06-13-2020, 07:28 AM | #21 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
|
06-17-2020, 03:17 PM | #22 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
Shiruken Lightning Bug by Mad Jack Motors:
Luxury; Light chassis; Light suspension; Large PP w/HTMs; 4 Hvy Duty Radial tires. Driver; Gunner. 6xAnti-Power Plant Rocket F (all linked). Fire Extinguisher. Armour 8 pts. LR Metal and 60 pts. Plastic (F: 8/10 R: 0/10 L: 0/10 B: 0/10 T: 0/10 U: 0/10); 2x2 pt. Plastic Hubs F; 2x2 pt. Plastic Guards B; 1x10 pt., 4 spc. Plastic CA (Crew); 1x10 pt., 6 spc. Plastic CA (Rockets); 1x10 pt., 5 spc. Plastic CA (Plant). Cargo: 36lb 0 Spc Cost: $9,860, Wgt: 4,914, HC: 2, Top Speed: 102.5 (77.5), Accel: 5 (10). The Lightning Bug combines two of the worst ideas in auto combat history. The pitiful Shiruken basic design has been married with a battery of the extremely niche APPR. To be fair, some useful improvements have been made, some protection for the tires against pedestrian weapons, a slight handing improvement and a useful performance boost. Protection has been improved overall with extensive use of internal armour. The single biggest change is the massive slab of metal protecting the front aspect. This really shows the designers intent, this is a zoom and boom specialist and presumably intended to disable a vehicle quickly. The removal of the MG is not much of a loss, but it is questionable whether such a small battery of weak munitions are an improvement. The addition of a dedicated gunner somewhat mitigates against the inherent inaccuracy of rockets but it may just be putting another person in harm's way. At least the gunner could carry a hand weapon to provide a second shot capability. In this reviewers opinion it would have been better to lose a little of the metal and the APPRs and replace them with a barrage of 18 mini rockets. Whilst not the best platform and weapon fit it would be a more credible that this lamentable offering from Barking Mad Jack. I'd like to see this take on a simple Division 5 vehicle. Even starting from an ideal stern chase position I suspect it will be a washout. Last edited by swordtart; 06-17-2020 at 03:24 PM. |
06-17-2020, 04:42 PM | #23 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
Quote:
Now, this design with a brace of regular HRs....
__________________
"Dale *who*?" 79er The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course: 1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End. |
|
06-18-2020, 01:16 AM | #24 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
43: Doubtless.
I think to be fair the Shiruken needs to be pitted against a published design (preferably VG1 since that was the source for the Shiruken itself). I was looking at VG1 and was thinking Sargasso or Iguana. I think the first test is the Thresher. I suspect that even in a head to head a Shiruken with 8 points metal on the front might be able to get close enough to discharge that volley and might even get through to the plant. If we give the gunner an AR he might be able force a surrender even if the Thresher is only immobilised. If the Lightning Bug cannot overcome a a vehicle less than a third of its cost then it deserves my scorn ;) |
06-18-2020, 01:28 AM | #25 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
Another option occurs to me. Since the Shiruken is clearly rubbish it might get largely discounted as a threat and get closer than might normally be the case.
A vehicle that retained the same external configuration (i.e. left the armour the same and added no visible weapons) could still be beefed up to be semi-credible and use the non-threatening look to make up the difference. For example if you added five Heavy Rockets behind blow out concealment you might sneak the win... |
06-18-2020, 01:39 PM | #26 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
Quote:
Quote:
Meanwhile, on the "volleying the pila" theme: Luxury; Lt. chas.; Lt. susp.; Lg. PP [2,000 PF]; 4x HD tire; Driver. 6x HR (L) [F]; 3x HR (L) [L]; 3x HR (L) [R]. Metal Armor: F, L, R, B: 3; T, U: 1. $6,290; 4,910 lbs. Acc.: 5; TS: 102.5; HC: 1.
__________________
"Dale *who*?" 79er The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course: 1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End. Last edited by 43Supporter; 06-18-2020 at 03:30 PM. |
||
06-18-2020, 04:35 PM | #27 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
Gosh, only 3 points of armour!!!.
I thought the Lightning Bug was a deathtrap ;) I'll take an SMG over a LAW any day. |
06-19-2020, 04:43 PM | #28 |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
Three points *Metal* armor. Most D5 weapons on average inflict that much, or fewer, points of damage per shot.
__________________
"Dale *who*?" 79er The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course: 1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End. |
06-20-2020, 02:05 AM | #29 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
Hmmm, if it were backed up by a thin layer of plastic or CA to catch anything that went through, I could buy it. Using HRs as ablative armour is a bit counter-productive. If you are shot in the tail it is going direct to either driver or plant (depending on which order you put them in).
An MG has a 50:50 chance of penetrating. An AP MML has a 4 in chance of penetrating. An RL (as fitted to the Thresher) only has a 1/12 chance of NOT penetrating (and they are cheaper than dirt). Since there is no real benefit to burst effect in an arena there is no reason not to make your RL rounds AP. An AP RL is guaranteed to penetrate. As you have shown putting a HR on a Division 5 isn't hard. Even the poxy APPR has a 1/3 chance of getting damage through it. If the 1-2 point hits your plant then it has achieved it's aim. It it hits the driver, even better. I was surprised to note that the APPR is still a burst weapon, so it still has a 1/3 chance of stripping metal. Any hit on the plant has a 1/3 chance of setting you on fire and since you stripped the FE that could prove terminal. The FP nature of metal protects you against incendiary weapons but not against a fire starting internally. You have some weight budget left so BA for the driver is probably essential, and a portable FE might be some good. With such poor handling you are going to be less able to choose your attack/defence vector as well. I think the Thresher is better value ;) |
06-20-2020, 02:24 PM | #30 | |||
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: The shurkin challenge.
Quote:
There's a variant to the design, with even worse armor, which puts the side-mount HRs in a turret.... >:) (There's another variant with six HRs in a 2-sp. turret, and SS-plus-SD on B, L, and R, with better armor.) Quote:
Quote:
No argument there.
__________________
"Dale *who*?" 79er The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course: 1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End. |
|||
|
|