 Cavalier (Flamer)
2 Platoon, 2 Squad:
-x4 Cavalier (Flamer)
2 Platoon, 3 Squad:
-x4 Infiltrator Mk II (Puma)
2 Platoon, 4 Squad:
-x4 Infiltrator Mk II (Magnetic)
In terms of parafoil equipped Infiltrators, I like the Infiltrator Mk II (Sensors) a lot more than the Infiltrator Mk II "Puma". I think a machine gun and improved sensors are more useful than just a magshot.
AREOSPACE ASSETS
A Squadron, 1 Flight:
-Dagger Prime (keep the option to swap these into Dagger Cs open)
-Dagger Prime
A Squadron, 2 Flight:
-STU-K10 Stuka
-STU-K10 Stuka
OR
-CHP-W7 Chippewa
-CHP-W7 Chippewa
If this helps your decision any, according to the MUL, the Stuka STU-K10 has an availability rating of "extinct" for the Republic Era. The Stuka STU-K5 is available though.
Conclusions:
1) We need to make a decision ASAP on whether we're using Stukas or Chippewas.
2) We need a ruling on legality of the Paladin (it's strictly better than the Schiltron with 2 Long Tom tubes)
3) Can we all agree to put everything else EXCEPT points #1 and #2 to bed?
1. I'm concerned about Chippewas getting shot down too easily if we take them, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've played Aerotech, so I'll support whatever decision you make. The Vulcan VLC-8N has two large pulse lasers, two light gauss rifles, and is decently armored, so it might be worth considering as well.
2. It requires a super heavy vehicle bay and we only have heavy vehicle bays, so I don't think it'll fit on the dropship, but if Travis lets us get away with it, then I'm all for taking them.
-
-What's the effect of a C3 system on artillery fire? That should tell us whether it's worth taking the C3 spotter for the Schiltrons.
-I'm still not used to superheavies being common. Never even occurred to me to check the Paladin for that. Never mind then, Schiltrons it is. Issue closed?
-Those should be the Grenadier HKs with Magshots. Forgot about the Narc version completely (I normally see that one listed as Grenadier [narc]). Issue closed?
-Infiltrator Mk II (sensors) is fine with me. Issue closed?
-K10 Stukas were listed b/c that's what Travis "assigned" us above. Mike likes Chippewas. We can make the Vulcans work, if that's what people want.
-
-What's the effect of a C3 system on artillery fire? That should tell us whether it's worth taking the C3 spotter for the Schiltrons.
I don't think it has any effect, but the C3 masters in the Schiltrons can be used to tie the C3 in the Maxim to the C3s in the JES IIs or any other C3 equipped units we have, which could be quite useful. If you don't think a fast C3 spotter for the JES IIs is worth giving up 8 tons of infantry space, then I'm fine going with two Maxim (I) Heavy Hover Transport (Standard)s. I just want to make sure you're considering its usefulness in larger than platoon size C3 networks. That being said, given the amount of ECM that's likely to show up in this campaign, C3 might turn out to be completely useless anyways.
-I'm still not used to superheavies being common. Never even occurred to me to check the Paladin for that. Never mind then, Schiltrons it is. Issue closed?
Issue closed.
-Those should be the Grenadier HKs with Magshots. Forgot about the Narc version completely (I normally see that one listed as Grenadier [narc]). Issue closed?
Issue closed.
-Infiltrator Mk II (sensors) is fine with me. Issue closed?
Issue closed.
-K10 Stukas were listed b/c that's what Travis "assigned" us above. Mike likes Chippewas. We can make the Vulcans work, if that's what people want.
If Mike likes Chippewas, then I'm fine going with Chippewas.
-
Chippewas it is, the other issues are closed.
Now for the Mechs, a couple of things to keep in mind. We are a fast raiding group that may be independent of supply chain for periods of time. Bring 3 mechs that you want to play, we will divide into lances later. Any other issues to consider before picking units
-
I'm getting married in two weeks and have had to let life totally take over any gaming time. Its not helping theres a LOT of goalies out hurt right now.
-
Rob and Mike, I've stated my case, what's the final verdict on our transport assets?
-
Rob and Mike, I've stated my case, what's the final verdict on our transport assets?
My vote is for standards, because having two of them will allow us to transport the ENTIRE Platoon of Grenadiers/Hauberks in one huge lump. Given how that platoon *really* wants to work together, and desperately needs transport (it can't hitch rides on Omnis), I feel the use of Standard Maxims outweighs the benefit of having a few more C3 units (I view the Manteuffels as spotters which only need close to medium range to help out the JES's).
I'd love to set up a company-level network if we ever get the capacity for more vehicles, but ensuring that our BA is capable of getting where it needs to be outweighs the need for extra C3 spotters in my mind.
-
Rob and Mike, I've stated my case, what's the final verdict on our transport assets?
My vote is for standards, because having two of them will allow us to transport the ENTIRE Platoon of Grenadiers/Hauberks in one huge lump. Given how that platoon *really* wants to work together, and desperately needs transport (it can't hitch rides on Omnis), I feel the use of Standard Maxims outweighs the benefit of having a few more C3 units (I view the Manteuffels as spotters which only need close to medium range to help out the JES's).
I'd love to set up a company-level network if we ever get the capacity for more vehicles, but ensuring that our BA is capable of getting where it needs to be outweighs the need for extra C3 spotters in my mind.
I agree with Rob.
-
Okay, it looks like we have our vehicles, battle armor, and aerospace fighters selected. On to battlemechs then.
-
It sounds like Dan is not going to be choosing any units due to being extremely busy right now. This means we all get to choose four battlemechs. I'm going with an Avatar G, Warhammer WHM-8D, Blackjack Omni D, and Centurion Omni A.
-
Clarification request: are we each selecting mechs to be used together as a lance, ior are we just selecting 4 Mechs and we'll figure out lances after everyone has selected?
-
Clarification request: are we each selecting mechs to be used together as a lance, ior are we just selecting 4 Mechs and we'll figure out lances after everyone has selected?
