[BT][Design]

[Seamus]

Type/Model: Tiger TGR-3N
Tech: Inner Sphere/3025
Config: Biped BattleMech
Rules: Level 1, Standard design

Mass: 75 tons
Chassis: Strakor Tiger-6 Standard
Power Plant: 300 Vlar Fusion
Walking Speed: 43.2 km/h
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h
Jump Jets: None
Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor Type: ArcShield VII Mk 5 Standard
Armament:
2 Diverse Optics Type 18 Medium Lasers
1 FarFire-15 LRM 15
1 Crusher SH 150mm Autocannon/20

Manufacturer: Strakor Corporation
Location: Menke
Communications System: Datacom 26
Targeting & Tracking System: Dynatec 128C

==Overview:==
In 2870, The Capellan Confederation commissioned Strakor for a new close
support Combat Mech. The requirements included both long and short-range
firepower, sufficient armor protection, and a top speed of sixty
kilometers per hour. After several months of design work, the first
prototype suffered severe malfunction with its fusion plant, causing the
machine to overheat greatly during testing. The cause of the problem was
discovered to be a defect leading to a stress fracture in the magnetic
bottle around the Vlar engine. The flaw was promptly corrected.

The first TGR-3N Tiger was delivered to the Confederation in March 2871.
Since then, the Tiger has been shipped to the Draconis Combine and Free
Worlds League in limited numbers.

==Capabilities:==
Protected by ten and a half tons of ArcShield VII Mark 5 armor and armed
with a deadly 150mm autocannon, the Tiger is a lethal opponent within 270
meters. Its FarFire fifteen-tube long-range missile system enables the
Mech to soft up enemy armor from a distance, as well as support its
lancemates. The autocannon is supported by a pair of Diverse Optics
medium lasers.

The Tiger's sixteen heat sinks are capable of keeping the machine cool
unless the MechWarrior gets overzealous with his weapons fire.

[Source: The Tiger was originally designed by Ralph H Reed.]

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Tiger TGR-3N
Mass: 75 tons

Equipment: Crits Mass
Int. Struct.: 114 pts Standard 0 7.50
Engine: 300 Vlar 6 19.00
Walking MP: 4
Running MP: 6
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: 16 Single 4 6.00
(Heat Sink Loc: 1 HD, 1 LT, 1 LL, 1 RL)
Gyro: 4 3.00
Cockpit, Life Supt., Sensors: 5 3.00
Actuators: L: Sh+UA+LA R: Sh+UA+LA 14 .00
Armor Factor: 168 pts Standard 0 10.50

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head: 3 9
Center Torso: 23 26
Center Torso (Rear): 9
L/R Side Torso: 16 20/20
L/R Side Torso (Rear): 5/5
L/R Arm: 12 17/17
L/R Leg: 16 20/20

Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Crits Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Medium Laser RA 3 1 1.00
1 LRM 15 LA 5 8 4 8.00
(Ammo Locations: 1 LT)
1 Autocannon/20 RT 7 10 12 16.00
(Ammo Locations: 2 RT)
1 Medium Laser CT 3 1 1.00

--
"Morning! How's it feel to strapped to a walking nuke reactor at six
A.M.? Bet yer wishing you'd studied harder in school!"
-Segeant Gunther, Hansen's Roughriders (Mecwarrior 2: Mercenaries)

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>Seems like a fairly classic heavy all-rounder, but I wonder if the
>weight of the AC/20 robs you of too much elsewhere - particularly in
>armour, where you're down in the Marauder-Warhammer sort of range,

And a Warhammer is going to brutalise you with PPCs on the way in (let
alone considering what an Awesome will do, but then it is an Awesome). Is
it just too heavy for a 4/6/0? (Huh, no, 75's optimal internal volume for
a 4/6/0...)
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Stilday, April - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Gorgonzoladay, April - a weekend.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:

>On 2013-04-23, David Damerell wrote:
>>And a Warhammer is going to brutalise you with PPCs on the way in (let
>>alone considering what an Awesome will do, but then it is an Awesome).

>Well, this one's certainly not a duellist - with just the LRM-15 for
>long range it's going to need a friendly city or solid lancemates to
>get up close. But the Victor 9B is even worse in that regard, with
>nothing that can do damage outside range 9.

