I'm imagining the sheer logistical nightmare of a 10 legged mech would be, so many moving parts.
The correct answer to this is: what does the customer want? I doubt many customers are going to want mechs with bizarre body plans that they cannot cross train their pilots to use. They're going to want standardised training regiments so that people have cross compatibility with different manufacturers of mechs.
I think there's a good argument for quadmechs, they have marked strengths and differences to bipeds but don't require pilots to learn to use more limbs than humans are born with so I don't think the cross training issues are too extreme.
It is, but the point there really was that by avoiding humanoid biped designs and taking advantage that a robot has no set design we open ourselves to a wider diversity of body plans than our contemporaries due to them being more constrained by the humanoid body which will eventually see them looking very samey. By foregoing that we avoid that limitation and open ourselves up to innovation and creative design.
It is, but the point there really was that by avoiding humanoid biped designs and taking advantage that a robot has no set design we open ourselves to a wider diversity of body plans than our contemporaries due to them being more constrained by the humanoid body which will eventually see them looking very samey. By foregoing that we avoid that limitation and open ourselves up to innovation and creative design.
Ahh but we're not making blank slate robots we're making mecha designed to plug into a humans nervous system.
A robot has no preconceptions and so all body plans are equal but a mech needs a pilot and pilots come with a lifetime of preconceptions, training and instincts, our mechs need to be made with this in mind.
When making a mech we need to prioritise what it's good for and security is a lesser concern than ease of piloting, ease of training or fast reflexes in a combat situation.
There's no point building a mech no one wants to buy because it's got a strange body plans that makes it hard to pilot.
Ahh but we're not making blank slate robots we're making mecha designed to plug into a humans nervous system.
A robot has no preconceptions and so all body plans are equal but a mech needs a pilot and pilots come with a lifetime of preconceptions, training and instincts, our mechs need to be made with this in mind.
When making a mech we need to prioritise what it's good for and security is a lesser concern than ease of piloting, ease of training or fast reflexes in a combat situation.
There's no point building a mech no one wants to buy because it's got a strange body plans that makes it hard to pilot.
Neither is a mech really as a mech is just a piloted robot. There is no limits or parameters for a robot's design beyond what physics allow, and since humans here naturally connect to powers beyond the veil there is even less of that. Our minds are ridiculous in how easy they adapt, though support A.I.s can only help ease the process, and an added bonus of focusing on non-humanoid designs is that it pushes for our neuro-link and control systems to be more advance than our competitors which we will be reaping in the long run.
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.
Rolls for Central Heavy Mount:
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Armour Penetration increases from X to F | 14 vs. 7 - minor success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Armour Penetration increases from F to D | 22* vs. 7 - massive critical success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Damage Output increases from X to F+ | 20 vs. 7 - major success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Damage Output increases from F+ to D- | 20 vs. 7 - major success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Effective Range increases from X to F | 8 vs. 7 - minor success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Effective Range increases from F to E+ | 19 vs. 7 - major success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Rate of Fire increases from E- to D- | 14 vs. 11 - minor success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Weapons Control increases from F+ to D- | 19 vs. 7 - major success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Heat Management increases from D to C | 17 vs. 16 - minor success
Weapons Development (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Heat Management increases from C to B- | 7 vs. 16 - minor failure
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Build & Repair Speeds increases from C to B | 19 vs. 19 - minor success
Weapons Development (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Build & Repair Speeds increases from B to A | 19 vs. 19 - minor success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Ease of Maintenance increases from C- to C+ | 13 vs. 18 - minor failure
Weapons Development (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Ease of Maintenance increases from C+ to B+ | 21 vs. 18 - minor success
Rolls for Frontal Auto Turret:
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Armour Penetration increases from D to D+ | 18 vs. 16 - minor success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)
Damage Output increases from D- to D | 21 vs. 16 - minor success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)
Damage Output does not increase | 11 vs. 16 - minor failure
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)
Damage Output does not increase | 21 vs. 16 - minor success (weapon too small)
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Effective Range increases from E+ to D | 19 vs. 14 - minor success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Effective Range increases from D to D+ | 7 vs. 14 - minor success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Rate of Fire increases from D- to C- | 17 vs. 15 - minor success
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Rate of Fire does not increase | 18 vs. 15 - minor success (weapon too small)
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Weapons Control increases from D- to D | 16 vs. 15 - minor success
