|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 2, 2005 10:51:53 GMT -5
That Bushmaster is pretty much an autocannon. While the type on Predator tanks may be a little larger, the principle is the same.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 2, 2005 11:52:24 GMT -5
I already said that they would count as autocannons in 40k. But thanks.
|
|
Nathan
Scribe
Illuminator
I draw pretty pictures.
Posts: 49
|
Post by Nathan on Jan 2, 2005 12:34:22 GMT -5
Been doing some sketches on the mentioned points so far. Having trouble trying to think about the leg designs. You wanting starwars At-ST style, AT-AT style, dreadnought style, or another? I know in your little sketch you had At-st style ones, those the ones your going for?
-nathan-
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 2, 2005 12:45:26 GMT -5
I'd actually imagined them more like the Battletech Vulture's legs, only slimmer and longer, but AT-ST works too. There's probably lots of different Knight designs, with lots of different legs (The weapon configuration would be similar to that of the Vulture too, by the way)
|
|
Nathan
Scribe
Illuminator
I draw pretty pictures.
Posts: 49
|
Post by Nathan on Jan 2, 2005 12:53:50 GMT -5
Taking into account you wanting jump engines on these things, it would prob work better if the weapons were together hung under the 'nose' rather than at the side. Then again there your 'babies' heh.
Also not sure if those vulture legs would actually work, well efficiently anyways.
-nathan-
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 2, 2005 12:56:45 GMT -5
But taking into account that these babies will be striding through ridiculously deep snow and ice, it would be useful to have weapons on the sides. You don't want to jump out every few seconds to clear the snow that has been packed dense inside your barrels And for long distance combat, it would be very useful to have them as high up as possible, so you could destroy the enemy by just exposing your weapons and targetting system / cockpit. If the weapons are under the nose, you'd have to expose everything but your legs, and you'd make a much bigger target!
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 2, 2005 13:12:56 GMT -5
I want this Knight walker to be as realistic as can be, since I need to figure out if a flying walker is possible at all. Fairy snuff. I haven't looked at the design sequences yet, but it might be possible. The question is to what levels one would wish to go. For example, would 'rare' contra-gravity be a real possibility? This would allow the weight of the walker to be moderated and, therefore, allow for an operable jump pack. Again, though, I shall have to see what the design sequences have to say about it! I'm just 'storming' at the moment, as it were. I realise I might have to reduce size and speed to accomplish flight, but... well, it's an experiment. A good mind-set to have, especially if things don't turn out exactly the way that you think that they would be represented in the 40k universe. Why the pea-shooters? First of all, they're not pea-shooters. They're quite nice against infantry and light/medium armoured vehicles, and most airborne targets, and against heavily armoured targets, you have rockets. Fair enough. It should be interesting to see the relative cost of producing a walker with this weapon type when compared against simpler and more 'traditional' forms of weapon... And then to see how much 'disbelievum' you need to get the thing operational! Actually, never mind the rockets, make it missiles. Ups the price of replenishment a bit, but the increased accuracy and flexibility will more than compensate. Make sense? Oh, it does. But I have to mock the 40k weapon systems. They're just so funny! Sci-fantasy indeed. <snicker> Armoured against what... Everything. The point here being that I'm going to have to model it based upon reasonable assumptions of what weapons are going to be firing against it. For example, how likely is it for another vehicle of the same type to penetrate the armour using the same weaponry? What about a lasgun? A bolter? That type of thing will allow a reasonable production of armour rating for the vehicle... I have a sneaking suspicion that because of how the game tries to represent itself (Wargame Balance, Thematic Army) that the vehicles are going to be horrendously underarmoured... Produced from tractor STC indeed! They're scouting units, useable to break through lightly held enemy positions (infantry, light vehicles) and possibly be used as fire support in large battles. Why the heck would you produce a 10m-tall scout? I know it might be proportionate to the Titans but still... One other thing that springs to mind: - Relative TL of components: You mentioned this above, but just thought that I would get you to reiterate. Remember that none of the 'devices' that are utilised should be more advanced than the computer system.
- What is the control system? Off the top of my head I cannot remember whether Knights use a similar MIU interface that the Titans supposedly do.