The Victor would not be top of my list under many circumstances. In fact,
I think it's somewhere on the list that starts "JagerMech" and "Banshee".
(In particular, I think it fails the "would I rather have three Locusts
with three Medium Lasers apiece" test).

[Seamus]

On Tuesday February 23rd, 2013 David Damerell

<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> The Victor would not be top of my list under many circumstances. In fact,
> I think it's somewhere on the list that starts "JagerMech" and "Banshee".

Leave the Jager alone. It may not be a duellist, but many a MechWarrior who
has encountered one acting as support for a lance has found his 'Mech torn
to scrap by autocannon rounds. :)

> (In particular, I think it fails the "would I rather have three Locusts
> with three Medium Lasers apiece" test).

Eh, it's a Ralph Reed design, and one I figured would appeal to Capellan
eccentricities. I'm going for flavor, not max efficiency.

--
"Down my Wolverine's arms, it read 'SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam'.
Kilmer's Warhammer looked OK until you walked around it, and the whole rear
torso, in big yellow letters, screamed 'LARD'. We were both laughing, but
Williams took one look, grabbed Farbers' wrench and chased her until we
grabbed him. Up and down both his 'Mechs legs and on its right torso, like
a badge it read 'Processed Chicken'."
-Life In The Big City, CITYTECH

[David Damerell]

Quoting Seamus <eatabul...@yourface.net>:
><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>The Victor would not be top of my list under many circumstances. In fact,
>>I think it's somewhere on the list that starts "JagerMech" and "Banshee".
>Leave the Jager alone. It may not be a duellist, but many a MechWarrior who
>has encountered one acting as support for a lance has found his 'Mech torn
>to scrap by autocannon rounds. :)

At 14 points maximum per turn? An Archer would be scarier (or a Catapult,
or a Trebuchet, etc) - particularly since on closing the range it would be
necessary to do more than sneeze on it.

It doesn't help that the AC/5 is the most weight-inefficient 3025 weapon
(you'd never take two over a PPC, including heat sinks), if one regards
MGs as a specialised anti-infantry weapon.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Gorgonzoladay, April - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Potmos, May.

[Seamus]

On Wednesday April 24th, 2013 Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201304

@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>
>>Leave the Jager alone. It may not be a duellist, but many a
>>MechWarrior who has encountered one acting as support for a lance has
>>found his 'Mech torn to scrap by autocannon rounds. :)
>

> The Jager certainly has its look going for it (apart from those
> vision-blocking pauldron-eseque things), but the armour is made of
> cornflake boxes and baked-bean tins. If I ended up with one of those,
> I'd be distinctly tempted to strip out the /5s and drop in a bunch
> more /2s and some more armour, and use it for dedicated fire support.
>
> ("If we give them medium lasers, it'll just tempt them to close the
> range.")

The Jager is a specialist. If you're not standing on a hill (or hardenend
building) and your opponent is within 270 meters, you've already screwed
up.

>>Eh, it's a Ralph Reed design, and one I figured would appeal to
>>Capellan eccentricities. I'm going for flavor, not max efficiency.
>

> Absolutely. I'm not tearing it apart to be mean to you, just looking
> at (oh dear) thirty-plus years of playing this game and applying
> experience. :-)

No offense taken; I wouldn't post it to Usenet if I didn't expect some
feedback. :)

I'm just about behind you in experience: I started in 1990, but I've got
the same preference for the Third and Fourth Succesion Wars that you do.
Battletechnology Magazine is my preferred reading material for the mood.

--
的t's a sad comment on urban living when you see a Battle Master mug a
Phoenix Hawk in a blind alley."

[Seamus]

On Wednesday April 24th, 2013 David Damerell

<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Quoting Seamus <eatabul...@yourface.net>:
>><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>The Victor would not be top of my list under many circumstances. In
>>>fact, I think it's somewhere on the list that starts "JagerMech" and
>>>"Banshee".
>>Leave the Jager alone. It may not be a duellist, but many a
>>MechWarrior who has encountered one acting as support for a lance has
>>found his 'Mech torn to scrap by autocannon rounds. :)
>
> At 14 points maximum per turn?

...And it's _exactly_ that mentality that lends to it.

> An Archer would be scarier (or a
> Catapult, or a Trebuchet, etc) - particularly since on closing the
> range it would be necessary to do more than sneeze on it.

It's a trade-off.

