Remove ads

Project Knight [Mecha Design Bureau]

Reader mode
Remove ads
Vote closed
  • Voting
    • Scheduled vote count started by Verisaimilitude on Jan 14, 2025 at 8:56 PM, finished with 75 posts and 19 votes.
    [bodysize] [bodystyle] [limbstyle] [actuators]
    Click to expand...


    EDIT: Rolling a die to determine the outcome of the actuators.

    EDIT 2: Powerful Actuators win the roll-off.
    Verisaimilitude threw 1 2-faced dice. Reason: 1 = durable, 2 = powerful Total: 2
    2 2
     
    Last edited:
  • Voting
    • So heavy on the Boom, rather squat and really hard to mobility kill.

    Edit: posted before the dice roll. Looks like we got some straight line speed on this.
     
    Last edited:
    Damn, I was hoping for an Anvil vote - small, brutal, and can take a beating.

    So our base ratings come out to this;

    [+1] Build & Repair Speeds
    [+2] Weapons Hardpoints
    [+1] Increased Usable Tonnage
    [+1] Reduced Height
    [+1] Component Protection
    [+1] Joint Protection
    [+1] Skeletal Stability
    [+3] Limb Drive Speed
    [+1] Power Control
    [+1] Heat Management
    [-1] Production Cost
    [-3] Technology Cost

    Not bad, but I really hope the small weapon options are good, otherwise we're going to have a hell of a time optimizing the Weapon Hardpoints while keeping the costs down.
     
    CanYouMeme said:
    Damn, I was hoping for an Anvil vote - small, brutal, and can take a beating.

    So our base ratings come out to this;

    [+1] Build & Repair Speeds
    [+2] Weapons Hardpoints
    [+1] Increased Usable Tonnage
    [+1] Reduced Height
    [+1] Component Protection
    [+1] Joint Protection
    [+1] Skeletal Stability
    [+3] Limb Drive Speed
    [+1] Power Control
    [+1] Heat Management
    [-1] Production Cost
    [-3] Technology Cost

    Not bad, but I really hope the small weapon options are good, otherwise we're going to have a hell of a time optimizing the Weapon Hardpoints while keeping the costs down.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I commented that because we went small we should be able to use off the shelf weapons and the GM put an insightful reaction on it so I'm kinda optimistic we are going to have some good choices to work with. The biggest issue i think will be deciding what role to optimize for. That's gonna cause some fights.


    My current knee jerk pick is whatever the most common tank cannon on the market is backed by an 20/25 mm chain gun or two and a missle pod.
     
    Silversun17 said:
    This is a Gen 1 crawler mech; I don't think melee is a good idea at this point.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Depends on where we put the armor, but yeah it likely wouldn't be the most ideal tactic. Useful for breaking up formations against pirates and raiders though.

    Oh! Now I remember what it reminded me of! The Helmasaur King from Link to the Past. Also those metal bugs from Super Mario Galaxy.
     
    Last edited:
    Remove ads
    Turn 5: Year 2 of Project Knight (Engineering Report)
  • Threadmarks
    • Project Knight - Mecha Design Bureau
    Turn 5: Year 2 of Project Knight (Engineering Report)    ​


    [X] [Body Size] Balanced Hull
    [X] [Body Style] Gunboat Hull
    [X] [Limb Style] Crouched Medial Legs
    [X] [Actuators] Powerful Actuator Design

    NEW MAIL:
    FROM: Chief Engineer Charlotte Lanza
    TO: You

    Hey director, we've got the summary of the last round of work ready for you!

    The engineers have had some major successes overall, but it wasn't easy managing to get this many limbs working together in an ergonomic and effective way. We've had to use a lot of specialist components to get it all working and some of the less advanced Second Tier states are going to have trouble sourcing a lot of it themselves. The real issue is the complexity of the Prototype's parts. We've managed to reduce the tremors in the chassis as a whole, but the moving parts are still prone to breakdowns and when she's this low to the ground, it's a real pain to get to the breakages without a crane. In short, she's a bit of a garage queen - if you don't mind me saying so, I'd hate to be taking her out into the boonies like this.