Weapons Development (Turret Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Weapons Control does not increase | 10 vs. 15 - minor failure
Computer Systems (Targeting): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+2)
Tech Simplicity decreases from C- to D+ | 15 vs. 19 - minor failure
Structural Engineering (Turret Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Ease of Maintenance does not increase | 21 vs. 23 - minor failure
Rolls for Rear External Mount:
Weapons Development (Drones): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Armour Penetration increases from D+ to C- | 13 vs. 16 - minor failure
Weapons Development (Drones): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Damage Output increases from D to C- | 19 vs. 15 - minor success
Weapons Development (Drones): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Effective Range increases from D+ to C- | 13 vs. 16 - minor failure
Weapons Development (Drones): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Weapons Control does not increase | 15 vs. 16 - minor failure
Weapons Development (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1)
Weapons Control increases from D to D+ | 17 vs. 16 - minor success
Weapons Development (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Heat Management does not increase | 13 vs. 20 - minor failure
Weapons Development (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Weapon Hardpoints does not decrease | 18 vs. 17 - minor success
Armour Development (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Armour Plating decreases from E- to F+ | 16 vs. 11 - minor failure
Structural Engineering (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Material Affordability does not increase | 14 vs. 20 - minor failure
Structural Engineering (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Build & Repair Speeds does not increase | 21 vs. 24 - minor failure
Structural Engineering (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+0)
Ease of Maintenance does not increase | 17 vs. 22 - minor failure
Work on designing and integrating the weapon systems into the crawler prototype was now complete. Although it wasn't going to be easy, we had chosen to go in-house with the entire build and now our weapon techs were working overtime trying to build something suitable. Thankfully, nothing we were building was particularly challenging. Building a bespoke drone system for the mech was a challenge in its own way, but nothing your team couldn't handle. Now that our payload was decided, the chassis was really starting to look like a war machine even without any additional armour plating.
The main gun was mounted relatively far back to help control the recoil and reduce the overall length of the mech - there were concerns that mounting it further forward could affect the mobility and balance of the chassis. A simple hull extension was brought up to encase the entire upper half of the weapon system while the rest was nestled deeper into the body. The setup limited the usability of the gun compared to a turret, but it was still able to achieve an arc of fire of 72 degrees laterally, and half that vertically.
Up front, a complex turret mechanism was mounted onto the nose cone of the chassis, including a ball joint and flexible overlapping plates allowing the turret to achieve a wide arc of fire in every direction. A suite of sensors and automated targeting systems were integrated into the system, enabling the PDS on the top of the turret to automatically track, detect, and fire upon incoming threats, while the grenade launcher and machine gun ensured nfantry or light vehicles in range would suffer dearly.
Finally, we gutted the rear armour panels of the chassis to build a wide drone dock, complete with arms for catching and folding the drones into the dock and automated systems for swapping the system modules and weapons attached to each drone. The entire thing was one big vulnerable spot in the back of the mech, but the reconnaissance alone would go a long way to getting the most out of the main gun and allowing the pilot to proactively spot and avoid potential ambushes against the vulnerable rear.
With so much ammo packed into the system, we also took the liberty of installing blowout panels near each set of ammo cases, hopefully mitigating the damage risk associated with a cookoff to some degree.
With our weapon systems decided, we once again reviewed the current progress on the mech…
The project was going well so far. The emphasis on cheap, easy to maintain components had resolved many of the logistical concerns we had from earlier versions of the mech. While the components were complex and difficult to make, this was currently more of a limiter on where you would be able to set up manufacturing of the mech - maintainability was now good enough that the locals should have no problems keeping them running.
Our potential customers have reviewed our work on the Mech so far. We are happy to say that the Kingdom of Kadiri, Bethnar Republic, and Sahel Alliance are all currently interested in acquiring the mech, and are looking forward to seeing the final prototype. The Sahel Alliance and Kingdom of Kadiri are, however, also interested in the model being developed by the East African Federation which may be a rival competitor in the Second Tier market.
The SCC on the other hand has its doubts. While they recognize that you have yet to choose a final engine or allocate additional armour plating, they fear that the vulnerable drone dock on the rear of the mech will be a fatal flaw. The mech's agility is rather low, which limits its turning radius, and the SCC expect that they will be fighting opponents who are able to dominate the airspace in any conflict zone, making it easy for them to access and target the exposed rear. Additionally, given the reported speed and agility of the Zaibatsu Space's mecha force, there are concerns that the main gun will be too unwieldy to properly target and defeat them. They're shopping around for other options, but if we can do something about these weaknesses, they might change their mind.