I have no real preference on this issue. What do you want to do?
-
To be honest, I'm unsure. Picking entire lances runs the risk of us overloading on specialized lances, or too many heavy/assault Mechs as everybody picks stuff they personally prefer (which ends to avoid the lighter stuff or "kitchen sink" designs). But picking individually means we're probably going to end up giving up the ability to make something like a C3 mech lance.
I think I'd prefer everyone pick Mechs individually and we sort them at the end as best as we can...and then have a re-pick or two if necessary ("hey, we've got 4 really good LRM boats that we've shoved together...how about we swap out one for a close-range bodyguard for the lance?"). Plus that way it ends up more as a "here's what you've got - make it work" sort of force, rather than one cherry-picked to fight the way we all agree we want to fight. It's more true to the universe that way.
-
To be honest, I'm unsure. Picking entire lances runs the risk of us overloading on specialized lances, or too many heavy/assault Mechs as everybody picks stuff they personally prefer (which ends to avoid the lighter stuff or "kitchen sink" designs). But picking individually means we're probably going to end up giving up the ability to make something like a C3 mech lance.
I think I'd prefer everyone pick Mechs individually and we sort them at the end as best as we can...and then have a re-pick or two if necessary ("hey, we've got 4 really good LRM boats that we've shoved together...how about we swap out one for a close-range bodyguard for the lance?"). Plus that way it ends up more as a "here's what you've got - make it work" sort of force, rather than one cherry-picked to fight the way we all agree we want to fight. It's more true to the universe that way.
That works for me. However, this does mean we have about a week to choose mechs, assign mechs to lances, and decide who's going to buy what at GenCon, so if this is the option we go with, then we need to get cracking.
Bryan, Mike, and Steve; do any of you have any opinion on how we go about mech selection?
-
Everyone picking four and matching later is ok by me.
For my part here is 4...
Axman-3Sr (C3S & RAC5, LTXL)
Shadow Hawk 5D (RAC5, no XL)
Griffin-6S (ERPPC & LRM15+Art, LTXL)
Firestarter-FS9-S3 (no XL)
-
My Mech choices (holy cow are most of the cool new Dark Age-era mechs knocked out by the BV restriction):
HSN-10SR Hellspawn
(6/9/8 XLFE, 7.5t LFF armor, 10DHS, x2LPPC, x2 ISERML, ECM, TAG, Beagle) BV: 1,411
IWM: AR20-989
FEC-1CM Fennec
(6/9/0 XLFE, 9.5t FF armor, 10 DHS, x2 PPC, x2 ISMPL, C3 Master) BV: 1,395
IWM: 20-5052
TNS-4T Thanatos
(4/6/4 XLFE, 13t std armor, 12 DHS, x1 LB20X, x1 MRM-20, x2 ISMPL, ECM, C3 slave) BV: 1,760
IWM: 20-971
MAD-5T Marauder
(4/6/0 XLFE, 14t std armor, 14 DHS, x2 ISLPL, x2 ISMPL, RAC/5, Tcomp) BV: 1,750
IWM: 20-264
-
My Mech choices (holy cow are most of the cool new Dark Age-era mechs knocked out by the BV restriction):
I think the Gunsmith or Scarecrow could be fun and the Hound is a pretty fluff appropriate choice for us, however I lack the skill to kitbash a mini together for any of these, so I didn't select them.
-
Between the somewhat high rate of turnover/upgrading that I'm expecting and the fact a lot of minis don't exist yet, I wouldn't worry about having the exact mini. Proxies will definitely be a thing for this, so if you want to play it go for it. It also means that GenCon is somewhat softer of a target date than it was when I started sorting all this out.
-
Nice choice with the hellspawn Rob, as that was also on my list. so here are my choices
Tarantula 3A
Bushwacker 2S
Thunderbolt 9NR
and Dan wants some variant of the Scarecrow. I don't have the book for that so just the base model
-
Well that was fast. I guess we're just waiting on Bryan then.
-
Well that was fast. I guess we're just waiting on Bryan then.
Whelp, I can't sleep and I'm bored, so here's a list of what we've got so far. Which should make Bryan's life easier once he wakes up and reads it.
On first blush, I suggest we look hard at a second unit with a C3 Master system (Cyclops CP-11-C is really about the only choice), as well as some hard-hitting units. We've got a ton of close-in beatsticks (MAD, Axman, Tbolt, Thanatos), but not a lot of ranged power projection - and definitely no ranged power projection that is C3-compatible to benefit from all out close-range spotter (though depending on how we set up a C3 net, the JES IIs can benefit...).
Other interesting Mechs are on the Light end of things: the -1LAW Wight (HPPC, heavy armor, and a C3 Slave), the -6W Talon (HPPC, Heavy Ferro, 7/11, and a C3 slave), the Garm which Dan designed, and the AIV Urbie (yes, it's available to us...).
-
and the AIV Urbie (yes, it's available to us...).
I think we already selected our artillery with Schriltrons but Come On GM, its too hilarious to not let us have a few.
-
Alright, no problem, I'll get this knocked out within the next couple hours.
Btw, I was also completely on board with the idea of picking some units and assembling them into lances afterwards.
-
The Avatar-OC has a master. Since we have an Avatar already, do we get all the Omni configs too?
-
The Avatar-OC has a master. Since we have an Avatar already, do we get all the Omni configs too?
All but the R. It just costs a few points to reconfigure the omni
and the AIV Urbie (yes, it's available to us...).
I think we already selected our artillery with Schriltrons but Come On GM, its too hilarious to not let us have a few.
You're welcome to take them, but you've got a 4 tube limit for the battalion so you'll need to drop a Schiltron. Or have them and some mechs die horribly and switch your arty choices to them.
-
You're welcome to take them, but you've got a 4 tube limit for the battalion so you'll need to drop a Schiltron. Or have them and some mechs die horribly and switch your arty choices to them.
