Project Knight [Mecha Design Bureau]

[Lohjak]

Hmmm... Too risky, I think. Naval vessels can perhaps get away with that due to their size and the fact there's time for them do damage control, but for our small mecha it's not an option.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I don't like it from a watsonian perspective, but in terms of quest mechanics we don't actually need much armor protection to meet our requirements.

Besides, it's basically carrying 7.5 tons of armor, it's just concentrated on the important bits.

This plan is similar to mine, except it uses up all remaining tonnage. I don't think that's a good idea, since we do want to have room for streamlining and at least minimal in-service customization. That said, perhaps this would be an acceptable compromise:

Click to shrink...

I don't think it's worth leaving tonnage on the table unless we want to go for the Amazon contract, and in-service customization probably would've been the modular tech mount in the last vote.

I'm pretty sure it's actually possible to hit the armor requirement if we just go with predictive instead of frontal coverage, though. Sure it's a gamble, but we get free advantage for this mech so it's a good time to gamble.

[ ] Plan I don't want to die!
-[] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[] [Composition] Composite Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[] [Coverage] Predictive Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[] [Internal] Reinforced Drone Dock (2 tons)
-[] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

Assuming we hit both rolls we'll end up with something like +2.66 armor. A high end tank apparently has around 10 tons of armor and it's probably composite, so if we hit both rolls (which shouldn't be too hard with the extra funding bonus) we'll be pretty hard to kill.

If we really wanted the extra tonnage I'd rather drop the drone armor than the ammo compartment. We can avoid being shot in the rear using recon drones and networking, but we can't avoid being shot entirely and we can't fit enough armor to withstand a good hit. At that point we just need to preserve as much of the mech as possible, which means that we need to not suffer catastrophic ammo explosions.

 

[Magnificate]

and in-service customization probably would've been the modular tech mount in the last vote.

Click to shrink...

If we really wanted the extra tonnage

Click to shrink...

Yes, I think we really do want at least some leftover tonnage. Note the QM description:

NOTE: Any unused tonnage after this stage will improve the overall mobility of the Mech, increases the viability of aftermarket modding, and may give you more options (or at least less costly options) in the field testing stage when you spend funding to address any lingering issues with the Mech design.

Click to shrink...

We still get two funding and if we keep some extra tonnage we stand to get more benefits from them that we could otherwise get.

I'd rather drop the drone armor than the ammo compartment. We can avoid being shot in the rear using recon drones and networking, but we can't avoid being shot entirely and we can't fit enough armor to withstand a good hit. At that point we just need to preserve as much of the mech as possible, which means that we need to not suffer catastrophic ammo explosions.

Click to shrink...

Covering the weak spot is more important in that it makes the job of our marketting boys easier. Catastrophic ammo explosions aren't ideal, but note that if the mecha suffered an explosion it's going to be out of action regardless of whether the comportment was armoured or not. No real tactical difference. But, if the mecha was destroyed due to that explosion... the operator has to replace it rather than repair it, which is more sales for us. Overall, I can be persuaded to switch to armouring ammo compartments if it means there's acceptance for the rest of the plan, but I believe armouring the drone dock is better.

I'm pretty sure it's actually possible to hit the armor requirement if we just go with predictive instead of frontal coverage, though. Sure it's a gamble, but we get free advantage for this mech so it's a good time to gamble.

Click to shrink...

It works in terms of mechanics and I could go with that. The problem is that in-universe the rising prevalence of mecha and arcane arts could be wrecking havoc with conventional assumptions could make it so that our mecha is going to be well armoured for conventional conflicts, but less than optimal for modern battlespaces. I can be convinced to do that, but here I think going with the safe option is more prudent.

 

[Lohjak]

Yes, I think we really do want at least some leftover tonnage. Note the QM description:

Click to shrink...

I'd agree if we went for something other than the least flexible design, but we didn't. It's a fire support platform, and nobody is going to be able to change that. The only reason I'd want to save some tonnage is that if we take armor we start to fail our material affordability, so we might want to save some tonnage to maybe use cheaper materials somewhere?