- What type of sensors does this thing have? Typical GW approaches would be for a slit in the armour front panel! <snicker>
- On a similar vein, what about targetting systems? I know that GW tends to think that these are horrendously advanced devices that only the Mentor Legion get (kidding), but it would seem reasonable that on a machine like this they would be present. But then again we are dealing with a 10m-tall scout vehicle!
- What type of powerplant do you envisage for this machine?
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 2, 2005 13:38:59 GMT -5
Fairy snuff. I haven't looked at the design sequences yet, but it might be possible. The question is to what levels one would wish to go. For example, would 'rare' contra-gravity be a real possibility? This would allow the weight of the walker to be moderated and, therefore, allow for an operable jump pack. As a last resort, yes. But let's try it with just rocket engines and turbo-fans first Yep! Alright, alright Extremely likely. Almost impossible. Maybe not on the front, but definitely possible in vulnerable spots in the rear, underneath, etc. Of course, this depends on the ammunition used LoL. We'll just say that these were previously STC safari sight-seeing walkers A very good question. First of all, the long legs allow you to adjust height. Second of all, you need long legs for deep snow and for great speed. But 10 meters might be a bit too tall, now that you mention it. As you say, we'll see what height is realistic when you design it. Right? But at least 5 meters. In that case... GTL9 computer, GTL9 jump-system, GTL9 engine/powerplant, GTL8 weapons, GTL8 sensors. The Nova Cerkes ones do, but I want these to be a bit less high tech. Control system would be some kind of fully electronic invention with lots of buttons and joysticks. Helmets with integrated displays.. A combination of slits (protected by blast shields normally, and only used in emergencies) and some more advanced sensors. I'm thinking similar to modern tanks. Stabilised panoramic periscope sight for day/night observation, with thermal imaging LoL! Shut up! No targeting systems as such. Not really necessary. I've no idea. Plasma reactors? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 2, 2005 15:10:06 GMT -5
As a last resort, yes. But let's try it with just rocket engines and turbo-fans first You do understanding that it might end up 'flying' for only around 15 seconds don't you? There is only so much fuel that you can carry and even then one has to balance the logistical and tactical problems of carrying all that extra mass for 15 seconds of flight. Heck, even multiply 'hopping' is going to cause some problems. You're going to have to provide more information on that, I'm afraid. Perhaps a percentile probability that can be used as a guestimate? On a reasonable scale that might be very difficult. Consider, for example, my interpretation of the lasgun. Esentially it counts as a blaster rifle, which does 12d(6) damage, or 12/42/72 points of damage. That's generally not enough to take down a Marine (DR 80/100), though a heavy lasgun/lascannon should be able to (6dx3, or 18/63/108). Now the M242 I cannot find a direct translation for at the moment. Best one from GURPS High Tech is the EX-34 Chaingun (7.62x51mm) with damage of 7d (7/25/48) and a ROF of 9/second... Hmmn. This doesn't include any special ammunition that is used, of course. Otherwise the next thing that springs out is generic 30mm autocannon from GURPS Mecha (230lbs weight, so probably a tad too high) with a 6dx9(3) damage for minimum/average/maximum damage of 9/201/324 and a ROF 12/second, which might be a tad too powerful (and this doesn't even include the armour divisor of 3). A 20mm autocannon (90lbs) has a damage of 6dx7(3) or 7/147/252 not including the armour divisor of, once again, 3... These last two weapons would cut through Marine formations like like a monowire through a human body (cf. Johnny Mnemonic for visual imagery!). The options are quite extensive. GTL8 weapons seem a tad too powerful for what you're after, which means GTL7 or lower are the best option... (This is of course problematic since I don't have the best sourcebooks for 'low-tech weapons' and the various examples come from disparate genre, i.e. "realistic" High Tech and less realistic Mecha.) In terms of armour, however, the main problem that you're dealing with is that the 'lasguns' are proportionately quite powerful. They are just not 'autogun' equivalents that fire ionised gas/light or whatever you want to interpret it as. So to the be immune from Imperium 'light arms fire' minimum armour is, like Marine armour itself, going to be in the 80-100 range. Only problem here is when compared against vehicular weapons. They're going to end up cutting