Ah - HA! We don't HAVE any tube artillery! We only have missile/rocket artillery!
http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/general-discussion-area-on-equipment/rocket-vs-tube-artillery/
There's only a campaign limitation on TUBES! We can have all the AIVs we want! MUA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
-
You're welcome to take them, but you've got a 4 tube limit for the battalion so you'll need to drop a Schiltron. Or have them and some mechs die horribly and switch your arty choices to them.
Ah - HA! We don't HAVE any tube artillery! We only have missile/rocket artillery!
http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/general-discussion-area-on-equipment/rocket-vs-tube-artillery/
There's only a campaign limitation on TUBES! We can have all the AIVs we want! MUA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Oops, you caught me. Go for it.
On a completely unrelated matter, for the first game I'll need some AT scale Unions. :P
-
So with the Avatar are we good for C3 masters? I'll pick up the Cyclops if needed, but I'd rather not. Hmmm, actually maybe I'll just bring another Avatar anyway.
-
So with the Avatar are we good for C3 masters? I'll pick up the Cyclops if needed, but I'd rather not. Hmmm, actually maybe I'll just bring another Avatar anyway.
With the Avatar option, we should be OK. The goal is to - in general - not give the enemy an OBVIOUS C3 Master target at which to shoot.
Which the Fennec by itself is. Granted, it hangs back at 15+ hexes and shoots with x2 PPCs while running. But still.
-
On a completely unrelated matter, for the first game I'll need some AT scale Unions. :P
Do you mean Unions that are the size of mech scale aerospace fighters or just big enough to be an emergency load in a 12 gauge shotgun and that are based and can be used on atmosphere hexes or space maps with warships? ;D If so, I have 2. ;D
-
Javelin JVN-11D
Enforcer III ENF-6NAIS
Axman AMX-3SR
Stealth - not really sure which model to choose on this one. I suppose the 2D1 is fine if we want yet another c3 slave.
-
Hokay...so far I've gone through TROs 3058, 3060, 3067r; 3075; 3085 and Prototypes; and also used Xotl's Quirks List (which is semi-official since he's on the MUL Team and generally covers TROs 3039 and 3050) as a basis.
Here's a quirks list which ought to cover basically everything we've got. If a Mech doesn't appear on it, then the writeup and/or artwork isn't sufficient to justify a given Mech quirk according to the above sources. A whole LOT of writeups in the TROs are actually really sparse, so there's fairly few Mechs which qualify for published quirks (I've got about 240 entries of out of about 750 Mech chassis).
A few notes:
1) This is only about Mechs. No Vees, no ASFs (the Chippewas should, IMO, be the exception here, since they're actually the source of the Improved Cooling Jacket quirk), and no IndustrialMechs.
2) Some Quirks are abbreviated. Narrow Profile instead of Narrow/Low Profile. No Arms instead of No/Minimal Arms, and so forth.
3) Quirks are assigned to chassis. If a particular variant should have a quirk, it is a limitation written in the Quirk section itself; assume all quirks apply to ALL models of a unit unless the quirk is physically impossible to apply (such as the Improved Cooling Jacket for the ERLL on the Barghest...there's a model that doesn't have any ER Larges at all).
4) "No Arms" and "No Torso Twist" quirks are judgement calls based on the artwork...
-4a) My guideline for "No Torso Twist" is that the Mech have no visible "turret ring" at the waist, and look to have limited enough mobility in the hip and knee joints so as not to be able to shift the direction of the torso by bending one leg and rotating around the bent leg's hip. The Cestus and Bushwacker are good examples here.
-4b) My guideline for "No Arms" is to look at the Mech and ask myself if I think the arms pictured on the Mech could help it stand; just having "gun arms" is not a qualifier...I give Mechs with long weapon barrels such as the Rifleman, Razorback, or the Talon the benefit of the doubt. Having two arms with tiny weapons on them (Strider) or one arm with a long weapon but that appears to be fixed in place (UrbanMech) are generally what qualifies a Mech for this quirk.
5) I'm happy to defend or explain any choices. If Xotl was the one who assigned the quirks, then I'll reference him as the answer. Otherwise I can quote a passage or show the art to explain why a Mech has a given Quirk.
-
Javelin JVN-11D
Enforcer III ENF-6NAIS
Axman AMX-3SR
Stealth - not really sure which model to choose on this one. I suppose the 2D1 is fine if we want yet another c3 slave.
I think I'd personally prefer to see the Stealth 2D2. Trades out the C3 for a TAG system - something we're fairly light on for as much as we enjoy artillery. Given that your other three choices are all C3-compatible, I think we've actually got enough stuff to set up a network already.
So, assuming a -2D2 Stealth, and assuming my Quirks list is OK, we're looking like this for our mech forces (see downloadable *.xls below):
-
Chippewa gets cooling jackets as appropriate. Could you explain the narrow/low profile on the Marauder?
-
Since we're hurting for C3 Masters, I'd like to have our Avatar start out in the C configuration instead of the G configuration.
-
Well it looks like we'd have 2 C3 lances, BUT we only have one 'dedicated' Master. Travis doesn't want us mixing and matching units within lances for missions, which I totally agree with, so that means in order to build a second C3 lance, we'd have to lock that Avatar into a C3 lance... and if we wanted to use a different loadout on the Avatar we've nullified the entire lance's potential network.
Since these are going to be set lances, it seems like we would be better off with another Master. I'm the last one to the table here, so I'll switch out one of my C3 units for a master. I like the look of the Fennec, and could get one at GenCon. What other choices are there? The Cyclops has a version with 2 Masters, which would allow us to link all 8 C3 units into a single network, right? So I guess that's appealing, even though... Bleh...Cyclops.
What other choices do I have for C3 Masters?
Also, would you rather see me replace the Javelin or the Enforcer III with the new master unit (the Axman is non-negotiable at this time ;))?
*Heh, while I was typing this, I see John was considering the same issue.
-
Chippewa gets cooling jackets as appropriate. Could you explain the narrow/low profile on the Marauder?
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0
Download Xotl's PDF. The one he says is 75 pages.
I can understand his rationale, but it's a judgement call. An unseen Marauder from the front REALLY presents a small target. That said, I'd probably remove it for post-TRO:PP Marauders, given how much they flatten out. There's a couple other Quirks that are separated like that, so there's precedent.