Covering the weak spot is more important in that it makes the job of our marketting boys easier. Catastrophic ammo explosions aren't ideal, but note that if the mecha suffered an explosion it's going to be out of action regardless of whether the comportment was armoured or not. No real tactical difference. But, if the mecha was destroyed due to that explosion... the operator has to replace it rather than repair it, which is more sales for us. Overall, I can be persuaded to switch to armouring ammo compartments if it means there's acceptance for the rest of the plan, but I believe armouring the drone dock is better.

Click to shrink...

The difference between cookoff protection and no cookoff protection is the difference between your mech retreating back to base for repairs and rearmament and your mech turning into exciting physics. You might expect that to help sales, but militaries don't like it when their very expensive AFVs turn into craters on the battlefield, and they usually buy as many as they can afford, not as many as they want. Combined with the fact that we're basically building an assault gun that can operate in suboptimal terrain, if they suffer too much attrition our customers will probably just relegate our mech to specialist roles and go back to proven AFVs.

As for the weakspot, we simply can't armor the rear of the mech anything worth a damn. As it stands we're looking at resistance to medium weapons at best in favorable arcs, and for the rear I'd be surprised if we even got protection against light weapons. Weakspot or no weakspot, if someone is shooting this mech in the rear then it is going to die.

It works in terms of mechanics and I could go with that. The problem is that in-universe the rising prevalence of mecha and arcane arts could be wrecking havoc with conventional assumptions could make it so that our mecha is going to be well armoured for conventional conflicts, but less than optimal for modern battlespaces. I can be convinced to do that, but here I think going with the safe option is more prudent.

Click to shrink...

By the time that stuff starts to be developed this mech will probably be long obsolete, so that's not our problem. If we're about as durable as a high end tank, carry a giant cannon, and can operate in difficult terrain then we have a compelling product.

Anyways, if we do want to leave some tonnage for whatever:
[ ] Plan Front Toward Enemy
-[] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[] [Composition] Composite Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[] [Coverage] Predictive Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

The armored bulkheads should protect the internals from small arms or whatever that hit the drone dock weakspot, and anything heavier than that was going to go through anyways. We won't suffer catastrophic ammo explosions, and we'll actually be about as well armored as is practical. We will probably be a little under our material affordability requirement, but hopefully we'll be able to fix that with all the space and tonnage and money we save. I guess leaving tonnage also has the benefit that if we're close to the armor requirement we can just slap on an extra plate or two.

 

[Magnificate]

Needless to say, I like my own [ ] Plan Full Frontal v2 better, but [ ] Plan Front Toward Enemy is acceptable. Let's see whether either of them can gain traction with other voters.

 

[Lohjak]

Needless to say, I like my own [ ] Plan Full Frontal v2 better, but [ ] Plan Front Toward Enemy is acceptable. Let's see whether either of them can gain traction with other voters.

Click to shrink...

I think that the rear of the mech is going to be vulnerable drone dock or not, but since we do have fire suppression systems and some built-in blowout panels in the ammo compartment I'd be willing to compromise the reinforced ammo compartment.

I do think that if we're going for armor we might as well take the predictive coverage, though? That's the only way we're likely to meet the SCC requirement, and they're the ones who were complaining about the weak spot to begin with. It's a bit of a risk, but since we roll with advantage for this project we'll be fine as long as we don't fail both rolls.

 

[Magnificate]

I'm OK with switching between Predictive Coverage and Front-Loaded Coverage, as well as switching between Reinforced Drone Dock and Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment. This gives four variants of a plan that I could get behind, including:

[ ] Plan Predicted Frontal
-[ ] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[ ] [Composition] Composite Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[ ] [Coverage] Predictive Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[ ] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[ ] [Internal] Reinforced Drone Dock (2 tons)

EDIT: Hey, I've just noticed we've ended up with the exact same components as those outlined in Plan Risk to get the SCC. We're on to something here it seems.

 

[Jalinth]

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

Click to shrink...