through this like butter. Maybe not on the front, but definitely possible in vulnerable spots in the rear, underneath, etc. Of course, this depends on the ammunition used As always, but this mostly acts to limit the effect of armour (i.e. armour piercing) or as an additional effect (explosive/concusive damage) rather than necessarily increasing the 'damage' caused. LoL. We'll just say that these were previously STC safari sight-seeing walkers <snicker> What more to say to that? Tractors, safari walkers, and not a person amongst the entire universe who can engage their brain... First of all, the long legs allow you to adjust height. Why have a ground-based vehicle that can adjust height when it can capitalise on the local topography and/or be a dedicated flier (e.g. helicopter). You get more bang for your buck that way. Second of all, you need long legs for deep snow and for great speed. Or you don't use a vehicle with a huge pressure footprint, as it were. Still damned tall for a scout, but we'll see how easy it is to take potshots at the thing. And, of course, we're not going to think about connecting two 'sticky' krak grenades by a length of detanator cord and a simple fuse into a form of bola. No... In that case... GTL9 computer, GTL9 jump-system, GTL9 engine/powerplant, GTL8 weapons, GTL8 sensors. Since you're going for something less high-tech, how come you're making all of the physical components other than weapons and sensors about the most complex that a non- adeptus mechanicus Imperial world can produce. Furthermore, as soon as you're going into GTL8 vehicular weapons they begin to make 40k guns look like peashooters... The Nova Cerkes ones do, but I want these to be a bit less high tech. Control system would be some kind of fully electronic invention with lots of buttons and joysticks. Helmets with integrated displays.. Electronic controls with a HUD of some form, but without any form of targetting system despite the use of missiles? A combination of slits (protected by blast shields normally, and only used in emergencies) and some more advanced sensors. I'm thinking similar to modern tanks. Stabilised panoramic periscope sight for day/night observation, with thermal imaging Now we're back into 'targetting systems' amongst other things. All those advanced sensors and nothing to do with them but look out. But you basically want a slit in the control cabin (pilot is seated and not within a 'battlesuit' system) with some really basic thermographic imaging setup? And to have it stabilised despite the fact the weapons are not stabilisied? Is the sensor to have any form of active EM system (e.g. 'radar')? LoL! Shut up! No targeting systems as such. Not really necessary. Noooo... Of course not on a vehicle which has 'stabilisied' thermoptical systems! I've no idea. Plasma reactors? ;D Options vary. I presume that you're not after muscle power (the pilot peddles) and steam engines (god no), but things like internal combusion, Gas/MHD turbines, fuel cells as well as nuclear (including radiothermal generators which I personally use to power, erm, power armour), antimatter, mana engines (working off the warp), soul burners (working off the combined energy of souls attached to the device), total conversion energy sources, etc.
|
|
Nathan
Scribe
Illuminator
I draw pretty pictures.
Posts: 49
|
Post by Nathan on Jan 2, 2005 17:46:35 GMT -5
Due to the fact that I actually dont really read much up on this project, mearly skim and draw what inspires me, this may have been said/asked. What is the aim of this project, to create a good background sector, or to create a 'realistic' 40k enviroment? I ask this because it seems lots of creation is taken up by what seems to be unneeded realism rubbish. I mean there is a point its needed. The idea of making the planets realistic and other points like working out trade, shipping, population etc. However some things I feel are better left to the imagination of sci fi. This vehicle for instance, is something that isnt meant to be realistic. The very idea of using a walking battle weapon is pointless, far easier to use a tank etc. Isnt it better to leave some questions unanswerd? This isnt really aimed at this one thing, just as a whole, where is the line being drawn? This just happened to make me wanna ask... 40K isnt meant to be realistic, its meant to be interesting, inspiring, and above all fantasy. So anyways, I;m only saying this because I;ve been wading through masses of numbers that mean nothing to me, to try and find something to draw I know we dont want startrekisms but hey who cares if it could only fly for 15 seconds... stuff that...It looks cool. -nathan- (this is the only post Ive actually read from page 1-last so thats why I ask. This is also the most Ive written in one post.)