-
Okay, while going through our mech list, I noticed a couple problems.
First off, the Tarantula ZPH-3A and Bushwacker BSW-S2 aren't on the Federated Suns, Filtvelt Coalition, or Inner Sphere General faction lists for the Republic Era. The Tarantula ZPH-3A is on the Inner Sphere General list for the Jihad Era and the Bushwacker BSW-S2 is on the Federated Suns list for the Jihad Era, so it looks like Mike was filtering by the wrong era while selecting units. If you guys like the Bushwacker, then the BSW-S2r is available, which is basically a BSW-S2 that drops one SRM-4 and the ER Large Laser in order to mount a Plasma Rifle.
Secondly, I can not verify that the Firestarter FS9-M3 is actually a canon unit. Even its mentioning on sarna has a "citation needed" tag. However, as Steve's post mentioned the FS9-S3 instead of the FS9-M3 this appears to be a typo on Rob's part.
-
What other choices do I have for C3 Masters?
Honestly, nothing is really springing to mind. For whatever reason, the Federated Suns loved putting a C3 slave in damn near everything during the Civil War and Jihad, but never really got around to designing a unit with a C3 master until the Fennec. Unless I'm forgetting a unit, our C3 master options are pretty much limited to the Avatar, Cyclops, and Fennec.
-
What other choices do I have for C3 Masters?
None.
Stalker, Longbow, Victor, Battlemaster, Orion, Grasshopper, Gallant, Cataphract, Caesar, Battleaxe, Crusader, Quickdraw, Argus, Black Hawk KU, Wolverine, Centurion, Ghost, Blackjack, Blackjack Omni, Hellspawn, Axman, Hachetman, Marauder
That's the list of chassis I just went through the Sarna articles on. Those are basically every viable chassis we have available upon which to mount a C3 master (I'm not checking on a Javelin or something). None of them include a C3 master in a variant model available to us (the BattleMaster has one).
So our options are: Cyclops, Avatar, Fennec. That's it. To be fair, the FS has always been historically short of C3 Master units - and especially in this BV bracket.
Secondly, I can not verify that the Firestarter FS9-M3 is actually a canon unit. Even its mentioning on sarna has a "citation needed" tag. However, as Steve's post mentioned the FS9-S3 instead of the FS9-M3 this appears to be a typo on Rob's part.
The S3 isn't on Sarna and wasn't in my SSW. I thought STEVE typo'd and meant the M3. What's the S3 version's source?
Also, the [citation needed] isn't on the Mech itself, but is on the BV2 value, the M3 was published in Record Sheets:MechWarrior Dark Age (which were all BV1s) and hasn't been reprinted with a BV2 since.
-
Alrighty, since nobody has confessed his undying love for the Cyclops, looks like I'm buying a Fennec! I'm happy about it, I think it's a cool-looking mech.
Any preference on which mech I drop, the Javelin or the Enforcer III?
-
Alrighty, since nobody has confessed his undying love for the Cyclops, looks like I'm buying a Fennec! I'm happy about it, I think it's a cool-looking mech.
Any preference on which mech I drop, the Javelin or the Enforcer III?
Actually, the CP-11-C model of the Cyclops isn't awful. It's on our list, mounts a single C3 Master computer, and ends up with a Gauss Rifle, a medium laser battery and 2 extra tons of armor. Given we already have a Fennec, a more durable C3M platform may not be a bad idea.
Also, if anybody can massage the list to make it spit out a Battlemaster -M3 (LGR, MML5, x2 LPPCs, x2 MPL, Heavy Ferro, and a C3 Master for 1674 BV2), I'd appreciate it.
-
The S3 isn't on Sarna and wasn't in my SSW. I thought STEVE typo'd and meant the M3. What's the S3 version's source?
Also, the [citation needed] isn't on the Mech itself, but is on the BV2 value, the M3 was published in Record Sheets:MechWarrior Dark Age (which were all BV1s) and hasn't been reprinted with a BV2 since.
The Firestarter FS9-S3 is a Jihad Era variant of the Firestarter that was introduced with Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade Unabridged, Inner Sphere. Because it was introduced with a record sheet product, I can only really guess at what its fluff is supposed to be based off of its date of introduction and availability listings on the MUL. It appears to be a variant that was developed by the Lyrans and deployed by them during the Jihad. It looks like it was sold pretty widely on the open market after the Jihad as it shows up on the Lyran Commonwealth, Federated Suns, Free Worlds League, Mercenary, and Republic of the Sphere faction lists for the Republic Era.
It looks like the Firestarter FS9-M3 just got published again in TRO: 3145 Lyran Commonwealth. It clocks in at 866 BV2. Its fluff mentions that it is mainly used by the Lyran Commonwealth, but it is also apparently a very popular design among mercenaries. The Federated Suns is not mentioned as using the design.
-
It looks like the Firestarter FS9-M3 just got published again in TRO: 3145 Lyran Commonwealth. It clocks in at 866 BV2. Its fluff mentions that it is mainly used by the Lyran Commonwealth, but it is also apparently a very popular design among mercenaries. The Federated Suns is not mentioned as using the design.
The problem with using that as a metric is that TROs are not all-exclusive records of "who uses what". The CapCon is not listed in the TRO as using the Marshall, for example, yet they very definitely do.
And if we're looking at sources...the Swordsworn in MWDA very definitely (I'm pretty sure; I cannot find the pilot dossier to prove it, but Fire for Effect was the artillery-centric supplement and a Firestarter with TAG would have fit into the overall set construction) had the Firestarter mini which became the -M3 (found in the Fire for Effect set).
-
The problem with using that as a metric is that TROs are not all-exclusive records of "who uses what". The CapCon is not listed in the TRO as using the Marshall, for example, yet they very definitely do.
And if we're looking at sources...the Swordsworn in MWDA very definitely had the Firestarter mini which became the -M3 (found in the Fire for Effect set).