A number of the proposed plans seem to dance with the possibility of reducing material affordability below C. How bad is it if we fail to meet our basic requirements? Do the engineers foresee any viable options for improving material affordability in the final step? Do we have any idea of what we would be losing for those hypothetical options?

 

[Verisaimilitude]

A number of the proposed plans seem to dance with the possibility of reducing material affordability below C. How bad is it if we fail to meet our basic requirements? Do the engineers foresee any viable options for improving material affordability in the final step? Do we have any idea of what we would be losing for those hypothetical options?

Click to shrink...

Overall Tech/Material ratings are probably harder/more painful to improve than most of your other categories - it's tricky to think of ways to manage this that aren't 'cut back scope/features until it's within the requirements.'

 

[Jalinth]

Overall Tech/Material ratings are probably harder/more painful to improve than most of your other categories - it's tricky to think of ways to manage this that aren't 'cut back scope/features until it's within the requirements.'

Click to shrink...

And was the first part of the question, how bad is it if we fail to hit a basic requirement?

 

[Magnificate]

Well, in this particular case I think there could be an in-universe option for reducing cost, namely using an alternate cheaper composite.

But, if we know in advance that it won't be an option and that we risk failing to meet the basic requirement, then our consideration changes quite a bit.

 

[Verisaimilitude]

And was the first part of the question, how bad is it if we fail to hit a basic requirement?

Click to shrink...

Probably depends how well you did outside of that requirements and by how much you failed. If you're failing by a small amount but exceeding other requirements by a big amount it might be perfectly fine, for example. I think it'll really depend on 'are your superiors convinced they can sell this as is in Numbers to justify the cost of development?'

 

[CuriousRaptor]

@Verisaimilitude I have a question
Why does basic light armor cost material affordability? I could understand if heavier armor costs materials, but basic armor costing materials should be accounted for by any competent design team ahead of time. Armor being necessary for pretty much anything is a given in even this time and day, much less the future where weapons and arms are ever more deadly and harder to replace. I could see something like basic armor being no cost and no armor boosting material affordability and build/repair speed, and heavier armor boosting protection but eating mat affordability., but even light armor eating mat affordability is just odd, and i question how anyone can afford armor without cutting cost on core systems given medium armor drops it two full grades.

 

[Jalinth]

Why does basic light armor cost material affordability?

Click to shrink...

I'm assuming that the basic/free armour you are talking about is the 15 tons of structure and basic plate that is built into the hull. Armour strong enough to resist modern anti-armour weapons is expensive judging by the IC descriptions in the threadmark.

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 (Tactical Effectiveness MUST average D or higher).

Click to shrink...

This is from the start of the project. So production cost is listed as a preferable, while being a capable weapons platform is a MUST. I'm willing to risk up to a [-1] of affordability if it means we end up with a more capable unit. I don't want to do anything fancy or special. I want something that can survive shooting at enemy tanks without blowing up when they look at it funny.

I don't care about agility. With the twin-cockpit we are up to D. That leaves the Object 22 in the dust, and it's a humanoid form factor. Remember that D scores are typical for the kinds of tanks that we are worrying about, and agility is not their strong point.

Covering the weak spot is more important in that it makes the job of our marketting boys easier. Catastrophic ammo explosions aren't ideal, but note that if the mecha suffered an explosion it's going to be out of action regardless of whether the comportment was armoured or not. No real tactical difference. But, if the mecha was destroyed due to that explosion... the operator has to replace it rather than repair it, which is more sales for us. Overall, I can be persuaded to switch to armouring ammo compartments if it means there's acceptance for the rest of the plan, but I believe armouring the drone dock is better.

Click to shrink...

Ammo explosions and known weakpoints are both problems. I'm 100% for just accepting that the tweaking might be a bit harder to go for the trifecta. Winning the turret tossing competition is bad optics. I want to avoid that if possible.

Hey, I've just noticed we've ended up with the exact same components as those outlined in Plan Risk to get the SCC. We're on to something here it seems.

Click to shrink...