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 2, 2005 18:16:29 GMT -5
LoL! Well, we all have special interests in this project. If you don't like grinding through a lot of numbers and semi-realistic ponderings, then staying out of the Factory forum would be job number one. The very idea of this forum is to try to design things in the Warhammer 40,000 with a sense of realism. If you feel like drawing Knights, then there's very little you really need to know, and it's all here in this thread and in the Greavedale / Nova Cerkes SR. And in my head, if you prefer just asking me.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 2, 2005 18:37:00 GMT -5
Incidentally, CELS, I'm trying to do this with a purchased computer program and am having the odd glitch (i.e. it telling me the legs are of different sizes despite the fact that they are not!). I also did a quick 'design' of a 25mm heavy machinegun on a Universal Mount (this, combined with full rotatation of the 'head' should give decent firing arcs), with damage in 22d+2 range (24/79/134) with a solid slug (this is a cheaper option). The ROF of the weapon is around 3/second/weapon or around 240 shots total for a continual firing time (load is currently 2,000 rounds of 25mm shells) of just under eight minutes. The weapons are linked together so they cause considerable havoc. Weapon damage will inflate considerably in changing it from a solid slug into something else (oh yes, it's currently caseless ammunition). You've also got a 38 FFAR Hydra 70 equivalent load in bilateral 19/ea. muzzle loading missile launchers. Trying to figure out how to get everything to work in this programme, though, so it might be a short while before I can get you statistics. One problem with using a non-nuclear system is that you're dealing with a very short endurance. Fuel useage for a closed cycle MHD turbine (using both gasoline and liquid oxygen) is huge, around 475 gallons combined for a five hour operational cycle. That takes up a not inconsiderable amount of space... (On the bright side, it currently operates in non-standard atmospheres, a feature that might be considered redundant.) (It is this flexibility of options that I'm changing things rather than doing things by hand!) As a scout, despite your comments, I thought it was appropriate to give it a minimal low-res imaging radar (10 mile range) along with the thermographic sensors. (The concept that a scout is basically just somone who eyeballs everything is, for me, entire ludicrous. The counter argument is that electronic warfare makes radar invalid, but there are other ways around this at the TL we're dealing with, e.g. ladar.) Also included in this mix up is an inertial navigation system (doesn't require satellite input) and a laser designator so that the vehicle can 'paint' targets for artillery or ortillery strikes, or whatever. It's only small, but the INS and the radar are whacked into an equipment pod on the 'turret' so that it can be conveniently disabled by a 'lucky shot' or whatever. Erm, methinks that is about it at the moment. Thus far the thing weighs around 30,000 lbs (~13.6 metric tons) and is around 7 metres tall... (Oh, and no 'jump pack' at the moment.) Scout! Humph! Anyway, I'll get to posting the stats when I can figure out all the ins and outs of the programme since I really don't want to do it by hand... Just to repeat that for the third time, or whatever. And now onto Nathan's post, one that I found really quite surprising, though perhaps less so given the opening words... Due to the fact that I actually dont really read much up on this project, mearly skim and draw what inspires me, this may have been said/asked. It has done on numerous times, so don't worry about it. Perhaps there should be a FAQ up in Introduction just to make it rather obvious, though since people never seem to read them... <sigh> What is the aim of this project, to create a good background sector, or to create a 'realistic' 40k enviroment? Without wanting to sound too arrogant, anyone can create a background sector. You only need to look at the Gothic sector (or what I have seen published on it) to see that it really doesn't take that much effort. You need a few paragraphs of description of worlds and, since it's a wargame, ten times that in description of the various military units and - whammo! - you're up and running. So the aim is to create, as much as possible, a realistic and consistent approach to the 40k universe. One where we do not automatically accept things because GW says it is true, but rather see how things operate in real life - or rather abstractions of real life since it is a sci-fantasy game (hence the utilisation of RPG) - and then extend them to the 40k universe. It's easy to say that