1. Although TROs aren't the end all be all of "who uses what," they are at the very least a good indication of who commonly uses what designs at the time of the TRO's in universe publication date.
2. I fail to see how what units a pirate band in Prefecture IV managed to steal from RAF stockpiles or purchase on the open market has any relevance on what battlemechs an AFFS unit from the Periphery March would have access to a decade after that pirate band ceases to exist.
3. If we're using Swordsworn and House Davion MWDA minis for faction availability, then lets replace our Cavaliers with Elementals or Purifiers.
4. The Firestarter FS9-M3 is at best a GM call.
Edit: That came out more confrontational and hostile sounding than I meant it to, sorry.
-
4. The Firestarter FS9-M3 is at best a GM call.
Agreed. I was just pointing out that there's arguments in both directions until the MUL is updated.
-
Pragmatic question time, are we going to go with three independent C3 lances or is someone going to bite the bullet and take a Cyclops, so we can have a C3 company?
-
Pragmatic question time, are we going to go with three independent C3 lances or is someone going to bite the bullet and take a Cyclops, so we can have a C3 company?
It's only 2 lances, not 3. At this point, it's the following:
Javelin - slave
Enforcer III - slave
Fennec - master
Thunderbolt - slave
Axman - slave
Axman - slave
Warhammer - slave
Thanatos - slave
Not including the Avatar, because making it a leader of a C3 lance means it's stuck in a single configuration, which kind of sucks. So, the question on the table is whether or not to take another Fennec or make it the single-c3master Cyclops?
Rob says the Cyclops is more durable, and I voted for another Fennec. Why don't you break the tie? :)
This unit will be replacing either the Javelin or Enforcer, so that also needs to be decided and it doesn't really matter to me. They're both excellent mechs for their roles, as well as traditional FedSun units.
-
Not including the Avatar, because making it a leader of a C3 lance means it's stuck in a single configuration, which kind of sucks. So, the question on the table is whether or not to take another Fennec or make it the single-c3master Cyclops?
Rob says the Cyclops is more durable, and I voted for another Fennec. Why don't you break the tie? :)
I personally like the Fennec better than the Cyclops, but Mike's CO, so if anyone gets to cast a tie breaking vote, then its him. Also, its your mech choice, so your vote outweighs all of ours combined.
This unit will be replacing either the Javelin or Enforcer, so that also needs to be decided and it doesn't really matter to me. They're both excellent mechs for their roles, as well as traditional FedSun units.
I don't think a Large Variable Speed Pulse Laser (which is only worthwhile within 8 hexes, but really wants you to fight at 4 hexes or less) is a good combination with a Snub-Nose PPC (which wants you to fight at exactly 9 hexes). Basically, the lack of any sort of synergy between the two main weapons leaves the Enforce III ENF-6NAIS without a clear engagement range at which it is most effective. I think the Javelin JVN-11D is a better designed mech than the Enforcer III ENF-6NAIS, however the Enforcer's much greater survivability probably makes it a better design overall. So yeah, its pretty close there, which mini do you think is cooler?
-
[It's only 2 lances, not 3. At this point, it's the following:
Javelin - slave
Enforcer III - slave
Fennec - master
Thunderbolt - slave
Axman - slave
Axman - slave
Warhammer - slave
Thanatos - slave
Given that list, I'd say we arrange them into lances and roles and see what we end up with. I'd put them like this:
Fennec - Master. Long-range Fire Support
Warhammer - Slave. Medium-range Fire Support
Enforcer III - Slave. Medium/close-range Fire Support
Thanatos - Slave. Close-range spotter.
??? - Master.
Axman - Slave. Medium-close range fire support and can spot
Axman - Slave. Medium-close range fire support and can spot
Thunderbolt - Slave. Medium-close range fire support and can spot
The second lance has no long-range fire support option. Both the Fennec and the Cyclops can fit that role, but the Cyclops has a better hole-puncher (though only one) and is tougher with its extra armor and standard engine (and has come nice quirks). Regardless, the Javelin doesn't rationally fit in either C3 lance since both of them are pretty heavy-weight even though the Enforcer isn't all that well-designed- I'd replace that simply based on its durability.
Jon, Mike - can we get both of your opinions?
-
I personally like the Fennec better than the Cyclops, but Mike's CO, so if anyone gets to cast a tie breaking vote, then its him. Also, its your mech choice, so your vote outweighs all of ours combined.
Eh, I don't really care that much tbh. These mechs will get blown up and replaced on a semi-regular basis anyway. I'm fine with whatever Mike votes for.
I don't think a Large Variable Speed Pulse Laser (which is only worthwhile within 8 hexes, but really wants you to fight at 4 hexes or less) is a good combination with a Snub-Nose PPC (which wants you to fight at exactly 9 hexes). Basically, the lack of any sort of synergy between the two main weapons leaves the Enforce III ENF-6NAIS without a clear engagement range at which it is most effective. I think the Javelin JVN-11D is a better designed mech than the Enforcer III ENF-6NAIS, however the Enforcer's much greater survivability probably makes it a better design overall. So yeah, its pretty close there, which mini do you think is cooler?
Ah, guess I didn't take a close enough look at the Enforcer's weapons loadout. It doesn't matter much to me which mech I use here, I've got pristine versions of each that need painting. Based on Rob's post, it looks like the Enforcer might fit the lance a little better.
-
Jon, Mike - can we get both of your opinions?
The two lances look good to me. As the second lance seems to be designed around brawling and staying power, I think a Cyclops would fit in better with that lance than a Fennec would.
-
For whatever reason, the Federated Suns loved putting a C3 slave in damn near everything during the Civil War and Jihad, but never really got around to designing a unit with a C3 master until the Fennec. Unless I'm forgetting a unit, our C3 master options are pretty much limited to the Avatar, Cyclops, and Fennec.
FedSuns decided to stick most of its masters on semi mobile slabs they called tanks. Ajax, Manteuffel, Challenger XI, Morningstar, etc.
If we're using Swordsworn and House Davion MWDA minis for faction availability, then lets replace our Cavaliers with Elementals or Purifiers.