    The good news is, we've managed to carve out a lot of weapons space, and the build is pretty strong - she ought to be carry some pretty good firepower for her size with tonnage leftover for armour plating. We're really starting to get the hang of this thing! The team's definitely improved through the course of working on this. I've attached all the relevant data below.​

    Rolls for Chosen Upgrades:
    Engineering Rolls: Your team will roll dice for each factor of the design they are trying to impact. The dice roll is a simple d20 modified by their level of training and experience in a given field, versus a difficulty target that must be met or exceeded. The degree of success/failure will then modify the final result accordingly.
    Bonus: Well funded! Your engineers roll twice and choose the higher result.

    [] [Body Size] Balanced Hull
    Structural Engineering (Quadrapod): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)​
    Build & Repair Speeds increases from D to C | 19 vs. 17 - minor success​
    Structural Engineering (Quadrapod): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)​
    Ease of Maintenance increases from D- to D+ | 14 vs. 16 - minor failure​

    [] [Body Style] Gunboat Hull
    Weapons Development (Hull-Mounted): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)​
    Weapons Hardpoints increases from E- to D- | 20 vs. 12 - minor success​
    Weapons Development (Hull-Mounted) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)​
    Weapons Hardpoints increases from D- to C- | 13 vs. 13 - minor success​
    Armour Development (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)​
    Component Protection increases from F- to E | 21 vs. 9 - major success​
    Electro-Neural Engineering (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)​
    Power Control increases from F+ to E+ | 14 vs. 12 - minor success​
    Engines Development (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)​
    Heat Management increases from E- to D- | 20 vs. 13 - minor success​
    Structural Engineering (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)​
    Material Affordability decreases from A- to B | 18 vs. 10 - minor success​
    Structural Engineering (Miniaturization) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)​
    Tech Simplicity decreases from B+ to C+ | 6 vs. 11 - minor failure​

    [] [Limb Style] Crouched Medial Legs
    Structural Engineering (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+4)​
    Mech Height decreases from 4.19m to 3.67m | 19 vs. 15 - minor success​
    Skeletal Kinematics (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+3)​
    Skeletal Stability increases from E to D+ | 22* vs. 15 - critical success​
    Skeletal Kinematics (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+3)​
    Limb Driver Speed increases from F+ to E | 10 vs. 13 (minor failure)​
    Skeletal Kinematics (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)​
    Joint Protection increases from F- to E- | 17 vs. 10 - minor success​
    Materials Science (Heavy Alloys) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)​
    Tech Simplicity decreases from C+ to C- | 13 vs. 12 - minor success​

    [] [Actuators] Powerful Actuator Design
    Skeletal Kinematics (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)​
    Limb Drive Speed increases from E to D- | 11 vs. 14 - minor failure​
    Skeletal Kinematics (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)​
    Limb Drive Speed increases from D- to C- | 21 vs. 15 - minor success​
    Structural Engineering (Miniaturization) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)​
    Usable Tonnage increases by 3 tons | 12 vs. 8 - minor success​
    Structural Engineering (Quadrapod) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)​
    Ease of Maintenance decreases from D+ to E+ | 16 vs. 18 - minor failure​
    Materials Science (Heavy Alloys) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)​
    Tech Simplicity decreases from C- to D | 17 vs. 13 - minor success​

    Sub-Project 'Heavy Fireside Crawler' (Codename: Bushfire):
    End of Project Requirements:
    1. Appeal to the budget constraints of Second Tier States (Logistical Values MUST average D or higher).
    2. Keep Production Cost affordable (preferably C or higher).
    3. Keep Build & Repair Speed ratings high (preferably D or higher).
    4. Must be a capable weapons platform against armoured targets (Battle Effectiveness MUST average D or higher).

    Dimensions/Tonnage:
    Height: ~3.67m
    Length: ~6.72m
    Breadth: ~2.96m
    Tonnage: ~71.24t (calculating usable tonnage..)

    Technical Specifications:
    N/A

    NOTE: I think these are correct, but I'll put them all into a calculator before the next update just to be sure…

    Skeletal Design (E)
    • D | S-EFF Structural Efficiency
    • F+ | S-DUR - Skeletal Durability
    • F | S-AGI - Skeletal Agility
    • D+ | S-STB - Skeletal Stability
    • F+ | S-ACT - Actuator Precision
    Battle Effectiveness (E)
    • C- | T-WPN - Weapons Hardpoints
    • F+ | T-ARM - Armour Plating
    • F | T-PTP - Pilot Protection
    • E- | T-PTJ - Joint Protection
    • E | T-PTC - Component Protection
    Power and Drive Effectiveness (D)
    • E+ | P-PWC - Power Control
    • C- | P-SPD - Limb Drive Speed
    • D- | P-HTM - Heat Management
    Logistical Values (C-)
    • B | L-CST - Material Affordability
    • D | L-TCH - Tech Simplicity
    • C | L-BNR - Build & Repair Speeds
    • E+ | L-EOM - Ease of Maintenance

    I know the Annual Project Review with the Senior Directors is coming up soon. I'm sure they'll have plenty of questions about how you plan to address the problems in the mech, but I'm sure you've got it in hand. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll do what I can to help. In the meantime, the team and I have a post-mortem scheduled to go over the chassis phase 2 development process. I'll let you know how it goes.