Funny how often people end up with something like my plans

While the possibility of tweaking the mech with leftover tonnage is tempting, we don't know if said options will be for what we end up wanting. I really want to push for making the mech to be as survivable as possible.

Less expensive
[Light Armour Plating] (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
[Steel-Core Plating]
[Front-Loaded Coverage] OR [Predictive Coverage]
[Armoured Bulkheads] (2 tons)
[Armoured Drone Dock] (2 tons)
[Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment] (1.5 tons)
[+1.33] Armour Plating
[-1.0][+0.66] Material Affordability

More expensive
[Light Armour Plating] (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
[Composite Armour Plating]
[Predictive Coverage]
[Armoured Bulkheads] (2 tons)
[Armoured Drone Dock] (2 tons)
[Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment] (1.5 tons)
[+2] Armour Plating
[-1.0] Material Affordability

So between these two plans we choose between being pretty sure we can hit the affordability targets at the expense of [0.66] armour. Either plan will work with either Predictive or Frontal. Both do what they can to keep the costs down while maximizing the survivability of the units.

[]Plan Affordable - Lower Risk
-[ ] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[ ] [Composition] Steel-Core Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[] [Coverage] Front-Loaded Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[ ] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[ ] [Internal] Reinforced Drone Dock (2 tons)
-[] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

[]Plan Affordable - Higher Risk
-[ ] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[ ] [Composition] Steel-Core Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[ ] [Coverage] Predictive Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[ ] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[ ] [Internal] Reinforced Drone Dock (2 tons)
-[] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

[]Plan Go for Broke
-[ ] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[ ] [Composition] Composite Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[ ] [Coverage] Predictive Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[ ] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[ ] [Internal] Reinforced Drone Dock (2 tons)
-[] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

 

[CuriousRaptor]

I'm assuming that the basic/free armour you are talking about is the 15 tons of structure and basic plate that is built into the hull. Armour strong enough to resist modern anti-armour weapons is expensive judging by the IC descriptions in the threadmark.

Click to shrink...

Which is suspect as hell. I understand that armor is expensive, but not budgeting for it when you know you're going to need at least some to make a viable product smacks of mismanagement terribly. It'd be akin to making a new MBT or IFV and not budgeting for putting armor on them. Not only is it a bad idea, not having any would get you laughed out of most procurement boards on principle.

 

[Magnificate]

Which is suspect as hell. I understand that armor is expensive, but not budgeting for it when you know you're going to need at least some to make a viable product smacks of mismanagement terribly. It'd be akin to making a new MBT or IFV and not budgeting for putting armor on them. Not only is it a bad idea, not having any would get you laughed out of most procurement boards on principle.

Click to shrink...

It's probably more of a presentation issue, I wouldn't worry too much about it since we'll know armour is costed separately next time.

This is from the start of the project. So production cost is listed as a preferable, while being a capable weapons platform is a MUST. I'm willing to risk up to a [-1] of affordability if it means we end up with a more capable unit.

Click to shrink...

Based on the QM quote, agreed, it's worthwhile to take the risk.

Ammo explosions and known weakpoints are both problems. I'm 100% for just accepting that the tweaking might be a bit harder to go for the trifecta. Winning the turret tossing competition is bad optics. I want to avoid that if possible.

Click to shrink...

That said, we've already taken some steps to reduce the ammo explosions risk, namely we've had the sprinklers installed and we've put the ammo in the centre of our mecha. I can compromise on some choices in the plans, but I'll be insisting on leaving tonnage to spare. Remember, we have the field testing still before us and who is to tell whether some unexpected problem doesn't crop up? Plan Risk to get the SCC was your initial idea so I don't think going back to it would be so bad, would it?

BTW, []Plan Affordable - Higher Risk and []Plan Go for Broke are the same?

 

[Jalinth]

That said, we've already taken some steps to reduce the ammo explosions risk, namely we've had the sprinklers installed and we've put the ammo in the centre of our mecha. I can compromise on some choices in the plans, but I'll be insisting on leaving tonnage to spare. Remember, we have the field testing still before us and who is to tell whether some unexpected problem doesn't crop up? Plan Risk to get the SCC was your initial idea so I don't think going back to it would be so bad, would it?