As a point here, there are quite a few elementals dinking around in the FedSuns. They're just earmarked for units that aren't on the ass end of the outback. Maybe you'll get access to them eventually.
4. The Firestarter FS9-M3 is at best a GM call.
I'll allow it, but I want confirmation from Steve on the change.
-
FedSuns decided to stick most of its masters on semi mobile slabs they called tanks. Ajax, Manteuffel, Challenger XI, Morningstar, etc.
QUESTION!
Can we mix units in lances? Like having a Lance made up of a Fennec, a Thanatos, and two JES IIs?
Or our Manteuffel, Two Axmen, and a JES II?
-
From a LCT doctrine standpoint, that makes perfect sense to do. So no.
The issue is when mission parameters mean that certain units cannot/should not deploy and figure out how lance cohesion should apply. Underwater, space, hot dropping, etc.
In those cases, I can let you: Take a lot of dead weight(not entirely fair),
let you pare off units and replace them with others (which kinda breaks the concept of cohesive lances since there is no reason you couldn't do the same thing in any given mission),
let you pare off the unusable things but leave the slots empty (doable, but again not the best plan),
not let you take lances with said offending units (maintains lance cohesion, at least).
Options 3 and 4 are the best, but they still kinda suck. So no, unless anyone has some bright ideas on this or everyone is fine with hobbling their options severely in some situations.
-
I like cyclopes.
Also, if i need to drop the trantula we will be going with some form of scorpion. As I want a quad, for quads sake. :-\
-
Travis, Mike seems sad. Can he have a Tarantula?
-
I dunno. A Tarantula's a lot of responsibility. Will he feed and take care of it? Take it on walks? Clean out the.. do spiders the size of my fist have litterboxen?
-
Ok, the only Quad I can find that the Suns makes is the Antlion. That is easily available. The Stalking Spider II is being sold to anyone with a spare c-bill. The Jaguar is available in very limited supply.
-
As I don't want to walk the tarantula (as its built to jump at least 7 a turn) we will replace it with a jaguar.
I need some help with the varrient, I am thinking 2 for the light tag, but 1 looks fun for the quad turret.
Also, I did mean the Sr, because something in me likes plasma rifles.
-
Alright, so my final mech selection is the Cyclops, Axman, Stealth, and Enforcer. Good to go.
-
I may have missed something. Do we have any Arrow IV's for which we need a TAG??? If not, I would prefer the FS9-S3 for the greater firepower and ECM.
And another thing; I hate 'bugs' [and bug mechs...and Spiders...and Scorpions...and Tarantulas]. I have a flamer [4 actually] and I WILL use it [them]. ;)
-
I may have missed something. Do we have any Arrow IV's for which we need a TAG??? If not, I would prefer the FS9-S3 for the greater firepower and ECM.
And another thing; I hate 'bugs' [and bug mechs...and Spiders...and Scorpions...and Tarantulas]. I have a flamer [4 actually] and I WILL use it [them]. ;)
Between our two Schiltron Primes, we have four Arrow IVs, but we already have four mechs and five vehicles with TAG, so I think we're already good there.
-
I am thinking 2 for the light tag
Is a Clan TAG system compatible with IS ammo?
Also, I did mean the Sr, because something in me likes plasma rifles.
Oh, the Bushwacker. 'K.
Attached is the version of the Mech List with all changes made up until this point (the specific version of the Jaguar is currently left blank). I now officially hand the care and feeding of it over to our logistics officer.
-
In the meantime, let's talk about lance assignments. Here's my initial take on things:
Lance 1 - C3 Lance 1. Cyclops hangs way back; Enforcer hovers around 14 hexes and provides support. 3 and 4 Spot.
1) Cyclops - TAG
2) Enforcer III
3) Axman - ECM
4) Thunderbolt - ECM, Bloodhound
Lance 2 - C3 Lance 2. Fennec and Warhammer hang back and PPC people some questions; Thantaos and Axeman spot
1) Fennec - TAG
2) Warhammer
3) Axman - ECM
4) Thanatos - ECM
Lance 3 - "Command" Lance - Command Mech and a Scarecrow specialty unit; all short-range stuff to be thrown in on a counterattack
1) Marauder
2) Scarecrow - Bloodhound
3) Shadow Hawk
4) Hellspawn - ECM, TAG, Beagle
Lance 4 - "Battle" Lance. All mid-speed, good firepower and armor, good mix of hole-punch and critseek.
1) Avatar
2) Centurion Omni
3) Bushwacker
4) Blackjack
Lance 5 - "Recon" lance. Mostly fast; the Griffin's speed deficiency doesn't matter so much because long-range weapons.
1) Stealth - TAG
2) Jaguar
3) Griffin
4) Firestarter - ECM
You'll note that almost every lance has at least one ECM and a TAG-capable unit. This ensures that pretty much no matter what our force mix, we'll have those tools available to us. The C3 lances end up with 2 ECM units, which are also the spotters, because that way when the spotters get close (as is their job), they end up hosing the electronics on the OPFOR in the bargain. Having 2 ECM in each C3 lance also increased redundancy; killing one of the units won't shut down the ECM field (plus we can be dicks about Ghost Targets and ECCM if Travis wants to break out those rules...).
Generally speaking, I prefer to design lances around speed profiles to ensure that all units can move and shoot together, but that isn't really possible this time. Mech role and special equipment are largely dictating where things go, which means we're going to have to be careful about lances being separated and destroyed in detail.
The single big, obvious change to this is to swap the Griffin and the Hellspawn. The movement profile of the Spawn fits the recon paradigm better, and it gives the Recon Lance an Active Probe. The issue is that it then deprives the Command Lance of both an ECM and a TAG system. Another change would be to swap the Griffin and the Scarecrow; recon units are more likely to encounter infantry anyway, and it gives the Recon group a Bloodhound Probe. The Scarecrow hinders the mobility of the Recon Lance much more than the Griffin does, however, and doesn't even have the benefit of long-range weapons to make up for that.