    Good luck with the execs!

    - Charlie​


    New Vote: Your Engineering Team has increased in skill while working on the development of the Mech. One of the skills your team has gained sufficient experience in will be improved from +2 to +3:

    [] [Skill] Structural Engineering
    [] [Skill] Skeletal Kinematics
    [] [Skill] Materials Science


    A simple and easy vote just to pass the time while I'm on a little break. I won't set an end timer for this vote yet, as I'm not sure if it'll be Friday or Saturday that I'll next be able to update. Probably Saturday, but I'll mention once I know.
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] [Skill] Skeletal Kinematics

    I want faster and more agile Mechs, and Kinematics is the best of the three options to get that. It doesn't require better materials like Material Sciences probably will (next round if not this one), and Structural Engineering is more of a weight/durability thing.
     
    Looks like the first increase in the Body style hull was backwards as it increased but went down.


    Also our tech cost and maintenance are abhorrent we really need to work on those or else we will fail this design.


    Edit: We did crit this sooooo
    [X] [Skill] Skeletal Kinematics
     
    [X] [Skill] Skeletal Kinematics

    As the base of our machines it seems extremely important to have a good skeleton, lest we be slow, fragile, and have trouble managing tonnage.
     
    Verisaimilitude said:
    Weapons Development (Hull-Mounted): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
    Weapons Hardpoints increases from E- to F- | 20 vs. 12 - minor success
    Weapons Development (Hull-Mounted) Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
    Weapons Hardpoints increases from D- to C- | 13 vs. 13 - minor success
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I'm uncertain what is happening here, is it supposed to repeat?

    [X] [Skill] Materials Science
     
    CuriousRaptor said:
    Looks like the first increase in the Body style hull was backwards as it increased but went down.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Good catch, that's a typo in the rolls, yep, it's fixed. It was increased correctly in the subsequent roll (which started at D-) and thus the final result was still correct.

    Thozmp said:
    I'm uncertain what is happening here, is it supposed to repeat?

    [X] [Skill] Materials Science
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    That's correct. The +2 on a single design decision translated as two rolls instead of one (with a low rate of difficulty increase on the second roll.) As pointed out above, there was a typo in the first roll's outcome which is now fixed.
     
    Verisaimilitude said:
    That's correct. The +2 on a single design decision translated as two rolls instead of one (with a low rate of difficulty increase on the second roll.) As pointed out above, there was a typo in the first roll's outcome which is now fixed.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Am I to read this as "For each point in a given Specific Category you have each voting turn, you will get 1 Dice Roll to try to improve it?"
     
    CanYouMeme said:
    Am I to read this as "For each point in a given Specific Category you have each voting turn, you will get 1 Dice Roll to try to improve it?"
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    More or less, yes. The difference between +2 on a single decision or a +1 on two decisions is also a factor, though. The difficulty from rolling twice on a single design decision did not increase as quickly as the difficulty increased *between* two design decisions - thus a single +2 is somewhat better than two +1s as you're more likely to succeed on the second roll.

    I'm getting more of a feel for the rules now than I did before we got to this point (I hid the first set of rolls made and tbh needed to change a fair bit). Once we've finished this first project and I'm comfortable no more urgent major changes need to be made, I'll commit to writing the mech-building rules in greater detail.
     
    [X] [Skill] Skeletal Kinematics

    Next time we build a bit more on budget/less out of the box, maybe? We kinda didn't do the best on the "easy to source" requirement.
     
    Thread said:
    Dang, our whole selling point was to make it easy to obtain for the lesser powers. This is going to make things hard. Also break downs are not good.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    we have a chance to improve our stats later on. we're still early enough that we can recover from this; we just need to be careful of what options we pick and value cost/repair efficiency a bit higher than performance.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top