BTW, []Plan Affordable - Higher Risk and []Plan Go for Broke are the same?

Click to shrink...

We can live without the ammo protection, but fire prevention doesn't help if a penetrating hit causes the ammo to explode. With the it you might preserve your very expensive crew.

If it means that a plan I really don't like is getting traction I would accept lacking the ammo protection, but I feel it is a much higher risk then any potential tweaks from the final step. The QM has even mentioned that cutting features isn't out of the question, so if it turns out that I'm utterly wrong about how much we will need at the end then there seems to be potential to address that.

I forgot to change the first to plans to using Steel Core armour.

 

[ProfessorB]

Which is suspect as hell. I understand that armor is expensive, but not budgeting for it when you know you're going to need at least some to make a viable product smacks of mismanagement terribly. It'd be akin to making a new MBT or IFV and not budgeting for putting armor on them. Not only is it a bad idea, not having any would get you laughed out of most procurement boards on principle.

Click to shrink...

Well this is among the first mechs in the world. Maybe they just underestimated how much a basic set of armour will cost. And future projects will have better budgets

 

[Verisaimilitude]

@Verisaimilitude I have a question
Why does basic light armor cost material affordability? I could understand if heavier armor costs materials, but basic armor costing materials should be accounted for by any competent design team ahead of time. Armor being necessary for pretty much anything is a given in even this time and day, much less the future where weapons and arms are ever more deadly and harder to replace. I could see something like basic armor being no cost and no armor boosting material affordability and build/repair speed, and heavier armor boosting protection but eating mat affordability., but even light armor eating mat affordability is just odd, and i question how anyone can afford armor without cutting cost on core systems given medium armor drops it two full grades.

Click to shrink...

Honestly you're largely right IMO and I'll likely run it like that in the future. I don't have time to make adjustments now as the vote is about to open and I haven't thought through if the balancing I've done so far supports it. We'll just have to live with it being unideal for the first mech and fixed up later, sorry.

 

[Jalinth]

The number of projects that have avoided costs soaring are far greater then ones that have avoided it. Indeed a military procurement project that comes in under budget is so rare that it is worthy of note.

Edit - Vote's open

[X]Plan Affordable - Lower Risk
-[X] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[X] [Composition] Steel-Core Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Coverage] Front-Loaded Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced Drone Dock (2 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

[X]Plan Go for Broke
-[X] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[X] [Composition] Composite Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Coverage] Predictive Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced Drone Dock (2 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

If there is a strong movement towards the more vulnerable option without the ammo protection I may approval vote one of those if it seems it would be needed to ensure something that I like wins. But for now I'm going for these.

 

[CanYouMeme]

[X] Plan Defense In Depth
-[X] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[X] [Composition] Ultradense Plating (+1 ton per level of armour size)
-[X] [Coverage] 360° Max Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced Engine Casing (1 ton)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced Turret Ammo Compartment (0.5 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced Drone Ammo Compartment (0.5 tons)

Total tonnage is 10.5 with good armor coveraga, removing the weak point, and encasing all the ammo and engine in extra protection.

Our Agility is utterly horrible, so going with 360 to cover that. Plus, it gives us a measure of extra tactical maneuverability by being able to expose sides to lighter weaponry without too much risk.

So total STAT bonuses for 10.5 tons come out to;

[+1.66] Armour Plating
[-1.00] Material Affordability
[+0.66] Build & Repair Speed
[-0.33] Heat Management
[Removed Weak Point] Your Rear Armour Plate will no longer be treated as a Weak Point.
[Protected Engine] The Engine is less likely to be damaged when it is hit by an attack.
[Protected Ammo] Ammo compartments are likely to be damaged when hit by attacks.
[Cookoff Protection] In the event of an ammunition cookoff, other components in the Mech will not be damaged.

‐---------------

I don't like this plan because I think it sacrifices too much to get the Bulkheads, but those bennies from the Bulkheads are so tempting.