a bolter is 'high tech' and that's the reason that Marines use them, but then you see them scattered around the galaxy in the hands of 'hive scum' and you begin to wonder since, after all, it is just a 'bolt' (read: micro-missile) launch tube. I ask this because it seems lots of creation is taken up by what seems to be unneeded realism rubbish. It's okay to think so. Personally I believe far too much time is spent on creating all the rubbish wargame information on regiments, etc., but the whole purpose is that we interact wargame and RPG to create something which is useable to both. Paragraph descriptions are useable to both, admittedly, but it takes a whole lot more work to create an RPG out of the superficial descriptions that we are used to with GW. Furthermore, thinking about all the details tends to reveal the complexities rather than just having some hand-waved interpretation which is so common in the 'fluff'. This vehicle for instance, is something that isnt meant to be realistic. There is that. Titans and Knights and their ilk are not meant to be realistic, merely 'cool'. But they are a part of the 'fluff'. Creating more detailed statistics is an intriguing way by which the 'reality' of the situation (or, rather abstraction) can be brought to what is otherwise one of the more excessive engagements of hand-waving coupled with imagery. It's easy to say that such-and-such corporation is going to have five battlecruisers as its own personal fleet, but when one tempers that with the thought that it would 'cost' them the combined wealth of a world for years... Well, one begins to automatically tone down some of the more ludicrous assumptions. And, of course, when the design doesn't work and it's such an important part of the universe? Well, then you have to fudge it a bit. The very idea of using a walking battle weapon is pointless, far easier to use a tank etc. That is part of the point. If something is stupid we acknowledge it. If it is a powerful part of the 40k universe rather than just some superficial image then we have to look more carefully. One might consider this Greavedale 'Knight' as a 'Scout'. One counterargument to the large size is, quite simply, it was designed for an entirely different scale of conflict. Yep, an armoured vehicle with a low profile makes more sense, but Knights and Titans are one of those inescapable parts of the 'fluff' despite all the hand-waving. But would one really have a forward observation platform - a scout - whose many sensory system is the guy hanging outside of the door and shooting, "He's over here" while waving at an air-to-ground strike force? 40k works as a wargame because it is internally consistent if patently unrealistic. What it would be nice to see is more 'war' in there and less 'game'. Isnt it better to leave some questions unanswerd? No. The only stupid question is the one not asked. We might not describe everything in detail, or decide to come back to it at a later date, but using the concept of 'mystery' as a cudgel of acceptance or conformance is not the way forward for the project. This isnt really aimed at this one thing, just as a whole, where is the line being drawn? This just happened to make me wanna ask... That's fine. The line is, ultimately, flexible. 40K isnt meant to be realistic, its meant to be interesting, inspiring, and above all fantasy. It claims to be sci-fantasy. It should earn the 'sci' portion of that title rather than just having 'barbarian knights' with rayguns. Of course, it is sometimes horrifying to see more 'realistic' fantasy worlds than 40k! So anyways, I;m only saying this because I;ve been wading through masses of numbers that mean nothing to me, to try and find something to draw If you want something to draw I can more than readily suggest examples. Something that catches your imagination... Now that's something that I cannot control. I know we dont want startrekisms but hey who cares if it could only fly for 15 seconds... stuff that...It looks cool. Ah, the Rule of Cool otherwise known as Style over Substance. It has its place in the project in the provision of the image of the 40k universe. The project has always been concerned with balancing the Style with the Substance, something that is not always (in fact, never really) attempted. There are times when you have to throw up your hands and go "Whatever! I believe! I believe!" but that is the last resort. As CELS say, it is a matter of preference. But the idea is as much as possible to get wargamers working together with roleplayers or, at least, providing a detailed environment that is suitable for both and thereby increasing the depth of the universe. We are trying for more than just describing paragraph planets where armies can "Blow sh*t up on!"
