Remove ads

A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)

Reader mode
We have the light grav vehicle if we want to build transports, this chassis should be focus on being a tank and as those are a lot rarer as transports in armies and more likely to be in combat we should include a lot of upgrades in it.
 
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis
-[X] Configuration: Fully Recessed [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Type: Plasma Drive [EXPERIMENTAL] (+17 EP, -2 SLT)
-[X] Maneuverability x2 (+2 EP)
-[X] Stability x2 (+2 EP)
-[X] Strength (+1 EP, +2 SLT)
-[X] Power Plant: Psykrystal Capacitractor [EXPERIMENTAL] (+5 EP)
-[X] Basic Armor: Medium (+5 EP)
-[X] Weapons Mounts: Default
-[X] Crew Spaces: Fighting Compartment
-[X] Defense System: Holo-Field [EXPERIMENTAL] (+11 EP, -1 SLT)
-[X] Defense System: Energy-Dispersion Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL] (+9 EP, -1 SLT)
-[X] Configuration: 1 Vehicle Weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon (-9 SLT) (13 Slots Remaining)
-[X] Total Cost: 52 EP

Just woke up, so I'm putting this up.
 
Candesce said:
[ ] Plan: Artillery Truck
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is way too vulnerable to house an expensive superheavy gun, unless it's a cheapest one possible or a longest range one (e.g. missile launcher). One good shot through the shields is all but guaranteed to mission-kill an engine, the gun or a crew member. Medium chassis SPG for a superheavy should be something like that:

[ ] Configuration : Partially Recessed [EXPERIMENTAL]
[ ] Type : Plasma Drive [EXPERIMENTAL]
[ ] Power Plant : Starlight Reactor [EXPERIMENTAL]
[ ] Strength 3 +6 slots
[ ] Maneuvering 1
[ ] Stability 1
2 Extra Engines to
[ ] Enhance Payload x2 (6 + 6 slots)
[ ] Basic Armor : Heavy
[ ] Weapons Mounts : Casement
[ ] Crew Spaces : Fighting Compartment
[ ] Basic Defense : Refractor Field
[ ] Defense System : Holo-Field [EXPERIMENTAL] 2
[ ] Defense System : Grav-Shield Generator [EXPERIMENTAL] 3
[ ] Defense System : Energy-Dispersion Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL] 3
[ ] Weapon Slots: Superheavy 30
[ ] Weapon Slots: Heavy Weapon 3
[ ] Enhanced Armor : Crew Compartment
[ ] Enhanced Armor : Turrets/Casements
[ ] 1 free slot to make a compartment to put a seer in

It's about 250 EP for a base chassis, and a very survivable envelope for a weapon that costs 200 EP.


[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, System Slots And Crew Armor Edition
 
Last edited:
vsh said:
This is way too vulnerable to house an expensive superheavy gun, unless it's a cheapest one possible or a longest range one (e.g. missile launcher).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It was definitely intended as a back-line, indirect fire artillery platform, yes. I wouldn't put open-topped on something that would intentionally be exposing itself to enemy fire.

It would be vulnerable to deepstrikers, though.
Skjadir said:
You want max stability on an artillery chassis and potentially 2 points in Maneuvering
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thinking about it, for a superheavy gun on a medium chassis, I think we're almost certainly stuck with casement mounts. Since stability only matters for firing while moving, lots in maneuverability so the stop-fire-move sequence takes as little time as possible might make more sense.

(Also one of the advantages of Light armor, here. No maneuverability penalties.)
 
Skjadir said:
You want max stability on an artillery chassis and potentially 2 points in Maneuvering because shot drive shot is a pretty good defense against counter battery fire.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You really want maneuverability in casement design, otherwise they can't aim. And I guess yeah, I can throw in another engine and put three points between stability and maneuverability.
 
vsh said:
It works for that but what works better is open-topped heavy platform with 4 superheavy slots. Or 20 Vehicle slots.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Open-topped heavy is probably something like 38*1.5=57 slots. Pick up a few extras - a second engine or strength enhancements - and we could probably mount two superheavies on one pretty cheaply, yeah.

I'll keep it in mind for the next time we're doing a clean-sheet design.

Something to keep in mind for the open-topped designs; there's no real point in mounting heavy slots. We're going to have crew in power armor, just make sure some of them carry Heavy Needlers or whatever.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant
-[X] Configuration: Fully Recessed [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Type: Plasma Drive [EXPERIMENTAL] (+17 EP, -2 SLT)
-[X] Maneuverability x1 (+1 EP)
-[X] Stability x2 (+2 EP)
-[X] Strength x2 (+2 EP, +4 SLT)
-[X] Power Plant: Psykrystal Capacitractor [EXPERIMENTAL] (+5 EP)
-[X] Basic Armor: Medium (+5 EP)
-[X] Weapons Mounts: Default
-[X] Crew Spaces: Fighting Compartment
-[X] Defense System: Holo-Field [EXPERIMENTAL] (+11 EP, -1 SLT)
-[X] Defense System: Energy-Dispersion Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL] (+9 EP, -1 SLT)
-[X] Defense System : Grav-Shield Generator [EXPERIMENTAL] (+18 EP, -2 SLT)
-[X] Configuration: 1 Vehicle Weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon (-9 SLT) (13 Slots Remaining)
-[X] Total Cost: 70 EP

Since a lot of people have been clamouring for a grav-shield, I figured I might toss out a variant of the Fata Morgana with that integrated as well.