[X] Plan Anvil
-[X] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[X] [Composition] Ultradense Plating (+1 ton per level of armour size)
-[X] [Coverage] 360° Max Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

So the STATS for this are;

[+2] Armour Plating
[-1.00] Material Affordability
[+0.66] Build & Repair Speed
[+1] Component Protection
[+1] Pilot Protection
[+1] Joint Protection
[Removed Weak Point] Your Rear Armour Plate will no longer be treated as a Weak Point.
[Protected Ammo - 152mm] Ammo compartments are likely to be damaged when hit by attacks.
[Cookoff Protection - 152mm] In the event of an ammunition cookoff, other components in the Mech will not be damaged.

 

[ProfessorB]

[X] Plan: Affordable Armour
-[X] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[X] [Composition] Composite Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Coverage] 360° Max Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [External] Reactive Armour (2 tons, coating)
-[X] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

TOTAL EFFECTS:
[+1.33] Armour Plating
[+1] Component Protection
[+1] Pilot Protection
[+1] Joint Protection
[+0.66] Tech Simplicity
[+0.66] Build & Repair Speed
[-0.33] Material Affordability
[Removed Weak Point] Your Rear Armour Plate will no longer be treated as a Weak Point.
[Anti-Armour Defence] This Mech is less likely to suffer damage from weapons and munitions with the Anti-Armour property.
[Protected Ammo] 152mm ammo compartments are (less?) likely to be damaged when hit by attacks.
[Cookoff Protection] In the event of a 152mm ammunition cookoff, other components in the Mech will not be damaged.
Remaining weight: none

Reasonable amount of armour with almost no downsides. Very unlikely to fail our Material Affordability goal.

Btw huge shoutout to the cooling system engineers from last turn, they solved one of our biggest problems for good, give em a raise

Approval vote
[X]Plan Affordable - Lower Risk

 

[Magnificate]

[X] Plan SCC Bid
-[X] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[X] [Composition] Composite Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Coverage] Predictive Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced Drone Dock (2 tons)

We'll see how the voting situation develops. I'm OK with gambling for high armour values, but getting the fancy stuff is superflous.

 

[Lohjak]

[X]Plan Go for Broke
[X] Plan SCC Bid

[X] Plan Front Toward Enemy
-[X] [Tonnage] Light Armour Plating (5 tons, 2 levels of armour size)
-[X] [Composition] Composite Plating (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Coverage] Predictive Coverage (no tonnage modifier)
-[X] [Internal] Armoured Bulkheads (2 tons)
-[X] [Internal] Reinforced 152mm Ammo Compartment (1.5 tons)

I think I really want light/composite/predictive/bulkhead, and after that I'm willing to compromise.

 

[TerrisH]

But... We don't want to make an ambush mech. No one is asking for that, so it would be a bit of feature creep. I'd be nice to have, but it's not essential.

Click to shrink...

thats my thoughts to. It just would be very, very good at that, and that makes it tempting. not enough to actualy vote for it, but it's an idea to think about. Might be something to consider for a second generation variant of the design, or a refit for it once other mook mechs start catching up and outclassing it. A way to repurpose the now outdated mechs into a specialist roll that can pose a threat.

---------------
hmm, head turrent armor might not be worth it? yhea, it going off is going to remove the head turent, but any hit that dose so likely has already mission killed the head turrent.
152mm and drone ammo are positioned where them cooking off threatens the pilots. so armor there is good. 152mm cooking off is going to kill the mech, so it's pretty much a must.

 

[Magnificate]

thats my thoughts to. It just would be very, very good at that, and that makes it tempting. not enough to actualy vote for it, but it's an idea to think about. Might be something to consider for a second generation variant of the design, or a refit for it once other mook mechs start catching up and outclassing it. A way to repurpose the now outdated mechs into a specialist roll that can pose a threat.

Click to shrink...

Yup.

I'll note that if we do leave some extra tonnage now it'll make it easier for whatever future engineers to update the design, so I recommend [ ] Plan SCC Bid on that grounds.