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 2, 2005 18:50:28 GMT -5
You do understanding that it might end up 'flying' for only around 15 seconds don't you? There is only so much fuel that you can carry and even then one has to balance the logistical and tactical problems of carrying all that extra mass for 15 seconds of flight. Heck, even multiply 'hopping' is going to cause some problems. We'll see what comes up. Like I said, contra-grav is not out of the question. Erm... I guess a 30 mm cannon (with AP ammo) would have a 90% chance of penetrating the front armour, and a 100% chance of penetrating other armour. In my head, the lasgun is very similar to a 7.62 mm rifle. And a 7.62 mm rifle would be absolutely useless against the front armour I had in mind, unless you have a fantastic amount of rounds per second. Maybe a 5% chance of penetrating the rear armour. 7.62 mm is not acceptable at all. That's an infantry weapon. 30 mm is perfect. That's what I was originally working on. The 25 mm I suggested weighs 242.5 lbs The options are quite extensive. GTL8 weapons seem a tad too powerful for what you're after, which means GTL7 or lower are the best option... (This is of course problematic since I don't have the best sourcebooks for 'low-tech weapons' and the various examples come from disparate genre, i.e. "realistic" High Tech and less realistic Mecha.) Yep, I know. But this walker is not meant to shrug of vehicular weapons. It is a highly mobile weapons platfom, and it counts on not getting shot at by vehicles. Same as helicopters, in a way. They don't like getting shot at by vehicular weapons either. Sure. Assuming you're not impressed by Nathan's post, I'd have to say that a walker could be very useful in a scout role or long range combat. Its legs allow it to easily pop up from behind a ridge or treeline and duck again. Extremely useful, that is. Why not a helicopter? Well, a helicopter is a lot higher up. In some landscape, a helicopter would be vulnerable where a walker would not. Even if the walker is 5-10 meters tall. We've been over this before. Even vehicles that spread their weight over a large area (i.e. tracked vehicles) can get stuck if they're heavy. Now, snowmobiles are quite maneuverable, but add some armour and some heavy firepower, and they're not. Plus, snowmobiles don't have the maneuverability of a fast and light walker. LoL! I'm going to assume you meant to put a joking smiley there Then we stick with our 40k guns. As for the low-tech stuff, it's because Greavedale is GTL6. Having a lot of warmachines that are GTL9 or 10 would be extremely expensive, wouldn't it? Not to mention that the local engineers wouldn't know how to change the oil, so you'd need lots of tech priests to babysit them during war. Right, forgot about the missiles, didn't I? Make them laser-guided perhaps? I think that would be more 40k than anything else. TOW equivalents might be appropriate as well, but let's stick with laser-guided. Hm. Heh. Good point about the weapons. Well, make them stabilised as well. A must for an advanced walker, I guess. I don't want the vision slits to have thermographic imaging. I want periscopes with thermographics, and leave some slits in the front for emergencies. So, if your periscope is shot to pieces, you open the blast doors protecting the slits, and bob's your uncle... No thanks. Keep it cheap. Erm... what? Well... nuclear energy sounds interesting. What are radiothermal generators?
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 2, 2005 19:08:02 GMT -5
Incidentally, CELS, I'm trying to do this with a purchased computer program and am having the odd glitch (i.e. it telling me the legs are of different sizes despite the fact that they are not!). I certainly hope they're not One problem with using a non-nuclear system is that you're dealing with a very short endurance. Fuel useage for a closed cycle MHD turbine (using both gasoline and liquid oxygen) is huge, around 475 gallons combined for a five hour operational cycle. That takes up a not inconsiderable amount of space... (On the bright side, it currently operates in non-standard atmospheres, a feature that might be considered redundant.)[/quote] Very redundant, since these Knights were designed specifically for Greavedale. What about nuclear systems then? Well... once again drawing upon my extensive ( ) experience from the army, I'd have to say that a periscope with thermographical imaging is a very, very powerful tool for a scout. Especially when such a periscope on a Leo-1 tank can detect heat differences as low as 0.2 degrees celsius, and have people 3 kilometers away light up like a sun. I've seen a rabbit in the forest from maybe over a kilometer away, at night. You can get by without a radar. But what the hell, throw it in there if it's not too heavy So now we start wondering how we can make it lighter? Or do you want to see what a TL9 'jump pack' can do to this thing? Appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 2, 2005 22:29:03 GMT -5