We do have some good news. The Amazon Republic have officially expressed their interest in Project Knight!
Amazon Republic:The vast territory of the Amazon Republic stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, encompassing fertile coastal plains, vast jungles, and the high mountains of the Northern Andes.
The Amazon Republic is locked into a cold war with their neighbours in the Southern States, who have long overshadowed them as the prominent power of South Atlantea. Border conflicts flare up every so often, but the real battles are in space, where the two constantly plot and maneuver against one another. They need a large number of adaptable, highly mobile system that can handle all kinds of tough terrain better than your average tank, meaning it needs to be somewhat agile, easy to maintain, quick to build, and simple and rugged enough to reduce complexity.
Bonus Requirements: To sell to this faction you should achieve:
❌ Skeletal Agility: D- or higher
✅ Ease of Maintenance: C- or higher
✅ Build & Repair Speeds: C- or higher
❌ Tech Simplicity: C- or higher
There's obviously a conflict between what they want and the Bethnar Republic wants - for what it's worth, the Amazon Republic are much more likely to make practical use of these things, and have a larger budget than the Bethnar do - but is it worth trying to meet their demands? That's up to you, director.
Current Prototype (Rough Draft, Slice View w/o Outer Hull):
Displayed above is a Rough Draft Profile of your Heavy Fireside Crawler standing at full height (maximum line of sight for weaponry.) A slice view is used to expose the internals as you outfit it, the exterior hull will be displayed later.
Project Requirements & Ratings:
Basic Requirements:
❌ Combat Potential: average D or higher
✅ Logistical Values: average D or higher
✅ Material Affordability: C or higher
✅ Build & Repair Speeds: D or higher
✅ Ease of Maintenance: D or higher
Customer Requirements:
Kingdom of Kadiri:
✅ Build & Repair Speeds: C- or higher
✅ Ease of Maintenance: C- or higher
Bethnar Republic:
✅ Tech Simplicity C+ or lower
✅ Material Affordability B- or higher
✅ Ease of Maintenance C- or higher
Sahel Alliance:
✅ Skeletal Agility E- or higher
✅ Heat Management C- or higher
Sagittarian Colonial Coalition:
✅ Weapon Hardpoints C- or higher
❌ Power Control C- or higher
❌ Armour Plating C- or higher
Amazon Republic:
❌ Skeletal Agility: C- or higher
✅ Ease of Maintenance: C- or higher
✅ Build & Repair Speeds: C- or higher
❌ Tech Simplicity: C- or higher
Tech Specs & Ratings:
Dimensions:
Max Height: 4.21m Length: 7.41m (8.46m with weapons) Breadth: ~2.96m
Tonnage:
Max Tonnage: 71 tons Chassis Weight: 38 tons (base estimates for cockpit and engine included) Usable Tonnage: 17.5 tons (no subsystems, or external armour plates equipped)
Technical Specifications:
Weapon Mounts:
Heavy Embedded Mount (Size 6, Simple Mod, ICT)
- 152mm Battle Cannon (5 tons)
Light Auto Turret Mount (Size 2, Simple Mod, FCT)
- Point Defence System (1.5 tons)
- 12mm Heavy Machine Gun (0.5 ton)
- 40mm Grenade Launcher (0.5 ton)
Light External Mount (Size 2, Integrated, RCT)
- Combat Drone Dock (2 tons)
Skeletal Design (E+)
D | S-EFF Structural Efficiency
E+ | S-DUR - Skeletal Durability
E | S-AGI - Skeletal Agility
D+ | S-STB - Skeletal Stability
F+ | S-ACT - Actuator Precision
Combat Potential (E+)
C- | C-WPN - Weapons Hardpoints
F+ | C-ARM - Armour Plating
F | C-PTP - Pilot Protection
E+ | C-PTJ - Joint Protection
D | C-PTC - Component Protection
Weapon Effectiveness (C-)
C- | W-PEN - Armour Penetration
C- | W-DMG - Damage Output
C- | W-RNG - Effective Range
C- | W-ROF - Rate of Fire
D+ | W-CTR - Weapons Control
Power and Drive Effectiveness (C-)
D | P-PWC - Power Control
C- | P-LMB - Limb Drive Speed
B- | P-HTM - Heat Management
Logistical Values (B)
B- | L-CST - Material Affordability
D+ | L-TCH - Tech Simplicity
A | L-BNR - Build & Repair Speeds
B+ | L-EOM - Ease of Maintenance
We've outfitted the weapon systems as best as we can. There are a couple of minor issues - the weak point in the rear of the hull and the limited ammo supply for the main gun come to mind. Additionally, one of the annoying quirks about the weapons layout we've chosen is that the main gun presents a blind spot for the PDS in the turret directly below it. We can sort of get around that against most targets through movement and adjustment of the gun and turret, but it's inconvenient. As long as we leave some tonnage left at the end, though, we should be able to figure out some kind of solutions for this.
