|
Every lance needs a (Master) Sergeant backing up the lance leader. To make that more obvious, the existing Sergeants had their ranks bumped to Mechwarrior. The command lance already had 2 Master Sergeants, and because a new one wasn't picked up that meant one of the existing had to move into the scout lance. Between the two, only Grandpa had any experience to spend picking up a light 'mech certification.
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
Ah, bureaucracy!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 08:25
|
|
|
TheParadigm posted:Huh. Do each of the lances have a hot spare pilot? Slightly surprising to not see both condor and vulture in their lams. Vulture's random SPAs managed to roll Terrain Master (Mountaineer), so I can definitely understand why they got deprioritized for the LAMs, which I am led to believe have a different and pointedly non-compatible strategy for dealing with terrain (putting Marksman on the Gauss Rifle also doesn't hurt).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 08:59
|
|
|
Mercury's character sheet is missing the unit picture.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
painedforever posted:Mercury's character sheet is missing the unit picture. PoptartsNinja posted:PTN’s note: I’m still working on some sprites, I’ll get the ‘Mech and Vehicle status updated ASAP. I just didn't want to delay this any more.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 23:44
|
|
|
Ok, it took me way too long to hammer this out, but I'm really pleased with it. And with the custom Thunderbird sprite. Will get the Aerospace assets posted ASAP tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 04:43
|
|
|
That's an absolutely sick looking sprite! (Also a good as hell looking loadout, too)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 04:47
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:Ok, it took me way too long to hammer this out, but I'm really pleased with it. And with the custom Thunderbird sprite.  That looks fantastic, PTN
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 04:47
|
|
|
Fully sick
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
Looking forward to a combined arms approach looking sick as hell
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 05:47
|
|
|
Great spritework! For some reason Aerospace sprites are really satisfying to make. They're also nice and simple since most are pretty much symmetrical. Fun fact, years ago the MegaMek dev team wanted spritework for several canon Aerospace units, and I wound up submitting a bunch. I've just checked, and what do you know, all of them are still in the game. (For the curious, my ones are the Aquila, Cutlass, Koroshiya, Lucifer III, Mengquin, Morgenstern, Picaroon, Poignard, Rondel, Sagittarii, Schrack, Shikra, Simurgh, Sternensturm, Suzaku, Umbra, Wildkatze and Yun. I also submitted designs for the Spectral LAMs, but these seem to have been replaced when all of the Battlemech sprites were standardised.)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
Alright, got those squared away. Enjoy the sneak preview of the company's new colorscheme.  I was sorely tempted to make the Rapier goofy and lopsided to match its OG art. 
PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 00:18 on May 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
That is impressively uneven for a craft that's suppossed to be able to operate in atmosphere
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 00:46
|
|
|
Newer art is much better, and is what I based my sprite on. But at the same time, the lopsided old Rapier is almost certainly why some Rapier variants have the "atmospheric instability" negative quirk. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 01:06
|
|
|
Big fan of the new colorscheme. Did the artist just run out of space and start over of the OG art? Thats the only way I can explain the pod looking things at one wingtip and the middle of the wing.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
I think it's an entirely deliberate attempt to make a severely asymmetric aircraft, it's just that it's a rare thing for a good reason.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
Our colour scheme is looking disturbingly non-spastic, but im sure itll buff out.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 07:30
|
|
|
Those are awesome looking sprites. What are you using to make them?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:Newer art is much better, and is what I based my sprite on. There was research some years ago about aircraft with lopsided wings. Or rather, "Oblique wings". The NASA AD-1, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
Wikipedia has a whole Asymmetrical Aircraft category, though even the Blohm and Voss ones have a pretty identifiable symmetry plane for the wing instead of having two wings with obviously different aspect ratios. Once you have fly-by-wire and the kind of power-to-weight ratios that aerospace fighters have it shouldn't be that big of a deal, though if I were engineering lead I would still have questions about why we'd chosen to solve the (solvable) problems asymmetry brings instead of just...not.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
State of the Company has been updated with the final 'Mech sprites. Still working on (player controllable) vehicle layouts and the sprites for the Caravan IIIs. I couldn't find any large aircraft sprites in MegaMek so it's time to improvise.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
propatriamori posted:Wikipedia has a whole Asymmetrical Aircraft category, though even the Blohm and Voss ones have a pretty identifiable symmetry plane for the wing instead of having two wings with obviously different aspect ratios. Once you have fly-by-wire and the kind of power-to-weight ratios that aerospace fighters have it shouldn't be that big of a deal, though if I were engineering lead I would still have questions about why we'd chosen to solve the (solvable) problems asymmetry brings instead of just...not. The Italian C.202 had slightly assymetric airfoils as well, to deal with the need to trim against the torque of the engine.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 09:04
|
|
|
Are the direct fire weapons such as gauss and lasers all fixed, so that the fighter has to point its nose toward a ground target to take a shot, losing some altitude? Are there also aerospace units with turreted mounts so that they can just orbit a mech and fire their pulse lasers continuously?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 12:10
|
|
|