It should also be noted that if Mike chooses the Jaguar 2, it comes with a Light TAG and an Active Probe - both of which have obvious benefits to the Recon Lance. The Jag 1 gets a pretty hellacious wallop with an ATM6 on a turret (HE ammo...), but x2 cERMLs and x2 cMPLs slaved to a Tcomp, plus x2, 3-gun cMG arrays isn't exactly a light-hitting loadout either.
Thoughts? Questions? Thrown pottery?
-
Thoughts? Questions? Thrown pottery?
I'd take the Jaguar 2 and then swap the Griffin with the Scarecrow. This would give our recon lance an active probe and allow our recon lance to double as a dedicated anti-infantry lance. I'd also swap the Cyclops and the Fennec. I think the Cyclops has better synergy with the Warhammer and the Fennec will be more at home staying in the background for our more mobile C3 lance. If you want all of our lances to start with ECM coverage, then we could start the Centurion in the B configuration if you want a Guardian ECM or the E configuration if you want an Angel ECM.
-
I'd take the Jaguar 2
Mike's call. Mike?
and then swap the Griffin with the Scarecrow. This would give our recon lance an active probe and allow our recon lance to double as a dedicated anti-infantry lance.
Works for me.
I'd also swap the Cyclops and the Fennec. I think the Cyclops has better synergy with the Warhammer and the Fennec will be more at home staying in the background for our more mobile C3 lance.
Huh, I didn't see that. Good catch. I'm totally OK with that; especially the Fennec pairing into a more mobile lance (forgot the Thud was 5/8/0).
If you want all of our lances to start with ECM coverage, then we could start the Centurion in the B configuration if you want a Guardian ECM or the E configuration if you want an Angel ECM.
I'm actually OK with the Battle Lance not having ECM in favor of better firepower, given that it should be relatively rare that we ever field *just* the Battle Lance out of our forces. As far as I'm concerned, unless the mission makes it obvious, it's up to whomever's driving it.
And everything is subject to the approval of our Glorious People's Commanding Officer (who is totally not a backstabbing Capellan), of course.
-
Vhat is this talk of being Kapellan. Do I sound Kapellan to vou?
Ok, so Jag 2, I like switching the Fennec and Cyclops, I think we need to switch the griffin with something else.
-
Ok, so Jag 2, I like switching the Fennec and Cyclops, I think we need to switch the griffin with something else.
Like, switch out out totally and get a new Mech, or swap it with a unit from another lance? Do you have any suggestions?
-
Switch it with something quicker. The only real choice is the scarecrow, as I think the command lance needs the ECM that the hellspawn provides.
-
Switch it with something quicker. The only real choice is the scarecrow, as I think the command lance needs the ECM that the hellspawn provides.
Oh, I thought you meant something else BESIDES the Scarecrow.
-
Okay, so it sounds like we're done generating forces.
-
Do you have a finalized version of your lance lists?
-
Do you have a finalized version of your lance lists?
Here's Rob's list with the agreed upon changes made:
Lance 1 - C3 Lance 1.
1) Fennec FEC-1CM - TAG
2) Enforcer III ENF-6NAIS
3) Axman AXM-3Sr - ECM
4) Thunderbolt TDR-9Nr - ECM, Bloodhound
Lance 2 - C3 Lance 2.
1) Cyclops CP-11-C - TAG
2) Warhammer WHM-8D
3) Axman AXM-3Sr - ECM
4) Thanatos TNS-4T - ECM
Lance 3 - "Command" Lance
1) Marauder MAD-5T
2) Griffin GRF-6S
3) Shadow Hawk SHD-5D
4) Hellspawn HSN-10SR - ECM, TAG, Beagle
Lance 4 - "Battle" Lance.
1) Avatar G
2) Centurion Omni A
3) Bushwacker BSW-S2r
4) Blackjack Omni D
Lance 5 - "Recon" lance.
1) Stealth STH-2D2 - TAG
2) Jaguar 2 - TAG, Active Probe
3) Scarecrow UCU-F4 - Bloodhound
4) Firestarter FS9-S3 - ECM
Edit: Edited to include variant numbers.
-
Hey, do we have a paint scheme? I have a Hellspawn and a pair of JES IIs that I can work on while commission paintjobs are drying.
-
Since it's an ad-hoc force, I was planning to use different schemes. My Axman and Cyclops will be 17th Avalon Hussars, and my Enforcer III and Stealth are RotS Republic Standing Guard.
Originally, they were all going to be 17th, but then Gunji started his paint-along and I decided that I might as well use units that I needed to paint anyway. So it might be somewhat odd to have Republic Standing Guard in the group, but lots of RotS forces were caught outside the fortress. These guys were on an assignment in Prefecture IV. :D
I have a Chippewa btw (not sure if I have all the parts, but I think I do); should I get it painted up, or does someone else already have a couple ready to go?
-
Hey, do we have a paint scheme? I have a Hellspawn and a pair of JES IIs that I can work on while commission paintjobs are drying.
Mike indicated earlier that he thought a lack of unified paint scheme would be appropriate for our unit due to its ad hoc nature.
Since it's an ad-hoc force, I was planning to use different schemes. My Axman and Cyclops will be 17th Avalon Hussars, and my Enforcer III and Stealth are RotS Republic Standing Guard.
Originally, they were all going to be 17th, but then Gunji started his paint-along and I decided that I might as well use units that I needed to paint anyway. So it might be somewhat odd to have Republic Standing Guard in the group, but lots of RotS forces were caught outside the fortress. These guys were on an assignment in Prefecture IV. :D
I have a Chippewa btw (not sure if I have all the parts, but I think I do); should I get it painted up, or does someone else already have a couple ready to go?
I believe the Capellan March Militia and Republic Standing Guard use basically the same paint scheme, so green and red units aren't really a problem.
-
While painting in different forces may be thematically appropriate, it also can create chaos on the table. So, while a few in a different scheme here and there are ok, I believe we need consistent colors.
So looking at the Davion March militias I have come to the conclusion that Davion's are dickish in their paint schemes. I would say Draconis MM, but painting red mechs to go against red mechs seems boring. There seem to be enough davion units that use a blue/red/white for that to be generic enough. So in the interest of not painting white, I submit that our colors should be blue highlighted with red.