Now we're at a crossroads. The Mech's Engine, Armour, and Subsystems still needed to be chosen - and worryingly, there still wasn't any sight or sound of the promised Cockpit. You queried the Senior Directors as it was getting difficult to plan cockpit space in an increasingly shrinking mech, and got the feeling they were agitated by the lack of progress on a working model. You did your best to escalate the risks to your superiors.
Now, you had a simple decision ahead. You had money left in the contingency budget - you could probably spend some of it on addressing some of the current problems with the mech now before moving onto the Engine. Doing so would come with its own pros and cons. Spending that funding now would reduce the amount of contingency you had later - but the longer you left problematic issues in the mech and did not address them, the more expensive and/or technically challenging it would be to resolve them, potentially removing the opportunities altogether.
Your Chief Engineer, Charlotte Lanza, was arguing that the flaws could probably wait. There was nothing about the mech so bad that it couldn't be fixed later. But she did note that once we set up the engine and drive controls, it would make it much more difficult to apply further adjustments to the limbs and actuators. If we wanted to tackle the issue of the Mech's agility and turning radius to try and please the SCC and Amazon Republic, it might be easier to do that before we design and install the engines.
New Vote: Your Engineering Team has increased in skill while working on the development of the current project. One of the skills your team has gained sufficient experience in will be improved:
[] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[] [Skill] Weapons Development +2 to +3
[] [Skill] Ballistics Expertise 1: Once per turn, reroll a failure when rolling to develop the (Ballistics) tag on any skill.
New Vote: What step of development do we focus on next? Approval voting is used to represent some level of chaos and unpredictability in a large project like this - not everything is always going to come out perfect, and you'll have to do your best to make it work at each stage of development. The top vote from each category will win - ties will be resolved with a coin flip/die roll. Remaining Funding: 2
[] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
[] [Develop] (Free) We're not even close to our Combat Potential, this thing is very vulnerable to fire. Let's decide how we're going to armour this thing and figure out how much weight we're going to allocate to it.
[] [Develop] (-1 Funding) Screw it, let's spend some budget on refactoring our existing setup now. We can address flaws in the recently implemented weapons systems, and the Kinematics team can look at more potential improvements to the skeleton while we're at it.
[] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
Voting is open until Voting will be open until
.
Not 100% I captured everything in the rolls list 100% accurately so if you spot an error, please let me know - I'll be double checking them with fresh eyes before we advance to the next stage either way.
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (-1 Funding) Screw it, let's spend some budget on refactoring our existing setup now. We can address flaws in the recently implemented weapons systems, and the Kinematics team can look at more potential improvements to the skeleton while we're at it.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
I THINK, I want it in the structural skill or materials skill, weaponry can always be outsourced at some level... I like ballistics giving a reroll, rerolls are a premium but that is pigeon holey because then we will want ballistics on EVERYTHING, while Materials or structural will apply to EVERYTHING.
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
Engine and Cockpit sit higher in the "Can't work without" Tier list then streamlining or Armouring, so I think we should get those sorted out now before things get jammed up.
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
Really hope the cockpit can be designed soon.
[X] [Skill] Ballistics Expertise 1: Once per turn, reroll a failure when rolling to develop the (Ballistics) tag on any skill.
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Skill] Ballistics Expertise 1: Once per turn, reroll a failure when rolling to develop the (Ballistics) tag on any skill.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
Honestly, the engine is one of those extremely important bits you always end up building around. also i think we can make the placment work out in the end by pushing this thing forward to put more metal between the pilot and the enemy as this design has to be front towards the enemy even if we didn't get the drone bay.