perfluorosapien posted:Are the direct fire weapons such as gauss and lasers all fixed, so that the fighter has to point its nose toward a ground target to take a shot, losing some altitude? Are there also aerospace units with turreted mounts so that they can just orbit a mech and fire their pulse lasers continuously? Fighters don't get frontal turrets, their weapons are fixed and the arc is based on moving the fighter. Aerospace fighters have significantly longer ranges with the same weapons provided they're attacking other airborne targets in atmosphere (and they have even longer ranges in space). Fighters effectively don't have side arcs. Wing-mounted weapons have more limited arcs (they can fire straight ahead or into the front arc on their side). Against ground targets, fighters can make effectively four actions: - Strikes direct all the fighter's firepower at a single unit, this uses the unit's short range damage and tohit values - Strafing lets the fighter attack with direct-fire energy weapons, attacking everything in a 5 hex line, this uses the unit's short range damage and tohit values - Dive Bombing lets them drop external ordinance on a single target at the cost of altitude - Level Bomb lets them drop bombs in a line, but is highly inaccurate All ground attacks except level bombing render the fighter vulnerable to ground fire, otherwise fighters are basically immune to ground-to-air fire. Level bombing trades accuracy for safety. Most ground attacks cost fighters altitude, and regaining altitude will extend their turnaround times. Rough example: The Thunderbird can carry up to 20 pieces of external ordinance (or pods). When fully laden, a Thunderbird's thrust/safe thrust drops from 5 safe thrust / 8 max thrust to 1 safe thrust / 2 max thrust. If a Thunderbird at altitude 3 dive bombs with a full load but drops only a single bomb, it loses 2 altitude but doesn't gain a speed increase because it didn't deploy enough ordinance. In order to turn around, at the start of the next turn it needs to spend 2 safe thrust to regain altitude 3, and 3 more safe thrust to turn around. But it only has the 1 safe thrust, so it would take 5 turns before it was ready to make a return pass (it would be even longer if I was actually tracking distance). Total turns elapsed: 1 strike -> 5 turnaround -> 1 available to strike again (7 turns total) If it instead dropped its entire payload, its speed would jump back up to 5/8, so on its next turn it would be able to spend 5 safe thrust on the next turn and come about immediately (1 strike -> 1 turnaround -> 1 available to strike again (3 turns total)). That's assuming no other factors are in play, like weather or enemy fighter cover. So it becomes a balancing act of Do we bring ordinance? (Yes), How much do we expend on the first strike? (Most of it) Do we bring specialty ordinance like Inferno Bombs or Arrow IV Homing Missiles? (Maybe) Fighter firing arcs don't matter too much because I'm not going to track Aerospace combat directly, it's going to be extrapolated out on the back end. I'm not keeping track of AeroSpace hexes (1 aerospace hex = 1 mapsheet, so a small laser mounted on an AeroSpace Fighter has a 6 mapsheet range); and I'll let you know if there are any specifics that will hamper your fighters, such as: enemy interceptors delaying their turnaround times or enemy dogfighters dealing damage over time as long as they're in the area and uncontested. Because I think the question might come up: The Thunderbird and Rapier are both very effective bombers (although if it's carrying a heavy bombload the Rapier will no longer act as a dogfighter and won't contest enemy fighters). The Rapier's thrust is high enough that it's a good contender for a light load of specialty munitions like 1-5 inferno bombs, Arrow IV missiles, or etc. The Thunderbird and Rapier are ok at strafing, the Thunderbird can deal a fair amount of damage with energy weapons and two large pulse lasers mean the Rapier's damage is respectable The Thunderbird and Rapier are brutal direct strike aircraft, since direct strikes let them use their entire armament The Rapier is very durable, and it will brutalize enemy dogfighters or strike fighters. Both are vulnerable to enemy fast dogfighters or interceptors (although, as I mentioned above, enemy interceptors don't really do damage they just play spoiler and extend strike turnaround time) Because you chose the engineering vehicle company, you can recover fighters without needing to launch a DropShip back into space (provided you've had time to build an airfield). The enemy may not have this advantage unless they've captured an airfield somewhere or they lucked into a natural terrain feature. PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 17:14 on May 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:I was sorely tempted to make the Rapier goofy and lopsided to match its OG art. This feels like the artist forgot how perspective works and none of the editors could be bothered to clean it up before it went to print because  .
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
W.T. Fits posted:This feels like the artist forgot how perspective works and none of the editors could be bothered to clean it up before it went to print because It's definitely intentional, if you count the wing segments the left wing has 2 and the right wing has 4. It just looks really awkward and bad and since the human eye likes symmetry it makes it look like an art error. It's one of those that absolutely shouldn't have been drawn in 3/4ths profile if they wanted to sell it as an asymmetrical fighter. The new symmetrical version is really nice looking, basically a space P-61 Black Widow.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
Now I'm reminded of Crimson Skies, which was also by FASA, and was also awesome. I mean, the video game definitely was. Can't remember if there was a tabletop. I wish there was a tabletop. Does anyone know if there is a tabletop? Can we have a campaign of that next?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 20:15
|
|
|
There was a FASA board game and a Clix game.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:
 Couple questions: Are air to air arrows a thing in this era yet, and what would a bomb load look like for a strike on a drop/jumpship?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 23:40
|
|
|
TheParadigm posted:Couple questions: Are air to air arrows a thing in this era yet Probably won't matter, but yes. TheParadigm posted:and what would a bomb load look like for a strike on a drop/jumpship? Good question.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
Nicely done. Have a real feeling of combined arms here. Air support, can be deployed from airfields.. Do you guys get artillery too?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 02:58
|
|