The JM6-S JagerMech costs 5.2M C-Bills at 65 tons, the damage is
relatively consistent, it won't overheat and it can keep firing for some
time. The main drawback is that the Jager isn't really intended to take
fire.

The ARC-2R Archer costs 6.3M C-Bills at 70 tons. Yeah, it can inflict up
to 40 damage, but the actual damage will be all over the spectrum. Bonus
points are that if something gets in melee, an Archer has hands.

As a bonus point- in a game like Ralph Reed's Mechforce or Solaris (where
movement and firing are segmented, and weapons hae cycling times) the
autocannons are a tad more effective.

> It doesn't help that the AC/5 is the most weight-inefficient 3025
> weapon (you'd never take two over a PPC, including heat sinks), if one
> regards MGs as a specialised anti-infantry weapon.

The large laser is the best weapon in the game in 3025. The LRM 10 would
be great- if the missile chart didn't absolutely fail in the 10 column.

--
“So Howard didn't die a hero's death.”

“The sonuvabitch didn't die. He must've landed on his head. He's getting
a new arm and leg, and if anyone wants to pull his 'Mech out of the
rubble, we can have a crazy, bionic Locust pilot to contend with.”

“No thanks. And the moral of the story is: don't run in the city.”

“No, the moral of the story is: Locust pilots are the weirdest.”

[Seamus]

On Thursday April 25th, 2013 Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201304
@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:

> For <20% more cost you get >60% more battle value - and yes, I know
> BV's not a perfect tool, but it does try to reflect both firepower and
> survivability. I think that the JM6-S is trying to be a Warhammer
> (i.e. most of the way into the firepower corner of the
> firepower-armour-speed triangle) but is being tripped up by the weight
> inefficiency of its weapons.

Yeah. I think it was more of a "fluff" 'Mech. The point I was making is
that almost everyone sees the JagerMech as a 65-ton beer can, which makes
it hilarious when someone loses a 'Mech to one while he was focusing on
fighting the "real 'Mechs" during the engagement.

>>As a bonus point- in a game like Ralph Reed's Mechforce or Solaris
>>(where movement and firing are segmented, and weapons hae cycling
>>times) the autocannons are a tad more effective.
>

> Fair enough, though I have to assume the standard game unless
> specified otherwise.

Certainly; this was more of an off-hand comment.

>>On Wednesday April 24th, 2013 David Damerell
>><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> It doesn't help that the AC/5 is the most weight-inefficient 3025
>>> weapon (you'd never take two over a PPC, including heat sinks), if
>>> one regards MGs as a specialised anti-infantry weapon.
>
>>The large laser is the best weapon in the game in 3025. The LRM 10
>>would be great- if the missile chart didn't absolutely fail in the 10
>>column.
>

> That didn't seem consistent with my memories, so I worked up some
> numbers.

> What I see from this matches my recollection that the medium laser is
> the best weapon that's not ultra-short-ranged,

You raise some very good points, and I appreciate the comparison. Here's
where I was coming from:

The medium laser is the most balanced weapon in the game. I'm surprised
that TRO:3025 didn't have an equivalent of the Komodo.

The large laser burns off a half-ton of armor with every hit and shares
range with the AC/10. That is balanced well by its 8 heat. It's a good
tradeoff, and it makes for a great primary weapon on a medium 'Mech.

My mention of the LRM-10 rack comes at the suggestion of a friend back in
the late '90s.

The LRM-10 weighs as much as a large laser (barring ammo- I'm getting to
that.) and has the potential of inflicting 10 damage (scattered) at long
range. The trade-offs are limited ammunition (the ammo itself being a
liability in the event of a breach), and then there's the 6-hex minumum
distance and inconsistent damage.

These days I agree that it's best to use an LRM-15 or -20 where possible.

> and the AC/2 doesn't do terribly well even when its range is taken into
> account. The AC/5 isn't great but its range pushes it up the second
> table a bit, and it comes out not much worse than the PPC. If you're
> using missiles, always take the biggest available launcher, but in the
> 3-hex short-range bracket a rack of medium lasers is a better
> investment than SRM-6s or AC/20s (except for the possibility of a one-
> shot kill with the /20). (Hurrah for the Swayback.)

The AC/20 has its place: it's the only autocannon that inflicts more
damage than it weighs and the only weapon that can headcap in the
Succession Wars. This combination makes any unit carrying one fall into
either the primary-target or area-denial categories.