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (-1 Funding) Screw it, let's spend some budget on refactoring our existing setup now. We can address flaws in the recently implemented weapons systems, and the Kinematics team can look at more potential improvements to the skeleton while we're at it.
edit:
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
why not, lets go gambling
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (-1 Funding) Screw it, let's spend some budget on refactoring our existing setup now. We can address flaws in the recently implemented weapons systems, and the Kinematics team can look at more potential improvements to the skeleton while we're at it.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
Refactoring is the last things we should do, as we might need to do it again after we get everything together. In fact we likely WILL need to do so, so it's best to not blow our budget too early. Frankly the Cockpit and Engine are the next too big things we're going to need to grab. Armor being on the outside is best after all the internals are loaded. save the refactoring/troubleshooting after it all comes together.
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
The drones did exactly what I was afraid of. That 2 point weak point hurts. Each +/- grade is 1 point (c-, c, c+ being 1 point each). To hit our minimum combat potential we need 45 points in that category and we now have 34. Without banking on Nat20s that is [+4] needed at a minimum. I don't want to hit the bare minimum either. Please note that 2 of the customers that we have hit the minimum requirements for are also looking at the competition.
To sell to the SCC we need 7 points of improvement on armour plate. Given how much more protection we need I'm all for trying to hit that target even if we are unable to sell to the SCC. Crew protection will hopefully be good with the cockpit, but I can also see it going down due to compromises with the neural link. I want to know if it's going to be a problem ASAP.
The skeletal refactoring sounds good, but even if we don't do it we will still have some customers. If we can't get the Combat Potential score up we might not have any. That's why I'm voting MatSci in the hopes that we can get some quality armour and the cockpit to make sure there are not going to be any nasty surprises there. StuctEng also sounds good, but it is hard to tell which will be more important.
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
The good news is that our weapons team did a hell of a job with the main gun. I'm pretty happy with that overall.
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1) Ease of Maintenance increases from C- to C+ | 13 vs. 18 - minor failure Weapons Development (Hull Mounts): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1) Ease of Maintenance increases from C+ to B- | 21 vs. 18 - minor success
The minor failure here improved things by more then the minor success. Based on previous patterns the minor failure looks right, but the minor success would go to B+. Both were +1 EoM and the Build & Repair Speed rolls went up by a full 3 points/letter on a minor success.
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (-1 Funding) Screw it, let's spend some budget on refactoring our existing setup now. We can address flaws in the recently implemented weapons systems, and the Kinematics team can look at more potential improvements to the skeleton while we're at it.
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
I think overall that's a success though we kept hitting snags with the drones. I don't know why people choose to put it on the rear instead of the belly. So we need to bring Tech Simplicity back to C-, and Armor Plating and Power Control remains as issues, and I have no clue how we are going to get Skeletal Agility up.
Generally I am not a fan of gambling but the issue with the cockpit is becoming increasingly concerning.
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (-1 Funding) Screw it, let's spend some budget on refactoring our existing setup now. We can address flaws in the recently implemented weapons systems, and the Kinematics team can look at more potential improvements to the skeleton while we're at it.
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
I think overall that's a success though we kept hitting snags with the drones. I don't know why people choose to put it on the rear instead of the belly. So we need to bring Tech Simplicity back to C-, and Armor Plating and Power Control remains as issues, and I have no clue how we are going to get Skeletal Agility up.
Generally I am not a fan of gambling but the issue with the cockpit is becoming increasingly concerning.
in my case, I favored rear over belly because of recovery challenges and landmine/IED concerns of getting the anti-insurgency contract. As for why the rear specifically, I was aiming to get the drones as far from the primary direction hostile fire would be coming from combined my assumption is that if this thing gets separated from its screening elements, it turbo-F'ed anyway.
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (-1 Funding) Screw it, let's spend some budget on refactoring our existing setup now. We can address flaws in the recently implemented weapons systems, and the Kinematics team can look at more potential improvements to the skeleton while we're at it.
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
in my case, I favored rear over belly because of recovery challenges and landmine/IED concerns of getting the anti-insurgency contract. As for why the rear specifically, I was aiming to get the drones as far from the primary direction hostile fire would be coming from combined my assumption is that if this thing gets separated from its screening elements, it turbo-F'ed anyway.
But the belly mount would have counteracted the armor lost and the downside isn't really a downside for drones. Them being under the mech also makes it harder for that weak spot to be targeted by other machines and the turret has anti-infantry capabilities. It is easier for enemies to target that weak spot now because it is on top.