(disclaimers 1) this is not a CO decision, so is open to debate. 2) I am not a fine arts major, so this might be incredibly unpalatable on the eyes)
-
OK, from an artistic perspective, what you generally want is a unifying aesthetic throughout a force. The easiest way to do that is to paint everything the same color. Duh, right?
The next easiest way to do that is to make all the bases match. Use the same flocking, dirt, and base edge color for all units of a given force. That way, even if the paint schemes on the actual minis differ, you've got a uniform element to all the minis. Trouble is, we all have different flock and base fill, and I'd expect it's unreasonable to ask everybody to go buy Woodland Scenics Brown Fine Ballast and Citadel Modeling Grass.
So, there's a third way to do it.
Everyone can paint "mostly" what they want, but everybody ends up with an identical unifying color across each of their individual schemes. The BEST example I can think of for us is "Davion Green". So, for example, let's assume for a moment that we all agree that Davion Green is a 1-to-1 equivalent to GW Snot Green (a bad choice, but roll with it). Here's a list of units that incorporate Davion Green into their paint scheme:
1st Kittery Borderers (green on green camo)
1st Federated Suns Armored Cavalry (Green w/white panels)
1st Capellan Dragoons (green & black countercharged)
20th Avalon Hussars (light gray with tan and green paneling)
42nd Avalon Hussars (light gray with tan and green paneling)
1st Chisholm's Raiders (no cohesive paint scheme...but the unit is nicknamed "The GREEN Giant")
ALL Capellan March Militia units (green with red paneling)
ALL NAIS Cadet Cadre units (flat Davion Green)
ALL Cruicis Lancers units (they all use a base of Davion Green, paneled with other colors)
ALL Syrtis Fusiliers units (flat Green)
...that's a pretty wide selection of units. yeah, it leaves out the Davion Guards, New Ivaarson Chausseurs, Robinson Rangers, Deneb Light Cav, and the Draconis March and Cruicis March Militia regiments...but we're still talking more than half the FedSuns TO&E being available to choose from.
Therefore, my suggestion is to choose a color shared by a lot of units. We agree on a single color from a single supplier (Citadel Snot Green, Vallejo 70.968 #83 Flat Green, etc), and everybody paints some units with that color included. Additionally, we all color all base edges black (no manufacturer equivalency needed for that...). This plan also has the side bonus of ensuring that nobody has to do more than buy a single color of paint - especially if we go with the green since there's a lot of units that just use the flat green with no paneling. That makes a minimal financial effort for everyone.
That's two points of uniformity while still letting people paint the units they want. Make sense?
-
I definitely see the benefit to having a consistent scheme, but I also think we may be over-thinking it a little. I asked this question back when this thread first started, and Travis answered that our forces were likely to be fairly fluid: http://forums.cincybattletech.com/index.php?topic=455.msg4461#msg4461
I think the idea is that missions are likely to be tough, and casualties are expected, and replacement units will come in. Since we don't actually have PC's, I'd think we can expect to see our TO&E change on a regular basis. So, is it worth it to define a consistent color scheme for mechs that could potentially be cored in the opening mission and not used again for awhile? Are we going to expect the replacement mechs to be similarly painted, or will we simply grab the best-painted replacements we've got available?
Just presenting the other side here, I'm happy to go with the group.
My RotS units already fit into the "Davion green" scheme just fine. I used Vallejo Reflective Green (890), if anyone cares, which is readily available at Hobby Lobby. It actually has a much more Davion green look to it than the olive drab that the RotS scheme calls for when basecoated.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm183/Serrate_photos/20130926_002610_zps6e8c4214.jpg) (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/Serrate_photos/media/20130926_002610_zps6e8c4214.jpg.html)
That being said, I don't intend to strip my Axman. ;D
-
Okay, question time. Are we expected to supply the mini's that we chose for the unit?
I do have 2 Axemen that need a good paint job. I can move them to the top of my cue. Of the mechs I chose, I have a Griffin that I wouldn't mind repainting. I am less inclined to repaint my red/grey Shadow Hawk and I don't own a Firestarter. I still have some finishing touches to do on my "Green Arrow" Avatar and I don't know if the greens will match but if someone wants to use it that's fine with me.
-
I have an Avatar, Blackjack, Bushwacker, Centurion, Firestarter, and Warhammer all laying around unpainted. I could probably get some painting done over winter break in December and January. I was planning on painting the Battle Lance up in a tan and red scheme, but I'm pretty flexible in terms of what we do provided that its a fairly straightforward scheme.
-
Okay, question time. Are we expected to supply the mini's that we chose for the unit?
That's true for myself, I'm supplying the Axman, Enforcer III, Stealth, and Cyclops that I chose. However, it's entirely possible that some people chose mechs they like, and yet do not have the minis for.
I think that's perfectly acceptable; however, if someone either doesn't have the minis they chose, or perhaps has them and yet has no inclination to paint them, I think they should let the group know so others can have the opportunity to provide the minis.
I do have 2 Axemen that need a good paint job. I can move them to the top of my cue. Of the mechs I chose, I have a Griffin that I wouldn't mind repainting. I am less inclined to repaint my red/grey Shadow Hawk and I don't own a Firestarter.
I've got one Axman already, so you'd only need to paint one of yours. If you've got a Shadow Hawk in a paintjob you like, I wouldn't repaint it. I'm sure Rob alone has SHD's in every color of the rainbow. I've got a couple unpainted Firestarters, and I was actually thinking of painting one up after seeing your LAM jet exhaust mod. I'll wait and see if anyone else wants to paint one though, since I've still got a Cyclops to finish.
-
If this turns out as lethal as advertised, then I expect a good number of proxies. And odd paint schemes on the field. I would like a cohesive force, but short of the logistical planning that went into the Juneau landing game, it will be impossible to pull that fully off.
Now some base colors would be nice, and I like the suggestion of Davion green. anyone else have a different color choice?