We'll see what comes up. Like I said, contra-grav is not out of the question. It does, however, see fairly redundant to include what I currently model (! note that currently!) as GTL10 systems being used on what is in essence a GTL8 vehicle. You've already got a system that requires maintenance by adeptus mechanicus personnel so is it really that much of an extension to arm it with plasma guns, lascannons, meltaweaponry, etc.? Erm... I guess a 30 mm cannon (with AP ammo) would have a 90% chance of penetrating the front armour, and a 100% chance of penetrating other armour. Just so you know, AP ammo has an armour divisor if (2), so that means the armour is halved. Any 'damage' that gets through the modified armour is then halved. I'm currently working on solid 'slug' ammunition as a standard, since the damange gets even more ridiculous when you start heading towards APDS, APEX, etc. In my head, the lasgun is very similar to a 7.62 mm rifle. And a 7.62 mm rifle would be absolutely useless against the front armour I had in mind... This is where we get into problems of comparing weapons to the 40k universe, which is about as realistic as fighting a sword battle against an expert while armed only with a piece of wet lettuce. Guess it is going to have to be working up from the light arms and getting those to function and realising that when GW copied the WFB rules they didn't really think about infantry support weapons, any sense of verisimilitude when they considered tank weapons, etc. 7.62 mm is not acceptable at all. That's an infantry weapon. Wonderful tone there, CELS. I had already decided to redesign the weapon itself in GURPS Vehicles... 30 mm is perfect. That's what I was originally working on. The 25 mm I suggested weighs 242.5 lbs As above, in any tempered represention of the 40k universe that is enough firepower to cut through any infantry, and that includes Marines in power armour! It also means that any vehicle (e.g. tank) capable of withstanding autocannon fire is going to be immune from a hellish amount of weaponry). Of course, this is just off the top of my head and any movement to a bit of plausibility is going to be great. Just no 0% casualty rates if Marines charge at this begger! The autocannon will fillet them like so much chicken breasts... It is a highly mobile weapons platfom, and it counts on not getting shot at by vehicles. Despite being at least 6.5 metres tall? Well, guess that helicopters are that long, so... And what would you like as the 'standard' round for these horrendously powerful cannons? Assuming you're not impressed by Nathan's post... You mean the one where we ignore anything sense of plausibility and go with everything because it is 'cool'? Not overtly... Extremely useful, that is. Or it could simply put a low profile scout with a periscope into reverse... In some landscape, a helicopter would be vulnerable where a walker would not. Not for the skilled pilot... And trees don't count. The walker is going to find it difficult to go through those as well! ;D We've been over this before. Even vehicles that spread their weight over a large area (i.e. tracked vehicles) can get stuck if they're heavy. Yes but a titan? That bugger could practically liquify the ground! <grin> LoL! I'm going to assume you meant to put a joking smiley there It was tongue-in-ceek but these things are horrendously vulnerable. Then we stick with our 40k guns. Is this where vehicles are armed with BB guns? As for the low-tech stuff, it's because Greavedale is GTL6. Having a lot of warmachines that are GTL9 or 10 would be extremely expensive, wouldn't it? Ah, GTL 8-9 with transmission systems, material science, etc., but not weapons. (This is tongue-in-cheek. With some hand-waving it works, but also presumably means that we should be working with lower tech guns...) Right, forgot about the missiles, didn't I? Make them laser-guided perhaps? Well, it does have a laser designator but also means that you're reduced to something more like 6 missiles... I want periscopes with thermographics Periscopes with thermographics? How about I just call it a sensor boom and not have the pilot looking through a 'submarine'-esque periscope. No thanks. Keep it cheap. The radar actually costs around $50,000 compared to the $45,000 for the 25mm cannons, the $20,000 for the thermographics and actually makes the vehicle semi-useful. Admittedly, taking it out would reduce the power requirement by 0.01kW and make the thing worth (at present) $650,000... (Marine PA is around $150,000...) Well... nuclear energy sounds interesting. What are radiothermal generators? The 40k equivalent would be 'stacked atomic chain' reactors, such as those used in Marine PA (for me). A (currently) 310kW RTG would up the price by ~$200,000 but would extend the endurance of the vehicle to up to 0.5 years of continual operation. As you can see, they are horrendously expensive. Taking out the close cycle to the MHD reduces the cost a bit and would increase the endurnace to around 8 hours. I certainly hope they're not That would be an error in the software, I'm guessing. Well... once again drawing upon my extensive () experience from the army, I'd have to say that a periscope with thermographical imaging is a very, very powerful tool for a scout. You're getting into function and scale again. It would be cheaper to send out a Marine or even servitor with thermographic goggles then spending all of this money on the Scout. But then again, with the current weapon systems it would be slightly more... erm... aggressive! You can get by without a radar. But what the hell, throw it in there if it's not too heavy 40lbs compared to 10lbs for the thermographic imaging system (range of 5 miles, incidentally). So now we start wondering how we can make it lighter? Or do you want to see what a TL9 'jump pack' can do to this thing? I'd have to design the thing from scratch using some form of jet engine, at a guess. Wish I could say the same about the new signature of yours, CELS! Later Edit: Darned. Might just have to use the GURPS Mecha sequences until I can figure out what is wrong with GURPS Vehicle Designer (other than user error, which I'm fairly certain I know about already! ).
|
|