I'm very much on the fence with this - obviously it takes more advantage of the Psykrystal than my original design, and it's another level of survivability - but on the other hand, going from 52 to 70 isn't a small increase in cost, and it loses some maneuverability in the engine tuning department to make up for the extra slots taken up.

On the positive side, the more expensive the base cost for a medium vehicle is, the less this relative expense will cost, and as a testbed, this lets us knock off the Experimental tag from another technology.

Naturally, I'm maintaining my vote for the original version as well.

[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Medium Battle Tank Chassis
[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, Starlight Reactor
[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, extra engine v2

I'm fine with either
 
Last edited:
[X] Wright testbed tank chassis
-[X] Configuration : Fully Recessed [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Type : Plasma Drive [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Enhance Speed
-[X] X2 Enhance Payload
-[X] Speed
-[X] Stability X 2
-[X] Maneuvering X 2
-[X] Power Plant : Psykrystal Capacitractor [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Basic Armor : Medium
-[X] Enhanced Armor : Crew Compartment
-[X] Weapons Mounts : Default
-[X] Crew Spaces : Fighting Compartment
-[X] Basic Defense : Refractor Field
-[X] Basic Defense : Deflector Field [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Defense System : Holo-Field [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Defense System : Grav-Shield Generator [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Defense System : Energy-Dispersion Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Defense System : Directional Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] 1 Vehicle Weapon slot

[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant
 
[X] Plan: Tiranoc-class Main Battle Tank : Experimental Defenses & Redundant Engines Model
-[X] Configuration : Fully Recessed [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Type : Plasma Drive [EXPERIMENTAL] slots +17 EP
-[X] Enhance Payload x1 + 2 system slots +17 EP
-[X] Stability
-[X] Stability ×2
-[X] Strength
-[X] Maneuverability
-[X] Maneuverability ×2
-[X] Power Plant : Starlight Reactor [EXPERIMENTAL] +6 system slots +4 EP
-[X] Basic Armor : Medium +5 EP
-[X] Enhanced Armor : Crew Compartment +8 EP
-[X] Crew Spaces : Fighting Compartment
-[X] Weapons Mounts : Default
-[X] Basic Defense : Refractor Field +2 EP
-[X] Defense System : Holo-Field [EXPERIMENTAL] -2 System slots and +16 EP standard
-[X] Defense System : Grav-Shield Generator [EXPERIMENTAL] -3 System slots and +27 EP
-[X] Defense System: Energy-Dispersion Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL] -3 System slots and +14 EP
-[X] Configure designated weapon slots: 3 Vehicle, (-18 Slots) (4 Slots remaining)

total cost 110 EP

my take on medium armor grav tank.

stability and maneuverability for better reorienting to fire if a weapon isn't turret mounted, plus a little strength.

medium armor plus all our defenses seems more than sufficient, and doesn't impact speed or maneuverability.

as an experimental model starlight reactor gives us +3 per engine. therefore a refined model post testing might give us even more slots in future chassis creation turns.

@Mechanis I think I got everything right, but I'm not sure if Payload adding 4 slots accounts for the -2 from an engine slot or not.

[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, Starlight Reactor
 
Last edited:
A specialist tank chassis with heavy protection and heavy guns is what our military needs right now. All of these variants do a good job of it without breaking the bank. Thanks for everyone who helped refine the plan.

[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, System Slots And Crew Armor Edition
[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, extra engine v2
[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, Starlight Reactor
 
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Medium Battle Tank Chassis
 
Last edited:
regarding experimental reactors. there are likely limits to the slot reduction effects of the Psycrystal reactor. the starlight reactor is likely less limited in it's ability to compound a payload effect of engine. In addition, heavier vehicle chassis are likely to have more than a single engine by default. a Superheavy chassis for instance likely requires a default 3 engines. in that scenario, starlight would give us +9 slots automatically. we should also think about the impact a starlight reactor could have on a naval chassis. more slots, more weapons and defenses.
 
Redshirt Army said:
I'm very much on the fence with this - obviously it takes more advantage of the Psykrystal than my original design, and it's another level of survivability - but on the other hand, going from 52 to 70 isn't a small increase in cost, and it loses some maneuverability in the engine tuning department to make up for the extra slots taken up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

52 to 72 isn't a small increase in cost. But that's not the increase in cost.

A basic medium grav chassis probably costs 100z

Triple sun cannons probably cost 90.

Looking at this as 52 vs. 72 is a very misleading way of analysing this.

We're probably looking at this as 240 versus 260.

That's the relevant comparisons

It's an ~8% increase in cost, not a 40% one.
 
I think Fata Morgana is not the right design - medium armor is not good for a tank, too many open slots makes it expensive to weaponize it, and the slots/armoring is wrong for a battle taxi. But if it wins, a silver lining is we'll probably be able to iterate it to a basic Hammer design, it's only really different in slots and armoring.
 
vsh said:
I think Fata Morgana is not the right design - medium armor is not good for a tank, too many open slots makes it expensive to weaponize it, and the slots/armoring is wrong for a battle taxi. But if it wins, a silver lining is we'll probably be able to iterate it to a basic Hammer design, it's only really different in slots and armoring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We also just did the design for the battle taxi with iteration, so that part pretty invalidates one of the designs we did this turn out of the gate.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top