111
Strum Wealh, on 03 January 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:
Let's look at what variants the Zeus could have available (based on timeline and tech appropriateness):
None of the variants are jump-capable, normally mount AMS, normally mount BAP, or normally mount ECM.
The record sheets, included at the links above, also indicate that the -5T, -5S, -6S, and -6T have Hand Actuators in both arms, while the -9S and its DC subvariant lack hands but have Lower Arm Actuators in both arms; this is significant, as it affects how many open criticals are (and should be) available in each arm.
If the Zeus were to be implemented in MWO, I would imagine that it would be the ZEU-5T, ZEU-6S, ZEU-6T, and ZEU-9S-DC that would be implemented, as the -5S could be easily built from the -6S (with the latter being the most common variant) and the -9S could be easily built from the -9S-DC (by removing the Command Console and adding another DHS).
Your thoughts?
- ZEU-5T: x1 ERPPC (LA), x1 ERLL (LA), x2 MLas (LT, CT), Artemis-LRM-15 (RA); FF and DHS
- ZEU-5S: x1 UAC/5 (LA), x1 ERLL (LT), x2 MLas (LT, CT), Artemis-LRM-15 (RA); DHS
- ZEU-6S: x1 AC/5 (LA), x1 LLas (LT), x2 MLas (LT, CT), LRM-15 (RA)
- ZEU-6T: x1 PPC (LA), x1 LL (LT), x2 MLas (LT, CT), LRM-15 (RA)
- ZEU-9S: x1 ERPPC (LA), x1 ERLL (LT), x2 MPLas (LT, CT), CASE (RT), LRM-15 (RA); FF and DHS
- ZEU-9S-DC: x1 ERPPC (LA), x1 ERLL (LT), x2 MPLas (LT, CT), Command Console (HD), CASE (RT), LRM-15 (RA); FF and DHS
None of the variants are jump-capable, normally mount AMS, normally mount BAP, or normally mount ECM.
The record sheets, included at the links above, also indicate that the -5T, -5S, -6S, and -6T have Hand Actuators in both arms, while the -9S and its DC subvariant lack hands but have Lower Arm Actuators in both arms; this is significant, as it affects how many open criticals are (and should be) available in each arm.
If the Zeus were to be implemented in MWO, I would imagine that it would be the ZEU-5T, ZEU-6S, ZEU-6T, and ZEU-9S-DC that would be implemented, as the -5S could be easily built from the -6S (with the latter being the most common variant) and the -9S could be easily built from the -9S-DC (by removing the Command Console and adding another DHS).
Your thoughts?
Strum Wealh, on 11 December 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:
Well, the Banshee is fairly common, and actually has plenty of canon pre-3049 variants:
BNC-3E (2475) - x1 Small Laser, x1 PPC, x1 AC-5
BNC-3M (2579) - x1 Small Laser, x2 Medium Lasers, x2 PPCs
BNC-3Q (2915) - x1 Small Laser, x1 AC-20
BNC-3S (3026) - x2 Small Lasers, x4 Medium Lasers, x2 PPCs, x1 SRM-6, x1 AC-10
BNC-3MC (3037) - x1 Small Laser, x1 PPC, x1 AC-10
BNC-5S (3048 or 3053, depending on source) - x2 Small Lasers, x4 Medium Lasers, x2 ER-PPCs, x1 SRM-6, x1 Gauss Rifle
Potential Hero 'Mech: BNC-3S "Reinsblatt" (3029) - x2 Small Lasers, x4 Medium Lasers, x1 Large Laser, x1 LRM-10, x1 AC-10, x1 Hatchet
On the one hand, given that other common and less-commonly-used-in-the-video-games 'Mechs like the Trebuchet, Cicada, Cataphract, and Spider are being included, the Banshee is as good a candidate as any.
Additionally, the Banshee would fill the 95-ton slot and, in the case of the -3S, its hardpoint layout would be significantly different from that of the Atlas:
-- 8 energy hardpoints (x1 HD, x1 CT, x1 LA, x5 RT)
-- 1 ballistic hardpoint (LT)
-- 1 missile hardpoint (RT)
And for the -5S:
-- 8 energy hardpoints (x1 HD, x1 CT, x2 LA, x3 RT, x1 LT)
-- 1 ballistic hardpoint (LT)
-- 1 missile hardpoint (RA)
On the other hand, the number of variants that would be viable in terms of gameplay potentially becomes smaller:
-- the -3E and -3MC are essentially "the same 'Mech",
-- all but the -3M could be easily made into the -3Q, and
-- each of the -3S and -5S could be easily made into each of the -3E and -3Q.
This leaves the -3M, -3S, -5S, and the "Reinsblatt" as those that cannot be exactly replicated with each other.
Another issue with the Banshee, especially anything not the -3S or -5S, is its relatively heavy dependence on melee as a primary means of offense - with "advanced melee" not slated to become available until Solaris is implemented (if at all), several variants of the Banshee (especially the "Reinsblatt") would lose a key part of their capabilities.
Your thoughts?
BNC-3E (2475) - x1 Small Laser, x1 PPC, x1 AC-5
BNC-3M (2579) - x1 Small Laser, x2 Medium Lasers, x2 PPCs
BNC-3Q (2915) - x1 Small Laser, x1 AC-20
BNC-3S (3026) - x2 Small Lasers, x4 Medium Lasers, x2 PPCs, x1 SRM-6, x1 AC-10
BNC-3MC (3037) - x1 Small Laser, x1 PPC, x1 AC-10
BNC-5S (3048 or 3053, depending on source) - x2 Small Lasers, x4 Medium Lasers, x2 ER-PPCs, x1 SRM-6, x1 Gauss Rifle
Potential Hero 'Mech: BNC-3S "Reinsblatt" (3029) - x2 Small Lasers, x4 Medium Lasers, x1 Large Laser, x1 LRM-10, x1 AC-10, x1 Hatchet
On the one hand, given that other common and less-commonly-used-in-the-video-games 'Mechs like the Trebuchet, Cicada, Cataphract, and Spider are being included, the Banshee is as good a candidate as any.
Additionally, the Banshee would fill the 95-ton slot and, in the case of the -3S, its hardpoint layout would be significantly different from that of the Atlas:
-- 8 energy hardpoints (x1 HD, x1 CT, x1 LA, x5 RT)
-- 1 ballistic hardpoint (LT)
-- 1 missile hardpoint (RT)
And for the -5S:
-- 8 energy hardpoints (x1 HD, x1 CT, x2 LA, x3 RT, x1 LT)
-- 1 ballistic hardpoint (LT)
-- 1 missile hardpoint (RA)
On the other hand, the number of variants that would be viable in terms of gameplay potentially becomes smaller:
-- the -3E and -3MC are essentially "the same 'Mech",
-- all but the -3M could be easily made into the -3Q, and
-- each of the -3S and -5S could be easily made into each of the -3E and -3Q.
This leaves the -3M, -3S, -5S, and the "Reinsblatt" as those that cannot be exactly replicated with each other.
Another issue with the Banshee, especially anything not the -3S or -5S, is its relatively heavy dependence on melee as a primary means of offense - with "advanced melee" not slated to become available until Solaris is implemented (if at all), several variants of the Banshee (especially the "Reinsblatt") would lose a key part of their capabilities.
Your thoughts?
. Keep 'em coming 