--
"It's a sad comment on urban living when you see a Battlemaster mug a

Phoenix Hawk in a blind alley."

[Seamus]

On Thursday April 25th, 2013 Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201304
@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:

> On 2013-04-25, Seamus wrote:
>>The medium laser is the most balanced weapon in the game. I'm surprised
>>that TRO:3025 didn't have an equivalent of the Komodo.
>

> It kind of does, but it's hidden - the HBK-4P "Swayback". Eight medium
> lasers on top of 23 heat sinks, so even at full jump you're only
> gaining five heat. The only thing it loses from the HBK-4G is the
> damage concentration. (Also the pilots don't go deaf in their right
> ears.)

I'd forgotten about the weapons loadout on the Swayback. While we're on
the topic of variants, there's an odd Marauder version I put together for
Mechforce eons ago.

> Incidentally I took the tables from my previous article and posted
> them at http://tekeli.li/battletech/weapeff.html with javascripty
> goodness to allow sorting.

Awesome!

>>The AC/20 has its place: it's the only autocannon that inflicts more
>>damage than it weighs and the only weapon that can headcap in the
>>Succession Wars. This combination makes any unit carrying one fall into
>>either the primary-target or area-denial categories.
>

> Yes, it's very interesting to observe the psychological effect when an
> AC/20-armed unit comes onto the table in the 3025-ish era. Almost
> always I find it becomes the primary target for enemy fire - which
> isn't great when it's a thin-skin like the Victor, but even a Victor
> (or a Hunchback) can survive by jumping around and taking the
> occasional pot-shot to keep the enemy's attention with that terrifying
> big gun while the rest of the lance gets stuck in.

Hmm, is there a way to bolt a 'Mech around the thing and keep movement at
5/8 or better? Hmm...

> I'm less convinced by the slow 'Mech plus short-range weapons that we
> see in the other canonical AC/20 designs, and it's noticeable that
> they're all variants (UrbanMech, Charger, Banshee).

Slipshod attempts at wrapping an existing chassis around the gun, and it
shows in each of them; even the original concept of the Centurion seemed
like a poor man's Hunchback to me.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:

>On 2013-04-24, David Damerell wrote:
>>It doesn't help that the AC/5 is the most weight-inefficient 3025 weapon
>>(you'd never take two over a PPC, including heat sinks), if one regards
>>MGs as a specialised anti-infantry weapon.

>Isn't the AC/2 worse?

Errr, yes. I forgot about it because I think of it mainly as an amusing
joke on unsuspecting designers.

--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!

Today is Olethros, May - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be First Monday, May.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
> PPC 10.00 17.00 0.5882
> Autocannon/5 5.00 9.50 0.5263

This says it all, given that the range breaks are identical. When the AC/5
has all the additional downsides of ammo weapons (and, all things being
equal, a requirement for heat is better than a requirement for weight,
especially on small 'Mechs - imagine trying to do the Panther with 2xAC/5)
and no advantages (critfinding, maybe, but obviously the PPC scores well
on headfinding), if it also is less damage/sysweight efficient, it's a
joke.

--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!

Today is Olethros, May - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be First Monday, May.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:

>On 2013-05-02, David Damerell wrote:
>>Errr, yes. I forgot about it because I think of it mainly as an amusing
>>joke on unsuspecting designers.

>Yeah, but it _should_ work dashitall. There's a role for pretty much
>every other weapon in the game, at least if you sometimes play against
>infantry.

Suppose the enemy, with a large assortment of PPCs and LRMs, is holed up
behind Partial Cover, with a barren wasteland between. Stop at range 22
and plink away with AC/2s.

... this looks better than it might do if we're using broken Partial Cover
rules, I guess.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Today is First Tuesday, May.
Tomorrow will be First Wednesday, May.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:

>On 2013-05-03, David Damerell wrote:
>>... this looks better than it might do if we're using broken Partial Cover
>>rules, I guess.

>That's something that Total Warfare finally seems to have got right:
>+1 to hit, and if the attack hits a concealed location it hits the
>cover instead. The older version that gave a penalty to hit but then
>used the punch table was... distinctly iffy.

We house-ruled it as "roll to hit normally, but leg hits and torso hits
where either hit location die shows a 5 are misses", which works quite
well... after a particularly egregious case of people maneuvering to put
opponents _into_ partial cover.